U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls
(Letter Report, 07/08/97, GAO/HEHS-97-125).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' management of projects during fiscal
years 1993 through 1996 and its process of disseminating project reports
to the public.

GAO noted that: (1) although its review focused on the management of
individual projects, it found broader management problems at the
Commission; (2) the Commission appea awareness of how its resources are
used; (3) for example, the Commission could not provide key cost
information for individual aspects of its operations, such as its
regional offices; its complaints referral process; (3) the
clearinghouse; public service announcements; and, in one case, a
project; (4) furthermore, significant agency records documenting
Commission decision-making were reported lost, misplaced, or
nonexistent; (5) the Commission has not established accountability for
resources and does not maintain appropriate documentation of agency
operations; (6) lack of these basic, well-established management
controls makes the Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to waste
or abuse; (7) Commission records indicate that projects accounted for
only about 10 percent of the agency's appropriations during fiscal years
1993 through 1996 despite the number of civil rights issues addressed;
(8) management of the 12 Commission p the 4-year period appears weak or
nonexistent; (9) the Commission's guidance for carrying out projects is
outdated, and the process described as how projects are actually
conducted, including specifying anticipated cost, completion dates, and
staffing, is largely ignored; (10) for example, 7 of the 12 projects had
no specific proposals showing their estimated time frames, costs,
staffing, or completion dates; (11) specific time frames were not set
for most projects and when they were, project completion dates exceeded
the estimates by at least 2 years; (12) overall, projects took a long
time to complete, generally 4 years or more; (13) some projects took so
long the Commission staff proposed holding additional hearings to obtain
more current information; (14) poor project implementation is likely to
have contributed to the lengthy time frames; (15) furthermore, no
systematic monitoring of project costs or time frames by Commission
management to ensure project quality and timeliness; and (16) the
Commission disseminates project reports to the public through three
different Commission offices, none of which appears to coordinate with
the others to prevent duplication.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-97-125
     TITLE:  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic 
             Management Controls
      DATE:  07/08/97
   SUBJECT:  Management information systems
             Information resources management
             Civil rights
             Accountability
             Cost control
             Noncompliance
             Government information dissemination
             Public relations
             Internal controls
             Agency reports

             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

July 1997

U.S.  COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS -
AGENCY LACKS BASIC MANAGEMENT
CONTROLS

GAO/HEHS-97-125

Management of Commission on Civil Rights

(205322)


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

  EEO - Equal Employment Opportunity
  FOIA - Freedom of Information Act
  OCRE - Office of Civil Rights Evaluation
  OGC - Office of the General Counsel
  OPM - Office of Personnel Management
  SAC - State Advisory Committee

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


B-274033

July 8, 1997

The Honorable Charles T.  Canady
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Racially motivated church burnings across the country; racial and
civil unrest in major metropolitan cities such as St.  Petersburg,
Florida; and the national debate over the continuing need for federal
affirmative action programs and policies are only some of the issues
the U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights is working on today. 
Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission had a
budget of $8.75 million, 8 part-time commissioners, and a staff of 91
in fiscal year 1996.  Its commissioners have two principal
responsibilities--investigating claims of voting rights violations,
and studying and disseminating information, often collected during
specific projects, on the impact of federal civil rights laws and
policies. 

Last year, in preparation for the Commission's reauthorization and in
response to complaints of mismanagement, your Subcommittee began to
look into how the Commission carries out its responsibilities and
manages its resources.  To assist you in this effort, you asked us to
provide information on the Commission's management of projects during
fiscal years 1993 through 1996 and its process for disseminating
project reports to the public. 

To respond to your request, we interviewed all of the current
commissioners; the Staff Director; and the Commission officials
responsible for budgeting, personnel, projects, and dissemination to
the public of the Commission's project results.  We reviewed
Commission records, applicable legislation and regulations, and
internal administrative guidance the Commission developed to carry
out its operations.  We also attended several Commission meetings to
gain an understanding of the role of the commissioners.  In addition,
we reviewed the process for managing all projects the Commission
identified as initiated, ongoing, or completed during fiscal years
1993 through 1996.  We did not, however, receive all the information
on project time frames, costs, and other Commission activities that
we requested.  (See app.  I for details on our scope and methodology,
including a discussion of the limitations in the data we received.)


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

Although our review focused on the management of individual projects,
we found broader management problems at the Commission on Civil
Rights.  The Commission appears to be an agency in disarray, with
limited awareness of how its resources are used.  For example, the
Commission could not provide key cost information for individual
aspects of its operations, such as its regional offices; its
complaints referral process; the clearinghouse; public service
announcements; and, in one case, a project.  Furthermore, significant
agency records documenting Commission decision-making were reported
lost, misplaced, or nonexistent.  The Commission has not established
accountability for resources and does not maintain appropriate
documentation of agency operations.  Lack of these basic,
well-established management controls makes the Commission vulnerable
to resource losses due to waste or abuse. 

Commission records indicate that projects accounted for only about 10
percent of the agency's appropriations during fiscal years 1993
through 1996 despite the number of civil rights issues addressed. 
Furthermore, our work shows that management of the 12 Commission
projects completed or ongoing during this 4-year period appears weak
or nonexistent.  The Commission's guidance for carrying out projects
is outdated, and the process described as how projects are actually
conducted--including specifying anticipated costs, completion dates,
and staffing--is largely ignored.  For example, 7 of the 12 projects
had no specific proposals showing their estimated time frames, costs,
staffing, or completion dates.  Specific time frames were not set for
most projects and when they were, project completion dates exceeded
the estimates by at least 2 years.  Overall, projects took a long
time to complete, generally 4 years or more.  Some projects took so
long that Commission staff proposed holding additional hearings to
obtain more current information.  Poor project implementation is
likely to have contributed to the lengthy time frames.  Furthermore,
we found no systematic monitoring of project costs or time frames by
Commission management to ensure project quality and timeliness. 

Finally, we found that the Commission disseminates project reports to
the public through three different Commission offices, none of which
appears to coordinate with the others to prevent duplication. 


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

The Commission on Civil Rights was created to protect the civil
rights of people within the United States.  The Commission is an
independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency directed by eight
part-time commissioners.  Four commissioners are appointed by the
president, two by the president pro tempore of the Senate, and two by
the speaker of the House of Representatives.  No more than four
commissioners can be of the same political party, and they serve
6-year terms.  The Commission accomplishes its mission by (1)
investigating charges of citizens being deprived of voting rights
because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national
origin; (2) collecting and studying information concerning legal
developments on voting rights; (3) monitoring the enforcement of
federal laws and policies from a civil rights perspective; (4)
serving as a national clearinghouse for information; and (5)
preparing public service announcements and advertising campaigns on
civil rights issues.  The Commission may hold hearings and, within
specific guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and
have witnesses appear at hearings.  It also maintains state advisory
committees and consults with representatives of federal, state, and
local governments and private organizations to advance its
fact-finding work. 

The Commission is required to issue reports on the findings of its
investigations to the Congress and the president and to recommend
legislative remedies.  The Commission also must submit at least one
report annually to the president and the Congress that monitors
federal civil rights enforcement in the United States.  In addition,
because it lacks enforcement powers that would enable it to apply
remedies in individual cases, the Commission refers specific
complaints it receives to the appropriate federal, state, or local
government agency for action.\1

A staff director, who is presidentially appointed with the
concurrence of a majority of the commissioners, oversees the
day-to-day operations of the Commission and manages the staff in its
six regional offices and Washington, D.C.  headquarters.  Figure 1
shows the Commission's current organizational structure, and table 1
describes the functions and staffing of the major components.  (For
additional background on the Commission, see app.  II)

   Figure 1:  Commission on Civil
   Rights Organization Chart as of
   November 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Commission on Civil Rights. 

As of September 30, 1996, the Commission had 8 part-time
commissioners and a total of 91 staff members.  Projects conducted by
the Commission to study various civil rights issues are largely the
responsibility of its Office of the General Counsel (OGC) with a
staff of 15, and the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE) with a
staff of 12, as of fiscal year 1996.  The largest component of the
Commission is the Regional Programs Coordination Unit with 2 staff
members in the Washington, D.C., office and 25 staff members in six
regional offices.  The regional offices direct the Commission's work,
which is carried out through 51 advisory committees--one in each
state and the District of Columbia--composed of citizens familiar
with local and state civil rights issues (see table 1). 



                                     Table 1
                     
                      Commission on Civil Rights Components,
                     Functions, and Staff as of September 30,
                                       1996

                                                                          Number
                                                                              of
Component               Function                                           staff
----------------------  ------------------------------------------------  ------
Commissioners           Set policy and direction for the Commission;           8
                         hold monthly meetings except during August; and
                         convene several other times a year to conduct
                         hearings, briefings, conferences, and
                         consultations.
Commissioners'          Assist the commissioners in carrying out their       7\a
 assistants              responsibilities.
Office of the Staff     Responsible for the day-to-day management of the       5
 Director                Commission; enforces the policy decisions of
                         the commissioners; plans, manages, directs, and
                         coordinates functional operations and
                         administrative activities of all the
                         Commission's offices in headquarters and the
                         field; and liaisons with the Congress, the
                         White House, and heads of federal agencies.
Office of the General   Responsible for advising commissioners and            15
 Counsel                 Commission staff on legal issues; ensuring that
                         Commission operations are within the scope of
                         the Commission's statutory authority;
                         conducting public fact-finding hearings; and
                         drafting reports on civil rights issues from
                         information obtained through hearings,
                         investigations, and Commission studies,
                         reports, or other work.
Office of Civil Rights  Responsible for monitoring and evaluating civil       12
 Evaluation              rights enforcement efforts of the executive
                         departments and agencies of the federal
                         government; preparing appropriate documents,
                         such as staff papers, correspondence, and
                         reports presenting the Commission's views and
                         concerns regarding federal civil rights
                         enforcement; receiving complaints alleging
                         denial of civil rights; and referring
                         complaints received to the appropriate federal
                         agencies for investigation and resolution.
Regional Programs       Responsible for planning, directing, and               2
 Coordination Unit       monitoring the programs and policies of 51
                         State Advisory Committees (SAC) and
                         coordinating SAC programs with the policies and
                         programs of the Commission. Six regional
                         offices, each headed by a director, located in
                         Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; Chicago; Kansas
                         City, Kans.; Denver; and Los Angeles coordinate
                         SAC studies conducted on a variety of civil
                         rights issues, report to the Commission on the
                         results of SAC studies, and assist with follow-
                         up on recommendations included in Commission
                         and SAC reports. Members of SACs are volunteers
                         appointed by the Commission.
Regional offices        Responsible for submitting action memorandums,        25
                         staff reports, project concepts, and proposals
                         to the Office of Regional Programs for
                         approval. Regional offices are directly
                         responsible for reports submitted by state
                         advisory committees, but the SACs are
                         responsible for program planning, receiving
                         information from scheduled speakers, and
                         reviewing and approving their reports. Regional
                         office directors are responsible for final
                         approval of SAC reports. The Commission votes
                         to accept or publish SAC reports, but it is the
                         Commission's practice not to allow
                         commissioners to change the reports.
Public Affairs Unit     Responsible for providing the public with a            6
                         national clearinghouse repository for civil
                         rights information; keeping the public informed
                         about civil rights developments through the
                         distribution of Commission reports and
                         publications; and managing the Commission's
                         public service announcements, media releases,
                         and the Commission's Internet communications.
Congressional Affairs   Serves as liaison between the Commission and           2
 Unit                    members of Congress and their staffs,
                         participates in the review of civil rights
                         legislation, and keeps the Commission informed
                         of legislative developments.
Office of Management    Consists of the Personnel, Budget and Finance,
                         and Administrative Services and Clearinghouse
                         Divisions, which are responsible for
                         operations.
Personnel               Responsible for all facets of human resource           5
                         development including staffing, classification,
                         benefits, training, and compensation.
Budget and Finance      Responsible for budget preparation, formulation,       3
                         justification, and execution; financial
                         management; and accounting, including travel
                         for commissioners and staff.
Administrative          Responsible for space management, procurement,         9
 Services                transportation, security, telecommunications,
 and Clearinghouse       supply, and duplication services.
================================================================================
Total                                                                         99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a One commissioner's assistant position was vacant at the time of
our review. 

The Commission's authorization expired on September 30, 1996. 
Although the Congress did not reauthorize the Commission, it
appropriated funds that allowed the Commission to continue its
operations through September 30, 1997.\2 The Commission's funding,
adjusted for inflation, has declined by about 58 percent since fiscal
year 1980.  As shown in figure 2, the largest cuts in funding
occurred between fiscal years 1986 and 1988, when funding was reduced
by 56 percent.  Since fiscal year 1991, funding has been largely
unchanged. 

   Figure 2:  Commission
   Appropriations, FY 1980-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\1 Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights
issues.  For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
charged with enforcing specific federal employment antidiscrimination
statutes, such as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967.  Also, the Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights in the Department of Justice is the enforcement
authority for civil rights issues for the nation. 

\2 The Congress appropriated $8.74 million for Commission operations
for fiscal year 1997 despite a lack of authorizing legislation.  The
Commission's continued operation is based on a 1992 GAO decision that
stands for the proposition that appropriation legislation is
sufficient authority to permit an agency to continue operating
pending reauthorization action.  Commission Authority to Operate, 71
Comp.  Gen.  378 (Apr.  29, 1992). 


   COMMISSION'S MANAGEMENT
   REFLECTS AN AGENCY IN DISARRAY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The management of the Commission's operations at the time of our
review showed a lack of control and coordination.  The Commission had
not updated its depiction of its organizational structure as required
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) nor its administrative
guidance to reflect a major reorganization that occurred in 1986. 
Obsolete documentation of the agency's operating structure and its
administrative guidance leaves the public and Commission employees
unsure of the agency's procedures and processes for carrying out its
mission.  Moreover, Commission officials reported key records as
lost, misplaced, or nonexistent, which leaves insufficient data to
accurately portray Commission operations.  Agency spending data are
centralized, and Commission officials could not provide costs for
individual offices or functions.  We also found that the Commission
has never requested any audits of its operations, and information
regarding Commission audits in its fiscal year 1996 report on
internal controls is misleading. 


      AGENCY POLICIES AND
      PROCEDURES UNCLEAR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The Commission has no documented organizational structure available
to the public that reflects current procedures and program processes. 
FOIA requires that federal agencies publish and keep up to date their
organizational structure and make available for public inspection and
copying the agencies' orders, policies, and administrative staff
manuals and instructions.  The Code of Federal Regulations, the
principal document for publishing the general and permanent rules of
federal agencies, shows the Commission's organizational structure as
of May 1985;\3 but the Commission's current organizational structure
is substantially different because of the major reorganization in
1986. 

Confusion also exists regarding which Commission unit has the
responsibility for certain organizational functions.  For example, it
is not clear who at the Commission has responsibility for agency
publications, the clearinghouse, and the library.  Some Commission
officials believed that these duties are housed within the Office of
Management in the Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division. 
However, the description of Commission component functions provided
us put responsibility for publications and clearinghouse duties under
the Public Affairs Unit.  Another Commission official told us that
publications and clearinghouse responsibilities fall under the
Regional Programs Coordination Unit.  In addition, the commissioners
presented conflicting views about the responsibilities of the staff
director.  Half the commissioners interpreted the staff director's
role as carrying out the directives of the commissioners, while the
other half viewed the staff director as having wider latitude to
manage Commission operations. 

In addition, the Commission's Administrative Manual was issued in May
1975 as "the official medium for administrative management of the
United States Commission on Civil Rights," but the Commission has
paid little attention to maintaining and updating its guidance to
accurately reflect agency operations over the last 10 years.  The
purpose of the manual is to translate administrative policy derived
from the various legislative and regulatory policies affecting the
day-to-day operations into procedures that the Commission staff can
rely on for guidance in carrying out the agency's mission.  The major
reorganization that occurred at the Commission in the mid-1980s,
coupled with high turnover of staff in key positions of the agency,
makes up-to-date operating guidance especially important for
maintaining continuity and performing work efficiently and
effectively.  The two office directors responsible for conducting
projects, however--who had been employed at the Commission for 5 and
2-1/2 years, respectively--had only the 1982 version of the
Administrative Manual to rely on for official procedures for
conducting projects. 

Commission officials told us that, although it was outdated, the
guidance in the Administrative Manual still reflects the basic
Commission policy for conducting projects.  However, we found that
projects did not follow all steps outlined in this guidance, and
could not for some steps because the offices no longer existed (see
table 2). 



                          Table 2
          
             Project Development and Oversight
          Guidance From the Administrative Manual
               Compared With Actual Practice

Administrative
Manual guidance     Characterization of actual practice
------------------  --------------------------------------
Project teams       Largely ignored. Only 4 of 22 projects
prepare and submit  in our review had concepts and
for approval        proposals; only 3 had design papers.
project concepts,
proposals, and
designs.

Project officials   Partially followed. Projects have
obtain account      account codes; however, Commission
codes at the        officials could not provide completed
appropriate point   forms for requesting, assigning, and
in the planning     closing out account codes for the 22
process.            projects reviewed.

Project officials   Does not occur. The Office of Program
submit monthly      Planning and Evaluation, which was
progress reports    responsible for preparing monthly
in writing to the   reports to the staff director on the
staff director      status of all Commission activities,
through the Office  no longer exists. Commission officials
of Program          did not provide any monthly progress
Planning and        reports to the staff director for any
Evaluation.         of the projects. However, our review
                    of completed project files for OCRE
                    showed memorandums to the staff
                    director about the status of projects,
                    although not monthly. Completed
                    project files for OGC were not
                    available for our review.

Budget and Fiscal   Data incomplete. Commission officials
Division maintains  told us that they do not maintain any
current records of  information on staff time by project.
all expenditures    They did provide fiscal year reports
of money and staff  of expenditures for projects, and all
time and provides   but one included total expenditures.
quarterly reports   Officials said that quarterly reports
by account codes    are made to the staff director. We
to staff director.  requested copies of the reports but
                    never received them.

Publications        Process unclear. This division no
Management          longer exists, and it is not clear
Division edits      where this function is currently
national            located. We found three offices that
publications and    were identified as performing
designs, produces,  distribution duties, none of which
and distributes     coordinated distribution lists. The
all publications.   list identified as the main mailing
                    list did not appear to have been
                    updated in at least 5 years.
----------------------------------------------------------
Commission officials told us that they were in the process of
updating the Commission's Administrative Manual and had updated 8 of
73 administrative instructions; however, the instruction for
implementing projects is not one of the 8.  The Staff Director\4 told
us that she had recently convened a task force, made up of the two
office directors responsible for conducting projects and the Special
Assistant to the Staff Director, to revamp the administrative
instruction for projects.  As of June 16, 1997, Commission officials
said that the task force has met at least three times over the past
several months and the Commission expects to have a proposed final
version of the administrative instruction for projects for the new
staff director's consideration. 


--------------------
\3 U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights mission and functions:  45
C.F.R., part VII. 

\4 The staff director at the time of our review resigned effective
Dec.  31, 1996.  As of May 1997, the Commission did not have a staff
director. 


      KEY COMMISSION RECORDS
      MISSING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The Commission reported that key records--which either provided the
basis for or documented decisions about Commission operations and
project management--were lost, misplaced, or nonexistent.  Minutes of
certain Commission meetings were reported to be lost.  According to
officials, minutes of the Commission's meetings discussing the
initiation of 7 of the Commission's 22 projects were lost or
misplaced.  Additionally, the files for these seven projects were
either misplaced, misfiled, or not available for review.\5 Other key
records outlining critical information about projects did not exist,
such as project proposals, or were not available, such as the actual
start dates for projects.  Officials could not locate the
Commission's log for issuing its administrative guidance and could
not provide issuance dates for some of its guidance, specifically,
that outlining the criteria for conducting projects.  Finally, the
Commission did not have records showing the total cost of its project
on funding federal civil rights enforcement. 


--------------------
\5 These projects included six on racial and ethnic tensions in
American communities that were completed or ongoing and one completed
project on funding federal civil rights enforcement. 


      SPENDING DATA NOT MAINTAINED
      BY OFFICE OR FUNCTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Commission officials told us that they maintain a central budget but
could not provide the amount or percentage of the budget used by
various Commission offices or functions.  Officials did not provide
the costs of complaint referrals, clearinghouse activities, regional
operations, report publication and dissemination, or public service
announcements.  The only function Commission officials provided
separate financial information on was the projects' costs.  But even
for project costs, records were poorly maintained, and it is unclear
whether they reflect the true costs for the projects.  For example,
the Commission approved one project's report for publishing on
September 9, 1994, and the report shows an issuance date of September
1994, yet financial information provided to us showed costs incurred
through fiscal year 1996 for this project.  A November 1, 1995,
letter from the Commission to the House Constitution Subcommittee
showed actual costs for the project of $261,529, but data Commission
officials provided us showed total project costs of $531,798.  At the
time of our audit work, the Commission was not able to reconcile the
difference.\6


--------------------
\6 The project evaluated the enforcement of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988.  In responding to a draft of this report, the
Office of the Staff Director said that the project produced two
reports and data provided to Congress reflected fiscal year 1994 cost
while the GAO request represented all costs on the project and adding
the costs associated with the two reports reconciles the difference. 
Records provided us during the audit do not support these comments. 


      COMMISSION'S MANAGEMENT
      CONTROLS ARE WEAK
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

The Commission's management controls over its operations are weak and
do not ensure that the Commission is able to meet its statutory
responsibilities\7 or its program objectives.  Federal agencies are
required under the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act to
report on internal controls annually to the president and the
Congress; however, the Commission did not report on the agency's
internal controls for fiscal year 1995.  In addition, the
Commission's report on internal controls for fiscal year 1996 appears
to misrepresent information concerning audits of the Commission.  The
report claims that several administrative activities are randomly
audited by the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General, when in
fact no such audits were done.  The only direct connection between
the Commission and the Department of Agriculture is that the
Commission's financial transactions are handled through Agriculture's
National Finance Center.  Vendors submit invoices directly to the
National Finance center for payment, and the Commission does not
verify the accuracy of the invoices submitted.  The Agriculture
Inspector General is responsible for auditing the automated systems
of Agriculture's National Finance Center.  But the Inspector
General's office told us that the Commission has never requested any
audits of its transactions.  Furthermore, we did not find that any
other audits of Commission expenditures had been performed.\8

Recent reviews of the Commission's operations by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and a civil rights advocacy group have
been critical of Commission management.  OPM reviewed the
Commission's personnel practices and concluded in a 1996 report that
the Commission is "an agency badly in need of managerial
attention."\9 According to the report, the Commission had numerous
instances of poor documentation of staffing actions, which made it
impossible for OPM to definitively determine the Commission's
compliance with OPM regulations.  However, in one instance, OPM did
find violations of laws and regulations in the Commission's
appointment of a staff member, resulting in that staff member's
appointment being terminated.\10 In addition, a 1995 report\11 by the
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights\12 reported that the
Commission's performance has been "disappointing." The report noted
that projects take so long to complete that they may be out of date
because conditions have changed by the time the project is completed,
reducing the effectiveness of the Commission's work. 


--------------------
\7 The Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the
Judiciary, reported that for fiscal year 1995 the Commission did not
meet its statutory requirement to submit to the Congress at least one
report each fiscal year that monitors federal civil rights
enforcement.  (104th Congress, House Report 104-846, Sept.  1996). 

\8 The Commission is not required by statute to have an Inspector
General, and its operations have not been audited by an outside
accounting firm. 

\9 OPM, Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness, Report
of an Oversight Review:  U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights-Washington,
D.C.  (Washington, D.C.:  OPM, Nov.  1996). 

\10 In response to OPM's recommendations, the Commission wrote to OPM
of its planned corrective actions.  In a February 21, 1997, letter,
OPM wrote that the Commission's response reflects that efforts are in
place to promote an effective human resources management program and
the changes the Commission described should ensure the Commission's
adherence to merit system principles and Civil Service rules and
regulations. 

\11 Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, New Challenges:  The Civil
Rights Record of the Clinton Administration Mid-Term:  Interim Report
on Performance of U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights During the Clinton
Administration (Washington, D.C.:  Citizens' Commission on Civil
Rights, 1995). 

\12 The Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights is a private, bipartisan
group of former officials who have served in federal government
positions with responsibility for equal opportunity.  The Citizens'
Commission was established in 1982 to monitor the civil rights
policies and practices of the federal government and to seek ways to
accelerate progress in the area of civil rights.





   COMMISSION PROJECTS POORLY
   MANAGED AND TAKE YEARS TO
   COMPLETE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Although Commission projects address a number of civil rights issues,
its project spending accounts for a small percentage of the
Commission's budget.  Furthermore, the Commission's efforts to manage
these projects fall short in areas such as following project
management guidance, meeting projected time frames for completing
projects, and systematic monitoring of projects.  Commission projects
entail collecting and analyzing information on civil rights issues to
appraise federal laws and regulations.  During fiscal years 1993
through 1996, the Commission completed 5 projects, deferred 10
others, and worked on another 7 that were still ongoing at the end of
fiscal year l996 (see tables 3 and 4).  These 22 projects cover a
variety of issues, including racial and ethnic tensions in American
communities; the enforcement of fair housing, fair employment, and
equal education opportunity laws; economic opportunities for minority
youths; and naturalization and citizenship issues. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                         Completed and Ongoing Commission
                               Projects, FY 1993-96

                              Project                                 Report
                    Assigned  approval  Concept             Hearing   approval
Project title       office    date      paper     Proposal  date      date
------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------
Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        5/92      3/3/95
Tensions in
American
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--A
National
Perspective

Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        6/92      4/21/95
Tensions in
American
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--
Chicago

The Fair Housing    OCRE      5/90      No        Yes       N/A       9/9/94
Amendments Act of
1988: The
Enforcement Report

Federal Title VI    OCRE      9/93      Yes       Yes       N/A       1/11/96
Enforcement to
Ensure
Nondiscrimination
in Federally
Assisted Programs

Funding Federal     Staff     No date   No        No        N/A       6/20/95
Civil Rights        director
Enforcement


Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        Hearing
Tensions in                                                 reschedu
American                                                    led
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--
Mississippi Delta

Federal             OGC       4/95      Yes       Yes       Hearing
Affirmative Action                                          canceled
Programs and
Policies Hearing

Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        6/93
Tensions in
American
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--
Los Angeles

Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        9/94 and
Tensions in                                                 7/95
American
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--
New York

Racial and Ethnic   OGC       2/91      Yes       No        9/95
Tensions in
American
Communities:
Poverty,
Inequality, and
Discrimination--
Miami

Evaluation of       OCRE      2/91      Yes       Yes       N/A
Equal Education
Opportunity Law
Enforcement\a

Evaluation of Fair  OCRE      2/91      Yes       Yes       N/A
Employment Law
Enforcement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A means not applicable. 

\a Volume I was completed in December 1996 and volumes II through VI
are projected to be completed in FY 1997. 



                                Table 4
                
                 Deferred Commission Projects, FY 1993-
                                   96

                                                Projec
                                                     t
                                                approv
                                Assigned            al
Deferred projects               office            date  Concept paper
------------------------------  --------------  ------  --------------
Expanding the Economic          OCRE/OGC          7/94  Yes
Opportunities of African
American, Asian, and Latino
Youth

Schools and Religion            OGC               7/94  No

Financial Aid for Higher        OGC              10/94  No
Education

Voting Rights                   OGC              10/94  No

Environmental Justice           OGC              10/94  No

Enforcement of Americans With   OCRE/OGC          4/94  Yes
Disabilities Act

Naturalization and Citizenship  OCRE              4/94  No
Issues

Technological Change and Job    OGC               4/94  No
Opportunities of Women,
Minorities, and Older Persons

The Crisis of Young African     OGC               3/95  Yes
American Males in Inner Cities

Summary Report on Racial and    OGC               5/93  No
Ethnic Tensions Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

      PROJECT SPENDING ACCOUNTS
      FOR SMALL PERCENTAGE OF
      COMMISSION BUDGET
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Although the Commission appears to spend about 10 percent of its
resources annually on projects, we were unable to verify project
spending because of the Commission's poor record-keeping.  According
to Commission records, costs incurred for individual ongoing and
completed projects during fiscal years 1993 through 1996 ranged from
about $33,000\13 for a completed project on funding for federal civil
rights enforcement to about $764,000 for a project on racial and
ethnic tensions in Los Angeles that had been ongoing throughout the
4-year period (see table 5). 



                                     Table 5
                     
                       Commission Spending on Completed and
                           Ongoing Projects, FY 1993-96

                                             Spending by fiscal year
                                          ------------------------------
                                                                           Total
                                                                          spendi
Project title                               1993    1994    1995    1996    ng\a
----------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American
Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Perspective\b                         $       $       $       0       $
                                          25,550   5,991  20,170          51,711
Chicago\b                                 66,489  20,995  16,373       0  103,85
                                                                               7
Los Angeles                               465,15  56,105  92,977  $149,4  763,73
                                               2                      98       2
New York                                   3,038  336,94  119,52  74,400  533,91
                                                       7       9               4
Miami                                          0   4,789  62,050  14,087  80,926
Mississippi Delta                              0       0  52,385  162,75  215,13
                                                                       3       8
Federal Affirmative Action Programs and        0       0  68,402  53,165  121,56
 Policies Hearing                                                              7
The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988:  157,51  122,41   3,624   5,430  288,97
 The Enforcement Report\b                      1       3                       8
Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure     7,500  238,12  131,22  38,080  414,93
 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted               6       9               5
 Programs\b
Funding Federal Civil Rights                   0  24,057   9,052      18  33,127
 Enforcement\b                                                                \c
Evaluation of Equal Education                  0       0  193,70  307,96  501,67
 Opportunity Law Enforcement                                   4       9       3
Evaluation of Fair Employment Law              0       0       0       0       0
 Enforcement
================================================================================
Total project spending                    $725,2  $809,4  $769,4  $807,8  $3,112
                                              40      23      95    65\d  ,023\d
Total Commission appropriation for year     $7.8    $7.8    $9.0    $8.7   $33.3
                                          millio  millio  millio  millio  millio
                                               n       n       n       n       n
Percentage of appropriation spent on         9.3    10.4     8.5     9.3     9.3
 projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Total spending on particular projects may be more if funds spent
prior to fiscal year 1993 are included. 

\b Project completed. 

\c Does not include salaries for this project. 

\d Includes $2,465 spent in fiscal year 1996 on a deferred project,
Enforcement of Americans With Disabilities Act. 


--------------------
\13 The total cost of this project is not known because Commission
officials did not, as they had for other projects, account for staff
salaries spent to conduct the project. 


      PROJECT MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
      OFTEN IGNORED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The Commission's Administrative Manual, administrative instruction
5-1, governs the process for conducting projects; however, the
guidance has not been updated since 1982 and does not accurately
reflect the current practices as they were described to us. 
Furthermore, our review of the projects showed that the process
described was often not followed.  According to Commission officials,
the process that should be used to develop an idea into a project and
ultimately a report includes five stages:  (1) initiating an idea as
a concept, (2) selecting concepts to develop into proposals for
projects, (3) conducting project research, (4) approving final
publication of a report, and (5) publishing and disseminating the
report (see table 6). 



                                         Table 6
                         
                           Stages of Project Development at the
                                Commission on Civil Rights

Project stage            Staff role            Staff director role   Commissioners' role
-----------------------  --------------------  --------------------  --------------------
Initiation               Staff, including      Decides which ideas   The Commission holds
                         regional staff,       or concepts to        annual planning
                         submit ideas or       forward to the        meetings in January
                         concepts for          commissioners.        or February. At that
                         possible projects to                        time, they vote on
                         the staff director.                         which concepts to
                                                                     return to the staff
                                                                     to develop into
                                                                     proposals for
                                                                     further
                                                                     consideration.

Selection                Develop approved      Submits proposals to  Commissioners
                         concepts into         the commissioners.    approve the
                         proposals that                              proposals as
                         identify time                               projects.
                         frames, budget,
                         staffing levels,
                         scope and
                         methodology, and
                         type of anticipated
                         report.

Research                 Conduct research.     Assigns the project,  Hold hearings as
                                               usually to either     necessary.
                                               OCRE or OGC.

Approval                 OGC reviews for       Submits draft for     Commissioners and
                         legal issues.         legal and editorial   their assistants
                                               reviews and           review the draft
                                               transmits to          product and make
                                               commissioners for     changes.
                                               review and approval.  Commissioners vote
                                                                     to approve the
                                                                     product.

Publication and          Assist the staff      Makes and approves    None.
dissemination            director in making    all final decisions
                         all final report      for publication and
                         decisions for         dissemination.
                         publication,
                         including the number
                         to be printed in
                         addition to the
                         minimum 5,000 copies
                         of each report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project documentation showed that this process was frequently
ignored, with less than half of the projects during the period we
studied following these procedures.  Of the 12 completed and ongoing
projects, only 4 had both concept papers and detailed proposals
specifying the focus of the project, time frame, budget, and staff
levels.  None of the racial and ethnic tensions projects included
proposals indicating the time frame for completion, proposed budget,
or anticipated staff level.  These six projects have absorbed years
of staff time and accounted for more than 50 percent of the
Commission's total spending on projects, yet only two of these
projects have been completed.  Although concept papers are required
for deferred projects, only 3 of the 10 deferred projects had concept
papers.  The funding federal civil rights enforcement project
deviated from the process in the initiation stage, and the records
were not available for assessing the project relative to other stages
of the process. 


      PROJECTS TAKE YEARS TO
      COMPLETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The Commission has no overall standard for how long a project should
take nor expectations for the length of time specific projects should
take.  While an estimate of the time to conduct projects is required
in proposals, very few projects had estimated time frames for
completing projects.  For the projects that did specify time frames,
the actual time a project took to complete was 2 to 3 years beyond
their planned duration.  Only two of the five completed projects had
anticipated start and finish dates, but both overran their time
frames.  Both projects had anticipated time frames of 1 year, but one
project took 3 years to complete (Federal Title VI Enforcement to
Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, issued June
1996), and one took 4 years (The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: 
The Enforcement Report, issued Sept.  1994).  The Commission
attributed delays in meeting anticipated time frames to staff
turnover, limited staff resources, and the need to update factual
information. 

Although the length of the projects cannot generally be compared with
the expected or approved length, we found that their actual time
frames spanned several years.  During the period of our review,
projects took an average of 4 years to complete from the time they
were approved by the commissioners.\14

Four of the five completed projects had data available on time
frames--three of the projects took 4 or more years to complete, and
one was completed in about 2-1/2 years.  For one project, the
Commission held a hearing in May 1992 and in the ensuing 3 years
incurred additional project costs of about $50,000.  In 1995, it
issued the hearing transcript, accompanied by a summary of its
contents without any further analysis, as a final product.\15 The
Commission's Staff Director reported in a November 1995 letter to the
House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution that the
Commission originally scheduled publication of the hearing transcript
for fiscal year 1993 but "subsequently, the decision was made to
publish an executive summary in addition to the transcript, which
delayed publication of the document."

Ongoing projects appeared likely to overrun their estimated time
frames as well.  For six of the seven ongoing projects, nearly 6
years have elapsed since their approval.  Anticipated time frames
were available for three of the seven ongoing projects.  The
"Evaluation of Fair Employment Law Enforcement" project was
anticipated as a 2-year project approved in February 1991.  The
Commission expected to begin the project in May 1995 and complete it
in September 1997, but it appears that no work was done on this
project in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.  Therefore, we believe it is
unlikely that this project will be completed on time.  The
"Evaluation of Equal Education Opportunity Law Enforcement" project
was also approved by the commissioners in February 1991.  The
Commission anticipated starting work on this project in February 1995
and planned to complete the project and issue four reports by
September 1996.  In July 1996 the responsible project official
proposed that the Commission publish six separate reports and
informed the staff director that the project milestones had to be
extended.  The Commission issued the first volume of the anticipated
six in December 1996 and now expects to issue the last of the
remaining reports by December 1997, more than 1 year later than
initially anticipated and more than 6 years from the date the project
was approved.  The remaining project that had a time frame, "Federal
Affirmative Action Programs and Policies," approved in April 1995,
was expected to take 2 to 3 years, and is ongoing. 

Problems with the quality of the work in planning and implementing
certain projects have apparently contributed to lengthy project time
frames.  For example, the Commission's General Counsel requested
additional hearings on three projects because of poor planning for
the initial hearings and the resulting inadequate data gathering. 
For the racial and ethnic tensions projects for New York, Chicago,
and Los Angeles, the General Counsel determined that the information
gathered at previous hearings was insufficient, outdated, or too weak
to support a quality report.  The New York project had insufficient
testimony and documentation in eight different areas.  The Chicago
project was criticized by city officials as presenting an unbalanced
picture, including unsubstantiated testimony, mischaracterized
information, inadequate or nonexistent analyses, and missing certain
recent city initiatives.  The Los Angeles report contained
information that the Commission's General Counsel viewed as outdated
and therefore required further investigation for the Commission's
report to be current. 


--------------------
\14 Because the Commission did not have information on actual start
dates, we determined our cycle time calculations using the project
approval date as the start date and the report issuance date as the
end date. 

\15 Commission on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in
American Communities:  Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination-A
National Perspective, executive summary and transcript of hearing
held in Washington, D.C.  (Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Commission on
Civil Rights, May 21-22, 1992).  Commission data provided us showed
that the Commission approved the transcript and executive summary for
publication as of March 1995, but the actual document is dated May
1992. 


      PROJECTS NOT SYSTEMATICALLY
      MONITORED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

The Commission does not systematically monitor projects to ensure
quality and timeliness of project results and to help set priorities. 
The only formal mechanism in place to inform the commissioners about
the status of projects is through the discretion of the staff
director, orally or in the monthly report the staff director provides
to the commissioners.\16 We found that the commissioners only
received limited updates on some projects in the staff director's
monthly report.  The staff director did receive periodic updates
about the progress of projects being conducted by OCRE.  However,
because of frequent staff turnover and misfiled or lost records, we
could not determine whether the staff in the General Counsel's office
similarly informed the staff director about project progress. 

Commissioners did not receive routine information on the costs of
projects or the personnel working on the projects.  After a vote to
approve a project, commissioners are not aware of (1) those projects
the staff director decides to start, (2) when projects are actually
started, (3) cost adjustments for projects, (4) time frame changes,
and (5) personnel changes, all of which can affect the timeliness and
quality of projects.  All of the commissioners told us that they are
not involved in assigning projects or specific tasks to the staff and
that this is strictly a responsibility of the staff director. 
However, most commissioners expressed a desire to have routine
reporting on the status of individual projects, specifically, costs
and time frames for completion, so they would know when to expect
draft reports.  In fact, most of the commissioners told us that they
frequently have no knowledge of the status of a particular project
from the time they approve it until a draft report is given to them
for review.  Some commissioners said that communication is a big
problem at the Commission and that improvement in communications up
and down staff levels could help resolve the problem. 


--------------------
\16 While the Commission holds planning meetings to discuss future
projects, these meetings are held annually and therefore do not serve
to routinely inform the commissioners about the status of projects. 


   DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT
   REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Commission uses three different offices to disseminate project
reports, but a lack of coordination among these offices raises the
potential for duplicative work.  Commission officials told us that
these three offices--the office responsible for conducting the
project (OGC or OCRE), the Congressional Affairs Unit, and the Office
of Management (Administrative Services and Clearinghouse
Division)--maintain mailing lists that are used to disseminate
Commission project reports, hearing transcripts, and other documents
to the public.  The responsible project office maintains targeted
lists and may develop other mailing lists of routine document
recipients.  The Congressional Affairs Unit is responsible for
disseminating Commission publications to the Congress.  The
Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division maintains the
agency's general mailing list, coded by subject matter, and is
responsible for sending reports to the public and other federal
agencies. 

With no coordination among the offices, duplicate mailings are
likely.  We noted, for example, that the Administrative Services
unit's general mailing list included members of Congress, which
should be the responsibility of the Congressional Affairs unit. 
Efforts to update the lists could eliminate duplication among the
offices, but the Commission had not made such efforts.  Our review of
the agency's general mailing list indicated that the list had not
been updated in at least 5 years.  Commission officials told us that
they update the general mailing list annually, but did not provide
documentation verifying the updates.  In fact, the general list
showed various individuals in specific federal positions who, at the
time of our review, no longer served in those positions.  According
to a Commission official, a staff member had offered to purge the
various lists to eliminate duplication and update the agency's
general mailing list, but the offer was refused. 

Commission officials told us that they did not know the costs for
publishing and disseminating project reports.  The officials said
that they authorize the printing of at least 5,000 copies of each
report.\17 One official said that she did not know what the mailing
costs are, but the agency has never "had a problem" sending out
reports. 


--------------------
\17 In comments provided on this report, Commission officials
provided costs of $29,900 for 8,000 copies of the Federal Title VI
Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted
Programs and a cost of $18,693 for 5,100 copies of volume I of the
Equal Educational Opportunity project series. 


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

Our overall assessment of the Commission suggests that its operations
lack order, control, and coordination.  Management is unaware of how
federal funds appropriated to carry out its mission are being used,
lacks control over key functions, and has not requested independent
audits of Commission operations.  These weaknesses make the
Commission vulnerable to misuse of its resources.  The lack of
attention to basic requirements applying to all federal agencies,
such as up-to-date descriptions of operations and internal guidance
for employees, reflects poorly on the overall management of the
Commission. 

Projects embody a key component of the Commission's operations, yet
the management of projects is haphazard or nonexistent.  No overall
standard exists for assessing the timeliness of projects or the
expectations of how long projects should take.  And the lack of
project documentation, systematic monitoring to detect delays and
review priorities, and coordination among offices that disseminate
reports seriously hampers the Commission's ability to produce, issue,
and disseminate timely reports.  Results from independent reviews of
the Commission's operations, such as the Citizens' Commission on
Civil Rights and OPM, substantiate our assessment of the Commission's
weak management and the need for improvements. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
   COMMISSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We recommend that the Commission develop and document policies and
procedures that (1) assign responsibility for management functions to
the staff director and other Commission officials and (2) provide
mechanisms for holding them accountable for properly managing the
Commission's day-to-day operations.  This effort should include

  -- updating the C.F.R.  to provide for public access to the current
     organizational structure, procedures, and program processes of
     the Commission;

  -- updating internal management guidance so that staff are assured
     that their efforts comply with the administrative policies of
     the Commission, applicable legislation, and federal rules and
     regulations; and

  -- establishing a management information system for commissioners
     and staff to use to plan projects and track progress using the
     best information available about projects' expected and actual
     costs, time frames, staffing levels, and completion dates. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

The U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights provided us with two sets of
comments on a draft of this report.  We received one set of comments
from four commissioners and another set from the Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and the two remaining commissioners.  The latter set
included comments from the Commission's Office of the Staff Director. 
The comments are printed in their entirety in appendixes IV and V. 

In one set of comments, Commissioners Anderson, George, Horner, and
Redenbaugh concurred with our assessment and the recommendations on
management improvements needed at the Commission.  These four
commissioners said that they will closely monitor the performance of
the new staff director to ensure that the report's recommendations
are implemented, Commission operations are accounted for, and agency
procedures and processes for carrying out its mission are updated. 
(See app.  IV.)

In the other set of comments, Chairperson Berry, Vice Chairperson
Reynoso, and Commissioners Higginbotham and Lee challenged our
report, calling it "short" on historical content, relevant context,
and substantiated facts.  These four commissioners believed that our
recommendations only narrowly addressed aspects of the Commission's
management but pledged to implement the recommendations. 
Furthermore, these commissioners said that operational deficiencies
cited in the report do not affect the Commission's performance of its
basic mission and that many of the findings cited may well be based
on miscommunication during the audit.  In this regard, they said that
the Commission's Office of the Staff Director would point out the
concerns in detail in attached comments.  The commissioners addressed
four areas of concern that they believed caused our report to provide
a distorted view of Commission operations.  These areas are the
following: 

  -- Update of the Commission's Administrative Manual--The four
     commissioners said that the report does not tell the full story
     because it omits the impact of budget cuts, downsizing, and
     reductions-in-force that occurred in the 1980s. 

  -- Method used by the Commission to maintain its budget--The
     commissioners said that the report criticizes the Commission for
     not being able to provide the amount or percentage of the budget
     used by the Commission's various offices or functions, which
     they maintained is an inaccurate criticism.  They said that the
     Commission does know this information but we did not ask for it. 

  -- Characterization of the OPM report on Commission personnel
     practices--According to the four commissioners, upon receipt of
     the Commission's response to the OPM report, OPM concluded that
     efforts are in place to promote an effective human resources
     management program. 

  -- Commissioner supervision of projects--The four commissioners
     said that commissioners do in fact monitor all projects and,
     upon request, are afforded updated information on the progress
     of projects. 

The four commissioners concluded that they perceived the draft report
to be a great injustice to the Commission. 

We believe that our report contains adequate historical information
and, in fact, includes information regarding changes in funding from
1980 to 1997.  We also discuss in appendix I the limitations we faced
in reporting on Commission operations that were caused by a lack of
documentation and the Commission's poor record-keeping.  We did not
receive information we asked for that would have provided more
context for Commission operations.  We asked Commission officials
repeatedly for records, files, and other documentation about major
aspects of the Commission's operations, including costs incurred for
the Commission's various offices, functions, and projects, but were
told that several key documents were misplaced, lost, or did not
exist.  For example, we asked Commission officials for staffing
information showing when downsizing, reductions-in-force, and
reorganizations occurred.  We were told in a letter from the
Commission dated December 4, 1996, and in several meetings with
Commission officials, that much of the information we requested,
including the staffing and cost information, was not available.  We
did not receive all minutes requested describing the commissioners'
initial discussions of the six racial and ethnic tension projects and
the project on Funding Civil Rights Enforcement.  The minutes were
particularly important to show how these projects were initiated and
planned. 

We believe the Commission's efforts to implement the OPM
recommendations regarding human resources management represent a step
in the right direction and encourage future efforts to improve its
management.  We have modified our report to reflect the OPM
assessment of corrective actions the Commission took in response to
the OPM review. 

We are also encouraged by the statements of both the commissioners
and the Office of the Staff Director that the Commission will have a
revised management information system in place by October 1, 1997,
that will accurately track the status of Commission projects and the
human and budgetary resources committed to those projects so that, on
a monthly basis, commissioners will be in a position to evaluate the
progress of projects and assess the effectiveness of management
operations. 

The comments submitted by the Office of the Staff Director, which are
an attachment to the commissioners' comments, addressed 19 points in
our report relating to our analysis of the management issues at the
Commission and recommendations for improvement.  Most of the comments
generally discussed the reasons that the situations we reported exist
and actions the Commission is taking or plans to take to address
management weaknesses.  For example, with regard to our statement
that Commission projects took so long that Commission staff proposed
holding additional hearings, the Office of the Staff Director agreed
that some projects take too long and said that the Commission has
attempted to speed up the process.  It noted, however, that these
efforts have been hindered by commissioner and staff turnover. 

We have incorporated, as appropriate, technical changes based on the
comments of the four commissioners critical of our report and those
of the Office of the Staff Director.  For example, we are now
separately reporting the number of commissioners and the number of
Commission staff and have added that the Commission holds annual
project planning meetings.  We have also modified our report to
reflect comments about task force meetings to revamp the
administrative instruction for projects and to show the costs for
publishing two reports.  In addition, we have added the explanation
from the Office of the Staff Director of the $270,000 difference
between the cost figure the Commission provided to the House
Constitution Subcommittee and the cost it gave us for the Fair
Housing Amendment Act project. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to the eight commissioners and
the Commission Staff Director; the Director, Office of Management and
Budget; and other interested parties. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd R.  Nilsen, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-7003 if you have any questions about this
report.  GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Cornelia M.  Blanchette
Associate Director, Education
 and Employment Issues


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

In designing our study, we obtained all legislation and regulations
governing the Commission.  We also gathered data on all projects
initiated, ongoing, and completed during fiscal years 1993 through
1996, the period of our review; and we obtained data on the
Commission's budget, staffing, projects, and legislative history.  We
conducted our work between August 1996 and May 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

We reviewed all applicable legislation, regulations, and historical
information, which included Commission appropriations for fiscal
years 1980 through 1997 and Commission reauthorizations beginning
with its creation in 1957 through September 30, 1996.  We interviewed
each commissioner on the role of the Commission, management of
Commission projects, and overall management of the agency.  To
determine how and to what extent the Commission manages its projects,
we obtained internal administrative guidance, staff listings over the
4-year period reviewed, an organization chart depicting the
Commission's current organizational structure, definitions of all
Commission functions, and other relevant documents.  We attended
Commission meetings, interviewed the staff director, and interviewed
Commission officials responsible for budget, staffing, projects, and
dissemination of project results to the public.  We obtained all
documents through the Office of the Staff Director. 


   BACKGROUND DATA ON THE
   COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

To review the role of the Commission, we obtained pertinent sections
of the U.S.  Code, Public Laws, the Code of Federal Regulations, the
legislative history, and other relevant documents about the
Commission.  We synthesized the relevant sections of the legislation
and regulations to form a complete view of the role of the
Commission. 


   PROJECT MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

To review the management of projects, the Commission provided us with
a list of approved projects that were initiated, ongoing, or
completed during fiscal years 1993 through 1996.  Because the
Commission's internal guidance and administrative instructions for
carrying out projects were outdated, we reviewed agency project files
to determine the process the Commission followed for the projects. 
We also interviewed the staff director and Commission officials
responsible for staffing, budget, projects, and dissemination of
reports to the public.  The Commission provided a list of staff,
broken out by office, but could not provide data on actual staff time
devoted to projects, nor could it provide budget information by
Commission function.  The Commission provided us with cost data for
all but one project, but we are not confident that the data are
accurate because of the Commission's poor record-keeping. 


   LIMITATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Our ability to accurately portray the Commission's management of its
projects was hampered due to inadequate Commission record-keeping, a
lack of data, and the inability of Commission officials to generate
certain data.  In addition, we could not link budget information to
specific activities because the Commission has a central budget and
does not break down allocations to headquarters by unit and to
regional offices.  Nor was budget data available for Commission
operations, such as the fiscal resources spent to carry out the
Commission's complaints referral process, the clearinghouse, and
public service announcements. 

We were unable to examine records for three of the five projects
completed during our review period because the Commission told us
that documents were lost, misplaced, or nonexistent.  Other data not
available included the total cost for one project, planned budget
costs for seven projects, concept papers for nine projects, and
proposals for seven projects.  We were unable to validate the process
the Commission followed for projects by using the administrative
guidance because the Commission told us the guidance was out of date
and was being updated. 


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE U.S. 
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
========================================================== Appendix II

Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission on Civil
Rights is an independent bipartisan agency created to protect the
civil rights of people within the United States.  The mission and
authority of the Commission is to (1) investigate charges that
citizens are being deprived of certain voting rights by reason of
color, race, religion, sex,\18 age, disability,\19 or national
origin; (2) relative to deprivation of voting rights, study and
collect information concerning legal developments; and (3) appraise
federal laws and policies; (4) serve as a national clearinghouse for
information;\20 and (5) prepare public service announcements and
advertising campaigns.\21 To accomplish its mission, the Commission
may hold hearings and issue subpoenas within the state in which the
hearing is being held and within a 100-mile radius of the site for
the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at such
hearings.  It also maintains state advisory committees, and consults
with representatives of federal, state, and local governments, and
private organizations in furtherance of its fact-finding functions. 

The Commission is required to issue reports and findings of its
investigations to the Congress and the president and recommend
legislative remedies.  The Commission must submit at least one report
annually to the president and the Congress that monitors federal
civil rights enforcement in the United States.  In addition, because
it lacks enforcement powers that would enable it to apply specific
remedies in individual cases, the Commission refers specific
complaints it receives to the appropriate federal, state, or local
government agency for action. 

In 1957, the Commission consisted of six commissioners appointed by
the president, with not more than three to be from the same political
party.  There were no specified terms of office.  The Commission
operated for more than 25 years before its structure changed from the
original formulation.  In 1983, the Congress passed legislation\22
creating a new Civil Rights Commission to succeed the presidentially
appointed Commission established in 1957.  Under the 1983
legislation, the number of commissioners was expanded from six to
eight, with not more than four to be from the same political party. 
The way commissioners were appointed changed also, allotting four to
the president, two to the president pro tempore of the Senate, and
two to the speaker of the House of Representatives.  Additionally,
the commissioners now served a 6-year term, with certain provisions
at enactment for staggering the terms.  The original legislation
created the position of staff director, appointed by the president
with the advice and consent of the Senate; the 1983 legislation
replaced Senate confirmation with concurrence of a majority of the
commissioners. 


--------------------
\18 Sex was added as a protected group in 1978, P.L.  92-496, section
3. 

\19 Age and Handicap were added as protected groups in 1983, P.L. 
95-444, section 3.  The term "handicap" was changed to "disability"
in 1994 by P.L.  103-419. 

\20 This duty was authorized by title V of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, P.L.  88-352. 

\21 The additional duties of public service announcements and
advertising campaigns were added by the 1994 statute, P.L.  103-419. 

\22 P.L.  98-183. 


   COMMISSION REAUTHORIZATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The Commission on Civil Rights has been in existence for 40 years
even though a sunset clause in its authorizing legislation provided
that the Commission would submit a final report to the Congress and
the president no more than 2 years after enactment, and that 60 days
later the Commission would "cease to exist." The Commission's
authorizing legislation was extended numerous times between 1959 and
1982; the longest extension was for 5 years.  By 1982, the debate in
the Congress was not over whether to extend the life of the
Commission but on how best to do so while enabling it to function
effectively in a bipartisan manner and without altering its
historical structure and integrity.\23

Before its 1983 reauthorization, the President, in his budget message
to the Congress in 1982 proposed that the Commission be allowed to
continue its work until 2003, saying, "[s]ince its inception, the
Commission has focused its energies on research demonstrating the
existence of civil rights problems.  This emphasis was appropriate in
the early years of the Commission's existence.  However, the
questions of the 1980's involve not whether civil rights problems
exist, but how to most effectively resolve them." The President also
proposed that commissioners serve for specified terms.\24 Between
1989 and 1996, the Commission was reauthorized three more times,
until September 30, 1996 (see table II.1).  The Congress did not
reauthorize the Commission in 1996 but appropriated funds that
allowed it to continue operations through September 30, 1997.\25



                               Table II.1
                
                   Commission Authorizations, 1957-96

Public Law              Expiration              Duration
----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
85-315                  Sept. 1959              2 years

86-383                  Sept. 1961              2 years

87-264                  Sept. 1963              2 years

88-152                  Sept. 1964              1 year

88-352                  Jan. 1968               3-1/2 years

90-198                  Jan. 1973               5 years

92-496                  Jan. 1978               5 years

95-444                  Sept. 1983              5 years

98-183                  Nov. 1989               6 years

101-180                 Sept. 1991              2 years

102-167                 Sept. 1994              3 years

103-419                 Sept. 1996              2 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\23 House Debate of H.R.  2230, Cong.  Rec.  H.  23134-23149. 

\24 Special Analysis J, Civil Rights Activities of the Budget, 1982. 

\25 Commission Authority to Operate, 71 Comp.  Gen.  378 (Apr.  29,
1992). 


   ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

The Commission had a major reorganization in November 1986.  This
reorganization and subsequent staff changes through November 1996
eliminated or combined 5 of the 13 major offices, leaving 8 major
offices and units in place; the 19 smaller offices, including 10
regional offices, were reduced to 9 offices, which included 6
regional offices.  The Commission also eliminated the Office of
Program and Policy, the Office of Research, the Planning and
Coordination Unit, the Solicitor's Unit, and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Unit.  It apparently merged the duties of the eliminated
units or offices into existing units. 


   STAFFING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

As of fiscal year 1996, the staff director for the Commission managed
83 employees located in six regional offices and in Washington, D.C. 
This staff assisted eight part-time commissioners and their
assistants in carrying out Commission work.  The Office of General
Counsel (OGC) and the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE)
conduct the projects and had a combined total of 27 staff members who
also had other responsibilities.  The Regional Programs Unit is the
single largest component of the Commission with 27 staff members,
which include 2 at headquarters and 25 in the six regional offices
(see table II.2 for the Commission's staffing levels over the 4 years
included in our review). 



                               Table II.2
                
                 Commission Staffing Levels Over the 4-
                  Year Period Reviewed, Oct. 15, 1993-
                             Sept. 30, 1996

                                         Staff   Staff   Staff   Staff
                                         as of   as of   as of   as of
                                         9/30/   10/1/   10/3/     10/
Office/unit                                 96      95      94   15/93
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Commissioners                                8       8       8       8
Commissioners' Assistants                    7       8       8       8
Staff Director                               5       6       6     5\a
OCRE                                        12      13       9      11
OGC                                         15      \b    12\c      15
Regional Programs                           27      28      28      27
Office of Management                        17      16      14      16
Public Affairs                               6       7       4       4
Congressional Affairs                        2       2       2       1
Total                                       99    89\b      92      95
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Two employees were assigned to other units but served in the roles
of Acting Staff Director and Acting Deputy Staff Director. 

\b Number of employees not provided for the office. 

\c The positions of General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel were
vacant. 


   COMMISSION SPENDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

The Commission on Civil Rights does not maintain budget information
by component office, and Commission officials told us that they could
not separately estimate the percentage of the Commission's budget
spent on each component office or on the cognizant responsibilities
of the offices.  On the basis of information contained in the
Commission's fiscal year 1998 budget request, about 72 percent of the
Commission's spending for fiscal year 1996 was for salaries and
benefits, and another 13 percent was for rent (see table II.3). 



                         Table II.3
          
            Commission Spending Levels in Fiscal
                         Year 1996

                                                Percentage
                                    Spending      of total
Category                         (thousands)      spending
----------------------------  --------------  ------------
Personnel compensation and            $6,316          72.4
 benefits
Rent                                   1,114          12.7
Other (utilities,                        989          11.3
 reproduction,\a services,
 supplies, and equipment)
Travel and transportation                293           3.3
==========================================================
Total                                 $8,712          99.7
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The Commission's budget showed a line item of "printing and
reproduction"; however, Commission officials told us that they did
not know the cost of publishing and disseminating project reports;
thus, it is not clear what amount and percentage of the funds spent
in this category generally would cover printing costs for project
reports as opposed to typical agency xeroxing or copying costs. 

The Commission's appropriations ranged from a high of $12.7 million
in fiscal year 1985 to a low of $5.7 million in fiscal year 1988 and
has since leveled off to around $7.8 million from fiscal year 1993 to
the present (see table II.4). 



                         Table II.4
          
              Commission Actual and Inflation-
                  Adjusted Appropriations

             (Dollars in thousands, 1996 = 100)

                                                  Adjusted
                              Appropriatio  appropriation\
Fiscal year                              n               a
----------------------------  ------------  --------------
1980                               $11,230         $20,748
1981                                11,719          19,749
1982                                12,318          19,529
1983                                11,626          17,747
1984                                11,887          17,654
1985                                12,747          18,294
1986                                12,300          17,223
1987                                 7,500          10,277
1988                                 5,707           7,576
1989                                 5,707           7,323
1990                                 5,707           7,078
1991                                 7,075           8,318
1992                                 7,159           8,240
1993                                 7,776           8,606
1994                                 7,776           8,310
1995                                 9,000           9,224
1996                                 8,750           8,750
1997                                 8,740         8,763\b
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Amount calculated using the federal, nondefense government
consumption price index. 

\b Estimated on the basis of the amounts for the 3rd quarter of 1996. 

Source:  Economic Report of the President, table B-3 (Washington,
D.C.:  Feb.  1997). 


U.S.  COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PERIOD
AUGUST 1996-MAY 1997
========================================================= Appendix III

                                                            Political
Name                Date appointed      Appointed by        affiliation
------------------  ------------------  ------------------  --------------------
Mary F. Berry,      2/3/93\b            Speaker of the      Independent
Chairperson\a                           House

Cruz Reynoso, Vice  4/19/93             Senate President    Democrat
Chairperson\c                           Pro Tempore

Carl A. Anderson    2/8/90              Speaker of the      Republican
                                        House

Robert P. George    1/20/93             President           Independent

A. Leon             11/30/95            President           Democrat
Higginbotham, Jr.

Constance Horner    1/20/93             President           Republican

Yvonne Y. Lee       12/30/95            President           Democrat

Russell G.          12/12/95\d          Senate President    Independent
Redenbaugh                              Pro Tempore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The President designated Commissioner Berry as Chairperson on
Sept.  17, 1993, and a majority of commissioners concurred on Nov. 
19, 1993. 

\b The date the current term of office (6 years) began.  It will
expire in 1999.  Commissioner Berry was first appointed to the
Commission in 1980. 

\c President designated Commissioner Reynoso as Vice Chairperson on
Sept.  27, 1993, and a majority of commissioners concurred on Nov. 
19, 1993. 

\d Commissioner Redenbaugh was first appointed to the Commission in
1990 and was reappointed in 1995 for a second term. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION ON CIVIL
RIGHTS COMMISSIONERS ANDERSON,
GEORGE, HORNER, AND REDENBAUGH
========================================================= Appendix III




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION ON
CIVIL RIGHTS CHAIRPERSON, VICE
CHAIRPERSON, COMMISSIONERS
HIGGINBOTHAM AND LEE, AND STAFF
DIRECTOR
========================================================= 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.)



(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.)



(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.)



(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.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GAO CONTACTS

Sigurd R.  Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7003
Jacqueline Harpp, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-8380

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Patricia M.  Bundy, Evaluator
Stefanie Weldon, Senior Attorney


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0

Commission on Civil Rights:  Commissioners' Travel Activities
(GAO/GGD-94-130, Aug.  8, 1994). 

Request for Reconsideration of Claim for Relocation Allowance
(B-246538.4, Mar.  18, 1994). 

Civil Rights Commission Employee's Claim for Relocation Expenses
(B-246538.2, Jan.  27, 1993). 

U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights:  The Commission Has Complied With
FY90 Appropriation Act Provisions (GAO/GGD-92-83, May 12, 1992). 

Civil Rights Commission Authority to Operate (B-246541, Apr.  29,
1992). 

U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights:  The Commission Has Complied With
FY89 Appropriation Act Provisions (GAO/GGD-91-32, Feb.  8, 1991). 

U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights:  Compliance With Appropriation
Provisions as of March 31, 1988 (GAO/GGD-88-91, June 2, 1988). 

U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights:  Concerns About Commission
Operations (GAO/GGD-88-71, May 26, 1988). 

U.S.  Commission on Civil Rights:  Commission Publications During
Fiscal Years 1978-1986 (GAO/GGD-87-117BR, Sept.  25, 1987). 

Civil Rights Commission Employees' Claim for Severance Pay (B-217050,
July 30, 1986). 

The Operations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights
(Testimony, Mar.  25, 1986). 


*** End of document. ***