U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder the Timely
Processing of Discrimination Complaints (Letter Report, 01/29/99,
GAO/RCED-99-38).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to process discrimination complaints,
focusing on: (1) the timeliness of USDA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
processing and closing of program and employment discrimination
complaints; and (2) the reasons for delays in the processes.

GAO noted that: (1) USDA's efforts to process discrimination complaints
are falling short of its goals for closing its complaint backlog--one of
the Secretary's top priorities; (2) the dates USDA established for
closing its backlogs of program and employment discrimination complaints
have been extended several times beyond its initial target date of July
1, 1997; (3) as of October 1, 1998, USDA had closed only 44 percent of
its 1,088 backlog program cases and 64 percent of its 2,142 backlog
employment cases; (4) its most recent goal was to close all remaining
backlog cases by December 31, 1998--the fourth deadline it has set for
backlog program cases and its third deadline for backlog employment
cases; (5) in addition: (a) many of USDA's new program cases are missing
interim milestones and are therefore not on track for being closed in a
timely manner; and (b) the time spent processing its employment cases
continues to far exceed federally mandated time frames; (6) for example,
on October 1, 1998, 82 percent of the 397 employment cases being
investigated by USDA had already exceeded the 180-day mandated time
frame for investigations; (7) although USDA has provided additional
resources to enhance its capabilities to address discrimination
complaints, a number of problems are impeding its efforts to process
complaints more expeditiously; (8) these problems include such
long-standing issues as: (a) continuing management turnover and
reorganizations in OCR; (b) inadequate staff and managerial expertise;
(c) a lack of clear, up-to-date guidance and procedures; and (d) poor
working relationships and communication within OCR and between the
office and other USDA entities; (9) furthermore, the Department is not
consistently using alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as
mediation, to address workplace and other disputes before they become
formal employment complaints; and (10) federal law and regulations
encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution in resolving federal
workplace and other disputes.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-38
     TITLE:  U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder 
             the Timely Processing of Discrimination Complaints
      DATE:  01/29/99
   SUBJECT:  Employment discrimination
             Dispute settlement
             Federal personnel administrative law
             Federal employees
             Civil rights law enforcement
             Federal agency reorganization
             Agricultural programs
             Fair employment programs
             Administrative remedies
IDENTIFIER:  Food Stamp Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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 Honorable
Edolphus "Ed" Towns, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives

January 1999

U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE -
PROBLEMS CONTINUE TO HINDER THE
TIMELY PROCESSING OF
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS

GAO/RCED-99-38

USDA's Discrimination Complaint Process

(150740)


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

  ADR - alternative dispute resolution
  EEO - Equal Employment Opportunity
  EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  FSA - Farm Service Agency
  OCR - Office of Civil Rights
  OGC - Office of General Counsel
  OIG - Office of Inspector General
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

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


B-281466

January 29, 1999

The Honorable Edolphus "Ed" Towns
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Towns: 

Civil rights at the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) has long
been a troubled area.  Over the years, internal and external reports
have described problems in USDA's delivery of services to program
beneficiaries--such as minority farmers--and in its treatment of
minority employees.  These studies have also cited weaknesses in the
Department's overall management of its civil rights programs. 

In February 1997, the Civil Rights Action Team, composed of senior
USDA officials appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, reported on
its review of civil rights issues throughout the Department.\1 Among
other things, the team found that (1) USDA lacked an organizational
structure to support an effective civil rights program, (2) USDA's
process for resolving discrimination complaints about the delivery of
program benefits and services (program complaints)\2 was a failure,
and (3) USDA's system for addressing complaints of employment
discrimination (employment complaints) was untimely and unresponsive. 
The team made numerous recommendations to resolve these problems, one
of which was to combine the Department's civil rights functions in
one office that reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for
Administration--USDA's top civil rights official.  This was done in
March 1997. 

The newly consolidated Office of Civil Rights (OCR) made one of its
top priorities the resolution of the Department's large backlog of
program and employment complaints.  OCR defines backlog complaints as
complaints that were active before November 1, 1997; complaints filed
with OCR on or after November 1, 1997, are considered "new"
complaints.  New program complaints are processed under procedures
and time frames that were developed in conjunction with a
recommendation in the Civil Rights Action Team's report.  Employment
complaints--both new and backlog cases--are to be processed under the
governmentwide regulations that govern equal employment opportunity
complaints.  These regulations require, among other things, that a
federal agency complete an investigation of a complaint and issue an
investigation report within 180 days from the date the complaint was
formally filed.\3

Concerned about allegations of management weaknesses and of
discrimination in the Department, you asked us to (1) examine the
timeliness of OCR's processing and closing of program and employment
discrimination complaints and (2) identify the reasons for delays in
the processes. 


--------------------
\1 Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture:  A
Report by the Civil Rights Action Team, U.S.  Department of
Agriculture (Feb.  1997). 

\2 A program complaint might allege, for example, that a USDA
official discriminated against a farmer on the basis of race by
failing to process a loan application. 

\3 The 180-day limit may be extended another 90 days in certain
instances. 


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

USDA's efforts to process discrimination complaints are falling short
of its goals for closing its complaint backlog--one of the
Secretary's top priorities.  The dates USDA established for closing
its backlogs of program and employment discrimination complaints have
been extended several times beyond its initial target date of July 1,
1997.  As of October 1, 1998, USDA had closed only 44 percent of its
1,088 backlog program cases and 64 percent of its 2,142 backlog
employment cases.  Its most recent goal was to close all remaining
backlog cases by December 31, 1998\4 --the fourth deadline it has set
for backlog program cases and its third deadline for backlog
employment cases.  In addition, (1) many of USDA's new program cases
are missing interim milestones and are therefore not on track for
being closed in a timely manner and (2) the time spent processing its
employment cases continues to far exceed federally mandated time
frames.  For example, on October 1, 1998, 82 percent of the 397
employment cases being investigated by USDA had already exceeded the
180-day mandated time frame for investigations. 

Although USDA has provided additional resources to enhance its
capabilities to address discrimination complaints, a number of
problems are impeding its efforts to process complaints more
expeditiously.  These problems include such long-standing issues as
continuing management turnover and reorganizations in the Office of
Civil Rights; inadequate staff and managerial expertise; a lack of
clear, up-to-date guidance and procedures; and poor working
relationships and communication within the Office of Civil Rights and
between the office and other USDA entities.  Furthermore, the
Department is not consistently using alternative dispute resolution
techniques, such as mediation, to address workplace and other
disputes before they become formal employment complaints.  Federal
law and regulations encourage the use of alternative dispute
resolution in resolving federal workplace and other disputes. 


--------------------
\4 As of Jan.  20, 1999, USDA had not responded to our request for
information on whether or not it had met its Dec.  31, 1998, goal of
closing its backlog of program and employment complaint cases. 


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

The past few years have been a period of upheaval for civil rights at
USDA.  During this period, an increasing number of USDA employees
have filed discrimination complaints.  Also, in December 1996, a
group of minority farmers demonstrated in front of the White House to
protest what they viewed as systemic, long-standing discrimination in
the Department's agricultural lending programs.  In October 1997,
minority farmers filed a class action lawsuit that charged USDA with
discrimination in lending and other departmental farm programs
between 1983 and 1997 and failure to investigate discrimination
complaints.\5 In addition, recent legislation would enable past
complainants either to bring suit or to obtain a departmental hearing
on the record.  This legislation waives the statute of limitations\6
for suits alleging discrimination between 1981 and 1996 that were
filed with the Department before July 1, 1997. 

Concerned about allegations of discrimination, the Secretary of
Agriculture, in December 1996, appointed the Civil Rights Action Team
to review civil rights issues and develop recommendations to address
institutional problems.  The team held a dozen "listening sessions"
with USDA customers and employees throughout the country before
issuing its report in February 1997.  The report made 92
recommendations to address four major problem areas:  (1) the
organizational structure of civil rights, (2) the lack of management
commitment to civil rights, (3) program delivery and outreach, and
(4) workforce diversity and employment practices.  Shortly after the
report was issued, the Secretary established a Civil Rights
Implementation Team to implement the report's recommendations. 
Several months later, in testimony before the House Committee on
Agriculture, the Secretary stated that his goal was to get USDA out
from under the past and have it emerge as the federal civil rights
leader. 

Regarding organizational issues, the action team's report noted that
USDA's civil rights program had been in a persistent state of chaos
because of numerous changes since the 1980s.  The last reorganization
prior to the team's report had occurred in October 1995, when
departmental civil rights responsibilities were divided between two
offices with two separate leaders--one office was responsible for
employment and program discrimination complaints and one for all
remaining civil rights issues, including the development of civil
rights policy.  In addition, most USDA agencies had their own civil
rights offices that performed some complaint-processing functions. 
According to the report, this fragmentation of responsibilities left
employees and customers (such as farmers) confused about where to go
for help. 

In March 1997, USDA consolidated its departmental civil rights
functions under a new Office of Civil Rights (OCR).  While OCR has
overall responsibility for the Department's civil rights program,
USDA's agencies continue to have their own civil rights offices that
are responsible for ensuring agency-level compliance with civil
rights laws and regulations.\7 OCR's fiscal year 1999 budget is about
$13 million, about the same as in the previous year.  As of October
1, 1998, OCR had about 120 staff.  OCR is undergoing another
reorganization that was expected to be effective January 15, 1999.\8
Under this reorganization, the office will consist of nine divisions,
as shown in figure 1. 

   Figure 1:  Proposed
   Reorganization of USDA's Office
   of Civil Rights

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  USDA's Office of Civil Rights. 

The reorganization will add three new divisions to the current
structure--the Program Adjudication, Program Compliance, and Resource
Management Staff divisions.\9 It also creates a new position of
Deputy Director for Systems and Administration, which was filled in
September 1998.  The Program Investigations and Adjudication
Divisions will be responsible for processing program complaints; the
Employment Complaints Division will continue to be responsible for
processing employment complaints.  While there are similarities in
some of the steps followed in processing the two types of complaints
(such as conducting an investigation and determining whether
discrimination has occurred), the specific procedures used to process
them and the laws and regulations that govern them are different. 


--------------------
\5 Pigford v.  Glickman, Civil Action No.  97-1978 (D.D.C.  filed
Oct.  23, 1997).  On Oct.  9, 1998, the district court certified that
the persons bringing the suit could represent the class of minority
farmers, thereby allowing the case to continue as a class action.  A
multimillion-dollar settlement agreement was announced on Jan.  5,
1999.  According to USDA, the district court judge presiding over the
case is expected to give final approval to the agreement in March
1999.  USDA's civil rights investigative unit was dismantled in 1983. 
After that, USDA agencies conducted preliminary inquiries of program
discrimination complaints that had been filed against them.  However,
in May 1997, OCR assumed authority for investigating cases. 

\6 The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations Act, 1999
(P.L.  105-277, Oct.  21, 1998, division A, sec.  101(a), title VII,
section 741).  The statute of limitations limits the time a plaintiff
may bring an action in court against a defendant. 

\7 USDA has 12 agency civil rights offices--in some instances,
several agencies in a mission area share a civil rights office.  The
directors of these offices report to their agency or mission area
heads but receive guidance and oversight from OCR. 

\8 As of Jan.  20, 1999, USDA had not responded to our request for
information on whether the reorganization was effective on Jan.  15,
1999. 

\9 The Program Adjudication Division will review reports of
investigations and draft final agency decisions on program
complaints; the Program Compliance Division will conduct employment
and program compliance reviews; and the Resource Management Staff
Division will be responsible for such issues as contracting, budget,
travel, and training.  Prior to the reorganization, compliance
reviews and adjudications were part of the Program Investigations
Division.  Several staff positions (e.g., special and confidential
assistants, secretaries, and an agricultural economist) are not shown
on the organizational chart. 


      PROGRAM DISCRIMINATION
      COMPLAINTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

USDA is responsible for enforcing many statutes, regulations, and
executive orders that prohibit discrimination on such grounds as
race, color, national origin, and age in programs or activities that
it conducts (conducted programs) and in programs for which it
provides federal financial assistance (assisted programs).  USDA's
conducted programs (such as farm loan programs) are administered
directly to participants through agency offices; USDA's assisted
programs are those in which nonfederal organizations (such as the
states) are responsible for providing federal assistance to
participants, such as those in the Food Stamp Program.\10 OCR is
responsible for processing complaints for both conducted and assisted
programs, but the great majority of its cases arise from conducted
programs.  However, other than requiring that complaints generally be
filed within 180 days from the date the person knew or should have
known of the alleged discrimination (conducted programs) or the date
of the alleged discrimination (assisted programs), USDA's codified
regulations provide few specifics on the program complaint
process.\11

On November 1, 1997, OCR began implementing a new system for
processing discrimination complaints in conducted programs.  For
complaints accepted on or after that date, OCR requires that they be
resolved (through dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, or decision)
within 180 days from the date the complaint is accepted.  The system
also establishes interim time frames, including a requirement that
the USDA agency against which the complaint was filed provide OCR,
within 24 days, its perspective on the complainant's allegations. 

As of October 1, 1998, OCR had 611 cases remaining in the program
complaint backlog and 193 new program cases.  In fiscal year 1998,
OCR had about 30 staff assigned to processing new and backlog program
complaints.  The vast majority of program complaints come out of the
programs conducted by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Rural
Housing Service.  As of October 1, 1998, 65 percent and 23 percent of
new open cases were related to FSA and Rural Housing Service
programs, respectively, as were 61 percent and 21 percent of open
backlog cases. 


--------------------
\10 According to an OCR official, most assisted program complaints
concern (1) alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
3601-3619) filed against participants in housing-related activities,
which are administered by USDA and investigated by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, or (2) allegations against USDA's Food
and Nutrition Service programs, such as the Food Stamp Program. 

\11 In addition, a person who believes he or she has been
discriminated against in a USDA-assisted or -conducted program may
file a case in court instead of filing an administrative complaint. 


      EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
      COMPLAINTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Several statutes protect federal employees against discrimination in
employment--particularly title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, which makes it illegal to discriminate in employment on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\12

Employment discrimination complaints within USDA are to be processed
under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations
that apply to executive branch employees.  These regulations also
establish processing time requirements for each stage of the
complaint process. 

Under EEOC regulations, before filing a formal complaint, employees
who believe that they have been discriminated against must first
contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45
days of the alleged discrimination to attempt to informally resolve
the complaint.\13 If this effort is unsuccessful, USDA employees can
file a formal complaint with OCR, which either accepts or dismisses
it.  OCR may dismiss a complaint if it was improperly filed--for
example, if it was not first brought to the attention of an EEO
counselor or formally filed within prescribed time limits.\14 If OCR
accepts the complaint, it investigates and issues an investigation
report.  Under EEOC regulations, OCR must generally complete these
activities within 180 days from the date of the complainant's formal
filing. 

After receiving the investigation report, an employee who pursues a
complaint has 30 days to either (1) request a hearing before an EEOC
administrative judge, who issues a recommended decision that the
agency can accept, reject, or modify in making its final decision or
(2) forgo a hearing and ask for a final agency decision.  When there
is no EEOC hearing, regulations require that the complaint be decided
within 270 days from the filing date; with an EEOC hearing, the
complaint must be decided within 450 days from the filing date.  An
employee dissatisfied with an agency decision to dismiss a complaint
or with a final agency decision may appeal to EEOC or file a civil
action in a federal district court.  Figure 2 shows the process and
time frames for federal employment complaints as prescribed in EEOC
regulations. 

   Figure 2:  Process and Time
   Frames for Federal Employment
   Complaints

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  If a complainant requests an EEOC hearing, an additional 180
days are allowed for the hearing, for a total of 450 days for the
entire process. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of 29 C.F.R.  part 1614 and EEOC Management
Directive 110. 

While OCR has categorized its employment cases into backlog cases and
new cases, all employment cases are to be processed according to EEOC
regulations. 

As of October 1, 1998, OCR had 761 employment complaint cases
remaining in the backlog and 701 new cases, for a total of 1,462
cases in its employment complaint inventory.  The largest percentage
(about 21 percent) of these cases were from the Forest Service,
USDA's largest agency, followed by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, which accounted for 14 percent.  OCR has about 30
staff members responsible for processing employment complaints. 
Currently, these complaints are processed along functional lines,
with staff specializing in various phases of the complaint process,
such as acceptance/dismissal, report of investigation, and
adjudication (drafting a final agency decision). 

Since the early 1990s, both the federal and private sectors have seen
a dramatic increase in the number of workplace discrimination
complaints and the cost and time involved in trying to resolve them. 
To address these complaints, private companies and federal agencies,
including USDA, have turned to alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
as a way of resolving workplace problems.\15 ADR includes a variety
of dispute resolution techniques that usually involve intervention or
facilitation by a neutral third party.  Examples of ADR techniques
include mediation, arbitration, and dispute resolution boards. 


--------------------
\12 Other statutes protect federal employees from discrimination in
such areas as age and disability. 

\13 In USDA, EEO counselors work in agency civil rights offices and
attempt to informally resolve the employment complaint.  Also, in
certain instances, the 45-day limit may be extended. 

\14 Other reasons for dismissal include the inability to locate the
complainant, the complainant's failure to provide information to the
agency, or the complainant's failure to accept a full settlement
offer.  In addition to dismissal, employment complaint cases can be
closed (1) if the complainant withdraws the case, (2) through
settlement, or (3) through a final agency decision on the case's
merits. 

\15 In a previous report, we noted that, overall, ADR has been more
widely available within private firms than among federal agencies. 
See Alternative Dispute Resolution:  Employers' Experiences With ADR
in the Workplace (GAO/GGD-97-157, Aug.  12, 1997). 


   USDA IS NOT PROCESSING CASES IN
   A TIMELY MANNER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

OCR is not processing discrimination complaints within its own
deadlines for program complaints or within the EEOC requirements for
employment complaints.  OCR did not meet the original goal of
resolving its backlog of program and employment complaints within 120
days after the issuance of the Civil Rights Action Team's report, and
its deadline for closing the backlog of complaints has been extended
several times.  In addition, (1) OCR's new program cases are often
missing interim milestones and are not on track for being closed in a
timely manner and (2) employment cases are continuing to exceed EEOC
time frames. 


      SUBSTANTIAL BACKLOGS REMAIN,
      AND OCR HAS EXTENDED
      DEADLINES FOR CLOSURE
      SEVERAL TIMES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As of October 1, 1998, OCR had closed only 477 (or 44 percent) of its
backlog of 1,088 program cases and 1,381 (or 64 percent) of its
backlog of 2,142 employment cases.  OCR's goal was to close all
remaining backlog cases by December 31, 1998--its fourth deadline for
backlog program cases and its third deadline for backlog employment
cases. 

The initial goal of July 1, 1997, for closing the backlog of program
cases was extended first to July 1, 1998, and then to October 1,
1998.  Table 1 shows the status of the backlog program cases as of
July 1 and October 1, 1998.  The initial date of July 1, 1997, is not
included because OCR could not determine the number of cases in its
program backlog until November 1, 1997. 



                                Table 1
                
                Status of Backlog Program Cases, July 1
                          and October 1, 1998

                                   Cases closed      Cases remaining
                                ------------------  ------------------
Deadline                          Number   Percent    Number   Percent
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
July 1, 1998                         400        37       688        63
Oct. 1, 1998                         477        44       611        56
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of USDA's data. 

In September 1998, USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported
that OCR had not made significant progress in reducing its backlog of
program complaints nor attained the efficiency needed to
systematically reduce its caseload.\16 To address this impasse, the
OIG recommended that the Secretary convene a complaint resolution
task force (independent of OCR) to immediately assume control of the
backlog. 

In response, OCR established a task force, consisting of six teams,
that began work on October 19, 1998, to review the backlog of open
program cases\17 and some closed program cases that may not have been
adequately processed and reviewed.  Four teams were to review about
250 backlog open cases (most of which had been investigated) to
recommend resolution actions, and two were to review about 500
backlog cases that were closed administratively.\18 Each team
includes agency staff familiar with the agency's programs as well as
OCR staff and a legal adviser from the Office of General Counsel
(OGC).  According to the Director of OCR, the groups' mandate was to
close all backlog cases under review by December 31, 1998. 

With regard to backlog employment cases, USDA's goal for closure was
also December 31, 1998.  As with program complaints, July 1, 1997,
was the initial target date for resolving backlog employment cases. 
When this date was not met, a second date of July 1, 1998, was
established.  As of October 1, 1998, 1,381 (or 64 percent) of the
2,142 backlog employment cases, had been closed.  OCR's Employment
Complaints Division has been focusing its resources on processing the
backlog cases in order to meet its December 31 goal. 


--------------------
\16 Evaluation of the Office of Civil Rights' Efforts to Reduce the
Backlog of Program Complaints (Evaluation Report No.  60801-1-Hq,
Sept.  1998).  This report was the OIG's fifth evaluation of USDA's
effort to reduce the backlog of program complaints and to improve the
complaint-processing system. 

\17 Open cases that involve complainants who are part of the class
action lawsuit were not to be reviewed by the task force. 

\18 A case may be closed administratively if it fails to comply with
legal or procedural requirements--for example, if the complainant
fails to respond to OCR's request for additional information or is
not a member of a protected class. 


      PROCESSING OF NEW PROGRAM
      COMPLAINTS OFTEN FALLS SHORT
      OF INTERIM GOALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

As discussed, effective November 1, 1997, USDA established the goal
of closing each new program complaint within 180 days as well as
interim time frames for processing these complaints.  At any time in
the process, a complainant may withdraw or settle the complaint. 

Before a complaint is accepted as a new complaint, OCR reviews it to
determine its basis (such as racial discrimination) and whether it
falls within OCR's jurisdiction.  If more information is needed, OCR
may request it from the complainant.  Even though several months may
be spent obtaining and reviewing information from the complainant,
OCR does not count this time as part of the 180 days that it has to
close new cases.  OCR then accepts the complaint and determines if
the case should be closed administratively or processed (if, for
example, it should be investigated).  Cases closed for administrative
reasons are often shown in OCR's reports as having been closed on the
same day they were accepted as a complaint.  For example, as of
October 1, 1998, 101 of the 130 new program cases OCR had closed were
reported as closed on the first day of the process. 

OCR's operations manual for program complaints, developed by the
Civil Rights Implementation Team, includes time frames for the stages
in the program complaint process, as shown in table 2. 



                                Table 2
                
                Stages in the Program Complaint Process
                       and Associated Time Frames

Processing stage                               Number of calendar days
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
OCR acknowledges complaint                                           3
Agency charged with discrimination                                  24
 responds to OCR
OCR conducts preliminary inquiry                                     6
OCR (1) closes case through dismissal\a                              5
 or referral or (2) proceeds to
 investigation
OCR investigates and drafts report                                  49
OCR director and OGC, if requested,                                 14
 review report
OCR director issues decision on case\b                               7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Although OCR's operations manual calls for offering the
complainant a mediation option at the time the complaint is
acknowledged, OCR has not offered mediation, and this stage is not
included in the table.  In addition, it should be noted that while
the manual calls for most cases to be resolved within 180 days, the
cumulative number of days in the complaint process stages total less
than 180 days. 

\a This stage may take up to 14 days if dismissal is under
consideration to ensure a fully informed decision and adequate
documentation of the reasons for dismissal. 

\b When discrimination is found in cases involving a loan subject to
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, damages must be determined before a
final decision is made.  The damages determination and decision take
an estimated 64 days. 

Source:  USDA. 

Even though OCR has been using this new system for over a year, many
of its cases are still in the early stages of the process--as of
October 1, 1998, 44 percent were in the agency response stage.  Many
of these complaints have already missed the time frames established
for the initial stages, with serious delays occurring in the 24-day
agency response stage.  (See table 3.) The Acting Assistant Secretary
for Administration expressed concern that the agencies' failure to
respond in a timely manner may hinder OCR's efforts to achieve its
goal of processing complaints within 180 days.  As of October 1,
1998, 69 cases had exceeded the 180-day goal for closing new program
cases.\19



                          Table 3
          
           Timeliness of Agency Responses, as of
                      October 1, 1998

                Agency      Agency
             responses   responses
Agency        received    received                 Average
responses      on time  late (more      Agency     days to
requested   (within 24     than 24   responses     receive
by OCR\a         days)       days)     overdue    response
----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
186\b                3          69          85          91
----------------------------------------------------------
Note :  The agency responses include both open and closed cases. 

\a An agency response is to include, among other things, (1) a
statement of agreement or disagreement with the allegations and an
explanation for any disagreements; (2) the agency's perspective of
the events that led to the filing; (3) the criteria the agency used
to justify its position; and (4) additional relevant material, such
as the complainant's file. 

\b In addition, 23 of the requested responses are not yet due, and 6
cases were closed without receiving the requested agency responses. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of USDA's data. 

Although fewer cases have completed the 49-day investigation stage,
delays are occurring here as well.  As of October 1, 1998, the five
cases that had completed this stage had spent an average of 150 days
in it. 

USDA is currently revising its program complaint process.  According
to the Director, as of November 20, 1998, departmental regulations
describing the revised program have been cleared for issuance and are
awaiting the Secretary's signature.\20 The revised program complaint
process is expected to go into effect by spring 1999. 


--------------------
\19 These include cases that are still open as well as those that
have been closed. 

\20 In its Jan.  20, 1999, comments on our draft report, USDA stated
that it is currently revising the departmental regulation that
documents the processing of complaints of discrimination.  See app. 
II for the complete text of USDA's comments. 


      USDA'S RECORD FOR PROCESSING
      EMPLOYMENT COMPLAINTS HAS
      BEEN AMONG THE WORST IN THE
      FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

USDA has been unable to process employment complaints within the
regulatory time frames.  Its record for processing complaints is
particularly troublesome when compared over the years with the
average processing times for the rest of the federal government.  For
example, in fiscal year 1991, USDA's average processing time for
employment complaints was 675 days, over twice the governmentwide
average of 341 days.\21 In fiscal year 1997--the latest period for
which governmentwide data are available from EEOC--USDA's average
processing time was 669 days, compared with the governmentwide
average of 391 days. 

Similarly, in fiscal year 1997, USDA took an average of about 1,100
days, or about 3 years, to decide employment cases in which there was
no EEOC hearing--over 4 times as long as the 270-day limit and over
twice the governmentwide average of 529 days.  Furthermore, 98
percent of USDA's investigations exceeded the 180-day EEOC standard
for completing an investigation from the date the complaint was
filed, compared with a governmentwide average of 76 percent of cases
exceeding the standard.  (See table 4.)



                                Table 4
                
                 Time Taken by USDA to Investigate and
                    Close Employment Complaint Cases
                 Compared with Other Federal Agencies,
                            Fiscal Year 1997

                                              Percent of
                                    Number         cases       Average
                               of cases in     exceeding       days to
                              inventory at      180 days        decide
                                     close       through        a case
                                 of fiscal  investigatio       without
Agency                                year           n\a     hearing\b
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Veterans Affairs                     2,749            43           574
Navy\c                               2,146            79           734
Justice                              2,020            66         1,016
Army\c                               1,882            48           313
======================================================================
USDA                                 1,494            98         1,101
Treasury                             1,467            45           544
Air Force\c                          1,301            63           244
Transportation                         815            71           496
Health and Human Services              776            67           893

======================================================================
Governmentwide                      34,286            76           529
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Comparison data are provided for the eight agencies with case
inventories closest in size to USDA's (four have more cases, and four
have fewer). 

\a EEOC regulations stipulate that agencies take no more than 180
days to complete an investigation, including the time the agency
takes to decide whether to accept or dismiss the case. 

\b Agencies have 270 days to issue a final agency decision in a case
without an EEOC hearing (180 days to accept/dismiss and investigate,
30 days for the complainant to decide whether to request an EEOC
hearing, and 60 days for the final agency decision). 

\c The data for military agencies represent complaints by civil
service employees. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of EEOC's data. 

In addition to using EEOC's governmentwide data, we also used USDA's
employment complaint data from its own database.  Our analysis of
USDA's open employment cases shows that most are exceeding EEOC
standards for processing times.  We did not distinguish between new
and backlog employment cases, since they are both processed under the
same EEOC-regulated system and are considered to be part of USDA's
inventory of open employment cases.  New and backlog employment cases
are distinguishable from one another only because they were filed
either before or after November 1, 1997. 

Table 5 shows the number of cases in the investigation and final
agency decision stages as of October 1, 1998.  Of the cases that have
been accepted and are being investigated, 82 percent (325 cases) had
already exceeded the 180-day limit, with 405 days being the average
time that cases had been in this stage.  Similarly, cases had been in
the final agency decision stage\22 for an average of 180 days--120
days more than the 60 days required by EEOC regulations.  These are
cases still pending in their respective stages--thus, the final
number of days to complete the stages will be higher than that shown
in table 5. 



                                Table 5
                
                Cases in Investigation and Final Agency
                   Decision Stages of the Employment
                Complaint Process, as of October 1, 1998

                                 Average
                                  number
                                 of days    Number   Percent
                                   cases  of cases  of cases      EEOC
                        Number      have  exceedin  exceedin  standard
                      of cases   been in    g EEOC    g EEOC      time
Processing stage      in stage     stage  standard  standard     frame
--------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Investigation\a            397       405       325        82       180
Final agency               231       180       146        63        60
 decision\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes the time taken by OCR to accept a case and assign it to
an investigator and excludes cases that are still in the
acceptance/dismissal phase. 

\b Excludes cases in which the final agency decision is being made
after an EEOC hearing. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of USDA's data. 


--------------------
\21 Overall processing time is the average time it takes to close
cases through dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, or final agency
decision with or without an EEOC hearing. 

\22 Excludes cases where final agency decision is being made after an
EEOC hearing. 


   SEVERAL FACTORS HINDER EFFORTS
   TO IMPROVE TIMELINESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Although USDA has taken a number of actions to strengthen its civil
rights processes, such as providing additional resources for its
program complaint process, several problems are impeding its efforts
to process complaints more efficiently.  First, conditions that
caused delays in the past continue to undermine current
efforts--continuing management turnover and reorganizations in OCR;
inadequate staff and management expertise; a lack of clear,
up-to-date guidance and procedures; and poor working relationships
and communication within OCR and between OCR and other USDA entities. 
Second, USDA and its agencies are not consistently using alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) techniques with a neutral third party to
address workplace and other disputes.  ADR has the potential to
reduce the number of employment complaints, thereby lessening OCR's
administrative burden and the time required to process these
complaints. 


      MANAGEMENT TURNOVER AND
      REORGANIZATIONS IN OCR
      CONTINUE TO CREATE
      INSTABILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

OCR's management turnover and reorganizations continue to be serious
obstacles to improving the management of USDA's civil rights program. 
These problems are long-standing.  Numerous reorganizations since the
1980s had left USDA's civil rights programs in a "persistent state of
chaos," according to the Civil Rights Action Team's report, which
also noted that the turnover of civil rights directors had
contributed to the disarray. 

Similarly, management changes in the civil rights office have been
frequent:  Since October 1990, the office has had eight directors;
between 1991 and 1998, six individuals served as Chief of the Program
Investigations Division; and since January 1993, the Employment
Complaints Division has had eight chiefs.\23 Furthermore, the
Department's civil rights program has been reorganized three times
since 1993, resulting in numerous changes at the division and staff
levels.  OCR's latest reorganization was expected to be completed by
mid-January 1999. 

According to USDA civil rights officials and OIG reports, the
instability resulting from this ongoing cycle of management turnover
and reorganizations has affected the quality of OCR's work and
contributed to poor morale and low productivity.  For example: 

  -- Previous civil rights directors have had many agendas and
     different priorities, according to the Acting Assistant
     Secretary for Administration.  The resulting lack of
     consistency, she believes, is a major problem affecting the
     quality of OCR's work.  Furthermore, the frequent changes in
     leadership in the Employment Complaints Division have been a
     major cause of the delays in processing employment
     discrimination complaints. 

  -- Keeping staff motivated is difficult because of continually
     changing priorities, according to a former Chief of the
     Employment Complaints Division.  In addition, a manager from
     that division said that management changes have created an
     environment in which staff are not held accountable for their
     work. 

  -- The OIG's September 1998 report stated that staff who process
     program complaints had expressed concern about the impact of
     management turnover.  Staff felt that the turnover resulted in a
     lack of consistent direction and in a changing vision of OCR's
     purpose. 

  -- An EEO counselor said that OCR was unable to finalize and issue
     policies because of the lack of continuity resulting from
     ongoing reorganizations. 

In addition to these problems, USDA officials said that management
and staff (particularly those involved in processing program
complaints) have been intermittently diverted from their day-to-day
activities to respond to a court order resulting from a lawsuit
brought against USDA by minority farmers.  For example, the OIG
reported in September 1998 that, as part of the court order, OCR
staff had to collect and copy over 5 million pages of county files
over a 2-week period in November 1997. 


--------------------
\23 These positions have been held in either a permanent or an acting
capacity. 


      INADEQUATE EXPERTISE HAS
      CONTRIBUTED TO PROCESSING
      DELAYS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Inadequate staff and management expertise continues to be a
significant obstacle to improving the timely processing of
discrimination complaints, according to USDA civil rights officials. 
The Civil Rights Action Team's report noted that USDA employees
generally viewed the Department's civil rights offices as a "dumping
ground" for many staff who had settled their EEO complaints.  The
issue of inadequate staff expertise surfaced on many occasions during
our review.  For example: 

  -- A former OCR director stated that while his priority on becoming
     director in March 1997 had been to resolve complaints, he soon
     realized that the office lacked the necessary staff mix and
     expertise to effectively carry out its functions.  He said he
     ultimately spent much of his time hiring new staff to build up
     capabilities for processing program complaints, including 14
     permanent investigators, 14 temporary investigators, and a
     number of economists, statisticians, and computer specialists. 
     Shortly before leaving USDA in May 1998, he told us that the
     processing of employment complaints was taking too long and that
     more training was needed to improve staff efficiency in the
     Employment Complaints Division. 

  -- Several USDA officials said that low productivity was a problem
     in the Employment Complaints Division--they attributed this to
     employees not having adequate training or the right skills to
     function efficiently.  These concerns were reiterated by a
     former deputy director for employment, who said that low
     employee productivity, low performance expectations, and
     inadequate training had contributed to delays in processing
     employment complaints. 

  -- In September 1998, the OIG reported that staff hired in November
     1997 as investigators in the Program Investigations Division
     were made adjudicators several months later because of
     bottlenecks in the adjudication process.  However, these
     individuals were not trained in reviewing investigation reports
     and writing final agency decisions.  Furthermore, they had
     virtually no knowledge of the complexities of USDA programs.  As
     a result, OGC has had to return numerous drafts of final agency
     decisions prepared by the adjudicators for extensive revisions. 

The OIG also reported that high-level civil rights officials lacked
civil rights experience or expertise.  For example, the former OCR
director, appointed in March 1997, was experienced in USDA programs
but lacked a strong civil rights background.  Similarly, OCR's former
deputy director for programs had an advanced degree in statistics but
lacked a background in civil rights. 

According to the Acting Assistant Secretary, upgrading management and
staff resources within OCR is her top priority.  She cited inadequate
staff expertise as an initial obstacle in resolving the backlog of
program complaints and the lack of qualified staff as a significant
contributor to delays in processing employment complaints. 
Furthermore, even though many new staff had recently been hired
(particularly in the Program Investigations Division), many
individuals still lack the skills needed for their positions.  To
address this issue, she and the Director of OCR have developed a list
of 36 staff members (almost one-third of OCR's staff) that she
described as being inappropriately placed in their current positions. 
These staff were identified by OCR managers or had requested
transfers out of OCR.  As of mid-November 1998, OCR was working with
USDA's personnel office to develop procedures for placing these
individuals in other positions within USDA.  The Director said that
all 36 positions will be refilled with qualified individuals. 

While managers cited a need for additional training to build
expertise, funding for training has been scarce.  For example,
managers in the Employment Complaints Division told us they had no
budget for training and that staff had received minimal training in
the past 3 years.  The chief of that division gave us a detailed list
of training that managers and staff felt was needed to improve their
skills; however, OCR was unable to fund the training requests. 
Similarly, for staff in the Program Investigations Division, the OIG
reported in September 1998 that training for specific job
responsibilities appeared to be lacking. 

The Director of OCR said that during the summer of 1998, OCR's Policy
and Planning Division provided in-house training on a range of topics
related to civil rights.  According to the Director, however, the
training was inadequate and did not thoroughly address all aspects of
the process for handling discrimination complaints.  She plans to
hire a training coordinator to develop a comprehensive program using
outside contractors. 


      CLEAR, UP-TO-DATE GUIDANCE
      AND PROCEDURES ARE LACKING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

USDA does not have clear, up-to-date guidance and procedures for its
program or employment complaints.  Specifically, USDA has not issued
departmental regulations, which establish program policy and
prescribe procedures, for either type of complaint.  In addition, its
operations manuals, which provide more detailed and technical
guidance and instructions than do the regulations, do not accurately
reflect the existing processes for program and employment complaints. 


         PROGRAM COMPLAINT
         GUIDANCE AND PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.1

USDA has not issued departmentwide policies and procedures governing
the receipt, handling, and resolution of program discrimination
complaints within established time frames.  In USDA, this level of
guidance is typically issued as a departmental regulation.  In
December 1994, the OIG recommended that USDA develop a departmental
regulation for the process to handle program discrimination
complaints.  A revision to an existing regulation on civil rights
compliance reviews was drafted to incorporate the processing of
program complaints, but it was never made final.  In September 1998,
the OIG recommended that USDA issue, within 2 months, departmental
regulations governing the receipt, processing, and resolution of
discrimination complaints or consider an alternate means of hastening
the issuance of this guidance.  USDA officials stated that they are
revising the current program complaint process and that, as of
November 20, 1998, departmental regulations for both conducted and
assisted programs reflecting the revisions had been cleared for
issuance and were awaiting the Secretary's signature.\24

USDA's operations manuals are intended to provide technical guidance
and instructions to civil rights staff.  However, OCR has no
operations manual for assisted programs, and its operations manual
for conducted programs does not accurately reflect the program
complaint process as it has been implemented over the past year.  For
example, the manual says that once OCR receives a complaint, it may
give the complainant up to 20 days to supply additional information
that will enable it to process the complaint.  If the information is
not provided within that time, the manual states that OCR is to
dismiss the complaint.  In practice, however, OCR does not dismiss
cases after 20 days if it lacks needed information.  Rather, OCR
often spends several months obtaining and reviewing the information
and then accepts the case.  As noted earlier, this time is not
counted as part of the 180 days that OCR has to close new cases.  In
addition, although the manual states that complainants will be given
the option of mediation by a neutral third party in order to resolve
the complaint, USDA has not established procedures or guidance for
using mediation and, as a result, does not routinely offer it.  The
Director of USDA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center has
proposed conducting a pilot test for program complaint mediation;
however, the proposal has not been acted upon. 

The Director of OCR said that once departmental regulations are
issued for the revised program complaint process, the office would
revise the operations manual to reflect the new process.  However,
she could not provide a target date for the issuance of a revised
manual. 


--------------------
\24 In commenting on our draft report, USDA stated that it is
currently revising the departmental regulation that documents the
processing of discrimination complaints.  See app.  II for the
complete text of USDA's comments. 


         EMPLOYMENT COMPLAINT
         GUIDANCE AND PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.2

USDA's process for handling employment discrimination complaints is
governed by EEOC regulations.  However, USDA lacks departmental
regulations to implement the EEOC regulations.  USDA's Associate
General Counsel for Civil Rights stated that USDA guidance relating
to the EEOC regulations had lapsed in 1994 and that several attempts
to revise and update the Department's regulations were started but
never completed.  The Director of OCR said that, as of November 20,
1998, revised employment complaint regulations had been cleared for
issuance and were awaiting the Secretary's signature.\25

These regulations will establish departmental procedures for handling
employment complaints that are consistent with current practices and
incorporate additional prohibited conduct, such as discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation.\26

Furthermore, the Employment Complaints Division's draft operations
manual was developed in 1996, before the civil rights functions were
reorganized.  Thus, parts of the manual do not reflect recent
organizational and staff changes.  For example, USDA's regional
service centers\27 and the dispute resolution boards, both cited in
the draft operations manual, no longer exist.  In addition, staff
responsibilities for the various phases of the employment complaint
process have changed, invalidating many of the manual's standard
operating procedures.  According to the Director of OCR, there are no
immediate plans to update the operations manual. 

An EEOC official told us that federal agencies should have an
operations manual to (1) facilitate compliance with EEOC regulations,
(2) standardize processes throughout the agency, and (3) ameliorate
the impact of management and staff turnover.  A civil rights official
in the Department of Transportation told us that her office was able
to minimize the impact of management and staff turnover by
standardizing its work processes, which are documented in a
comprehensive operations procedures manual. 


--------------------
\25 As of Jan.  20, 1999, USDA had not responded to our request for
information on whether the departmental regulations had been issued. 

\26 Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not
prohibited under EEOC regulations. 

\27 The centers housed the EEO counselors, who are now located in the
agencies' civil rights offices. 


      INADEQUATE WORKING
      RELATIONSHIPS AND
      COMMUNICATION COMPLICATE
      EFFORTS TO PROCESS
      COMPLAINTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Effective collaboration and communication are important since both
the program and employment complaint processes require the active
involvement of both the USDA agencies and OGC.  However, difficulties
in establishing effective working relationships and communication
between OCR and some USDA agencies, between OCR and OGC, and within
OCR have hindered efforts to process complaints more efficiently. 
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration said that OCR is
working to improve its relations with other USDA organizations.  She
noted that the rebuilding of relationships was necessary to enhance
OCR's effectiveness and the quality of its work.  Problems in working
relationships and communication are described below. 


         RELATIONSHIPS AND
         COMMUNICATION WITH USDA
         AGENCIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.1

OCR's implementation of the program complaint process is hindered by
agencies' disagreement about their role in the program complaint
process and by inadequate OCR guidance.  For example, civil rights
officials representing FSA and the Rural Housing Service--the two
agencies with the most program complaints--believe that the
requirement to provide the agency's response within 24 days is
unrealistic.  OCR officials, however, maintain that 24 days is
adequate for the limited response that they expect from the agencies. 
OCR's guidance on the agencies' role in the process was issued nearly
2 months after the process took effect, and USDA has not issued
departmental regulations on the program complaint process. 

In addition, agency civil rights officials pointed out that OCR has
not adequately consulted and communicated with their offices,
particularly during the development of policies and procedures.  For
example, according to the civil rights director for one agency, to
improve civil rights management at USDA, communication between OCR
and the agencies should be strengthened and made more systematic. 
Similarly, four of the eight EEO counselors we interviewed said that
improved communication with OCR would enable them to better assist
staff who had filed discrimination complaints.  Employees who file a
formal complaint with OCR often contact the counselor they dealt with
during the informal complaint stage for information on the status of
their case.  The counselors said they have had difficulties in
obtaining this information from OCR. 


         RELATIONSHIPS AND
         COMMUNICATION WITH OGC
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.2

OCR continues to experience difficulties in developing effective
working relationships with OGC, which has established a civil rights
division headed by an associate general counsel.  These difficulties
contribute to inefficiencies in processing program complaints.  For
example, in an April 1998 memo, OCR's Deputy Director for Programs
stated that delays in OGC's review of draft final agency decisions
had created bottlenecks that hindered the closing of backlog
complaints.  However, OGC officials said that their reviews have
taken longer than anticipated because many draft decisions needed
extensive revisions; they estimated that 50 to 90 percent were
returned to OCR to be rewritten.  The Associate General Counsel for
Civil Rights said that improved collaboration between his office and
OCR at key points in the program complaint process was needed to
improve the timeliness of OCR's handling of complaints. 

Regarding employment complaints, a Forest Service civil rights
official said that OGC should be more involved in preparing final
agency decisions.  She also said that having a civil rights attorney
dedicated to employment issues and readily available to respond to
questions from the agency's EEO counselors and from OCR staff would
be very useful.  The Associate General Counsel said that although his
office had initially focused on program complaints, it planned to
become increasingly involved with employment complaints.  At an
August 1998 OCR staff meeting, the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Administration acknowledged that OCR's relations with OGC had been
strained and reported that officials from these organizations
recently met to begin to address their differences. 


         RELATIONSHIPS AND
         COMMUNICATION WITHIN OCR
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4.3

Inadequate communication within OCR has contributed to low morale and
productivity within the office.  For example, according to a 1998 OIG
report, many employees in the Program Investigations Division said
they were never consulted when decisions were made, and that a lack
of consultation resulted in the establishment of timetables that they
viewed as unreasonable and unattainable.  Lack of communication can
be a problem even at the management level.  At an August 1998 staff
meeting, the Acting Assistant Secretary for administration
highlighted the importance of communication and cooperation within
OCR.  Nonetheless, communication within OCR remains a problem.  For
example, the OCR reorganization, which was expected to become
effective on January 15, 1999, created a new management position that
was filled in early September 1998.  However, as of October 1, 1998,
the individual who filled this position still did not know the full
extent of his duties and responsibilities. 


      USDA'S USE OF ADR IN
      ADDRESSING WORKPLACE AND
      OTHER DISPUTES HAS BEEN
      SPORADIC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

USDA is not consistently using ADR techniques to address workplace
and other disputes.  Furthermore, USDA has not used ADR in addressing
program complaints, even though its use is called for in OCR's
operations manual. 

ADR uses a variety of dispute resolution techniques that usually
involve intervention or facilitation by a neutral third party.  These
techniques range from more formal approaches--such as management
review boards and arbitration, when a neutral party typically rules
on the merits of the disputants' positions and imposes a solution--to
less formal techniques--such as mediation, when a neutral third party
helps craft a solution to the dispute.  When used early in a dispute,
before positions solidify, mediation can resolve workplace disputes
before they become formal complaints, thus helping to reduce
complaint-processing workloads.  For example, a 1996 EEOC study
concluded that a sizable number of federal employment discrimination
complaints may not involve discrimination issues at all but basic
communication problems for which mediation may be appropriate.\28

Recent laws and regulations have supported the use of ADR in
resolving federal workplace disputes.  For example, the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 gave federal agencies
the authority to use ADR to supplement existing methods of resolving
disputes.  The act required federal agencies to develop policies for
using ADR while providing maximum agency flexibility on whether and
how ADR should be used.  The act's coverage was broadened with the
passage of the 1996 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act.  In 1992,
EEOC added provisions to its employment complaint regulations
encouraging the use of ADR in all stages of the complaint process. 
And, in February 1998, EEOC issued a proposed rule, which has not
been made final, that will require all agencies to make ADR available
to employees at the informal complaint stage.  This rule is intended
to reduce the number of workplace disputes entering into the formal
employment complaint process. 

USDA has used several forms of ADR, primarily in the formal stages of
the employment complaint process.  In 1994, the Department
established dispute resolution boards to address the growing volume
of employment complaints.  The boards, which were discontinued in
April 1997, conducted hearings on about 12 to 15 percent of all
employment cases, assessed the cases, and tried to formally resolve
them.  A USDA evaluation found that while the boards helped settle
formal complaints, they were flawed.  The evaluation noted that the
boards were labor-intensive, were expensive, and did not address
disputes early enough or deal with the underlying issues of the
complaints.  Moreover, supervisors said that the boards undermined
their authority and that a "settle-at-all-costs" policy encouraged
employees to file complaints. 

Several USDA agencies have also used mediation to help settle formal
employment complaints.  From October 1997 through January 1998, the
Forest Service, in conjunction with the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Administration, used outside professional mediation to
address its backlog of unresolved employment complaints.  About
two-thirds of the backlog was resolved through settlements with
complainants.  However, the Forest Service's report on the initiative
noted that many of the complaints could have been resolved much
earlier (or may not have been filed at all) if managers had done a
better job of managing conflict at the outset.  During 1998, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and FSA also used
mediation to settle employment cases. 

Recognizing that USDA needed to address workplace disputes before
they escalated into formal complaints, the Secretary issued a
memorandum in May 1996 directing each USDA agency or mission area to
develop an ADR-based conflict resolution program outside of the
formal employment complaint process by November 30, 1996.\29 However,
as of October 1, 1998, USDA had only five ADR programs.  These
programs cover (1) all employees in 6 of USDA's 17 agencies, (2)
employees in two regions of one agency, and (3) some employees in one
Department-level office.  The Assistant Secretary for Administration
issued a guide to conflict resolution programs in October 1996. 
However, several agencies were waiting for an official USDA policy
statement before they developed their own ADR programs.  On December
21, 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a conflict management
policy.  Detailed guidance to agency heads regarding implementation
of the policy is expected to be issued by early February 1999. 

In another effort to expand the use of conflict resolution programs,
USDA established a Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center in March
1998.  The center's mission is to coordinate USDA's ADR and conflict
prevention efforts, thereby providing a forum for addressing
workplace conflict that may or may not involve discrimination.  The
center, however, has not been fully funded or staffed; current
staffing is limited to a director and a secretary.  According to the
Director, as of November 25, 1998, he had received authority to hire
one conflict management specialist.  In addition, up to three
additional specialists may be hired, depending on funding
availability in fiscal year 1999.  The Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center is responsible for leading the Department's
conflict management program. 

In addition to using ADR for employment complaints, some federal
agencies use ADR programs to resolve disputes relating to agency
programs or activities.  As previously discussed, OCR's operations
manual for program complaints calls for complainants to be offered
mediation early in the complaint process.  However, USDA officials
said that mediation is not being offered as part of the new program
complaint process and that it would be necessary to conduct a
mediation pilot before implementing a full-scale mediation program. 
Although USDA officials acknowledge that mediation can potentially
reduce the number of program-related complaints, little progress has
been made in developing a mediation pilot program.  Furthermore, the
December 1998 conflict management policy does not specify the use of
ADR in the program complaint process. 


--------------------
\28 ADR Study, U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office
of Federal Operations (Oct.  1996). 

\29 Conflict resolution programs are also referred to as conflict
prevention or complaint prevention programs.  In this report, we are
using the term "conflict resolution" as a catchall term for these
programs. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

It has been almost 2 years since the report by the Civil Rights
Action Team called for extensive reforms to USDA's civil rights
program.  While USDA has made an effort to enhance its program
complaint resources, many of the problems reported by the action team
still hinder efforts to improve processing timeliness:  Management
turnover and reorganizations continue unabated; inadequate staff
expertise is still a problem; USDA's civil rights guidance and
procedures remain inadequate; and poor communication between OCR and
other USDA entities continues to be a roadblock to increased
processing efficiency.  As a result, USDA continues to exceed the
EEOC time frames for processing employment complaints and to miss
important interim time frames in its program complaint process. 
Clearly, USDA's civil rights program has a long way to go before it
will achieve the Secretary's goal of making USDA the civil rights
leader in the federal government. 

The additional expertise brought to the program complaint process,
the plans of OCR's Director to improve training for civil rights
employees, and the actions under way to replace 36 OCR employees who
lack adequate civil rights expertise should, if effectively
implemented, help enhance staff expertise and strengthen OCR's
complaint-processing capabilities.  At the same time, however, USDA
must make a concerted effort to address the remaining long-standing
problems that have contributed to the processing delays.  For
example, while USDA may not be able to eliminate management turnover,
the impact of this turnover can be ameliorated by having clear,
up-to-date guidance and procedures.  Such guidance and procedures
would promote departmentwide compliance with, and standardization and
effective enforcement of, civil rights statutes and EEOC regulations. 

Similarly, we believe that improved working relationships between OCR
and other USDA organizations can be facilitated by implementing
processes to ensure appropriate consultation at key points in the
development of new policies and processes.  Unless OCR officials make
a conscientious effort to effectively communicate with these
organizations, their roles and responsibilities will not be clearly
understood and their compliance will remain problematical. 

An ADR program can help reduce the number of employment complaints. 
This program would relieve OCR of some of the burdens imposed by its
large caseload and enable it to focus on streamlining its employment
complaint process to make it more timely.  For this to happen,
however, USDA will need to ensure that ADR is effectively implemented
departmentwide as a means of informally resolving workplace disputes. 
In addition, ADR offers the potential for early resolution of program
cases--an area in which ADR is not being used. 

Finally, it is important for OCR managers and staff to keep in mind
the importance of their mission.  Delays in processing discrimination
complaints are unacceptable not only because they result in USDA's
failure to comply with federal regulations and meet internal time
frames--more importantly, these delays affect the livelihood and
well-being of individuals who believe they have been discriminated
against. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

To improve the timeliness of USDA's processes for resolving
employment and program discrimination complaints, we recommend that
the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Acting Assistant Secretary
for Administration to take the following actions: 

  -- Establish target dates and ensure that they are met for (1)
     issuing departmental regulations for the assisted and conducted
     program and employment complaints processes and (2) revising the
     conducted program and employment complaints operations manuals
     and issuing an operations manual for assisted program complaints
     so that the manuals accurately reflect departmental regulations. 
     In addition, develop procedures to ensure that departmental
     regulations and manuals are kept up-to-date to reflect
     subsequent organizational, policy, or procedural changes that
     can affect the implementation of USDA's civil rights program. 

  -- Establish target dates and ensure that they are met for having
     the Director of OCR implement the office's plans to relocate the
     OCR employees identified as lacking necessary skills and fill
     the vacated positions with employees who have appropriate civil
     rights expertise.  Additionally, direct the Director of OCR to
     assess the training needs of OCR's employees and implement a
     program to meet current and future training needs. 

  -- Establish procedures for ensuring more effective consultation
     and communication by OCR with agency civil rights offices, OGC,
     and other affected entities, particularly in implementing new
     processes, policies, and procedures that affect these
     organizations. 

  -- To facilitate the resolution of program discrimination
     complaints, develop and implement a program for using
     alternative dispute resolution early in the program complaint
     process. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. 
In commenting on this report for USDA, the Director of the Office of
Civil Rights stated that the record for processing complaints as
described in our report was accurate, the management weaknesses we
cited were real, and our recommended changes were necessary.  In that
regard, she noted that USDA was actively moving toward full adoption
and implementation of our recommendations.  Appendix II contains the
complete text of USDA's comments. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We performed our work from December 1997 through January 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix I contains detailed information on our scope and
methodology. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; interested Members of Congress; the Secretary of
Agriculture; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other
interested parties.  We will also make copies available upon request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-5138.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

Sincerely yours,

Lawrence J.  Dyckman
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues


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

To gain an understanding of the history of and current environment
for civil rights at the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA), we
reviewed the February 1997 Civil Rights Action Team's report and two
subsequent reports on the implementation of the 92 recommendations in
the February report.  We also met with staff from USDA's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and reviewed OIG reports that dealt with
USDA's efforts to reduce the program complaints backlog and to
improve the overall system for processing program complaints. 

In conducting our work, we focused on USDA's Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) and the three USDA agencies that have the greatest number of
discrimination complaints--the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the
Rural Housing Service, which together account for about 80 percent of
the program complaints, and the Forest Service, which accounts for
about 21 percent of employment complaints. 

To determine the timeliness of USDA's processing of program and
employment complaints, we reviewed Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) regulations, laws and regulations concerning
discrimination in USDA's conducted and assisted programs, and OCR's
operations manuals for processing conducted program complaints and
employment complaints.  Furthermore, we analyzed reports from OCR's
database dealing with the timeliness of program and employment
complaints.  Specifically, we examined the time frames for processing
backlog and new program and employment cases.  Regarding employment
complaints, we also obtained statistical data from EEOC to compare
USDA's timeliness in processing employment cases with that of other
federal agencies.  We did not verify the accuracy of OCR's or EEOC's
data.  The OIG reported in September 1998 that OCR's database for
tracking program complaints was incomplete and contained errors. 
However, we used the database for our analysis since it contains the
only information available on USDA's processing times for program
complaints. 

To determine the reasons for delays in the processing of program and
employment complaints, we interviewed USDA officials, including the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration; the Special Assistant
to the Secretary for Civil Rights; OCR's past and current directors
and a number of managers and staff in that office; the Associate
General Counsel for Civil Rights; the civil rights directors for FSA,
Rural Development (which encompasses Rural Housing Service as well as
several other agencies), and the Forest Service; and the Chief,
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center.  We also interviewed
officials at EEOC and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
the federal agency that has a leadership role in alternative dispute
resolution.  We also analyzed reports from OCR's database to
determine where bottlenecks were occurring in processing complaints. 

In addition, regarding program complaints, we (1) met with a
Department of Education official to discuss the system the Department
used to process program complaints (USDA officials told us that
Education had streamlined its program complaint processes), (2)
interviewed FSA staff in Montgomery, Alabama, who conduct the field
work needed to prepare FSA's response to program discrimination
complaints; and (3) interviewed Rural Development mission area staff
in Alabama and Georgia, who conduct the field work needed to prepare
the Rural Housing Service's response to program discrimination
complaints in those states. 

Regarding employment complaints, we conducted a telephone survey of
eight Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselors to discuss the
informal employment complaint process and to gain their perspective
on OCR.  We randomly selected the counselors from the 23 EEO
counselors in FSA, Rural Development, and the Forest Service.  (USDA
has 44 counselors departmentwide.) We also met with Department of
Transportation staff to discuss how they achieved increased
efficiencies in their system for processing employment complaints. 
Regarding the use of alternative dispute resolution, we interviewed
the Chief of USDA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center and the
program managers for alternative dispute resolution at several USDA
agencies to discuss the benefits of this approach. 

We performed our review from December 1997 through January 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Jerilynn B.  Hoy, Assistant Director
Rosellen McCarthy, Evaluator-in-Charge
Roberto R.  Pinero
Brian Frasier

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Anthony P.  Lofaro

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Susan Poling, Associate General Counsel
Alan R.  Kasdan, Assistant General Counsel
Oliver H.  Easterwood, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***