Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and
Underlying Causes Require EEOC's Sustained Attention (Testimony,
03/29/2000, GAO/T-GGD-00-104).

Following a decade of rising discrimination complaint caseloads, growing
backlogs, and lengthening delays in processing individual cases, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has begun taking steps,
under new regulations, to better manage the complaint process. The
agency has also begun to address problems with the completeness and
reliability of the data that it collects from agencies and reports to
the public. Both efforts are part of EEOC's Comprehensive Enforcement
Program, announced in August 1999. At the broader level, the program
includes plans to help address the root causes of employee complaints:
discrimination and other sources of conflict in the federal workplace.
All of these efforts are encouraging, but they will require a sustained
commitment and follow-through on the part of EEOC if the agency is to
achieve meaningful results.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-00-104
     TITLE:  Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint
	     Caseloads and Underlying Causes Require EEOC's
	     Sustained Attention
      DATE:  03/29/2000
   SUBJECT:  Federal employees
	     Employment discrimination
	     Fair employment programs
	     Administrative remedies
	     Data integrity
	     Data collection
	     Reporting requirements
	     Dispute settlement
IDENTIFIER:  USPS Alternative Dispute Resolution 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.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/T-GGD-00-104

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m. EST
on Wednesday
March 29, 2000
GAO/T-GGD-00-104

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and

Underlying Causes Require EEOC's Sustained

Attention

Statement of Michael Brostek, Associate Director
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
General Government Division

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO's Fraud Hotline use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

 (410559)

Statement
Equal Employment Opportunity:  Discrimination
Complaint Caseloads and Underlying Causes Require
EEOC's Sustained Attention
Page 10                          GAO/T-GGD-00-104
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss
the equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
process for federal employees and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) role in
protecting federal workers from unlawful
employment discrimination. In recent years, the
complaint process and EEOC's role in eliminating
discrimination in the federal workplace have been
targets of criticism because of the rising number
of complaints, growing backlogs of unresolved
cases, and the increasing amount of time it has
been taking to bring cases to a close.
Discrimination complaints-and the workplace
conflicts that underlie them-not only disrupt the
lives of employees but can also undermine the
efficient and effective delivery of government
services to the taxpayers.

The EEO complaint process depends on actions taken
by both the employing agencies and EEOC. In
accordance with regulations and policies
promulgated by EEOC, agencies receive complaints,
investigate them, and make decisions on their
merits. EEOC conducts hearings on complaints and
adjudicates appeals. Processing hearings and
appeals, although fundamental to EEOC's mission,
is part of a broader charge to enforce
antidiscrimination laws to eradicate
discrimination in the workplace.

With these thoughts in mind, I would like to make
three points today:

ï¿½    First, the number of discrimination
complaints by federal employees grew during the
1990s, overwhelming the ability of their agencies
and EEOC to process cases in a timely manner.
Recent changes in the regulations that govern the
discrimination complaint process may improve the
management of these caseloads; but, by and large,
the effects of the changes are not yet clear.

ï¿½    Second, we found that the kinds of data EEOC
collected did not provide answers to such basic
questions as the number of employees filing
complaints, the kinds of discrimination they were
alleging, or the specific conditions or events
that caused them to file.  We also found problems
in the reliability of the data EEOC received from
the agencies and reported to the public.  In
response to our findings, EEOC has begun taking
steps to address these data shortcomings so that
Congress and other stakeholders will have the
complete and reliable data needed for informed
decisionmaking.
ï¿½    Third, although EEOC traditionally has
focussed on complaint processing and adjudication,
it is important to remember that EEOC identifies
its broader mission as eradicating discrimination
in the workplace.  EEOC has recently announced a
program to help lessen the number of federal
employee complaints by addressing their underlying
causes:  discrimination and other sources of
conflict. However, this initiative-like the recent
changes in the complaint process and EEOC's
attention to its data shortcomings-is still in its
early stages and will require sustained attention
on the part of EEOC to achieve meaningful results.
     Our observations today are based on a body of
work examining the dispute resolution and
administrative redress processes, in particular
the EEO complaint process, available to federal
employees. In testimony before this Subcommittee
in November 1995, we said that the redress
systems, especially the EEO complaint process,
were inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming.1
Since that time, we have analyzed trends in
complaint caseloads, developed information about
decisions made by EEOC administrative judges, and
examined the quality of complaint data collected
from agencies and reported by EEOC.2 Further, we
have studied how some federal and private sector
organizations used alternative dispute resolution
approaches to resolve EEO complaints.3

Rising Federal Sector Discrimination Complaint
Caseloads and Processing Times
I would first like to address trends over the past
decade in complaint caseloads at the agencies and
EEOC. The 1990s saw an overall rise in the number
of discrimination complaints that federal
employees filed with their agencies and in the
number of hearing requests and appeals that
complainants filed with EEOC. The rise in the
number of complaints caused growing backlogs of
unprocessed cases. The net effect has been that
complaints, and the conflicts underlying them,
have been left unresolved for increasingly longer
periods of time.

Rising Number of New Cases
     As shown in figure 1, from fiscal year 1991
through fiscal year 1999, both the agencies and
EEOC saw an increase in the number of new cases.

Figure 1:  Increase in the Number of Complaints
Filed With Agencies and Hearing Requests and
Appeals Filed With EEOC, Fiscal Years 1991-1999

Source:  GAO analysis of EEOC data.

In fiscal year 1999, federal workers filed close
to 27,000 complaints with their agencies, 50
percent more than they did in fiscal year 1991,
when they filed fewer than 18,000 complaints.4
Figure 1 also shows some encouraging news-a recent
decline in the number of new cases at agencies. I
will address this point later in my testimony.

With the surge in new cases at the agencies,
hearings and appeals caseloads grew at EEOC.  EEOC
received over 12,600 hearing requests from
complainants in fiscal year 1999, about 120
percent greater than the number it received in
fiscal year 1991. In addition, the nearly 8,700
appeals filed with EEOC in fiscal year 1999 were
65 percent higher than the number filed in fiscal
year 1991. EEOC projects that these figures will
rise further, with about 14,000 hearing requests
and more than 9,000 appeals estimated for fiscal
year 2001. (See figure 1.) These estimates,
however, do not take into account the decline in
the number of new cases at agencies in fiscal year
1999.

Growing Inventories of Unresolved Cases
     Neither agencies nor EEOC were able to keep
up with the influx of new cases. Simply put, the
number of new cases outpaced the number of cases
closed. As a result, the inventories of unresolved
complaints increased, as figure 2 shows.

Figure 2:  Increase in the Inventory of Complaints
at Agencies and Hearing Requests and Appeals at
EEOC, Fiscal Years 1991-1999

Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

Agencies' complaint inventories more than doubled
from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1999,
rising to 35,000 cases. The growth in inventories,
however, was more dramatic at EEOC. During this
period, EEOC's backlog of hearing requests
increased by over 300 percent, to nearly 13,000.
At the same time, the agency's appeals inventory
grew by almost 700 percent, to more than 11,500.
EEOC projects that without additional
administrative judges and attorneys to adjudicate
cases, new cases will continue to outpace
closures, and by the end of fiscal year 2001, the
hearings and appeals inventories will both climb
to over 17,000 cases. (See fig. 2.)

Case Processing Times Increasing
     With growing inventories, both the agencies
and EEOC began to take longer on average to
process cases.

Figure 3:  Average Processing Time for Complaints
at Agencies and Hearings and Appeals at EEOC for
Fiscal Years 1991 -1998

Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

     In fiscal year 1998, the agencies took an
average of 384 days to process a case, compared
with 341 days in fiscal year 1991. This average,
however, includes all types of cases, from those
that agencies dismiss or settle more quickly to
those involving a written decision by the agency
on the merits of each of the issues raised in a
complaint. Cases in which a complainant requests a
hearing and appeals an agency's decision, in
particular, take longer, and this figure has been
rising. The average time EEOC took to process a
hearing request increased to 320 days in fiscal
year 1998, from 173 days in fiscal year 1991, even
though EEOC's own regulations stipulate that EEOC
issue a hearing decision in 180 days.5 There was
also a sharp increase in the average time EEOC
took to process an appeal. This figure grew to 473
days in fiscal year 1998, from 109 days in fiscal
year 1991.6  It is significant to note that
according to fiscal year 1998 data, a case
traveling the entire complaint process-from
complaint filing at the agency through hearing and
appeal at EEOC-could be expected to take 1,186
days (3 years and 3 months). As recently as fiscal
year 1995, this figure stood at 801 days (2 years
and 2 months).7

Implications of Caseload Trends
     The logjams at EEOC and agencies will persist
as long as agencies and EEOC receive more new
cases than they process and close. EEOC projects
that despite productivity gains and recent
additions to its staff, hearings and appeals
inventories will grow and cases will remain in
inventory longer. Consequently, cases will take
longer to process, adding further to the overall
length of time it takes for a case traveling the
entire complaint process.

Factors Behind the Rise in the Number of
Complaints
The work we have done over the last several years
has identified a number of factors contributing to
the rise in the number of complaints.

Our July 1998 report about rising trends in
complaint caseloads discussed several factors
related to a changing economic and legal
environment that contributed to increases in the
number of complaints.8  One of these factors was
downsizing, which resulted in complaints about job
losses and reassignments. A second factor was the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, which motivated some
employees to file complaints by allowing
compensatory damage awards of up to $300,000 to be
made. A third factor was the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, which made federal
workers more aware of existing protections.
Finally, program regulations implemented in
October 1992 made the complaint process more
accessible to employees.

In another report we issued in May 1999, we said
that a number of factors indicated that the
increase in the number of discrimination
complaints over the past decade did not
necessarily indicate an equivalent increase in the
number of individuals filing complaints.9 Several
factors support this premise. First, an
undetermined number of federal employees have
filed multiple complaints and, according to EEOC
and other federal officials, account for a
disproportionate share of the complaints that are
filed. There is a crucial distinction to be made
between the number of persons filing complaints
and the number of complaints filed. The trend in
the number of employees filing complaints and the
number with multiple complaints is not known, for
reasons that I will discuss later. Second, as an
EEOC workgroup reported, the number of cases in
the system was "swollen" by "spin-off
complaints"-new complaints challenging the
processing of existing complaints. Third, the
workgroup also reported that the number of
complaints was "unnecessarily multiplied" by
agencies fragmenting some claims involving a
number of different allegations by the same
employee into separate complaints. Finally, there
has been an increase in the number of complaints
alleging reprisal, which, for the most part,
involve claims by employees who allege that they
have been retaliated against for filing a
complaint.

In addition to these factors, in past reports and
testimonies, we noted, among other things, that
the discrimination complaint process was burdened
by a number of cases that were not legitimate
discrimination complaints.  Some employees file
frivolous complaints to harass supervisors or
"game" the system. Others file a complaint in an
attempt to get a third party's assistance in
resolving a workplace dispute unrelated to
discrimination.10 In the same vein, EEOC reported
in its 1996 study that a "sizable" number of
complaints might not involve discrimination issues
but instead reflect basic communications problems
in the workplace.11

Although the rise in caseloads has been
substantial, it should not be looked upon as a
reliable indicator of discrimination in the
federal workplace because of the reasons just
discussed. Although there are no aggregate figures
on the proportion of complaints that are
meritorious, the outcomes of EEOC hearings are
instructive in this regard. It is interesting to
note that as caseloads have risen, the proportion
of EEOC hearing decisions containing findings of
discrimination has declined. In fiscal year 1991,
about 15 percent (266) of the 1,800 hearing
decisions contained findings of discrimination; in
fiscal year 1998, about 7 percent (254) of the
3,512 hearing decisions contained findings of
discrimination.

EEOC Efforts to Reduce Caseload Growth
     Faced with ever-growing caseloads, EEOC
adopted a number of revisions to regulations,
implemented in November 1999, intended to reduce
agencies' and its own caseloads and improve case
management.

     The revisions allow agencies and EEOC to
dismiss spin-off complaints and eliminate the
fragmentation of complaints that I referred to
earlier. Similarly, other changes to the
regulations are intended to reduce caseloads by
weeding out nonmeritorious cases-for example, by
allowing agencies and EEOC to dismiss cases in
which there is evidence of misuse of the complaint
process.

     Other regulatory revisions designed to bring
about case management efficiencies may also reduce
the number of cases that agencies and EEOC handle.
One change allows a complainant to amend an
existing complaint by adding issues or claims that
are like or related to it, rather than opening a
separate complaint. Another new provision requires
agencies and EEOC to consolidate two or more
complaints filed by the same complainant. This
provision has paid dividends at EEOC, where the
number of hearing requests in inventory at the
beginning of fiscal year 2000 was reduced by 18
percent when multiple complaints from the same
complainants were consolidated.

     EEOC also hopes to stem the flow of new cases
through the new requirement that agencies make
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches
available to employees during both the informal
and formal complaint processes.12 Our August 1997
report discussed the benefits agencies had
experienced in using ADR processes to resolve EEO
disputes.13  We reported that two federal agencies
we studied-the Postal Service and the Walter Reed
Army Medical Center-found that ADR processes, by
resolving discrimination complaints in their early
stages, had reduced the number of formal
complaints filed, as well as the time required for
seeing them to resolution. Data from two other
federal agencies we studied-the Air Force and the
Department of Agriculture-showed that the use of
ADR had brought about speedier dispute resolution.

     More recently, the benefits of ADR have been
particularly evident at the Postal Service. In
August 1999, we reported Postal Service statistics
showing that there were about 17 percent fewer
complaints filed in the first 10 months of fiscal
year 1999, compared with the same period in fiscal
year 1998-7,050 versus 8,522.14 In fact, EEOC
attributes the overall decline in the number of
federal sector complaints in fiscal year 1999,
compared to fiscal year 1998 (28,147 versus
26,655), to fewer formal complaints being filed by
postal workers. Postal Service officials
attributed this reduction primarily to the
Service's ADR program. The Postal Service data
showed dramatic differences in outcomes in cases
in which mediation-the ADR technique of choice at
the Postal Service-was employed, compared with
those cases in which it was not. Of the 6,252
cases mediated in the counseling or pre-complaint
phase, only 17 percent (1,081) went on to become
formal complaints. In contrast, about 72 percent
(5,969) of the 8,314 cases not mediated resulted
in a formal complaint being filed. We also
reported that the Postal Service was expanding ADR
to formal complaints awaiting a hearing before
EEOC. A Service official had told us that about
one-third of the cases reviewed in pilot programs
were candidates for settlement and one-third were
candidates for mediation, while the remaining one-
third would probably go to hearing.

The Postal Service's experiences with ADR are
significant for several reasons. First, they show
that an agencywide ADR program to resolve disputes
at an early stage can reduce the influx of formal
complaints. Second, because postal workers account
for about half of the federal sector EEO
complaints, a substantial reduction in the number
of formal complaints by postal workers could mean
a reduction in EEOC's hearings and appeals
workload. Third, the Postal Service's limited
experience of applying ADR to cases awaiting a
hearing show that some portion of this inventory
can be resolved without using EEOC resources.
Finally-and perhaps most important-the Postal
Service's experiences with ADR underscore the
importance of resolving workplace disputes
expeditiously and allowing federal employees to
give their full attention to serving the
taxpayers.

Effects of Regulatory Changes Need to be Closely
Tracked
     Although EEOC designed its changes to program
regulations and procedures to reduce the flow of
new cases, it did not estimate the likely effect
of these changes on the volume of complaints.
However, with the application in November 1999 of
the new regulations to all new and existing cases,
the effects of the changes should be emerging.
Because there may be significant and rapid changes
in the caseloads, it is important for EEOC to
closely track these developments for strategic
planning purposes. Further, we believe that such
information would enable EEOC to develop estimates
for Congress of the resources needed under various
time frames to reduce hearings and appeals
processing times and inventory levels to
acceptable levels.15

Data Shortcomings Hinder Assessment of Workplace
Conflicts
     The rising trends in complaint caseloads and
increasing processing times raise some fundamental
questions, such as:

ï¿½    How many federal employees are filing
discrimination complaints?

ï¿½    What kinds of discrimination are they
complaining about?
ï¿½    What kinds of issues in the workplace are
triggering their complaints?
Answers to such questions would help
decisionmakers and program managers discern trends
in workplace conflicts, understand the sources of
conflict, and plan corrective actions. However,
EEOC has not been collecting relevant data in a
way that would help answer these fundamental
questions.

As I stated earlier, discrimination complaint
caseloads have risen, in part, because an
undetermined number of federal employees have
filed multiple complaints. The reason this number
is unknown is that EEOC had not been collecting
data on the number of employees who file
complaints, nor on how often individual employees
file complaints. For the first time, however, and
in response to concerns we raised in our May 1999
report, EEOC asked agencies to provide data on the
number of individual employees who filed
complaints in fiscal year 1999.16 According to
EEOC, agencies reported that 21,847 individuals
filed formal complaints.17 In other words, nearly 1
in every 5 of the 26,655 complaints in fiscal year
1999 was filed by an employee who had already
filed a complaint that year. This number, however,
was not further broken down to account for spin-
off complaints and other claims relating to
earlier complaints.

Another problem with EEOC's data gathering is that
it does not provide usable information to answer
questions about the kinds of discrimination
employees are claiming or the specific issues
cited in their complaints. As you know, an
employee's discrimination complaint cites both the
basis (or bases) for the complaint and the
specific issue(s)-that is, the condition or
event-that triggered it. The bases for complaints
can include discrimination due to race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, age, or
disability, as well as retaliation for making an
earlier complaint. The issues that can be cited
include such things as harassment or adverse
personnel actions.

The flaw in this regard lies in the format EEOC
has prescribed for agencies to report data on
complaint bases and issues. This particular format
does not allow data collected about the bases and
issues cited by employees to be related to the
number of complaints. For example, there is no way
of telling from EEOC's data the number of
complaints citing racial discrimination as the
basis or harassment as the issue. As a result, it
is impossible for decisionmakers to discern trends
that would reveal which particular groups of
employees may feel aggrieved or the conditions or
events giving rise to their complaints.

It is also clear that some of the data collected
and reported by EEOC have lacked reliability. We
found, first, that agencies did not report their
data consistently, completely, or accurately; and
second, EEOC did not have procedures that ensured
the data were reliable. These are important
shortcomings because a clear-cut and reliable
picture of complaint trends and sources of
conflict is necessary if EEOC, Congress, and other
stakeholders are to make informed, fact-based
decisions.

In response to the concerns we raised in our May
1999 report about the accuracy and usability of
its data, EEOC has undertaken a comprehensive
review of its data collection methodology and made
an assessment of needed improvements, according to
the agency. EEOC also reported that it is
expediting its efforts to revise the form it uses
to collect complaint data from federal agencies.
In addition, EEOC's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Plan shows that EEOC intends to develop a
standardized federal EEO Complaint Collection and
Reporting System to improve data collection and
provide more efficient reporting of federal EEO
complaints.18 Further, EEOC is addressing data
shortcomings as part of an interagency task force
on the EEO complaint process. These are
encouraging steps, although they cannot be
expected to yield improved data for decisionmaking
for at least 2 or 3 years.

Movement Toward a Systematic Approach to Dispute
Prevention
At the heart of the matter of rising caseloads is
the need not just to make the complaint process
better but to prevent disputes from becoming
formal complaints in the first place by dealing
with their underlying causes. EEOC has begun
initiatives under its Comprehensive Enforcement
Program to do this. Although we have not examined
these efforts, they are clearly a step in the
right direction.

EEOC's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan outlines
a systematic approach-first announced in August
1999 as part of the Comprehensive Enforcement
Program-to pursuing the eradication of
discrimination in the federal workplace. In the
past, EEOC focused primarily on adjudicating cases
rather than on eliminating their underlying
causes. The performance plan outlines steps to
help eliminate the causes of conflict by expanding
oversight of the agencies and providing technical
assistance, outreach, and training to the agencies
and other stakeholders. EEOC said, however, that
pursuing these goals effectively will depend on
its receiving additional resources.

EEOC's plans include using what it learns from
hearings and appeals cases for training and
oversight purposes. We believe that much can be
gleaned from hearings and appeals cases, not only
about the kinds of discrimination alleged and
issues being raised, but also about agencies'
approaches to dispute resolution. EEOC said that
it would establish regular opportunities for
hearings and appeals attorneys and affirmative
employment staff at agencies to share information
and discuss systemic issues.

EEOC also said that under its Comprehensive
Enforcement Program, it intends to use its
hearings and appeals experiences to identify
persistent issues at the agencies. This knowledge,
combined with other information known about
agencies, their EEO processes, and their
historical complaint records, will be used to
target specific agencies for on-site reviews. EEOC
said it considers on-site reviews to be one of the
most important vehicles to correct the root causes
of discrimination. In its performance plan, EEOC
says that in fiscal year 2001 it intends to
conduct on-site reviews of 14 agencies
representing a substantial share of the federal
workforce. The on-site reviews will help pinpoint
identifiable problem areas at an agency and enable
EEOC to provide technical assistance that may be
needed. The performance plan does not indicate
whether EEOC intends to ask agencies, where
appropriate, to develop corrective action plans
that would specify steps and time frames or
whether it would ask agencies to explicitly
address complaint process improvement and
prevention strategies in their affirmative
employment program plans.

Another feature of the Comprehensive Enforcement
Program is the requirement EEOC has put in place
for agencies to make ADR available to a
complainant before and after a formal complaint is
filed. I talked earlier about how ADR has helped
resolve cases more quickly in their early stages.
It is especially useful because, as EEOC and
others have noted, many EEO complaints arise out
of poor communication in the workplace. We have
learned from our work that the benefits of ADR go
beyond simply quicker and earlier resolution of
disputes. ADR not only assists in resolving the
dispute at hand, it also equips the disputants
with communication and conflict management skills
that can help them avoid future disputes among
themselves or with others.

Interagency Federal EEO Task Force
     Another initiative under its Comprehensive
Enforcement Program is EEOC's cosponsorship, with
the National Partnership for Reinventing
Government (NPR), of the Interagency Federal EEO
Task Force. The task force has brought together
representatives from EEOC and other federal
agencies with the overall objective of improving
the fairness and efficiency of the federal sector
EEO complaint process and stimulating changes that
will prevent discrimination.

     The task force includes three teams-one
charged with examining dispute prevention
strategies, another with studying early dispute
resolution methods, and a third identifying best
practices. As I mentioned earlier, there is a
fourth team-the data collection team-to address
data shortcomings, in keeping with a suggestion we
made that EEOC develop a working group of federal
agency representatives to revise data collection
requirements. The task force is expected to issue
a report in July 2000, according to an NPR
official.

     The importance of this task force lies not
only with its immediate objectives but also for
what it can hold for the future. The Office of
Personnel Management and the Merit Systems
Protection Board both have interagency advisory
groups helping in the formulation and
implementation of policy. The Interagency Federal
EEO Task Force may provide a starting point for
similar strategic partnerships between EEOC and
the agencies.

Summary
Following a decade of rising discrimination
complaint caseloads, growing backlogs, and
lengthening delays in processing individual cases,
EEOC has begun taking steps, under new
regulations, to better manage the complaint
process. In addition, the agency has begun to
address shortcomings in the completeness and
reliability of the data it collects from the
agencies and reports to the public. Both efforts
are part of EEOC's Comprehensive Enforcement
Program, announced in August 1999. At the broader
level, the program includes plans to help address
the root causes of employee complaints:
discrimination and other sources of conflict in
the federal workplace. All of these efforts are
encouraging, but they will require a sustained
commitment and follow-through on the part of EEOC
if the agency is to achieve meaningful results.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.

Contact and Acknowledgements
For further information regarding this testimony,
please contact Michael Brostek, Associate
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues,
at (202) 512-8676. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Stephen
Altman, Anthony P. Lofaro, and Sharon Hogan.

_______________________________
1 Federal Employee Redress: An Opportunity for
Reform (GAO/T-GGD-96-42, Nov. 29, 1995).
2 Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in
EEO Complaint Caseloads in the Federal Sector
(GAO/GGD-98-157BR, July 24, 1998); Equal
Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads
Rising, With Effects of New Regulations on Future
Trends Unclear (GAO/GGD-99-128, Aug. 16, 1999);
Equal Employment Opportunity: Data Shortcomings
Hinder Assessment of Conflicts in the Federal
Workplace (GAO/GGD-99-75, May 4, 1999); Equal
Employment Opportunity: Administrative Judges'
Recommended Decisions and Agencies' Actions
(GAO/GGD-98-122R, June 10, 1998).
3 Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employers'
Experiences With ADR in the Workplace (GAO/GGD-97-
157, Aug. 12, 1997).
4 Agency complaint data for fiscal year 1999
provided by EEOC are preliminary.
5 The 180-day requirement for issuing a decision
may be extended if an EEOC administrative judge
makes a written determination that good cause
exists for such an extension.
6 Unlike for hearing requests, there is no time
standard for processing appeals specified in
regulation.  In response to a recommendation that
we made in GAO/GGD-99-128 that an acceptable level
of timeliness be established for the processing of
appeals, the EEOC Chairwoman said that 180 days is
an appropriate goal.  Although not established in
regulation, EEOC's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Plan contains a goal of resolving 10 percent of
appeals received in fiscal year 2001 within 180
days.
7 In fiscal year 1999, the time EEOC took to
process a hearing increased to 350 days, from 320
in fiscal year 1998, and appeals processing time
decreased slightly to 461 days, from 473.
8 GAO/GGD-98-157BR.
9 GAO/GGD-99-75.
10 Federal Employee Redress:  An Opportunity for
Reform (GAO/T-GGD-96-42, Nov. 29, 1995); Federal
Employee Redress:  A System in Need of Reform
(GAO/T-GGD-96-110, Apr. 23, 1996); and Civil
Service Reform:  Redress System Implications of
the Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act of 1996
(GAO/T-GGD-96-160, July 16, 1996).
11 ADR Study, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Office of Federal Operations, Oct.
1996.
12 According to EEOC, 57 (52 percent) of 109
agencies responding to a 1998 survey already made
ADR services available.
13 GAO/GGD-97-157.
14 GAO/GGD-99-128.
15 GAO/GGD-99-128.
16 GAO/GGD-99-75.
17 Treasury did not report the number of individual
complainants.
18 The performance plan is required under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
*** End of document ***