Fair Housing
Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process Gao ID: GAO-04-463 April 21, 2004Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, and other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies carry out enforcement activities for several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. The timeliness and effectiveness of the enforcement process have been continuing concerns. GAO describes the stages and practices of the fair housing enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the process.
The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country take inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur. The practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO and the FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some discretion in determining which practices work best for them. As a result, some agencies have developed procedures that they said improved the quality of intake and made investigations easier. For example, some FHAP agencies use experienced investigators during the intake process to help clients develop formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked at such practices to determine if they should be disseminated for potential use at other locales. Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face a lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided. Although the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete investigations into complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP agencies often do not meet that deadline. The typical time to complete an investigation in 1996 through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some investigations taking much longer. However, a lack of data makes it impossible to assess the full length and outcomes of fair housing enforcement activities. For example, because FHAP agencies are not required to report intake data to FHEO, complete information is not available on the number of initial contacts individuals alleging discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of data on the ultimate outcomes of some investigations conducted by both FHEO and FHAP agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time that complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained staff, further affect FHEO's ability to carry out its mission in a timely manner.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-463, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-463
entitled 'Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and
Management of the Enforcement Process' which was released on May 06,
2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
April 2004:
FAIR HOUSING:
Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the
Enforcement Process:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-463, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, and
other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each year, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies carry out enforcement
activities for several thousand complaints of housing discrimination.
The timeliness and effectiveness of the enforcement process have been
continuing concerns. GAO describes the stages and practices of the fair
housing enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies
factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the process.
What GAO Found:
The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for
addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country
take inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct
investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur.
The practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO
and the FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some
discretion in determining which practices work best for them. As a
result, some agencies have developed procedures that they said improved
the quality of intake and made investigations easier. For example, some
FHAP agencies use experienced investigators during the intake process
to help clients develop formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked
at such practices to determine if they should be disseminated for
potential use at other locales.
Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face
a lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided.
Although the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete
investigations into complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP
agencies often do not meet that deadline. The typical time to complete
an investigation in 1996 through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some
investigations taking much longer. However, a lack of data makes it
impossible to assess the full length and outcomes of fair housing
enforcement activities. For example, because FHAP agencies are not
required to report intake data to FHEO, complete information is not
available on the number of initial contacts individuals alleging
discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of data on the ultimate
outcomes of some investigations conducted by both FHEO and FHAP
agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time that
complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital
management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained
staff, further affect FHEO‘s ability to carry out its mission in a
timely manner.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes six recommendations to the HUD Secretary for improving the
management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement process. These
recommendations include exploring ways to disseminate effective
practices used at various enforcement locations, improving tracking and
data-gathering procedures, and finding a way to meet human capital
challenges in, among other things, staffing and skill levels.
HUD generally agreed with the report‘s conclusions and recommendations
and stated an intent to look closely at incorporating them into planned
efforts to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of enforcement.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at (202)
512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for
Handling Complaints:
Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement
Process:
Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of
Cases:
Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by
Each Stage of the Enforcement Process:
Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title
VIII Enforcement Process:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses:
Appendix III: Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Tables:
Table 1: FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations:
Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY
1996-2003:
Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP
Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe That
Discrimination Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-
2003):
Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits:
Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:
Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003:
Table 7: Prohibited Basis of FHA Complaints Filed with FHEO and FHAP
Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies,
FY 1996-2003:
Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY
1996-2003:
Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination FY 1996-2003:
Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process:
Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for
Investigation, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 2003:
Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year
with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies,
FY 1996-2003:
Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY
1996-2003:
Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003):
Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination, FY 1996-2003:
Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003):
Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004A:
Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status
of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York
Regions):
Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as of
January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions):
Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of February
2004:
Abbreviations:
ALJ: Administrative Law Judge:
CSRS: Civil Service Retirement System:
CMS: Contact Management System:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FERS: Federal Employee Retirement System:
FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program:
FHEO: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:
FHIP: Fair Housing Initiatives Program:
FTE: Full-Time Equivalent:
HUD: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
HIHRTS: HUD Integrated Human Resources and Training System:
OGC:: Office of General Counsel:
QMR: Quality Management Review:
REAP: Resource Estimation and Allocation Process:
TEAPOTS: Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking System:
Letter April 21, 2004:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jack Reed:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been responsible
for addressing nearly 57,000 complaints of housing discrimination filed
in the last 8 years. The Fair Housing Act (the Act)--Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended--prohibits housing discrimination
against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other protected groups.
The Act, which is administered by FHEO and 100 Fair Housing Assistance
Program (FHAP) agencies, establishes a 100-day benchmark for
investigating fair housing complaints.[Footnote 1] In recent years,
neither FHEO nor the FHAP agencies have routinely met this benchmark.
For example, 1,611, or 39 percent, of open fair housing discrimination
investigations were over 100 days old and thus considered "aged" as of
September 2003.
You asked us to review several aspects of the fair housing enforcement
program. Specifically, we agreed with your offices to (1) describe the
steps involved in the fair housing enforcement process; (2) determine
the practices selected FHEO and FHAP agencies use to carry out the
enforcement process and identify practices with the potential to
expedite or improve it; (3) determine the trends, if any, that are
discernable in HUD data on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes
of fair housing investigations; (4) determine the median time needed to
complete each stage of the enforcement process; and (5) identify
factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the
enforcement process.
To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the
legislation, regulations, and other guidance describing each stage of
the process and interviewed FHEO officials responsible for
policymaking. To determine the practices used at selected locations and
their potential for expediting or otherwise improving the process, we
visited FHEO offices and FHAP agencies in different regions and
conducted structured interviews with key officials in each
location.[Footnote 2] To identify trends in FHEO data on the numbers,
characteristics, outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations,
we obtained and analyzed data from FHEO's automated case-tracking
system for an 8-year period (1996 to 2003). We also used these data to
determine the median time needed to complete fair housing
investigations. We assessed the reliability of data from this system by
reviewing documents and interviewing managers to determine the
reasonableness of system controls and by conducting reasonableness
tests of system data. To identify the factors that could influence the
length and thoroughness of the Title VIII enforcement process, we
interviewed FHEO and FHAP agency officials responsible for management,
intake, investigation, and legal matters at selected field locations
and used a questionnaire to survey all of FHEO's 10 regional directors.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C; Chicago, Ill; Columbus,
Ohio; Detroit, Mich; Fort Worth and Austin, Tex; New Orleans and
Baton Rouge, La; and New York, N. Y. between September 2003 and
February 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages:
1. Intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive
inquiries from individuals (complainants), determine whether the
inquiries involve a potential violation of the Act, and file fair
housing complaints for those that do.
2. Investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators
collect evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to
believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred, or is about to
occur and simultaneously work with parties to conciliate complaints to
the extent possible.
3. Adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another
administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines
whether a violation of the Act has occurred.
For each stage, either the Act or FHEO guidelines establish timeliness
benchmarks for certain aspects of the enforcement process.[Footnote 3]
For a number of reasons, however, not all intake actions proceed
through the subsequent stages. For example, FHEO or FHAP agency
personnel may determine during the intake stage that the allegation
does not fall within the Act's scope and therefore may not proceed with
the investigation. Similarly, FHEO or a FHAP agency may help resolve a
complaint during the investigation stage.
Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied
significantly among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and
officials noted that certain practices have helped them expedite or
improve the enforcement process. For example, some FHEO offices and
FHAP agencies used experienced investigators during the intake stage to
gather required information from aggrieved parties, a practice that
staff at these locations believed improved the quality of intake and
decreased the overall length of the enforcement process. (Other offices
used some intake analysts who did not have investigative experience.)
Similarly, some sites involved attorneys earlier and more frequently in
the investigation stage than did other sites. Officials at locations
where attorneys were involved earlier and more frequently believed that
practice improved the thoroughness and decreased the length of the
enforcement process. We did not observe any significant variations in
FHEO and FHAP practices in the adjudication stage. Because FHEO and
FHAP agencies have some discretion in choosing the practices they use
to carry out the enforcement process, the variations in practices may
be greater than what we observed in our limited sample. Many FHEO field
office directors believed that the practices used during the
enforcement process could be improved, but we found that FHEO had not
systematically reviewed the practices in use across its field offices
and FHAP agencies to determine which ones worked best. Because of the
potential some practices may have to expedite the fair housing
enforcement process and reduce the backlog of aged cases, we are
recommending that HUD establish a way of sharing information on
effective practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP
agencies.
FHEO's fair housing program data revealed several trends in the volume,
characteristics, and outcomes of enforcement actions between 1996 and
2003. Among other things:
* Overall, the number of inquiries received annually varied only
slightly but increased substantially in 2003. The number of fair
housing complaints filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998.
Further, the nature of discrimination alleged in complaints changed
during the period, with an increasing proportion alleging
discrimination on the basis of handicap and a declining proportion
alleging discrimination because of race.[Footnote 4] However, race was
most often cited as the basis of housing discrimination over the
period.
* The total number of fair housing investigations completed each year
increased somewhat over the period after declining in 1997 and 1998.
Throughout the period, FHAP agencies conducted more investigations than
FHEO.
* The outcomes of investigations also changed, with an increasing
percentage closed without a finding of reasonable cause to believe
discrimination occurred. Conversely, a declining percentage of
investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with the help
of FHEO or a FHAP agency. The ultimate outcomes for many cases in which
FHEO and FHAP agencies found reasonable cause were not clear because
the data from FHEO's automated case-tracking system were incomplete,
particularly for cases processed by FHAP agencies. Accordingly, we are
recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that its system contains
complete data on the outcomes of the adjudication process.
* Finally, the percentage of investigations completed within 100 days
showed a general increase during the period.
Because of limitations in the data provided by FHEO's automated case-
tracking system, we were not able to determine the median number of
days needed to complete each stage of the enforcement process. Complete
data were available only for measuring the length of investigations.
From 1996 to 2003, the median number of days required for
investigations was 259 days for investigations that FHEO conducted and
195 for those FHAP agencies conducted. Because of the importance of
reliable data in monitoring progress, managing cases, and achieving
timeliness benchmarks, we are recommending that FHEO take steps to
ensure that its system includes complete data documenting the key dates
in each stage of the process.
FHEO and FHAP agency officials identified a number of factors that
could influence the length and thoroughness of the fair housing
enforcement process. First, the nature of the complaint itself could
affect the length of investigations. For example, complaints involving
lending or financial practices generally took longer to investigate.
Second, as noted above, variations in the practices followed appeared
to affect the length and thoroughness of investigations. Third, human
capital issues, including the numbers, skill, and experience of
investigators and other staff involved in the process, could also
influence investigations. Several FHEO field officials stated that
their staff lacked some of the skills needed to conduct investigations,
and some also pointed to limitations in the quantity and timing of
training. Fourth, the availability of funds that enabled investigators
to travel and collect evidence, conduct interviews, or undertake
related activities impacted investigations. We are recommending that
HUD consider a wide range of strategies to help ensure that the skills
and competencies needed to meet the fair housing mission are fully
developed.
HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
provided comments on a draft of this report indicating general
agreement with our findings and recommendations. The comments also
included technical clarifications, which we have incorporated into this
report as appropriate. HUD's comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
Background:
A number of federal statutes prohibit housing discrimination, but the
Act is the most comprehensive.[Footnote 5] This report focuses on
enforcement of fair housing rights under the Act, which is one of the
federal government's central tools for fighting discrimination in
housing. The Act (as amended) prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, and familial
status. The Act applies to certain issues, including discrimination in
the sale, rental, or advertising or financing of housing, the provision
of brokerage services; and other activities related to residential real
estate transactions. The Act covers all "dwellings," which are defined
generally as buildings designed to be used in whole or part for a
residence, as well as vacant land offered for sale and lease for
constructing or locating a building, with some exceptions.[Footnote 6]
The enforcement process granted to HUD and others under the Act has
been expanded since the law's enactment in 1968. The original Act gave
no enforcement powers to HUD--other than the ability to investigate and
conciliate complaints--and gave limited enforcement powers to private
persons and the Attorney General. Under the 1968 Act, private persons
who believed they had been discriminated against in housing could
enforce the Act by filing a complaint with HUD, and HUD could
investigate and conciliate those complaints.[Footnote 7] The 1968 Act
had no mechanism for HUD to adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no
options for further enforcement if conciliation efforts failed. The
1968 Act also authorized aggrieved persons to bring a civil action
within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination. The relief
that courts could provide in such cases included only injunctive
relief, actual damages, punitive damages up to $1,000, and, where the
plaintiff was not able to pay his or her own attorneys' fees, those
fees.[Footnote 8] Under the 1968 Act, the Attorney General could
initiate a civil suit under some circumstances--for example, when there
was reasonable cause to believe that a "pattern or practice" of
resistance had emerged to the provisions of the Act. The Attorney
General could also bring a suit if a group of persons had been denied a
right granted by the Act that raised an issue considered to be of
general public importance. However, damage awards were not available in
actions brought in these types of cases.
The 1988 amendments to the Act provided HUD, private persons, and the
Attorney General with more tools and remedies for enforcement.
Currently, under the Act as amended, there is an adjudication
mechanism, so HUD's enforcement efforts need not end if conciliation
efforts do not succeed. Additionally, aggrieved parties can elect not
to utilize the administrative enforcement process and can file civil
actions in federal court within 2 years of the alleged discrimination;
and the Act provides for actual and punitive damages without limitation
and for injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. As under the original
1968 Act, presently the Attorney General can bring a civil action in
pattern or practice cases or cases of public importance. The 1988
amendments allow the Attorney General to commence civil actions in
cases of breached conciliation agreements or discriminatory housing
practices referred by HUD and to enforce subpoenas. In cases commenced
by the Attorney General, courts can award civil penalties up to
$100,000 for the second violation, in addition to compensatory monetary
damages and attorneys' fees. The 1988 Act also created a deadline of
100 days for HUD's investigation and reasonable cause determination.
FHEO directs HUD's enforcement efforts, although some state and local
FHAP agencies handle most enforcement efforts for their states and
localities. FHEO refers complaints alleging violations of state and
local fair housing laws that are administered by a certified FHAP to
that agency. A certified agency that has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with FHEO is eligible to participate in the Fair Housing
Assistance program. Under this program, FHAP agencies receive funding
for fair housing activities and must conform to reporting and record
maintenance requirements, agree to on-site technical assistance, and
agree to implement policies and procedures provided to the agencies by
FHEO. FHEO has staff in each of HUD's 10 regional offices, called
"hubs," through which it conducts its enforcement efforts.[Footnote 9]
FHEO staff has responsibility for the intake, investigation, and
resolution of some of these complaints. Aggrieved persons may also go
directly to FHAP agencies, which then perform the intake process.
However, FHEO must ultimately approve the filing of all complaints
involving alleged violations of the Act. If an aggrieved party contacts
a FHEO office regarding discrimination that allegedly occurred in a
state or locality that has a FHEO-certified "substantially equivalent"
state or local agency (that is, a FHAP agency), FHEO will complete the
intake process and refer the complaint to that agency for enforcement.
Under the Act and HUD's implementing regulations, FHEO can certify an
agency if (1) the rights and remedies available under the state or
local laws are substantially equivalent to those available under the
Act, and (2) the operation of the agency demonstrates that it meets
performance standards for timely and thorough fair housing complaint
investigations, conciliation, and enforcement. The local law must
require the agency to meet the 100-day investigation benchmark
contained in the Act. Although the FHAP agency enforcement process must
be substantially similar to the HUD process, it need not be exactly the
same. That is, FHAP agencies review incoming complaints to determine if
they allege a violation of their state or local fair housing laws, the
Act, or both; investigate complaints to determine if fair housing laws
have been violated; and provide for the final adjudication of
complaints, but each of the 100 FHAP agencies can take different
actions to accomplish these tasks. These certified state and local
agencies could be civil rights agencies like the Michigan Department of
Civil Rights.
FHEO field offices monitor the FHAP agencies, review cases FHAP
agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for
payment under FHAP, and provide technical assistance. FHEO field
offices also have responsibility for other functions, such as assessing
compliance with fair housing regulations for entities receiving federal
funds, providing community education and outreach efforts for fair
housing issues, and managing grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program, which funds public and private entities combating
discriminatory housing practices.
FHEO tracks fair housing enforcement efforts through its Title Eight
Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) database. FHEO
enforcement personnel input information at major stages of the
enforcement process, such as when a complaint is filed at FHEO, when an
investigation of a complaint begins, and when a case is resolved. FHEO
managers use TEAPOTS to track the progress of fair housing cases and
enforcement efforts. All FHAPs have access to TEAPOTS and are required
to report their performance information (such as timeliness milestones
for initiated and completed investigations) into TEAPOTS or other data
and information systems technology agreed to by HUD. TEAPOTS captures
numerous aspects of enforcement efforts both nationally and by hub,
including the numbers and lengths of enforcement actions;
characteristics of complaints, such as basis of discrimination (race,
religion, etc.) and subject matter of discrimination (sale, rental,
etc.); and type of resolution.
HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for
Handling Complaints:
The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages: (1)
intake, during which FHEO or FHAP agencies receive inquiries from
individuals with housing discrimination concerns and determine whether
those concerns involve a potential violation of the Act; (2)
investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect
evidence to determine if reasonable cause exists to believe that a
discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur; and
(3) adjudication, during which an independent fact finder determines
whether the person charged with discrimination (the respondent) did in
fact violate the Act. The independent fact-finding may occur before an
administrative law judge (ALJ) or, if one of the parties chooses, a
federal court or state court for complaints filed with HUD and FHAP
agencies, respectively. The Act and other guidelines establish
timeliness benchmarks for completing certain parts of the enforcement
process. An overview of HUD's basic fair housing enforcement process is
shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Although the most common way to initiate the enforcement process
is through an inquiry made by an individual, the HUD Secretary, a FHAP
agency, or a private fair housing organization might bring a complaint
on behalf of an aggrieved party. For illustration, this figure shows
HUD's basic process. FHAP agencies follow a similar process.
[End of figure]
Intake: FHEO Analyzes Inquiries to Determine Whether They Constitute
Fair Housing Complaints:
In the intake stage, FHEO hubs receive inquiries (called "claims" from
1996 to 2001), determine which ones involve a potential violation of
the Act, and file fair housing complaints for those that do.[Footnote
10] FHAP agencies also receive inquiries and work with complainants to
determine whether a potential violation of the Act, state or local law,
or both has occurred. According to FHEO headquarters staff, the process
usually starts when an individual contacts a FHEO hub by telephone,
fax, or mail; in person; or over the Internet.[Footnote 11] Intake
analysts refer numerous contacts they receive that are not related to
fair housing to appropriate outside organizations. Intake analysts
record contacts dealing with fair housing as "inquiries" in TEAPOTS.
The analysts interview complainants and may do other research--for
example, property searches and searches of newspaper or corporate
records--to see if enough information exists to support filing a formal
complaint. This initial process is known as "perfecting" a complaint,
although it does not always result in a complaint. In order for a
complaint to be perfected, it must:
* contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the
name and address of the aggrieved party (the person who was allegedly
injured by a discriminatory housing practice), the name and address of
the respondent, a description and address of the dwelling involved, and
a concise statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and:
* satisfy the Act's jurisdictional requirements that the complainant
has standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling,
subject matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or refusal to
sell),[Footnote 12] and the basis (e.g., race, color, familial status)
for alleging discrimination are covered by the Act; and that the
complaint has been filed within a year of the last occurrence of the
discriminatory practice.
Hub directors decide whether these conditions are met. If so, the
inquiry becomes a perfected complaint; otherwise, it is dismissed.
Intake analysts record key information about perfected complaints in
TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the official complaints, and send
letters of notice about the complaint and the enforcement process to
both complainants and respondents.[Footnote 13] The complaint file is
then usually delivered to the investigator.[Footnote 14]
According to FHEO headquarters staff, the intake stage for a complaint
that will be investigated by FHEO--rather than a FHAP agency--is
usually considered complete when the complaint file is delivered to a
FHEO investigator. For such complaints, FHEO's Title VIII Intake,
Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) establishes a
timeliness benchmark of no more than 20 days for the intake stage.
However, FHEO also performs intake for inquiries that, because of their
characteristics, are ultimately referred to a FHAP agency for
investigation. For example, if a person alleges a discriminatory
practice that is within the jurisdiction of a FHAP agency, FHEO intake
analysts complete the intake stage, file the complaint, and refer the
case to the FHAP agency.[Footnote 15] For such complaints, the Handbook
establishes a timeliness benchmark of no more than 5 days for the
intake stage.
Investigation: FHEO Collects Evidence to Determine If Reasonable Cause
Exists to Believe a Discriminatory Housing Practice Has Occurred or Is
about to Occur:
During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect evidence to
determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a
discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur.
Similarly, FHAP agencies may collect evidence to determine if a local
or state fair housing law has been violated. The Handbook provides
guidance for investigators during this process, although the Handbook
notes that investigations will vary (see table 1).
Table 1: FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations:
Task: Review case file from intake;
Description: Review intake documents, including intake log, Housing
Discrimination Information form (Form 903), interviews or investigation
conducted during intake, including fair-housing testing.
Task: Review jurisdiction;
Description: Make sure that the complaint is timely, that the
complainant has standing, that neither the dwelling nor respondent is
exempt, and that the complaint alleges violation of the Act.
Task: Interview complainant;
Description: Inform the complainant of rights and steps in the
enforcement process and obtain information crucial to investigation.
Task: Receive respondent's defense;
Description: Receive (orally or in writing) the respondent's response
to notification made during the intake process.
Task: Develop investigative plan;
Description: Study the respondent's defense to determine whether it
appears valid. Supervisors and investigators are responsible for
ensuring that all claims made in the complaint are adequately
investigated.
Task: Request necessary additional data from parties;
Description: Gather information and documents in preparation for
interviews.
Task: Interview respondent;
Description: Clarify issues and facts in dispute in the complaint,
collect additional information about the respondent, and assess all
responses to the complainant's allegations.
Task: Make on-site or off-site visits;
Description: Communicate with parties and witnesses and examine records
or other documents, either on or off site.
Task: Analyze case;
Description: Evaluate the evidence gathered and determine whether
further investigation is needed to make a recommendation of reasonable
cause or no cause.
Task: Final interviews;
Description: Request responses to or clarification of all of the
evidence collected in the case from the complainant and respondent.
Task: Create final investigative report;
Description: Conduct final check to validate jurisdiction, summarize
the position of parties, summarize investigation activity and records,
and summarize and analyze the evidentiary record. Recommend a finding
of cause or no cause to believe that respondent violated the Act.
Source: FHEO Handbook.
[End of table]
According to agency guidance, once an investigator completes an
investigation, the appropriate hub director reviews the results and
makes a determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe
that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to
occur. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD's regional counsel, the
hub director issues a determination of reasonable cause and directs the
regional counsel to issue a "charge" on behalf of the aggrieved person.
The charge is a short written statement of the facts that led FHEO to
the reasonable cause determination. If the hub director decides that no
reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing
practice has occurred; then, upon concurrence of the regional counsel,
the hub director dismisses the complaint. In a March 6, 2003,
memorandum, HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) in headquarters
requested that regional counsels send OGC's Office of Fair Housing the
final draft of any charge that they propose to file and that they not
file charges until they have received a response from OGC's Office of
Fair Housing.
At any stage before the investigation is complete, the enforcement
process can end by either conciliation or administrative
closure.[Footnote 16] FHEO's Handbook states that conciliation is the
process by which FHEO "assists the complainant and respondent in
achieving a just and mutually acceptable resolution of the disputed
issues in a Title VIII complaint." The Act requires that HUD try to
conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible, starting at the time
the complaint is filed and continuing until the final charge is issued
or the case is dismissed. The Handbook and federal regulations
implementing the Act allow an individual to act as investigator and
conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state that generally
investigators will not conciliate their own cases.[Footnote 17]
Instead, other investigators not investigating a complaint conciliate
such complaints. Conciliation agreements are to seek to protect the
public interest in furthering fair housing through various provisions,
such as requiring the respondent to provide FHEO with periodic
reports.[Footnote 18] FHEO may also close complaints administratively
for several reasons--for example, if the complainant withdraws the
complaint.
The regulations implementing the Act require FHEO and the FHAP agencies
to complete an investigation, conciliate a case, or otherwise close a
complaint within 100 days of the filing date unless doing so is
"impracticable."[Footnote 19] An investigation is considered complete,
and the 100-day deadline ends, when a hub director makes a cause or no-
cause determination in which the regional counsel concurs. If the
investigation cannot be completed within 100 days, FHEO must notify the
complainant and the respondent in writing of the reasons for the delay.
This written notification is called the 100-day letter.
Adjudication: An Independent Fact Finder Determines Whether a Violation
of the Act Has Occurred:
Once a determination of reasonable cause has been made and a charge has
been issued, an independent fact finder determines whether the
respondent has in fact violated the Act (FHAP agencies also use
independent fact finders to make this determination). HUD's regulations
state that OGC must file charges with the Office of Administrative Law
Judges within 3 business days. When the complainant and respondent
receive notice of the charge, each has 20 days to decide whether to
have the case heard in a federal district court or by an ALJ.[Footnote
20] The complainant may intervene as a party, and the complainant and
the respondent may be represented by a lawyer before the ALJ. The Act
also requires that the ALJ hearing begin within 120 days of the date of
the charge, unless impracticable, and that the ALJ decision be issued
within 60 days of the end of the ALJ hearing, unless
impracticable.[Footnote 21] If the ALJ determines that no
discrimination has occurred, the case is dismissed. If the ALJ
determines that discrimination has occurred, he or she is authorized to
award injunctive or other equitable relief, economic and noneconomic
damages, and civil penalties, as applicable.[Footnote 22] Any party
adversely affected by the ALJ's decision may appeal it to the HUD
Secretary and then to the appropriate appellate court, within certain
time frames.[Footnote 23] HUD and any person entitled to relief under
the final decision may petition the appropriate court of appeals to
have the final decision enforced.
If either party elects to go to federal district court after the charge
is issued, the HUD Secretary must authorize a civil action in federal
district court, and the U.S. Attorney General must undertake the action
on the complainant's behalf. The complainant may participate and be
represented by a lawyer in this court proceeding. The respondent may
also choose to be represented by counsel. Any party adversely affected
by the final court decision may file a petition in the appropriate
appellate court.
Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement
Process:
Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied
significantly among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and
officials noted that certain practices had helped them expedite or
improve the quality of the enforcement process. For example, some FHEO
offices and FHAP agencies used experienced investigators during the
intake stage, while others did not. Some officials at locations that
used experienced investigators said that this practice had improved the
quality of intake and decreased the overall length of the enforcement
process. The variation in enforcement practices between FHEO and FHAP
agency locations is not surprising, given the freedom those offices
have to administer the enforcement process. In fact, there is a
potential for the variation to be even greater than we observed, as we
visited only 3 of the 10 hubs and just 7 of the 100 FHAP agencies. Even
this limited look revealed practices in some locations that could
potentially expedite cases if adopted elsewhere. However, HUD has not
performed a systematic nationwide review of the enforcement practices
at all of these various locations to identify practices with such
potential.
Involving Experienced Investigators in Intake May Shorten Process and
Facilitate Investigations:
We found two personnel practices that officials at some FHEO and FHAP
agency locations believed had improved their enforcement processes.
First, several locations we visited used experienced investigators
during their intake processes, while others generally did not. Although
all three hubs we visited used dedicated intake analysts rather than
current investigators to handle intake responsibilities, two hubs used
some former investigators as intake analysts. Several FHAP agencies we
visited had no dedicated intake analysts. At these agencies, current
investigators simply shared the intake of complaints. Some FHEO
officials told us that using investigators for intake improved the
thoroughness of intake and decreased the overall length of the
enforcement process. Some officials said that investigators have a
better understanding of the information needed for jurisdiction and
investigations, and they thus focus their intake efforts on getting
that information.
Second, one FHAP agency we visited had instituted a team approach to
enforcement. The agency had changed its entire enforcement process in
1997 to incorporate this approach, using several teams consisting of
"civil rights representatives" (as opposed to intake analysts and
investigators) and a "coach attorney." Teams handled the enforcement
process starting with the initial contact and finishing up with the
reasonable cause recommendation. Teams rotated through the intake
function for 1 week each month, investigating all cases that originated
in intake that week. Although this FHAP agency made other changes
simultaneously with the change to the team approach, FHAP agency
officials said that the team approach had helped its backlog of cases
drop significantly and improved the quality of its enforcement process.
It is not possible to isolate the team approach's impact on the FHAP
agency's fair housing effort, and the complaint numbers provided by the
agency included other civil rights enforcement work, such as
enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws. However, FHAP agency
officials told us that, after the team approach had been fully
implemented, the average complaint processing time fell from 476 days
to 335 days.
In addition to personnel practices, we found that one FHAP agency was
using a software system to improve the intake procedure. In addition to
using TEAPOTS, this particular FHAP agency, in conjunction with a
software company, had developed Contact Management System (CMS)
software that had significant extra capabilities. The CMS generated a
series of initial intake questions for the FHAP agency's civil rights
representative to ask during intake and then constructed follow-up
questions based on the answers to the previous questions. These follow-
up questions reflected the elements that would be necessary to prove
discrimination in a given case. At the end of its approximately 2-hour
intake process, the FHAP agency tried to have either a perfected
complaint or a reason that the contact did not warrant a perfected
complaint. A FHAP agency official told us that the CMS software had
helped decrease the length and improve the thoroughness of its
enforcement process. Again, it is not possible to isolate the impact of
the CMS software, but after the software was installed, average
complaint processing times for the FHAP agency's fair housing and other
civil rights work decreased from 335 days to 252 days.
Differences in Investigations, Including the Degree of Attorney
Involvement and Conciliation Methods, May Improve the Enforcement
Process:
We observed numerous variations in investigative practices among the
FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited. In several locations, officials said
that their specific practices had helped them expedite the process,
improve the quality of the process, or both. First, some locations
involved attorneys earlier and more frequently during the investigation
than other locations. Second, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies
simultaneously investigated and conciliated complaints, while others
delayed the investigation while conciliating. Third, one hub and one
FHAP agency customarily used separate persons to investigate and
conciliate a complaint, while at other hubs and FHAP agencies, a single
person handled both of these tasks. Fourth, some enforcement locations
employed a tool called a "bubble sheet" to help meet the 100-day
requirement for completing investigations. Last, one FHAP agency used
software that provided additional investigative tools that TEAPOTS did
not provide.
OGC Involvement:
At the FHEO offices and FHAP agencies we visited, investigators and
attorneys interacted to different degrees, and several officials told
us that greater interaction had resulted in shorter and more thorough
investigations. For example, at one hub the regional OGC had weekly
meetings with investigators at the same location and biweekly meetings
with investigators at other offices in the region. Interaction at
another hub was less formal, but both regional OGC attorneys and the
investigators said that frequent and meaningful interaction occurred on
most cases through the informal "open-door" approach. At a third hub,
OGC attorneys were not yet formally interacting with investigators,
although they had recently signed a memorandum of understanding to do
so. At FHAP agencies, we saw similar variations. One FHAP agency, as
mentioned earlier, had a "coach attorney" on each team to help from the
earliest stages of the investigations. At other FHAP agencies we
visited, investigators had more limited interaction with the FHAP
agency attorney.
In our survey of the 10 hub directors, 5 said that involving OGC in
investigations had a great or very great impact on investigations,
improving thoroughness, decreasing length, or both.[Footnote 24]
Officials cited various reasons for this result, including that the
interactions with OGC:
* reduced the amount of work wasted on aspects of a case that should
not receive investigative attention, shortening investigations;
* reduced the amount of additional work involved in seeking attorney
concurrence, decreasing the length of investigations;
* helped the investigators pursue the appropriate leads at the best
times during an investigation, increasing thoroughness; and:
* created more cooperation among complainants and respondents, as the
parties believed that attorneys were more involved in the enforcement
process.
FHEO has recognized the importance of greater FHEO-OGC interaction. A
May 5, 2003, memorandum to all hub directors and OGC regional counsels
from the FHEO Assistant Secretary and the HUD General Counsel said,
"The most effective fair housing enforcement actions are the result of
frequent coordination and collaboration between investigators and
counsels." That memorandum required FHEO/regional counsel to consult
with FHEO personnel frequently during the enforcement process,
including having:
"significant involvement at complaint intake, in determinations of
jurisdiction, in investigative plan development, in conducting
investigations, in the effort to resolve cases informally through
conciliation, and in making determinations of reasonable cause.":
That memorandum also required each regional counsel and each FHEO hub
director to enter into working agreements with each other to formalize
their working relationships. As of November 24, 2003, every hub had
those agreements in place, and one HUD official said that the new
memorandum of understanding had resulted in improved communication
between investigators and OGC.
Simultaneous Conciliations:
Some HUD locations we visited put investigations on hold when
conciliation looked likely, while others did not. Some fair housing
officials at the locations that simultaneously investigated and
conciliated told us that doing so not only expedited the enforcement
process but could also facilitate conciliation. Because the parties
were aware that the investigation was ongoing, two hub directors told
us they were sometimes more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some
officials at the offices that delayed the investigation while
attempting conciliation told us that this practice increased the number
of calendar days necessary to investigate a case. However, one hub
official told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation could
waste resources, as it might not be necessary to obtain further
evidence in a case that would be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10 hub
directors told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation had
a great or very great impact on the length of the enforcement process,
and all 6 said that the practice decreased the length. Four directors
said that the practice had a great or very great impact on the
thoroughness of investigations, and these four told us that it
increased the thoroughness of investigations.
Investigator Conciliation of Own Cases:
Investigators at some FHEO locations and FHAP agencies customarily
conciliated their own cases, while other locations usually used
separate investigators and conciliators.[Footnote 25] Officials we
spoke with were divided on the impact of this practice. Some officials
told us that having the same person performing both tasks had not
caused problems. Other officials--including some at locations where
investigators conciliated their own cases--indicated a preference to
have different people perform these tasks. One official said that
separating these tasks enabled simultaneous conciliation and
investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up the process.
Another official noted that parties might share information with a
conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that a
conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The
same official said that although investigators were not allowed to use
information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the
information could still influence the questions conciliators posed--and
thus the information they learned--as investigators. Similarly, at one
hub an OGC official told us that information learned as a result of
conciliation efforts should not be included in investigative findings.
A few enforcement officials at locations that did not separate the
tasks said that they did not have enough staff to have separate
conciliators. One hub director said that a FHAP agency in its region
was experimenting with a separate mediation track in addition to the
conciliation mechanism. The mediation occurred early in the process and
involved a professional, nongovernment mediator. The director said the
mediation had usually pleased the parties, resulting in timely
resolutions of cases and beneficial results.
Response to 100-day Requirement:
In responding to the 100-day requirement, several hubs and FHAP
agencies used variations of what they called a "bubble sheet"---a list
of investigative milestones and a time line for completing them---in
order to meet the 100-day requirement. If an investigator missed a
milestone, the "bubble burst," and the investigator might not meet the
100-day requirement. Some officials said that the bubble sheet helped
investigators complete each of the small steps of the investigation in
a timely fashion and thus increased the likelihood of compliance with
the 100-day requirement. Nevertheless, some people said that the 100-
day requirement was arbitrary and often unattainable, and their
response to the 100-day requirement was simply to send the 100-day
letter at the appropriate time.
Software:
As in the intake stage, the CMS software used at one FHAP agency
offered additional tools during investigations that TEAPOTS did not.
The CMS generated interview questions for investigations based on the
information obtained in intake and then generated a list of critical
documents that were usually needed for certain types of investigations.
According to FHAP agency officials, the CMS improved the quality of
investigations and decreased the length of cases. One FHEO center we
visited was attempting to store possible witness questions in a central
database for investigators to review to see if any were applicable to
their cases, but this system was not automated and relied on
investigators to compile the list. Officials at that center hoped that
having a central location for all such questions would give
investigators at least some examples of possible questions to ask.
Officials at the FHAP agency noted that some data they are required to
enter into TEAPOTS duplicated information in CMS and indicated that it
would be preferable not to enter this information twice. Another FHAP
agency we visited that used other software in addition to TEAPOTS had
begun a pilot program to alleviate this duplication, using a program
that would allow information entered into TEAPOTS to be incorporated
into the FHAP agency software without keying the data again.
Some Hubs and FHAP Agencies We Visited Had Limited Adjudication
Involvement over Last Several Years:
We did not observe any significant variations across agencies in the
adjudication stage of the enforcement process, possibly in part because
the hubs and FHAP agencies we visited had adjudicated very few cases
through their administrative processes. For example, one hub and one
FHAP agency we visited told us they did not have any cases that had
gone through the administrative hearing process over the last 5 years.
Officials at the FHAP agency told us that in the rare cases that could
go to an administrative proceeding, the FHAP agency encouraged parties
to opt for state court, since otherwise the FHAP agency would have to
commit resources to the process. Agency officials said that steering
parties to one forum is inconsistent with the enforcement framework of
the Act and the neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with
respect to forum selection.
FHEO and FHAP Agencies Had Discretion in Implementing Practices, but
FHEO Had Not Examined Different Practices:
The variations among hubs, centers, and FHAP agencies are not
surprising, given the discretion FHEO locations and FHAP agencies have
had to administer the enforcement process. While FHEO's Handbook
contains significant guidance, policies, and procedures, FHAP agencies
have not been required to follow them. Rather, FHAP agencies must meet
certain performance standards to obtain or maintain certification as
substantially equivalent agencies. Under these standards, FHAP agencies
must have engaged in timely, comprehensive, and thorough fair housing
complaint investigation, conciliation, and enforcement activities. For
both FHEO locations and FHAP agencies, the variations we observed could
be even greater, given our small sample. Additionally, according to the
2001 National Council on Disability report, variations in the hubs'
practices had increased since 1996.[Footnote 26] Similarly, the
potential for variations in FHAP agencies' practices has likely grown
with the number of FHAP agencies, which increased from 64 at the start
of fiscal year 1996 to 100 at the start of fiscal year 2004.
Many FHEO hub directors indicated that practical improvements could be
made to the enforcement process; in fact, at least four directors
believed that practical improvements could be made to each stage.
Several hub directors provided specific ideas for improvements to the
intake stage. One hub director said that her hub had recently written
its own intake handbook and had set a requirement of completing intake
within 15 days, rather than the 20 days specified in FHEO's Handbook.
Five of the 10 directors said that improvements could be made to the
investigation stage for FHEO that would reduce the length of the
process to a great or very great extent. One director specifically
mentioned a practice--mediation in the early stages of the complaint
process--that was in place at FHAP agencies in his region.
Additionally, 4 of the 10 directors said that practical improvements
could be made to the investigation stage that would increase the
thoroughness of the enforcement process to a very great extent. For
example, several directors suggested either increasing OGC's staff to
provide more assistance to investigators or putting a non-OGC attorney
on staff at the hub or field level as a resource for the investigators.
Additionally, one hub director said that a checklist she had recently
developed for supervisors reviewing investigations should increase the
thoroughness of investigations. Regarding the adjudication stage, one
hub director said that the region was concerned about not knowing
whether DOJ would accept a fair housing case if a party in the case
elected to have it heard in federal district court.
Despite the existing differences in practices among the entities
involved in enforcing the Act and officials' belief that some practices
could be improved, HUD has not performed a systematic nationwide review
of its or FHAP agencies' enforcement practices since 1996. The 1996
review, a business process redesign, focused on FHEO's practices,
although one FHAP agency was represented in the process. FHEO uses
other reviews for practices in its offices, such as Quality Management
Reviews (QMR), in part as peer reviews that allow collaboration and
information sharing between FHEO offices. Additionally, FHEO reviews
cases FHAP agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are
eligible for payment under the program. However, the QMRs and FHAP
agency reviews are not systematic, nationwide reviews of the practices
that FHEO and FHAP agencies are using.
Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of
Cases:
Our analysis of FHEO data on fair housing enforcement activities from
fiscal year 1996 to 2003 revealed a number of trends. We found that:
* The number of claims or inquiries FHEO received annually remained
stable until 2002 but then increased substantially. The number of
complaints filed trended downward in the earlier years but then rose
steadily.
* An increasing proportion of these complaints alleged discrimination
on the basis of handicap, while the most frequently cited basis of
discrimination--race--declined as a proportion of all complaints.
* While the number of investigations completed fell in 1997 and 1998,
more investigations were completed in each subsequent year. FHAP
agencies rather than FHEO conducted most of the investigations.
* The outcomes of investigations changed over the period, with an
increasing proportion of investigations closed without finding
reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.
* The frequency with which FHEO and FHAP agencies completed
investigations within 100 days increased over the period.
The trend data we present are reported on a fiscal year basis. We could
not measure the volume of claims and inquiries before 1996. Generally,
FHEO treated all inquiries it received between 1989 and 1994 as
complaints, regardless of whether the contact alleged a violation of
the Act. During parts of 1994 and 1995, FHEO did not collect
information on those inquiries that did not result in an investigation.
The Number of Inquiries and Complaints Filed Increased:
From 1996 until 2002, FHEO's annual numbers of claims and inquiries
alleging violations of the Act varied only slightly, averaging about
4,600 per year, but rose to more than 5,400 in 2003 (fig. 2). Because
FHEO does not require FHAP agencies to report the number of claims and
inquiries received during this period, we could not determine the
number of claims and inquiries received by FHAP agencies.[Footnote 27]
Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Does not include inquiries received by FHAP agencies.
[End of figure]
The combined number of complaints perfected and filed declined slightly
from 1996 until 1998, but then began increasing steadily (fig. 3). By
2003, the number of complaints filed annually had risen to more than
8,000, with FHAP agencies responsible for investigating the largest
share. Of the 53,866 complaints filed during the period, FHAP agencies
were responsible for investigating 67 percent, and FHEO was responsible
for investigating 33 percent.
Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for
Investigation, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Not all inquiries are perfected into complaints.
[End of figure]
Overall, FHAP agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing
portion of complaints filed each year from 1998 until 2003. In part,
these increases may be attributable to the growth in the number of FHAP
agencies nationwide. Seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Michigan,
New York, North Dakota, and Vermont), Washington, D.C., and 26
localities created FHAP agencies between 1996 and 2003 (fig. 4). FHAP
agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing number of
complaints filed between 1998 and 2003 in all except the Denver region
(Region 8). In comparison, four FHEO regions--Boston, Chicago, New
York, and Philadelphia--were responsible for investigating a declining
number of complaints filed during this period.
Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Does not include territories in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean,
none of which had FHAP agencies. There are two local FHAP agencies
located in Charlotte, NC and Seattle, WA, and two in Tampa, FL (one of
which existed before 1996).
[End of figure]
The Basis, Subject Matter, and Regional Distribution of Complaints
Filed Changed:
As the number of complaints filed rose between 1996 and 2003, the basis
of, or reasons for, the alleged discrimination changed somewhat (fig.
5). First, although complaints alleging discrimination based on race
continued to dominate, accounting for around 40 percent of the total,
the annual percentage declined slightly over the period. The share of
complaints alleging discrimination based on familial status declined
from one-quarter to about one-sixth of complaints filed during the
period. In contrast, complaints alleging discrimination based on
handicap increased significantly, rising by more than 13 percentage
points to become the second most frequently cited basis of complaints.
Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, national
origin, and retaliation also grew somewhat, while those alleging
discrimination because of sex and color declined.
Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year
with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Discrimination based upon retaliation prohibits retaliation
against anyone who has filed a fair housing complaint, encouraged or
assisted another person in the filing of a fair housing complaint.
[End of figure]
Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints alleged more
than one basis.
The subject matter, or issue covered by the Act, of complaints also
changed from 1996 through 2003. Most of the complaints filed alleged
discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges (e.g., refusal to
repair, charging an inflated rent) or refusal to rent, but the share of
these complaint issues fell over the period from a high of about 63
percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1996 to 55 percent and 23
percent in 2003 (fig. 6). At the same time, the share of complaints
alleging failure to make reasonable accommodation or modification rose
significantly, from less than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in
2003.[Footnote 28] Complaints alleging a single issue represented about
68 percent of complaints filed during that period, while complaints
alleging more than one issue represented the remaining 32 percent.
Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO
and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints involve
more than one issue.
[A] Retaliation is covered under Section 818 of the Act making it
illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person
in the exercise of, or on account of, his/her having aided any other
person in the exercise of the right to file a fair housing complaint.
[B] Advertising refers to making, printing, or publishing, or causing
to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement or
advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a
protected class (e.g., race, color, etc.).
[C] Discriminatory lending or financial practices refers to engaging in
residential real estate-related transactions (e.g., mortgages,
construction loans, home equity loans, home improvement loans, and
appraisals) that discriminate against any person making such a
transaction on the basis of a protected class. This category includes
discrimination in the provision of professional opportunities in real
estate by restricting membership in the associations necessary for
success.
[D] False representation refers to representing to any person that any
dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such a
dwelling is, in fact, so available.
[E] Design and construction refers to discrimination in connection with
the failure to design and construct a dwelling in such a manner that,
for example, the public and common use portions are readily accessible
to and usable by persons with disabilities.
[F] Steering refers to the practice of guiding prospective tenants or
homebuyers to areas where persons of their class have previously been
housed. Blockbusting refers to the practice of inducing homeowners to
sell their property at depressed prices by appealing to their fear of
integration. Redlining refers to a policy of excluding specific
geographic areas from the consideration for investment.
[G] Other category includes six issues involving (1) criminal activity
(i.e., covered under a federal criminal statute, Section 901 of the
Act, intended to prohibit housing-related acts of violence motivated by
a prohibited basis such as race, sex, or religion); (2) refusal to
insure, which was cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003;
and (3) failure to qualify for the senior housing exemption all of
which were cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; (4)
discriminatory zoning and land use (i.e., the practice of applying
zoning codes in an uneven manner or voting to rezone tracts of land to
prevent the construction of housing projected to attract persons of
another race), which was cited in about 1 percent of complaints in
2003; (5) failure to comply with HUD poster regulations, which was not
cited in any complaints in 2003; and (6) allegations involving
otherwise denying or otherwise discriminating in housing, which were
cited in about 10 percent of complaints in 2003.
[End of figure]
While the volume of complaints filed nationwide grew during the period,
two regions, Denver (Region 8) and Seattle (Region 10) saw a decline
(table 2). Conversely, two regions saw substantial increases.
Specifically, complaints filed in Kansas City (Region 7) doubled during
the period and almost tripled in the New York region (Region 2). The
increases may be attributable, in part, to the addition of FHAP
agencies from 1996 through 2003. By November of 1999, the New York
region had two FHAP agencies online. In fiscal year 2000, the number of
complaints filed in the New York region had more than doubled, rising
from 213 to 442 complaints, or 6.3 percent of all complaints filed.
FHEO referred 337 of these complaints to the FHAP agencies for
investigation.
Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY
1996-2003:
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 1 (Boston);
1996: 386;
1997: 382;
1998: 359;
1999: 374;
2000: 436;
2001: 407;
2002: 400;
2003: 458.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 2 (New York);
1996: 253;
1997: 239;
1998: 238;
1999: 213;
2000: 442;
2001: 607;
2002: 699;
2003: 685.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 3 (Philadelphia);
1996: 506;
1997: 453;
1998: 368;
1999: 408;
2000: 532;
2001: 536;
2002: 560;
2003: 541.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 4 (Atlanta);
1996: 839;
1997: 851;
1998: 742;
1999: 954;
2000: 1,306;
2001: 1,266;
2002: 1,497;
2003: 1,367.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 5 (Chicago);
1996: 887;
1997: 953;
1998: 1,049;
1999: 924;
2000: 1,040;
2001: 1,059;
2002: 1,142;
2003: 1,296.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 6 (Fort Worth);
1996: 892;
1997: 629;
1998: 692;
1999: 693;
2000: 700;
2001: 855;
2002: 942;
2003: 968.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 7 (Kansas City);
1996: 507;
1997: 580;
1998: 780;
1999: 808;
2000: 654;
2001: 677;
2002: 760;
2003: 1,035.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 8 (Denver);
1996: 401;
1997: 286;
1998: 251;
1999: 281;
2000: 266;
2001: 257;
2002: 280;
2003: 269.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 9 (San Francisco);
1996: 1,118;
1997: 1,113;
1998: 1,061;
1999: 1,089;
2000: 1,058;
2001: 1,003;
2002: 1,067;
2003: 1,176.
Complaints by region filed each year: Region 10 (Seattle);
1996: 479;
1997: 389;
1998: 277;
1999: 379;
2000: 536;
2001: 339;
2002: 298;
2003: 341.
Complaints by region filed each year: Total;
1996: 6,268;
1997: 5,875;
1998: 5,817;
1999: 6,123;
2000: 6,970;
2001: 7,006;
2002: 7,645;
2003: 8,136.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Excludes 26 complaints filed with Region 00 (Washington, D.C.).
[End of table]
The Number of Completed Investigations Rose, While Outcomes Varied:
Investigations may be completed in several ways, each leading to a
particular outcome. First, an investigation is considered complete when
it is closed administratively--for example, the complainant withdraws
the complaint or staff are unable to locate the complainant. Second, a
FHEO-conducted investigation may be considered complete when the
complaint is transferred to DOJ because of FHEO's agreement to do so in
certain instances, such as in cases involving criminal activity or
pattern and practice issues. Third, FHEO or the FHAP agency may
complete the investigation through conciliation with the parties, or
the parties may settle among themselves. Fourth, FHEO or the FHAP
agency may determine that reasonable cause may exist to believe that a
discriminatory housing practice has occurred (find cause). Finally,
FHEO or the FHAP agency may determine that there is not reasonable
cause (no cause).
The number of investigations completed annually during the period rose
after falling significantly in 1997 through 1998 (see fig. 7). This
pattern was similar for both FHAP agencies and FHEO, though the number
of investigations completed by FHAP agencies declined in 2003 and the
number of investigations completed by FHEO declined in 2002.
Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies,
FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The most frequent outcome of investigations completed during the period
was a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that
discrimination had occurred (see fig. 8). The share of investigations
resulting in this outcome rose from just over 40 percent in 1996 to
around 48 percent in 2003. Conversely, the share of investigations
completed through successful conciliation or settlement declined
somewhat during the period, but this outcome remained the second most
frequent--about one-third of all investigations completed during the
period.[Footnote 29]
A determination of reasonable cause accounted for the smallest share of
outcomes, around 5 percent of all completed investigations. TEAPOTS
does not have a code specifically indicating that an investigation was
completed with a finding of reasonable cause, but does provide for a
date on which cause was found. We used this date to measure the number
of investigations completed with a finding of reasonable cause.
According to a HUD official, FHEO hubs do not record cause dates in
TEAPOTS consistently. Specifically, at least two hubs may initially
record the date the case is transferred to the regional counsel, rather
than the date of the issuance of a determination of reasonable cause
with which the regional counsel has concurred. These hubs then enter a
new date when the regional counsel concurs and a charge of
discrimination is issued. Therefore, the number of investigations that
we report as completed during each fiscal year with a finding of
reasonable cause may not match the number of charges that HUD reports,
particularly for fiscal year 2003.
Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Does not include investigations closed by FHEO through referral
to the DOJ (about 1 percent in 2003).
[End of figure]
We sorted HUD's data on outcomes by basis of complaint, subject matter,
and region. Our analysis revealed the following:
* The percentage of no-cause determinations varied somewhat according
to the basis of discrimination alleged. Above-average proportions of
investigations that involved religion, retaliation, and race ended in
no-cause determinations, (55, 53, and 54 percent respectively, compared
with 47 percent overall). Similarly, 41 percent of investigations
involving familial status and 40 percent of investigations involving
handicap as at least one of the bases for discrimination ended in
conciliation or settlement, compared with 32 percent overall.
* Outcomes also differed by the subject matter, or issue involved. A
greater proportion of investigations that resulted in a no-cause
finding had discriminatory terms or refusal to rent as an issue (61 and
30 percent, respectively). Conversely, however, relatively few
complaints determined to have no cause involved refusal to sell or
noncompliance with design and construction as issues (4 and 1 percent,
respectively).
* Regional differences were also apparent in outcomes. Investigations
completed in the Atlanta region (Region 4), for instance, were more
likely to end in no-cause determinations--53 percent--than
investigations in any other region. Similarly, investigations completed
in the Denver region (Region 8) were more likely to end in conciliation
or settlement. Finally, the overall percentage of investigations
completed with a reasonable cause determination varied widely among
regions, from as high as 10 percent in the Boston region (Region 1) to
as low as 1 percent in the Fort Worth region (Region 6).
Complaint investigations that resulted in a determination of reasonable
cause generally proceeded to the adjudication stage. Because of TEAPOTS
data limitations, we were not able to determine the final resolutions
(that is, the reasons for closing the cases, including decisions on
whether or not an actual violation of the Act had occurred) of all
complaints that reached the adjudication stage. Specifically, as table
3 shows, for 8 percent of investigations in which FHEO made a
determination of reasonable cause and 30 percent of investigations in
which a FHAP agency made a similar determination, information on the
reason for closure was missing in TEAPOTS. For the remaining FHEO and
FHAP agency investigations (those for which the reason for closure was
available), we identified the following:
* The independent fact finder found that discrimination had occurred in
about 3 percent of the FHEO cases and 7 percent of the FHAP agency
cases.
* About one-third of all cases (FHEO and FHAP agency) resulted in a
judicial consent order--that is, the parties negotiated a settlement,
either alone or through an appointed settlement judge, which was
submitted to the independent fact finder as a voluntary agreement to
resolve the case.
* Of the FHEO cases, 46 percent were closed when the parties elected to
go to court, about 6 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 2
percent resulted in administrative closure, about 1 percent resulted in
judicial dismissal, and in less than 1 percent the independent fact
finder found that no discrimination occurred.
* Of the FHAP agency cases, the independent fact finder dismissed 16
percent, 9 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 4 percent
were closed administratively, and 4 percent resulted in a finding that
no discrimination occurred.
Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP
Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe That
Discrimination Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-
2003):
Types of Closures: Judicial consent order by ALJ or FHAP agency related
fact finder;
FHAP agencies: Number: 591;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 30.5;
FHEO: Number: 230;
FHEO: Percent: 32.0;
Total: Number: 821;
Total: Percent: 30.9.
Types of Closures: Parties elect to go to court;
FHAP agencies: Number: 0;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 0.0;
FHEO: Number: 330;
FHEO: Percent: 45.9;
Total: Number: 330;
Total: Percent: 12.4.
Types of Closures: Judicial dismissal by ALJ or fact finder related to
FHAP agency;
FHAP agencies: Number: 309;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 16.0;
FHEO: Number: 10;
FHEO: Percent: 1.4;
Total: Number: 319;
Total: Percent: 12.0.
Types of Closures: Conciliation or settlement by FHEO or FHAP agency;
FHAP agencies: Number: 176[A];
FHAP agencies: Percent: 9.1;
FHEO: Number: 44;
FHEO: Percent: 6.1;
Total: Number: 220;
Total: Percent: 8.3.
Types of Closures: Discrimination found in legal proceedings of ALJ or
fact finder related to FHAP agency;
FHAP agencies: Number: 134;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 6.9;
FHEO: Number: 24;
FHEO: Percent: 3.3;
Total: Number: 158;
Total: Percent: 5.9.
Types of Closures: Administrative closure by FHEO or FHAP agency[B];
FHAP agencies: Number: 74[C];
FHAP agencies: Percent: 3.8;
FHEO: Number: 14;
FHEO: Percent: 1.9;
Total: Number: 88;
Total: Percent: 3.3.
Types of Closures: No discrimination found in legal proceedings of ALJ
or fact finder related to FHAP agency;
FHAP agencies: Number: 77;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 4.0;
FHEO: Number: 5;
FHEO: Percent: 0.7;
Total: Number: 82;
Total: Percent: 3.1.
Types of Closures: Open case or information on adjudication decision
missing[D];
FHAP agencies: Number: 576;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 29.7;
FHEO: Number: 59;
FHEO: Percent: 8.2;
Total: Number: 635;
Total: Percent: 23.9.
Types of Closures: Total;
FHAP agencies: Number: 1,937;
FHAP agencies: Percent: 100.0;
FHEO: Number: 719[E];
FHEO: Percent: 99.5;
Total: Number: 2,656;
Total: Percent: 99.8.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[A] Includes 145 FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed
through conciliation or settlement. However, FHEO officials are
concerned that FHAP agencies are incorrectly coding what actually may
be cases closed through judicial consent order.
[B] Includes complaints that were withdrawn by the complainant after
the case was resolved.
[C] Includes three FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed
because a trial had begun. According to FHEO officials, there have been
problems in the past with FHAP agencies coding these case closures
incorrectly.
[D] The case is either still open in the adjudication process or
TEAPOTS did not include a closure code.
[E] Includes 3 complaints, that had a determination of reasonable cause
but were coded in TEAPOTS as having an adjudication closure code of no
cause (one case) or DOJ settlement (two cases). According to FHEO
officials, the coding for adjudication is likely incorrect.
[End of table]
The Number of Investigations Completed within 100 Days Increased in
2001--2003:
The numbers of investigations completed within 100 days by both FHEO
and the FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001 (fig.
9).[Footnote 30] Some of the improvement in the number of FHEO
investigations completed in 100 days may have been the result of an
initiative aimed at reducing the number of aged cases in FHEO's
inventory. FHEO undertook the initiative in 2001 after completing only
14 percent of its investigations within the 100-day timeframe in 2000.
The number completed in 100 days rose in 2002, to 41 percent of all
investigations.[Footnote 31] At the same time, the number of FHAP
agency investigations meeting the 100-day benchmark remained fairly
stable (23 to 33 percent) over the period 1996 to 2003, rising most
markedly from 2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent. In January 2004,
FHEO established monthly efficiency goals aimed at monitoring the
progress of the hubs in meeting both the 20-day intake and 100-day
investigative timeliness benchmarks. It is too soon to determine what
effect this initiative might have on the timeliness of investigations.
Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY
1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: For this analysis, we use HUD's method of measuring compliance
with the 100-day benchmark for investigations--that is, the most recent
of the dates the complaint was filed, reopened, or reentered.
[End of figure]
Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by
Each Stage of the Enforcement Process:
While data were generally available to measure the length of both
FHEO's and FHAP agencies' investigations, we found that reliable data
were lacking on the intake and adjudication stages handled by FHAP
agencies. First, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report on intake
activities, and FHAP agencies accounted for intake on 42 percent of all
complaints filed in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Second, while
TEAPOTS contained data on the dates that inquiries were received for
investigations completed by FHAP agencies, we question the reliability
of these data. According to a FHEO official responsible for TEAPOTS,
FHEO staff may have routinely used the date on which cases were
transferred to FHAP agencies as the "initial inquiry" date. In
addition, TEAPOTS data show that 20,226 (54 percent) of complaints
investigated by FHAP agencies were filed the same day that the
inquiries were received--that is, the intake stage began and ended on
the same date. Third, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report the
results of the adjudication of closed investigations. Accordingly, for
many complaints investigated by FHAP agencies that reached the
adjudication stage, TEAPOTS did not show an end date for
adjudication.[Footnote 32] Finally, TEAPOTS was missing these dates for
some complaints investigated by FHEO as well. Using the data that were
available, we measured the typical length of each stage using medians-
-that is, the number at the exact midpoint of the range of days
required to complete each stage (or where there was an even number of
observations, the mean or average of two at the midpoint).
TEAPOTS data indicate a median of 12 days for the intake stage (from
the date of the initial inquiry to the date the complaint was filed)
for cases handled by FHEO in 1996 through 2003.[Footnote 33] The data
showed that 35 percent of complaints investigated by FHEO were filed
the same day that the claims or inquiries were received (that is, the
intake stage began and ended on the same date), 28 percent within 20
days, and 31 percent within 21 days to 3 months of the date that the
claim or inquiry was received. FHEO's new monthly efficiency reports
aim to, among other things, monitor the hubs' progress in completing
the intake process within 20 days.
The median number of days for investigations (from the date the
complaint was filed to the date the investigation was completed) was
259 for complaints investigated by FHEO (fig. 10).[Footnote 34]The
median number of days varied somewhat, depending on the outcome of the
investigations (e.g., administrative closure, finding of reasonable
cause, finding of no cause, etc.). FHEO completed 61 percent of its
investigations within a year of the date the complaint was
filed.[Footnote 35]
We could not measure the time required to adjudicate all cases for
which FHEO found cause. Specifically, of the 719 investigations for
which FHEO determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that
discrimination had occurred, TEAPOTS included data on 339 cases that
were adjudicated within HUD. In these cases, the median time required
to complete the adjudication process was 203 days. In an additional 330
cases, one or both parties elected to have their complaints heard in
district court at the cause date, or shortly thereafter. For these
individuals the enforcement process continued, but FHEO did not record
the length of the judicial process.[Footnote 36] TEAPOTS also did not
have information on adjudication for 50 cases for which FHEO found
cause.
Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003):
[See PDF for image]
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we measured the end of the
intake stage and the beginning of the investigation stage using the
date the complaint was filed. The median numbers of days shown are
based on 19,312 inquiries that resulted in FHEO investigations
completed during fiscal years 1996 through 2003, for which TEAPOTS
included data on the date the inquiry was received and the date the
resulting complaint was filed; 19,299 investigations completed during
fiscal years 1996 through 2003, for which TEAPOTS included data on the
date the complaint was filed and the date the investigation was
completed; and 339 investigations completed during fiscal years 1996
through 2003 that were adjudicated within HUD, for which TEAPOTS
included data on the date that FHEO determined there was reasonable
cause and the date the adjudication stage was completed.
[End of figure]
Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title
VIII Enforcement Process:
We found that numerous factors affected the length and thoroughness of
the enforcement process. First, hub directors we surveyed said that the
characteristics of complaints--certain issues, for example, and the
presence of multiple bases--could increase the time needed for
investigations, reduce thoroughness, or both. Second, both hub
directors and FHEO and FHAP agency officials said that specific
practices could make investigations shorter and more thorough. Third,
hub directors and other officials pointed to human capital issues as
potentially increasing the length and decreasing the thoroughness of
investigations, including staff shortages, low skill levels, lack of
training and guidance, and inadequate travel resources. Finally, hub
directors noted that national performance goals could reduce the number
of aged cases but had little effect on timeliness or thoroughness.
The Characteristics and Volume of Complaints May Affect Timeliness of
the Enforcement Process:
Most hub directors stated that the issue of a complaint had a great or
very great effect on the amount of time required to complete the
enforcement process. Complex issues such as refusing to provide
insurance or credit could add time to investigations. For example,
investigators might have to analyze statistics to determine if the
complainant was treated differently from the norm. According to one
director, some issues, such as failure to make reasonable
accommodation, could require time for staff to conduct time-consuming
on-site visits. In addition, some directors thought that complaints
involving multiple issues could take longer to investigate.
Agency data tend to support some of the directors' observations (fig.
11). While investigations took a median of 211 days to complete during
the period, the median for investigations involving discriminatory
lending was 295 days; and for noncompliance with design and
construction issues, it took 284 days. However, the median for
investigations involving reasonable accommodation or modification was
just 162 days.
Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: See notes to figure 6 for a discussion of issues covered under
the Act.
[End of figure]
Although directors generally did not believe that any particular
prohibited basis had an effect on the length of investigations and thus
on the enforcement process, one director did note that complaints
involving multiple bases would likely increase the length of the
enforcement process. We found that the median number of days required
to complete investigations involving multiple bases was slightly higher
than for single-issue investigations--217 days. The median number of
days FHAP agencies needed to complete an investigation varied more
across specific prohibited bases than it did for FHEO. For FHEO, the
median length of investigations ranged from a low of 223 days
(handicap) to 302 days (retaliation) (see fig. 12). For FHAP agencies,
the median length of investigations ranged from a low of 175 days
(handicap) to 211 (sex).
Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Most directors stated that the volume of complaints received in their
region had a great or very great effect on the length of the
enforcement process. According to one director, a large volume of
complaints created competing demands on staff time. Another director
noted that the volume of complaints could lengthen the enforcement
process if staff resources were in short supply.
Half (5) of the hub directors also believed that the volume of
inquiries and complaints had a great or very great effect on the
thoroughness of the enforcement process. One respondent noted that
complex issues in a complaint or large volumes of complaints in a
region might decrease the thoroughness of the process if resources were
strained, staff were not adequately skilled to accommodate the amount
or level of difficulty of the work to be done, or both. Fewer directors
(2 out of 10), said they believed that the basis of complaints had a
great or very great effect on the thoroughness of the process. One
director noted that, regardless of the factors involved, the
thoroughness of the enforcement process should never be compromised.
Certain Practices Could Improve the Enforcement Process:
As we have seen, some HUD and FHAP agency officials identified two
intake practices that they believe shortened the enforcement process,
increased its thoroughness, or both. The first--involving investigators
in intake--was cited by 4 of the 10 HUD hub directors that responded to
our survey. Further, officials at the FHAP agency that used the team
intake and investigation approach noted that it had led to better
investigations that were conducted in less time. The second practice--
using CMS enforcement software--was credited by the FHAP agency that
used it with facilitating both timeliness and thoroughness.
HUD and FHAP agency officials also cited several investigative
practices that increased the thoroughness or decreased the length of
the enforcement process or both. First, several HUD officials said that
early and frequent OGC involvement was important to increasing the
thoroughness of investigations. Second, some enforcement officials said
that simultaneous conciliation and investigation might decrease the
length of investigations. Third, some HUD hub directors said that using
TEAPOTS affected the length and thoroughness of the process to a great
or very great extent: specifically, 6 hub directors indicated that
using the system increased the thoroughness of the enforcement process,
decreased the length of the process, or both. Some officials, however,
also told us that TEAPOTS could be improved, and one FHAP agency's CMS
software offered an alternative system that the FHAP agency credited
with reducing the length of its process and improving its thoroughness.
The CMS software provides investigators more sophisticated tools than
TEAPOTS offered for planning and conducting investigations. Finally,
one hub official said that alternative mediation at the outset of the
complaint process could help decrease the length of some complaint
investigations.
Human Capital Challenges Also Affect the Enforcement Process:
FHEO officials and others we interviewed identified human capital
management challenges that had negatively affected the fair housing
enforcement process, including the number and skill levels of FHEO
staff, the quality and effectiveness of training, and other issues.
Number of Staff:
FHEO officials told us that hiring freezes had left a number of FHEO
offices with chronic staffing shortages, especially among supervisors
and clerical workers and that these shortages had never been fully
resolved. The shortages affected not only enforcement of the Act, but
also FHEO's other responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier
caseloads and professional staff to perform administrative duties
rather than concentrating on enforcement. Hub directors told us that
hiring activity in the last 3 years had at least partially abated the
chronic staffing shortages. However, they added that FHEO now faces the
prospect of losing staff because a corrective action plan requires that
FHEO, consistent with HUD's key workforce planning effort, have fewer
employees than it currently has.
As figure 13 shows, the total number of full-time equivalents
(FTE)[Footnote 37] in FHEO has fluctuated over the last 10 years,
falling from a high of 750 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of 579 in
fiscal year 2000. In 2003, FHEO's FTEs rose once more to 744 after a
concerted hiring initiative, although the workforce effort mentioned
above suggested a level of 640. Currently, FHEO faces the challenge of
meeting a mandatory ceiling of 640. FHEO comprised about 6 percent of
HUD's total workforce until fiscal year 2002 and 7 percent in 2003,
when FHEO directors received hiring authority for new staff. FHEO staff
have other responsibilities beyond enforcing Title VIII, including
monitoring program compliance by housing providers receiving federal
funds, performing Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grant
management, monitoring FHAP agencies, providing technical assistance,
and performing education and outreach activities.
Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004A:
[See PDF for image]
[A] In fiscal year 1994, FHEO contained the function of the Office of
Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity (ODEEO), which is responsible
for planning and implementing the department's internal equal
employment activities. HUD established ODEEO in 1995 as a separate
program area. HUD moved ODEEO back under FHEO's responsibilities in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and FHEO's FTE total for those years
includes ODEEO's FTEs. The department moved ODEEO out of FHEO in fiscal
year 2003, and the FTE total (744) for that year does not include ODEEO
FTEs.
[B] Mandated ceiling for 2004.
[End of figure]
FHEO hired 167 staff beginning in July 2002 as part of a departmental
effort to reach its requested ceiling by September 30, 2002. That is,
HUD was attempting to reach 9,100 FTEs at the end of fiscal year 2002,
a number that would equal the approved fiscal year 2002 FTE level and
the requested fiscal year 2003 level.[Footnote 38] FHEO's hiring
initiative, like HUD's overall, was not in line with the department's
workforce planning efforts. The most important of these, the Resource
Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP), a series of department
studies conducted from 2000 through 2002, to assess HUD's staffing
requirements, recommended a total FTE ceiling for FHEO of 640.[Footnote
39] As a result of HUD's hiring initiative, HUD had a staffing level of
9,395 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003--295 above the approved
fiscal year 2002 and requested fiscal year 2003 levels.[Footnote 40]
Therefore, HUD was forced both to reprogram more than $25 million to
cover the costs of the newly hired excess staff and to submit to
Congress a corrective action plan consistent with REAP. HUD's Strategic
Placement Plan, issued in January 2004, would reduce FHEO's excess
staff to the mandated level of 640 FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2004
through voluntary and, if necessary, involuntary reassignments.
However, as of February 2004, FHEO remained at 727 FTEs, and FHEO
officials told us they did not know how they would meet the mandated
level on schedule. The officials also expressed concern that they would
lose many of their best staff through the voluntary reassignment plan.
Officials expressed concern not only with the insufficient number of
staff but also the lack of staff at key positions. Some HUD managers
said that due to unfilled supervisor positions in their regions,
existing supervisors were not able to review materials as carefully as
they could have with those positions filled. For example, one center
director told us that investigators did not get supervisory input on
initial investigative plans due to a vacant supervisory post. This
center director said that the gap in supervision decreased the
thoroughness and sometimes increased the length of investigations, as
existing supervisors were unable to complete work in a timely manner.
Staff Skills and Experience:
Some hub directors and other officials we spoke with cited concerns
about the noncompetitive reassignment of staff into FHEO. They noted
that the level of staff skills could influence the length and
thoroughness of the enforcement process and that the reassignment
process had a generally negative impact on FHEO's overall skill levels.
According to these officials, while many of the reassigned staff had
worked at HUD for years, their skills were often not transferable to
FHEO activities, which require specific analytical, investigative, and
writing skills. Some directors cited the skills issue as a greater
problem for FHEO than the actual numbers of personnel. FHEO's own
internal review also cites concerns about reassigned employees'
qualifications, skills, and work products and about the amount of time
and supervision these employees require.[Footnote 41] FHEO
documentation shows that 106 staff were reassigned to the program under
various HUD realignments from 1998 to 2002.[Footnote 42] Figure 14
shows the numbers of staff in the three hubs we visited by their years
of experience with FHEO and reassignment status. Although FHEO has
brought many new staff on board recently through competitive hiring,
many staff in the hubs we reviewed came to the organization via
noncompetitive reassignment.
Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status
of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York
Regions):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although figure 14 shows that more than half of the FHEO staff
currently located in the three sites we visited had fewer than 10 years
of experience with FHEO, many have a significant number of years of
federal service. Figure 15 shows a snapshot of the same FHEO employees
in the three sites we visited by their years of federal
service.[Footnote 43] The figure demonstrates that half of the FHEO
employees in the three sites we visited have 20 or more years of
federal service, and 14 percent have 30 or more years of federal
service.
Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as
of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Retirement eligibility was an issue not only for the three sites we
visited, but also for FHEO as a whole. Officials expressed concern
about the loss of skilled and experienced staff to retirement, and
personnel data provided by the HUD human resources staff show that 40
percent of FHEO employees overall were eligible for either early or
immediate retirement in February 2004 (see fig. 16). Moreover, as we
have noted previously, officials that we spoke with also expressed
concern that current plans to eliminate a significant number of FHEO
staff by voluntary reassignment could cause skilled workers to leave
FHEO and seek opportunities elsewhere.
Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of
February 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Training:
Providing effective training is another human capital challenge that
FHEO faces. Half of the directors told us that the quality and
effectiveness of training helped reduce the length of the fair housing
enforcement process, and six said that it improved thoroughness. For
example, some directors said that training serves to expedite
investigations as staff gain more technical skills. Other directors
said that training improves thoroughness because staff can recognize
issues of discrimination and decide what evidence is needed to support
complaints.
We heard concerns from FHEO staff, an ALJ, and others outside of HUD
about the quality or availability of training for FHEO employees. Most
staff we spoke with reported that they had received initial formal
training for their positions, though not always in a timely fashion. A
list of courses supplied by the HUD Training Academy, which provides
the majority of formal training for FHEO, showed that the basic course
in investigation had been offered annually in all but 1 of the last 5
years. However, depending on the hiring date, a new staff member might
have to wait 1 year or more to attend the basic course. Potentially
compounding this problem, hub directors told us that although training
was available in fiscal year 2003, lack of travel funds sometimes
prevented them from sending staff to training out of the area. Finally,
budget data show that although FHEO had initial approval from the HUD
Training Academy to spend $416,000 for training in fiscal year 2003,
the HUD Training Academy reduced FHEO's training funds to $200,000 as
part of the department's overall efforts to reduce expenditures to
cover the cost of excess staff hiring.
FHEO recognized the need for additional training by establishing the
HUD Fair Housing Training Academy, which is slated to open in the
summer of 2004. FHEO officials told us that they hope to standardize
what the agency believes are uneven fair housing processes and
practices implemented around the nation by FHEO and its FHAP agency
partners, create a more professional group, and possibly reduce
turnover rates at FHAP agencies by certifying attendees. Initially,
however, the academy will serve staff from only FHAP agencies, not FHEO
employees. Officials explained that FHAP agency funds would cover the
costs of this initial training.
FHEO's human capital challenges are symptomatic of those facing HUD as
a whole. FHEO, like the department and other federal agencies, is
experiencing significant challenges in deploying the right skills in
the right places at the right time, is facing a growing number of
employees who are eligible for retirement, and is finding it difficult
to fill certain mission-critical jobs--a situation that could
significantly drain its institutional knowledge.
We have observed that federal agencies need effective strategic
workforce planning to identify and focus on the long-term human capital
issues that most affect their ability to attain mission results. We
identified five key principles that strategic workforce planning should
address, which include (1) involving top management, employees, and
other stakeholders in developing, communicating, and implementing the
strategic workforce plan; (2) determining the critical skills and
competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future
programmatic results; (3) developing strategies that are tailored to
address gaps in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital
approaches for enabling and sustaining the contributions of all
critical skills and competencies; (4) building the capability needed to
address administrative, educational, and other requirements important
to support workforce strategies; and (5) monitoring and evaluating the
agency's progress toward its human capital goals and the contribution
that human capital results have made toward achieving programmatic
goals. In developing strategies to address workforce gaps, we reported
that agencies should, among other things, consider hiring, training,
staff development, succession planning, performance management, use of
flexibilities, and other human capital strategies and tools that can be
implemented with resources that can reasonably be expected to be
available.[Footnote 44]
We have reported in the past that HUD had not done the strategic
workforce planning necessary to address its human capital
challenges.[Footnote 45] Like HUD, FHEO does not have a comprehensive
strategic workforce plan to help it meet key human capital challenges.
REAP, which estimates the staff needed to handle HUD's workload in each
of its offices, does not include the extensive analysis involved in a
comprehensive assessment. However, since we last reported, HUD
contracted a technical adviser to conduct a comprehensive workforce
analysis. Such an assessment would cover current workforce skills,
anticipated skill needs, current and future skill gaps, and needed
training and development that will be used to develop a comprehensive
5-year departmental workforce plan. Additionally, HUD plans to rollout
over the next 3 years a customized human resources and training
information system known as the HUD Integrated Human Resources and
Training System (HIHRTS). HUD documentation says that the system will
replace several legacy systems; will integrate all human resource
information into one platform, making information available to managers
for strategic planning and employee development; and helping ensure
that HUD employees are used effectively.
Lack of Travel Funds Can Affect How Thoroughly Cases Are Investigated:
Officials from headquarters and the sites we visited also told us that
inconsistencies in the amount and availability of travel funds impaired
the length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement process. As
mentioned previously, in May 2003, Congress approved the reprogramming
of funds within HUD to cover the cost of excess staff hiring, including
a $7.7 million reduction in travel funds. FHEO officials told us that
following this reprogramming, they had no travel funds for up to 6
months, preventing investigators from making timely visits to the sites
of complaints. Budget data show that FHEO has experienced larger
decreases in travel funds than HUD as a whole. From fiscal year 2002 to
2003, HUD's allotment for travel decreased by 12 percent. FHEO's travel
allotment, however, decreased by 17 percent over the same period.
Directors reported that interruptions in travel funds in fiscal year
2003 had impeded efforts to plan and manage investigations. Directors
also told us that uncertainties regarding the department's ultimate
annual appropriations amount had forced headquarters to limit travel
funds at the beginning of fiscal years and prevented them from
establishing a firm annual travel budget. Without this budget,
directors said, they could not plan for the travel that would have
helped reduce the length of investigations.
Directors reported using several methods to stretch their travel funds,
including curtailing and delaying travel, limiting the time
investigators could spend in the field, catching up on needed travel
when funds became available at the end of the fiscal year, reducing
travel for FHEO's other responsibilities outside of fair housing
enforcement, and asking investigators from offices closer to the site
of the complaint to assist with the investigation. Some investigators
told us that they had used their own vehicles or funds for site visits
and conducted desk investigations. At the same time, budget data show
that hub directors' routine meetings consumed an increasing share of
FHEO's travel budget from fiscal year 2001 to 2003. Director's meetings
utilized 13 percent of FHEO's travel expenditures of approximately
$900,000 in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 46]
Performance Goals May Affect the Length of Investigations:
Hub directors we visited told us that while FHEO's national performance
goals have helped reduce the number of aged cases, these goals have had
a negligible impact on the thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement
process and could create competing demands for staff time. Performance
reports show that the percentage of aged fair housing complaints for
HUD nationwide has declined steadily since fiscal year 2000, exceeding
the national goals in fiscal year 2001 through 2003.[Footnote 47] For
example, in fiscal year 2003, the national goal was a 25 percent
maximum for aged cases and FHEO achieved 23 percent.[Footnote 48]
However, there are no national goals that directly relate to the
thoroughness of investigations or the fair housing enforcement process.
Regardless, some directors told us that although they strive to meet
performance goals, they are more motivated by the statute's 100-day
benchmark and the need to provide good customer service.
Directors also cited a tension between the need to meet the 100-day
benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough investigation
and said that at times one goal cannot be achieved without some cost to
the other. One director stated that while mindful of the 100-day
benchmark, she would not close a case to meet the time limit unless she
felt that the investigation had been thorough. Directors told us that
the existence of overall performance goals for FHEO could exacerbate
the problem of competing demands. For example, annual goals routinely
set achievement targets in FHEO's area of responsibility outside of
Title VIII enforcement, including program compliance review, monitoring
FHIP and FHAP agencies grantees, increasing the number of substantially
equivalent agencies, and providing training on accessibility and
handicap rights. The time and resources needed to meet these targets
could increase the challenges involved in meeting Title VIII
commitments in a timely and thorough manner.
Conclusions:
The fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for
considering complaints of housing discrimination. However, persons who
have experienced alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a
lengthy wait before their complaint is resolved. Because flexibility is
built into the process, enforcement practitioners have devised a
variety of practices for processing inquiries and complaints, some of
which could improve the timeliness and thoroughness of investigations.
Our limited look at enforcement operations at FHAP agencies and FHEO
centers within 3 of FHEO's 10 regions revealed practices that could
potentially expedite cases if they were adopted elsewhere. Further,
many FHEO hub directors told us they believed that every stage of the
fair housing enforcement process could be improved. However,
practitioners may be unaware of such practices because FHEO has not
taken steps to identify those practices that hold the promise of
improving the fair housing enforcement process.
Because of data limitations--specifically, data that are of
questionable reliability, missing, or not currently collected--FHEO
does not know how much time individuals face from the day they make an
inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, particularly
when FHAP agencies handle the investigation. Without comprehensive,
reliable data on the dates when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot
judge how long complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes
an investigation. Similarly, without comprehensive, consistent, and
reliable data concerning the dates that complaints are finally decided,
HUD cannot determine how long the intended beneficiaries of the Act
typically wait for a decision. Data that provide a comprehensive view
of the enforcement process from start to finish for both FHEO and FHAP
agencies could help HUD target problem areas and improve management of
the enforcement process. TEAPOTS provides a platform that FHEO and FHAP
agencies may use for recording these key enforcement data.
FHEO's human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge of
improving enforcement practices. Human capital management issues at
both HUD and FHEO are an immediate concern. FHEO's planned reduction in
staff and other human capital factors may affect its ability to enforce
fair housing laws. To meet such challenges, HUD managers will need to
continue their efforts to analyze workforce needs and to develop a
workforce planning process that makes the best use of the department's
most important resource--the people that it employs now and in the
future. A comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that
builds on the five principles that we have observed at other federal
agencies will help FHEO and other departmental programs identify and
focus their investments on the long-term human capital issues that most
affect the agency's ability to achieve its mission.
Recommendations:
To improve the management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement
process, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant
Secretary of FHEO to take the following 4 actions:
* establish a way to identify and share information on effective
practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies;
* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on key dates in the intake stage of the fair housing
enforcement process for FHAP agencies;
* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on key dates in the adjudication stage of the fair
housing enforcement process for both FHEO and FHAP agencies;
* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on the outcomes of the adjudication stage of the fair
housing enforcement process for FHEO and FHAP agencies; and:
* ensure that hubs enter cause dates into the automated case-tracking
system in a consistent manner.
Further, we recommend that the Secretary take the following action:
* In developing HUD's 5-year Departmental Workforce Plan, follow the
five key principles discussed in this report. As part of the
comprehensive workforce analysis, ensure that HUD fully considers a
wide range of strategies to make certain that FHEO obtains and
maximizes the necessary skills and competencies needed to achieve its
current and emerging mission and strategic goals with the resources it
can reasonably expect to be available.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment.
We received written comments from the department's Assistant Secretary
for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These comments, which are
included in appendix IV, indicated general agreement with our
conclusions and recommendations. The Assistant Secretary noted that
FHEO has already begun to take steps to improve the quality and
timeliness of the fair housing enforcement process. Specific planned
actions that are consistent with our recommendations include (1)
implementing a new Business Process Redesign review; (2) establishing a
reporting requirement addressing post-cause results; and (3) enhancing,
in conjunction with the department, FHEO's efforts at workforce
analysis. The Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would take a
close look at all of the report's recommendations. HUD's comments also
included several suggestions to enhance clarity or technical accuracy.
We revised the report to incorporate these suggestions and have
included them in this report where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested congressional
members and committees. We will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, this report will also be available at no charge
on our Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me or Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-6794 if you or your
staff have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors to
this report were Emily Chalmers, Rachel DeMarcus, Tiffani Green, M.
Grace Haskins, Marc Molino, Andrew Nelson, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross,
and Anita Visser.
Signed by:
David G. Wood,
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations
conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended,
rather than fair housing activities under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the
legislation, regulations, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity's (FHEO) guidance for intake, investigation and
adjudication of fair housing complaints. We also interviewed officials
at FHEO headquarters who are responsible for oversight and
policymaking. In addition, we conducted site visits and structured
interviews with key FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)
agency officials, including FHEO hub, FHAP agency, and center
directors; intake staff; investigators and attorneys. We selected 3 of
the 10 FHEO hubs and 8 of the 18 centers for site visits (table 4). We
selected the hub sites on the basis of (1) the number of "aged" cases
within the region, (2) the total number of complaints received, (3) the
ratio of FHEO investigations to all investigations, and (4) the number
of organizational components--that is the number of centers and offices
within the hub. We ranked each hub on the basis of whether they were
among the 3 hubs with the highest values, the 3 with the lowest values
or the 4 hubs with the middle values for the dimensions we measured. We
also visited at least one FHAP agency in each of the selected hub
regions.
Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits:
Location: Chicago Hub;
Centers; (Detroit; Columbus; Chicago);
Percentage of aged cases: Medium;
Number of complaints received: High;
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: Medium;
Number of organizational components: High.
Location: Fort Worth Hub;
Centers; (Fort Worth; New Orleans; Austin);
Percentage of aged cases: High;
Number of complaints received: Medium;
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: High;
Number of organizational components: High.
Location: New York Hub;
Centers; (New York City; Newark);
Percentage of aged cases: Low;
Number of complaints received: Medium;
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: Low;
Number of organizational components: Medium.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
[End of table]
To describe the trends in FHEO data on the numbers, characteristics,
outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, we used data from
FHEO's automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS). Specifically, we
obtained data on inquiries and claims made and investigations completed
as of September 2003, for each fiscal year from 1996 through 2003.
Using these data, we computed the following:
* number of inquiries and claims made,
* number of complaints filed,
* number and outcome of investigations completed,
* percentage of investigations completed within 100 days, and:
* median length of each enforcement stage.
For the purposes of measuring the percentage of investigations
completed within 100 days, we measured the time elapsed between the
most recent of the date filed, date reopened, or date reentered and the
date the investigations were either transferred to the Department of
Justice, closed administratively, conciliated or settled, found to have
reasonable cause, or found not to have reasonable cause.
To assess the reliability of TEAPOTS data we used, we examined (1) the
process FHEO and FHAP agencies use to capture and process inquiry and
complaint information and (2) the internal controls over the TEAPOTS
database that store and retrieve this information. We interviewed the
system's managers, reviewed documentation of and reports produced by
the system, compared some of our results to summary reports previously
produced by FHEO, and performed basic reasonableness checks on TEAPOTS
data. Missing values and fields, inconsistencies between fields, and
out-of-range values in fields were infrequent and did not pose a
material risk of error in our analysis. We concluded that the data we
analyzed were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
However, we encountered several limitations in the TEAPOTS data that
prevented us from using them to fully describe the trends in the
numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing investigations.
Because of indications that TEAPOTS data may either be incomplete or
inconsistent regarding the dates that inquiries were made, and the
dates that an independent fact finder ultimately determined that
discrimination did or did not occur, we were unable to provide complete
information on one of our report objectives. Specifically, we were
unable to report on the average time taken by two phases of the
enforcement process for cases handled by FHAP agencies.
In attempting to determine the average time needed to complete each
stage of the fair housing enforcement process, we relied on data from
TEAPOTS. Specifically, we obtained TEAPOTS data on complaint
investigations completed from 1996 through 2003 by FHEO and FHAP
agencies and attempted to measure (1) the time elapsed between a
complainants' first contact with either the FHEO or a FHAP agency and
the date that the complaint was filed; (2) the time elapsed between
filing a complaint and completing an investigation; and (3) the time
elapsed between completing an investigation and the final disposition,
the end of the adjudication process. Because of inconsistent intake
data and missing adjudication data, we were unable to determine the
average time that had been required to complete the first and last
stages of the complaint process for cases handled by FHAP agencies.
To determine the factors that could influence the length and
thoroughness of Title VIII investigations, we interviewed FHEO and FHAP
agency officials responsible for management, intake, investigation, and
legal matters at selected field locations. We also surveyed the 10 FHEO
hub directors. Appendix II reproduces our questionnaire. We also
reviewed and analyzed information concerning the allocation, numbers,
experience, and tenure of FHEO staff, including Quality Management
Reviews and Resource Estimation and Allocation Process analyses. In
addition, we interviewed officials and staff responsible for
implementing the fair housing process at selected fair housing
enforcement hubs and selected centers within these hubs. We also
reviewed reports on HUD human capital challenges prepared by GAO, the
HUD Inspector General, and other relevant sources:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12:
Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:
1996;
Claims: 4,614;
Inquiries: 0;
Total: 4,614.
1997;
Claims: 4,333;
Inquiries: 0;
Total: 4,333.
1998;
Claims: 4,791;
Inquiries: 1;
Total: 4,792.
1999;
Claims: 4,831;
Inquiries: 1;
Total: 4,832.
2000;
Claims: 4,445;
Inquiries: 2;
Total: 4,447.
2001;
Claims: 1,323;
Inquiries: 3,140;
Total: 4,463.
2002;
Claims: 0;
Inquiries: 4,628;
Total: 4,628.
2003;
Claims: 0;
Inquiries: 5,417;
Total: 5,417.
Total;
Claims: 24,337;
Inquiries: 13,189;
Total: 37,526.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 2.
[End of table]
Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003:
1996;
FHAP Agencies: 4,213;
FHEO: 2,055;
Total: 6,268.
1997;
FHAP Agencies: 4,057;
FHEO: 1,819;
Total: 5,876.
1998;
FHAP Agencies: 3,792;
FHEO: 2,026;
Total: 5,818.
1999;
FHAP Agencies: 3,888;
FHEO: 2,251;
Total: 6,139.
2000;
FHAP Agencies: 4,823;
FHEO: 2,150;
Total: 6,973.
2001;
FHAP Agencies: 5,034;
FHEO: 1,975;
Total: 7,009.
2002;
FHAP Agencies: 5,079;
FHEO: 2,568;
Total: 7,647.
2003;
FHAP Agencies: 5,397;
FHEO: 2,739;
Total: 8,136.
Total;
FHAP Agencies: 36,283;
FHEO: 17,583;
Total: 53,866.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 3.
[End of table]
Table 7: Prohibited Basis of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with FHEO
and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Race;
1996: Number: 2,729;
1996: Percent: 43.5;
1997: Number: 2,562;
1997: Percent: 43.6;
1998: Number: 2,638;
1998: Percent: 45.4;
1999: Number: 2,457;
1999: Percent: 40;
2000: Number: 2,801;
2000: Percent: 40.2;
2001: Number: 2,745;
2001: Percent: 39.2;
2002: Number: 3,000;
2002: Percent: 39.3;
2003: Number: 3,198;
2003: Percent: 39.4.
Handicap;
1996: Number: 1,577;
1996: Percent: 25.2;
1997: Number: 1,740;
1997: Percent: 29.6;
1998: Number: 1,766;
1998: Percent: 30.4;
1999: Number: 2,082;
1999: Percent: 33.9;
2000: Number: 2,398;
2000: Percent: 34.4;
2001: Number: 2,438;
2001: Percent: 34.8;
2002: Number: 2,888;
2002: Percent: 37.9;
2003: Number: 3,166;
2003: Percent: 39.
Familial Status;
1996: Number: 1,578;
1996: Percent: 25.2;
1997: Number: 1,306;
1997: Percent: 22.2;
1998: Number: 1,165;
1998: Percent: 20;
1999: Number: 1,163;
1999: Percent: 18.9;
2000: Number: 1,281;
2000: Percent: 18.4;
2001: Number: 1,248;
2001: Percent: 17.8;
2002: Number: 1,238;
2002: Percent: 16.2;
2003: Number: 1,297;
2003: Percent: 16.
National Origin;
1996: Number: 810;
1996: Percent: 12.9;
1997: Number: 693;
1997: Percent: 11.8;
1998: Number: 660;
1998: Percent: 11.4;
1999: Number: 690;
1999: Percent: 11.2;
2000: Number: 818;
2000: Percent: 11.7;
2001: Number: 903;
2001: Percent: 12.9;
2002: Number: 930;
2002: Percent: 12.2;
2003: Number: 1,052;
2003: Percent: 13.
Sex;
1996: Number: 780;
1996: Percent: 12.4;
1997: Number: 698;
1997: Percent: 11.9;
1998: Number: 644;
1998: Percent: 11.1;
1999: Number: 559;
1999: Percent: 9.1;
2000: Number: 729;
2000: Percent: 10.5;
2001: Number: 812;
2001: Percent: 11.6;
2002: Number: 870;
2002: Percent: 11.4;
2003: Number: 935;
2003: Percent: 11.5.
Color;
1996: Number: 470;
1996: Percent: 7.5;
1997: Number: 589;
1997: Percent: 10;
1998: Number: 429;
1998: Percent: 7.4;
1999: Number: 277;
1999: Percent: 4.5;
2000: Number: 285;
2000: Percent: 4.1;
2001: Number: 317;
2001: Percent: 4.5;
2002: Number: 186;
2002: Percent: 2.4;
2003: Number: 180;
2003: Percent: 2.2.
Retaliation;
1996: Number: 142;
1996: Percent: 2.3;
1997: Number: 123;
1997: Percent: 2.1;
1998: Number: 180;
1998: Percent: 3.1;
1999: Number: 184;
1999: Percent: 3;
2000: Number: 286;
2000: Percent: 4.1;
2001: Number: 411;
2001: Percent: 5.9;
2002: Number: 401;
2002: Percent: 5.3;
2003: Number: 408;
2003: Percent: 5.
Religion;
1996: Number: 95;
1996: Percent: 1.5;
1997: Number: 116;
1997: Percent: 2;
1998: Number: 113;
1998: Percent: 1.9;
1999: Number: 145;
1999: Percent: 2.4;
2000: Number: 163;
2000: Percent: 2.3;
2001: Number: 155;
2001: Percent: 2.2;
2002: Number: 204;
2002: Percent: 2.7;
2003: Number: 241;
2003: Percent: 3.
Total;
1996: Number: 6,268;
1997: Number: 5,875;
1998: Number: 5,813;
1999: Number: 6,138;
2000: Number: 6,972;
2001: Number: 7,004;
2002: Number: 7,624;
2003: Number: 8,111;
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Notes: Data also represented in figure 5.
Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may have more
than one basis.
[End of table]
Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
Discriminatory terms;
Total: Number: 31,466;
1996: Number: 3,932;
1996: Percent: 62.7;
1997: Number: 3,775;
1997: Percent: 64.2;
1998: Number: 3,539;
1998: Percent: 60.9;
1999: Number: 3,586;
1999: Percent: 58.4;
2000: Number: 3,961;
2000: Percent: 56.8;
2001: Number: 4,008;
2001: Percent: 57.2;
2002: Number: 4,213;
2002: Percent: 55.1;
2003: Number: 4,452;
2003: Percent: 54.7.
Refusal to rent;
Total: Number: 15,011;
1996: Number: 2,274;
1996: Percent: 36.3;
1997: Number: 1,775;
1997: Percent: 30.2;
1998: Number: 1,417;
1998: Percent: 24.4;
1999: Number: 1,699;
1999: Percent: 27.7;
2000: Number: 1,962;
2000: Percent: 28.1;
2001: Number: 1,990;
2001: Percent: 28.4;
2002: Number: 2,014;
2002: Percent: 26.3;
2003: Number: 1,880;
2003: Percent: 23.1.
Reasonable accommodation or modification;
Total: Number: 5,954;
1996: Number: 11;
1996: Percent: 0.2;
1997: Number: 154;
1997: Percent: 2.6;
1998: Number: 367;
1998: Percent: 6.3;
1999: Number: 685;
1999: Percent: 11.2;
2000: Number: 1,018;
2000: Percent: 14.6;
2001: Number: 1,020;
2001: Percent: 14.6;
2002: Number: 1,357;
2002: Percent: 17.8;
2003: Number: 1,342;
2003: Percent: 16.5.
Retaliation (Section 818);
Total: Number: 6,990;
1996: Number: 857;
1996: Percent: 13.7;
1997: Number: 699;
1997: Percent: 11.9;
1998: Number: 863;
1998: Percent: 14.8;
1999: Number: 855;
1999: Percent: 13.9;
2000: Number: 887;
2000: Percent: 12.7;
2001: Number: 777;
2001: Percent: 11.1;
2002: Number: 942;
2002: Percent: 12.3;
2003: Number: 1,110;
2003: Percent: 13.6.
Advertising;
Total: Number: 3,854;
1996: Number: 257;
1996: Percent: 4.1;
1997: Number: 286;
1997: Percent: 4.9;
1998: Number: 408;
1998: Percent: 7.0;
1999: Number: 611;
1999: Percent: 10.0;
2000: Number: 645;
2000: Percent: 9.3;
2001: Number: 649;
2001: Percent: 9.3;
2002: Number: 558;
2002: Percent: 7.3;
2003: Number: 440;
2003: Percent: 5.4.
Discriminatory lending or financial practices;
Total: Number: 2,876;
1996: Number: 238;
1996: Percent: 3.8;
1997: Number: 293;
1997: Percent: 5.0;
1998: Number: 291;
1998: Percent: 5.0;
1999: Number: 246;
1999: Percent: 4.0;
2000: Number: 359;
2000: Percent: 5.2;
2001: Number: 427;
2001: Percent: 6.1;
2002: Number: 492;
2002: Percent: 6.4;
2003: Number: 530;
2003: Percent: 6.5.
False representation;
Total: Number: 1,405;
1996: Number: 175;
1996: Percent: 2.8;
1997: Number: 150;
1997: Percent: 2.6;
1998: Number: 193;
1998: Percent: 3.3;
1999: Number: 163;
1999: Percent: 2.7;
2000: Number: 189;
2000: Percent: 2.7;
2001: Number: 159;
2001: Percent: 2.3;
2002: Number: 169;
2002: Percent: 2.2;
2003: Number: 207;
2003: Percent: 2.5.
Refusal to sell;
Total: Number: 1,788;
1996: Number: 153;
1996: Percent: 2.4;
1997: Number: 156;
1997: Percent: 2.7;
1998: Number: 203;
1998: Percent: 3.5;
1999: Number: 181;
1999: Percent: 3.0;
2000: Number: 260;
2000: Percent: 3.7;
2001: Number: 261;
2001: Percent: 3.7;
2002: Number: 288;
2002: Percent: 3.8;
2003: Number: 286;
2003: Percent: 3.5.
Design and construction;
Total: Number: 1,418;
1996: Number: 55;
1996: Percent: 0.9;
1997: Number: 126;
1997: Percent: 2.1;
1998: Number: 215;
1998: Percent: 3.7;
1999: Number: 278;
1999: Percent: 4.5;
2000: Number: 219;
2000: Percent: 3.1;
2001: Number: 152;
2001: Percent: 2.2;
2002: Number: 154;
2002: Percent: 2.0;
2003: Number: 219;
2003: Percent: 2.7.
Steering, blockbusting, and redlining;
Total: Number: 605;
1996: Number: 51;
1996: Percent: 0.8;
1997: Number: 53;
1997: Percent: 0.9;
1998: Number: 68;
1998: Percent: 1.2;
1999: Number: 62;
1999: Percent: 1.0;
2000: Number: 93;
2000: Percent: 1.3;
2001: Number: 80;
2001: Percent: 1.1;
2002: Number: 79;
2002: Percent: 1.0;
2003: Number: 119;
2003: Percent: 1.5.
Other;
Total: Number: 4640;
1996: Number: 498;
1996: Percent: 8.0;
1997: Number: 437;
1997: Percent: 7.4;
1998: Number: 516;
1998: Percent: 8.9;
1999: Number: 650;
1999: Percent: 10.6;
2000: Number: 517;
2000: Percent: 7.4;
2001: Number: 421;
2001: Percent: 6.0;
2002: Number: 727;
2002: Percent: 9.5;
2003: Number: 874;
2003: Percent: 10.7.
Single issue;
Total: Number: 36,287;
1996: Number: 4,300;
1996: Percent: 68.6;
1997: Number: 4,176;
1997: Percent: 71.1;
1998: Number: 3,969;
1998: Percent: 68.2;
1999: Number: 3,912;
1999: Percent: 63.7;
2000: Number: 4,579;
2000: Percent: 65.7;
2001: Number: 4,748;
2001: Percent: 67.7;
2002: Number: 5,076;
2002: Percent: 66.4;
2003: Number: 5,527;
2003: Percent: 67.9.
Multiple issues;
Total: Number: 17,574;
1996: Number: 1,968;
1996: Percent: 31.4;
1997: Number: 1,700;
1997: Percent: 28.9;
1998: Number: 1,847;
1998: Percent: 31.8;
1999: Number: 2,226;
1999: Percent: 36.3;
2000: Number: 2,393;
2000: Percent: 34.3;
2001: Number: 2,261;
2001: Percent: 32.3;
2002: Number: 2,570;
2002: Percent: 33.6;
2003: Number: 2,609;
2003: Percent: 32.1.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Notes: Data also represented in figure 6.
Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may involve more
than one issue.
[End of table]
Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies,
FY 1996-2003:
1996;
FHAP Agencies: 4,737;
FHEO: 3,190;
Total: 7,927.
1997;
FHAP Agencies: 4,430;
FHEO: 1,921;
Total: 6,351.
1998;
FHAP Agencies: 4,038;
FHEO: 1,449;
Total: 5,487.
1999;
FHAP Agencies: 3,806;
FHEO: 1,963;
Total: 5,769.
2000;
FHAP Agencies: 4,216;
FHEO: 2,336;
Total: 6,552.
2001;
FHAP Agencies: 4,846;
FHEO: 3,089;
Total: 7,935.
2002;
FHAP Agencies: 5,860;
FHEO: 2,474;
Total: 8,334.
2003;
FHAP Agencies: 5,667;
FHEO: 2,877;
Total: 8,544.
Total;
FHAP Agencies: 37,600;
FHEO: 19,299;
Total: 56,899.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 7.
[End of table]
Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:
1996;
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,454;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 18.3;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 293;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 3.7;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,833;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.7;
No Cause: Number: 3,323;
No Cause: Percent: 41.9;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 24;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 0.3;
Total: Number: 7,927.
1997;
Administrative Closure: Number: 896;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.1;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 262;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.1;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,316;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 36.5;
No Cause: Number: 2,844;
No Cause: Percent: 44.8;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 33;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 0.5;
Total: Number: 6,351.
1998;
Administrative Closure: Number: 812;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.8;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 300;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5.5;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 1,971;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.9;
No Cause: Number: 2,349;
No Cause: Percent: 42.8;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 55;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1;
Total: Number: 5,487.
1999;
Administrative Closure: Number: 833;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.4;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 290;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,057;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.7;
No Cause: Number: 2,412;
No Cause: Percent: 41.8;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 177;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 3.1;
Total: Number: 5,789.
2000;
Administrative Closure: Number: 929;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.2;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 324;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.9;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,301;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.1;
No Cause: Number: 2,892;
No Cause: Percent: 44.1;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 106;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.6;
Total: Number: 6,552.
2001;
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,104;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 13.9;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 405;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5.1;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,325;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 29.3;
No Cause: Number: 3,958;
No Cause: Percent: 49.9;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 143;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.8;
Total: Number: 7,935.
2002;
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,087;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 13;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 409;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.9;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,464;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 29.6;
No Cause: Number: 4,285;
No Cause: Percent: 51.4;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 89;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.1;
Total: Number: 8,334.
2003;
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,035;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 12.1;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 373;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.4;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,912;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 34.1;
No Cause: Number: 4,126;
No Cause: Percent: 48.3;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 98;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.1;
Total: Number: 8,544.
Total;
Administrative Closure: Number: 8,150;
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.3;
Reasonable Cause: Number: 2,656;
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.7;
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 19,179;
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 33.7;
No Cause: Number: 26,189;
No Cause: Percent: 46;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 725;
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.3;
Total: Number: 56,899.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 8.
[End of table]
Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY
1996-2003:
1996;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,110;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.4;
FHEO: Number: 524;
FHEO: Percent: 16.4;
Total: Number: 1,634;
Total: Percent: 20.6;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 7,927.
1997;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,060;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.9;
FHEO: Number: 407;
FHEO: Percent: 21.2;
Total: Number: 1,467;
Total: Percent: 23.1;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 6,351.
1998;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 957;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.7;
FHEO: Number: 308;
FHEO: Percent: 21.3;
Total: Number: 1,265;
Total: Percent: 23.1;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 5,487.
1999;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,014;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 26.6;
FHEO: Number: 491;
FHEO: Percent: 25;
Total: Number: 1,505;
Total: Percent: 26.1;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 5,769.
2000;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,145;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 27.2;
FHEO: Number: 328;
FHEO: Percent: 14;
Total: Number: 1,473;
Total: Percent: 22.5;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 6,552.
2001;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,316;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 27.2;
FHEO: Number: 539;
FHEO: Percent: 17.4;
Total: Number: 1,855;
Total: Percent: 23.4;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 7,935.
2002;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,471;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 25.1;
FHEO: Number: 1,011;
FHEO: Percent: 40.9;
Total: Number: 2,482;
Total: Percent: 29.8;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 8,334.
2003;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,893;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 33.4;
FHEO: Number: 1,448;
FHEO: Percent: 50.3;
Total: Number: 3,341;
Total: Percent: 39.1;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 8,544.
Total;
FHAP Agencies: Number: 9,966;
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 26.5;
FHEO: Number: 5,056;
FHEO: Percent: 26.2;
Total: Number: 15,022;
Total: Percent: 26.4;
Total Investigations complete: Number: 56,899.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 9.
[End of table]
Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination FY 1996-2003:
Discriminatory terms;
FHAP Agencies: 197;
FHEO: 261;
Overall: 214.
Refusal to rent;
FHAP Agencies: 218;
FHEO: 283;
Overall: 234.
Reasonable accommodation or modification;
FHAP Agencies: 156;
FHEO: 175;
Overall: 162.
Retaliation (Section 818);
FHAP Agencies: 218;
FHEO: 296;
Overall: 245.
Advertising;
FHAP Agencies: 219;
FHEO: 267;
Overall: 231.
Discriminatory lending or financial practices;
FHAP Agencies: 240;
FHEO: 408;
Overall: 295.
False representation;
FHAP Agencies: 206;
FHEO: 373;
Overall: 250.
Refusal to sell;
FHAP Agencies: 216;
FHEO: 347;
Overall: 242.5.
Design and construction;
FHAP Agencies: 203;
FHEO: 398;
Overall: 284.
Steering, blockbusting, and redlining;
FHAP Agencies: 228;
FHEO: 359;
Overall: 265.5.
Other;
FHAP Agencies: 192;
FHEO: 199;
Overall: 194.
Single issue;
FHAP Agencies: 184;
FHEO: 242;
Overall: 199.
Multiple issues;
FHAP Agencies: 220;
FHEO: 293;
Overall: 240.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD Data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 11.
[End of table]
Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003:
Race;
FHAP Agencies: 210;
FHEO: 294;
Overall: 230.
Handicap;
FHAP Agencies: 175;
FHEO: 223;
Overall: 190.
Familial Status;
FHAP Agencies: 204;
FHEO: 269;
Overall: 219.
National Origin;
FHAP Agencies: 181;
FHEO: 290;
Overall: 209.
Sex;
FHAP Agencies: 211;
FHEO: 275.5;
Overall: 226.
Color;
FHAP Agencies: 168;
FHEO: 340;
Overall: 191.
Retaliation;
FHAP Agencies: 196;
FHEO: 302;
Overall: 216.
Religion;
FHAP Agencies: 210;
FHEO: 267.5;
Overall: 224.
Single Basis;
FHAP Agencies: 195;
FHEO: 253;
Overall: 211.
Multiple Bases;
FHAP Agencies: 194;
FHEO: 283;
Overall: 217.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: Data also represented in figure 12.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY:
US. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-2000:
April 6, 2004:
Mr. David G. Wood:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investments:
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Wood:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report entitled
"Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management
of the Enforcement Process" (GAO-04-463).
HUD appreciates the conscientious and professional work of your staff
in analyzing the complaint-handling processes of the Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and the Fair Housing Assistance
Program (FHAP). We value their constructive insights into improving our
enforcement process.
Out of our desire to continually improve the quality and timeliness of
our enforcement process, we had already implemented the following
measures: (1) a revised Title VIII Investigator's Handbook to better
enumerate our procedures for receipt of complaints and the conduct of
investigations; (2) new processes to improve the timely completion of
inquiries; (3) joint training between FHEO investigators and attorneys
from HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) to promote collaborative
investigations and to promulgate handbook guidance; and (4) FHAP
attorney training to facilitate idea sharing and consistency of
enforcement.
FHEO is also beginning a new Business Process Redesign (BPR) review.
This BPR will look at the practices of all ten Hubs and some FHAP
agencies. It will allow HUD to catalog the most effective enforcement
techniques in every region. These results will be used to further
address the report's recommendations. HUD's Fair Housing Training
Academy will also enhance investigations in the ways suggested in your
report. The Academy will teach effective investigation techniques to
FHAP investigators throughout the country and create greater
consistency in fair housing enforcement. We initiated this project in
2003, and it will be ready for implementation in the summer of 2004.
Your first recommendation covers gathering and sharing information on
effective intake and investigation techniques from Hub offices and FHAP
agencies. FHEO's quarterly Hub Directors meetings and biennial Fair
Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)/FHAP policy conferences will
continue to serve as a vehicle for sharing this kind of information.
Further, FHEO's planned BPR will facilitate the identification of
effective intake and investigation techniques. In addition, we will
explore ways of developing a more systematic plan for gathering and
making this information available.
In response to your second, third, and fourth recommendations, all of
which relate to case tracking, the Department recognizes the importance
of improving the data collection of inquiries made to FHAP agencies and
of adjudications and case outcomes where FHEO or a FHAP agency has
found reasonable cause. HUD is committed to improving data collection
to obtain information on HUD post-cause outcomes. In the case of FHAP
agencies, however, HUD does not reimburse for receiving and processing
inquiries or for adjudicating fair housing cases, but only for the
complaint investigation. Without providing additional funding to cover
the costs, data entry requirements at those earlier stages may be
burdensome for FHAP agencies; however, we will build in reporting
requirements to document post-cause results.
The fifth recommendation concerns HUD's 5-year Departmental Workforce
Plan and advises HUD to consider a wide range of strategies to make
certain that FHEO obtains the necessary skills and competencies needed
to achieve its current emerging mission. HUD has initiated a
comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that incorporates
methodology approved by the Office of Personnel Management and used by
other federal agencies. In fiscal year 2003, HUD contracted the
services of a technical adviser to conduct a comprehensive workforce
analysis of its major program offices.
The comprehensive workforce analysis for FHEO is scheduled to begin in
April 2004. As part of the analysis, the contractor will assist FHEO
managers in developing a five-year projection of its future mission,
along with an assessment of future demands for its products, services,
staffing levels, and core competency requirements. The workforce
planning effort will include FHEO's headquarters and field offices. The
workforce analyses and plans for HUD's major program offices are
scheduled for completion by July 2004. The plans will be used to
develop the Five-Year Comprehensive Departmental Workforce Plan, which
is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2004.
HUD has included the strategic workforce planning effort as a major
component of the Department's Five-Year Strategic Human Capital
Management Plan and the supporting Human Capital Implementation Plan.
These plans include specific action items and metrics to promote the
Department's human capital goals and objectives.
HUD is also making steady progress toward the implementation of the HUD
Integrated Human Resources and Training System (HIHRTS). HIHRTS will
provide managers easy access to critical information to support the
full spectrum of human capital management including strategic planning,
staffing and recruitment, employee development, and performance
management.
The following statements in your draft report require clarification or
correction:
1. The report states, "During the investigation stage, FHEO
investigators try to collect enough evidence to make a `reasonable
cause' determination, that is, to determine if reasonable cause exists
to believe that the respondent violated the Act." (Page 11). This is an
improper characterization that implies that investigations are biased
to reach a pre-determined outcome. The statement should be revised to
read "During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect
evidence in order to determine whether reasonable
cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has
occurred, or is about to occur." This characterization occurs at
several other places in the report, specifically on page 3, page 8, and
in the Section Heading on page 11.
2. In several places, the report refers to the three stages of the fair
housing enforcement process as intake, investigation and adjudication.
It is important to remember that the second stage involves not only
investigation, but also conciliation, which is required by the Fair
Housing Act. This is not an incidental point, as conciliation is the
second most common outcome for a fair housing complaint.
3. On pages 12 and 13, the discussion of the requirement that
headquarters Office of General Counsel (OGC) concur in cause and no
cause determinations is inaccurate, see, 67 Fed. Reg. 44234 (2002). We
recommend the first paragraph on page 12 be revised as follows:
With the concurrence of the Regional Counsel, the Hub Director issues a
determination of reasonable cause and directs the Regional Counsel to
issue a `charge' on behalf of the aggrieved person. The charge is a
short written statement of the facts that led FHEO to the reasonable
cause determination. If the Hub Director decides that no reasonable
cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has
occurred, then, upon concurrence of the Regional Counsel, the Hub
Director dismisses the complaint.
4. An issue closely related to the above is contained in the
enforcement process flow chart at page 9. Under the "Investigation
complete" portion of the flow chart, we recommend the following
revision:
With the concurrence of the Regional Counsel, FHEO will issue a
determination of reasonable cause. The Regional Counsel will then issue
a charge of discrimination, and file the charge with the Office of ALJs
and notify the parties of the filing of the charge.
5. On page 13, the second sentence of the second paragraph should be
revised to read, "An investigation is considered complete, and the 100-
day deadline ends, when a Hub Director makes a cause or no cause
determination in which the Regional Counsel concurs.":
6. The first paragraph on page 23 conveys the impression that FHAP
agencies file more complaints than FHEO. This is incorrect. FHEO
receives inquiries, perfects them, files the complaint, and then, as
required by an Memorandum of Understanding with the FHAP agency, refers
the complaint to the FHAP agency for investigation. Through this
process, HUD files more fair housing complaints, while FHAP agencies
investigate more.
The Department agrees that greater and earlier collaboration between
FHEO and OGC could improve investigation quality and timeliness. To
implement this, each Hub Director and
Regional Counsel have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
detail their working relationship, as noted in the report. FHEO and OGC
have discussed the possibility of developing a standard process for all
regions. Recognizing the value of teamwork, FHEO and OGC will work
toward executing one MOU to facilitate a more collaborative enforcement
process.
We would like to add our own emphasis to the statement in the draft
report that FHEO's enforcement responsibilities extend beyond Title
VIII. FHEO must conduct investigations and compliance reviews under
Title VI, Section 504, Section 109, and other civil rights authorities
that apply to recipients of HUD financial assistance. The Hub
Director's comment about FHEO performance goals for non-Title VIII work
(page 50) raises a concern about the potential for some offices to have
a singular focus on Title VIII enforcement at the expense of our other
responsibilities.
Finally, the Department would like to note its concern at the draft
report's observation that a FHAP agency encouraged parties to opt for
state court so that the agency would not have to commit resources to
the administrative process. Steering parties to one forum is
inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act's enforcement framework and the
neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with respect to forum
selection. We note also that FHAP agencies have access to HUD funds
that could help ease the cited resource concerns.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. We
will take a close look at all of your recommendations and, to the
extent possible, incorporate them into our efforts to improve the
timeliness and effectiveness of our enforcement. Should you or your
staff have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Floyd O. May, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity at (202) 708-4211.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Carolyn Peoples:
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:
[End of section]
(250156):
FOOTNOTES
[1] FHAP agencies are state and local agencies that receive funding
under FHEO's Fair Housing Assistance Program because they have rights
and regulations that are substantially equivalent to those defined in
the Act. FHAP agencies may investigate fair housing complaints made in
their regions.
[2] We selected these locations on the basis of several factors within
the regions, including (1) the number of "aged" cases, (2) the total
number of complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to
all investigations FHEO and FHAP agencies completed, and (4) the number
of FHEO centers and offices.
[3] When we refer to "timeliness benchmarks," we mean guidance on
completing certain enforcement actions. Some of these benchmarks are
contained in the Act, and some of them are contained in FHEO's Title
VIII Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook.
[4] The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of a
dwelling or provision of services because of a handicap of the buyer or
another person associated with the buyer. According to the Act
"handicap" means--with respect to a person--a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major
life activities, or a record of having such an impairment, or being
regarded as having such an impairment. It does not include the current,
illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.
[5] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29
U.S.C. §794 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as amended prohibit discrimination in
housing that receives federal funds.
[6] The Act does not apply to certain transactions involving private
homes marketed without a broker and without advertising if the owner
does not own more than three single-family dwellings at any one time,
or to transactions involving units within certain owner-occupied
dwellings. The Act also does not apply, in certain circumstances, to
religious organizations or private clubs, and the familial status
provisions do not apply to housing for older persons. Finally, the Act
specifically provides that it does not "limit the applicability of
reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum
number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling."
[7] Conciliation is the process by which FHEO helps the parties find a
"just and mutually acceptable" resolution of the disputed issues to a
Title VIII complaint.
[8] Injunctive relief is an order that commands or prevents an action.
[9] Figure 4 shows the states for which hubs have enforcement
authority. These hubs are located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver,
Fort Worth, Kansas City, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
and Seattle.
[10] Of FHEO's many field locations, only the 10 hubs handle intake.
Although complainants sometimes contact other offices about fair
housing issues, these offices refer the complainants to the appropriate
hub.
[11] FHAP agencies may also contact FHEO with an inquiry that they have
received directly. If FHEO determines that an inquiry alleges a
violation of the Act, FHEO considers the inquiry a complaint and "dual
files" it, paying the FHAP agency if it investigates the complaint.
FHEO reviews complaints received from a FHAP agency to ensure that the
complaint alleges a violation under the Act as well. Intake analysts
identify complaints that should be "dual-filed" with the appropriate
FHAP agency.
[12] FHEO uses the terms "issue," "type," or "subject matter" of
discrimination interchangeably.
[13] Federal regulations allow the complaint to be signed at any time
during an investigation, but FHEO prefers to have the complaint signed
early on to protect against frivolous or false claims and erroneous
statements.
[14] In some cases, however, FHEO has special processing procedures
that it follows. These cases include complaints requiring assistance
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), such as those that require prompt
judicial action, show a pattern and practice of housing discrimination,
or involve local zoning laws; complaints involving free speech that
might be protected by the First Amendment and complaints naming HUD as
a respondent.
[15] FHEO generally does not take further action on a complaint
referred to a FHAP agency but may reactivate the complaint in certain
circumstances--for instance, when FHEO and the FHAP agency agree to it
or when the FHAP agency has not taken sufficient actions within certain
time frames.
[16] In rare instances, FHEO does not resolve a case or complete an
investigation but instead refers it to DOJ.
[17] 24 C.F.R. 103.300 (c).
[18] The Act authorizes DOJ to enforce conciliation agreements.
[19] 42 U.S.C.A. 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires investigations to be
completed within 100 days after the filing of the complaint, "unless
doing so is impracticable."
[20] HUD enforcement personnel said that parties to a case have a
variety of reasons for going to court. These reasons include, for a
complainant, wanting greater access to the punitive damages that a
federal district court can levy; for a defendant, fearing that the ALJ
might be biased in favor of FHEO or the complainant; and for either the
complainant or the respondent, wanting a jury trial or having been
advised by an attorney more comfortable with the federal court
procedures.
[21] 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(1).(2).
[22] Equitable relief is a nonmonetary remedy, such as a specific
performance, when monetary damages cannot adequately redress the
injury.
[23] A party adversely affected by the decision may, within the first
15 days of the decision, file a motion with the Secretary explaining
how and why the decision should be modified. The ALJ's decision becomes
HUD's official decision after 30 days, during which time the Secretary
may affirm, modify, or set aside the decision or remand the case for
additional proceedings. Any party adversely affected by the final
decision may file a petition in the appropriate appellate court within
30 days of the final decision. If no petition is filed, the final order
becomes conclusive for any issues in connection with any petition for
enforcement.
[24] The complete results of our survey appear in appendix II.
[25] Federal regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to
act as investigator and conciliator on the same case, but the
regulations state that generally investigators will not conciliate
their own cases.
[26] "Reconstructing Fair Housing," (National Council on Disability)
NCD Report, (Washington, D.C., November 6, 2001). The NCD Report said
that FHEO headquarters had greater authority over the enforcement
process in the early 1990s but that in 1996 authority began to devolve
to FHEO's hubs. As a consequence of that development and other factors,
the NCD report said, significant differences among hubs emerged.
[27] Other FHEO data give an indication of the extent to which FHAP
agencies received inquiries. Specifically, FHAP agencies were
responsible for intake for nearly 24,000 complaints filed, or 42
percent of all complaints filed during the period.
[28] Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of
handicap includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in the
rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be
necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling. This category may also include (with the exception of rental
environments) the refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped
person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be
occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to
afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. 42 U.S.C.
3604(f)(3).
[29] About 1 percent of investigations completed during this period
were closed by FHEO when they were transferred to DOJ.
[30] HUD requires that the time to complete an investigation be
measured from the date a complaint is filed, reopened, or reentered
(taken back from the FHAP agency)--whichever is most recent--to the
date the investigation is closed.
[31] We found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2003, the most frequent
month in which HUD reopened or reentered a fair housing complaint was
September, the last month of the fiscal year. This practice had the
effect of increasing the percentage of investigations that were aged
less than 100 days for statistics reported at the end of the fiscal
year. We report data on the age of complaints for investigations
completed during the year.
[32] Specifically, of the 1,937 FHAP agency investigations that
resulted in reasonable cause determinations, 575 (30 percent) had no
date shown in TEAPOTS to indicate that the adjudication period had
ended.
[33] For the purpose of measuring compliance with the 100-day benchmark
for investigations, HUD used the most recent of the dates a complaint
was filed, reopened, or reentered (i.e., when HUD takes over an
investigation from a FHAP agency). For the purposes of this section of
the report, however, we used the date on which the complaint was filed
in order to represent the elapsed time experienced by a complainant.
That is, we measured the intake stage from the date the inquiry was
received until the date the complaint was filed, and we measured the
investigation stage starting with the date the complaint was filed.
[34] In comparison, FHAP agencies took a median of 195 days to complete
investigations during fiscal years 1996 through 2003. TEAPOTS contained
complete information on filing and completion dates for 37,600 such
FHAP agency investigations.
[35] In comparison, FHAP agencies completed 80 percent of
investigations within 1 year.
[36] According to HUD officials, FHEO shares responsibility for
inputting adjudication decisions into TEAPOTS with OGC and depends upon
getting information about the adjudication of these cases back from
DOJ.
[37] A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the number of regular hours a full
time equivalent would work during a given year. For most years, an FTE
equals 2,080 hours. The FTEs reported here represent the total number
of hours worked by all FHEO or HUD staff during the year divided by
2,080.
[38] Congress authorized a total of 10,297 FTEs for HUD for fiscal year
2003 to be funded through the Salaries and Expenses fund, the Working
Capital Fund, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight accounts. This amount included
9,100 FTEs funded through the Salaries and Expenses account and 643 for
FHEO. HUD later asked the Office of Management and Budget and Congress
to increase the fiscal year 2003 FTE ceiling for the entire department,
including 758 FTEs for FHEO.
[39] The REAP study conducted in 2000 through 2002 suggested 660.2 FTEs
for FHEO, but officials later revised this figure downward. Under the
fiscal year 2003 Corrective Action Plan, FHEO received a prorated
amount of 655.8 FTEs plus 5 FTEs for interns for a total of 660.8 FTEs.
In its fiscal year 2004 request, FHEO received an additional 8.3 FTEs
for a total of 669, and HUD removed ODEEO's 29 FTEs from FHEO,
resulting in a ceiling of 640 for fiscal year 2004.
[40] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the
Inspector General, Review of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Staffing 9/30 Initiative. 2003-AO-0004. (Washington,
D.C.: August 14, 2003).
[41] HUD's internal QMR Program is a peer-review reporting system for
evaluating HUD's field office operations. HUD began conducting QMRs in
2000 and had covered the majority of FHEO offices by 2003.
[42] These realignments included the Community Builder Redeployment,
the HUD 2020 Management Reform, the Office of Administration
Redeployment, Cross Placement, and the Voluntary Reassignment
Initiative.
[43] Employees are eligible for 'optional' or immediate retirement
under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal
Employee Retirement System (FERS) if they are 62 years of age with 5
years of federal service; age 60 with 20 years and, under the CSRS, age
55 with 30 years and, under the FERS, the Minimum Retirement Age with
between 10 and 30 years. Under both systems, employees are eligible for
'early' retirement at any age if they have 25 years of service or are
age 50 with 20 years of service.
[44] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.:
December 2003).
[45] U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Human Capital Management:
Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Planning Needed, GAO-02-839
(Washington D.C.: July 2002).
[46] Up significantly from 2 percent of total travel expenses in fiscal
year 2001 and 7 percent in fiscal year 2002.
[47] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and
Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 2-121. In fiscal year
2000, HUD's percentage of aged cases nationally was 82 percent. In
fiscal year 2001, the goal called for a maximum of 40 percent; FHEO's
actual percentage was 37 percent. For 2002, the corresponding
percentages were 35 and 29 percent, respectively.
[48] According to HUD's Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal
Year 2003, FHEO achieved 19 percent maximum aged cases, however, a HUD
official told us this figure is incorrect because it omits open aged
cases, which are with OGC, and that the correct figure is 23 percent.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548:
