Fair Housing
HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough Gao ID: GAO-06-79 October 31, 2005Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related state and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies receive and investigate several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. These activities, including required conciliation attempts, are directed by HUD's standards, which are based on law, regulation, and best practices. GAO's 2004 report examining trends in case outcomes raised questions about the quality and consistency of the intake (the receipt of initial inquiries) and investigation processes. This follow-up report assesses the thoroughness of fair housing intake and investigation (including conciliation) processes, and complainant satisfaction with the process.
Evidence from several sources raises questions about the timeliness and thoroughness of the intake process. Thirty percent of complainants GAO surveyed noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency. GAO experienced similar difficulty in test calls it made to each of the 10 FHEO and 36 state FHAP agency intake centers. For example, 5 locations did not respond to the test calls. Further, FHEO and FHAP agencies do not consistently record in their automated information system contacts they receive that they consider potential fair housing inquiries and timeliness data are unreliable, limiting the system's effectiveness as a management control. GAO's review of a national random sample of 197 investigative case files for investigations completed within the last 6 months of 2004 found varying levels of documentation that FHEO and FHAP investigators met investigative standards and followed recommended procedures. Further, though the Fair Housing Act requires that agencies always attempt conciliation to the extent feasible, only about a third of the files showed evidence of such attempts. FHEO officials stated that the required investigation and conciliation actions may have been taken but not documented as required in case files. According to GAO's survey of a national random sample of 575 complainants whose complaint investigations were recently completed, about half were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the outcome of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Although GAO and survey respondents found that FHEO and FHAP agency staff were generally courteous and helpful, important lapses remain in the complaint process that may affect not only how complainants feel about the process but also how thoroughly and promptly their cases are handled.
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-06-79, Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-79
entitled 'Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and
Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough' which was released
on December 1, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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:
October 2005:
Fair Housing:
HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are
Consistently Thorough:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-79]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-79, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s (HUD)
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related state
and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies receive and
investigate several thousand complaints of housing discrimination.
These activities, including required conciliation attempts, are
directed by HUD‘s standards, which are based on law, regulation, and
best practices. GAO‘s 2004 report examining trends in case outcomes
raised questions about the quality and consistency of the intake (the
receipt of initial inquiries) and investigation processes. This follow-
up report assesses the thoroughness of fair housing intake and
investigation (including conciliation) processes, and complainant
satisfaction with the process.
What GAO Found:
Evidence from several sources raises questions about the timeliness and
thoroughness of the intake process. Thirty percent of complainants GAO
surveyed noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach a
live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency. GAO
experienced similar difficulty in test calls it made to each of the 10
FHEO and 36 state FHAP agency intake centers. For example, 5 locations
did not respond to the test calls. Further, FHEO and FHAP agencies do
not consistently record in their automated information system contacts
they receive that they consider potential fair housing inquiries and
timeliness data are unreliable, limiting the system‘s effectiveness as
a management control.
GAO‘s review of a national random sample of 197 investigative case
files for investigations completed within the last 6 months of 2004
found varying levels of documentation that FHEO and FHAP investigators
met investigative standards and followed recommended procedures.
Further, though the Fair Housing Act requires that agencies always
attempt conciliation to the extent feasible, only about a third of the
files showed evidence of such attempts. FHEO officials stated that the
required investigation and conciliation actions may have been taken but
not documented as required in case files.
According to GAO‘s survey of a national random sample of 575
complainants whose complaint investigations were recently completed,
about half were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the outcome
of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent would be
unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Although GAO and survey
respondents found that FHEO and FHAP agency staff were generally
courteous and helpful, important lapses remain in the complaint process
that may affect not only how complainants feel about the process but
also how thoroughly and promptly their cases are handled.
Survey Respondents‘ Overall Satisfaction with the Fair Housing
Complaint Process
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
’don‘t know“ or ’neither“ responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of section]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes recommendations to the HUD Secretary for improving the
thoroughness and timeliness of the fair housing complaint process,
including establishing standards and benchmarks for initial intake
activities, improving data needed to monitor timeliness of intake, and
improving planning and documentation of investigations.
HUD generally agreed with the report‘s conclusions and stated that it
would work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and
procedures.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-79.
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:
Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about Thoroughness
of Intake Process and Effectiveness of Controls:
Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met Required
Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures:
Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate
Complaints:
Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint Process,
Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and Investigation:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Intake:
Investigation and Conciliation:
Complainant Satisfaction:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files Sampled:
Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from July 1,
2004, through December 31, 2004, by Organization and Closure Type:
Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and
Response Rates:
Figures:
Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD's 10 Regions
Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during
Calendar Year 2004, FHAP vs. HUD
Figure 3: HUD's Fair Housing Complaint Process
Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls
Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level
Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing
Agencies
Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition
Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction Addressed
Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint Notification
Letters Addressed to Complainants and Respondents and Evidence of
Receipt
Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure Notices
Addressed to Complainants and Respondents (No Reasonable Cause)
Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for
Investigations Lasting over 100 Days
Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases with
Specific Content in Investigative Plans
Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, by
Investigating Agency and Closure Type
Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and
Respondent Interviews, by Closure Type
Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative
Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits
Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure Information
Requests, by Closure Type
Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff
Conciliation Assistance
Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type
Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case
Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not Satisfied
with the Overall Complaint Process and the Outcome (Percentage of all
Complainants)
Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and the
Intake and Investigative Stages
Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure Type
Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided
Understandable Information and Satisfactory Explanation on Whether the
Complaint Would Be Investigated
Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake
Activities, by Closure Type
Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff
Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out
Certain Activities
Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, Overall
and by Closure Type
Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact
Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Investigative
Activities, by Closure Type
Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative Staff:
Abbreviations:
Act: Fair Housing Act:
ALJ: Administrative Law Judge:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program:
FHEO: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:
FIR: Final Investigative Report:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
OGC: Office of General Counsel:
TEAPOTS: Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking Office System:
Letter October 31, 2005:
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:
In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
100 state and local agencies it has certified through its Fair Housing
Assistance Program (FHAP agencies) handled over 9,000 complaints of
housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended).[Footnote 1] The act generally
prohibits discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps,
and other protected groups in the sale and rental of residential
dwellings. The act as amended provides HUD with enforcement powers and
establishes a 100-day benchmark for completing investigations of
complaints.[Footnote 2] HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (FHEO) administers the program and handles complaints of
housing discrimination. FHAP agencies also handle complaints that
allege violations of substantially similar state and local laws.
To meet the Fair Housing Act's (Act) requirements, FHEO has developed a
process for receiving, investigating, and resolving housing
discrimination complaints. This process has three stages:
* intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive inquiries
from individuals (complainants), determine whether the inquiries
involve a potential violation of the Fair Housing Act (or equivalent
state law), and file fair housing complaints for those that
do;[Footnote 3]
* 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, or reach a mutually
acceptable solution; and:
* 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.
The Act requires that efforts be made to conciliate complaints--that
is, to reach a resolution acceptable to all parties--throughout the
complaint process, beginning with the intake stage. FHEO and FHAP
agencies use an automated case tracking system, the Title Eight
Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) to record
information about complaints and key steps in the investigative
process.
HUD reported in 2002, that the incidence of consistent adverse
treatment against minority home seekers had declined over the last
decade. Nonetheless, a series of reports using paired testing to
measure the level of discrimination in the U. S. housing market found
that about 20 percent of the time a member of a protected group will
experience discrimination when attempting to rent an apartment.
This report, which focuses on intake, investigation, and conciliation
(the complaint process), is the second in a series on HUD's handling of
housing discrimination complaints. GAO's earlier report on fair housing
found, among other things, that as of September 2003 more than a third
(39 percent) of open housing discrimination investigations had passed
the 100-day benchmark.[Footnote 4] GAO noted at the time that FHEO and
the FHAP agencies were trying to speed their efforts to resolve these
cases. Further, GAO reported that FHEO hub directors cited tension
between the need to meet the 100-day benchmark and the need to conduct
a thorough investigation, stating that at times one goal cannot be
achieved without some cost to the other. The report also found that
increasingly the most common outcome of housing discrimination
investigations was a finding of "no reasonable cause" to indicate
discrimination occurred. In 2004, almost half of all investigations
closed had a finding of no-cause and less than 7 percent had a finding
of reasonable cause. About one third were conciliated.
This report addresses the thoroughness of the process for resolving
housing discrimination complaints--that is, the extent to which FHEO
and FHAP agencies meet HUD standards, policies, and best practices in a
timely manner. GAO reviewed:
* the thoroughness and timeliness of FHEO and FHAP agencies' efforts
during the intake process;
* the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies ensure the thoroughness of
investigations, regardless of the outcome;
* the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies attempt to conciliate fair
housing complaints; and:
* complainants' satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, and
outcomes of the fair housing process.
To assess the thoroughness of the intake process, we asked FHEO offices
and FHAP agencies around the country to keep logs of inquiries they
received during a 4-week period and measured (1) the extent to which
these inquiries were in FHEO's information system and resulted in fair
housing complaints and (2) the timeliness of the responses. The centers
that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent of
investigations in 2004. We also made "test" telephone calls to 46
selected intake centers (one FHEO office in each of HUD's 10 regions
and all 36 statewide FHAP agencies) during which GAO analysts posing as
complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We used
these calls to measure the time it took to ultimately reach a staff
person or to receive a return call. We also determined the extent to
which, during the initial contact, intake staff gathered necessary
information for deciding whether to undertake a full investigation,
including whether Title VIII appeared to cover the alleged incident.
Because of the limitations of this sample, the results are not
generalizable to all potential complainants of housing discrimination.
To assess the thoroughness of investigations and efforts to conciliate
complaints, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly selected case
files of housing discrimination cases from around the country that were
completed during the second half of calendar year 2004 with outcomes of
no-cause or that were closed administratively or conciliated. We used a
structured data collection instrument to record whether the files
contained specific evidence of investigation steps and their timing. We
sampled a sufficient number of case files to permit national estimates-
-that is, to permit statistical generalization to all cases closed with
these outcomes during the second half of 2004. Using the same data
collection instrument, we also reviewed 12 of the 15 FHEO cases with
reasonable cause outcomes that completed the adjudication process
during this period.[Footnote 5] In addition, for each case we compared
selected file contents with TEAPOTS records used to track the case. We
did not assess whether investigations reached an appropriate decision
regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation. To
measure complainants' satisfaction with the complaint process, we
conducted a nationwide telephone survey of a random sample of 575
complainants in housing discrimination cases that were investigated and
closed between July 2004 and December 2004. The survey had an overall
38 percent response rate.[Footnote 6] Appendix I contains a detailed
description of our methodology. In addition, our detailed survey
results can be found on GAO's Web site at , www.gao.gov. We conducted
our work from September 2004 to October 2005 in Atlanta; Chicago; San
Francisco and Oakland; Kansas City, Kansas; Baltimore; Columbia, South
Carolina; and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
While often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and
information, FHEO and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely
in carrying out intake activities; moreover, missing or inconsistent
data suggests that TEAPOTS may be of limited usefulness as a management
control over the intake process. First, we found that potential
complainants may encounter difficulty in making initial contact with a
FHEO or FHAP agency staff person. For example, although fair housing
agencies receive allegations of discrimination principally via
telephone, in five locations we called, the agency did not return our
test calls, even after three attempts. Similarly, about 30 percent of
complainants we surveyed--while generally expressing satisfaction with
aspects of the intake phase--reported that it was somewhat or very
difficult to reach someone the first time they contacted a fair housing
agency. Second, the agencies did not consistently obtain information in
a way that was expeditious for complainants or that met recommended
guidelines, as can be seen in the following examples:
* The intake centers to which we placed test calls did not consistently
collect information that would help them recontact the complainant or
assess the urgency of the situation.
* Among our test calls, none of the intake centers collected all of the
information during the initial contact considered by HUD policy to be
critical to collect at intake, including the name and telephone number
of the respondent (the person or persons who allegedly committed the
prohibited discriminatory act). Rather, most of the agencies we
contacted used as their primary means of collecting information a
written intake form, which must be mailed to the complainant, filled
out, and mailed back to the agency, adding to the time required to act
on the inquiry.
* Of the 306 inquiries that the centers, during the period of our
review, found met HUD's initial criteria for filing a complaint, only
half of the time did FHEO and FHAP agencies complete this process
within the 20-day benchmark period.
Our comparison of logged contacts with TEAPOTS data indicates that the
system's usefulness as a management control may be limited. While the
intake centers logged 2,000 unique new potential Title VIII violations,
only 631 (32 percent) were entered into TEAPOTS during the period of
our review.[Footnote 7] Further, because the initial contact dates
shown in the logs were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of
first contact shown in TEAPOTS, HUD's use of TEAPOTS data overstates
its performance in meeting the 20-day intake timeliness benchmark.
About 40 percent of inquiries that completed the intake process took
more than 20 days to complete.
Evidence demonstrating the thoroughness of investigations--that is, the
extent to which investigative standards were met, recommended
procedures were followed or were timely, or internal control measures
were used and documented--varied among the 197 case files and
corresponding TEAPOTS records. First, some files lacked documentation
showing that investigators had carried out certain required actions,
such as sending complaint notices, or copies of amended complaints, to
both complainants and respondents; sending copies of final closure
notices; preparing final investigative reports; and obtaining
supervisory approval of final investigative reports and letters
describing the agency's final determination. Second, an estimated 62
percent of the complaint files did not contain detailed investigative
plans that HUD guidance strongly encourages.[Footnote 8] Further, while
HUD has recommended procedures for interviewing complainants and
respondents or making on-site visits, an estimated 28 percent of the
files did not include evidence of interviews with respondents, while an
estimated 73 percent showed no evidence of on-site visits. Third, we
found that while HUD relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that
investigations meet statutory and regulatory requirements, some FHEO
and FHAP agencies did not include detailed information about cases that
would permit effective monitoring in the system. Among complainants we
surveyed, about one-third stated that they believed their
investigations had not been very thorough or at all thorough. FHEO and
FHAP agency officials and staff said that resource shortages often
presented a challenge in meeting program guidelines and noted that
investigative and management review steps that actually occurred may
not have been documented.
Complainants whose cases were closed through conciliation were the most
satisfied with their case outcomes; however, our review of case files
and corresponding TEAPOTS records found inconsistent documentation of
conciliation attempts. HUD requires FHEO and FHAP agencies to document
conciliation attempts with each party and record in writing the terms
and conditions of any agreement. The written agreements must be signed
by all parties and approved by HUD or the FHAP agency. Our review of
the case files and TEAPOTS records disclosed the following:
* In an estimated 36 percent of the cases, the files contained no
evidence that complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation,
and an estimated 32 percent of the files contained no evidence that
respondents had been contacted.
* Among those cases that HUD closed with an outcome of conciliation, an
estimated 9 percent did not have written agreements in the case
file.[Footnote 9] Among those that did contain written agreements,
about 5 percent did not contain signatures of all parties, and about 10
percent showed no evidence of approval by HUD or the FHAP
agency.[Footnote 10]
* Information in TEAPOTS regarding conciliation efforts varied widely,
from a citation of "conciliation discussed" to the inclusion of
significant details.
Some surveyed complainants reported experiencing at least some pressure
to conciliate their complaints, most commonly because they feared
losing their cases. Others reported that they were not offered help in
resolving their complaints. HUD officials said that the statutory
mandate inherently creates some pressure to conciliate complaints and
that such pressure is not attributable to HUD's administration of the
statute.
While survey respondents reported a number of positive impressions,
particularly with the intake phase of their complaints, they generally
expressed more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with both the overall
process and the case outcome. About 71 percent of complainants were
somewhat or very satisfied with the intake process, citing clarity of
information about steps in the process and generally professional and
courteous treatment. Nevertheless, we estimate that about half of all
complainants in cases closed during our survey period were either
somewhat or very dissatisfied with the fair housing complaint process
overall. Similarly, nearly 60 percent were dissatisfied with the
outcome of the process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file
a complaint in the future. Complainants' satisfaction varied among
stages of the complaint process and outcomes.
* Some complainants viewed the intake process favorably. Although
complainants rated the investigation stage less favorable than intake,
over half were satisfied with the investigation stage. However, a
substantial number rated poorly certain aspects of intake and
investigation.
* Complainants whose cases ended with a finding of no-cause were the
most dissatisfied with the complaint process (72 percent dissatisfied,
23 percent satisfied) and with specific aspects of investigations.
Complainants whose cases were conciliated were the most satisfied (75
percent versus 25 percent, respectively).
Complainants' satisfaction was not linked to the type of agency
conducting the investigation (FHEO or FHAP).
We are recommending that HUD consider a number of strategies to help
assure that the fair housing complaint process is thorough and timely,
including steps to facilitate complainants' initial inquiries, improve
data needed to monitor timeliness of intake activities, improve
planning and documentation of investigations, and help ensure that
conciliation is available to all complaints.
HUD's General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity provided written 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. The General Deputy
Assistant Secretary's letter is reprinted in appendix II.
Background:
The Fair Housing Act is the most comprehensive of the federal statutes
that prohibit discrimination in the rental and sale of
housing.[Footnote 11] Passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, the Act
prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, family status,
handicap, national origin, race, religion, and sex.[Footnote 12] It
applies to a number of what are termed "issues," including
discrimination in the sale, rental, advertising, and financing of
housing; in the provision of brokerage services; and in other
activities related to residential real estate transactions.[Footnote
13] Generally, the Act covers all dwellings--that is, buildings
designed to be used wholly or in part as residences and land where a
dwelling will be located.[Footnote 14] When first enacted in 1968, the
Fair Housing Act's administrative enforcement process was limited
principally to conciliation. In 1988, Congress strengthened HUD's
authority and established a comprehensive administrative process to
enforce the law, but conciliation remained a primary feature.[Footnote
15]
The Act gives HUD, private persons, and the U.S. Attorney General tools
and remedies to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions. Using HUD's
administrative process, individuals who believe they have experienced
discrimination in a housing-related situation can file a complaint that
HUD may then investigate and resolve. Individuals may also elect to
file suit in civil court rather than using the administrative procedure
set out in the act. The Attorney General can bring a civil action in
cases that show a pattern of discriminatory practices.
The Act Is Administered by FHEO and FHAP Agencies:
FHEO has staff in each of HUD's 10 regional offices, or hubs, who
respond to complaints (see fig. 1). Agencies certified to participate
in HUD's Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and receive funding
from HUD for handling fair housing complaints are obligated to comply
with FHEO's reporting and record maintenance requirements, must agree
to on-site technical assistance provided by HUD, and are obligated to
implement certain policies and procedures. FHAP agencies must be in
states or localities whose laws provide rights and remedies that are
substantially similar to those in the Act--for example, local laws must
provide for the same 100-day benchmark for investigations that is
stipulated in the Act. FHEO offices refer complaints alleging
violations of state and local fair housing laws to FHAP agencies--for
example, a certified state office of civil rights. Currently, there are
100 of these agencies around the country.
Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD's 10 Regions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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. 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.
In 2004, FHEO and the FHAP agencies received approximately 9,500 filed
complaints (see fig. 2). For this same period, only 5 percent of the
closed case files resulted in reasonable cause outcomes.[Footnote 16]
HUD reimburses FHAP agencies for carrying out investigations once FHEO
has reviewed the completed cases. Along with reviewing cases to
determine whether HUD should pay for services rendered, FHEO monitors
FHAP agencies and provides technical assistance.[Footnote 17] FHEO
monitors the fair housing enforcement efforts through TEAPOTS.
Our last report identified a number of human capital challenges facing
FHEO, including the number and skill level of FHEO staff, the quality
and effectiveness of training, and other issues. An FHEO official noted
that the staff shortage 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 the complaint process. The total number of
full-time equivalents (FTE)[Footnote 18] 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 fiscal year 2004, FHEO had 650 FTEs.
Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during
Calendar Year 2004, FHAP vs. HUD:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Complaint Process Includes Intake and Investigation Phases:
The complaint process beginning at intake represents the initial
contact a complainant has with an agency responsible for enforcing the
Act or equivalent state law. Figure 3 describes the complaint process
for HUD-investigated complaints. FHAP agencies would follow a similar
process. In the intake stage, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies receive
inquiries by telephone, fax, mail, in person, or over the Internet.
Intake staff record inquiries in TEAPOTS, interview complainants, and
may do other research--for example, searches of public records--to see
if enough information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This
process is known as "perfecting" a complaint. In order to be perfected,
a complaint must:
* contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the
names and addresses of the person alleging the discriminatory practice
and the respondent, a description and the address of the dwelling
involved, and a 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 sell) and
the basis (e.g., race, color, or familial status) for the alleged
discrimination are covered by the Act; and that the complaint has been
filed within a year of the last occurrence of the alleged
discriminatory practice.
Hub directors decide which complaints meet these criteria and become
perfected complaints. Complaints that do not meet the criteria are
dismissed. Intake staff record information about perfected complaints
in TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the complaints, send letters
notifying complainants and respondents about the complaint and the
process that will be used to address it, and send the complaint file to
an investigator.[Footnote 19] FHEO's Title VIII Intake, Investigation,
and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) sets a 20-day benchmark for
completing the intake stage for these cases, but a 5-day benchmark for
cases that it first takes in and then refers to FHAP agencies.
Complaints that are perfected proceed to an investigation. During this
stage, FHEO and FHAP agencies gather evidence to determine whether a
violation of the Act or a state or local housing law has occurred or is
about to occur. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators but
notes that investigations may vary. Agency guidance directs that
directors of FHEO's hub offices review the results of completed
investigations to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe
that a discriminatory housing practice has taken place or could take
place. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD regional counsel, the
hub director issues a determination and directs the regional counsel to
issue a charge, or short written statement of facts, that led to the
decision. 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. Figure 3 provides an
overview of HUD's basic fair housing complaint process, including
timeliness benchmarks established by the Act or agency guidance.
Figure 3: HUD's Fair Housing Complaint Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
An investigation can be closed at any point for administrative reasons
or through conciliation. Cases are closed administratively for several
reasons--for instance, when a complainant withdraws from the case or
cannot be located. The Act requires HUD to make conciliation efforts
throughout the complaint process, beginning when the complaint is filed
and continuing until the charge is filed or the case dismissed. The
Handbook and federal regulations allow investigators to make
conciliation efforts, but the regulations also state that generally
officers, employees, and agents not associated with the case will
attempt conciliation. Conciliation agreements are intended to protect
the public interest through provisions such as requiring respondents to
file periodic reports with HUD. When a conciliation agreement is
reached, the Act authorizes the Department of Justice to enforce the
agreement in the event of a breach. In 2004, FHEO hubs and FHAP
agencies closed about one-third of their cases via conciliation.
The Act set a deadline of 100 days from the date the complaint is filed
for completing an investigation or conciliating or otherwise closing a
case, unless doing so is "impracticable." If the investigation cannot
be completed within this time frame, FHEO or the FHAP agency must
notify the complainant and respondent in writing in what is called the
"100-day letter."[Footnote 20] In our previous report, we found that
the number of investigations completed within 100 days by the FHEO or
FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001, partly in response to
FHEO's initiative to reduce aged cases.
Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about Thoroughness
of Intake Process and Effectiveness of Controls:
Although often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and
information, our test calls and analysis of contact logs found that
FHEO and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely in carrying
out intake activities. Our test calls, while not generalizable, suggest
that potential complainants may have difficulty in making initial
contact with an intake staff person; moreover, 30 percent of the
complainants we surveyed reported such difficulty. Our test calls also
showed that FHEO and FHAP agency staff sometimes did not seek
information needed to determine whether a potential violation of the
Act had taken place and to file a formal complaint, or gather limited
information that might help the agency recontact the complainant or
assess the urgency of the situation. Among the logged contacts that the
agencies determined were potential violations of the Act and were
recorded in TEAPOTS, half resulted in formal complaints. However, only
57 percent of these completed the process within the 20-day benchmark.
Additionally, missing or inconsistent data suggests that TEAPOTS may be
of limited usefulness as a management control over the intake process.
Agency Staff Did Not Always Return Test Calls or Collect Initial Intake
Information Promptly:
The intake process is the first contact prospective complainants have
with the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act or an equivalent
state law. Depending on the quality of intake, potential complainants
may or may not feel comfortable continuing the process, and those who
do not may give up on pursuing their complaints. Thus, the agency's
initial response to complainants plays an important role in the fair
housing complaint process. However, our test calls revealed some
potentially serious lapses in agencies' responses to complainants'
inquiries.
First, we found that agencies did not always respond promptly to
initial attempts to contact them to file a complaint and that because
of requirements that some agencies imposed, trying to file a complaint
could be a challenging process. In 5 of the 46 calls, the agency did
not return the test call, even after 3 attempts.[Footnote 21] In
another 2 cases, the intake organization required that the caller
provide intake information via the Internet or in person. As shown in
figure 4, in 20 of the remaining 39 test cases, the caller spoke with a
live person on initial contact. Of the 9 calls requiring a callback, 6
were not returned within 1 business day, and 3 were not returned for 3
or more days. Our survey of complainants suggests that they experienced
similar difficulties to ours in contacting intake staff. An estimated
30 percent noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach
a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency, and
34 percent said they had difficulty contacting staff after the initial
contact. These percentages were relatively constant regardless of
whether FHEO or a FHAP agency handled the case or its outcome, with one
exception. Complainants whose cases were conciliated reported that they
had less difficulty contacting staff than complainants whose cases were
closed with other outcomes.
Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We also found that intake staff did not seem to display a sense of
urgency in dealing with complaints. Over half of the agencies (23 of
39) relied primarily on a form that the complainant must fill out (HUD-
903 or state equivalent) to collect the information needed to begin an
investigation, and in the initial phone call requested little more than
the complainant's name and mailing address. Using such a form to gather
information for a potential complaint could take a week or more--during
which the caller could lose a housing opportunity. Two other agencies
would not mail a complaint form, insisting that the caller come in to
the office to file a complaint. However, information from contact logs
that the FHAP agencies and FHEO offices maintained for 4 weeks, at our
request, showed that the most prevalent mode of contact is telephone,
and that walk-in and Internet contacts represented less than 5 percent.
Given this situation, requiring potential complainants to appear in
person added an additional challenge that could potentially make it
difficult for a complainant to continue with the process. Further, a
test caller to one of these agencies, stressing the urgency of her
situation, was informed that filing a complaint was a "slow process"
and that her complaint would not be acted on for some time, whether
intake was done over the phone or via the organization's form. FHEO's
annual performance goals do not include goals for the time it takes to
return initial contacts from complainants. However, FHEO has
established a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake process,
starting with the date that the initial inquiry is recorded in TEAPOTS.
In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD's General Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that the agency
tracks the time it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial
contact, and that a new initiative, the FHEO-OGC Case Processing
Research Project, is expected to assist with decision making during the
intake process since it uses a triage system to determine case
complexity.[Footnote 22]
Despite any inconveniences, when our test callers did reach the
agencies, the staff treated them well. In none of our test cases did
hold time exceed 3 minutes, and staff at several agencies spoke
extensively with test callers, answering questions and providing
guidance and information on the process. Our survey of former
complainants that completed the investigation process showed similar
findings. While complainants had difficulty reaching an agency, once
they did, more than half said that agency staff did either a good or an
excellent job of explaining the process and timing of each step.
FHEO and FHAP Agencies Collected Limited Information during Initial
Intake Contacts:
When collecting intake information during our test calls, FHEO and FHAP
agency staff focused primarily on collecting the complainant's name,
address, and protected class, as well as a description of the
discriminatory act. Staff sometimes did not ask for other information
that would be helpful in recontacting the complainant or assessing the
urgency of the situation. To systematically assess the thoroughness of
the intake test calls, we identified criteria from the Act (the minimum
elements of information needed to proceed with the complaint), HUD's
Title VIII Handbook, and training materials from the National Fair
Housing Training Academy. Additionally, we obtained information on best
practices from a fair housing advocacy group as well as HUD's training
materials and interviews with agency officials. We categorized these
criteria at four levels:
* Level 1--information that, according to HUD policy, should always be
collected during intake, though not necessarily during the first
contact, regardless of the basis of the complaint or the protected
class.
* Level 2--information that is potentially applicable to all complaints
and that should be collected during the intake process.
* Level 3--information that is relevant to a particular basis or
protected class--that is, information necessary to determine, for
example, whether the complainant met a certain protected class (e.g.,
handicap or familial status).
* Level 4--information that is considered to be a best practice--for
example, information that may be used for testing.
We also discussed these criteria and the designated levels with agency
officials.
We measured the percentage of information elements collected at each of
these levels during our test calls. The elements associated with each
level, and the results we observed during our test calls, are shown in
figure 5.
While level 1 information should always be collected in order to
proceed with a complaint, some of this information may not always need
to be collected during the initial contact. However, HUD policy
recommends that staff obtain as much information as possible during the
initial intake interview. We also believe that level 1 items should,
with little exception, be collected as part of the initial contact in
order to have information necessary to recontact the complainant and
determine the urgency of the situation.
Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Cases in which the test caller volunteered the information item
are included in the count of the number of cases in which intake staff
asked for the information. The total number of cases is 39.
[End of figure]
On average, intake staff collected approximately 44 percent of level 1
information, which is identified by HUD policy as critical to collect
during intake.[Footnote 23] For example, 21 agencies did not ask for
the respondent's first and last name, and 15 did not ask for the
respondent's organization. As indicated in figure 5, in only 8 agency
test cases did intake staff ask the complainant for the name of an
alternate contact person and in only 7 agency test cases did the intake
staff request a work number--an important piece of information because,
according to FHEO officials, many complainants are in the process of
moving and are difficult to recontact. Also, intake staff about half of
the time asked for the respondent's telephone number. Further, the
agencies collected little information beyond level 1. On average, they
gathered 8 percent of level 2, 11 percent of level 3, and 9 percent of
level 4 information. Some level 4 (best practice) information that was
most often collected during our case study includes the respondent's
gender (13 test calls), respondent's race (9 test calls), and what the
complainant hoped to see as a result of filing a complaint (8 test
calls). (See fig. 5.)
Although HUD policy recommends that intake staff obtain as much
information as possible regarding the aggrieved person's allegations
during the initial intake interview, the amount of information
collected on initial contact varied significantly by agency. One
location collected nothing beyond the complainant's name and mailing
address, while another collected up to 80 percent of the level 1 data.
However, in none of the test calls did intake staff collect 100 percent
of the level 1 information. While most agencies appeared to collect the
remainder of the critical information through their intake forms
(either the HUD-903 form or state equivalent), this practice prevents
the agency from taking any further action on the complaint until a
signed form is received.[Footnote 24] According to HUD officials, the
revised Title VIII Handbook contains standards for information that HUD
will collect during initial contact with a complainant. However, these
and other standards may not apply to FHAP agencies since their
certification by HUD does not ensure that they follow identical
procedures.
The time it takes to receive the form can delay the enforcement
process, potentially resulting not only in the loss of a housing
opportunity but also in complainants becoming frustrated with the
process and deciding not to pursue their complaint. In particular, some
complainants may need urgent attention, such as when they are about to
become homeless because they are being evicted from their rental home
or apartment, or are losing the home they own in a foreclosure. HUD has
authority under the Act in such urgent circumstances to take prompt
judicial action by authorizing the Attorney General to initiate a civil
action seeking appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending
final disposition of the complaint. HUD's Title VIII Handbook
establishes that intake staff has a critical role in identifying when a
complaint may involve a situation warranting prompt judicial action.
Time is critical, and the efforts of the intake staff are helpful in
gathering sufficient information for determining when prompt judicial
action may be necessary. This is also important for intake by the FHAP
agencies, since they must have substantially equivalent authority to
seek prompt judicial action.
Intake Log Data Indicate That TEAPOTS Is of Limited Effectiveness as
Management Control of Intake Process:
Our prior report noted that while FHEO offices kept records of
potentially Title VIII-related contacts, it had not required FHAP
agencies to do so. (For that reason, when preparing our prior report,
we were unable to determine the extent to which FHAP agencies met the
goal of perfecting complaints within 20 days of initial contacts.) FHAP
agencies typically entered information only for perfected complaints.
Accordingly, we recommended that HUD ensure that the automated case-
tracking system (TEAPOTS) include complete, reliable data on key dates
in the intake stage for FHAP agencies. The latest version of HUD's
Title VIII Handbook (issued in May 2005) requires FHEO intake staff to
record in TEAPOTS each inquiry that is potentially Title VIII-related,
regardless of whether it results in a perfected complaint.
Our comparison of information from the logs--that intake centers kept,
at our request, during February and March 2005--with TEAPOTS data
highlights the need for reliable information regarding potentially
Title VIII-related contacts and the dates of their occurrence. First,
the analysis showed that a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-
related contacts (68 percent) were not entered in TEAPOTS, and of those
that were, about half resulted in perfected complaints. While there are
valid reasons for this "attrition," our results suggest that staff are
not recording in TEAPOTS a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-
related contacts (inquiries in which the caller alleges housing
discrimination and intake staff believe the call represents a potential
Title VIII violation). Further, we found that, for those contacts that
were entered into TEAPOTS, the initial contact dates shown in the logs
were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of first contact
shown in TEAPOTS. Thus, HUD's use of TEAPOTS data is likely overstating
its performance in meeting its 20-day intake timeliness benchmark.
Without assurance that TEAPOTS is being used consistently, HUD is
unable to account for potentially Title VIII-related contacts that do
not appear in the system or accurately measure timeliness of those that
are recorded in the TEAPOTS system, thus limiting TEAPOTS' utility as a
management control.
Many Logged Contacts Did Not Appear in TEAPOTS:
To determine the volume of intake-related contacts received by fair
housing agencies and the proportion of these contacts that resulted in
perfected complaints, we had 47 sites record all incoming contacts--
telephone calls, walk-ins, and Internet queries--that were related to
fair housing over a 4-week period (February 22 through March 21,
2005).[Footnote 25] The 32 state FHAP agencies, 5 local FHAP agencies,
and 10 FHEO offices that participated in the log exercise represented
78 percent of the volume of investigations in 2004. Specifically, we
asked the sites to record the date, method, and purpose of each
contact; the name of the person making the contact; whether the contact
alleged having experienced housing discrimination; and whether the
intake staff agreed that the matter pertained to a potentially Title
VIII-related complaint.
During our tracking period, the sites recorded a total of 9,655
contacts. As shown in figure 6, the majority (80 percent) of contacts
for which we had complete data was by telephone, and 42 percent were
new potential complaints. Furthermore, a sizable number of initial
contacts (approximately 24 percent) did not pertain to fair housing
(confirming, as our prior report noted, that intake analysts receive
numerous contacts that are not related to fair housing.) The time
necessary for handling the calls can place an additional burden on
FHEO's limited resources.
Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing
Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The "nature of contact" pie chart does not include data for the
1,274 contacts from one agency, where staff did not record the nature
of contact. In addition, totals do not equal 100 percent due to
rounding and missing data.
[End of figure]
Our review of the log also showed that a sizable number of new
potential complaints that intake staff believed could involve a Title
VIII violation did not result in perfected complaints in TEAPOTS (see
fig. 7):
* Agency staff coded 2,000 contacts as coming from a named individual
whose allegations they believed both involved a new potential complaint
and pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related violation.[Footnote
26]
* Of these 2,000 individuals, we were able to match 631 to a new
inquiry shown in TEAPOTS.
* Of the 631 inquiries, 306 are shown in TEAPOTS as perfected
complaints.
Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We sorted these data into two groups: contacts recorded by FHEO offices
and contacts recorded by FHAP agencies. We found that the attrition
rates differed somewhat between these groups. At FHEO sites, intake
staff identified 1,347 unique individuals as having potentially valid
new Title VIII complaints. Of these, 506, or 38 percent, were shown as
unique inquiries in TEAPOTS, and 216 of those--16 percent of the
original 1,347--resulted in perfected complaints shown in the automated
system at the time of our analysis. At the same time, FHAP sites
identified 620 unique individuals[Footnote 27] with potential new Title
VIII violations, of which 92, or 15 percent, were shown as unique
inquiries in TEAPOTS and 66, or 11 percent, became perfected
complaints.[Footnote 28]
Attrition can occur for a number of reasons. For example, because some
state laws contain additional protected classes, some calls that FHEO
offices receive may be for matters that are covered under a FHAP
agency's jurisdiction. Also, intake staff may believe that a contact
pertains to a valid Title VIII violation at the outset but may later
find out that the respondent is exempt from Title VIII or that the 1-
year statute of limitations has expired. Furthermore, the intake
process is sometimes terminated because a complainant either does not
cooperate with agency staff or resolves the issue with the respondent
and voluntarily discontinues the complaint process. Finally, it is
possible that, during our process of matching names in the log to
TEAPOTS records, a small number of matches were not made, either due to
misspellings of names or timings of entry into the system. Information
in TEAPOTS provides some insight as to the reasons why inquiries were
not perfected during this time period. In 20 percent of all inquiries
for which TEAPOTS had data, the complainant failed to respond; in 13
percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid basis for
complaint; and in 8 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no
valid issue. However, TEAPOTS shows that 43 percent of the inquiries
that were not perfected were coded as "Other Disposition," which means
that no further information is available to indicate why the contact
did not result in a perfected complaint.
In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD's General Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that while HUD
considered requiring FHAP agencies to record initial inquiry dates for
all potential complaints, it has not done so because of the way HUD
funds FHAP agencies. Specifically, HUD reimburses the FHAP agencies for
each (actual) complaint that they investigate, and does not reimburse
them for their consideration of inquiries that do not result in
complaints. However, this continues to leave HUD without data or
knowledge of a significant number of potential Title VIII-related
inquiries or a means of assessing the FHAP agencies' response to such
inquiries.
Some Logged Contact Dates Differed from TEAPOTS' 'Date of First
Inquiry':
Our prior report questioned the reliability of initial inquiry dates
shown in TEAPOTS. Our analysis for this report raises further
questions, because we found differences in the dates recorded in the
contact logs and those in TEAPOTS for the same contacts. HUD policy
requires that FHEO offices perfect or close all inquiries within 20
days of initial contact. Statistics generated by HUD show an
approximate 95 percent compliance with this policy. However, for
internal measurement and benchmarking purposes, HUD begins counting the
20 days on the day the inquiry is entered into TEAPOTS. Because HUD
does not track the actual initial contact dates, it can not use them to
begin measuring the 20-day period. Our analysis of the contacts
recorded in the logs leading to the 306 perfected complaints noted
above indicates that 57 percent of the complaints were perfected within
20 days of initial contact, based on the earliest contact date in the
log. However, using the inquiry date in TEAPOTS as the starting point
for the 20-day benchmark, as HUD does, indicates that 79 percent of the
complaints were perfected within 20 days. In fact, the median number of
days to perfect complaints was 11 using TEAPOTS inquiries, but 18 using
the data recorded in our log. These results indicate that HUD lacks an
accurate picture of how much time individuals face from the day they
make an inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, and
that HUD's reliance on TEAPOTS data leads to an inaccurate assessment
of performance in meeting its timeliness benchmark.
Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met Required
Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures:
In reviewing investigative case files and associated TEAPOTS records,
we found that some lacked evidence that required investigative
standards were met, investigators followed recommended planning and
procedure guidelines, or that internal control measures were used and
documented. Throughout this section, we present estimates of agency
compliance with certain requirements and recommended practices based on
our review of a random sample of 197 FHAP agency and FHEO
investigations that were closed during the last half of 2004 either
administratively, through conciliation, or with a finding of no
reasonable cause. Unless otherwise noted, these estimates are
surrounded by a confidence interval, due to sampling error, of plus or
minus 8 percentage points or smaller. We also present results from our
review of 12 of the 15 FHEO cases that completed the adjudication
process and subsequent monitoring during the same period.[Footnote 29]
Our review of each case was limited to reviewing the contents of case
files and the associated TEAPOTS records (that is, we did not interview
case investigators, other officials involved in the case, complainants,
or respondents), and it is important to note that the lack of evidence
we found does not necessarily indicate that required or recommended
steps were not taken. However, the lack of evidence does raise
questions about HUD's ability to assure that investigations are as
thorough as they need to be.
Some Files Lacked Evidence of Adherence to Investigative Standards:
The Act sets several standards for investigators to follow during the
complaint process. First, investigators must establish and document
four jurisdictional elements to ensure that the complaint is covered
under the Act.[Footnote 30] Second, certain notifications to the
complainants and respondents must be sent and received.[Footnote 31]
Third, a Final Investigative Report (FIR) must be prepared at the end
of each investigation.[Footnote 32] As a practical matter, this means a
FIR is required for investigations that conclude with a determination
of reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and for
investigations closed with a determination of no reasonable cause
(i.e., there is no reasonable cause to believe a violation has
occurred). Investigators must also meet a 100-day deadline for
completing an investigation unless it is impracticable to do
so.[Footnote 33] If the investigation is not completed in 100 days,
complainants and respondents should be notified in writing of the
reasons.[Footnote 34]
Elements of Jurisdiction:
Our review of investigative case files completed during the last half
of 2004 showed that the elements of jurisdiction we measured were
addressed in nearly all of the no-cause cases(see fig. 8).[Footnote 35]
Similarly, we observed that with one exception, all of the cause case
files we reviewed addressed the elements of jurisdiction we reviewed.
The high incidence of documentation addressing jurisdiction may be
explained by the fact that jurisdiction should be verified throughout
the complaint process. Consequently, there is more than one opportunity
to identify deficiencies. FHEO officials at one location said that in
addition to an intake analyst, the intake and enforcement or compliance
branch chiefs also reviewed complaints before investigations began.
However, they also said that in some instances, complaints for which
jurisdiction had not been established had been inadvertently accepted
and later found to lack a required jurisdictional element. For example,
one case we reviewed showed that as the investigation proceeded,
investigators determined that the respondent was exempt as a result of
not owning more than one rental property. The Act provides that certain
properties and property owners are exempt, and owners who do not have
an interest in more than three single-family homes or condominium units
meet the guidelines for exemption.[Footnote 36]
Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction Addressed:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Notification:
Although most files contained evidence that jurisdictional elements had
been addressed, we did not always find evidence that complainants and
respondents received required notifications. As noted above, the Act
requires the fair housing agency handling the complaint to send
complainants an initial notice acknowledging the filing of the
complaint. Further, HUD's complaint notification letter advises
complainants of certain guidelines of the complaint process.[Footnote
37] Respondents must be served by certified mail or personal service
with an initial notice of the original complaint no later than 10 days
after the complaint is filed or when the respondent is identified.
Respondents must also be notified whenever a complaint is amended
(complaints may be amended at any time during an investigation to add
or remove parties, and complainants must sign the new
complaints).[Footnote 38] Complainants and respondents should also be
notified when an investigation is closed. We therefore looked for
evidence indicating that these requirements were followed in all cases.
HUD regulations require that complainants be notified by certified mail
or personal service, but FHEO officials said that some FHAP agency
procedures do not require this. While we found initial notification
letters addressed to complainants in 97 percent of the files and
letters to respondents in 91 percent for closure types other than
reasonable cause, we frequently did not find evidence that the letters
had been received (see fig. 9). The lack of evidence in case files that
complainants and respondents had received initial notifications does
not necessarily mean that they did not in fact receive the notices.
Some FHEO officials told us that certified mail receipts were sometimes
maintained in separate files. We looked not only for evidence such as
return receipts from certified mail or certificates of personal
service, but also for correspondence indicating receipt or knowledge of
the complaint notification. Fifty-nine percent of these cases contained
evidence that complainants had received initial notifications, and 67
percent contained evidence that respondents had received initial
notifications. Our survey of complainants that completed the
investigation process also indicates that some may not have received
initial notifications. Specifically, 86 percent said they received a
letter informing them whether an investigation would be conducted. We
did not observe a significant difference in documentation between
organizations. For the cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause,
we found initial notification letters addressed to complainants in 9 of
the 12 files, and letters to respondents were found in 10. Evidence of
receipt was greater for reasonable cause cases than for other closure
types--8 and 9 of the 12 files, respectively, had evidence that
complainants and respondents received initial notification letters.
Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint Notification
Letters Addressed to Complainants and Respondents and Evidence of
Receipt:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Some cases did not contain evidence that final closure notices had been
addressed to complainants and respondents (see fig. 10). For closure
types other than reasonable cause, 10 percent and 21 percent of the
files, respectively, did not include copies of closure letters
addressed to complainants and all named respondents. Investigations
conducted by FHAP agencies were more likely not to have closure notices
addressed to respondents (26 percent) compared with FHEO-investigated
cases (8 percent).[Footnote 39] Similarly, FHAP agency-investigated
cases did not have evidence of closure notices addressed to
complainants 14 percent of the time, compared with 2 percent for FHEO-
investigated cases.[Footnote 40] Our survey of complainants revealed
that about 9 percent said they did not receive notification of the case
being closed. We found that for the cases where HUD had determined
reasonable cause, there were more notices of reasonable cause
determination addressed to respondents than complainants. Specifically,
5 of the 12 files did not include notices addressed to complainants
informing them that the FHEO investigation was completed, and of the
reasonable cause finding. Two of the files did not include such notices
addressed to respondents.
For reasonable cause determinations, HUD's regulations require that all
parties to a complaint be notified of the reasonable cause
determination by certified mail or personal service.[Footnote 41] For
no reasonable cause determinations, the parties must be notified by
mail and the notification must include a written statement of the facts
upon which the determination was based.[Footnote 42] HUD guidance also
states that for administrative closures, all parties and their
designated representatives must be notified by regular or certified
mail.
Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure Notices
Addressed to Complainants and Respondents (No Reasonable Cause):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Fifteen percent of the case files for closure types other than
reasonable cause had evidence that the complaint had been amended. We
also could not find evidence in all cases that copies of the amended
complaints had been received by all respondents even though the statute
requires that all respondents receive them.[Footnote 43] Finally, not
all of the cases, where applicable, contained evidence that new
respondents received a copy of the complaint.[Footnote 44]
As stated, FHEO officials noted that not all FHAP agency procedures
require certified mail notices, while HUD notifications are sent by
certified mail. As with initial notifications, we looked not only for
evidence of certified mail or personal service, but also other forms of
evidence that a notification was made, including response letters or
subsequent correspondence that indicated the parties' knowledge. FHEO
officials noted that the absence of notices in FHEO case files is more
likely a clerical omission than a failure to follow procedure.
Final Investigative Reports:
Our file review showed that the Final Investigative Report (FIR)
required for reasonable cause and no reasonable cause outcomes and the
Determination showing the outcome of cases were not always present. The
documents are intended to demonstrate that investigations were thorough
and that the investigator's conclusions were founded in fact and
evidence. FIRs, which HUD guidance states fulfill the statutory
requirement to document investigations, are used as a basis for
preparing the charge for reasonable cause cases. FIRs should summarize
the allegation and evidence, including such things as dates and
summaries of contacts with parties, witness statements, descriptions of
pertinent records, and answers to interrogatories.[Footnote 45] The Act
requires FHEO, following the completion of the investigation, to make
information derived from the investigation--including the FIR--
available upon request to the parties to the complaint.[Footnote 46]
The Determination includes the elements of jurisdiction as well as a
summary of the complainant's allegations, the respondents' defenses,
and the investigator's findings and conclusions.
For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found the FIR
and Determination in all 12 of the files. However, for cases closed
with a Determination of no reasonable cause, we found the FIR missing
in 5 percent of the files, and a Determination missing from 8
percent.[Footnote 47] The percentage of FIRs for no reasonable cause
cases was similar for FHAP agency and FHEO files.
HUD requires that FIRs and Determinations of reasonable cause and no
reasonable cause be approved by the FHEO regional director. FHAP agency
managers approve and sign these documents for FHAP agency investigated
cases. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found
that 11 FIRs and 10 Determinations had been signed. For cases with no
reasonable cause outcomes, 71 percent of Determinations were signed,
compared with only 45 percent of FIRs.[Footnote 48] For no reasonable
cause outcomes, FHEO files showed more evidence of Determination
approval--100 percent compared with 60 percent of FHAP agency
Determinations.[Footnote 49] FHEO noted that missing signatures for
FIRs and Determinations are more likely an oversight rather than a
question of thoroughness or lack of review. They also noted that case
files will not document informal means of review.
Adherence to 100-Day Notice Requirement:
As noted above, the Act requires that fair housing investigations be
completed within 100 days from the date the complaint was filed, unless
it is impracticable to do so. An investigation is completed when a
Determination or charge is issued, a conciliation agreement is
executed, or the complaint is otherwise closed.[Footnote 50] We
estimate that 98 percent of all cases with closure types other than
reasonable cause--including relatively more no reasonable cause cases-
-took more than 100 days to complete. If investigators do not meet the
100-day deadline, the investigating agency is required to notify both
complainants and respondents in writing,
explaining why the investigation is not complete.[Footnote 51] We found
100-day letters in each file for these closure types with
investigations that took more than 100 days to complete. We found that
in about two-thirds of these cases, the 100-day letter was sent after
100 days had passed.[Footnote 52] Moreover, about 14 percent of the
notices we found were dated more than 130 days after the HUD filing
date (see fig. 11).[Footnote 53] For cases where HUD had determined
reasonable cause, all 12 investigations lasted longer than 100 days,
but 2 of the files did not have copies of 100-day letters.
Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for
Investigations Lasting over 100 Days:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percent.
[End of figure]
According to FHEO officials in one location, for cases with complex
issues, it was often difficult to meet the 100-day investigative
requirement and conduct a thorough investigation. Officials in another
FHEO location said that the 100-day time frame is a critical factor at
day one, and a new initiative had been implemented to track and focus
on cases at the 50-day mark. The FHAP agencies' record of meeting the
100-day requirement is directly tied to their performance ratings and
to the reimbursement they receive for completed cases. Officials at one
FHAP agency stated that the 100-day requirement was a priority for each
new investigation and their agency had established shorter
investigative deadlines internally, using their own streamlined process
to assist them in meeting the 100-day requirement. In our last report,
we observed that the percentage of investigations completed within 100
days increased between 2001 and 2003, particularly for FHEO cases.
Specifically, the percentage of FHEO investigations completed within
100 days increased from 17 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 50 percent in
fiscal year 2003. We also noted that FHEO hub directors reported that
the 100-day benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough
investigation were sometimes competing goals.
Some Files Lacked Evidence That Investigators Followed Recommended
Procedures:
In addition to the statutory requirements, HUD guidance recommends a
number of activities that contribute to a more complete investigation.
Among these are preparing investigative plans, conducting on-site
visits and interviews, and requesting policy and procedure information
from respondents.[Footnote 54] The guidance also recommends that
investigators follow certain procedures before closing a case
administratively. HUD officials said that an investigation may be
thorough without following each recommended practice; moreover, as
noted above, a lack of evidence does not necessarily indicate that a
procedure was not followed. However, the relative infrequency with
which some practices were used, according to documentation in the case
files, raises questions about investigation thoroughness.
Investigative Plans:
HUD guidance states that investigative plans are critical to efficient
and effective investigation. The guidance also provides extensive
instruction on preparing plans, and adds that, in developing
investigative plans, investigators and their supervisors should consult
with Regional Counsel. According to HUD's revised Title VIII Handbook,
investigative planning allows supervisors and investigators to ensure
that the scope of the investigation is carefully tailored for adequate
investigation of all claims made in the complaint, and careful planning
should also prevent "over-investigation" of claims. However, FHEO
officials stated that most experienced investigators do not prepare
investigative plans for any except technical and very complex cases
since investigators are familiar with the procedures for more common
discrimination cases.
Our file reviews showed that 62 percent of the cases with closure types
other than reasonable cause did not include investigative plans.
Further, the plans we found were not as detailed as the guidance
suggests. For example, while the type of discrimination was identified
in 93 percent of plans, the theory of discrimination was identified in
65 percent.[Footnote 55],[Footnote 56] Also, planned interviews with
complainants and respondents were specified in 59 percent and 62
percent of plans, respectively, and a list and sequence of interview
questions was present in 27 percent of plans (see fig. 12).[Footnote
57] For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found an
investigative plan in 10 of the 12 files, but these also contained
little detail. For example, the type of discrimination was identified
in all 10 of the plans, but the theory of discrimination was identified
in only 3. Additionally, only 2 and 3 of the plans, respectively,
specified interviews with complainants and respondents, and a list and
sequence of interview questions was present in only 2 of the plans.
With regard to supervisory review, officials at the agencies we visited
stated that there was no established procedure for documenting review
of investigative plans.
Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases with
Specific Content in Investigative Plans:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
We found substantially more investigative plans in FHEO case files (74
percent) than in FHAP files (24 percent). There was little variation in
the percentage of cases with investigative plans across closure types
(see fig. 13).
Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, by
Investigating Agency and Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Interviews with Complainants and Respondents:
HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators states that
interviews are a vital part of collecting evidence, and that they allow
an investigator to probe for additional information that otherwise
might not be provided. The manual recommends that investigators
interview not only complainants and respondents, but also other
individuals, such as witnesses for the parties and independent
witnesses. FHEO officials noted that there are circumstances where
complainant or respondent interviews are not necessary, such as when a
case is conciliated before the investigation has begun or when an
investigator determines that a respondent is exempt under the Act.
The majority of cases with closure types other than reasonable cause
included interviews with the parties to the complaint, but 28 percent
did not include interviews with respondents. Cases with no reasonable
cause outcomes were more likely to include interviews with complainants
and respondents (see fig. 14). FHEO cases for these closure types were
more likely than FHAP cases to include interviews with complainants.
Specifically, we estimate that FHEO cases did not include interviews
with complainants 8 percent of the time, compared with 21 percent of
the time for FHAP cases.[Footnote 58] We found at least one respondent
interview for all cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause. By
contrast, only seven of these cases included interviews with
complainants.
Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and
Respondent Interviews, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
In a number of cases, investigators interviewed complainants and
respondents once or twice. Forty-seven percent of cases with closure
types other than reasonable cause showed one or two complainant
interviews, and 40 percent showed one or two interviews with a
respondent or representative. We found that the content of interviews
recorded in the TEAPOTS database varied widely.
We looked specifically for evidence explaining why interviews were not
conducted or whether it was apparent why interviews were not conducted.
While we often could not find documentation as to why complainants and
respondents were not interviewed, the reason was apparent in a number
of cases.
We also looked at the time frame within which the parties were
interviewed for the first time following the official HUD filing date.
The 100 days that HUD allocates for conducting fair housing
investigations begins on the date a complaint is officially filed with
HUD. HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators suggests that
investigators interview complainants first to clarify the details of
the allegation and to evaluate the viability of the complaint. We found
that complainants were typically interviewed first, but that in a
number of cases, initial investigative interviews were conducted weeks
and even months after the complaint had been filed.[Footnote 59] For
closure types other than reasonable cause, 65 percent of cases with
complainant interviews showed the first investigative interview
occurring more than 2 weeks after the complaint was filed; this was
also the case for 67 percent of respondent interviews.[Footnote 60]
Further, 52 percent of cases with complainant interviews showed the
first investigative interview occurring more than 1 month after the
complaint was filed; this was also the case for 46 percent of
respondent interviews.[Footnote 61]
FHEO officials noted that it may be appropriate to conduct a
respondent's initial interview after first receiving documentation.
Respondents have 10 days to provide a response to the complaint. FHEO
officials noted that in addition to caseload, the time involved in mail
delivery and the difficulty of locating people who have moved are
factors that can impact the initial interview with the parties.
Officials at some of the FHAP agencies we visited indicated that time
may be of the essence in housing discrimination cases since housing
opportunities may be lost during the initial filing period. For pending
evictions, one agency's practice was to request an eviction abeyance
through the court or to petition the landlord to postpone eviction
pending a speedy investigation. To expedite the filing process, the
intake coordinator at another agency may go on site to have the
complaint form completed and signed in order to begin the
investigation.
On-Site Visits:
HUD's guidance does not require that an investigator visit the site of
the alleged discriminatory act, such as the subject dwelling and
respondent's place of business, and FHEO officials stated that many
cases do not require an on-site visit. However, the guidance also
states that an on-site visit is the most efficient way to conduct an
investigation in most situations involving fair housing complaints.
Additionally, it states that while such a visit may not appear
necessary at the beginning of an investigation, issues may develop as a
case progresses that support the necessity of an on-site investigation.
One FHAP agency we visited had a policy of conducting on-site
interviews or inspections for each investigation, and officials there
reported that 95 percent of their cases included visits to the property
in question to conduct interviews and to obtain supporting
documentation. In contrast, officials at FHEO offices and other
agencies said that limited financial resources and time constraints may
prevent investigators from including on-site visits as a routine part
of their investigations.
About three-quarters of the cases we reviewed with closure types other
than reasonable cause showed no evidence that investigators made on-
site visits. For non-cause cases that included an on-site visit, we
found that investigators toured the property in question, collected
physical evidence such as photographs, and interviewed complainants and
respondents (see fig. 15). We saw no statistically significant
difference in use of on-site visits among the non-cause closure types,
but we found substantially more on-site visits documented for cases
where HUD had determined reasonable cause. Ten of these cases included
on-site visits, and investigators generally carried out more activities
while on site. The investigator toured the property in 4 cases,
physical evidence was collected in 9, and both complainants and
respondents were interviewed in 7 of the 10 cases.
Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative
Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Information Requests:
HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators recommends that
investigators request information on respondents' policies and
procedures to compare the established policies and procedures with the
alleged discriminatory practice. Policy and procedure documents may
take a variety of forms, including lease agreements and housing
covenants. We found that 74 percent of cases for closure types other
than reasonable cause contained evidence that investigators requested
policy and procedure information from respondents. Although policy and
procedure documents are not always necessary to establish reasonable
cause, we found that such documents were requested in all of the cases
where HUD had determined reasonable cause.
The manual also suggests that investigators request comparative
information, especially in cases alleging unequal treatment, about
persons in the same protected class as the complainant and persons not
in the complainant's protected class.[Footnote 62] We found that the
files for 58 percent of cases for closure types other than reasonable
cause showed that comparative information was requested. FHEO officials
noted that for cases involving refusal to rent, they generally would
expect that investigators collect such information. However, in cases
involving design and construction for access by persons with
disabilities, such information typically is not necessary. For cases
with closure types other than reasonable cause, we found that 30
percent of cases where refusal to rent was at least one issue did not
show evidence that comparative information was requested. For cases
where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we saw evidence in 10 of the
12 files that comparative information was requested.
Comparative information was requested most often for cases with a
finding of no reasonable cause (see fig. 16).[Footnote 63]
Specifically, we estimate that 82 percent of no reasonable cause cases
had comparative information requests.[Footnote 64] FHEO officials
believe that recommended practices for planning investigations,
interviewing complainants and respondents, conducting on-site visits,
and seeking policy information need not be carried out in every case.
They believe that every case is unique and each investigation should be
tailored to the case. Our prior report noted that at least one FHAP
agency had developed software that automatically generated a list of
critical documents that were usually needed for certain types of
investigations. According to officials of this FHAP agency, this system
improved the quality of investigations and decreased the length of
cases.
Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure Information
Requests, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Attempts to Reach Complainants Prior to Administrative Closure:
Finally, we found that investigators documented multiple attempts to
reach complainants before closing complaints administratively. Twenty-
one percent of the cases we reviewed had been closed administratively,
most of them because complainants withdrew their complaints. Relatively
few of the cases closed administratively resulted because a complainant
could not be located or was uncooperative with the investigator.
Nonetheless, investigators documented as many as 11 attempts to contact
uncooperative complainants by telephone, certified mail, and regular
mail. The investigating agency is required to notify the parties of
administrative closures as with other closure types, and 82 percent of
administrative closures had evidence that such notices had been
addressed to the parties.[Footnote 65]
TEAPOTS Was Used Inconsistently to Record Investigation Activity:
Selected information entered in TEAPOTS was generally consistent with
the information found in source documents in the case files, but use of
the system varied considerably among agencies conducting fair housing
investigations. Complete and reliable TEAPOTS information is important
for each case since the database is used to record activities and
information throughout the investigation and subsequently as a resource
for preparing investigative reports. In addition, HUD officials point
to TEAPOTS as a control to determine that investigations are conducted
in accordance with statute and regulation. Without including evidence
as an investigation is completed, TEAPOTS cannot provide an accurate
representation of the evidence.
As part of our review of case files, we traced information in TEAPOTS
relating to the basis and issue of discrimination, the date of the last
alleged violation, and the HUD filing date and found that it generally
matched source document information, with some exceptions. We found
that for more common complaint issues--discriminatory terms and refusal
to rent--the information matched 83 percent and 81 percent of the time,
respectively.[Footnote 66] Similarly with regard to the discrimination
basis, the information matched 92 percent and 84 percent for race and
national origin, respectively, but the evidence is less clear for
color.[Footnote 67] For familial status, the information matched 86
percent of the time.[Footnote 68] When we compared the date of the last
alleged violation and the HUD filing date in TEAPOTS with the same
dates in the source documents, we found that these matched 91 percent
and 84 percent of the time, respectively.[Footnote 69] Also, an
estimated 91 percent of the last alleged violation dates in TEAPOTS
matched the source documents. Finally, filing dates in TEAPOTS matched
those in the source documents in 84 percent of cases.
In reviewing TEAPOTS reports for investigation details, we saw that the
amount of information varied a great deal depending on which agency had
investigated the case and entered the information. In some instances,
entire sections such as those for recording interviews, case
chronology, and the investigator's findings and conclusion had not been
completed. Without a complete record of an investigation, investigators
may be unable to utilize TEAPOTS functions for preparing investigative
reports. Further, because the statute requires that information derived
from investigations, including the FIR, be made available to
complainants and respondents upon request, it is pertinent that all
appropriate details be included.
Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate
Complaints:
Although HUD requires fair housing agencies to attempt conciliation
throughout the complaint process, our review of case files, survey of
complainants, and test calls revealed that FHEO and FHAP agencies did
not always attempt to conciliate complaints, made limited efforts to do
so, or did not meet HUD's requirement that they document these efforts.
While having the fair housing specialists act as both investigators and
conciliators is permitted, investigators faced with pursuing
conciliation as well may focus on investigative activities,
particularly considering FHEO's emphasis on completing investigations
within 100 days.
Conciliation Was Not Always Discussed during Intake:
FHEO's Title VIII Handbook states that conciliation should be discussed
during the initial intake interview and should be noted in the standard
notification letters to the complainant and respondent. Further, the
statute requires that conciliation must be attempted to the extent
feasible commencing with the filing of the complaint and concluding
with the issuance of a charge on behalf of the complainant, or upon
dismissal of the complaint. For time-sensitive complaints, conciliation
may be the most effective procedure and, given that the resources of
FHEO and FHAP agencies are limited, an effective means of reducing
staff workloads. FHEO's General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity noted that conciliation is an integral
part of the complaint process. He noted that FHEO officials have
"confidence that every party is informed during the initial interview
or contact of HUD's statutory obligation to attempt conciliation and is
asked about the possibility of conciliating the complaint and what it
might take to effect conciliation."
According to our survey of complainants, fewer than half (42 percent)
were offered assistance with conciliation (see fig. 17).[Footnote 70]
In 26 percent of the cases, complainants said staff suggested that the
parties work out their differences on their own.
Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff
Conciliation Assistance:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Further, during the test calls we placed to FHEO and FHAP agencies, we
found the possibility of conciliation was discussed in only 18 percent
of the locations we called. FHAP agencies mentioned conciliation 23
percent of the time, and FHEO did not mention conciliation at all.
Based on our survey of complainants, we estimate that nearly 90 percent
of complainants who were offered conciliation accepted it. About 12
percent of complainants said they sought help with conciliation through
other organizations. The percentages did not vary among cases depending
on whether they were investigated by FHEO or a FHAP agency, but did
vary based on closure type, with approximately half of the complainants
who were offered conciliation far more likely to have their case end
with a conciliation outcome. We estimate that complainants with
conciliation outcomes were offered conciliation 67 percent of the time,
while those with no-cause outcomes were offered conciliation just 27
percent of the time.
Overall, we estimate that parties involved in fair housing complaints
were more likely to reach conciliation agreements when FHEO or a FHAP
agency was involved. For example, we estimate that complainants reached
agreement 64 percent of the time when FHEO or a FHAP agency assisted
with conciliation, but only about 35 percent of the time when another
organization did the conciliation. Complainants who worked with FHEO or
a FHAP agency were satisfied with the outcome about 81 percent of the
time and with the other party's compliance with the agreement more than
90 percent of the time, compared with 47 percent and 90 percent,
respectively, for complainants working with other organizations.
Our previous report noted that one FHAP agency was experimenting with a
separate "mediation track" when handling complaints. At this agency,
mediation attempts occurred early in the process during intake and
involved a professional private-sector mediator. The mediation had
usually pleased the parties, resulting in timely resolutions of cases
and beneficial results. Two FHAP agencies we visited for this study
offered mediation. Further, other FHAP agencies had begun offering
mediation during the intake stage, and the complainants' decision to
participate or not participate in mediation was almost always
documented. One FHAP in its notification letter to the complainant
offered the complainant the choice of two options--either conciliation
or investigation. Staff from one FHEO regional office noted the use of
mediation by a FHAP agency in their region reduced complaints by
approximately one-third.
Case Files Often Contained No Documentation of Conciliation Attempts:
During our file review of no-cause cases, we found no documentation of
conciliation attempts around a third of the time and often no
documentation of contacts with either party to attempt conciliation.
Specifically, an estimated 36 percent of the files contained no
evidence that complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation,
while 30 percent of files lacked evidence that respondents had been
contacted to attempt conciliation. For the 12 cases with outcomes of
reasonable cause that we reviewed, we found documentation that
conciliation was attempted in 11 of them.
When an agency contacted parties to a complaint, they often did so once
or twice. For example, we estimate that 21 percent of complainants in
cases with no-cause outcomes were contacted only once.[Footnote 71] As
indicated in figure 18, we also found that conciliation attempts varied
somewhat by closure type. Conciliation was attempted with complainants
less often for cases that were closed administratively. However, for
all cases, we found that information on conciliation contained in the
case file varied tremendously, with some cases noting "conciliation
discussed," while others included significant details.
Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
As is the case with other aspects of our file review, the lack of
evidence of conciliation attempts does not necessarily indicate that
such attempts did not occur; attempts may not have been documented.
However, according to FHEO's Title VIII Handbook, the lack of detailed
documentation of conciliation attempts could be problematic. For
example, the Handbook noted that FHEO Headquarters or the Office of
General Counsel occasionally questioned the sufficiency of conciliation
efforts for cases forwarded to FHEO Headquarters with recommendations
of a Determination of reasonable cause. Further, it stated that when
these questions were asked, the case was often remanded to the agency
handling the case with instructions to undertake additional late-stage
conciliation efforts. The Title VIII Handbook noted that a number of
these remands result not from a lack of initial conciliation attempts,
but rather from a lack of documentation of conciliation attempts in the
case file.
Conciliation attempts should be documented in TEAPOTS before a case can
be closed. TEAPOTS includes a separate section that allows the intake
specialist and investigator to document conciliation efforts. While HUD
relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that investigations, including
conciliation attempts, are performed in accordance with statute and
regulation, information that we obtained from TEAPOTS shows that its
use varied from one location to another. For example, the descriptions
of conciliation attempts varied in detail, and the case information
recoded by some FHEO and FHAP offices did not include a chronological
listing of conciliation attempts as suggested by the Title VIII
Handbook.
Finally, we found that conciliation agreements were generally well-
documented. Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of cases closed with
conciliation included copies of conciliation agreements in the case
file.[Footnote 72] A HUD conciliation agreement is a written, binding
agreement to resolve the disputed issues in a Title VIII housing
discrimination complaint. The HUD conciliation agreement must contain
provisions to protect the public interest in furthering fair
housing.[Footnote 73] According to the Act, a conciliation agreement
requires HUD approval.[Footnote 74] Approximately ninety-five percent
of these agreements were signed by all parties and approximately 90
percent were approved by FHEO or the FHAP agency.[Footnote 75]
Complainants Viewed Conciliation as a Case Outcome More Favorably Than
Other Possible Outcomes:
Based on our survey, complainants whose cases were conciliated were
more positive with this outcome than those who experienced
administrative closure or a finding of no-cause, but complainants felt
at least some pressure to conciliate their complaints, most commonly
because they felt their cases would not be handled otherwise. As shown
in figure 19, 52 percent of the complainants surveyed indicated that
they felt a little to great pressure to resolve their cases. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the General Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity noted that the Fair
Housing Act mandates attempts at conciliation and that this statutory
construct may result in what complainants perceive to be pressure to
resolve their case.
Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence
interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Our survey of complainants indicated that conciliation seemed to work
when an agency such as FHEO or FHAP agencies were involved (over 64
percent resulted in a conciliation). However, a significant number of
survey complainants indicated that this opportunity was not presented
to them. Moreover, those who sought conciliation assistance from any
other organization were less likely to reach a satisfactory outcome; 47
percent did not realize a satisfactory agreement.
Emphasis Given to Conciliation May Be Affected in Cases of Dual
Investigator/Conciliator Role:
Our previous report noted that investigators at some FHEO locations and
FHAP agencies customarily conciliated their own cases, while other
locations usually used separate investigators and
conciliators.[Footnote 76] Also, our previous report noted that
officials 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
FHEO location 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 functions said they did not have enough staff to
have separate conciliators. We recommended in our previous report that
FHEO establish a way to identify and share information on effective
practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies.
According to the Title VIII Handbook, conciliation may be a fertile
source of information regarding a respondent's housing practices.
However, the Handbook notes that nothing said or done during the course
of conciliation can be used in the investigator's reasonable cause
recommendation, in the final investigative report, or in any subsequent
Title VIII enforcement proceeding. Information discovered during
conciliation should not be made public without the written consent of
the persons concerned. Although information discovered during the
conciliation process cannot be factored into the investigator's
recommendation, if this same information is discovered outside of the
conciliation process, it is permissible for investigators to use this
information in their recommendations. For example, if respondents make
an admission during conciliation negotiations, investigators cannot use
this admission in their recommendations. However, if respondents make
this same admission in a later deposition, the investigator can use
this admission in their recommendations.
In our previous report, we also noted that some HUD locations we
visited put investigations on hold when conciliation looked likely,
while others did not.[Footnote 77] Some fair housing officials at the
locations that simultaneously investigated and conciliated cases 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 FHEO 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 FHEO 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 complaint process,
and all 6 said that the practice decreased the length.
During our current review, officials from one FHEO regional office
noted that using separate conciliators would definitely assist in
making their investigative process more effective. However due to
staffing constraints, they believed it was impractical to do so without
a significant increase in staff. These officials noted that they needed
additional staff to speed up the investigative process, separate
investigation from conciliation, conduct more thorough investigations,
and more effectively monitor compliance with conciliation agreements.
Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint Process,
Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and Investigation:
While an estimated 44 percent of complainants were somewhat or very
satisfied with the fair housing complaint process, based on our survey,
we estimate that about half of all complainants were either somewhat or
very dissatisfied.[Footnote 78] Similarly, nearly 60 percent were
dissatisfied with the outcome of the fair housing complaint process,
and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a complaint in the
future. Complainants' dissatisfaction varied for each stage of the
complaint process, as well as by type of complaint closure
(administrative, conciliation, and no-cause finding), with complainants
in no-cause cases expressing the least satisfaction with various
aspects of investigations. However, according to FHEO, the low
satisfaction levels of complainants with a no-cause finding is not
wholly unexpected given that they failed to receive the desired outcome
and thus question the process that produced the outcome.
Many Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Complaint Process, but
Satisfaction Varied According to the Stage of the Process and Case
Outcome:
Overall, about 34 percent of all complainants were satisfied with both
the process and the outcome; conversely, 48 percent of all complainants
were dissatisfied with both the process and the complaint outcome (see
fig. 20). When looking at complainants' overall satisfaction level, we
found no significant differences when we sorted by type of agency--that
is, between cases investigated by FHEO and those investigated by FHAP
agencies. However, variations by closure type existed. For example,
over two-thirds of those with a no-cause finding were dissatisfied with
both the process and the outcome of their complaint (about 68 percent).
In contrast, over two-thirds of those closed through conciliation were
satisfied with both the process for handling their complaint and its
outcome (about 68 percent). Also, just under half of the complainants
with administrative closures were dissatisfied with both the process
and outcome (about 43 percent).
Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not Satisfied
with the Overall Complaint Process and the Outcome (Percentage of all
Complainants):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" responses.
[End of figure]
While an estimated one-half of all complainants--regardless of their
case outcomes--were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with their
experience with the overall complaint process, the percentages
expressing dissatisfaction with the intake and investigative stages
were smaller (see fig. 21). Specifically, about 71 percent of
complainants were somewhat to very satisfied with the intake stage and
nearly 55 percent with the investigative stage.
Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and the
Intake and Investigative Stages:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
In addition, we found that complainants who were dissatisfied with the
outcome of the complaint process were also likely to express
dissatisfaction with the process itself. These results were consistent
across FHEO offices and FHAP agencies. Further, complainants with a no-
cause finding were more likely to be dissatisfied with both the process
and outcome than complainants whose complaints were conciliated or
closed administratively. For example, complainants with a no-cause
outcome were somewhat to very dissatisfied with the process 72 percent
of the time (23 percent were satisfied) and with the outcome of their
cases 84 percent of the time, while those with a conciliation outcome
reported dissatisfaction levels of 21 percent with the process (75
percent were satisfied) and 25 percent with the outcome.
About 40 percent of complainants said they would be somewhat to very
unlikely to file any future complaint with the same fair housing
agency. These results did not differ significantly by type of agency
but did differ by closure type. For example, complainants with a no-
cause outcome said they would be somewhat to very unlikely to file
another complaint about 56 percent of the time, compared with 14
percent of those whose cases were conciliated.
Generally, complainants' level of satisfaction with the process and its
outcome did not vary with the expectations they had before talking to
anyone at a fair housing organization. There were a few important
exceptions, however. About 20 percent of complainants reported that
they expected that the fair housing organization would not help both
sides equally. These complainants were significantly more dissatisfied
with the overall process and its outcome. The same was true for the
approximately 30 percent of complainants that expected the fair housing
organization would get the complainant a financial award. Half of all
complainants had expectations that were not listed in our
survey.[Footnote 79] Those complainants that had expectations other
than those we listed were significantly more dissatisfied with each
stage of the process, the overall process, and its outcome. These
results may indicate that some complainants have different or greater
expectations than others.
Complainants Viewed the Overall Intake Process Positively but Expressed
Concern about Specific Intake Activities:
According to our survey, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat
or very satisfied with the intake process (see fig. 22). More than half
of the complainants reported that they received clear information
during the intake process and that intake staff were courteous and
mostly acted promptly. Yet, a substantial number of complainants gave
poor ratings to specific aspects of the process, citing difficulty
contacting intake staff and the lack of timeliness of some intake
activities. These opinions were generally true across agency type and
closure types.
Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Complainants reported that intake staff at both FHEO and FHAP agencies
provided understandable information more than half of the time,
including satisfactory explanations about an agency's decision on
whether to pursue an investigation. In general, about 60 percent of the
time complainants told us that they received clear information on the
likely length of each step in the process and explanations of the
complaint and investigative process. Moreover, an estimated 66 percent
of complainants were very or somewhat satisfied with the way the
organizations explained their decision to pursue or not pursue a case
(see fig. 23). The results varied by closure type with the exception of
the organization's explanation of their decision whether to
investigate. For example, fewer complainants with no-cause outcomes,
relative to complainants with conciliation outcomes, felt that they had
received understandable information on the time involved or felt that
they had received explanations of the complaint and investigative
processes.
Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided
Understandable Information and Satisfactory Explanation on Whether the
Complaint Would Be Investigated:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Complainants Reported That Intake Staff Took Prompt Action Most of the
Time and Were Generally Professional and Courteous:
Based on survey results, complainants believe intake staff took action
in a timely manner more than half the time on the intake activities we
reviewed. Specifically, we estimate that about 70 percent of the time
intake staff sought the complainant's signature somewhat to very
quickly after the initial contact and that 62 percent of the time
intake staff acted somewhat to very quickly in deciding whether to
pursue an investigation (see fig. 24). Staff performance in getting
back to complainants was apparently less satisfying, with just 55
percent of complainants responding that intake staff acted somewhat to
very quickly, a result that complements our findings on the difficulty
of contacting intake staff. In general, these results were true
regardless of whether FHEO or FHAP agencies had handled the
complainants' cases. Complainants with no-cause outcomes cited the
slowest response time, saying that staff responded somewhat or very
quickly only about 40 percent of the time. On the other hand,
complainants whose cases were conciliated reported the fastest agency
action for certain actions.
Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake
Activities, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
In general, complainants felt that intake staff provided services in an
acceptable and professional way (see fig. 25). We estimate that intake
staff at both FHEO and FHAP offices treated complainants with courtesy
and respect about 85 percent of the time and were helpful and impartial
more than 70 percent of the time, according to complainants we
surveyed. Complainants with no-cause outcomes reported positive
treatment less often. For example, these complainants said that intake
staff were helpful and interested in their complaint about 60 percent
of the time and thorough about half of the time.
Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling
error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Complainants Reported That Intake Staff Performed Some Activities More
Often and More Quickly Than Others:
We asked complainants whether intake staff carried out a variety of
activities that were either required or that could be considered best
practices--for example, did intake staff notify complainants whether
the fair housing organization would pursue the case? According to
survey results, FHEO and FHAP agency staff carried out some intake-
related activities, such as seeking signatures for a complaint, more
frequently and more quickly than others, such as taking action to
prevent the loss of a housing opportunity. Among other things, our
survey showed the following:
* Intake staff very often asked complainants to sign a complaint. This
was true for about 90 percent of complainants who were working with a
single fair housing agency. In contrast, only about 48 percent of those
complainants who were working with two or more fair housing agencies
were asked to sign a complaint.[Footnote 80] We did not observe any
significant differences by type of agency (FHEO or FHAP) or closure
type. Because we surveyed only complainants that had filed complaints,
we would expect that all would have been asked to sign the complaint.
According to the Title VIII Handbook, a complaint should generally be
signed before it can be considered as filed, so as to provide
protection against frivolous or false claims or inadvertent erroneous
statements on the intake form.
* Complainants stated by a large margin--about 81 percent--that intake
staff asked questions that would help the agency understand what led to
the complaint, and 86 percent stated that the agency notified them with
a decision on whether an investigation would be undertaken. Again, all
complainants should be asked questions about their allegation,
including information needed to satisfy the required elements of
jurisdiction. In general, these results were similar across FHEO, the
FHAP agencies, and the closure outcomes.
* Complainants reported that intake staff were less likely to take some
actions or to ask certain questions (see fig. 26). For example,
according to complainants we surveyed, about 69 percent of the time
both FHEO and FHAP intake staff did not attempt to prevent the loss of
a housing opportunity when asked to do so, although the percentage
varied across outcome types. Complainants with administrative closures
or conciliated cases were slightly more likely to report that staff
took action for them than those with a no-cause outcome.
* Complainants also said that intake staff did not offer to resolve
differences between parties about 45 percent of the time. Again, the
results differed according to case outcome, with complainants who
conciliated reporting the most offers (76 percent) and those with a no-
cause outcome the least (37 percent). As previously discussed, the Act
requires the fair housing organization to offer conciliation to the
extent feasible in all cases.
Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out
Certain Activities:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling
error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Most Complainants Reported Being Satisfied with the Investigative
Stage, but Substantial Numbers Rated Poorly Certain Aspects of the
Investigation Process:
Although most complainants were satisfied with the investigative stage
of the complaint process, they were generally less positive than they
were about the intake stage. Further, a substantial number of
complainants expressed dissatisfaction and concern about certain
aspects of investigations.
We estimate that about 40 percent of complainants were dissatisfied
with the conduct of investigations, whether it was conducted by FHEO or
a FHAP agency (see fig. 27). As they were with other activities,
complainants whose cases were closed with a no-cause outcome were the
most dissatisfied with the conduct of investigations, with nearly two-
thirds reporting dissatisfaction. The concerns that led to this
dissatisfaction included problems contacting staff, concern that staff
did not perform actions such as informing complainants about options
after their case was closed, and difficulty obtaining clear
information. However, those whose cases were conciliated very often
reported being satisfied with the investigation. Despite the concerns
cited, complainants in general believed that staff treated them
professionally and with respect and courtesy.
Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, Overall
and by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
We estimate that a quarter to a third of complainants had problems
reaching investigators, believed that investigators performed poorly in
providing case updates, and were dissatisfied with the amount of
contact they had with investigators. An estimated one-quarter of the
complainants found it hard or somewhat hard to reach investigators, and
more than 30 percent of the complainants noted dissatisfaction with the
amount of contact they had with investigators (see fig. 28). These
results did not vary significantly depending on whether cases had been
investigated by FHEO or FHAP agencies, but did differ according to the
closure type. For example, more than one-third of complainants whose
cases were closed with a finding of no-cause reported difficulties in
contacting the investigators, compared with 22 percent and 17 percent,
respectively, of complainants whose cases were closed administratively
or conciliated. Complainants with a no-cause finding were most
dissatisfied with the amount of contact they had with the investigator;
49 percent reported dissatisfaction, compared with 18 percent and 14
percent, respectively, for those having administrative or conciliation
outcomes.
Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Significant numbers of complainants reported that investigative staff
performed administrative functions acceptably and in a timely manner
but did only a fair or poor job on others. For example, complainants
reported that they were told their investigator's name about 83 percent
of the time, and 92 percent said they received their closure
notifications. But about 59 percent of complainants whose cases were
administratively closed reported that they were not told about any
options they might have had for pursuing a complaint. Further, overall
many complainants believed that staff did a fair to poor job of
listening to them (nearly 40 percent), explaining the investigative
process (about 36 percent), investigating the evidence (about 44
percent), interviewing their witnesses (nearly 40 percent), and asking
for documents related to their cases (about 32 percent). These
percentages were generally similar whether complainants' cases had been
handled by FHEO or a FHAP agency, with one exception: Complainants
indicated that FHAP agencies were slightly better at interviewing
witnesses (33 percent excellent or good) than FHEO (23 percent). We
found more differences among complainants' experiences based on their
closure outcomes. Complainants with no-cause outcomes were more likely
to perceive difficulties in a variety of areas than complainants with
administrative closures or conciliated cases. Specifically,
complainants with no-cause outcomes:
* more frequently reported problems receiving case updates (62 percent
of the time, compared with 34 percent for administrative closures and
23 percent for conciliations);
* were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of
investigating the evidence (68 percent of the time, compared with 37
percent for administrative closures and 20 percent for conciliations);
and:
* were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of
interviewing witnesses (58 percent of the time, compared with 35
percent for administrative closures and 14 percent for conciliations).
Despite these views, most complainants reported that staff moved
quickly in conducting the investigation. About three-fifths of
complainants said that both FHEO and FHAP investigators were prompt in
contacting them to start an investigation, responding to questions, and
completing an investigation. However, complainants with no-cause
outcomes typically reported problems with timeliness at twice the rate
of complainants with different outcomes (see fig. 29).
Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Investigative
Activities, by Closure Type:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Finally, we found that complainants generally felt they were treated
well by investigators (see fig. 30), regardless of the type of agency
that investigated the complaint or the closure type, with one
exception: Complainants whose cases ended in a no-cause outcome usually
felt less well treated by staff. For example, an estimated 83 percent
said that investigators treated them with respect and courtesy, 74
percent said that staff were interested in their complaint, about 72
percent believed that staff were impartial, and around 71 percent found
staff helpful. In general, complainants had similar responses for FHEO
and FHAP investigations. As noted, those with a no-cause outcome were
less complimentary, and only 53 percent of them believed that the
investigator had been helpful, versus 78 percent and 90 percent,
respectively, for those with administrative or conciliation closures.
Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative Staff:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling
error (confidence interval) for that estimate.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
In our April 2004 report, we found that persons who have experienced
alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a lengthy wait
before their complaint is resolved. In preparing this current report,
the results of the test calls even though they are not generalizable to
all potential complainants and our survey of complainants that is
generalizable--suggest that some complainants may also face
difficulties from the outset--that is, during the intake phase--in
contacting staff and presenting their initial allegations. We also
previously reported that 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. For this report, our analysis of logged contacts
indicates that FHAP agencies and FHEO hubs did not enter into TEAPOTS
all contacts alleging Title VIII violations. Moreover, the
discrepancies we observed between the dates of logged initial contacts
and the corresponding dates entered into TEAPOTS as the beginning of
the inquiries indicate that FHEO does not have reliable data for
measuring the extent to which its offices and FHAP agencies meet the
benchmark of 20 days for completing the intake process.
Our review of case files and TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence
that investigations are consistently as thorough or expeditious as FHEO
guidance requires or recommends. HUD officials have noted their
reliance on TEAPOTS for assurance that cases are investigated in
accordance with applicable requirements and guidance. While the lack of
evidence we observed may be the result of not documenting certain
actions, rather than not carrying them out, the very lack of
documentation or detailed TEAPOTS records raises questions about HUD's
ability to assure that investigations are as thorough as they need to
be.
The Fair Housing Act has from the outset mandated that persons alleging
housing discrimination be offered the opportunity to conciliate their
complaint with the other party. However, our review of case files and
TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that conciliation attempts were
consistently made throughout the process, despite HUD's requirements
that these attempts be documented. The lack of documentation that
conciliation is offered raises questions about HUD's ability to assure
that such attempts are made as appropriate throughout the fair housing
process. Further, this lack of documentation, along with complainants'
first-hand experience and our observation during mock complaint calls
that conciliation was not discussed, suggest that FHEO and FHAP
agencies are not consistently offering conciliation, as required by the
Act. We recommended in our previous study that FHEO establish a way to
identify and share information on effective practices among its
regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies. We observed during our
previous study and this study that some FHAP agencies have used
independent mediators and had staff not involved in a particular case
attempt conciliation. Officials who use these techniques point to their
benefits in speeding up the resolution of complaints, while offering
the parties a satisfactory outcome. In our last report, we concluded
that FHEO's human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge
of improving enforcement practices. However, the identification and use
of best practices may help FHEO, as well as FHAP agencies, more
effectively utilize their limited resources.
Our work does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate
decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation.
Further, our review of case files shows that many investigative
requirements were met, and former complainants we surveyed expressed
satisfaction with some aspects of their experience. Nevertheless, we
believe that our findings are cause for concern. Individuals who
believe they have experienced discrimination and make the effort to
contact a fair housing agency, but are unable to easily reach an intake
staff person or to expeditiously convey needed information, may simply
give up and cease cooperating. Further, our survey of former
complainants shows that some who successfully filed complaints have a
sufficiently negative view of the process that they would be unlikely
to file a complaint again--even if they were satisfied with the outcome
of their case. Events of either type diminish the Act's effectiveness
in deterring acts of housing discrimination or otherwise promoting fair
housing practices.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that complainants are able to readily contact a fair housing
agency and file a complaint, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct
the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to ensure that intake activities are
conducted consistently. Specific actions may include:
* establishing clear standards for information that should be collected
with the initial contact;
* creating benchmarks and performance goals for the treatment of
complainants during the initial contact, including measures of
responsiveness, such as hold times and call-back timeliness, as well as
measures of completeness of initial information collection;
* developing special procedures for identifying and responding to time-
sensitive inquiries; and:
* establishing means (including automation, where appropriate) of
assuring that standards, benchmarks, and special procedures are
followed.
To improve the usefulness of TEAPOTS as a management control in
assuring that potential Title VIII-related contacts are identified and
assessing performance in meeting timeliness guidelines, we recommend
that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take
the following two actions:
* Specify that FHAP agencies use TEAPOTS for recording initial inquiry
dates for all inquiries, as defined in the Title VIII Handbook, that
allege housing discrimination.
* Require that the initial inquiry date reflect the first contact made
by the complainant, regardless of whether that contact was with FHEO or
a FHAP agency.
To enhance FHEO and FHAP agency ability to assess the thoroughness of
investigations, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the
Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:
* Establish documentation standards and appropriate controls to ensure
that required notifications of complaint, amendment, and closure are
made and received, and that 100-day letters are sent before an
investigation has reached 100 days.
* Clarify requirements for planning investigations, including
specifying when plans must be prepared, their content, and review and
approval.
To ensure that some form of conciliation is made available for all
complainants, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant
Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:
* Work with FHAP agencies and others to develop best practices for
offering conciliation throughout the complaint process, including at
its outset.
* Ensure that investigators comply with requirements to document
conciliation attempts, and complainants' or respondents' declination of
conciliation assistance.
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 General Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The letter,
which is included in appendix II, indicated a general agreement with
our conclusions and recommendations. The General Deputy Assistant
Secretary noted that FHEO conducts analyses of its programs and strives
to continually improve its operations and those of FHAP agencies in
order to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are handled
in an effective and efficient manner. The letter also expressed
confidence based on the extensive internal reviews, final
determinations, and requests for reconsideration, in the integrity of
the fair housing process, the soundness of decisions and the competent
professional service accorded every party to the process. The letter
noted a variety of initiatives that have been implemented to improve
the quality of investigations, including:
* establishing the National Fair Housing Training Academy, which trains
fair housing professionals on fair housing law, critical thinking, and
interview techniques;
* completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and Conciliation
sections of the Title VIII Handbook, which provides guidance to
investigators on case processing standards and sets nationwide policy;
* developing the FHEO-OGC Case processing Research Project, which
focuses on early interaction and continuous consultation between FHEO
and OGC; and:
* undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify best
practices in the field among the FHAP agencies, as well as codifying
operations and procedures in headquarters.
The General Deputy Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would, as
feasible, work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and
procedures.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chair of
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chair,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested
congressional members and committees. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at ,
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-6878 or [Hyperlink, woodd@gao.gov]. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
David G. Wood:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
[End of section]
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.
We did not address fair housing activities under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
For certain analyses of the fair housing complaint process, we relied
on national samples of complaints closed during the last half of 2004-
-enabling us to provide national estimates.
Intake:
To determine the thoroughness of efforts by the Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)
agencies during the intake process, we conducted two activities. First,
we asked intake staff to keep a log of the contacts they had with
potential complainants over a 4-week period and to note the proportion
of contacts alleging housing discrimination.
We designed an Intake Contact Log for staff to use that enabled us to
obtain never-before-collected data consistently across agencies for a
set time period. We asked the 10 FHEO offices, 36 state FHAP agencies,
and 5 local FHAP agencies with the highest volume (based on number of
complaints filed during fiscal year 2004) to maintain the log over the
4-week period from February 21 through March 21, 2005.[Footnote 81] All
of the FHEO offices, local FHAP agencies, and all but 4 of the state
FHAP agencies agreed to maintain our contact log. These offices
represented 78 percent of the volume of investigations in 2004. The log
required intake staff to document:
* the date each contact was received;
* the method of each contact (such as telephone, mail, e-mail);
* whether the contact involved a new potential complaint or a
previously existing complaint, or was a referral from another agency;
* whether the callers claimed that they had experienced housing
discrimination;
* whether the intake staff or supervisor believed the contact
potentially involved a jurisdictional Title VIII violation; and:
* the name of the individual making the contact.[Footnote 82]
Once we received the data, we reviewed them for consistency and logic.
Where we identified coding that was apparently not consistent with our
instruction, we called the staff that prepared the log for
clarification. In some cases, we needed to recode the log based on
these conversations.
We focused our analysis on entries that the intake staff indicated
pertained to a potentially valid Title VIII issue, that included names,
and that they coded as new potential complaints. Using entries with
names allowed us to eliminate multiple contacts from the same person
and report statistics on people rather than on contacts. Once we
identified the unique names that met these criteria, we matched the
names to records in a TEAPOTS extract to determine how many of the new
potential complaints during the 4-week recording period were perfected.
Specifically, we requested an extract of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's TEAPOTS database for the time period coinciding
with the contact log reporting period, plus 5 additional weeks to allow
sufficient time for perfecting complaints. We did not evaluate the
judgments of the intake staff in determining whether a contact should
have been pursued. Since FHAP agencies tended not to enter inquiries
into TEAPOTS until the complaint was ready to be perfected, the results
of our name matching are reported both in aggregate and separately for
FHEO office and FHAP agencies. We also reported on the total number of
intake-related contacts received during the reporting period, the
proportion of contacts alleging housing discrimination that the intake
staff determined did not constitute a valid Title VIII complaint, and
percentages for each contact method (telephone, e-mail, and walk-in).
In order to assess the degree to which intake staff obtained sufficient
and appropriate information to determine whether a contact should
become a Title VIII complaint, we designed a telephone "test call"
program of intake staff at the 10 HUD hubs and 36 state FHAP agencies.
GAO analysts posing as complainants contacted intake staff to file a
mock complaint. We excluded local FHAP agencies from telephone testing
because these agencies tend to have a low volume of investigations,
compared with state FHAP agencies. We placed one test call to each site
using the same case scenario with different identifying information,
such as names and addresses. Testers were trained to consistently
volunteer only certain information such as the "name" and description
of what happened, and to respond in standardized ways to questions
asked by intake staff. The calls were recorded and later coded against
a list of information that might be sought as part of the intake
process. We developed this list of information based on requirements
and recommended practices derived from multiple sources. Among these
were requirements of the Fair Housing Act, guidance provided by HUD in
the form of policy and training manuals, and training materials from
the National Fair Housing Alliance, as well as discussions with HUD and
FHAP agency officials. We categorized the information into four levels:
information that (1) should always be gathered at intake, (2) is
potentially applicable to all complaints and should be collected, (3)
is relevant to a particular basis or protected class, and (4) is
considered by officials we spoke with and training materials as a best
practice.
We placed one pretest call to each of the 46 sites we planned to
contact to get a sense of how each location conducts intake. We
adjusted the design to account for differences in the intake process to
the fullest extent possible. For example, we allowed for scheduled
intake interviews for locations that only conducted intake calls on a
scheduled basis. We found that approximately 25 percent of the time we
could expect to speak with a person on initial contact who could
complete the intake process. In many cases, an agency staff member
would perform an initial screening before forwarding the call to the
intake staff, and in other cases, the call was forwarded to a voice
mailbox. Based on our findings during the pretest, we decided to
evaluate not only the information collected by intake staff, but also
the number of attempts required to speak with a live person, hold
times, and the length of time that elapsed before staff responded to
voice-mail messages by returning calls. We included information that
callers volunteered and obvious items such as gender. Because of the
limitations of our sample--only one call to each site--the results of
our analysis are not generalizable to the entire population of
potential complainants in housing discrimination cases.
Investigation and Conciliation:
To address the thoroughness of investigation procedures, including
conciliation attempts, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly
selected case files of housing discrimination cases completed during
the last 6 months of 2004 around the country (see table 1). We
originally sampled 205 cases, but we were unable to locate files or
matching TEAPOTS data records for 8 cases. The sample files included 58
cases closed administratively, 63 cases that were conciliated without a
finding of reasonable cause, and 90 that were closed with a finding of
no reasonable cause. We oversampled administrative closures to ensure
that we had a sufficient number of files to permit estimates for this
subpopulation. The population of complaints and the sample we used are
enumerated in tables 1 and 2. Because we followed a probability
procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large
number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could
have provided different estimates (sampling error), our results have
confidence intervals of plus or minus 8 percentage points or smaller,
unless otherwise noted, at a 95 percent level of confidence. In other
words, this interval would contain the true value for the actual
population for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn.
We also reviewed files for 12 of the 15 complaint investigations FHEO
concluded with a finding of "cause," and for which the adjudication
process, including any agency monitoring, had been completed during the
last 6 months of 2004. We could not locate files for the remaining
cases. All 12 files were identified by the Department of Justice as
having met these criteria. We did not review files for which a FHAP
agency found "cause" and that completed the adjudication because these
could not be identified.
Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files Sampled:
FHEO region: Boston;
FHEO file: 16;
FHAP agency file: 0;
Total: 16.
FHEO region: New York;
FHEO file: 17;
FHAP agency file: 3;
Total: 20.
FHEO region: Philadelphia;
FHEO file: 17;
FHAP agency file: 0;
Total: 17.
FHEO region: Atlanta;
FHEO file: 24;
FHAP agency file: 10;
Total: 34.
FHEO region: Chicago;
FHEO file: 23;
FHAP agency file: 11;
Total: 34.
FHEO region: Fort Worth;
FHEO file: 9;
FHAP agency file: 8;
Total: 17.
FHEO region: Kansas City, Kansas;
FHEO file: 12;
FHAP agency file: 14;
Total: 26.
FHEO region: Denver;
FHEO file: 1;
FHAP agency file: 4;
Total: 5.
FHEO region: San Francisco;
FHEO file: 23;
FHAP agency file: 5;
Total: 28.
FHEO region: Seattle;
FHEO file: 2;
FHAP agency file: 6;
Total: 8.
FHEO region: Total;
FHEO file: 144;
FHAP agency file: 61;
Total: 205.
Source: GAO analysis of FHEO data.
[End of table]
Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from July 1,
2004, through December 31, 2004, by Organization and Closure Type:
Closure type: Administrative;
FHEO: Population: 208;
FHEO: Sample: 19;
FHAP agency: Population: 335;
FHAP agency: Sample: 33;
Total: Population: 543;
Total: Sample: 52.
Closure type: Conciliation;
FHEO: Population: 480;
FHEO: Sample: 19;
FHAP agency: Population: 1,090;
FHAP agency: Sample: 44;
Total: Population: 1,570;
Total: Sample: 63.
Closure type: No cause;
FHEO: Population: 563;
FHEO: Sample: 23;
FHAP agency: Population: 1,657;
FHAP agency: Sample: 67;
Total: Population: 2,220;
Total: Sample: 90.
Closure type: Total;
FHEO: Population: 1,251;
FHEO: Sample: 61;
FHAP agency: Population: 3,082;
FHAP agency: Sample: 144;
Total: Population: 4,333;
Total: Sample: 205.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
[End of table]
We examined the documentation in the files, as well as the full TEAPOTS
case summary for each case, to determine whether it demonstrated that
the investigator had met certain requirements and best practices for
conducting fair housing investigations. We identified these
requirements and best practices through reviewing the Fair Housing Act,
implementing regulations, FHEO's Title VIII Handbook and training
material, and other guidance. In addition, we interviewed FHEO
officials at both HUD headquarters and field offices in Atlanta,
Chicago, and San Francisco. We also interviewed FHAP agency officials
in California, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. We met
with the National Fair Housing Alliance and attended training at the
John Marshall Law School on Fair Housing enforcement and at HUD's
National Fair Housing Training Academy. We provided a draft summary of
our criteria to FHEO officials and made technical corrections based on
their comments. To ensure the consistency of our file review, we
developed a structured data collection instrument. We anchored each
item on the instrument to the criteria identified above. We pretested
the instrument with several team members, and based upon this test,
modified the instrument to ensure clarity. For 10 percent of all files
reviewed, another team member reviewed the coding, to ensure its
accuracy.
Complainant Satisfaction:
We surveyed a sample of complainants whose cases had been investigated
and closed by FHEO and FHAP agencies from July 1 to December 31, 2004,
to determine levels of satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness,
timeliness, and outcomes of the intake and investigation process. We
did not include cases that proceeded to the adjudication process owing
to a finding of reasonable cause to avoid surveying complainants that
may still be involved in the adjudication process. The survey also
provided supplemental evidence for our analysis of the thoroughness of
the intake and investigation stages of the complaint process and the
frequency of conciliation.
We determined that there was a population of 4,327 fair housing
complaints (contact information was not provided for 6 of the original
4,333 cases) that had ended in administrative closure, conciliation
without determination of cause, or a determination of no-cause for the
6-month period between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. The
complainants of record were mostly private individuals, but some were
fair housing organizations acting on their own behalf or on that of one
or more individuals. From a list obtained from HUD's TEAPOTS database,
the PA Consulting Group, a survey firm under contract to GAO, called
the complainants of record selected in the sample. The total sample of
1,675 was parceled out in seven individual waves over the field period,
in an attempt to use the smallest possible sample to achieve the quota
of 575 completed interviews. The sample was allocated across six
categories--two agency types by three closure types--to ensure that
enough interviews were conducted in each category to allow
statistically valid comparisons between them. (See table 4 for the
distribution of the population, sample, responses, and response rates
across these categories.) With this probability sample, each member of
the population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that
probability could be computed for any member. Each sampled complaint
for which an interview was obtained was subsequently weighted in the
analysis to account statistically for all the members of the
population, including those who were not selected and those who were
selected but did not respond to the survey.
Beginning in early May 2005, GAO mailed letters notifying those sampled
complainants with valid mailing addresses of the upcoming survey and
encouraging them to participate. Calling to those complainants
typically began several days after the letters were mailed. The advance
letters also included an address correction form. Recipients were asked
to revise any incorrect information and return the form. A toll-free
number also was provided for recipients to ask any questions or to
correct information such as names and phone numbers. Calling began in
early May and continued for 7 weeks, ending on June 20, 2005.
For institutional complaints drawn into our sample, the interviewer
helped the organization's representative identify the specific
complaint by describing the issue, basis, and respondent name. Multiple
interviews could be conducted with the same institutional informant if
more than one complaint from that organization was randomly drawn.
Thirty-three interviews were completed on institutional complaints.
Proxies (typically family members, guardians, or other representatives)
for the named complainant were interviewed for 19 of the sampled
complaints. Not all sampled complaints met GAO's eligibility
requirements for the survey: Some complainants indicated that their
cases were still open and experiencing legal activity. GAO could not
have any involvement with such complaints. For the same reason, other
complainants who said they had an ongoing agreement with the other
party resolving the complaint were also not interviewed. Some complaint
cases also became ineligible for the survey due to the death of the
complainant, a complainant's insistence that a case was not a fair
housing discrimination case, and complaints sampled multiple times
(more than four for institutional complainants and one for individuals-
-see table 3).
Complainants with an issue or basis alleging racial discrimination
because the complainant was Hispanic received letters printed in both
English and Spanish. The survey was also administered by Spanish-
speaking interviewers when the complainant indicated a preference for
speaking Spanish.
When named complainants could not be found using records provided by
HUD, interviewers used a variety of search techniques to try to locate
complainants, including calling alternate contacts named in the
complaint record and using directory assistance and online tracking
services. For example, if an address was available but no working phone
number could be found, interviewers used reverse directories and
contacted neighbors by phone to ask about the whereabouts of the named
complainant. Once during the fieldwork period, 547 noncontactable
records were submitted to Lorton Data's National Change of Address and
Telephone Append services, resulting in some updated phone numbers and
mailing addresses. To maximize the possibility of reaching
complainants, multiple attempts were made over a period of time on
different days of the week and at different hours. The number of
attempts required to reach subjects ranged from 1 to 34, with an
average of 12.
Results from sample questionnaire surveys are subject to several types
of errors: failure of the sample frame to cover the study population,
measurement errors in administering the questionnaire, sampling errors,
nonresponse errors from failing to collect information from part of the
sample, and data processing error. To limit coverage errors, we used
the most recent available data from TEAPOTS to identify eligible
complainants. At the beginning of the interview, we also confirmed that
the complainant of record had lodged an actual fair housing
discrimination complaint and that the complaint had been closed as
TEAPOTS indicated.
To limit measurement errors, we first took steps in the development of
the questionnaire to ensure that our questions gathered the information
intended. GAO asked knowledgeable representatives of fair housing
organizations and other government agencies to review early versions of
the instrument. We also conducted a pilot test of an early version of
the questionnaire with 26 complainants in December 2004 and seven
pretests with complainants in the study population during March 2005.
Finally, the telephone survey contractor completed nine pretests of the
final instrument in late April 2005. Interviewers were trained using
materials developed by GAO before the survey began and were routinely
monitored during interviews.
The survey is also subject to sampling error--our results have
confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or smaller at
a 95 percent level of confidence.
Our survey received a low response rate, with only 38 percent of those
known or assumed to be eligible in our survey participating. If those
who did not respond might have answered our survey questions
differently from those who did, our estimates would be biased because
we would have missed the answers from a set of people with
fundamentally different views. In fact, response rates varied widely
across the three different closure types, which were associated with
key variables in the survey such as satisfaction with the complaint
process and outcome. We tended to get relatively more responses from
complainants in conciliation cases than from complainants in no-cause
cases, and those whose cases were conciliated tended to be more
satisfied. However, we could address this potential bias because we
controlled the allocation of our sample across the closure types. We
could statistically adjust, or weight, responses by closure type to
bring them into proportion with the population and thus account for the
different nonresponse rate across those types, which should compensate
for the nonresponse bias. Nevertheless, the possibility of bias in the
results still remains. Our weighting adjustment only compensates for
differences in opinion between those with different closure types and
agency responsibility, not other characteristics that may have been
over-or under-represented in our responses and that may be related to
our survey questions.
To limit the possibility of data processing errors, the survey firm
used a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system that recorded
electronic data directly from the telephone interviewers' answers, and
also checked for missing data, inconsistencies, and unlikely answer
patterns. Data analysis programming was also independently verified.
Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and
Response Rates:
Population;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 480;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 562;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 208;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 1,086;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 1,656;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 335;
Total: 4,327.
Original sample;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 198;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 308;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 208;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 288;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 338;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 335;
Total: 1,675.
Ineligible;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 20;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 36;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 26;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 26;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 25;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 25;
Total: 158.
Adjusted sample;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 178;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 272;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 182;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 262;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 313;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 310;
Total: 1,517.
Refused;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 4;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 13;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 9;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 13;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 10;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 8;
Total: 57.
Incapable;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 1;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 3;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 2;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 1;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 2;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 3;
Total: 12.
Not contacted;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 75;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 157;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 109;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 139;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 187;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 206;
Total: 873.
Complete interviews;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 98;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 99;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 62;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 109;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 114;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 93;
Total: 575.
Response rate;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 55%;
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 36%;
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 34%;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 42%;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 36%;
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 30%;
Total: 38%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY:
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-2000:
Mr. David G. Wood:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investments:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 13, 2005:
Dear Mr. Wood,
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft
report, on HUD's fair housing programs (GAO-06-79).
The report analyzes consistency in intake and complaint processing by
HUD and our state and local partners in the Fair Housing Assistance
Program (FHAP). We, too, conduct such analyses of our programs and
strive to continually improve our operations and those of FHAP agencies
in order to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are
handled in an effective and efficient manner.
The report findings must be considered in light of the statement that
the review does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate
decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation.
Based on the extensive internal reviews, final determinations, and
requests for reconsideration, we are confident in the integrity of our
process, the soundness of decisions, and the competent professional
service accorded every party to that process.
For the past five years, HUD has worked to reduce the amount of time it
takes to process our cases. As a result, in FY 2005 we completed 77.2
percent of our cases within 100 days or less. We established a similar
goal for FHAP agencies and are proud to report that in FY 2005, FHAP
agencies completed 61.4 percent of their investigations in 100 days or
less.
As a result of our internal reviews of the enforcement process, we have
undertaken a variety of initiatives to improve the quality of our
investigations. To this end, HUD established the National Fair Housing
Training Academy, which trains fair housing professionals on fair
housing law, critical thinking, and interview techniques. Successful
completion of the training curriculum will improve investigation
procedures and raise the skill level of fair housing investigators.
Further, HUD is completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and
Conciliation Handbook (Title VIII Handbook), which provides guidance to
investigators on case-processing standards and sets forth nationwide
policy with respect to the investigation of complaints filed pursuant
to the Fair Housing Act and other statutes enforced by HUD. This year,
the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Office of
General Counsel (OGC) conducted joint training to fair housing field
staff and fair housing enforcement attorneys on Intake, Conciliation,
Planning and Conducting the Investigation, and Preparation of the Case
File.
In order to ensure seamless case processing, FHEO and OGC, with the
assistance of the Office of Policy, Development and Research (PDR),
developed the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research Project, which focuses
on early interaction and continuous consultation between FHEO and OGC.
The project uses a triage methodology to determine the complexity of
cases to more effectively utilize human and fiscal resources. Over the
next nine months FHEO's Fort Worth, Atlanta and Seattle Regional
Offices will participate in testing the methodology. If the project is
deemed successful, FHEO will implement it nationwide.
FHEO is undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify
best practices in the field and among the FHAP agencies, as well as
codifying operations and procedures in headquarters. The work in
headquarters is nearing completion and FHEO expects the field effort to
begin by the end of October. The identification of best practices will
allow FHAP agencies to emulate other organizations that have better
defined processes in particular areas. In addition, for the Regional
Offices this process will memorialize the practices that work best in
different size regions.
Quality Management Reviews (QMRs) are an important part of ensuring
consistency and quality in case processing. During these QMRs, HUD
reviews procedures and policies to ensure accountability and recommends
best practices for program activities and customer service.
Additionally, HUD Government Technical Representatives monitors FHAP
agency performance on a continuous basis. Further, the staff conducts
yearly performance assessments of FHAP agencies in order to ensure that
all complaints brought to a FHAP agency receives a quality
investigation and that funds are being used in accordance with
statutory and regulatory standards.
In order to encourage better and more efficient case processing among
FHAP agencies, HUD recently introduced performance-based funding.
Previously, FHAP agencies received a flat rate for each investigation
if that investigation satisfied HUD's criteria for processing. Under
performance-based funding, payment is on a graduated scale that takes
into account not only the criteria for processing, but also the length,
type, and outcome of the investigation. In addition, to further ensure
thorough complaint processing by FHAP agencies, FHEO has recently
developed three additional FHAP performance standards. (See performance
standards in the proposed FHAP regulation, which was published in the
Federal Register on May 18, 2005). One new performance standard
requires a FHAP agency to demonstrate that it receives a reasonable
number of complaints cognizable under both the Fair Housing Act and the
agency's fair housing law. Another new performance standard places an
affirmative duty on FHAP agencies to report to HUD on the final status
of complaints following reasonable cause findings. The final new
performance standard requires FHAP agencies to conform their
performance to the provisions of any written agreements executed by the
agencies and HUD, related to participation in the FHAP.
Prior to the realignment, the Office of Field Oversight (OFO) was
restructured to ensure greater oversight with regard to the field. In
addition to reviewing and analyzing monthly performance reports, the
office is also responsible for quality control. In response to the
results of the GAO survey, OFO has begun to survey our field offices on
a regular basis to determine whether intake procedures are followed in
each region. FHEO is also considering employing a new methodology
whereby the OFO staff would randomly look at files and processes to
assess any problems or inconsistencies and make recommendations for
improving enforcement.
The report contains several recommendations to improve fair housing
enforcement by FHEO and FHAP agencies. As feasible, HUD will work to
incorporate the recommendations into its policies and procedures. It is
important to bear in mind that there are 103 different agencies within
the Fair Housing Assistance Program. These agencies are state and local
government entities, governed by their own state statutes or municipal
ordinances and operating under their own procedures. HUD's
certification of a FHAP agency as a "substantially equivalent" agency
does not mean that its procedures are, or need to be, identical to
those of HUD or any other FHAP agency. Still, certification by our
National Fair Housing Training Academy encourages these practices and
promotes consistency.
HUD agrees with GAO that intake should be thorough and that
complainants should always be able to reach a live person who can
immediately respond to their complaint. With respect to GAO's specific
recommendations on how HUD might improve the intake process, HUD has
already taken some of these reforms and plans to take others. The FHEO-
OGC Case Processing Research Project should assist the decision-making
in this area. HUD has established clear standards for what information
HUD will collect during initial contact in our revised chapter on
Intake in the Title VIII Handbook. HUD also currently tracks the time
it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial contact with the
complainant. Further, we have put procedures in place for processing
time-sensitive inquiries. In addition, we will establish standards of
customer service to ensure that staff is available and responsive to
persons filing complaints.
In keeping with your recommendation, FHEO will ensure that intake staff
records the initial "inquiry" date in TEAPOTS as the date of the first
contact with the complainant. GAO's report recommends that HUD also
require that FHAP agencies record the initial "inquiry" dates for all
potential complaints. While HUD has considered such a requirement for
the FHAP agencies, HUD has never mandated that FHAP agencies record
"inquiry' information for a number of reasons. First, FHAP is a
reimbursement program that is tied to the number of complaints a FHAP
agency files and resolves. HUD does not reimburse FHAP agencies for
their consideration of inquiries from the public that do not result in
formal complaints. Without such a financial arrangement with the FHAP
agencies, it is difficult for HUD to mandate how FHAP agencies
administratively handle all the calls they receive. Second, HUD would
consider that FHAP agencies record "inquiry" information for the
matters they ultimately process as complaints, but it would prove
difficult for the FHAP to predict at the point of initial contact which
"inquiries" will result in a complaint and which will be dismissed as
non jurisdictional. While HUD finds it useful to track and set
standards for its administrative action on complaints in this early
stage, our funding arrangement with the FHAP agencies makes it
unfeasible and burdensome to extend these standards to the FHAP
agencies. We will, however, work to incorporate the principles of this
recommendation into our guidance and contractual agreements with FHAP
agencies.
HUD agrees that it is important to document that parties receive the
required notifications and that investigators send 100-day letters
before a complaint reaches 100 days. We believe that any absence of
documentation in some of the HUD Fair Housing investigation files that
required notices have been issued reflect clerical omissions rather
than a failure to follow procedure. Nonetheless, HUD will, through the
National Fair Housing Training Academy and the Title VIII Handbook
training, explore ways of developing an institutional approach to
address this and other process-oriented matters identified in the
report. In the short term, we will issue technical guidance memoranda
to all FHEO field offices to reinforce the importance of the case file
checklist to assure documentation of receipt of all notices and require
strict adherence to its required notations.
As required by the Fair Housing Act and the substantially equivalent
laws of FHAP agencies, HUD and FHAP agencies attempt conciliation
during every fair housing investigation. HUD is developing new
procedures to make sure that all case files reflect the offers of
conciliation and conciliation attempts, including identifying in the
Title VIII Handbook Chapter on Preparation of the Case File that a
separate section on conciliation should be tabbed and appropriately
marked within the Deliberative Section to include all conciliation
documentation.
FHAP agencies and FHEO offices continue to use different styles of
conciliation (i.e., suspending the investigation to conduct
conciliation versus pursuing both on parallel tracks). In keeping with
your recommendation, HUD will share the advantages and disadvantages of
these and other approaches with FHAP agencies and others.
Should you or your staff have any questions or require additional
information please contact Jon L. Gant, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Programs at (202) 619-8046.
Sincerely,
Floyd O. May:
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity:
Attachment:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David G. Wood, (202) 512-6878:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to Mathew J. Scirč (Assistant Director), Nicholas
Alexander, Carl Barden, Johnnie Barnes, Bernice Benta, Emily Chalmers,
Arielle Cohen, Paul Desaulniers, Grace Haskins, Robert Lowthian,
Alexandra Martin-Arseneau, Amanda Miller, Marc Molino, Jeff Pokras,
Linda Rego, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, Paige Smith, Anita Visser, and
Joan Vogel made key contributions to this report.
(250204):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (Apr. 11, 1968) (codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619).
[2] Persons alleging housing discrimination also have up to 2 years
after the discriminatory housing practice occurred or was terminated to
file a civil action in United States district court or in state court.
42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A).
[3] An inquiry is an allegation of a discriminatory housing practice
that has not yet been determined to meet the standards for an
investigation.
[4] GAO, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and
Enforcement Process, GAO-04-463 (Washington, D.C. Apr. 24, 2000).
[5] Three of the 15 cases with reasonable cause outcomes could not be
located. According to FHEO officials, these files had been transferred
to DOJ pursuant to an election by one of the parties to proceed in
federal court. FHEO officials also stated that in recent years FHEO and
DOJ have made efforts to better track the election case files.
[6] Despite the low response rate, we concluded that the survey allowed
us to make estimates that are generalizable to the population of
complainants--those whose cases were closed during the last 6 months of
calendar year 2004. Unless otherwise noted, the confidence intervals
due to sampling error for all survey estimates are plus or minus 6
percentage points or smaller.
[7] We collected TEAPOTS data from February 21, 2005, through May 1,
2005.
[8] Since each sample could have provided different estimates (sampling
error) our results have confidence intervals of plus or minus 8
percentage points or smaller, unless otherwise noted, at a 95 percent
level of confidence. In other words, this interval would contain the
true value for the actual population for 95 percent of the samples we
could have drawn.
[9] The confidence interval for this estimate is 3 percent to 20
percent.
[10] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 1 percent to 16
percent and 3 percent to 22 percent, respectively.
[11] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., prohibit
discrimination in housing that receives federal funds.
[12] For a detailed discussion of the provisions of the 1968 Act and
the 1988 amendments, see GAO-04-463, 6-7.
[13] FHEO uses the terms "issue," "type," and "subject matter" of
discrimination interchangeably.
[14] The Act does not apply to transactions involving private homes
sold without a broker and advertising unless the owner owns more than
three single-family dwellings at any one time or to transactions
involving units in some owner-occupied dwellings. Also not covered in
some circumstances are religious organizations and private clubs, and
the familial status provision does not apply to housing for older
persons. Finally, the Act does not supersede local, state, and federal
restrictions on how many people may occupy a dwelling.
[15] H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 34 (1988).
[16] Reasonable cause outcomes have remained around 5 percent since
1996.
[17] FHEO offices have other responsibilities, such as assessing
compliance with fair housing regulations for entities receiving federal
funds, providing community education and outreach on fair housing
issues, and managing grants for HUD.
[18] 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.
[19] Procedures differ for certain cases, including those that require
assistance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), those that may involve
free speech protected by the First Amendment, and those that name HUD
as a respondent.
[20] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) and (C).
[21] Our experiences with the intake test calls constituted a case
study, and the results cannot be generalized to the entire population
of potential complainants or other program locations.
[22] HUD's Office of Policy, Development, and Research (PDR) assisted
FHEO and OGC in developing the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research
Project, which is aimed at early and continuous interaction between
FHEO and OGC, and the methodology will be tested in selected FHEO
regional offices before implementation.
[23] This figure represents the average percent of level 1 data
elements that were collected on each call.
[24] According to HUD, some states' laws prevent FHAP agencies from
pursuing a complaint until a signed complaint form is received.
[25] The Chicago FHEO office maintained their contact log from March 1
through March 28, 2005.
[26] Where individuals made more than one contact, we included them
only once in our count of individuals. We also excluded contacts where
a name was not provided or where a complainant was identified, but the
intake staff believed the allegation was not a new potential complaint
or was not a potentially Title VIII-related violation.
[27] The numbers of contacts at FHEO and FHAP sites do not add to 2,000
because 33 individuals filed at both HUD and FHAP locations (24 of
which resulted in perfected complaints). These 33 cases are not
included in our analysis of attrition by type of agency.
[28] The number of FHAP contacts alleging discrimination that result in
a TEAPOTS inquiry is less reliable, as we have found that FHAP agencies
vary in their use of TEAPOTS.
[29] The remaining three files we did not review could not be located.
We did not review files where a FHAP agency had found reasonable cause
because we could not identify FHAP agency cases that had completed the
adjudication process in the last 6 months of 2004.
[30] The four elements of jurisdiction require that: (1) the complaint
is timely (filed within one year of the most recent act of alleged
discrimination); (2) the complainant has standing--that is, the
complainants claim that they have been injured or will be injured by a
discriminatory housing practice; (3) neither the dwelling nor the
respondents are exempt; and (4) the complaint alleges a violation of
the Act, and there is a prohibited basis for the alleged discriminatory
conduct.
[31] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(i) requires notice to be served on
complainants acknowledging such filing and advising the person of the
time limits and choice of forums. Section 3610(a)(1)(B)(ii) of title 42
of the United States Code requires notice to be served on respondents
not later than 10 days after the filing of the complaint or the
identification of the respondent. (This notice advises respondents of
their procedural rights and obligations.) HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. §§
103.201 and 103.202) require these notifications to be done by
certified mail or personal service.
[32] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A).
[33] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv).
[34] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(C).
[35] We considered an element of jurisdiction as "addressed" if the HUD
903 or equivalent form included information on that element. We did not
verify that the information on HUD 903 was accurate.
[36] 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(2).
[37] These guidelines include: (1) the complainant's rights during the
processing of the complaint; (2) the rights of each respondent in
responding to the complaint; and (3) the steps that HUD (or the
investigating agency) will take to determine whether the complaint has
merit.
[38] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a).
[39] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 19 percent to 34
percent and 2 percent to 19 percent, respectively.
[40] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 8 percent to 21
percent and 0 percent to 6 percent, respectively.
[41] 24 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(2)(i).
[42] 24 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(1) and (2)(ii).
[43] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B) and (D). HUD regulations require FHAP
agencies to serve notice on both complainants and respondents upon the
filing of a complaint. 24 C.F.R. § 115.202(a)(1)(ii) and (iii).
[44] Estimates were unreliable for the percentage of cases that did not
contain evidence that new respondents received a copy of the complaint.
[45] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A).
[46] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(d)(2).
[47] The confidence interval for the second estimate is 4 percent to 17
percent.
[48] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 60 percent to 80
percent and 34 percent to 55 percent, respectively.
[49] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 86 percent to 100
percent and 47 percent to 73 percent, respectively.
[50] The Secretary of HUD will issue a charge on behalf of the
aggrieved person to a complaint if there is a determination of
reasonable cause. The charge consists of a short statement of the facts
upon which the Secretary has found reasonable cause of a discriminatory
housing practice, and is based on the FIR. 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2).
[51] We were told that 100-day notices, when appropriate, are
automatically generated by TEAPOTS, and the investigator inserts the
data indicating the reasons or circumstances causing delay. TEAPOTS
identifies 13 reasons investigations may not be completed on time
including a need to "complete interviews with parties and/or
witnesses."
[52] The combined estimates are 60 percent and 10 percent with
confidence intervals of 48 percent to 72 percent and 4 percent to 20
percent, respectively.
[53] The confidence interval for this estimate is 7 percent to 26
percent.
[54] Policy and procedure requests seek information on the respondent's
practices in dealing with the alleged discriminatory matter.
[55] According to HUD's Title VIII Handbook, violations of illegal
discrimination of the Fair Housing Act may be established under either
(1) a disparate treatment theory, which is also known as
"discriminatory intent" or (2) a discriminatory impact theory, which is
also known as "discriminatory effect." The disparate treatment theory
includes overt discrimination cases where there is direct evidence of
intentional discrimination and other cases where there is only
circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of a discriminatory
motive. Further, there are single motive cases and mixed motive cases.
The particular theory of the case determines the evidence needed to
prove or rebut the allegations. These theories developed in federal
employment discrimination cases, but they are generally applied by the
courts to cases brought under the Fair Housing Act.
[56] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 98
percent and 54 percent to 76 percent, respectively.
[57] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 48 percent to 70
percent, 51 percent to 74 percent, and 17 percent to 39 percent,
respectively.
[58] The confidence interval for the first estimate is 3 percent to 17
percent.
[59] The estimate is 60 percent with a confidence interval of 51
percent to 69 percent.
[60] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 55 percent to 74
percent and 59 percent to 75 percent, respectively.
[61] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 42 percent to 63
percent and 37 percent to 55 percent, respectively.
[62] Comparative information may include documentation for persons
being compared with the complainant in terms of general qualifications
for the housing opportunity, location relative to the property in
question, and timing relative to the allegation date.
[63] The confidence interval for this estimate is 18 percent to 44
percent.
[64] The confidence interval for this estimate is 63 percent to 94
percent.
[65] The confidence interval for this estimate is 70 percent to 90
percent.
[66] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 75 percent to 90
percent and 68 percent to 90 percent, respectively.
[67] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 97
percent and 66 percent to 95 percent, respectively.
[68] The confidence interval for this estimate is 68 percent to 96
percent.
[69] The confidence interval for the second estimate is 78 percent to
89 percent.
[70] We asked, "Did anyone from a fair housing organization offer to
work with you and the other party to find a way to resolve your
differences?" However, in FHEO's view, intake staff should not tell
complainants that they could help resolve differences with the other
party. Rather, intake staff should explain that HUD will assist the
complainants by trying to conciliate or settle their complaint.
[71] The confidence interval for this estimate is 13 percent to 31
percent.
[72] The confidence interval for this estimate is 80 percent to 97
percent.
[73] 24 C.F.R. § 103.310(a).
[74] 42 U.S.C. § 3610((b)(2).
[75] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 99
percent and 78 percent to 97 percent, respectively.
[76] Federal regulations implementing the Act state that generally
investigators will not participate in or advise in the conciliation of
their own cases. 24 C.F.R. § 103.300(c). Nevertheless, the regulations
allow an individual to act as investigator and conciliator on the same
case when the rights of the parties "can be protected and the
prohibitions with respect to the disclosure of information can be
observed." Id.
[77] 24 C.F.R. § 103.300(c) states that an investigator "may suspend
fact finding" and engage in conciliation efforts.
[78] The estimates provided are based on our survey of a national
random sample of 575 complainants whose complaints were closed by
either FHEO or a FHAP agency during the last half of Calendar year 2004
either through conciliation, administrative closure, or a finding of no
cause. As noted earlier, the confidence intervals due to sampling error
for all survey estimates are plus or minus 6 percentage points or
smaller.
[79] We specifically listed the following expectations in our survey--
the organization would: (1) take your side in pursuing the complaint,
(2) prevent the other party from taking immediate action against you
while investigating the complaint, (3) conduct an investigation, (4)
help you and the other party resolve your differences, (5) help both
sides equally, (6) punish the violator, (7) get you a financial award,
and (8) other.
[80] This difference may be due to the fact that these agencies did not
investigate the complaint and deferred to the agency that conducted the
investigation. However we have no definitive evidence on this issue. In
addition, if complainants dealt with more than one agency, they may
have been confused as to which organization took which actions; this
confusion could extend to being asked to sign a complaint. Further, it
should be noted the information provided is the complainants' best
recollection and does not mean that a complaint signing did not occur.
[81] The Chicago FHEO hub maintained the log from March 1 through March
28.
[82] Due to confidentiality concerns and the inability of some agencies
to dedicate the resources involved with tracking all of the requested
contact information, not all locations agreed to provide us with caller
names. Approximately 20 percent of the entries were provided without
names.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
