DOJ's Civil Rights Division
Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Case Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs Gao ID: GAO-09-938R September 30, 2009The Civil Rights Division (Division) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is the primary federal entity charged with enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin in such areas as voting, employment, housing, public accommodations, the rights of institutionalized persons, and education. Each year, the Division initiates thousands of matters, which may consist of the investigation of an allegation of discrimination, and participates in hundreds of cases to carry out its broad enforcement responsibilities. Over the past 20 years, the Division has used various case management systems to manage its workload. In October 2000, the Division implemented the Interactive Case Management System (ICM) as its official system to track, count, and capture performance measurement information for all matters and cases from their inception to their conclusion and to assist staff in their casework. According to Division documentation, ICM was also designed to serve as a tool for senior management to oversee the work of the Division and to assist senior managers in reporting accurate matter and case data at all levels of the organization, improving accountability, analyzing the Division's performance, and responding to congressional inquiries about the work of the Division. Additionally, ICM was designed to capture and report on the level of effort that attorneys and professionals dedicate to investigations and case-related tasks to help Division managers oversee attorneys' work. Like the Division, each of DOJ's other litigating components has its own case management system to maintain information on its respective enforcement efforts. According to DOJ, the distribution of information across different case management systems makes it difficult and costly to generate department-level reports that support decision making. By linking the various litigating components, the Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) will enable greater and more effective collaboration and information management. In March 2006, DOJ began the LCMS project, intended to link the seven litigating components and facilitate the sharing of standardized information on their enforcement efforts by replacing components' individual case management systems, including ICM. However, according to a DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report issued in March 2009, the implementation of the first stage of LCMS is nearly 2 years behind schedule and overbudget. Moreover, DOJ is now uncertain if LCMS will be implemented in six of the litigating components, including the Division, raising questions as to whether the Division will need to continue to rely on ICM. Because DOJ has such broad responsibilities for enforcing statutes that prohibit discrimination, Congress asked us to review the enforcement efforts of four sections within the Division--the Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, including how the Division uses its case management system to collect data on these efforts. This report addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent has the Division conducted and documented assessments of ICM's performance since its implementation in fiscal year 2001? (2) What additional data, if any, could be collected using ICM to assist in reporting on the four sections' enforcement efforts?
In accordance with DOJ guidance that encourages components to conduct assessments of electronic data systems at least once a year in order to ensure that the systems are performing cost effectively and continue to meet the needs of the users, the Division reported conducting annual assessments of ICM's performance from fiscal years 2001 through 2006, but has not assessed the performance of ICM since then and lacks documentation of its prior assessments. As a result, the Division lacks information on how ICM is performing and whether it is meeting users' needs. Additionally, by requiring sections to collect additional data in ICM on protected class and subject--information that is key to ensuring that the Division executes its charge to enforce statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of protected class and has repeatedly been requested by congressional committees for oversight purposes--the Division could strengthen its ability to account for its enforcement efforts. According to DOJ officials, when planning for ICM's implementation with section officials, the Division did not consider requiring sections to record these data.
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-09-938R, DOJ's Civil Rights Division: Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Case Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-938R
entitled 'DOJ's Civil Rights Division: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Its Case Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs' which
was released on December 3, 2009.
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.
GAO-09-938R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548
September 30, 2009:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Melvin L. Watt:
House of Representatives:
Subject: DOJ's Civil Rights Division: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Its Case Management System and Better Meet Its Reporting Needs:
The Civil Rights Division (Division) of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
is the primary federal entity charged with enforcing federal statutes
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability,
religion, and national origin in such areas as voting, employment,
housing, public accommodations, the rights of institutionalized
persons, and education.[Footnote 1] Each year, the Division initiates
thousands of matters, which may consist of the investigation of an
allegation of discrimination, and participates in hundreds of cases to
carry out its broad enforcement responsibilities.[Footnote 2]
Over the past 20 years, the Division has used various case management
systems to manage its workload. In October 2000, the Division
implemented the Interactive Case Management System (ICM) as its
official system to track, count, and capture performance measurement
information for all matters and cases from their inception to their
conclusion and to assist staff in their casework. According to Division
documentation, ICM was also designed to serve as a tool for senior
management to oversee the work of the Division and to assist senior
managers in reporting accurate matter and case data at all levels of
the organization, improving accountability, analyzing the Division's
performance, and responding to congressional inquiries about the work
of the Division. Additionally, ICM was designed to capture and report
on the level of effort that attorneys and professionals dedicate to
investigations and case-related tasks to help Division managers oversee
attorneys' work.
Like the Division, each of DOJ's other litigating components has its
own case management system to maintain information on its respective
enforcement efforts. According to DOJ, the distribution of information
across different case management systems makes it difficult and costly
to generate department-level reports that support decision making. By
linking the various litigating components, the Litigation Case
Management System (LCMS) will enable greater and more effective
collaboration and information management.[Footnote 3] In March 2006,
DOJ began the LCMS project, intended to link the seven litigating
components and facilitate the sharing of standardized information on
their enforcement efforts by replacing components' individual case
management systems, including ICM. However, according to a DOJ Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) report issued in March 2009, the
implementation of the first stage of LCMS is nearly 2 years behind
schedule and over budget. Moreover, DOJ is now uncertain if LCMS will
be implemented in six of the litigating components, including the
Division, raising questions as to whether the Division will need to
continue to rely on ICM.
Because DOJ has such broad responsibilities for enforcing statutes that
prohibit discrimination, you asked us to review the enforcement efforts
of four sections within the Division--the Employment Litigation,
Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and Special Litigation
sections[Footnote 4]--from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, including
how the Division uses its case management system to collect data on
these efforts.[Footnote 5] This report addresses the following
questions: (1) To what extent has the Division conducted and documented
assessments of ICM's performance since its implementation in fiscal
year 2001? (2) What additional data, if any, could be collected using
ICM to assist in reporting on the four sections' enforcement efforts?
We also have ongoing work reviewing the activities that the Division
undertook to implement its enforcement responsibilities through these
four sections from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. We expect to report
on the results of this work later this year.
To address both objectives, we analyzed DOJ guidance regarding the
development and maintenance of electronic data systems, such as ICM. We
interviewed senior officials in DOJ's Justice Management Division,
which is the management arm of DOJ; the Acting Assistant Attorney
General for the Division; and Division information technology (IT)
officials, who are the Division officials responsible for managing and
maintaining ICM. We also interviewed section chiefs, deputy chiefs, and
other section staff to obtain information on how they used ICM data to
help manage and report on the enforcement efforts of the four sections
from fiscal years 2001 through 2007.
To address the first objective, we analyzed Division documents, such as
internal memorandums from Division managers and the ICM user's guide
and data dictionary, describing the purpose and contents of ICM; a DOJ
document identifying issues with ICM and opportunities for improvements
through LCMS, which was part of a larger analysis regarding how LCMS
could be used to enhance DOJ's business processes; and templates for
management reports generated from ICM. We compared the Division's
efforts to conduct performance assessments with DOJ guidance regarding
the development and maintenance of information technology systems.
[Footnote 6] Additionally, we assessed the Division's method for
documenting assessments of ICM's performance using criteria in
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 7]
Finally, we interviewed Division IT officials regarding the actions
taken to conduct and document assessments of ICM's performance,
including the process and performance measures used.
To address the second objective, we analyzed Division documents such as
internal memorandums from Division managers and federal budget
submissions to determine how ICM was used by Division and section
officials to report information on enforcement efforts. In addition, we
analyzed transcripts of congressional oversight hearings and Division
reports to Congress on the four sections' enforcement endeavors to
determine the type of information congressional committees have
requested on the four sections and whether this type of information was
maintained in ICM.[Footnote 8] As part of this review and in support of
our ongoing work, we assessed the accuracy, completeness, and
reliability of ICM data by analyzing data on matters initiated and
closed and cases pursued by the four sections from fiscal years 2001
through 2007. This assessment included ascertaining the extent to which
data fields that the team anticipated using to conduct our analysis of
matters and cases were complete and comparing fields with related
values to determine the consistency of the data. To supplement our
analysis and further assess the reliability of the data, we compared
ICM data with information contained in documentation, such as
memorandums and correspondence included in files for matters that had
been concluded, and information contained in complaints the Division
filed in court. Specifically, we reviewed files for a nongeneralizable
sample of closed matters from ICM data for each of the four sections.
[Footnote 9] We reviewed such files for 49 of about 3,300 closed
matters in the Employment Litigation Section; 60 of about 1,070 closed
matters in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section; 51 of about 345
closed matters in the Voting Section; and 51 of about 714 closed
matters in the Special Litigation Section. In determining our samples,
we randomly picked matters that were investigated under statutes
enforced by the sections, and took into consideration factors such as
the government role (e.g., plaintiff or defendant) and subject (e.g.,
the nature of the alleged discrimination) to ensure that the sample
reflected the breadth of the work and practices of the respective
sections. Because our samples were not representative of all closed
matters investigated by these sections during the period of our review,
we were unable to generalize the results to these populations. However,
our file reviews provided examples of how the matter data in ICM
compared to the same information in the matter files as well as
information on how the sections investigated matters and reasons for
closing them.
Additionally, to supplement our analysis and further assess the
reliability of the ICM case data for each section, we analyzed the
complaints for all of the cases filed in court as plaintiff by the
Employment Litigation, Voting, and Special Litigation sections from
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Specifically, we analyzed 60 complaints
from the Employment Litigation Section, 56 complaints from the Voting
Section, and 31 complaints from the Special Litigation Section. We
compared the information in the complaints to data contained in ICM.
For the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, we reviewed the
documents for a nongeneralizable sample of 31 out of 270 cases filed in
court as plaintiff, given the larger number of cases filed. In
selecting the sample of cases to review, we randomly chose cases that
were pursued under the statutes enforced by the section and took into
consideration other characteristics, such as the fiscal year in which a
case was filed. Although the information obtained cannot be generalized
to all cases filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section during
the period of our review, it provided us with information on how the
case data in ICM compared to the same information in the complaints
filed. Limitations in the data that we identified are noted in the
report.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2007 through September
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary, in accordance with DOJ guidance that encourages components
to conduct assessments of electronic data systems at least once a year
in order to ensure that the systems are performing cost effectively and
continue to meet the needs of the users, the Division reported
conducting annual assessments of ICM's performance from fiscal years
2001 through 2006, but has not assessed the performance of ICM since
then and lacks documentation of its prior assessments. As a result, the
Division lacks information on how ICM is performing and whether it is
meeting users' needs. Additionally, by requiring sections to collect
additional data in ICM on protected class and subject--information that
is key to ensuring that the Division executes its charge to enforce
statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of protected class and
has repeatedly been requested by congressional committees for oversight
purposes--the Division could strengthen its ability to account for its
enforcement efforts. According to DOJ officials, when planning for
ICM's implementation with section officials, the Division did not
consider requiring sections to record these data.
To strengthen the Division's ability to manage and report on the four
sections' enforcement efforts, we recommend that the Acting Assistant
Attorney General of the Division, among other things, (1) conduct and
respond to annual assessments of the performance of the Division's case
management system and ensure that these assessments are documented and
maintained so they can be used to improve the performance of the system
and (2) require sections to record data on protected class and subject
in the Division's case management system in order to facilitate
reporting of this information to Congress. DOJ concurred with our
recommendations.
Background:
Created as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1957,[Footnote 10] the
Division is responsible for the enforcement of all federal statutes
affecting civil rights. The act focuses on voting and was followed by a
series of laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, credit,
housing, public accommodations and facilities, education, and certain
federally funded and conducted programs. These laws also expand the
classes of individuals entitled to statutory protection from
discrimination to include national origin, religion, familial status,
and gender--referred to as protected classes.
Statutes Enforced by the Four Sections:
The Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, Voting, and
Special Litigation sections enforce multiple statutes.
* The Employment Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing
various civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination in
employment based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and
military service as well as retaliation against a person for filing a
charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or
opposing discriminatory practices. Statutes enforced by the Employment
Litigation Section include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
[Footnote 11] and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994.[Footnote 12]
* The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section is responsible for
enforcing federal civil rights statutes related to discrimination in
housing, credit transactions, land use, and certain places of public
accommodation, as well as enforcing certain federal protections for
active duty servicemembers. Statutes enforced by the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section include the Fair Housing Act,[Footnote 13] the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act,[Footnote 14] Title II of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964,[Footnote 15] the land use provisions of the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,[Footnote 16] and the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.[Footnote 17]
* The Voting Section is responsible for enforcing federal voting rights
statutes, including statutory provisions designed to safeguard the
right to vote of racial and language minorities, disabled and
illiterate persons, and overseas and military personnel. The Voting
Section is also charged with enforcing federal statutes that address,
among other things, issues such as voter registration and voter
information. Statutes enforced by the Voting Section include the Voting
Rights Act of 1965,[Footnote 18] the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act of 1968,[Footnote 19] the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993,[Footnote 20] and the Help America Vote Act of
2002.[Footnote 21]
* The Special Litigation Section is responsible for enforcing federal
civil rights statutes in four primary areas: conditions of
institutional confinement, conduct of law enforcement agencies, access
to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship, and
the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons.
Statutes enforced by the Special Litigation Section include the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act[Footnote 22] and the police
misconduct provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994.[Footnote 232]
Division's Use of ICM:
ICM is the official data system used by the Division for tracking and
managing its diverse caseload, and is used for both internal and
external management purposes. Internally, Division officials use ICM to
track matters, cases, and time spent on activities, such as outreach to
community-based organizations regarding civil rights issues. Officials
from all four sections reported using ICM to generate a quarterly
report for Division managers to help oversee the operations of the
sections. This report includes information such as the number of open
matters and cases. Additionally, the managers in the four sections said
that they used ICM reports as tools during periodic meetings with
attorneys to review their workloads by discussing their open matters
and cases, among other things. Special Litigation Section and Housing
and Civil Enforcement Section officials stated that they also sometimes
generate additional reports to review individual attorneys' efforts and
to inform decisions about workloads.
The Division also uses ICM for various external reporting purposes. ICM
is used to generate data for performance and accountability reports and
annual performance budgets, which are important for resource allocation
and oversight purposes. It is also used to provide information for
responses to congressional, the Office of Management and Budget, and
other interested parties' information inquiries, such as requests for
information on the Division's enforcement efforts. Additionally,
Division officials use ICM data to prepare congressional hearing
testimony on the Division's enforcement efforts.
Data Entered in ICM:
Sections are responsible for ensuring that data are entered and updated
in ICM, a responsibility that is usually performed by a case management
specialist or that specialist's backup.[Footnote 24] When a matter or
case is first entered into ICM, DOJ assigns it a unique identification
number, called a Department of Justice number (DJ number), which can be
used to track a matter or case. Once a DJ number is assigned, case
management specialists in each section are to record in ICM associated
data for certain required fields that the Division has deemed important
and therefore requires sections to capture, such as the relevant
statute and the government's role (e.g., plaintiff or defendant).
Although the Division considers other fields as optional, or
nonrequired, section managers can require that additional data be
recorded in these fields based on their information needs. Table 1
provides examples of selected required and nonrequired ICM data fields.
Table 1: Examples of Selected Required and Nonrequired Data Fields:
Data field: DJ number;
Description: Identification number assigned by the department;
Required field.
Data field: Government role;
Description: The duty of the government as a participant in the matter
or case, such as plaintiff or defendant;
Required field.
Data field: Statute;
Description: The law or laws relevant to the matter or case;
Required field.
Data field: Stage and status;
Description: The stage and status field are linked together. The stage
field tracks the formal stage, event, or process that describes the
current status of a matter or case, such as if a case is at trial. The
status field captures, chronologically, where a matter or case is at
the Division level, such as if a matter or case is closed;
Required field.
Data field: Protected class;
Description: The class or classes of individuals entitled to statutory
protection from discrimination;
Nonrequired field.
Data field: Subject;
Description: Information on the nature of a matter or case, such as an
issue related to hiring, promotion, or intimidation;
Nonrequired field.
Data field: Business type;
Description: The type of business associated with the defendant;
Nonrequired field.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ information technology documents.
[End of table]
LCMS:
If fully implemented, LCMS is to serve as the case management system
for DOJ litigating components and replace the component case management
systems, including ICM. According to a schedule issued in May 2006, DOJ
initially planned to complete the implementation of LCMS in three
stages across seven of DOJ's litigating components, as shown in table
2, by December 2010.
Table 2: LCMS Implementation Stages by Component:
Stage: 1;
Litigating components included in stage: Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys Offices.
Stage: 2;
Litigating components included in stage: Civil Rights Division, Civil
Division, and Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Stage: 3;
Litigating components included in stage: Criminal Division, Tax
Division, and Antitrust Division.
Source: DOJ.
[End of table]
However, in a March 2009 report, the DOJ OIG reported that the
implementation of LCMS is significantly behind schedule and overbudget,
and recommended that the Chief Information Officer (CIO) conduct an
assessment to determine if DOJ should continue with the implementation
of LCMS.[Footnote 25] As shown in table 3, the implementation of LCMS
in Stage 1 components is more than 2 years behind schedule and, as of
December 2008, was anticipated to cost about $26 million more than
initially estimated. According to the OIG report, the delays and budget
overruns occurred as a result of ineffective planning during a key
system development phase, which resulted in the contractor needing to
make significant changes after much work had been done, and severe
defects identified during testing, which required an extensive amount
of time to correct. Additionally, the OIG report stated that DOJ's
oversight efforts were not sufficient to ensure that the contractor met
the LCMS schedule and cost requirements. The CIO agreed with the OIG's
recommendation and had until June 22, 2009, to provide the OIG with
documentation outlining the specific actions the CIO's office had taken
or planned to take to assess whether DOJ should continue with the
implementation of LCMS.
Table 3: Initial and Most Recent LCMS Implementation Schedule and Cost
Estimates:
Stage 1:
May 2006 implementation schedule by stage: March 2008;
May 2006 estimated cost by stage: $34.7 million;
November 2008 implementation schedule by stage: July 2010;
December 2008 estimated cost by stage: $60.6 million.
Stage 2:
May 2006 implementation schedule by stage: September 2009;
May 2006 estimated cost by stage: $4.2 million;
November 2008 implementation schedule by stage: DOJ did not identify a
time frame;
December 2008 estimated cost by stage: DOJ did not calculate a cost
estimate.
Stage 3:
May 2006 implementation schedule by stage: December 2010;
May 2006 estimated cost by stage: $3.4 million;
November 2008 implementation schedule by stage: DOJ did not identify a
time frame;
December 2008 estimated cost by stage: DOJ did not calculate a cost
estimate.
Source: DOJ.
Note: The table provides information regarding the initial and most
recent LCMS implementation schedule and cost estimates. The LCMS
Project Management Office also issued a revised implementation schedule
in April 2007 and a revised cost estimate in September 2007.
[End of table]
In a June 2009 memorandum responding to the OIG report, the CIO stated
that DOJ's fiscal year 2010 budget forecast includes funding to support
LCMS costs.Additionally, the CIO stated that actions are being taken to
ensure that officials in the components designated for Stages 2 and 3
are committed to the implementation of LCMS. In August 2009, DOJ
Justice Management Division officials stated that a decision had not
been made regarding whether LCMS would be implemented in Stage 2 and 3
components.
While the Division Conducted Annual Assessments of ICM through Fiscal
Year 2006, Reinstating Those Assessments and Documenting the Results
Would Better Ensure That the Division's Case Management System Is
Performing Effectively and Meeting Users' Needs:
Division IT officials stated that from the implementation of ICM in
October 2000 through fiscal year 2006, they conducted annual
assessments of the system's performance, including its operating
capabilities and the extent to which it was meeting users' needs;
however, they have not conducted assessments since fiscal year 2006.
DOJ's Systems Development Life Cycle Guidance (Guidance) encourages
such assessments to ensure that the case management system is
performing cost effectively and continues to meet the needs of the
user, and establishes a framework for conducting the reviews.
Specifically, the Guidance, initially implemented in March 2000,
identifies the importance of ensuring that users' needs are met and the
system continues to perform as intended. The Guidance states that
changes will be required to fix problems, possibly add features, and
make improvements to the system. To this end, the Guidance suggests
that components conduct assessments of an IT system's performance and
user satisfaction at least once a year. The Guidance suggests the types
of information that components may want to collect as part of the user
satisfaction review, including the following:
* whether and why users maintain manual records to supplement computer-
processed information;
* whether the system duplicates other information and, if so, where the
information is stored;
* whether information in the system can be readily obtained from other
sources;
* whether users think the system is accurate and reliable, current and
up to date, and useful;
* whether the system should be improved to make users' jobs easier;
and:
* the extent to which users feel they are knowledgeable about the
system.
Division IT officials responsible for managing ICM identified two
issues that contributed to their decision not to conduct an annual
assessment of ICM since fiscal year 2006. First, officials said that
they anticipated the implementation of LCMS, which would replace ICM,
and consequently did not find it necessary to conduct assessments.
Second, IT officials said that the Division was unable to make
extensive changes to ICM, such as adding a function that would help
sections track significant milestones related to cases, because the
vendor no longer supports the version of the software used by the
Division. However, officials stated that they were able to make limited
changes, such as modifying lists of values from which users choose when
entering data in ICM and creating ad hoc reports to help respond to
external information requests. In our prior work, we have also
identified that a key practice in managing an IT system is to evaluate
the system at least annually to assess and improve its performance.
[Footnote 26] Continuing to conduct annual assessments of ICM beyond
fiscal year 2006 could have provided officials with information
regarding the system's performance that is needed to manage the system,
such as how well the system was functioning in comparison to its
performance measures; whether it was meeting the users' needs; and what
additional capabilities, if any, were needed. Moreover, in March 2009,
IT officials said that because of the system's declining capabilities
and the nearly 2-year delay in the implementation of LCMS in Stage 1
components, the Division may have to obtain an upgrade of ICM that is
supported by the vendor so that changes can be made to the system. In
August 2009, Division officials stated that a decision had not been
made regarding whether the Division will obtain an upgrade of ICM or
wait for the possible implementation of LCMS. Given that it is unclear
how much longer the Division may need to rely on the current version of
ICM, information from annual assessments could help the Division
maximize the performance of the current system and any upgrade of ICM
as well as inform planning for the implementation of LCMS, if it
proceeds in Stage 2 components, or any another case management system
that may take its place.
Furthermore, for those assessments conducted during and before 2006,
Division IT officials stated that they could not locate documentation
on the assessment results, which they attributed to turnover among key
Division and IT officials.[Footnote 27] As a result, they could not
provide specific information on the findings from each annual
assessment, including feedback they received from the four sections
regarding ICM, or the key decisions made and actions taken in response
to the findings.[Footnote 28] Internal control standards state that
agencies should clearly document key events and that this documentation
should be properly managed and maintained and readily available for
examination.[Footnote 29] Such documentation is necessary to hold
Division officials accountable for ensuring that issues identified
through the annual assessment are resolved. Additionally, such
documentation would provide decision makers with information regarding
the historical basis for past changes to the case management system
that could help inform decisions about future upgrades to ICM or its
replacement by another system.
By Requiring Sections to Collect Data on Protected Class, Subject, and
Reasons for Closing Matters in Its Case Management System, the Division
Could Provide Better Accountability to Congress on Its Enforcement
Efforts:
By collecting additional data on protected class and subject in ICM,
the Division could strengthen its ability to account for its
enforcement efforts. Division IT officials stated that since the
implementation of ICM in 2000, they have reminded sections to store
information on their enforcement efforts in ICM, as it is the
Division's official case management system and is used to provide
accountability and respond to internal and external information
inquiries on its enforcement efforts. In October 2006, the Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General issued a memorandum to section chiefs
stating that Division leadership relies heavily on ICM data to, among
other things, report to Congress and the public about its enforcement
efforts, and should be able to independently extract the data from ICM
needed for this purpose. However, over the years, congressional
committees have consistently requested information for oversight
purposes related to data that the Division does not require to be
collected in ICM.
Specifically, we, along with section officials, identified that
congressional committees and external stakeholders have repeatedly
requested information regarding the specific protected classes and
subjects related to matters and cases--information that is key to
ensuring that the Division executes its charge to enforce statutes
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of protected class.[Footnote
30] While ICM includes fields for collecting these data, the Division
has not required sections to do this because, according to Division
officials, when planning for ICM's implementation with section
officials, the Division did not consider requiring sections to provide
these data. Although acknowledging that they received requests for
information on protected class from external stakeholders, some section
officials said that they did not believe it was necessary to maintain
this information in ICM for internal management purposes. For example,
Employment Litigation Section officials said that they did not maintain
this information in ICM because they did not consider protected class
or subject when deciding whether to pursue a case. As a result, we
found that the availability and accuracy of these data vary among the
sections. For example, when we compared information on the protected
classes and subjects identified in the 60 complaints the Employment
Litigation Section filed in court as plaintiff from fiscal years 2001
through 2007 to the data maintained in ICM, we identified that the
protected class and subject data in ICM were incomplete or inaccurate
for 12 and 29 cases, or about 20 and 48 percent, respectively.
Additionally, based on our review of data for Employment Litigation
Section closed matters for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we found
that protected class and subject data were not captured in ICM for
2,808 matters and 2,855 matters, or about 83 and 85 percent,
respectively. We also reviewed the 56 cases the Voting Section filed as
plaintiff for the same period and compared the information on protected
class and subject to the data maintained in ICM and identified that
these data were incomplete or inaccurate for 10 and 26 cases, or about
18 and 46 percent, respectively. Based on our review of the Voting
Section matter data, we found that 40 out of 442 matters, or about 9
percent, were inaccurate.[Footnote 31] In contrast, according to the
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, it requires that protected class
and subject data be recorded in ICM for all matters and cases. Our
review of the section's matter and case data for the 7-year period
identified that the protected class and subject data were consistently
recorded in ICM.[Footnote 32]
To help respond to information inquiries, the Employment Litigation
Section maintains broad information on protected class in an ancillary
data system and uses this information in conjunction with data in ICM
to report on its enforcement efforts, although some of the data
contained in the ancillary systems could be recorded in ICM. Section
officials reported using ancillary data systems in part because it was
easier to generate customized reports than using ICM. (Enclosure I
provides information on selected ancillary data systems maintained by
all four sections and the reasons the sections provided for using these
systems.) We previously reported that agencies with separate,
disconnected data systems may be unable to aggregate data consistently
across systems, and are more likely to devote time and resources to
collecting and reporting information than those with integrated
systems.[Footnote 33] Moreover, entering similar data in multiple
systems creates more opportunities for data entry errors. Requiring
sections to record these data in ICM would assist the Division in
responding to inquiries from Congress by ensuring access to readily
available information and by reducing reliance on ancillary data
systems. Additionally, by requiring sections to record protected class
and subject data, the Division would help to ensure the accuracy of
these data as it has internal controls in place for information entered
into ICM that are designed to ensure the accuracy of required data. For
example, IT staff generate a report on an almost weekly basis to make
sure that no values are missing in required fields and that required
data are up to date.
Additionally, congressional committees have requested information
regarding reasons the Division did not pursue matters, including
instances in which Division managers did not approve a section's
recommendation to proceed with a case. However, ICM does not include a
discrete field for capturing the reasons that matters are closed.
Although ICM has a comment field that sections can use to identify the
reasons matters are closed, sections are not required to capture these
data in ICM. Consequently, these data are not systematically maintained
in ICM and the Division could not easily aggregate these data using the
comment field. According to Division officials, when Division and
section officials were determining which data were to be captured in
ICM, they did not consider the need to include a discrete field to
capture the reasons that matters were closed.
As a result, as part of our prior and ongoing work to assess the
Division's enforcement efforts, we had to review Division matter files
to determine the reasons that matters were closed--a process that was
time-consuming and labor-intensive.[Footnote 34] Given the total number
of matters that the four sections closed each year (on average over 700
per year from fiscal years 2001 through 2007, according to data
maintained in ICM), we could not readily or systematically review all
files to determine the reasons that all matters initiated during the 7-
year period were closed. Moreover, officials stated that because the
Division did not track this information in ICM, they have had to review
files and talk with section attorneys and managers to obtain
information on closed matters. They said that it was difficult to
compile this information because of turnover among key section
officials. Division officials acknowledged that such methods are
resource-intensive and time-consuming. In contrast, another component
within DOJ, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA),
requires the litigating sections it supervises to capture information
on the reasons for declining matters in its case management system, the
Legal Information Office Network System. According to EOUSA, it uses
the information internally to understand why matters are declined and
make management decisions. For example, according to EOUSA officials,
if matters are declined because of weak evidence, U.S. Attorney's
offices could work with law enforcement to make improvements in
practices used to collect evidence. Capturing information on the
reasons matters were closed in the Division's case management system
would facilitate the reporting of this information to Congress and
enable the Division to conduct a systematic analysis of the reasons
that matters were closed, as well as determine whether there were
issues that may need to be addressed through actions, such as
additional training for attorneys or additional guidance from the
Division on factors it considers in deciding whether to approve a
section's recommendation to pursue a case.
Conclusions:
As the chief civil rights enforcement agency of the federal government,
the Division is responsible for enforcing a wide array of laws. Given
the scope and breadth of its enforcement efforts, a robust data system
is critical to ensuring that the Division has the ability to
effectively manage its diverse responsibilities, leverage resources,
and report on the enforcement efforts of the four sections--information
that it needs in order to be accountable to Congress. While the
Division reported taking actions to conduct annual assessments of ICM's
performance from fiscal years 2001 through 2006, conducting such
assessments beyond fiscal year 2006 could have provided the Division
with information for strengthening its ability to manage and report on
the enforcement efforts of the four sections. Given the uncertainty
regarding how long the Division will need to rely on ICM, conducting
and utilizing the results of these assessments could help the Division
maximize ICM's performance and plan for an upgrade of ICM, or the
implementation of LCMS or another case management system. Moreover,
because officials did not maintain documentation on the prior annual
assessments conducted of ICM, including key decisions made to address
issues identified, the Division lacks an accountability mechanism to
ensure that issues identified are addressed--a particular concern given
the turnover in key decision makers that Division officials identified.
Given that congressional committees have consistently requested
information on protected classes and subjects for oversight purposes--
fields that exist in ICM--requiring sections to record these data in
ICM would help ensure that data needed for oversight purposes are
readily available. Similarly, capturing the reasons matters were not
pursued in the Division's case management system would facilitate the
reporting of this information to congressional committees as well as
enable the Division to systematically assess the reasons that matters
were closed and take any necessary actions in response.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To strengthen the Division's ability to manage and report on the four
sections' enforcement efforts, we recommend that the Acting Assistant
Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division take the following three
actions: (1) conduct and respond to annual assessments of the
performance of the Division's case management system and ensure that
these assessments are documented and maintained so they can be used to
improve the performance of the system; (2) require the Employment
Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting sections to
record data on protected class and all four sections to record data on
subject in the Division's case management system in order to strengthen
its ability to account for its enforcement efforts; and (3) as the
Division considers options to address its case management system needs,
determine how sections should be required to record data on the reasons
for closing matters in the system in order to be able to systematically
assess and take actions to address issues identified.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ. The
department did not provide official written comments to include in our
report. However, in an e-mail received September 14, 2009, DOJ stated
that the department concurred with our recommendations. DOJ provided
written technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Attorney General, appropriate congressional committees, and
other interested parties. This report will also be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in enclosure II.
Signed by:
Eileen Regen Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures - 2:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Selected Ancillary Data Systems Used by the Four Sections:
Section: Employment Litigation Section;
Description of data system:
* A WordPerfect list that includes, among other things, broad protected
class data for cases, such as race, sex, and national origin;
* A WordPerfect list that includes information related to the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act cases, such as case
names, consent decrees, and complaints;
Section's stated reasons for using the ancillary data system:
* According to section officials, this information has always been
maintained separately from the Division's case management system and
section officials wanted to have a single source of information that
includes both historical and current information;
* Officials said that they receive many requests for this information
and they can more easily obtain the necessary information through the
WordPerfect chart than by using ICM.
Section: Housing and Civil Enforcement Section;
Description of data system:
* WordPerfect charts on Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act cases and investigations;
Section's stated reasons for using the ancillary data system:
* The statute under which a matter or case is pursued may change over
time. However, when an attorney opens a matter in the Interactive Case
Management System (ICM), he or she is required to provide data for the
statute field. Once entered, section officials said that the data
should not be removed, unless the matter was closed in ICM. If a matter
is closed in ICM, then there is no longer a record of the statute under
which a matter was originally pursued. Officials were interested in
maintaining such information so that they could track the statutes
under which matters and cases were initially opened and ultimately
closed.
Section: Voting Section;
Description of data system:
* A WordPerfect document that lists all cases by statute and includes
additional information, such as history of claims;
Section's stated reasons for using the ancillary data system:
* Section officials said that it is easier to compile their own data to
generate customized reports rather than obtaining information through
ICM because it is easier for officials to search and compile the data
using the WordPerfect document.
Section: Special Litigation Section;
Description of data system:
* A WordPerfect chart that contains information on matter and case
development and strategic next steps;
Section's stated reasons for using the ancillary data system:
* Section officials indicated that the section is often asked to report
on various aspects of its enforcement efforts, such as counts of the
number of matters being pursued under a certain statute. Information
from the WordPerfect chart can be used to count such data in a variety
of ways. If officials were to rely on ICM to count data in a way that
has never before been requested, section officials said that it would
take information technology staff about a day to develop a new report.
Source: DOJ section officials.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Eileen Larence (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Maria Strudwick, Assistant
Director; Barbara Stolz, Analyst-in-Charge; and Joy Myers, Analyst;
managed this assignment. David Alexander, Jennifer Andreone, R.
Rochelle Burns, Michele Fejfar, Emily Hanawalt, Lara Kaskie, Jan
Montgomery, and Janet Temko made significant contributions to the work.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] The Division uses the term protected class to refer to the
different groups (e.g., race, sex, and national origin) covered by the
statutes that it enforces.
[2] A matter is defined as an activity that has been assigned an
identification number but has not resulted in the filing of a
complaint, indictment, or information. A case is defined as an activity
that has been assigned an identification number that has resulted in
the filing of a complaint, indictment, or information in court. A
complaint is a document filed in court by the plaintiff to initiate a
lawsuit. The complaint outlines the facts and legal claims for relief
from damages caused, or wrongful conduct engaged in, by the defendant.
An indictment or information is the formal charge made by a prosecutor
to initiate a criminal proceeding against the accused.
[3] DOJ‘s seven litigating components in place at the time LCMS was
planned were the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment
and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions and the Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, which is the administrative office for the 94
U.S. Attorneys Offices.
[4] The Special Litigation Section is responsible for the enforcement
of federal civil rights statutes in four primary areas: conditions of
institutional confinement, conduct of law enforcement agencies, access
to reproductive health facilities and places of religious worship, and
the exercise of religious freedom of institutionalized persons.
[5] The Division has 11 sections--10 program-related sections and an
Administrative Management section.
[6] Department of Justice, Systems Development Life Cycle Guidance
(Washington, D.C.: March 2000 and January 2003).
[7] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[8] We reviewed two reports that the Division was required to submit to
Congress: a report on DOJ's activities under the Civil Rights of
Institutionalized Persons Act, which DOJ submits annually to Congress
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997f, for each year 2001 through 2007, and
DOJ's annual report to Congress on the administration of its functions
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1691f.
[9] A nongeneralizable sample may be either a nonprobability sample
where observations are selected in a manner that is not completely
random or a probability sample where random sampling is used, but the
sample size is too small to allow the results to be generalized to the
broader population.
[10] Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634.
[11] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
[12] 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-34.
[13] 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et. seq.
[14] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et. seq.
[15] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq.
[16] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.
[17] 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501-96.
[18] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1.
[19] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff-1973ff-6.
[20] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-1973gg-10.
[21] 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-545.
[22] 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j.
[23] 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
[24] Depending on the needs of the section, case management specialists
provide, among other things, paralegal and data entry support. Case
management specialists in all four sections are responsible for
entering and updating data in ICM.
[25] Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, "The
Department of Justice's Litigation Case Management System" (Mar. 24,
2009).
[26] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1,
2004).
[27] Officials had documentation regarding steps to plan for the
implementation of ICM, such as notes from meetings with section chiefs.
[28] Officials identified two changes made to ICM as a result of the
reviews conducted from fiscal years 2001 through 2006, including
adjustments that enabled staff to access the time reporting system
through DOJ's intranet and increased the operating speed of the system.
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[30] Because of the nature of the statutes enforced by the section, the
data for protected class are not relevant for most of the work done by
the Special Litigation Section. Given the statutory responsibilities of
the section, it requires staff to capture data in ICM on the type of
facility involved in a matter or case and, where appropriate, protected
class information.
[31] Data were plainly inaccurate because related fields contained data
that were incompatible. For example, a protected class was paired with
a statutory provision for which it was not relevant.
[32] We reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 60 of about 1,070 closed
matters and 31 of 270 cases the section filed in court as plaintiff and
found that the protected class and subject information for these
matters and cases was generally accurate. As previously discussed,
because our samples were not representative, we were unable to
generalize the results to all closed matters investigated and
complaints filed by the section during the period of our review.
[33] GAO, Telecommunications: FCC Has Made Some Progress in the
Management of Its Enforcement Program but Faces Limitations, and
Additional Actions are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-125] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15,
2008).
[34] GAO, Civil Rights Division: Policies and Procedures for
Establishing Litigation Priorities, Tracking and Managing Casework, and
Disseminating Litigation Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-58R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17,
2000).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
