Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Actions Taken, but Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations Gao ID: GAO-06-10 October 28, 2005In May 2001, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies were directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare restructuring plans to make government more responsive to citizens' needs. By June 2001, agencies were to submit a workforce analysis to OMB that would include, for example, demographic information on the agency's employees and would serve as the baseline for agency-specific restructuring plans. Agencies were to submit restructuring plans to OMB with fiscal year 2003 budget submissions and annual performance plans. These submissions were due to OMB September 2001. OMB's directive required agencies with more than 100 full-time employees to develop restructuring plans with the goal of flattening the federal hierarchy. The OMB directive stated that plans should describe the specific activities and actions each agency planned to take, associated resources, expected outcomes, and tools to measure performance. In order to ascertain what progress EEOC has made in reorganizing its operations, we determined (1) whether EEOC implemented OMB's directive to develop a restructuring plan and (2) what actions EEOC is taking to restructure and make its operations more efficient and effective.
Although EEOC did not develop or submit to OMB a restructuring plan as required, it has developed and submitted a workforce analysis to OMB, contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for a study of its operations, and taken action to implement some of the study's recommendations. OMB officials stated that they have found EEOC's restructuring approach to be acceptable. EEOC chose to implement three major initiatives from the study of its operations but did not have an organized strategy to consider all of the study's recommendations. These wide-ranging recommendations address multiple topics, including EEOC's mission, needed technological improvements, and human capital management. In this report, we are making a recommendation to the Chair of EEOC to develop and implement an organized strategy to consider all of the NAPA recommendations. EEOC disagreed with this recommendation, indicating that they had already implemented such a strategy. We continue to believe that EEOC needs to more systematically evaluate each of the NAPA recommendations, which would include an examination of the implementation costs, contributions to Commission goals, as well as establishing a means for measuring the impact of those recommendations that are implemented.
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-06-10, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-10
entitled 'Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but
Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations' which was released
on October 28, 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:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2005:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Actions Taken, but Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a
More Systematic Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations:
GAO-06-10:
Contents:
Letter:
Summary of Findings:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: Sixty-four Recommendations from the National Academy of
Public Administration to EEOC:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IVGAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Abbreviations:
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
NAPA: National Academy of Public Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 28, 2005:
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf:
Chairman:
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and
Commerce, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jose E. Serrano:
House of Representatives:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) promotes equal
opportunity in the workplace and enforces federal laws that prohibit
employment discrimination. EEOC investigates charges of discrimination
from the public, litigates major discrimination cases, and reaches out
to federal agencies and the public to educate and prevent
discrimination. EEOC serves every industry, every segment of the
population, and every part of the country. Since EEOC was established
over 40 years ago, its core mission has not changed, but new issues
continue to emerge. For example, the agency is experiencing an increase
in charges of sexual harassment of teenagers in the workplace and
discrimination against individuals who speak with accents. EEOC has
also seen an increase in employer reprisals against employees who
complain about discriminatory treatment, cooperate with EEOC
investigations, or file formal charges.
In May 2001, EEOC and other federal agencies were directed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare restructuring plans to
make government more responsive to citizens' needs.[Footnote 1] By June
2001, agencies were to submit a workforce analysis to OMB that would
include, for example, demographic information on the agency's employees
and would serve as the baseline for agency-specific restructuring
plans. Agencies were to submit restructuring plans to OMB with fiscal
year 2003 budget submissions and annual performance plans. These
submissions were due to OMB September 2001. OMB's directive required
agencies with more than 100 full-time employees to develop
restructuring plans with the goal of flattening the federal hierarchy.
The OMB directive stated that plans should describe the specific
activities and actions each agency planned to take, associated
resources, expected outcomes, and tools to measure performance.
In order to ascertain what progress EEOC has made in reorganizing its
operations, we determined (1) whether EEOC implemented OMB's directive
to develop a restructuring plan and (2) what actions EEOC is taking to
restructure and make its operations more efficient and effective.
To determine whether EEOC implemented OMB's directive to develop a
restructuring plan, we obtained and reviewed OMB's directive, the
President's Management Agenda, and other guidance. We interviewed key
EEOC officials in headquarters to identify the steps that the agency
took in order to implement OMB's directive. We interviewed key OMB
officials to determine the extent to which EEOC's actions had met the
OMB requirements. To determine what actions EEOC is taking to
restructure and make its operations more efficient and effective, we
interviewed key EEOC officials and reviewed documents pertaining to the
agency's restructuring efforts. To learn how these restructuring
efforts would affect EEOC's operations, we visited EEOC headquarters,
the national contact center, and EEOC district offices in Chicago and
San Antonio. In these district offices, we interviewed staff from all
major functions and at different levels. To gain additional
perspectives, we interviewed district directors from another five EEOC
field locations (Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and San
Francisco). We also interviewed representatives from an advisory panel
of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)[Footnote 2] and
the American Federation of Government Employees, EEOC Locals 216. We
conducted our work between October 2004 and September 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
On September 19, 2005, we briefed your staff and other staff of the
Subcommittee on the results of our work based on the briefing slides we
include in appendix I. The purpose of this letter is to formally
publish the briefing slides and to officially transmit our
recommendation to the Chair of EEOC.
Summary of Findings:
Although EEOC did not develop or submit to OMB a restructuring plan as
required, it has developed and submitted a workforce analysis to OMB,
contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
for a study of its operations, and taken action to implement some of
the study's recommendations. OMB officials stated that they have found
EEOC's restructuring approach to be acceptable. EEOC chose to implement
three major initiatives from the study of its operations but did not
have an organized strategy to consider all of the study's
recommendations. These wide-ranging recommendations address multiple
topics, including EEOC's mission, needed technological improvements,
and human capital management.
In this report, we are making a recommendation to the Chair of EEOC to
develop and implement an organized strategy to consider all of the NAPA
recommendations. EEOC disagreed with this recommendation, indicating
that they had already implemented such a strategy. We continue to
believe that EEOC needs to more systematically evaluate each of the
NAPA recommendations, which would include an examination of the
implementation costs, contributions to Commission goals, as well as
establishing a means for measuring the impact of those recommendations
that are implemented.
Status of EEOC's Implementation of OMB's Directive:
EEOC did not develop or submit a restructuring plan as the OMB
directive required but took actions OMB officials have found to be
acceptable. According to EEOC officials, EEOC did not meet the
directive's requirement because the agency was unsure of how to conduct
a restructuring effort given the financial difficulties the agency was
facing. Further, EEOC was experiencing management challenges at the
time. According to EEOC officials, the agency was undergoing a major
management transition to a new chair.
EEOC's Actions to Restructure:
To prepare for restructuring, EEOC commissioned a study of its
operations by a NAPA advisory panel in June 2002. NAPA's February 2003
report emphasized three major initiatives and identified 64 wide-
ranging recommendations that EEOC should implement.[Footnote 3] The 64
recommendations address multiple topics such as creating a balance
among enforcement, outreach and prevention, and mediation activities;
needed technological improvements; and human capital management.
Appendix II contains a list of these recommendations. EEOC addressed
some of these recommendations, however, it did not have an organized
strategy for considering all of them.[Footnote 4] Instead, EEOC
considers addressing the three major initiatives as the completion of
its primary restructuring efforts. To address the three initiatives,
EEOC (1) established a pilot test of a national contact center to take
calls from the public, (2) recently approved a plan to streamline its
field structure, and (3) intends to reorganize its headquarters
operations at an undetermined date once the structure of its field
operation has been determined.
National Contact Center:
EEOC's national contact center, which is operated by a contractor,
became operational in March 2005 and will continue as a pilot test for
18 months. Contact center representatives provide callers with basic
information but do not take charges of discrimination, contrary to
NAPA's recommendation. Instead, contact center representatives refer
potential charges of discrimination to EEOC field locations for
investigation. The contact center also processes postal mail and e-mail
inquiries from the public. As a part of the pilot test, the EEOC
Inspector General is conducting a review of the contact center.
Field Streamlining:
EEOC approved its field streamlining plan in July 2005 and plans to
begin implementing it in October 2005. The plan would increase the
total number of field locations nationwide, but it would change the
size level of some offices. In an effort to better match workload with
the size of its field locations, EEOC's plan would reduce the number of
district and area offices and increase the number of field and local
offices. Further, it would change the menu of services available at
select locations to correspond with their new size levels. According to
EEOC officials, workload and geography were the primary criteria used
to determine each field location's level. EEOC will not lay off any
employees or force them to relocate as a result of implementing the
streamlining plan. Employees will leave these positions through
attrition or through voluntary reassignment. EEOC officials estimate
that implementing the field streamlining plan will free up $8.26
million through fiscal year 2013. However, EEOC will not begin to
realize these financial benefits until fiscal year 2010 because of the
immediate costs of opening two new local offices and the time needed
for employees to leave their eliminated positions.
Headquarters Reorganization:
EEOC intends to reorganize its headquarters operations, but it does not
yet have a plan or specific time frame for doing so. According to EEOC
officials, the agency will begin reorganizing its headquarters
operations after its field streamlining is under way--at some time
during fiscal year 2006. As a part of the headquarters reorganization,
the agency intends to shift 20 percent of resources--a combination of
human resources and funding--from its headquarters to the field in
order to better serve the public.
Conclusion:
In the last year, EEOC took major restructuring actions that could
fundamentally change the way the agency serves the public. Given its
role as the preeminent antidiscrimination enforcement agency, making
such important changes in how the agency is structured and operates
calls for carefully considering all available options. NAPA completed a
major study of EEOC's operations and created an extensive list of
recommendations. However, EEOC has no organized approach to consider
each of these recommendations. Without such an approach, EEOC lacks
assurance that each recommendation has been fully considered. As a
result, EEOC may miss an opportunity to fully benefit from NAPA's work,
become more efficient and effective, and further improve its ability to
enforce the nation's civil rights laws.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
In order to improve the Commission's restructuring efforts, we
recommend that the Chair of EEOC develop and implement an organized
strategy to consider all of the NAPA recommendations. This strategy
should include, among other things: (1) an examination of each
recommendation from the perspective of its potential to aid in
achieving the strategic goals and objectives of the agency, (2) an
evaluation of the costs associated with their implementation, and (3) a
means of measuring the impact of any recommendations that are
implemented.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided officials at EEOC an opportunity to comment on a draft of
this report. In general, EEOC disagreed with our findings, conclusion,
and recommendation regarding the agency's lack of an organized approach
to consider all of NAPA's recommendations. EEOC's assertion, that it
has developed an organized and comprehensive framework for considering
and implementing NAPA's recommendations, does not correspond with the
results of our review. More specifically, over the course of our
review, we sought documentation supporting the agency's strategy for
reviewing and implementing the NAPA recommendations; however, EEOC
officials told us on several occasions that such documentation did not
exist. Only after we completed our review and discussed our preliminary
findings did EEOC provide us with an internal tracking document that
discussed its implementation of many of NAPA's recommendations. Only in
response to a draft of this report did the Commission provide us with
an additional document that listed the implementation status of each of
the recommendations. Neither of these documents contained, nor could we
obtain from the agency, evidence of the strategy EEOC said it developed
to evaluate the NAPA recommendations, or evidence of the kind of
strategic approach that we continue to recommend: (1) an examination of
each recommendation from the perspective of its potential to aid in
achieving the strategic goals and objectives of the agency, (2) an
evaluation of the costs associated with their implementation, and (3) a
means of measuring the impact of any recommendations that are
implemented. EEOC's comments and our response are reproduced in
appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Member, House Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State,
Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations; other interested parties; and will make copies
available to others upon request. We are also sending copies to the
Chair of the EEOC. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-7215. 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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
[See PDF for images]
[End of slide presentation]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Sixty-four Recommendations from the National Academy of
Public Administration to EEOC:
[End of section]
Aligning Mission and Functions.
Initiative 1: Establish a nationwide call center.
1; Establish a toll-free national call center staffed by individuals
who have been thoroughly trained in both responding to questions about
EEOC's mission and services, and in taking charges over the phone.
Initiative 2: Realign field offices and administrative work.
2; Establish a network of lead offices in areas with high workload
levels. EEOC should define workload to include private sector charge
filings and other factors, such as local industry data, population
demographics, and EEOC's mediation and outreach efforts. Lead offices
might have satellite offices under them, and perhaps a mobile unit that
could travel to areas not close to EEOC offices.
3; Create pilot projects for a combination of place-based, mobile, and
remote services so that EEOC can develop and test service to customers,
infrastructure support, management checks and balances, revised work
processes, and supporting human resources systems for recruitment,
training and performance assessment, and other components.
4; Consolidate most administrative support functions; leaving in each
major office one highly skilled, fully trained administrative staff
member to provide those services that must be performed on site and
coordinate those that are performed at another location.
5; Locate at least some of its consolidated support functions (should
EEOC choose to provide them directly) outside of Washington, D.C., in
locations where real estate costs are lower and where it may be easier
to recruit and retain staff.
6; Develop the costs and benefits of two options: (1) establishing a
full service agreement with the Department of Interior, instituting
additional cross-servicing agreements with other federal organizations,
or (2) contracting out administrative functions to the private sector.
Initiative 3: Realign headquarters.
7; Establish more distinct focuses of accountability at the
headquarters level for prevention and technical assistance,
enforcement, and mediation. These three areas should have appropriate
priority in field offices, even though resource allocation cannot be
equally divided.
8; Put all operational legal work in the Office of General Counsel and
ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel maintains a policy guidance and
internal advice role.
9; Ensure that staff who review federal agency affirmative action
programs report directly to the Office of Federal Operations.
Harnessing Technology to Achieve the Mission.
Design secure technology tools for electronic charge filing.
10; Ensure that the secure technology tools for electronic filing be
designed so that customer service is user- friendly, staff can
routinely follow up on Internet-filed charges with phone or in-person
interviews, and information can be promptly provided to those whose
queries or submissions do not involve employment discrimination.
Acquire software and use new technology to improve management
information, better support program delivery, and save money over the
long term.
11; Enhance its analytical capabilities by acquiring software that will
allow it to access and analyze data from its multiple systems to
improve its strategic decision making.
12; Invest in litigation management software and new primary office
software platforms to better support program delivery. If funds are not
available to purchase the entire primary office software, the agency
should begin its investment with the presentation software to allow
preparation of outreach and other presentations.
13; Conduct business case analyses on some long- term possibilities for
savings and more effective operations. These include reducing the
square footage for district libraries by creating a good virtual
library and using videoconferencing or Web cameras for mission
activities such as mediation, conciliations, and internal organization
meetings.
Institute pilot telework programs and develop the secure technology to
support them.
14; Develop the secure technology tools to support teleworkers and
other staff who travel to the customers. This would include secure
remote access to major EEOC systems, appropriate equipment, and methods
to keep the workforce current on EEOC software and data systems.
15; Protect data at the sensitive-but-unclassified level by such things
as Protective Key Infrastructure for mobile staff. These protections
include adequate firewalls, antivirus protection for clients and
servers, intrusion detection systems, onetime password authentication
identification systems, and encryption software for laptops.
16; Implement the EEOC Office of Inspector General recommendation that
EEOC institute pilot telework programs.
Ensure that senior management candidates understand the value of
technology.
17; Make it a condition of advancing to a senior management position
that an individual understand the value of technology in accomplishing
EEOC's mission and demonstrate an ability to lead others in applying
this value.
Making the Best Use of EEOC's Workforce.
Realign staff through work with OPM and union.
18; Assess agency position descriptions to determine such things as
which are current, which need to be redesigned to reflect new work
methods, whether existing career ladders are appropriate, and whether
positions accurately distinguish supervision from production.
19; Seek approval from the Office of Personnel Management for a
targeted early-out retirement option for staff in those headquarters
and field offices that will be downsized.
20; Design and implement a cost-effective career transition center.
21; Work in partnership with EEOC's unions as the agency makes
decisions to realign staff work locations.
Enhance agency leadership through leadership programs and improved
accountability.
22; Build a model of leadership that integrates achieving results,
leveraging resources, maintaining accountability, and improving the
organizational culture.
23; Create executive development activities for all senior executives
and managers by partnering with other federal agencies for mobility
assignments, developmental activities, and enhancement of leadership
skills.
24; Partner with whichever federal, academic, nonprofit, or for-profit
entities can most effectively tailor leadership development training
programs for EEOC staff at all levels.
25; Hold all managers accountable for performance, reward those whose
performance meets or exceeds expectations, and provide assistance or
sanctions for those who fail to meet expectations.
26; Design performance measures and metrics that support accountability
and the full scope of management.
27; Focus on inspiring, leading, motivating, and sustaining high-
performing organizations and offices within EEOC as well as managing
staff resources and workload.
Create strategic human capital plan expeditiously and link it to the
planning and budget processes.
28; Expedite a workforce planning effort and link it to the planning
and budget processes.
29; Develop an inventory of the competencies required to perform
mission-critical work such as investigation, litigation, mediation,
analysis, outreach, and prevention.
30; Determine which of those staff who are eligible to retire plan to
do so, the gaps these retirements will create in individual offices,
the size of the pool needed to replace those retiring from specific
positions, and the level of training or outside hiring required to put
people with the right skills in the areas most critical to mission
fulfillment when they are needed.
31; Prepare a comprehensive cost-estimate for skill development needs
so that EEOC can present an integrated strategy with cost implications
to the Office of Management and Budget.
32; Prepare individual development plans for staff so that EEOC has
better information on the skills that staff have and whether
anticipated development efforts match staff aspirations and agency
needs.
33; Revise individual performance appraisal elements to reflect changes
in roles and the linkage to achieving organizational performance goals.
34; Develop the metrics for the revised performance elements.
Develop a multi-year training plan for supervisors, managers, SES
candidates, and other mission-critical staff.
35; Develop a multiyear training plan, anchored in the competencies
required for mission-critical staff, that reflects an adequate and
stable level of spending through a mix of on-site, e- training, and
other methods; and use this plan as the basis for funding requests.
36; Develop a strong first-line supervisor and midlevel manager
training program so that individuals moving into these and more senior
leadership positions have the competencies they need to succeed.
37; Develop an expanded Senior Executive Service candidate development
program that leverages EEOC resources with those of other federal
organizations for such things as mobility assignments or developmental
activities.
Align support staff responsibilities with fully-trained support staff.
38; Determine, by office and function, the extent to which higher-grade
employees are spending time on support-like functions; and consider,
within the availability resources and work priorities, whether
investment in additional support staff would be justified by a
measurable increase in productivity.
39; Provide adequate training and career development for administrative
and support staff.
Revamp the agency awards and evaluation systems.
40; Revamp the agency awards systems to ensure they meet the four key
elements of effective reward design: (1) performance requirements
(financial, operational, and customer satisfaction); (2) talent needs
(skills, experience, behaviors, and employee preferences); (3) cost and
funding (affordability); and (4) culture and branding (alignment with
mission, vision, and values).
41; Revise the process for evaluating, counseling, and (if necessary)
terminating poor performers to ensure that EEOC's cadre of staff
includes those who not only are dedicated to its mission but
demonstrate their dedication through effective performance.
Performance-Based Management.
Delegate authorities to senior executives with accompanying budgets,
management tools, and accountability.
42; Delegate authorities to senior executives with accompanying
budgets, management tools, and accountability.
43; Include with the delegation for compensation funds such features as
a requirement that the Office of Chief Financial Officer provide each
year's funding level and an estimate for the following year and a
requirement that the funding for hiring, promotions, within-grade step
increases, and the like must be within budget allocation for the
current year and the estimate for the following year.
44; Train senior executives and delegated staff to manage that portion
of the EEOC budget for which they are accountable, and phase in
additional delegations as appropriate.
45; Review, periodically, program accomplishment against expenditures
for which each senior executive is responsible.
46; Assess, annually, the quality of budget and other resource
deployment by each senior executive. Ensure that this assessment is a
significant factor in performance appraisals, and withdraw or modify
the delegation where circumstances indicate the need.
47; Conduct a periodic review of spending by all offices to inform the
reallocation of resources during the year, to adjust for unanticipated
imbalances in workload, and to adjust for new needs.
Ensure cases are closed with the most appropriate resolution at the
most appropriate time.
48; Require that the Office of Field Programs routinely examine a
random sample of closed cases from each office, on a rotating basis, to
ensure that the cases were adequately investigated, given the
information the charging party and respondent provided.
49; Require that the Office of Field Programs circulate and discuss
aggregate case-processing timeliness data from each field office and
use it to determine whether variations are the result of especially
good or poor work methods or management styles, share the best
practices with other field offices, and work closely with offices that
have problems to correct them.
50; Stress that cases are to be closed with the most appropriate
resolution at the most appropriate time.
Expand capacity to analyze, validate, and disseminate best practices.
51; Expand EEOC's capacity to analyze, validate, and disseminate
information on best practices and take this expansion one step further
to correlate work methods or processes with results. If some methods
are clearly better, then the results achieved through them should be
used in designing new standards of performance.
52; Reinforce that the Director of the Office of Field Programs is the
individual who can determine which methods or operations appear most
effective and require that all offices either use these methods or
achieve similar results with the methods they use.
53; Reward those offices or key staff within them when their work
methods are selected as best practices that other offices can emulate,
and ensure that those with poor practices are directed to improve and
receive the support necessary to do so.
Develop methods to demonstrate the impact EEOC work has on reducing
employment discrimination in the workplace.
54; Develop methods to demonstrate the impact EEOC's work has on
reducing employment discrimination in the workplace.
55; Develop baseline discrimination metrics for certain industries,
nationwide firms, or geographic areas.
56; Plan specific EEOC activities to direct toward the industries,
firms, or areas that are implementing the activities and recording the
level of effort.
57; Track discrimination levels in the selected industries, firms, or
geographic areas.
Implementation Strategy and Plan.
Develop an implementation strategy and detailed implementation plan.
58; Develop an implementation strategy and detailed implementation plan
for the changes the commission decides to make, and use the plan to
manage the implementation process.
59; Decide which of the panel's recommended changes do not require
extensive consultation and can be implemented immediately.
60; Identify a small staff responsible for planning, execution,
tracking, and implementation assessment efforts.
61; Present funding estimates and justifications for the multiyear
restructuring plan to OMB, seeking the first-year resources at minimum
as a change to the pending fiscal year 2004 request now at OMB. Explore
with OMB whether any additional resources for fiscal year 2003 might be
provided as a small amendment to the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Develop a communication strategy and plan.
62; Develop a communication strategy and plan that identifies all the
internal and external stakeholders, the issues and communications
methodologies to be used with each, the frequency of communications,
and the mechanisms for stakeholder feedback.
Develop resource estimates for implementation.
63; Develop resource estimates: The Academy Panel stresses that
substantive improvements require real increases in resources each year
for several years. This would be over and above the flexibility that
can be realized against internal realignment and reallocations.
Develop appropriate training for staff on the new methods and policies.
64; Develop appropriate training to ensure that staff members who use
or are responsible for the new methods and policies have the knowledge
to fulfill their new roles and responsibilities successfully.
Source: National Academy of Public Administration.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:
Office of the Chair:
Washington, D.C. 20507:
October 13, 2005:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but
Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations, " (GAO 06-10), which
we received on September 29, 2005. We would like to provide the
following comments and ask that you include them in any final report
that you issue.
The draft report identifies some of the many actions the EEOC has taken
to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) in its 2003 study of the EEOC, and we appreciate
your recognition of the positive benefits that will result from our
plan to reposition the EEOC to better serve our stakeholders. We are
pleased that the draft report focuses on ways to improve our future
restructuring efforts and does not suggest any reason our efforts
should be delayed.
The draft report questions the EEOC's approach to considering the NAPA
recommendations and suggests a strategy for EEOC to utilize in moving
forward with restructuring. We agree with the principle that a
systematic approach is needed in evaluating the recommendations of
NAPA. We disagree, however, with the suggestion that the Commission has
not been adhering to a systematic approach in our repositioning
efforts. To the contrary, the EEOC is proceeding with repositioning in
three well-defined phases.
The EEOC in fact has had an organized and comprehensive framework for
considering and implementing, as appropriate, the NAPA recommendations.
Upon receipt of the NAPA report in February 2003, EEOC reviewed all of
the recommendations in the first instance, sought staff and stakeholder
input, and convened a day-long Commission meeting to discuss and
evaluate the recommendations. Our framework for implementation was to
divide the NAPA recommendations into two groups, the major mission-
central initiatives that would require extensive study and Commission
approval, and the subsidiary, specific recommendations that could be
evaluated and implemented as soon as feasible through administrative
action as we moved forward with study of the major recommendations.
The choice of this implementation framework was based, in part, on one
very significant organizational fact about the EEOC that the draft
report misses: the EEOC is a multi-member Commission, created by Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII invests the Chair of the
EEOC with responsibility for the agency's administrative operations.
However, it is the Commission that approves Commission policy and that
decides by vote of all of its members whether to approve agency
reorganizations.
The three major NAPA recommendations were: (1) establishment of a
National Contact Center; (2) streamlining and repositioning of the
field structure; and (3) reorganization of the headquarters structure.
The EEOC determined that addressing these recommendations sequentially
was the most appropriate approach. Under our plan, these
recommendations were designated as Phases I, II, and III.
In accordance with the NAPA report's emphasis that the need for a
National Contact Center was the most urgent of its recommendations, the
EEOC convened a staff Work Group to examine whether a contact center
would advance the work of the agency, to investigate the center's
estimated costs, and to provide for methods of measuring the impact of
the contact center. The Work Group's report, completed in August 2003,
was discussed at two public Commission meetings, culminating in the
Commission's approval of the contact center in September 2004. The
executive summary of the Work Group's report is available at
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/9-8-03/center.html. The Contact
Center became fully operational nationwide in March 2005. The two-year
pilot will include an independent evaluation of the Contact Center's
performance in terms of quality, efficiency, effectiveness, and
achievement of agency goals and objectives. Implementation of the
Contact Center was Phase I of repositioning.
The EEOC developed its field plan, Phase II of repositioning, in a
similar framework. As NAPA recommended, we conducted extensive fact-
finding and gathered input on field repositioning from our employees
and stakeholders, engaging in a thorough discussion and systematic
evaluation of the NAPA recommendations. We analyzed population
demographics, charge filing patterns over time, and other factors as
recommended by NAPA, and staff presented that analysis to the
Commission at its September 2003 meeting. This analysis is available at
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/9-8-03/. We also convened a
staff Work Group, under the leadership of the EEOC Vice Chair and a
Commissioner, to examine NAPA's recommendations in view of their impact
on the agency's strategic goals and mission. Specifically, NAPA
recommended that the EEOC establish a network of lead offices in the
field and identify factors to consider in locating field offices and
realigning the field. Accordingly, the Work Group enumerated specific
factors including workload levels, geographic considerations, and
population demographics. Those factors were used in the EEOC's
repositioning plan, which was approved by the Commission in July 2005.
Methods to measure the plan's impact on our efficiency and
effectiveness will be an integral part of its implementation.
Phase III is our plan to reorganize our headquarters structure. We are
following a similar framework for evaluation and implementation of the
NAPA recommendations. To determine the most appropriate and effective
headquarters structure to provide support to the field, it was
necessary to determine the field structure first. As we worked on the
field plan, we began evaluating the current headquarters structure in
depth. In early 2005, Chair Dominguez conducted functional reviews of
thirteen headquarters offices/activities, with all office directors and
the senior management team devoting many days to this evaluation and
planning process, using a defined methodology for organizational
improvement. We examined all functional capacities at headquarters,
including, as NAPA recommended, the balance of capacities between
enforcement activities and our prevention and mediation activities. We
also went well beyond the NAPA recommendations, looking to identify
other potential areas for streamlining and providing more effective
levels of service. The functional reviews laid the groundwork for
development of the headquarters repositioning plan, which will occur
during FY 2006.
We would also like to emphasize that NAPA has expressed confidence in
the EEOC's implementation actions in response to its 2003 report.
Before the field plan was approved by the Commission, we briefed NAPA
representatives and NAPA concluded that "it appears that [the EEOC's]
proposed actions to change EEOC's field staff are consistent with
recommendations made by an Academy Panel in its February 2003 report. .
. ." The full text of the letter from NAPA President C. Morgan Kinghorn
to EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez is attached.
In sum, the draft GAO report reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of
our strategy. It fails to recognize the strategic process that we used
in addressing the NAPA recommendations and the sound policy,
organizational and operational reasons for our actions. The record
shows that the EEOC has, in fact, carefully evaluated all the NAPA
recommendations and implemented, or is in the process of evaluating and
implementing, the large majority of them. Where we have chosen not to
implement a particular recommendation, or devised a modified approach
to accomplish the objective identified by NAPA, we have documentation
to support our decisions.
We provided GAO with our internal tracking document listing the
implementation status of each recommendation. We are disappointed that
GAO did not use this information in the draft report. Our internal
assessment shows that the EEOC has implemented or is in the process of
implementing the large majority of NAPA's recommendations. As we
explained, we have decided not to implement some recommendations at
this time, or to take an alternative approach, based on our assessment
of what will best advance the agency's mission.
We note that Appendix II of the draft report enumerates 64 NAPA
recommendations. We had not previously been provided with this list,
but the EEOC's internal assessment does address the same points. To
correlate our assessment with the Appendix, we have prepared a chart
keyed to the 64 items, giving the status of implementation of each
item. The bottom line remains the same: the EEOC has implemented most
of the NAPA recommendations, either in whole or in modified form. We
are in the process of evaluating those recommendations relating to
Phase III of our plan. Please add this information to your Appendix II.
Finally, the draft report concludes by recommending that the EEOC
improve its restructuring efforts by implementing a strategy to
include: (1) evaluation of the NAPA recommendations in terms of their
potential to aid in achieving the strategic goals and objectives of the
EEOC; (2) evaluation of the costs associated with implementation; and
(3) a means of measuring the impact of any recommendations that are
implemented. We appreciate your highlighting these points. We certainly
agree that any recommendations for organizational change must be
evaluated in terms of the agency's mission and the costs and impact of
implementation. Please be assured that these important steps have been
integral to our strategy thus far and we will emphasize them as we move
forward.
Over the last four years, Chair Dominguez has sheparded this agency's
progress in spite of tight resources and an archaic organizational
structure that has been unchanged for more than 25 years. Our structure
was created in 1979 for an agency of 3,800 employees. It predates the
era of information technology. Today we have 2,400 employees and vastly
different needs and resources. We are faced with a pressing need to
redirect our resources to where the jobs are, where the charges of
discrimination arise, and where the public most requires our services.
But we cannot continue to operate without some relief from this
outdated structure. It is essential for the EEOC's future viability to
move to an organizational structure that is more flexible and
responsive to our environment while protecting our limited resources
and our employees' jobs.
From the outset the Chair has clearly articulated our strategy in
developing a new organizational structure: we must take our resources
away from where they are no longer needed and reinvest those resources
where they need to be in today's environment. There is complete
consensus on our need to invest in more line jobs providing direct
service to the public --more trial attorneys, investigators, mediators,
and outreach specialists --and to devote less of our budget to upper
level management jobs. Our repositioning strategy has been driven, at
every stage, by our objective of enhancing front-line service to the
public.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Leonora L. Guarraia:
Chief Operating Officer:
Attachments:
(1) EEOC Chart: Actions Taken by EEOC on Sixty-four NAPA
Recommendations:
(2) July 5, 2005 letter from NAPA President C. Morgan Kinghom to EEOC
Chair Cari M. Dominguez:
Sixty-four Recommendations from the National Academy of Public
Administration to EEOC, with Action Taken by EEOC:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
GAO Comments:
1. EEOC's assertion, that it has developed an organized and
comprehensive framework for considering and implementing NAPA's
recommendations, does not correspond with the results of our review.
More specifically, over the course of our review, we sought
documentation supporting the agency's strategy for reviewing and
implementing the NAPA recommendations; however, EEOC officials told us
on several occasions that such documentation did not exist. Only after
we completed our review and discussed our preliminary findings did EEOC
provide us with an internal tracking document that discussed its
implementation of many of NAPA's recommendations. Only in response to a
draft of this report did the agency provide us with an additional
document that listed the implementation status of each of the
recommendations. Neither of these documents contained, nor could we
obtain from the agency, evidence of the strategy EEOC said it developed
to evaluate the NAPA recommendations, or evidence of the kind of
strategic approach that we continue to recommend.
2. EEOC asserted that our report overlooks that EEOC is a multi-member
Commission that decides whether to approve agency reorganizations by
vote of all of its members. Our finding that EEOC did not have an
organized strategy to consider all of NAPA's recommendations is not
based on EEOC's organizational structure. We believe EEOC's current
organizational structure allows the agency to develop and implement
such a strategy.
3. EEOC asserted that NAPA, in a letter to the Commission, expressed
confidence in EEOC's implementation actions in response to its 2003
report. We reviewed this letter and acknowledge that NAPA expresses
confidence in EEOC's field streamlining plan. However, NAPA's letter
does not address all of EEOC's restructuring actions or the many other
NAPA recommendations, and NAPA's comments are qualified by the
statement "Given that we have not had the opportunity to restudy the
issues addressed in this report, our comments in this letter are based
solely on current information supplied by EEOC."
4. EEOC claimed that our report reflects a fundamental misunderstanding
of its strategy for addressing NAPA recommendations, and it has
carefully evaluated all the NAPA recommendations and has documentation
to support its decisions. See comment 1.
5. EEOC stated that it provided us with an internal tracking document
listing the implementation status of each recommendation and is
disappointed that we did not use this information in our draft report.
See comment 1.
6. EEOC stated that we had not previously provided it with appendix II
of our draft report. However, this appendix is merely a listing of the
recommendations contained in the February 2003 NAPA report that should
have been the Commission's starting point for systematically evaluating
each of the recommendations and their potential to improve EEOC's
operations. We have included EEOC's chart as an attachment to its
letter. However, we cannot verify many of the actions that EEOC claims
it has taken because the agency did not provide the supporting
documentation.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robert E. Robertson (202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
David Lehrer, Assistant Director; Margaret Armen; Neal Gottlieb; Paul
Schearf; and Rosemary Torres Lerma made significant contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal
Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM. GAO-05-195. Washington, D.C.:
April 29, 2005.
Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and Agency
Examples. GAO-05-90. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and
Underlying Causes Require EEOC's Sustained Attention. GAO/T-GGD-00-
104. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads Rising, with Effects
of New Regulations on Future Trends Unclear. GAO/GGD-99-128.
Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 1999.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Data Shortcomings Hinder Assessment of
Conflicts in the Federal Workplace. GAO/GGD-99-75. Washington, D.C.:
May 4, 1999.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in EEO Complaint Caseloads
in the Federal Sector. GAO/GGD-98-157BR. Washington, D.C.: July 24,
1998.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Administrative Judges' Recommended
Decisions and Agencies' Actions. GAO/GGD-98-122R. Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 1998.
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employers' Experiences with ADR in the
Workplace. GAO/GGD-97-157. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 1997.
EEOC: Burgeoning Workload Calls for New Approaches. GAO/T-HEHS-95-170.
Washington, D.C.: May 23, 1995.
EEOC: An Overview. GAO/T-HRD-93-30. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 1993.
FOOTNOTES
[1] OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, "Workforce Planning and Restructuring," May
8, 2001.
[2] NAPA is an independent organization chartered by Congress to
improve governance.
[3] "A Report by the Panel of the National Academy of Public
Administration for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Organizing for the Future," February 2003.
[4] Although EEOC contracted with NAPA to conduct the study, the agency
is under no obligation to implement the recommendations.
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:
