oversight

Report 2010-009-AEP - Evaluation of the Management of the EEOC's State and Local Programs

Published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Inspector General on 2011-03-10.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

      The Equal Employment
  Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC)
     Office of Inspector General

 Evaluation of the Management of the
  EEOC’s State and Local Programs
    Project Number 2010-09-AEP
            Final Evaluation Report

                    Submitted by:




    Williams, Adley & Company-DC, LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Management Consultants
 1250 H Street, NW, Suite 1150 Washington, DC 20005

                    202-371-1397

                 Date: March 10, 2011
                              Evaluation of State and Local Programs
                                        Table of Contents


Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1

Background ..................................................................................................... 4
    Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 6

Findings and Recommendations ................................................................... 6
    Performance Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 6
    Oversight of Case Quality............................................................................................... 8
    Payment Eligibility and Amounts ................................................................................. 10
    Voucher Payment Process............................................................................................. 13

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................. 15
    Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 15
    Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................... 15

Appendices .................................................................................................... 16
    1.    Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................ 16
    2.    District Office Survey Results Summary and Instrument...................................... 18
    3.    Field Office Survey Results and Instrument .......................................................... 23
    4.    EEOC Office of Field Programs Responses to Draft Report ................................. 26
Executive Summary
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing
federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee
because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin,
age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate
against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of
discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions,
harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

From 2000-2008 as a result of declining appropriation levels and hiring freezes, EEOC
lost approximately 25% of its full time employees and its case backlog increased. As a
small Federal agency in a budget-cutting and performance heightened administration,
EEOC’s effective and efficient use of its resources to deliver on its mission is extremely
important. Therefore, maintaining a collaborative relationship with the Fair Employment
Practices Agencies (FEPAs) is vital to ensuring that EEOC meets its strategic goal of
justice, opportunities, and inclusive workplaces and reducing the case backlog. To assist
in meeting its mission and reducing its backlog, the EEOC maintains Work Sharing
Agreements with more than 90 state and local FEPAs to allocate responsibility for
investigation and resolution of employment discrimination charges, which fall within the
jurisdiction of both the EEOC and an enforcing state or local entity.

The overall objective of the evaluation of the EEOC’s State and Local Programs is to
assess the adequacy, effectiveness, and efficiency of the EEOC’s FEPA program
management activities. The specific key areas of the evaluation were performance goals
and objectives, oversight of case quality, payment eligibility and amounts, and the
voucher payment process.

Our evaluation recognized the overall dedication and commitment of EEOC management
to their mission and their administering of EEOC’s State and Local Programs. However,
we noted several opportunities for improvement. The improvements recommended
resulted from our analysis of written policies and procedures, survey instruments,
published documents, interviews with EEOC management and site visits at two of 15
District Offices. We sent surveys to all 15 District Offices and 15 of 94 FEPAs. All
surveys sent were returned. Based on our evaluation, we noted the following
opportunities for improvement:

   •   EEOC has not established any performance goals or objectives related to the
       FEPAs performance. Without any performance goals and objectives, the EEOC
       is not holding itself accountable for achieving program results. We recommend
       that management develop and implement strategic performance goals and
       objectives that are reflective of the program; are measurable and in accordance
       with the requirements of Government Performance and Results Act; and that the
       goals and objectives are included in the annual performance and accountability
       report.

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        1
   •   Potential areas for improving efficiency through the use of technology and
       training should be capitalized upon by EEOC. We noted that the process for
       performing SWRs incurs significant monetary costs that could potentially be
       eliminated if electronic applications were used in the process. Because SWR
       training is not routinely provided, the State and Local Coordinator (SLC) spends
       more time addressing issues resulting from the SWR that could have been
       prevented by providing training upfront. We recommend that EEOC State and
       Local Program management consider including additional funding in future
       budget requests to invest in electronic applications /technology for SWRs and
       additional training for the FEPAs.

   •   The payment of $550 to the FEPAs per charge resolution case is approximately
       16 percent of the estimated actual processing costs. Although the payments are
       not intended to reimburse the FEPAs for the entire processing costs, the payments
       are intended to complement the fiscal resources available to each FEPA and to
       encourage cooperation between the EEOC and the FEPAs for employment
       discrimination charges. We recommend that State and Local Program
       management perform a full assessment of the costs for resolution and intakes;
       reassess the current payment amounts and the case quotas; and consider making
       appropriate adjustments to the payment amounts and budgeted quotas to be
       competitive with Department of Housing and Urban Development for FEPA time
       and productivity. Additionally, we recommend that State and Local Program
       management consider allocating additional funds to provide incentive payments
       to FEPAs to go beyond their case quota in order to encourage increased
       productivity.

   •   The internal EEOC budget allocation and funding process is not efficient because
       the allocations are not available and recorded in the financial management system
       until the middle of the fiscal year and thus no FEPA payments can be processed
       until that point, although, FEPAs have been processing cases since the beginning
       of the fiscal year. Once the budget is allocated to the FEPA, they submit an
       invoice for 50% of their budget allocation regardless of the number of cases
       actually processed. We recommend that EEOC revisit their budget allocation
       process to determine ways that the process can be improved to be more efficient
       and timely and provide better controls designed to reduce the potential for fraud.

   •   The EEOC’s financial policies and procedures related to the voucher payment
       process are not documented and communicated effectively throughout the
       organization. Additionally, we noted that the monitoring that should be done of
       payments, open invoices, and open receiving reports is not performed, although
       the District Office officials have access to the financial management system that
       is able to provide information to perform effective monitoring. In conjunction,
       we noted that the District Office officials are not consistently monitoring the
       FEPAs budget. We recommend that EEOC develop written procedures for
       processing voucher payments and develop and institute a consistent monitoring

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                       2
       process for the District Offices that occurs throughout the fiscal year not just at
       fiscal year end.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        3
Background
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing
federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal
Pay Act of 1963; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (in the Federal sector only); Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008;
the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, that make it
illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race,
color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or
genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person
complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an
employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

With its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and through the operations of 53 field offices
nationwide, the EEOC coordinates all federal equal employment opportunity regulations,
practices, and policies. The Commission interprets employment discrimination laws,
monitors the federal sector employment discrimination program, provides funding and
support to state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs), and sponsors
outreach and technical assistance programs.

Many states, counties, cities, and towns have their own laws prohibiting discrimination,
as well as FEPAs responsible for enforcing those laws. Usually the laws enforced by
these FEPAs are similar to those enforced by EEOC. In some cases, these agencies
enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers, such as protection from
discrimination because you are married or unmarried, have children or because of your
sexual orientation. FEPAs also may have different deadlines for filing a charge, different
standards for determining whether you are protected by these laws, and different types of
relief available to victims of discrimination.

From 2000-2008, as a result of declining appropriation levels and hiring freezes, EEOC
lost approximately 25% of its full time employees and its case backlog increased. As a
small Federal agency in a budget-cutting and performance heightened administration,
EEOC’s effective and efficient use of its resources to deliver on its mission is extremely
important. Therefore, maintaining a collaborative relationship with the FEPAs is vital to
ensuring that EEOC meets its strategic goal of justice, opportunities, and inclusive
workplaces and reducing the case backlog. To assist in meeting its mission and reducing
its backlog, the EEOC maintains work sharing agreements with more than 90 state and
local FEPAs to allocate responsibility for investigation and resolution of employment
discrimination charges, which fall within the jurisdiction of both the EEOC and an
enforcing state or local entity.

The EEOC enters into work sharing agreements and contracts with the FEPAs. These
documents establish the requirements, eligibility criteria, reviews, budgets, and
responsibilities of EEOC and the FEPAs. Additionally, in the Fiscal Year 2010

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                           4
Contracting Principles for State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies, the
EEOC states that it will “conduct reviews and evaluations of the investigative and
administrative charge processing procedures of contract FEPAs.” A Substantial Weight
Review (SWR) is the review given to final actions of FEPAs in order to accord
substantial weight to such findings as required by §706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended. FEPAs are required to submit to the EEOC documents
pertinent to conducting a SWR. The EEOC conducts SWRs for all cases filed under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and on no less than ten percent of Title VII and ADEA
cases submitted for payment. Such reviews may require on-site visits and/or case file
reviews by the EEOC’s Office of Field Programs.

The State and Local Programs unit of EEOC’s Office of Field Programs provides
oversight for FEPA related activities. The various EEOC District Directors are the
contract monitor for all contracts with the FEPAs. The District Director’s duties include
recommending issuance and modification of charge processing contracts, monitoring
contract production and rejection rates, and authorizing contract payment vouchers. The
District Director, through the District Office’s State and Local Coordinator, ensures that
the terms of contract and work sharing agreement are met, and charges are properly
deferred and/or referred. The State and Local Coordinators are responsible for performing
reviews of FEPA case information and handling day-to-day interaction with the FEPAs.
The coordinators work with the FEPAs to address any issues noted during the SWRs and
to provide one-on-one training.

In FY 2010, EEOC supported the FEPAs processing of their joint cases with funding of
$550 for each resolution and $50 for each intake. These funding levels have not increased
since FY2006 (resolutions were $540). Annually, each FEPA is budgeted a specific case
quota and funding level. The case and budget allocation/funding specifics are provided
during the second quarter of the fiscal year. Initially, the FEPAs invoice the EEOC for
50% of the established quotas. Future invoices are adjusted for actual resolutions and
intakes processed. Invoices are approved in the financial management system by
matching the receiving reports received from the district offices to original invoices
received directly by the accounting service provider. Disbursements are processed by the
EEOC’s accounting service provider. During August each year the SLP management
with assistance from the SLC assessed the status of FEPA processing and as needed,
adjusted the budget and case allocations.

For FY 2010 and FY 2011, the funding level for the State and Local Programs was $30
million, with $28 million going to the FEPAs which represents a 7.7% increase over the
FY 2009 funding level. A modest increase of $1.5 million was requested in the FY 2012
budget.

The 2007-2012 EEOC Strategic Plan includes a focus on collaboration with the FEPAs.
Also, the Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR) for FY 2009 and 2010 include
an undeveloped performance measure for EEOC’s collaboration with the FEPAs. In
2007, the EEOC agreed with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop
such a measure, but has not done so, despite a workgroup report and accompanying

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        5
recommendations for a performance measure. In April 2008, the EEOC/FEPA
Performances Measures Workgroup finalized its recommendation for measurement
approaches to track the FEPAs contribution to agency goals. However, because of
significant changes in management, the recommendations have not been approved. In the
PAR management has asserted that the recommendations will be considered in the
upcoming revision to the strategic plan.

The Performance and Accountability Report provides financial and performance results
that enable the public to assess the accomplishments of an agency for each fiscal year.
This report provides an overview of programs, accomplishments, challenges, and
management’s accountability for the resources entrusted to them. The EEOC Inspector
General included the State and Local Programs as a management challenge in the FY
2009 and 2010 Performance and Accountability Reports. As a result this evaluation was
performed.


Objectives
The overall objective of the evaluation of the EEOC’s State and Local Programs is to
assess the adequacy, effectiveness, and efficiency of the EEOC’s FEPA program
management activities.

The specific key areas of the evaluation are as follows:

1. Performance Goals and Objectives – What progress has the EEOC made in
   establishing and overseeing, high quality performance goals, performance targets, and
   performance standards for work the FEPAs perform for the EEOC?

2. EEOC Oversight of Case Quality - Does the quality of employment discrimination
   cases for which FEPAs receive EEOC payment meet or exceed the standards of the
   SWR?

3. Payment Eligibility and Amounts – How effective are the rationale and criteria for
   deciding which FEPAs are eligible to submit cases for payment?

4. Voucher Payment Process – Do the financial transactions between EEOC and the
   FEPAs comply with the EEOC’s system of internal controls? Are financial process
   transactions involving the EEOC and the FEPAs efficient, and effective?


Findings and Recommendations

Performance Goals and Objectives

The EEOC was required to develop performance goals and objectives for inclusion in the
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012. The EEOC State and Local Programs (SLP)

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                      6
worked with a select group of District Directors to develop their portion of the strategic
plan which was submitted to the former EEOC Chair Earp in October 2006. The
strategic plan modifications state that “a placeholder was added for the development of a
measure of the contribution of our FEPA partners toward achievement of agency goals.
This development effort is required by the Program Assessment Rating Tool and the
Improvement Plan adopted to change the agency rating.”

In 2007, the EEOC agreed with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop
such a measure, but has not done so, despite a workgroup report and accompanying
recommendations for a performance measure. In April 2008, the EEOC/FEPA
Performances Measures Workgroup finalized its recommendation for measurement
approaches to track the FEPAs contribution to agency goals.

The former EEOC Chair Earp decided changes to the Strategic Plan were needed prior to
submission to the commissioners for approval. The Strategic Plan was never finalized
and as of January 2011 has not been approved. Additionally, the Performance and
Accountability Reports (PAR) for FY 2009 and 2010 that are made available to the
public include the undeveloped performance measure on EEOC’s collaboration with the
FEPAs. Without any performance goals and objectives, the EEOC is not holding itself
accountable for achieving program results and is potentially providing the wrong
impression about the management of the FEPAs based upon review of the PARs.

The lack of an approved strategic plan is preventing the SLP from implementing
performance goals and objectives related to the FEPAs. The EEOC SLP management
does not want to implement goals nor invest in training employees on those goals when
they may be changed by the current EEOC Chair Berrien who took office in fiscal year
2010. However, interim goals should be considered as final goals are established. In the
PARs, management has asserted that the workgroup recommendations will be considered
in the upcoming revision to the strategic plan.

Recommendations:

We recommend that the State and Local Program management:

   1. Develop and implement strategic performance goals and objectives that are
      reflective of the program; are measurable, and in accordance with the
      requirements of GPRA.

   2. Work with the Chief Financial Officer to include the performance goals,
      objectives, and measures in the annual performance and accountability report.

EEOC Office of Field Programs Response:
An overarching issue relating to the Evaluation of State and Local concerns the varied
comments made about the absence of a performance goal related to the FEPAs. While
the Evaluation does acknowledge in passing that a goal was established---under the artful
guidance of Mary McIver---it doesn’t seem to grasp that the proposed goal was

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        7
forwarded to the then-Chair’s office but not acted upon, nor does it seem to grasp the
impact of the Commission’s not having a new strategic plan. In light of the Chair’s
office considering either an entirely new plan, or making major revisions to the prior
plan, it would be inappropriate to have a State and Local goal set out at this point.

Evaluator’s Analysis:
We believe that the evaluation grasped and stated that the proposed goal was forwarded
to the Chair’s office but not acted upon and that no new Strategic Plan has been prepared
as of January 2011. However, establishing internal performance goals and objectives
including interim goals is a valid and important management oversight control. We have
determined that the finding related to Performance Goals and Objectives is valid and that
the recommendations provided should be implemented.


Oversight of Case Quality

The quality of case processing, i.e. the results of the SWR, do not directly correlate to the
receipt of an EEOC payment. After a FEPA has met the criteria to receive a charge
resolution contract, the FEPA is eligible to receive payments. The State and Local
Coordinators (SLCs) are required to perform a SWR on a minimum of 10% of cases
processed by each FEPA, if the FEPA has processed at least 100 cases. If the FEPA has
processed less than 100 cases, the SLCs perform a review of all cases processed. The
SLC will also do SWRs if requested by a FEPA and in all right to sue cases.

The SWR process begins when the SLC picks a 10% random sample of closed cases
from the Integrated Mission System (IMS). After the selected case files are provided by
the FEPA, the SLC reviews the files to determine if the files reach the standards of the
SWR. An EEOC Form 649 (Substantial Weight Review Form) is utilized to document
each file reviewed. The EEOC SLC signs the Form 649 at review completion. If the
review results in exceptions, the FEPA is given time to perform the necessary
corrections. The SLCs work with and provide training to the FEPAs to ensure that the
cases meet the SWR requirements. To date, the EEOC has not expelled a FEPA for
performance deficiencies. EEOC does not have expulsion provisions in their policies and
procedures nor in the contract. The unwritten policy is to work with the FEPA to meet
the SWR standards. FEPAs have exited the program of their own accord if they
determined that they could no longer meet the requirements to receive the minimum
review level. Because of the increased SWRs that would have resulted, the FEPAs
preferred to exit the program.

In order to perform the SWRs, the SLCs either request that the files be sent to them or
visit the FEPA site to review the files. In our walkthroughs of the SWR process, we
noted that the same procedures were performed by each SLC in performing the SWR. We
also noted that the process for performing SWRs incurs significant travel and monetary
costs that could potentially be used for other purposes. In one instance the FEPA is
incurring approximately $180 a year to copy and mail the SWR case files, and the
District Office is incurring approximately $7,100 per year of occupancy costs for storing

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                           8
SWR case files. For the other District Office visited, the District Office is incurring
approximately $8,400 per year in travel costs including the SLC’s travel time and per
diem to review case files at the FEPA locations.

Currently, the EEOC SLP has not instituted nor required the use of technology to
increase efficiency and reduce costs of the SWR. At the two District Offices visited, the
SLC indicated that FEPAs do not have sufficient funds available to purchase scanners or
other electronic applications to electronically send case files for SWR. In the current FY
2007-2012 Strategic Plan EEOC acknowledges a shared need for technological
enhancements and efficiencies by stating “coordination issues will continue to drive the
FEPA/EEOC relationship with respect to enforcement, technology enhancements, and
other partnerships or collaborative efforts that influence the overall enforcement of civil
rights in the United States.” To date, no plan of action has been developed to purchase
electronic applications or equipment for District Offices or its FEPAs. An effective use
of technology can lead to efficiencies in conducting the SWR and potential reductions in
other costs over the long term.

The feedback from the District Offices and FEPAs surveyed indicated that FEPAs have
not received nor been given any formal SWR training. Also, the SLCs indicated that
currently they do not have sufficient funds to travel to their FEPAs to provide SWR
training on a regular basis. Because SWR training is not routinely provided, the SLC
spends more time addressing issues resulting from the SWR that could have been
prevented by providing training upfront. With SWR training, the FEPAs could be more
efficient and effective in their case processing and completion of the appropriate
documentation. Currently, only informal training is provided to the FEPA by the SLC as
SWRs are performed. In the FY 2009 and 2010 PARs, EEOC indicated that training was
an area of emphasis and was essential to successfully meeting its mission, ensuring the
quality of its work and enhancing its workforce.

Recommendations:

We recommend that EEOC State and Local Program management:

1. Request additional funding to provide FEPAs with formal SWR training and other
   alternative training methods that will allow FEPAs to take advantage of the actual
   technology and to reach a widest audience in a more efficiently and cost effective
   structure.

2. Request additional funding in future budget requests to invest in electronic
   applications and equipment to reduce the costs related to the SWRs.

EEOC OFP Response:
“SWR training,” which is mentioned and recommended several times, often in
conjunction with technological improvements, seems to misunderstand what a substantial
weight review is, and what it is designed to do. Section 706 of Title VII directs that we
accord substantial weight to final findings and orders of the FEPAs; the substantial

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                         9
weight reviews are conducted by our State and Local coordinators who review the
FEPAs’ work product to see if the finding is acceptable to us. State and Local
Coordinators understand how to conduct substantial weight reviews, i.e., how to review a
file, and receive training every year from State and Local Program staff. FEPA staff
understands that the coordinator will be looking at the file to determine whether the
investigation contains information necessary to support the resolution. Training on the
sufficiency of the investigation is substantive training, and would not be denominated
“SWR training.” Several years ago, the Commission provided training to the FEPAs’
investigators when resources to do so were available. On an on-going basis, District
Offices provide training to FEPA personnel, where feasible, as training is being provided
to their own staff, and FEPAs regularly provide substantive training to their own
investigators.

On the other hand, to the extent that the Evaluation is attempting to suggest that there
may be technological methods to facilitate the transfer of materials reviewed during an
SWR, we would be happy to explore that. (In fact, we have taken steps to determine the
feasibility of adopting technology used by one of the FEPAs that has multiple offices and
uses a form of electronic file transfer.)

Evaluator’s Analysis:
The evaluators understand the purpose and mechanics of a substantial weight review.
The substantial weight review training referred to in the recommendation relates to
training the FEPAs on the proper preparation of case files in accordance with SWR
policies and procedures. The feedback received as a result of this evaluation indicates
that training provided by the SLCs is sporadic at best and the FEPAs want training. See
survey results at Appendices 2 and 3. We have determined that the finding related to
FEPA training is valid and that the recommendations provided should be implemented.

We believe that OFP’s decision to explore technological methods to facilitate the transfer
of materials reviewed during SWRs addresses the oversight of case quality
recommendation 2.


Payment Eligibility and Amounts

After a FEPA has met the criteria to receive a charge resolution contract, the FEPA is
eligible to receive payments. The eligibility criteria are outlined in the Fiscal Year 2010
Contracting Principles for State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies.
Although, District Office officials and FEPA officials believe that the rationale and
criteria for payment eligibility is fair, they believe that the payments for resolutions and
intake at $550 and $50 respectively are insufficient to compensate FEPAs for the work
performed. The results of our survey indicated that 85% of the FEPAs and 55% of the
District Offices believe that the resolution and intake payment amounts were not
sufficient to compensate the FEPAs for the effort required for these cases.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                         10
In FY 2010 the EEOC SLP officials estimated the cost to adjudicate resolution cases at
approximately $3,366 based upon 24 representative FEPAs. The payment of $550 is
approximately 16 percent of the estimated costs. Although the payments are not intended
to reimburse the FEPAs for the entire processing costs, the payments are intended to
complement the fiscal resources available to each FEPA and to encourage cooperation
and collaboration between the EEOC and the FEPAs for employment discrimination
charges. An environmental challenge to be considered is the reduction in fiscal resources
available at the federal, state, and local levels because of overall economic forces during
the past two to three years.

The same FEPA and District Office officials expressed concerns about the budget
amounts allocated to the individual FEPAs. The budget amount guides the total number
of resolution cases and intakes that can be performed by a FEPA. Once the case quota
and budget have been reached the FEPA will not be reimbursed for any additional cases
unless reallocated funding from another FEPA that will not reach their goal. It is
reasonable to assume that a limited budget can lead to a reduction in productivity toward
the end of the fiscal year because of the fixed quota/ceiling.

Over 60 percent of the FEPAs also work on housing discrimination cases for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which are similar in nature to
EEOC cases. The HUD program payments are $4,000 per case and the program does not
have a fixed case quota to limit the productivity of the FEPA to process cases.

A contributing factor to the payment limits is that the EEOC’s SLP budget has not been
increased over the last several years leaving no leeway for EEOC to increase amounts for
intakes and resolutions. The payment amounts have not increased since FY 2006.
However, the fiscal year 2011 budget for the State and Local Programs included a modest
increase in the payment amounts. Because EEOC is under a continuing resolution at the
time of this report, the increase has not been implemented yet. EEOC staff stated that the
agency is expected to be under continuing resolution for the remainder of the year.

Recommendations:

We recommend that State and Local Program management:

     1. Perform a full assessment of the costs for resolution and intakes; reassess the
        current payment amounts and the case quotas; and consider making appropriate
        adjustments to the payment amounts and budgeted quotas to provide a fee that
        covers a greater percentage of the costs of case processing.

     2. Request additional funds to provide incentive payments to FEPAs to go beyond
        their case quota in order to encourage continued productivity.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        11
EEOC OFP Response:
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, if our math is correct, the Evaluation would place
the cost of processing a charge at $3,437. To the extent that the Evaluation not
unreasonably suggests that more money should be forthcoming for charge processing
(perhaps similar to HUD’s level), it does not comprehend that the pool of money that is
available to the Commission is limited to the State and Local budget. We all recognize
that the pool is not unlimited. To take a very conservative number of FEPA resolutions--
-say 40,000 charges---and apply $3,000 per charge to that number, $120,000,000 would
be required. (The proposed State and Local budget for FY 2011 is $30,000,000.) There
is no acknowledgment that the amount of money available for State and Local purposes is
so small, relative to the “entire processing costs,” that the notion of incentive-laden
contracts may not be worthwhile. Otherwise stated, in light of the very meager State and
Local budget, and the need to insure that sufficient funds are provided to promote
cooperation from all the FEPAs in an effective and non-duplicative enforcement effort in
partnership with the Commission, the extremely limited amount of monies available for
any “incentives” may not generate sufficient benefit.

The mention at various points of case “quotas” for the FEPAs suggests that we can
require the FEPAs to produce a particular number of charges. Rather, FEPAs enter into
contracts with the Commission for a certain level of charge resolutions, based on
projections of what they and we believe they can produce. That number is adjusted
upward or downward, consistent with available resources, as the particular FEPA’s
capacity allows.

Evaluator’s Analysis:
OFP provided to the evaluators the estimated cost per resolution of $3,366. We did not
separately calculate those costs. We certainly understood and acknowledged in the report
that the State and Local budget has received for FY 11 and is requesting for FY 12 a
modest increase. Also, we understand the tight fiscal picture of the entire federal
government.

The evaluation does not indicate that EEOC should compensate the FEPAs for the total
costs incurred nor does it indicate the dollar amount or percentage change that should be
made to either the compensation amounts or the quotas. We have determined that the
organization should determine the proper combination/balance of quotas and
compensation.

We understand that FEPAs enter into contracts with the Commission for a certain level of
charge resolutions based on projections of what can be produced. However, we also
understand that expansion of a FEPA’s case quota is dependent upon another FEPA’s
inability to meet their case quota.

We have determined that the findings related to Payment Eligibility and Amounts are
valid and that the recommendations provided should be implemented.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        12
Voucher Payment Process

The SLC and District Resource Manager (DRM) handle approving the payments made to
FEPAs. Based upon information from the SLC, the DRM enters the number of cases into
Momentum. Momentum is EEOC’s general ledger system that is designed to manage
EEOC’s financial and administrative operations. EEOC uses Momentum to process and
account for the payments to and budgets for the FEPAs.          After entering the case
numbers, the DRM generates a receiving report that is provided to the SLC for filing.

The FEPAs send the original invoice directly to the National Business Center (NBC), the
EEOC’s accounting service provider. The NBC is responsible for ensuring that the
invoice amount matches the receiving report. If documents match, a disbursement is
scheduled for electronic payment to the FEPA within 30 days. If the documents do not
match, NBC contacts the District Office for resolution.

We noted during our walkthroughs at two District Offices that the receiving reports that
are generated for payment have different supporting documentation. One SLC uses a
copy of the FEPA invoice to generate the receiving report. The other SLC uses oral or
written communication to obtain the case numbers. Additionally, we are unable to
determine if the financial transactions between EEOC and the FEPAs comply with the
EEOC’s system of internal controls because the financial policies and procedures related
to the FEPA’s voucher payments are not documented and communicated effectively
throughout the EEOC SLP

Also, we noted that the monitoring that should be done of payments, open invoices, and
open receiving reports is not performed, although the District Office officials have access
to Momentum and can obtain the information to perform effective monitoring.

Based upon our walkthroughs and interviews with the SLCs, we noted that the District
Office officials are not consistently monitoring the FEPA’s budget. The District Offices
focus on the budget allocations toward the end of the fiscal year when reallocation
assessments are made. Inconsistently monitoring the budgets can lead to unspent
obligations and negatively affect EEOC’s ability to make reallocations.

We also observed the budget allocation process is not efficient because the allocations are
not available to process payments against until the middle of the fiscal year. The
program memorandum is the document that establishes the budget amounts for EEOC
including the allocations to the FEPAs. Once the allotments are made to EEOC, the
funds are available. The Office of Field Programs enters purchase requests into
Momentum for each FEPA. The purchase request tells Momentum which FEPAs get
what dollar amount. The initial budget allocation and funding process is usually not
completed until February or March. Once the budget is allocated to the FEPA and
recorded in Momentum, the FEPAs submit invoices for 50% of their budget allocation
regardless of the number of cases actually processed. The District Resource Managers
submit receiving reports for 50% of the cases. The payments are expensed and no
portion is recorded as an advance. This could lead to initial overpayments to the FEPAs.

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        13
The District Office officials indicated that any additional payments received during the
fiscal year are adjusted to actual case numbers and no more than the ceiling is paid.

Recommendations:

We recommend that EEOC State and Local Program management:

1. Revisit their budget allocation process to determine ways that the process can be
   improved to be more efficient and timely and provide better controls designed to
   reduce the potential for fraud.

2. Develop and institute a consistent monitoring process for the District Offices that
   occurs throughout the fiscal year, and not just at fiscal year end.

3. Develop written procedures for processing voucher payments in collaboration with
   the Office of Finance.

EEOC OFP Response:
The various comments on vouchering do not seem to take into account that the
receiver/voucher/NBC process is set in place by OCFOAS, and we are subject to those
requirements. Each year, OCFOAS issues policy documents setting out processes for the
year and has issued end-of-year guidance. We undertake to see that EEOC and FEPA
staff adhere to the guidance that is issued.

The recommendations and the survey state that a process must be set in place for
contracts to be awarded earlier in the year. This recommendation will require
considerable coordination with the Office of Legal Counsel, and may require at least a
two-step procurement process. We will undertake that coordination and work to issue a
preliminary contract no later than January each year.

Evaluator’s Analysis:
The evaluation reviewed the guidance provided and noted that the EEOC Voucher
Payment Process is not documented and that the two site visit locations did not process
the transactions in the same manner. We understand that SLP can not create financial
policy in isolation must collaborate with the Office of Finance to ensure that the payment
process has the appropriate controls and that the personnel responsible are properly
trained in the process. We also believe that the recommendations will only enhance the
Voucher Payment Process already established. We have determined that the findings
related to developing a written procedure for processing voucher payments are valid and
that the recommendations 2 and 3 provided should be implemented.

We have determined that OFP’s decision to coordinate with the Office of Legal Counsel
to issue preliminary contracts no later than January of each year addresses the intent of
the voucher payment process recommendation 1.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                        14
Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion

Our evaluation recognized the overall dedication and commitment of EEOC management
to their mission and their administering of EEOC’s State and Local Programs. However,
we found many opportunities for improvement. We believe that our recommendations
for improvement would make EEOC more efficient and enhance the management of
EEOC’s State and Local Programs.

Summary of Recommendations

   1. Develop and implement strategic performance goals and objectives that are
      reflective of the program; are measurable, and in accordance with the
      requirements of GPRA.

   2. Work with the Chief Financial Officer to include the performance goals,
      objectives, and measures in the annual performance and accountability report.

   3. Request additional funding for formal SWR training and other alternative training
      methods that take advantage of technology to reach the widest audience the most
      efficiently and cost effectively.

   4. Request additional funding in future budget requests to invest in electronic
      applications and equipment to reduce the costs related to the SWRs.

   5. Perform a full assessment of the costs for resolution and intake; reassess the
      current payment amounts and the case quotas; and consider making appropriate
      adjustments to the payment amounts and budgeted quotas to provide a fee that
      covers a greater percentage of the costs of case processing.

   6. Request additional funds to provide incentive payments to FEPAs to go beyond
      their case quota in order to encourage continued productivity.

   7. Revisit their budget allocation process to determine ways that the process can be
      improved to be more efficient and timely and provide better controls designed to
      reduce the potential for fraud.

   8. Develop and institute a consistent monitoring process for the District Offices that
      occurs throughout the fiscal year not just at fiscal year end.

   9. Develop written procedures for processing voucher payments in collaboration
      with the Office of Finance.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                      15
                                                                             Appendix 1



Appendices
1. Scope and Methodology

Scope

The evaluation focused, at a high level, on the adequacy, effectiveness, and efficiency of
the EEOC’s Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPA) program management
activities in four key areas:

        1)   Program goals and performance related objectives, measures, and standards

        2)   Oversight of case quality

        3)   Determination of payment eligibility and payment amounts

        4)   The financial controls and processes in place to ensure efficiency in the
             voucher payment process and to prevent fraud, waste and abuse

The EEOC evaluation addressed the following five questions:

        1)   What progress has the EEOC made in establishing and overseeing, high
             quality performance goals, performance targets, and performance standards
             for work the FEPA’s perform for the EEOC?

        2)   Does the quality of employment discrimination cases for which FEPAs
             receives EEOC payment meet or exceed the standards of the Substantial
             Weight Review?

        3)   How effective are the rationale and criteria for deciding which FEPAs are
             eligible to submit cases for payment (e.g., how much the EEOC will pay for
             cases, and the number of cases a FEPA should submit for payment each
             year)?

        4)   Do financial transactions between EEOC and the FEPAs comply with the
             EEOC’s system of internal controls?

        5)   Are financial process transactions involving the EEOC and the FEPAs
             efficient, and effective?

Methodology

Our overall methodology to analyze the State and Local Program was to use a
combination of techniques and to obtain information from people involved from policy to
implementation. We interviewed EEOC headquarters personnel related to all aspects of

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                       16
                                                                             Appendix 1

the program and the researchable questions. We also reviewed available documentation
to capitalize on work already performed and thereby reduced the burden on EEOC staff
to reiterate what has already been documented. We reviewed the current strategic plan
and recent Performance and Accountability Reports. We reviewed applicable laws,
regulations, guidance, policies and procedures applicable to the program, substantial
weight reviews, and financial transactions.

We performed two site visits to the District Offices in Indiana and San Antonio. When
performing the site visits, we interviewed the State and Local Coordinators related to the
Substantial Weight Reviews, case quality, payments and voucher processing. The site
visit to the Indiana District Office included interviews with FEPA personnel working
with the Indiana District Office.

We sent questionnaires to fifteen District Office and FEPAs of various sizes and locales
for responses and data on case quality, substantial weight reviews and voucher payments.
This was a very cost and time effective way to obtain information from multiple sources.

We compiled the results of the procedures we performed to ensure that we achieved the
primary objectives of answering the researchable questions and providing
recommendations to improve the performance of the program. We performed this
evaluation from September to December 2010. The evaluation was performed in
accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections, January 2005, issued by the
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity
and Efficiency (PCIE and ECIE). These standards were developed by the PCIE and ECIE
Inspections and Evaluation Committee. The PCIE and ECIE were the predecessors of the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                       17
                                                                                          Appendix 2


2. District Office Survey Results Summary and Instrument

Introduction

Surveys were sent to all 15 District Offices. The survey established some statements
related to the District Office’s role in EEOC’s State and Local Programs on topics such
as performance goals, case quality, substantial weight reviews and voucher payments.
See the results indicated below and a summary of the responses to the open-ended
questions.

Rated Statements

        Statements and Questions              Strongly   Agree       Neutral   Disagree     Strongly
                                               Agree                                        Disagree
  1. Funds from the budget are allocated             0           5         2          8                0
  to the FEPAs in a timely manner.
  2. The budget amounts set by the                   0           4         6          4                1
  EEOC Commission are reasonable.
  3. The amounts allocated to the FEPAs              0           6         3          5                1
  from the budget are sufficient.
  4. Subsequent year budgets should be               3       10            0          1                1
  adjusted upward or downward based
  upon prior year actual results.
  5. It is fair that FEPAs are able to bill          4           8         3          0                0
  50% of their budget in advance of any
  completed services.
  6. The FEPAs submit accurate and                   2       10            1          1                1
  timely invoices.
  7. There is a difference in the accuracy           1           2         5          5                2
  and timeliness of invoices based on
  FEPA size.
  8. It would be beneficial to me to                 5           3         5          2                0
  receive invoices from the FEPAs.
  9. The FEPAs receive timely payments               1       10            3          1                0
  from NBC.
  10. The amounts paid to FEPAs match                4           8         3          0                0
  the invoice amounts.
  11. District Offices should review                 3       11            0          0                1
  payment reports from NBC after
  payments are made to FEPAs.
  12. There is adequate communication                2           5         5          2                1
  between the District Offices and NBC.
  13. The Substantial Weight Reviews is              2       10            0          3                0
  a sufficient method of ensuring case
  quality.
  14. Substantial Weight Review                      3           6         4          2                0
  Training is provided to FEPAs.
  15. Most FEPA cases submitted for                  3       10            1          1                0
  payment meet or exceed the standards
  of the Substantial Weight Reviews.

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                  18
                                                                                                Appendix 2

           Statements and Questions            Strongly     Agree       Neutral     Disagree      Strongly
                                                Agree                                             Disagree
  16. FEPAs understand and abide by the                3         10            0            2                0
  standards of the Substantial Weight
  Reviews.
  17. The set case amounts for                         1            4          4            3                3
  resolutions and intakes are reasonable
  compared to the amount of work
  involved.
  18. EEOC should give incentives to                   4            9          2            0                0
  FEPAs that exceed their targeted
  performance for number of cases and
  for higher then required quality.
  19. Performance reviews or the                       4            8          3            0                0
  Substantial Weight Reviews should
  affect a FEPA's eligibility.
  20. Smaller FEPAs and larger FEPAs                   5         10            0            0                0
  should have to meet the same criteria to
  be eligible to receive payments.
  21. The eligibility requirements to                  5            8          0            2                0
  receive payments from EEOC are fair.
  22. The larger FEPAs consistently meet               2            5          6            2                0
  or exceed the Substantial Weight
  Review standards.
  23. Controls are in place to ensure                  4         10            0            1                0
  FEPAs meet the standards of the
  Substantial Weight Reviews before
  payment.
  24. Substantial Weight Reviews are                   4            9          2            0                0
  performed on an adequate percentage of
  FEPAs.



Open-ended Questions

  1.   If you had to set an amount per case for resolutions and intakes what would be reasonable?

       •     The question is - are we looking for quantity of production or a closer focus on quality. The
             State and Local contract money is limited thus that drives the payment amounts. Maybe
             looking at contract payment amount that is not driven by productivity. The State and Local
             agencies have to do these cases anyway since they are filed under their statutes.
       •     EEOC pays our contract mediators approximately $800 (?) per case, so the FEPAs should be
             paid a comparable amount. I believe that the $50 per intake service should be raised to $100.
       •     $500 per resolution
       •     Reasonable amount for resolutions $750 and cause findings with successful conciliations
             $1000. Intake $50 is reasonable.
       •     Scale the payments based on the type of resolution. Class violations would be paid highest,
             followed by individual cause findings, substantive no-cause findings and then administrative
             resolutions, all adjusted by timeliness. Maybe $1000 for an individual cause finding which
             meets EEOC evidentiary standards.
       •     I would take the average hourly rate for an investigator within the FEPA and make this the
             hourly rate to process resolutions and intakes. Then take the hourly rate and use it when
             determining how long it actually took the FEPA to process the intake or resolutions. I would

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                         19
                                                                                             Appendix 2

           place a minimum amount and a not to exceed amount of time. S&L Coordinators are also
           investigators and so it should not be too difficult to determine whether an intake with one or
           two allegations and half a page on intake notes probably would take 1 to 2 hours to process.
           Further it would not be difficult to determine given the length of the position statement,
           rebuttal, and interviews, how many hours the investigation took. However, since the EEOC has
           not done this type of evaluation in its own cases it would be unlikely the FEPAs would be
           agreeable to such an idea. Investigative firms and law firms charge by the hour. Further I
           would set a different about for a settlement that a CP’s lawyer handled and a settlement that the
           FEPA staff negotiated.
       •   Amounts paid should be commensurate with rates paid by HUD for processing of housing
           cases.
       •   $1,000 per case and $100.00 per intake service.
       •   I would base the number on the population.
       •   The resolution amount should be increased $50 per fiscal year incrementally for several years
           until the $1000 per case resolution level is reached and intakes should be increased to $75 per
           intake. This would require more monies from the EEOC’s budget be allocated to the State and
           Local Program to cover these increases.
       •   2-3 x current contract but note the budget does not support this level of funding and FEPA have
           overhead cost the EEOC cannot absorb.

  2.   If performance measures were developed for the State and Local Programs, what types of
       activities would you measure?
       • The quality of reviews for a far more limited number of cases. Also the timeliness of the
            reviews and any other contract or work sharing agreement responsibilities.
       • We could measure the FEPAs consistent with how EEOC offices are measured.
       • Timeliness of reviews of FEPA closures, timeliness of coding, and timeliness of EEOC’s
            issuance of their own closure documents on the FEPA cases.
       • Amount of cases resolved; Quality of work; Timeliness of completion
       • The actual time it took to complete the investigation.
       • Timeliness and quality of investigations with special recognition for novel activities which
            advance the purpose of the statute.
       • Quality of interviews, onsite visits and interviews, request for additional information, analysis
            of information received, analysis of comparators, theories applied, conclusions. Performance
            measures should not be developed for the S&L Program unless they are developed for the
            Commission. The FEPAs follow our pattern.
       • IMS computer system provides for efficient monitoring of State and Local activities
       • Quality of Intake, Investigations and Advice. Timeliness of activities.
       • On sites, witness interviews, RFI follow-up, etc.
       • Timeliness of investigation and education and outreach activities.
       • If anything we would measure the same things we look at in Enforcement such as aged
            inventory and merit factor and development of significant cases.
       • Resolutions, merit factor, processing time, user satisfaction level by user type




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                         20
                                                                                           Appendix 2

  3.   How do you think Payment Eligibility and the Payment Amounts can be improved?
       • Payment based not on the quantity of cases but the overall quality of case reviews and the
          operation of the FEPA.
       • Timely submission of payments.
       • Based on performance measured in more than just productivity and basic SWR quality.
       • Headquarters should take back the financial operations for the field (State and Local only). This
          is a better use of resources.
       • Training to FEPA’s on how to invoice timely and correctly.
       • Difficult cases and PC cases should receive more funding.
       • Contracts can be finalized much earlier in the fiscal year.


  4.   How could the Substantial Weight Review process be improved?
       • Fewer SWRs and more focus on the quality of those reviews. Also going to a paperless system
          should be explored and implemented throughout the country.
       • We could look into having FEPAs submit cases electronically (note: this might require
          additional resources).
       • Update SWR forms and processes to more closely reflect EEOC’s current enforcement
          procedures and practices (i.e. PCHP, etc.)
       • Change form to be simple
       • As discussed above, establish multifaceted assessment of case quality, timeliness and
          complexity.
       • The process could be improved by having the review required to be given to the FEPA whether
          good or bad.
       • FEPAs could be more responsive to EEOC’s request for files/documents.
       • Requirement that FEPA’s submit files timely to the EEOC after receipt of a SWR.
       • Have the FEPA’s conduct a preliminary review and submit it to the district office with the case
          file.
       • A checklist would be preferable over writing narratives for those cases we accept and require
          narratives for those cases we reject.

  5.   How do District Offices monitor FEPAs budget?
       • Through discussions with FEPA directors.
       • We don’t monitor their budgets. However, we do communicate about their budgets; for
          example, a FEPA may contact us if they are having budgetary problems.
       • The S&L Coordinator regularly reviews the FEPA’s performance during the year, and advises
          the FEPA of the appropriate amount to voucher when eligible.
       • Track on spreadsheet payments made to FEPAs and deduct from balances.
       • Through constant verification between us and NBC. Better reports and controls are needed.
       • FEPA reports to the EEOC which are usually copies of public records.
       • The District’s S&L Coordinator has a spreadsheet that she uses to monitor the FEPA’s budget.
          She also gives instructions to FEPAs as to when they should prepare and submit vouchers. She
          has recently been given access to “review only” in Momentum and so she can look to see when
          and if payments are made. Before access to Momentum the Coordinator had to wait for a
          FEPA to say they have not been paid or wait until the District Resource Manager and/or HQ
          run reports and ask about payment. The S&L Coordinator is much more proactive instead of
          reactive with access o Momentum.
       • Quarterly conference calls with FEPA Directors, internet and their local newspapers.
       • It is a joint effort of the SLC and the DRM, reviewed by the District Director.
       • Bi-weekly and monthly reports.
       • This could be submitted to the district office quarterly.
       • The FEPAs budgets are monitored via our finance system and through the SL Coordinators cuff
          file.


Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                       21
                                                                                         Appendix 2

       •   Contract levels and billings are measured but not the FEPA budget. Not a role for EEOC


  6.   How can the Voucher Payment Process be improved?
       • Based on the current system it appears to be adequate.
       • It would be helpful if NBC told the relevant EEOC office when a FEPA has been paid (e.g.,
          quarterly). This would give us the opportunity to better monitor the voucher payment process.
       • Allow FEPAs/TEROs to send electronic vouchers to the National Business Center, rather than
          send by mail.
       • Coordinators complete the vouchers and send to FEPA’s to sign and return within 5 days.
       • The original vouchers for payment should be sent to the S&L Coordinator. The Coordinator can
          then have the DRM prepare a receiver. Once the receiver is completed the voucher can be
          faxed or scanned to the NBC.
       • Headquarters should reclaim the payment of vouchers to NBC (after vouchers prepared by
          District Office and forwarded to HDQTRS.)
       • FEPA’s should send their invoices to HQ directly for processing rather than to field offices.
       • Have set dates in place at the beginning of the fiscal year.
       • I would recommend that the District Office mail the payment voucher to NBC as we are
          required to review the voucher prior to the FEPA’s mailing of the document to NBC.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                    22
                                                                                          Appendix 3


3. Field Office Survey Results and Instrument

Introduction

We prepared and sent surveys to 15 haphazardly selected Fair Employment Practices
Agencies (FEPAs). The survey established some statements related to the FEPA’s role in
EEOC’s State and Local Programs on topics such as performance goals, case quality,
substantial weight reviews and voucher payments. The FEPAS answers to the statements
ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Also, we established open-ended
questions that required written answers.

Rated Statements

                   Questions                      Strongly   Agree   Neutral   Disagree     Strongly
                                                   Agree                                    Disagree

  1. Smaller FEPAs and larger FEPAs should               5       6         2          2            0
  have to meet the same criteria to be eligible
  to receive payments.
  2. The eligibility requirements to receive             4      10         1          0            0
  payments from EEOC are fair.
  3. Performance reviews or the Substantial              4       8         1          1            1
  Weight Reviews should affect a FEPA's
  eligibility.
  4. The set case amounts for resolutions                1       1         0          7            6
  and intakes are reasonable compared to the
  amount of work involved.
  5. The budget amounts set by the EEOC                  0       1         4          4            6
  are reasonable.
  6. The amounts allocated to the FEPAs                  0       0         3          5            7
  from the budget are sufficient.
  7. Funds from the budget are allocated to              2       3         2          5            3
  the FEPAs in a timely manner.
  8. It is fair that FEPAs are able to bill 50%          6       5         3          1            0
  of their budget in advance of any
  completed services.
  9. The FEPAs receive timely payments                   5       6         4          0            0
  from NBC
  10. There is adequate communication                    7       4         1          2            1
  between the District Offices and FEPAs.
  11. The technical and financial support                5       3         2          4            1
  received from the District Offices and
  EEOC Headquarters is sufficient.
  12. EEOC should give incentives to                     6       7         1          1            0
  FEPAs that exceed their targeted
  performance for number of cases and for
  higher then required quality.
  13. Subsequent year budgets should be                  2       8         2          3            0
  adjusted upward or downward based upon
  prior year actual results.



Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                   23
                                                                                                 Appendix 3

                   Questions                      Strongly    Agree      Neutral     Disagree      Strongly
                                                   Agree                                           Disagree

  14. FEPAs understand and abide by the                   3         5           7            0            0
  standards of the Substantial Weight
  Reviews.
  15. Training is provided to help FEPAs                  1         7           0            4            3
  understand the standards of the Substantial
  Weight Review.
  16. Your FEPA consistently meets the                    8         5           2            0            0
  Substantial Weight Review Standards.


Open-ended Questions

  1.   If you had to set an amount per case for resolutions and intakes what would be reasonable?
       • Unable to provide a dollar amount. I do believe that the dollar amount should be based on
            level of complexity and/or closure type. As regards intake, I believe that the amount of
            payment is reasonable.
       • Minimum of $1500 to maximum $ for case investigations 2000
       • 100 minimum to 300 maximum for intakes
       • $1200/case.
       • $750 PER CASE - - - $75 INTAKE
       • $1,000.00
       • Intake - $100, Case Resolutions - up to $2500
       • $2600 per resolution and additional $500 for cause cases. $200 per intake.
       • Amounts similar to HUD.
       • $2500
       • An amount of $1,200 per case and an additional $500 per PC finding to help defray the cost
            of litigation.
       • $75.00 Intake Credit / $750.00 Case Resolutions
       • $100.00 for Intake, $600.00 for resolutions

  2.   If performance measures were developed for the State and Local Programs, what types of
       activities would you measure?
       • I believe that the FEPA should be measured by their onsite activity, merit factors and age of
            their inventory.
       • Timeliness, quality and complexity
       • EEOC should use standards in place in contracting principles and act on them. No need to
            change.
       • Difficult because of time, complexity, and FEPA procedures vary.
       • Performance measures should look at not only case processing but also litigation and
            education/technical assistance and provide additional funding for these efforts
       • quality of investigations; timeliness of case completion; local services provided in regional
            areas throughout the state via satellite offices; utilization of internal ADR services;
       • Time in which case is resolved, complexity, outcomes and if contract increased, whether
            cause cases go to administrative hearing or litigation. Also, training, outreach and education
            activities.
       • Primarily timeliness.
       • Timeliness; early resolution rate; administrative dismissal rate; adequate investigation (not
            similar to type #3 EEOC reviews and dismissals of cases)
       • Appropriate measurements would include :
            1. Prompt review and approval of case submissions for payment.
            2. Consistent feedback on case quality and rapid response regarding questions of which

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                             24
                                                                                          Appendix 3

               agency should conduct the investigation.
       •   Comparative Data, Witnesses Statements, Adverse Impact, Patterns and Practices, Outreach
           Activities

  3.       How do you think Payment Eligibility and the Payment Amounts can be improved?
       •   The Contracting Principles do a good job at setting forth the manner in which payments are
           made. I don’t necessarily know of any way it can be improved.
       •   Increase and develop appropriate benchmarks in conjunction with the FEPAs. There have
           been some attempts in the past but they are in dispute and they are incomplete in many ways
           and have lacked discussion and input by the FEPAs.
       •   Increase budget.
       •   More funding should be made available for outreach activities and Mediations.
       •   There should be some way to get the moneys and contract out by the first month of the
           second quarter of the fiscal year.
       •   Adding administrative expense upfront and allowing advance payments to be drawn prior to
           the middle of the fiscal year.
       •   More money and better communication.
       •   EEOC should advocate significant increase in state and local budget or EEOC should
           allocate sufficient monies from its own budget to close any gap necessary to pay FEPAs for
           full number of cases closed and submitted at a rate commensurate with resources expended
           by FEPAs (e.g., $2500/case)
       •   EEOC should implement a process to pay FEPAs from the beginning of a contract period,
           rather than make first payment 6 months and over in a contract year
       •   Payment amounts could be improved by simply increasing the amount per case approved.
       •   The actual cost of conducting an investigation greatly exceeds $550 per investigation.
       •   The other major concern is the delay in setting initial contract goals and or the downward
           modification of the contract without input from the FEPA.
       •   First of all, The U.S. Congress has to appropriate a larger budget for the EEOC/FEPAs




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                                         25
                                                                               Appendix 4



4.   EEOC Office of Field Programs Responses to Draft Report




An overarching issue relating to the Evaluation of State and Local concerns the varied
comments made about the absence of a performance goal related to the FEPAs. While
the Evaluation does acknowledge in passing that a goal was established---under the artful
guidance of Mary McIver---it doesn’t seem to grasp that the proposed goal was
forwarded to the then-Chair’s office but not acted upon, nor does it seem to grasp the
impact of the Commission’s not having a new strategic plan. In light of the Chair’s
office considering either an entirely new plan, or making major revisions to the prior
plan, it would be inappropriate to have a State and Local goal set out at this point.

Other matters that bear some mention include:

     (1) “SWR training,” which is mentioned and recommended several times, often in
         conjunction with technological improvements, seems to misunderstand what a
         substantial weight review is, and what it is designed to do. Section 706 of Title
         VII directs that we accord substantial weight to final findings and orders of the
         FEPAs; the substantial weight reviews are conducted by our State and Local
         coordinators who review the FEPAs’ work product to see if the finding is
         acceptable to us. State and Local Coordinators understand how to conduct
         substantial weight reviews, i.e., how to review a file, and receive training every
         year from State and Local Program staff. FEPA staff understands that the
         coordinator will be looking at the file to determine whether the investigation
         contains information necessary to support the resolution. Training on the
         sufficiency of the investigation is substantive training, and would not be
         denominated “SWR training.” Several years ago, the Commission provided
         training to the FEPAs’ investigators when resources to do so were available. On
         an on-going basis, District Offices provide training to FEPA personnel, where

Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                         26
                                                                               Appendix 4

        feasible, as training is being provided to their own staff, and FEPAs regularly
        provide substantive training to their own investigators.

       On the other hand, to the extent that the Evaluation is attempting to suggest that
       there may be technological methods to facilitate the transfer of materials reviewed
       during an SWR, we would be happy to explore that. (In fact, we have taken steps
       to determine the feasibility of adopting technology used by one of the FEPAs that
       has multiple offices and uses a form of electronic file transfer.)

   (2) The various comments on vouchering do not seem to take into account that the
       receiver/voucher/NBC process is set in place by OCFOAS, and we are subject to
       those requirements. Each year, OCFOAS issues policy documents setting out
       processes for the year and has issued end-of-year guidance. We undertake to see
       that EEOC and FEPA staff adhere to the guidance that is issued.

   (3) The mention at various points of case “quotas” for the FEPAs suggests that we
       can require the FEPAs to produce a particular number of charges. Rather, FEPAs
       enter into contracts with the Commission for a certain level of charge resolutions,
       based on projections of what they and we believe they can produce. That number
       is adjusted upward or downward, consistent with available resources, as the
       particular FEPA’s capacity allows.

   (4) The recommendations and the survey state that a process must be set in place for
       contracts to be awarded earlier in the year. This recommendation will require
       considerable coordination with the Office of Legal Counsel, and may require at
       least a two-step procurement process. We will undertake that coordination and
       work to issue a preliminary contract no later than January each year.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, if our math is correct, the Evaluation would place
the cost of processing a charge at $3,437. To the extent that the Evaluation not
unreasonably suggests that more money should be forthcoming for charge processing
(perhaps similar to HUD’s level), it does not comprehend that the pool of money that is
available to the Commission is limited to the State and Local budget. We all recognize
that the pool is not unlimited. To take a very conservative number of FEPA resolutions--
-say 40,000 charges---and apply $3,000 per charge to that number, $120,000,000 would
be required. (The proposed State and Local budget for FY 2011 is $30,000,000.) There
is no acknowledgment that the amount of money available for State and Local purposes is
so small, relative to the “entire processing costs,” that the notion of incentive-laden
contracts may not be worthwhile. Otherwise stated, in light of the very meager State and
Local budget, and the need to insure that sufficient funds are provided to promote
cooperation from all the FEPAs in an effective and non-duplicative enforcement effort in
partnership with the Commission, the extremely limited amount of monies available for
any “incentives” may not generate sufficient benefit.




Final Evaluation Report
                                                                                          27