oversight

System for Processing Individual Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Complaints: Improvements Needed

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-04-08.

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

                           DOCOUMENT RESUME

00671   -   A10520061

System for P:ocessing Individual Eual   Eplcymelit Opportunity
Discrimination Complaints: Improvet.nts   eeded. E-178929;
FPCD-76-77. April 8, 1977. 91 Fp.

Report to the Congress;   by Elmer B.   Staats, Ccomptroller General.

Issue Area: Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Programs
     (302); Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Programs:
    Employment Discrimination in the Federal Sector (1000);
    Personnel    anagement and Compensation: Equal Employment
    Opportunity (1004).
Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.
Budget Function: General Government: Central Personnel
    Management (805).
Organization Concerned: Civil Service Commission; Department of
    Defense.
Congressional Relevance: Congress; House Committee on Education
    and Labor; Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Authority:    (86 Stat. 103; Equal Employment Cpportunity Act of
    1972; 42 U.S.C. 2000e; P.L. 92-261). Pair    ator Standards
    Amendments of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 633a; P.L. 93-259, sec.
    28(b) (2)). Executive Order 11246. Executive Crder 11375.
    Executive Order 11478. Age '"scriminaticn in Employment Act
    of 1967. Civil Rights Act o.    964, title VII, as amended.

         Although the Civil Service Commission has established
an extensive system for processing individual discrimination
complaints, many aspects of the system need improvement.
Findings/Conclusions: At nine Federal agencies and departments,
the planning and actions taken to make sure that discrimination
complaint system objectives are met can be improved in several
areas: management commitment, structure within the agency, and
determining financial resources required and analyzing staff
needs and qualifications. The nine agencies reviewed did i.ot
have reliable data on the costs of operating their
discrimination complaints systems and Government-wide cost data
was not adequate. A ar.ety of problems regarding fairness and
impartiality, timeliness, and complaint resolution were noted.
Neither the Commission nor the agencies reviewed have adequately
reviewed and evaluated the discrimination complaint systems.
Sound reviews and evaluations are n   possible at this tile
because adequate data are lacking.   ecommendaticns: The
Chairman f the Civil Service Commission shculd emphasize that
agencies should properly plan and implement teir discrimination
complaint systems. The Chairman and the heads of the nine
agencies reviewed should take action to improve their reviews
and evaluations of complaint systems. The Chairman should also
develop criteria for and assess the effectiveness and efficiency
of agencies' complaint systems that consider qualitative and
cost aspects in additicn to timeliness consideration.
(Author/SC)
CD               REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

                 BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
     ,.","a-OF      THE UNITED STATES




                 System For Processing Individual
                 Equal Employment Opportunity
                 Discrimination Complaints:
                 Improvements Needed
                 Civil    ervice Commission


                 Though the Civil Service Commission has
                 established and other Federal agencies have
                 put into practice an extensive system for pro-
                 cessing individual complaints, many aspects of
                 the operation and evaluation of the system
                 need improvement.




                 FPCD-'76-77                                      I
               COMPTROLIER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. C




B-178929




To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives

      This report recommends improvements in the Federal
Government's system for processing the individual dis-
criminatijn complaints of Federal employees and job
applicants.

     We made our review pursuant to the Budgeting and
Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting
and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

     We are sending copies of this report to the Director,
Office of Manugement and Budget; the Chairman, Civil
Service Commission; the Secretaries of Defense, Air Force,
Agriculture, Commerce, Hcelth, Education, and Welfare,
Interior, and Transportation; the Administrators of the
General Services and Veterans Administrations; and the
Postmaster General.




                                Comptroller General
                                of the United States
 COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S                        SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING INDIVIDUAL
 REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                       EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNiTY
                                              DISCRIMINATION CG:%'LATNTS:
                                              IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
                                              Civil Service Commission
               DIGEST

               Though the Civil Service Commission has estab-
               lished and other Federal agencies have put
               into practice an extensive system for proces-
               sing individual discrimination complaints, many
               aspects of the system need improvement.

               At nine Federal agencies and departments, the
               planning and actions taken to make sure that
               discrimination complaint system objectives are
               met can be improvei in several areas.  These
               include

               -- management         commitment,

               --how and where the            system   is   structured   in
                 the agency. and

               --determining            financial resources required
                  and    analyzing staff needs and qualifica-
                  tions.         See pp. 6 to 20.)
              The system helps employees to protect their
              rights of equal opportunity and at the same
              time gives agencies and supervisory personnel
              protection against unsupported accusations
              involving allegations of discrimination.
              (See p. 1.)
              Employees or applicants for Federal employment
              who believe they have been discriminated against
              because of race, color, religion, sex, national
              origin, or age can discuss the problem with a
              counselor. This is leferred to as the informal
              stage. If the counselor cannot resolve the
              matter informally, the employee may file a formal
              complaint with the agency.  (See pp. 2 and 3.)
              Government-wide costs reported for informal
              counseling were about $9 million and $10.3 million
              in fiscal years 1974 and 1975, respectively. Cost
              estimates reported for formal complaint processing
              were about $9 million in fiscal year 1974
                                                          FPCD-75-77

 Uear S   tl_
           . Upon removal, the report
cover date should be noted hereon.             i
and $13.4 million in fiscal year 1975.
Estimated costs for counseling and formal
complaint processing for fiscal year 1976
were $12.6 million and $15.7 mill:on,
respectively.   (See p. 9.)

The nine agencies reviewed, however, did
not have reliable data on the costs of
operating their discrimination complaints
systems, and Government-wide  ost data was not
adequate. Data available, however, shows a
trend of increasirg costs and that the trend
will continue.

Certain problers came up, regarding fairness
and impartiality, timeliness, and complaint
resolution.  For example:

--Complainants were not always made aware
  of and afforded their rights.

--Fear of reprisals or actual reprisals
  concernej complainants and individuals
  who ad not filed complaints.

-- Rights of alleged discriminatory offi-
   cials required reexamination.

-- Equal employment opportunity officials
   named as alleged discriminatory officials
   can become involved in potential conflict
   situations,

--Processing of formal complaints is not
  generally accomplished within the established
  180-calendar-day standard.

--When findings of discrimination were made,
  agencies were generally making seemingly
  appropriate remedies but were not colLect-
  ing personnel management deficiencies or
  taking disciplinary action against discri-
  minatory officials. (See pp. 22 to 33.)

The extent of emphasis on and the success of the
Informal resolution stage could not be determined
because of unreliable statistical information.
(See pp. 36-37 and 46.)

Although   the Commission,   in   its guidance to agencies,


                        ii
          provides that each agency require its equal
          opportunity directr to change agency programs
          and procedures to eliminate discriminatory
          practices, the Commission has not paid enough
          attention to systemic discriminatory practices.
          It has almost solely worked on processing in-
          dividual complaints. (See pp. 44-45 and 47.)

          Neither the Commission nor the agencies
          reviewed have adequately reviewed and evaluated
          the discrimination complaint system.  More
          importantly, however, sound reviews and eval-
          uations are not possible because adequate data
          is lacking.   (See pp. 58 to 61.)

          The Commission did not provide for processing
          third-party complaints in the same way as in-
          dividual complaints by employees or applicants
          for employment were processed.   For instance, when
          a third-party complaint was filed in which an
          organization *_   ome other third-party called an
          agency's attention to iscriminatory poli-ies and
          practices, the third-palty procedures were not in-
          tended to obtain redress i individual cases,
          unless a complaint was filed personally.   However,
          effective April 18, 1977, procedures allowing for
          consolidation of complaints (class complaints) will
          replace the procedurEs for processing third-party
          allegations.   (See p. 62.)
          Because of the variances between the Equal Employment
          Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Age Discrimination
          in Employment Act of 1967, Commission regulations
          on the processing of age discrimination complaints
          do not entirely parallel those for complaints based
          on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin
          with respect to the right to pursue civil actions.
          These variances, in GAO's opinion, are unfair,
          creating a climate of confusion for complainants
          and for personnel responsible for administering the
          complaint .stem.    (See pp. 62-63.)

          RECOMMENDATjONS

         The Chair qan of the Civil Service Commission
         should empheaize that agencies should properly
         plan and imp!ement their discrimination complaint
         systems.   The Chairman and the heads of the nine
         agencies reviewed should take action to improve
         their reviews and evaluations of complaint systems.
         The report presents a number of other recommendations
         to the Commission and the nine agencies reviewed,


Teal   heet                    1
to improve specific aspects of the Federal
discrimination complaint system.  (See pp.
19, 32, 47, 57, 60. and 63.)

The Commission and agencies reviewed generally
agreed with the recommendations.  The Commission
is developing new and revised guidelines for
agencies concerning several problems identified
by GAO. Adopting and implementing these
guidelines will improve the Government's dis-
criininatior. complaint system.




                      iv
                      Contents
                                                            Page
DIGEST                                                        i

CHAPTER

   1      INTRODUCTION                                        1
              Scope of review                                 3
   2      SYSTEM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
            CAN BE IMPROVED                                   6
              Agency placement and structure
                of discrimination complaint system            6
                  System placement                            7
                  System structure                            8
              Determining financial resources                 8
              Determining personnel re┼Żources                10
                  Lack of coordinated, systematic
                    analysis by agencies to determine
                     staffing needs                          11
                  Lack of criteria for assigning
                    full-time or part-time staff             12
                  Need for improvement in representation
                    for certain EEO positions                13
                  Nonsubstantiated certification of EEO
                    officials' qualifications               14
                  Lack of personnel expertise               15
                  Need for additional training for EEO
                    personnel                               16
                  Need for improved supervision, control,
                    and evaluation for employees
                    performing EEO functions on a
                    collateral duty basis                   17
                  Need for a classification standard for
                    EEO positions                           17
             Conclusions                                     17
              Recommendations                               19
              CSC comments and   actions                    20
  3       FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY                         22
              Complainants generally apprised of and
                afforded ricts                              23
                  Rights      ,mplainants during informal
                    counse                                  23
                  Rights     ormal complainants             24
              Agencies not consistent in rejecting/
                canceling complaints                        25
CHAPTER                                               Pape

   3       Need to preclude misuse of the
             complaint system                         27
           Need to emphasize freedom from
             reprisal                                 28
           Need for reexamination of the rights
             of alleged discriminatory officials      28
           Potential conflicts may exist when EEO
             officJals are named as alleged dis-
             criminatory officials                    29
           Complaint system not always perceived
             to be fair and impartial                 30
           Employees not knowleaqeable about
             complaint system                         31
             Conclusions                              31
             Recommendations                          32
             Agency comments                          33

  4       RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS                    35
              Need for improved data or alternate
                procedures for assessing informal
                resolution                            36
              Basis for and causes of informal
                complaints                            37
              Corrective actions in informal stage    38
              Formal resolution of complaints         39
              Basis for and causes of formal
                complaints                            39
              Corrective actions on formal
                complaints                            41
              Agency disposition of cases             41
              Complaints acted on by Appeals
                Review Board                          42
              Complaints appealed to CSC Commis-
                sioners                               43
              Findings of discrimination              43
              Need to identify personnel management
                deficiencies and systemic discrimi-
                natory practices                      44
              Little disciplinary action taken by
                agencies                               5
              Appealing cases to civil courts         46
              Conclusions                             46
              Recommendations                         47
              Agency comments                         47
CHAPTER                                                    Page
       5    TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING              49
                Processing time for complaints
                                                            49
                  InfGrmal counseling
                                                            50
                  Formal complaints                         51
                Factors affecting processing of
                  formal complaint cases                    51
                CSC monitoring and action taken
                                                            53
                Conclusions                                 56
                Recommendation
                                                            57
                Agency comments
                                                            57
       6   PROGRAM REVIEWS AND EVALUATION
                                                            58
               Agency evaluations of discrimination
                 complaint systems
                                                            58
               CSC evaluations of discrimination
                 complainc systems
                                                           59
               Conclusions
                                                           60
               Recommendations
                                                           60
               Agency comments
                                                           61
   7       OTHER  ATTERS                                   62
               Need for improved CSC procedure for
                 handling third-party complaints           62
               Need for uniformity in EEO laws             62
               Recommendation                              63
               CSC comments and actions
                                                           63
APPENDIX

   I       Discrimination complaint system processing
             proc-edures
                                                           64
  II       Departments and aencies at which EEO
             discrimination complaint systems were
             reviewed
                                                           65
 III       November 22, 1976,   letter   from the Execu-
             tive Director o    CSC                        67
  IV       September 13, i976, letter from the
             Assistant Secretary for Administration
             and Director of EEO of t'ne Department
             of  griculture
  V                                                        77
           September 8, 1976, letter from the Deputy
             to the Secretary (Personnel Policy) of
             the Department of the Air Force
                                                           78
                                                               Page
APPENDIX

      VI   August 23, 1976, letter from the Assistant
             Secretary for administration of the
             Department o  Commerce                             79

  VII      September 17, 1976. letter from the
             Administrator of the General Services
             Administration                                     80
VIII       October J2, 1J76, letter from the Ass]-'t--
             ant Secretary, Comptroller of HEW                 81



      IX   September 23, 1J76, lettei from the
             Assistant Secretary of the Department
             of the Interior                                   82
       X   September 2, 1976, letter     from   the
             Postmaster General                                83
      XI   September 27, 1976, letter from the
             Assistant Secretary for Administration
             from the Office of the Secretart  of
             Transportation                                    84
 XII       September 8, 1976, letter     from   the
             Administrator of VA                               87
XIII       Principal officials rsponsible for
             administering activities discussed       in
             this report                                       88

                         `%BREVIATIONS

CSC        Civil   Service Commission

EEO        equal employment   opportunity

GAO        General   Accounting Office

HE:        Department of   Health, Education,    and Welfare

           Veterans Administration
                           CHAPTER 1

                         INTRODUCTION

     Processing complaints of employment discrimination
                                                         is an
important aspect of the Federal Government's efforts
                                                      to elim-
inate unequal treatment of individuals.  The cmplaint
system helps employees to protect their rights
                                               of equal oppor-
tunity and at the same time gives agencies and
                                               supervisory
personnel protection against unsupported allegations
                                                     of
discrimination.  The system is a highly visible indicator of
agency commitment to equal employment opportunity
it fails to adequately                            (EEO); if
                       process discrimination complaints and
actively deal with discrimination issues, the system can
negatively affect the credibility of the Federal EEO effort.

      Before 1955 the President's Committee on EEO had primary
responsibility for coordinating the Government's EEO program.
In January 1965 the Committee delegated authority for oper-
ating the discrimination complaint system to the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), because the liiaited size of the Committee's
staff made it difficult to close cases as promptly as desired.
CSC was responsible for the system and issued guidelines
                                                          during
the period 1966 to 1969 under the authority of Executive
                                                          Order
11246, dated September 24, 1965, amended by Executive Order
11375, dated October 13, 1967. Additionally, in July 1969
CSC issued revised guidelines.
     Executive Order 11478, dated August 8, 1969, gave CSC
the authority to povide guidance in the conduct of EEO
programs in Federal departments and agencies. The order
directed CSC to provide for

     --prompt, fair, and impartial consideration of all
       Federal employment discrimination complaints which
       are based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
       origin and
     -- appeals of decisions to CSC following impartial
        review by the Federal agency involved.
The order also directed that agency systems provide for
                                                        coun-
seling of employees who believe they have been discriminated
against and to encotrage resolution of matters on an informal
basis.
     In May 1972 CSC issued detailed guidance for achieving
the goals and intent of Executive Order 11478. The guidance,


                              1
a general framework for operation of the discrimination
complaint sytem, provided for:

     -- Prompt resolution of complaints on an informal basis.
     --Prompt, fair, and impartial consideration of formal
       discrimination complaints.
     -- Appeals of decisions to CSC following impartial review
        by the Federal agency involved.
     The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-261, approved Mar. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U.S.C. S
2000e) amended title VII ot the 164 Civil Rights Act to
provide added protection for Fderail employees so that per-
sonnel actions would be free from discrimination based on
race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The act

     --gave CSC the authority to enforce equal employment
       and nondiscrimination and to grant full relief
       from discriminatory practices to aggrieved employees
       or applicants, including hiring or reinstatement
       with or without backpay, as appropriate;

     -- provided aggrieved employees access to the courts
        if they were not satisfied with final actions taken
        on their cases by the agency or CSC's Appeal Review
        Board; and
     -- strengthened the system of discrimination complaint
        processing and required that complaints be resolved
        within 180 days of filing.
     The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which
previously applied only to employees in private enterprise,
was amended by section 28(b)(2) of Public Law 93-259 (Fair
Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, approved Apr. 8, 1974,
88 Stat. 55, 29 U.S.C. S633a) to include Federal, State,
and local governments. The law requires that all personnel
actions affecting Federal employees or applicants for Federal
employment who are 40 to 64 years old be free from discrim-
ination based on age.
     The system operates in the following manner.  Employees
or applicants for Federal Employment who believe they have
been subjected to discrimination because of race, color,
religion, se,  national origin, or age must first discuss
the problem with an EEO counselor,  (This is referred to as
the informal stage of the process.)  If the counselor is
                              2
unable to resolve the mattr informally, the employce may
 file a formal complaint with the agency. After the agency
makes a formal investigation of the complaint, it allows for
an adjustment of the complaint on an informal basis. To this
end, the agency furnishes the complainant or his c- her rep-
resentative a copy of the investigative file and allows the
complainant to discuss the file with appropriate oficials
so as to work toward informal resolution.   If the complaint
is not resolved through this means, the complainant may re-
quest (1) a hearing before a complaints examiner who submits
a recommended decision to the head of the agency or his or
her designee followed by a subsequent agency decision or
(2) a decision by the head of the agency or his designee
without a hearing.   If the complainant is still not satis-
fied with the decision on his or her complaint, he or she
may make an appeal to CSC's Appeals Review Board or may
file a civil action in U.S. District Court.   If the
complainant elects to appeal to CSC, but is dissatisfied
with the Appeals Review Board decision, he or she may file
a civil action.   Complainants have the right to be repre-
sented at any stage of the presentation of a complaint in-
cluding the counseling stage.   (See app. I for a procedural
diagram of the system.)

     The reported number of formal complaints of discrim-
ination filed by Federal employees and applicants for
Federal employment was 7,059 in fiscal year 1976, compared
to 2,743 in fiscal year 1973 and 1,025 in fiscal year 1970.
Government-wide costs reported for formal complaint processing
were about $9 million in fiscal year 1974 ad $13.4 million
in fiscal year 1975, and for informal counseling were about
$9 million and $10.3 million in fiscal years 1974 and 1975,
respectively.  Estimated costs for counseling and formal
complaint processing for fiscal year 1976 were $12.6 and
$15.7 million, respectively.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

     We reviewed the discrimination complaint systems of
nine Federal departments and agencies at their headquarters.
We visited five constituent agencies within these departments
and agencies, both at headquarters and at 22 field installa-
tions. Our purpose was to:

     --Assess compliance with the law, Executive orders,
       and CSC regulations and procedures.

     --Determine agencies' commitments to system operations.


                              3
     ---Evaluate system operations regarding promptness,
        fairness, impartiality, and complaint resolution.

     -- Determine the emphasis placed on informal resolution
        of complaints.

     The departments and agencies reviewed were the
Departments or Agriculture; Conmerce; Health, Education,
and Welfare (HEW); Interior; and Transportation; the
General Services Administration; the Postal Service; the
Air Force; and the Veterans Administration (VA).   (See app.
II for identification of field locations reviewed.)   We did
not attempt to assess the quality of actual decisions made
by CSC or the agencies on individual complaint cases.

      Also, we did not review processing of third-party com-
plaints ~vhereby CSC allows general allegations of discrim-
ination to be made by organizations or other third parties
i.l personnel matters which are unrelated to individual com-
plaints.   Further, our review did not include an analysis of
CSC's proposed regulations on class action complaints in
which one or more members of a class can sue for themselves,
or for themselves and other members of a class.

     Our review placed primary emphasis on the operations of
the system, including completed complaint cases for the
period July 1972 through December 1974.  This was the latest
information available at the time of our review. The volume
of formal complaints in the agencies reviewed represented
about 70 percent of the Government-wide formal complaint
volume for fiscal year 1974.

     We examined regulations, policies, procedures, and
guidance issued to agencies by CSC, as well as the methods
CSC and agencies used to direct, monitor, and evaluate pro-
grams. Top-level CSC and agency officials responsible for
EEO, personnel, and complaint investigations were interviewed.
We also discussed the discrimination complaint system with
representatives of the Federal Employees Appeals Authority,
the Chairman of the Appeals Review Board, and various union
officials.

     Responses to questionnaires were obtained from com-
plainants, noncomplainants, counselors, managers, and super-
visors at installations visited.  We reviewed a U.S. Commis-
sion on Civil Rights report, "The Federal Civil Rights
Enforcement Effort--1974," issued in July 1975 to the
President of the United States, the President of the Senate,


                              4
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  We also
reviewed recent court decisions on Federal employee discrim-
ination complaints and numerous other documents related to
the Federal discrimination complaint system.




                              5
                          CHAPTER 2

             SYSTEM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

                       CAN BE IMPROVED

     An effective discrimination complaint system requires
top management's commitment, as evidenced in large measure by
an adequate application of financial and personnel resources.
All agencies we reviewed had operational discrimination com-
plaint systems but the planning and implementation was
affected by support provided by top management.  Agencies'
efforts generally showed a lack of a systematic approach in
establishing system requirements.

     In addition to the need for more support from top
management, the planning and implementation of the complaint
system can be improved in terms of its location and the
organization of certain of its functions, determining finan--
cial resources, and analyzing manpower needs and qualifi-
cations.

AGENCY PLACEMENT AND STRUCTURE OF
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT SYSTEM

     Soon afte- the Civil Service Commission assumed primary
responsibility for Federal employee discrimination complaints
in January 1965, the volume oi complaints necessitated
designing a formal structure for complaint processing.  CSC,
under authority of Executive Order 11246, issued  irectives
to make the system more responsive.  These directives in-
cluded criteria for organizing discrimination complaint
systems.  Agencies were permitted flexibility in designing
and implementing their systems, and as a result each agency
had to decide on an organization for its coiplaint system,
including its placement and structure.  Agency action was
also required on delegating authority and assigning responsi-
bility to operate the complaint system.

     The placement of the discrimination complaint system
varied in the agencies we examined.  The structure also
varied.  Agencies had various reasons for placing and
structuring complaint systems, including credibility consid-
erations, consistency with existing agency operational
structures, and proximity to office of personnel resources.
The extent to which agencies considered these factors in
structuring and placing their discrimination complaint



                              6
 systems was nt determinable because of a general
                                                  lack of
 appropriate planning and/or monitoring documentation.

System   Ia2m ent
     CSC's Federal Personnel Manual requires each agency to
designate a director of eaual employment opportunity
operate under the immediate supervision of the head ofto
agency for certain functions, including the operation the
discrimination complaint system. However, the directorof the
EEO, in at least the Air Force and the Department of      of
                                                      the
Interior did not report directly to the head of the agency
as required by CSC regulations, but reorted to designees
of agency heads.

     The Air Force and the Veterans Administration operated
their entire EEO program in the office of personnel, and
Department of Agriculture operated its headquarters EEO the
program within its personnel section.

     A major problem with locating the discrimination
plaint system in the office of personnel appeared to com-
                                                      involve
that office's independence, the lack of which can affect
system credibility; the office of personnel, which is
ultimately responsible for personnel actions, also must
decide cses of alleged discrimination which may involve
agencies' personnel actions. The major concern in locating
complaint systems outside the office of personnel is
                                                      that
the individuals responsible for complaint processing do
have enough knowledge of, or training in, personnel pro- not
cedures and practices, the expertise which underlies
plaints processing. Thus, formulation of appropriate com-
ative action under these circumstances can be difficultaffirm-
                                                         if
not impossible.

     Coordination and communication problems
gardless of whether the complaint system was occurred  re-
                                              located inside
or outside the office of personnel.  Some individuals re-
sponsible for preparing the affirmative action plans were
not sufficiently aware of the problems affecting the
plaint system, though the affirmative action plan is com-
                                                      the
primary document for noting such problems. As a result,
in many plans action items relating to the complaint
                                                      system
merely stated administrative requirements, such as providing
for an adequate number of counselors and processing formal
complaints within 180 days, rather than providing guidance
on how problems might be resolved.



                              7
     Another variance existed with respect to the placement
of EEO investigative functions.  In at least five agencies,
investigators were assigned from organizational elements
removed from the office of personnel, such as the General
Counsel's office or other professional investigative ofices.
Agencies also used CSC investigators to handle some cases,
either to achieve independence or because they did not have
enough investigators.  In two agencies, however, individuals
operating within the control of EEO offices investigated
complaints.

     In our opiniin, the discrimination complaint system
siould operate independently of the office of personnel co
achieve system credibility. However, we see no objection to
having the office of personnel provide logistics for the EEO
function.

System structure

     The structure of discrimination complaint systems,
including degree of centralization and assignment of re-
sponsibilities, varied among agencies. All agencies we
reviewed had decentralized systems for handling precomplaints;
tha  is, informal complaints were handled by counselors at
the locations where the complaints arose.  Formal complaints
could be accepted at decentralized locations in six of the
nine agencies we reviewed, but only four of the nine agencies
could reject complaints at decentralized locations.  In the
remaining agencies, accept-reject decisions were centralized
at agencies' headquarters.

     Four agencies were centralized in two other important
areas--assigning investigators and deciding on the need for
disciplinary action.  Two other agencies had centralized
systems for decisions on disciplinary action.  In accordance
with CSC requirements, final decisionmaking on formal cases
was centralized in each of the agencies we trviewed.

DETERMINING F   NNCIAL RESOURCES

     There was no reliable data on the costs of operating
discrimination complaint systems in the nine agencies we
reviewed.  Also, Government-wide cost data was not adequate.
Data available, however, showed a trend of increasing costs
and that the trend will continue.

     Although agencies did not maintain actual cost data for
the administration and operation of their discrimination


                               8
 complaint systems, estimated costs for these activities were
 prepared by agencies for CSC in two reports:  (1) the alloca-
 tion of resources statement in the Affirmative Action Plan
 and (2) a report of EEO program expenditures required by
 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11. CSC, to
 assist in preparing these reports, provided instructions
 to agencies for costs to be included in each of them.

     Eazn report includes two cost categories related to
EEO complaints--costs of counseling and costs of processing
formal complaints.  Government-wide costs reported for the
complaint system for fiscal years 1974 and 1975 and estimated
costs for fiscal year 1976 follow.

                                        Fiscal year
                                                       1976
                                 1974     1975   (estimated)

                                        (millions)
   Complaint conciliation
     (informal cunseling)         $9     $10.3        $12.6
   Complaint investigation
     (formal complaint
     processing)                  9       13.4         15.7
     Though the A-11 report includes more cost factors, CSC
did not provide enough guidance for consistently developing
cost data for agencies' use in the preparation of either
                                                         of
the reports.  For example, agencies as a result did not
record many of the costs attendant to processing complaints,
particularly costs associated with the counseling process.
Since a system to record actual counseling costs did not
exist, agencies used various methods in arriving at such
costs. One agency, for example, used a factor of 21 full
days (the time period allocated by CSC regulations for
counseling) to arrive at costs. Another agency arrived at
its costs by estimating 12 staff-hours for counseling each
case. Neither agency had considered all cost factors in
accumulating its costs.

     Examples of deficiencies or inconsistencies in cost
data included these:

    -- Costs of various agency personnel involved in
       complaint processing (though not part of the formal
       EEO structure) were not accumulated.  This applies


                             9
          to complainants, witnesses, and agency representatives,
          including legal counsel, and others.

        -- Salary costs for agency management, General Counsel
           staff, and ad hoc investigators (part-time investiga-
           tors) were not reported.

        -- Court csts incurred by agencies were not requested.

Thus,    reported system costs were understated.

     The Veterans Administration,     'rate from its reporting
of costs to CSC, attempted to d       ne the costs associated
with complaints that becaMie formal. n fiscal year 1974.  VA
determined that its formal complaint processing costs were
greater than those reported to CSC, but even that attempt
did not include all costs factors.

     Investigation and hearing costs varied greatly depending
on the particulars of the cases, including complexity, geo-
graphic locations, and persons involved.  Costs for CSC
investigations ranged from under $100 to, in a few cases,
over $10,000 and averaged about  2,150.  Hearings costs,
exclusive of transcript preparation, ranged from $160 to
$4,700 and averaged approximately $700 a case for fiscal
year 1975.

DETERMINING PERSONNEL RESOURCES

     An effective discrimination complaint system requires an
adequate number of qualified staff to process complaints.
Staffing must be directed toward the goals of prompt, fair,
and impartfal processing, with emphasis on informal reso-
lution.  The basic positions applicable to EEO, and more
specifically the discrimination complaint system, include
EEO counselcrs, officers, specialists, investigators, com-
plaints examiners, and directors.   CSC has established quali-
fication standards for assignment of EEO work as a collater-
al duty, and also established the GS-160 Equal Opportunity
Personnel Series for essentially full-time specialists and
officers.

     CSC has provided guidance to agencies to assist them in
making saffing determinations.   Areas addressed in CSC regu-
lations include:

        ---Types of positions necessary to operate complaint
           systems.


                                10
      -- Qualification standards for staffing the positions,

      -- Quantity of staff (particularly counselors).
      -- Training of staff.

      -- Supervision and evaluation of staff.

      While CSC prescribes the requirements which agencies
 are to follow arid the guidelines they are to
                                               use in estab-
 lishing and implementing their programs, it has
 flexibility to agencies to meet their specific provided
                                                 needs. For
 instance, in terms of quantity and allocation
                                                of staffing,
 CSC merely requires each agency to"   * * * provide
 resources to administer its equal employment       sufficient
                                              opportunity
 gram in a positive and effective manner * * *."          pro-

      Problems noted in either CSC regulations or
                                                  in agencies'
 implementation of the staffing regulations are:

     -- Lack of a coordinated, systematic analysis
                                                   by agencies
        to determine staffing needs.
     -- Lack of criteria for assigning full-time versus
                                                        part-
        time staff.
     --Need for improvement in race and sex mix of
                                                   persons
       in certain EEO positions.
     --Nonsubstantiated certification of EEO officials'
       qualifications.
     -- Lack of personnel systems expertise.

     -- Need for additional training for EEO personnel.
     -- Need for improved supervision, control, and
                                                    evalu-
        ation of employees performing EEO functions on
        collateral duty basis.                          a

     -- Need for a classification standard for EEO
                                                   positions.
Lack of coordinated, systematic analysis
by agencies to determine staffing needs
     CSC regulations require that each agency designate
many EEO officers and counselors as necessary           as
                                              to carry out
EEO functions, including the operation of the
                                              discrimination

                              11
 complaint system.  The regulations also urge each agency to
 have a staff of investigators readily available
                                                 to handle
 complaint cases.

       Decisionmaking authority on staffing was decentralized
 at most agencies we reviewed.   For example, agencies' pro-
 cedures usually required that lower  level organizational
 elements provide for a sufficient number of
                                              counselors.
 Though cognizant otficials in most agencies
                                              could cite the
 number of additional staff needed, there was
                                               little
 evidence i; the agencies examined of a systematic
 determine actual staffing needs on the basis       analysis to
                                               of workload
 analysi s.

     We noted or were advised that too little staffing
attention to complaints activity we:e applied           and/or
cies reviewed.                                 in eight agen-
                This wa;  articularly true at the department
level and resulted in program management that
                                              was reactive in
nature. This contributed to the timeliness
                                            problems that
existed in the processing of complaints and
                                            may have affected
tIe quality of complaint processing.

     Officials in the Departments of Transportation,
and Health, Education, and Welfare and in the         Interior,
                                              Air Force
indicated staffing problems were compounded
                                            further by tight
personnel ceilings and, in some  ases, required the use of
collateral duty personnel where full-time personnel
were preferred.                                      positions

     CSC guidance suggests counseling be available
2 or 3 days after an initial telephone or written     within
                                                     request
for counseling service where walk-in service
                                               is not feasible.
CSC also suggested that counselors should be
                                              available
all shifts where there are multishift operations.          for
                                                      Although
agencies generally conformed with CSC's suggestions,
agency appeared to have too few counselors              one
                                            assigned
field locations to adequately service the various      at  some
                                                    work
shifts, employee needs, and/or major EEO case
officials in other agencies advised us that     loads.    Also,
                                             counselors, in
a few instances, were not always available
                                            when needed.
Lack of criteria for assigning
full-time or part-time staff

     Agencies must decia whether counselors and
gators, who are the primary discrimination         investi-
                                            complaint system
staff, should be assigned as full-time or part-time
                                                      personnel.
CSC did not provide guidance to agencies as
                                             to when counsel-
ors and investigators should be full-time or
                                              part-time.
                              12
      CSC's position is that the number oi counselors
                                                          assigned
 within an agency or installation will vly according
 counseling and complaint workload; the racial,           to tne
                                                  ethnic, and
 sex make-up of the wo.;. force; and the <J-related
 and issues which have been raised generally.          problem,
                                                 CSC recommended
 as a general rule that agencies designate at least
                                                      one EEO
 counselor at major installations and have an overall
 of 1 counselor for every 500 employees.                 ratio
                                            CSC has also
 recognized in its guidance that occasionally the
                                                    volume and
 complexity of complaint cases justifies the assignment
full-time counselors.                                       of
                        This recognition allows agencies the
 latitude to assign full-time or part-time counselors
                                                         as they
believe them necessary.    All agencies ha( part-time coun-
selors; this was t    'at most locations we visited, apparently
because the agencies did not believe full-time counselors
were needed or could not justify full-time positions.
                                                            Three
agencies--the Air Force, the Postal    ervice, and the General
Services Administration did have a few full-time
                                                    counselors
at certain locations.   Nne of the nine agencies, however,
had developed agency-wide written criteria for determining
when the volume .and complexity of problems warranted
                                                         fuil-
time or part-time counselors.

Naed for improvement in
representation for
certain :EO positions

      In filling EEO positions, most agencies had no
                                                       formal
rteuiremepts that the occupants of the positions
                                                  be repre-
sentative of the work force with respect to race,
                                                   sex, or
other factors.   Hever, at least 5 agencies--the Department
of Agriculture, General Services, Interior, Postal
and VA--indicated and provided positive evidence     Services,
                                                  that such
factors were considered in selecting individuals
                                                  for certain
EEC positions.   Tne same situation may have also existed in
the other agencies, though conclusive evidence was
                                                     not pc-
vided to us during our review.

      We obtained information from CSC and other agencies
of a date be.tween June 1, 1975, and Novemher 30,           as
showed tha' minorities and women generally were    1975,  which
                                                  overrepre-
sented on the agencies' EEO staff (irncluding counselors,
                                                            EEO
officers, EEO directors, a    investigators) as compared tc
their representation in the agencies' work force.
minorities and women were generally underrepresentedHowever,
                                                       as com-
plaints examiners and CSC investigators in comparison
                                                         to
their representation in the total Federal work force.
                                                          In one
agency, for eample, the overall work force consisted
                                                         of 11.5


                              13
percent minority and 15.9 percent female employees, whereas
the EEO staff was about 69 percent minority and 78 percent
female.  In another agency the total work force was 22.3
percent minority and 26.7 percent female, whereas the full-
time EEO staff was about 70 percent minority and 50 percent
female.  In a hird agency, where the total work force was
about 29 percent minority and 68 percent female, more specific
data shcwed:

                               Percent           Percy'1t
                               minority          female

       Counselors                66.0             78.7
       Investigators             51.6             54.0
       Total EEO staff           53.3             71.3

     In other areas of complaint processing, however, women
and minorities were generally underrepresented.  For example,
CSC investigators, complaints examiners, and appeal staff mem-
bers were predominantly white males.

     Minorities and females represented about 20 and 38 per-
cent of the Federal work force, respectively.  About 90 per-
ceit of the CSC investigators were white males. The minority
and female representation for complaints examiners and appeals
staff members is shown below.

                                 Percent           Percent
                                 minority          female

       Complaints examiner           11             11
       Appeals staff members         22             25


Nonsubstantiated certification of
EEO officials' qualifications

     ihe EEO act of 1972 requires that agencies in their af-
firmative action plans provide

          " * * * a description of the qualifications in terms
          of training and experience relating to equal employ-
          ment opportunity or the principal and operating of-
          ficials of each such department, agency, or unit
          responsible for carrying out the equal employment
          opportunity program * * *.#

CSC has implemented this provision by requiring agencies to
certify that the qualifications of certain specified EEO

                                14
program officials have been reviewed and meet the pertinent
EEO qualiLications standards. The certification also requires
evidence that the review has been made and that its findings
are being maintained and available for examination by CSC
officials. In our opinion, EEO positions, like other posi-
tions, should be based on merit and filled with qualified
persons.
     Only one of the ine agencies--the Department of
Commerce--provided evidence that a review of the qualifica-
tions of the EEO program officials had been made, although
signed certifications were included in ach agency's fiscal
year 1974 affirmative action plan. The primary reason cited
for lack of review was the assumption that the individuals
were qualified when selected for positions.  In our opinion,
CSC's requirement that the review be made and evidence of the
review and its findings be maintained is reasonable and should
be complied with by the agencies.

Lack of personnel expertise

     CSC qualification standards for EEO staff positions do
not emphasize the need for or desirability of prior personnel
management expertise, though numerous EEO complaints involve
issues related to personnel practices. CSC, however, recog-
nized the importance of knowledge of personnel activities
when, with respect to collateral duty assignments, it required
that employees assigned EEO duties be capable of acquiring
knowledge and understanding of agency personnel procedures
and regulations to properly perform their EEO duties.

      The effects of EEO personnel having inadequate personnel
expertise can e serious. For example, an EEO officer in one
agerncy, in attempting to resolve a complaint, promised a
prorotion to a complainant within a specified time without
the proper authority to do so. Such promises increase ex-
pectations of complainants, causing credibility problems
for he ageicy when it cannot guarantee results.
     When the agency concludes that discrimination is pre-
sent, one method of resolution is to give the complainant
priority consideration for promotion. CSC's position is that
priority consideration involves considering the individual
for promotion to a position for which he is qualified before
considering other candidates. The meaning of priority con-
sideration has not been interpreted consistently by cogni-
zant agency EEO officials.   ne agency official's interpre-
tation was consistent with CSC's view, while two other agency


                              15
officials believed it meant placing the individual in
competition with others when job openings occur.
Need for additional training
for EEO personnel
     Personnel involved in discrimination complaint systems
should have enough knowledge of the system and the Federal
personnel system to properly perform their assigned duties
and responsibilities and function effectively. CSC has
recognized the need for training and orientation in personnel
administration for EEO staffers. In a February 26, 1971,
letter to agency heads, CSC recommended that each agency de-
velop indepth orientation programs of personnel administra-
tion for newly designated EEO officers and other individuals
with responsibility for EEO program administration.
     Since most complaints are personnel related, it appears
essential that those persons who are responsible for resolving
problems involving personnel matters be knowledgeable in and
have ready access to personnel information.   However, quite
often EEO personnel were riot knowledgeable in personnel mat-
ters when selected for EEO positions and did not obtain the
necessary experience or training to perform efficiently after
occupying such positions. This was particularly true of
those individuals involved in EEO on a collateral duty basis.
     We obtained information on training of EEO personnel at
five agencies--the Department of Transportation, Agriculture, Com-
merce, General Services, and VA. None of these had developed an
indepth orientation program of personnel administration for
newly designated EEO officers or other staff persons having
responsibility for EEO program administration, though CSC had
recommended such action. Agencies, with few exceptions, re-
lied on CSC to provide basic training for EEO staffs, without
providing any coordinated system for determining what advanced
training was needed and seeing that it was provided. Eight
agencies had in-house training for counselors and//or investi-
gators. However, 35 of 118 counselors interviewed believed
they had received insufficient training. Officials in six
agencies or agency records indicate that there was a need for
additional traininc  f EEO personnel, especially collateral
duty personnel.




                               16
Need for improved supervision. control,
and eva uation for eemees2tee _ro_in
EEO f-unctions on a collateral dutbasls

     Collateral duty personnel are assigned to most EEO posi-
tions, especially EEO counselor and investigator positions.
CSC guidance stipulates that a part-time counselor's position
description include a statement of his or her counseling
responsibility.   This same guidance states that   "   * * gener-
ally an employee's performance should not be evaluated with
regard to part-time counseling duties * * *."
     Agencies have followed CSC guidance and not completed
formal performance evaluations for individuals performing EEO
functions on a part-time basis. This has contributed to a
lack of effective control over individuals performing such
functions. Agency officials advised us of deficiencies in
the performances of part-time EEO personnel, such as late
and poorly prepared counselor reports. They had no formal
basis to encourage better performance of these functions
aside from relieving individuals of their collateral duties.

     Most agencies have not complied with CSC guidance sug-
gesting that a statement of their counseling responsibilities
be placed in the regular position description of counselors.
Need for a classification
standard for EEO_positions
     In June 1972 CSC provided a qualification standard for
EEO positions, that is, an outline of experience and/or educa-
tion necessary for an individual to qualify for positions. In
November 1976 CSC advised us that new written grade evaluation
and qualification standards will be issued. The classification
standard will match duties with pay level and pay series. This
should provide agencies an improved standard to determine what
grade levels should be assigned to various EEO positions.

     We were advised by a cognizant CSC personnel specialist
that EEO programs were staffed without proper studies of
exactly what duties were required and what grade levels were
appropriate and that the current studies may result in person-
nel changes of existing EEO positions.
CONCLUSIONS

     CSC has establised and agencies have implemented an
extensive system for processing individual discrimination


                             17
complaints.  Though a complete framework which provides em-
ployees every opportunity to file complaints and appeal deci-
sions of agency heads is in operation, many aspects of the
planning, implementation, operation, and evaluation of the
system need improvement.

     Agencies varied in the placement of the discrimination
complaint system in the agency and in the structure or orga-
nization of certain functions.   The placement and structure
of the complaint system can affect both the quality and
timely processing of complaints.   Therefore, numerous relevant
factors must be considered before deciding on the placement
and structure of the discrimination complaint system.   We
believe, however, that agencies did not conduct the neces-
sary planning before making these decisions,   For example,
it does not appear that agencies have given adequate con-
sideration in the planning phase to such factors as system
credibili  , coordination with those knowledgeable in
personnel.   d staffing matters, including determinations on
a full-time or a part-time staff.   In addition, in some in-
stances the discrimination complaint system was nuL operated
independently of the office of personnel, thus possibly
affecting credibility of the system.

     We had great difficulty in assessing the depth of plan-
ling undertaken by agencies before system implementation, oe-
-ause (1) documentation to show planning generally was not
available and (2) the personnel involved in the program at
the time of our review had in most cases not been involved
with the program originally or with the planning of the system.
Therefore, the agencies were not able to provide meaningful
information about system planning.

     CSC has not specified nor have agencies performed suf-
ficient analysis to know the appropriate level of commitment
for operating a discrimination complaint system.  Detailed
and specific criteria regarding resources for the system
and what constitutes a successful system have not been
developed.

     Agencies had unreliable data on the costs of operating
discrimination complaint systems, and Government-wide cost
data was inadequate; this was because (1) sufficient guidance
for developing data on a consistent basis was not provided to
agencies by CSC, and (2) agencies had not developed adequate
EEO cost accumulation systems.




                             18
     We noted the following problems concerning personnel
resources involved in systems we reviewed:

     -- Agencies had not made coordinated systematic analyses
        to determine staffing needs.

     -- CSC did not provide adequate guidance to agencies for
        establishing when counselors and investigators should
        be full-time or part-time staff members.

     -- Agencies had no formal requirements for assuring that
        occupants of EEO positions are representative of the
        work force with regard to race, sex, or other factors.
        Agencies were generally well represented in EEO posi-
        tions, however, with regard to race and sex, although
        CSC investigators, complaints examiners, and appeal
        staff members were predominantly white males.

     -- Agencies generally had no supporting documentation
        showing that the qualificiations of certain specified
        EEO program officials were reviewed by the agency and
        that t!e officials met the pertinent EEO qualification
        standards.

     -- EEO officials, especially collateral duty employees,
        were not always adequately experienced in peisonnel
        matters or sufficiently trained to properly perform
        their EEO duties.

     -- Agencies were not adequately supervising, controlling,
        and evaluating employees performing EEO functions on
        a collateral duty basis.

    -- CSC had not issued current qualification standards for
       EEO positions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that   the Chairman of CSC:

     --Emphasize that agencies should better plan and imple-
       ment their discrimination complaint systems so that
       system? objectives are met. Agency planning and imple-
       mentation should include a more systematic approach
       to placing and structuring systems; obtaining top man-
       agemet commitment; determining financial resources
       to be applied; and analyzing manpower needs, such as
       deciding on full-time n, part-time staffing, deciding


                              19
      on staffing representation, documenting that the qual-
      fications of individuals occupying certain EEO posi-
      tions have been reviewed, determining training needs
      of EEO staff, and monitoring and evaluating employees
      performing EEO functions on a collateral duty basis.

    --Complete a rev.ew of qualification standards for   EEO
      positions.

    -- Issue additional and more specific guidance to agencies
       for accumulating and reporting complaint system costs.

     We also recommend that the heads of the departments and
agencies reviewed take the action necessary to better plan
and implement their discrimination complaint systems so that
system objectives are met.

CSC COMMENTS AND ACTIONS

     In a November 22, 1976, letter (see app. III), the CSC
Executive Director outlined the following actions taken or
being taken concerning discrimination complaint system plan-
ning and implementation:

     --CSC concurs with the need for reei )hasis of planning
       and implementation of agency systems and for effective
       evaluation by EEO program officials of employees who
       are performing EEO functions on a collateral duty basis.
       Federal Personnel Manual Letter 713-35, dated Apr_l 30,
       1976, updated the regulations and policy issuances
       governing the development of effectively managed com-
       plaint systems. CSC has required documentation from
       agencies of the qualifications of major program offi-
       cials in the EEO plan evaluation program and estab-
       lished work groups consisting of staff from major
       agencies for the purpose of screening and evaluating
       materials currently used to train EEO counselors and
        investigators.  CSC's goal is to develop training mo-
       dules for use Government-wide, with a view to standard-
        izing high quality training for EEO counselors and in-
       vestigators and requiring CSC certification.

     -- Federal Personnel Manual Letter 713-35 requires certi-
        fication that the qualifications of all EEO staff
        officials, full-time or part-time, including the
        Director of EEO, have been reviewed by competent
        authority and that those in these positions meet the
        standards in "Qualifications Handbook X-118 under EEO


                             20
      Specialist GS-160" or "Qualifications Guide for Col-
      lateral Assignments Involving Equal Employment Oppor-
      tunity Duties."  New written grade evaluation and
      qualification standards are to be issued by CSC, which
      believes they will adequately deal with the issues
      identified.

    -- CSC believes that the revised cost reporting feature
       of the EEO plan outlined in FPM v'tter 713-35 may
       elicit more reliable cost data    m agencies but that
       additional work needs to be done  n relating costs
       reported in the EEO plan to those reported to CSC in
       annual reports or civil rights expenditures gathered
       and consolidated for the Office of Management and
       Budget.

     In cur opinion, the above CSC actions, if adequately im-
plemented and continued, will improve complaint system planning
and implementation.  We believe, however, that the guidance to
agencies for accumulating and reporting complaint system costs
needs to be made more specific on how cost data should be
developed.  This guidance should explain, for example, how
actual counseling costs should be determined so that reporting
will be consistent.




                             21
                          CHAPTER 3

                  FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY

      Discrimination complaint systems should be both fair and
impartial and be so perceived by employees.   Fairness and im-
partiality are relative standards, that is, one individual's
perception of them may not coincide with another's because in-
dividual backgrounds, experiences, and expectations vary.
Our review assessed the fairness and impartiality of systems
primarily from a procedural standpoint without evaluating
decisions made on individual complaint cases.   Fairness and
impartiality require that complaints be processed ad judged
in a consistent manner and that a11  parties to a complaint be
afforded equal protection of their individual rights.   A sys-
tem so designed should include, but not be limited to, the
follo-w ing:

     -- Controls adequate to achieve   consistency   in accepting-
        rejecting complaints.

     -- Piotection of individual rights, including properly
        apprising individuals of their rights and affording
        them cy    opportunity to exercise their rights.

     -- Providing investigators, examiners, and other equal
        employment opportunity officials adequate independence
        in deciding cases on their merit.

     -- Controls to preclude reprisals   or   intimidation of
        employees filing complaints.

      The Civil Service Cmmission is responsible for adminis-
tering a discrimination complaint system that provides for
the prompt, fair, and impartial consideration of complaints
filed by Federal employees or applicants for Federal employ-
ment.   Further, CSC is responsible for issuing regulations,
orders, and instructions to Federal agencies implementing
such systems.

     CSC, in carrying out these responsibilities, designed a
system (see app. I) that provides for specific processing
stages and for employee appeal rights.  The system also em--
phasizes the desirability of complaint resolution on an infor-
mal basis.  The system concept, to enhance fairness anA in-
partiality, includes provisions that:




                              22
     -- Complainants be apprised of their rights at various
        stages of complaint processing.

     -- Individuals investigating complaints be assigned from
        organizational elements separate from where complaints
        emanate.

     -- Individuals conducting hearings be assigned from an
        agency other than the one in which the complaint
       Ior ginated.

     -- Established procedures be followed in handling repri-
        sal complaints following the filing of discrimination
        complaints.

     -- Complainants be provided the right to appeal an agency
        decision to CSC.

     -- Complainants be provided the right to file a civil suit
        subsequent to agency or CSC decision.

COMPLAINANTS GENERALLY APPRISED
OF AND AFFORDED RIGHTS

      CSC regulations provide that complainants be apprised of
and afforded their rights during both the informal and formal
 complaint stage.  We believe that generally complainants were
informed during the formal stage.   Many complainants inter-
viewed, however, primarily those complaining informally,
stated they were not made aware of all rights.

Rights of complainants during informal counseling

     CSC regulations require that during the informal coun-
seling stage complainants be

    -- advised of their right to confidentiality, that is,
       their right not to be named when counselors gather
       information relative to complaint issues;

    -- advised of their right to have a representative with
       them; and

    -- notified in writing of their right to file a formal
       complaint if not satisfied with the informal resolu-
       tion or if counseling has not been completed in 21
       days.



                             23
     About 185 persons in the nine agencies who complained
informally were interviewed. They did not believe they were
advised of their

     -- right to confidentiality (72 cases),

     -- right to have a representative with them (47 cases),
        and

     -- right to file a formal complaint (23 cases).

Counselors said, however, that it was the general practice to
advise informal complainants of their rights. We are unable
to substantiate the statements made by the complainants or
counselors because of the lack of documentary evidence.

     A problem noted with the right to confidentiality issue
was that if complainants exercised their right to confidenti-
ality, counselors could not fully pursue the facts, thereby
negatively affecting te complainants' cases.   However, if
the complainants' confidentiality was unprotected, managers
and supervisors would learn of the complaint, thereby in-
creasing the chances of reprisal. Though we believe that the
counselor should discuss with the complainant anything which
limits his or her pursing the facts in the case because of
confidentiality, the complainant's wish should b honored.

Rights of formal complainants

     CSC regulations require that a formal complainant be ad-
vised of the right to request a hearing, appeal an agency
decision to CSC, and file a civil action within 180 days if
the complaint is not resolved or within 30 calendar days
of receipt of a notice of final decision by the agency or by
CSC in cases appealed to CSC.

     CSC guidance emphasizes the importance of advising com-
plainants of their rghts in several stages of the formal con-
plaint process, with notification letters made part of the
complaint file.  In addition, the reverse side of the CSC
complaint filing form, which agencies have an option of using,
provides a basic statement of complainant rights.

     We determined through interviews with complainants and
review of complaint files that generally formal complainants
were advised of chese rights, though all required documenta-
tion was not present in some complaint files.  We were un-
able, however, to determine whether this constituted an


                                24
administrative problem or represented instances in which
employees were not apprised of their right.

     CSC regulations also provide that the complainant or
agency has the right to request reopening by CSC's Commis-
sioners of an Appeal Review Board decision upon presentation
of evidence which tends to establish that

        -- new and material evidence is available that was not
           readily available when the previous decison was issued;

        -- the pi vious decision involves an erroneous inter-
           pretation of law or regulation or misapplication of
           established policy; or

        ---the previous decision is of a precedential nature
           involving a new or unreviewed policy consideration
           that may have effects beyond the case at hand or is
           otherwise of such an exceptional nature as to merit
           the personal attention of the Commissioners.

     CSC places -ore emphasis on the right to appeal to the
Appeals Review Board than on the right to request reopening
by CSC's Commissioners. This is evidenced by CSC's guidance,
which provides that complainants be advised of their right to
appeal to the Appeals Review Board but does not emphasize
their right to request reopening by CSC's Commissioners.

AGENCIES NOT CONSISTENT IN
REJECTING/CANCELING COMPLAINTS

        CSC regulations provide that complaints be rejected if
they:

        -- Are not filed within   pecified time limits.

        -- Involve matters identical to matters set forth in a
           previous complaint by the complainant which was either
           pending or ajudicated.

        -- Are not within the purview of the regulations.   For
           example, unacceptable allegations fail to be (1)
           based on discrimination on the basis or race, color,
           religion, sex, national origin, or age or (2) made in
           connection with an mployment matter over which the
           agency has jurisdiction.




                                  25
        CSC   regulations also provide   that:

              "Even though the allegations contained in a com-
        plaint meet the regulatory requirements outlined above,
        agency officials should not accept for investigation any
        allegations which are so vague or general that no spec-
        fic issues can be defined which pertain to the alleged
        discrimination suffered by the complainant and which
        thus could be investigated.   If vague or general al-
        legations cannot be made more specific by reference to
        the EEO counselor's report, the official should give
        the complainant an opportunity to furnish more specific
        information on such allegations in an attempt to define
        the issue or issues which the employee or applicant is
        raising.   If the complainant is unable or refuses to
        furnish such information within a reasonable period of
        time, the official should cancel the vague or general
        allegaions of the complaint for failure of the com-
        plainant '   prosecute them and advise the complainant
        in writing of his or her rights of appeal."

     Though CSC guidelines attempt to show a difference be-
tween rejecting and canceling a complaint, the wording of the
regulations can create confusion as to whether vague or gen-
eral allegations with unspecific issues can be rejected.   The
confusion results because the above quoted regulation uses
the term "should not accept" in discussing cancellation.
This term, however, implies rejection.

     Though the regulations provide for rejection of com--
plaints, agencies generally did not reject complaints.  Of-
ficials in most agencies informed us that the general feeling
was that if the employee maintained that he or she was
discriminated against, the complaint would be accepted and
investigated.

     The regulations of the Department of the Interior, how-
ever, were at variance with CSC regulations in that they re-
quired the complainant to show an adverse impact before the
agency would accept the complaint.  Further, in this agency,
complaints were reviewed at the constituent agency level and,
if rejected at this level, could be appealed to the depart-
mental level.  CSC regulations specify, however, that com-
plainants should be provided the right to appeal a rejection
directly to CSC.

        The lack of specificity in formal complaints has an ad-
verse    impact on case processing.  In early 1975 CSC began


                                 26
stricter enforcement of EEO regulations, with increased
emphasis on specificity of issues. With increased emphasis
on specificity apparently being expressed by CSC as demon-
strated by its remanding of cases, it appears agencies are
becoming more concerned aoout specificity.  It was noted
during our review that Ale Department of Transportation had
recently started placing emphasis on getting complaint issues
clearly defined be>oe commencing an investigation.
     In our oplnior, such practice should improve both the
effectiveness and efficiency of complaint processing by
Federal agencies.
NEED TO PRECLUDE MISUSE OF THE COMPLAINT SYSTEM

     EEO officials in every agency we reviewed believed that
complaints which were not EEO related entered and were pro-
cessed through the discrimination complaint system. There
was no agreement, however, as to the extent of such occur-
rences. but the general view was that this constituted a
fairly important problem. Officials in at least seven agen-
cies stated that some of tile complaints were actually grie-
vances, but complainants preferred using the complaint sys-
tem instead of the system established for handling grievances,
because the complaint system was perceived to offer more
visibility for their problems and a better chance for a favor-
able outcome,
     This problem and its impact on the complaint system are
compounded further by the fact that agencies interpret CSC
regulations to mean, in effect, that if an employee files a
complaint alleging discrimination, the complaint must be in-
vestigated. As a result, it may take an expensive and time-
consuming investigation to rove that the individual was or
was not discriminated against. We received comments that a
few unions had encouraged employees to use the EO complaint
system whenever they had a problem.
     Processing complaints that should not be in the complaint
system increases agencies' workload and places further strains
on staffs and financial resources. Also, it hs a negative
effect on the credibility of the system from the perspective
of management and supervisory personnel, whose commitment to
the system is necessary for program success.  In addition,
handling such complaints can delay processing legitimate com-
plaints.




                             27
 NEED TO EMPHASIZE FREEDOM FROM REPRISAL

       The atmosphere following a discrimination complaint
                                                             is
 such that actions taken by management subsequently
                                                      involving
 or affectinq the complainant can be construed
                                                 by complainants
 as an act of   eprisal].. The comments of some officials or
 employees in   rviewed, particularly complainants, support
                                                              this
   iw.   EEO officials in agencies reviewed varied
                                                    in their
 opinions as to whether reprisals were being suppressed,
                                                           were
 increasing, or constituted a problem.

      Fear of reprisal or actual reprisals wer_ of
                                                     concern to
complainants and individuals who had no:: filed
Of 138 employees who had not filed complaints, complaints.
                                                 28 cited fear
of reprisal as of concern to them and a factor
                                                 that would
bear on a decison to file a complaint.   Also, of about 100
complainants interviewed about one-half alleged
                                                  that they
had ten subjected to reprisals; however, most
                                                 of those in-
dividuals citing reprisals had not officially
                                                notified the
agency or the reprisal actions.   Typi  of reprisals cited by
complainants included reduced promotional opportunities,
                                                            more
difficult working environment and pressures,
                                              supervisory
harassment, being subjected to closer scrutiny,
                                                  and the
leaking of personal and/or confidential information.

     Though the facts regarding reprisals are far
                                                   from con-
clusive, there is a need for CSC to reemphasize
                                                 to agencies
their obligation to see that complainants are
                                              not subjected
to reprisal.  Further, though there was no consensus for
separating a complainant from his or her supervisor
                                                     when the
supervisor was the alleged discriminatory official,
                                                     officials
in some agencies believed it could be beneficial
                                                  depending on
the situation and individuals involved.

NEED FOR REEXAMINATION OF THE RIGHTS
OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY OFFICIALS

     CSC's position is that te employee named as
                                                    an alleged
discriminatory official is not a party to the
                                                discrimination
complaint proceeding and that the complaint
                                              is against the
agency and not against a particular individual.
                                                   As a result,
alleied discriminatory officials (1) are not
                                               permitted to at-
tend official discrimination complaint hearings
                                                  except as
witnesses, because CSC has taken the position
                                                that the agency
and not th? alleged discriminatory official is
                                                 a party to the
proceeding, (2) have been asked to make statements
                                                     for inclu-
sion in investigative   iles without being formally advised,
in some cases, that th,   have been accused of discrimination


                              28
or of the issues involved in the case, (3) may not review
the investigative file, and (4) are not always advised of
the status or results of their cases.  Such actions, in our
opinion, do not enhance the credibility of the complaint
system.

     Alleged discriminatory and EEO officials in most agen-
cies expressed corcern that the complaint system, as cur-
rently operated,  eprives alleged discriminatory officials
of proper rights because they are not allowed to participate
in the complaint proceeding though disciplinary action can
be taken against them as the result of a discrimination com-
plaint.

     Alleged discriminatory and EEO officials advised us that
the rights of alleged discriminatory officials were not speci-
fically protected because

     -- they were not notified when proposed disposition or
        final decision was reached by an agency or CSC,

     -- they may not know they have been accused c' discrimina-
        tion or what they have been accused of,

     -- tney are not provided the opportunity to refute state-
        ments made by complainants,

     -- they are not suffic.ently informed of the status of
        complaints,

     -- the charges of discrimination were vague,   and

     --the charges of discrimination were directed at those
       following agency policies and procedures and not at
       those responsible for creation of the policies and
       procedures.

In some instances, contradictory to CSC guidance, we noted
that alleged discriminatory officials were allowed to have
access to investigative reports and complaint files.

POTENTIAL CODNFLICTS MAY EXIST
WHEN EEO OFFICiALS ARE NAMED AS
ALLEGED DISC RIMINATORY OFFICIALS

     EEO officials ate sometimes named by complainants as
alleged discriminatory officials.  The administrative pro-
cessing of complaints by these officials can create the~


                              29
appearance, if not the fact, of a conflict of interest.   CSC
has not provided guidance nor have agencies developed pro-
cedures for the appropriate handling of these cases.  At
least Agriculture and Transportation though, had taken action
to alleviate the conflict situation by not allowing EEO
officials to beccme involved in cases in which they were
alleged discriminatory officials.  In one agency, however, the
director of a regional office, who was also the EEO officer,
was cited along with the personnel officer as an alleged dis-
criminatory official.  These officials were involved in
developing the proposed disposition of the case, thereby
creating a conflict-of-interest situation.

COMPLAINT SYSTEM NOT ALWAYS PERCEIVED TO BE
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

     Though regulations provide for complaint systems to oper-
ate in a fair and impartial manner, complainants and EEO staff
members expressed concern about system fairness and imparti-
ality.
     Of 114 complainants interviewed, 62 believed their  om-
plaints were handled with fairness and impartiality, but 46
did not.  Complainant beliefs varied significantly between
agencies and between headquarters and field locations.  Rea-
sons cited by complainants included these:

     --Counselors were not objective in resolving complaints.

     -- Counselors were not devoting enough time to resolving
        complaints.

     -- The complaint process was partial toward management.

     --Complaint processing took too long.

     -- Agencies were not providing corrective actions as pro-
        mised.

     -- Investigators were not objective or adequately trained
        to conduct thorough investigations.

     Most counselors and other EEO staff members interviewed
believed that the complaint system operated in a fair and
impartial manner.  Of 88 EEO staff members interviewed, 16 did
not believe the system was fair and impartial.  Reasons cited
included these:



                             30
     --The system could be misused by employees.

     -- The system favored management.

     -- Supervisors, at times, would not cooperate on complaint
        cases.

EMPLOYEES NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE
ABOUT COMPLAINT SYSTEM

     Most employees interviewed had been made aware of the
complaint system through various means, including posters and
publications.  In fact, 413 of 467 employees had some know-
ledge of the system.  However, a large majority of these em-
ployees did not know details of the system. Also, there were
indications that agencies were not informing applicants about
the system.

CONCLUSIONS

     Though agencies' discrimination complaint systems were
generally designed to be fair and impartial, the following
problem areas were noted:

     -- Complainants were not always made aware of   and af-
        forded all of their rights.

     --CSC guidance does not adequately protect the right of
       complainants to request reopening of their case:; by CSC
       Commissioners when new evidence becomes available.

     -- CSC guidance on rejecting and canceling complaints was
        not fully clear on whether vague or general allegations
        could be rejected.

     --Agencies were not consistent in rejecting and canceling
       complaints.

     --Fear. of reprisals or actual reprisals were of concern to
        complainants and individuals who had not filed com-
        plaints.

     -- Rights of alleged discriminatory officials require
        reexamination.

     -- Complaints which were not EEO related were processed
        through the discrimination complaint system.



                              31
     --jLO officials named as alleged discriminatory
       officials can become involved in potential conflict-
       of-interest situations.

    -- Complainants and EEO staff members had cor :erns about
       the fairness and impartiality of certain aspects of
       the complaint system.

     -- Not all applicants for employment and employees
        were knowledgeable about the complaint system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Chairman of CSC:

     -- Emphasize to agencies the importance of generally
        apprising all complainants of and affording them
        their rights.  Consideration should be given to
        apprising complainants of their rights in a standard-
        ized format, such as on a printed card.

     -- Issue more definitive guidance on apprising com-
        plainants of their rights to request reopening of
        their cases by CSC's  ommissioners when new evidence
        becomes available.

     -- Provide more definitive guidance on rejecting and
        canceling complaints, including the variance between
        the two actions and employee rights as a result of
        each action.

     -- Emphasize to agencies the necessity of rejecting
        and canceling complaints in a consistent manner.

     -- Reemphasize to agencies their obligation to see
        that complainants are not being subjected to re-
        prisal actions.

     -- Reexamine the rights of alleged discriminatory
        officials with a view towards impr-viiig protection
        of their rights, especially with Lespect to providing
        full consideration o their due process rights.

     ---Issue more definitive guidance to agencies on
       actions that should be taken to avoid potential
       conflict-of-interest situations when EEO officers
       are named as alleged discriminatory officials.



                             32
     -- Require that agencies take measures to properly
        inform all employees and applicants for employment
        of the complaint system.
       We also recommend that the heads of the departments
and agencies reviewed make certain that
     -- all complainants are apprised of and afforded their
        rights,
     -- complaints are rejected and canceled in a consistent
        manner, and

     -- complainants are not being subjected to reprisal
        actions.
AGENCY COMMENTS

     In response, CSC said the following (see app. III):

     -- While it has no evidence that there is a major
        problem of complainants not being apprised of and
        afforded their rights, it will look into the need
        for additional guidance in this area.
     -- Revised guidance, to be issued, and handbooks
        accompanying the new regulations will exrlain more
        definitively the right of complainants t request
        reconsideration by CSC.
     -- It has proposed revisions to its regulations to deal
        with the need for more definitive guidance on re-
        jecting and canceling complaints, and it expects
        that these revisions, if adopted, will make gency
        decisions consistent in this regard.
     CSC agrees that employees need to better understand
the differences in processing requirements for grievances
and complaints and stated that it can intensify training
efforts so that counselors can provide better advice to
aggrieved persons.
     CSC stated that reprisal is a problem of much concern,
as indicated by the rising number of complaints and charges
on this basis, and that it expects: to continue to stress to
agencies' EEO program officials their responsibilities to
see that complainants are not subjected to reprisal. CSC
advised us that the complex subject of the rights of alleged


                             33
discriminatory officials is under review, and they expect to
issue detailed guidance which will substantially expand the
rights of these officials.

     CSC further advised us that guidance to agencies on
conflict-of-interest questions is now provided on a case-by-
case basis, but the subject will be included in a handbook
for EEO officers now in draft form.

     In our opinion, the above CSC actions, if adequately
implemented and continued, will improve the fairness and
impartiality of the discrimination complaint system.  In
addition to these actions, we believe CSC should intensify
training efforts not only for EEO counselors but also for
other appropriate EEO officials on the differences between
qrievances and EEO complaints.  In our continuing reviews
of the EEO program for ederal employees and job applicants,
we plan to evaluate the effectiveness of CSC s actions.




                            34
                           CHAPTER 4

                  RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS

     The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Executive
Order 11478, and the Civil Service Commission regulaticns
provide various means and opportunities for resolving
complaints by employees who believe they have been discrim-
inated against.  These opportunities include, but ae rot
limi'ed to:

     -- Counseling to attempt to   resolve matters on   an   in-
        formal basis.

     -- The right to file a formal complaint which, if
        accepted, must be investigated by the agency.

     --The right to appeal to CSC   if not satisfied    with the
       agency decision or review.

     -- Access to the civil court system if not satisfied
        with final action made on the complaint by the
        agency or CSC's Appeals Review Board.

     The EEO act and CSC regulations encourage resolution of
complaints on an informal basis.   This appears logical and
well founded since it is less costly to resolve complaints
informally than on a formal basis.   Another benefit is that
the length of time a complainant's case takes to resolve is
much less if complaints are resolved at the informal stage.
Although available information was inconclusive, it indi-
cated that agencies generally appeared to emphasize informal
resolution of complaints.

     When discrimination is found to be present,     agencies are
authorized to take certai  actions, including:

     -- Making appropriate remedies, including reinstatement
        or hiring of employees or applicants for employment
        with or without backpay.

    -- Correcting personnel management deficiencies     which
       allowed discrimination to occur.

    --Taking disciplinary action,    if warranted,   against
      discriminatory officials.




                             35
We found that agencies generally were making seemingly
appropriate remedies but were not correcting personnel
management deficiencies or taking disciplinary action against
discriminatory officials when findings of discrimination were
made.

     We  id not attempt to assess the quality of   the
decisions made in resolving complaints.

NEED FOR IMPROVED DATA OR ALTERNATE
PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING INFORMAL RESOLUTION

     The importance and success of the informal resolution
stage was not determinable because informal complaint
statistics were not accurate in the nine agencies reviewed.
We believe the statistics were overstated in most instances,
although in some cases reported data was understated.

     CSC and the agencies we reviewed generally interpreted
the percentage of cases that were resolved in the informal
stage to indicate the importance and success of informal
resolution through counseling.   Government-wide statistics
showed that approximately 90 percent of informal complaints
were resolved in this stage.   The statistics in support of
this percentage, however, were not reliable.

     Although CSC requires agencies to submit monthly
reports of precomplaint activity (number o  informal cases),
no agency reviewed consistently compiled accurate pre-
complaint statistics.  Agency reports were overstated for a
variety of reasons, including these:

     -- Information inquiries or non-EEO complaints, in
        addition to true precomplaint counselings, were
        included in statistics.

     -- Individual counselings reported   in one month were
        also reported in other months.

     -- Numbe: of allegations rather than number   of counsel-
        ings were shown on monthly reports.

     -- Clerical errors were made   in preparing the reports.

     The inaccurate and misleading statistics resulted, in
our opinion, because of unclear CSC guidance for the agencies
and lack of proper care by the agencies in c  .Oucing the
monthly reports.  The monthly reports form was subject to


                              36
different interpretation because of its lack of clarity.
Specifically, the guidance and report form were not clear
on what constituted a precomplaint occurrence.

     We attempted to assess the importance and success of
the informal resolution stage by reviewing individual
complaint cases at field locations in each agency reviewed.
Our review, though affected by incomplete or unavailable
data on the part of the agencies and its counselors,
indicated that agencies generally emphasized informal reso-
lution of complaints.  CSC requires counselors to submit
a report for individual cases only if a formal complaint
is filed and does not require counselors to retain official
documentation on cases resolved informally.  CSC does re-
quire counselors to keep notes to brief EEO officers
periodically on counseling activities. Counselors' notes
were nonexistent or very brief.  The most reliable infor-
mation, th;ref-re, concerned cases which became formal.

BASIS FOR AND CAUSES OF                           NFORMAL COMPLAINTS

      Government-wide statistics, though not entirely reli-
able for reasons cited above, showed that informal complaints
were made on the following bases in fiscal years 1972 to
1975.


                                                                                                      Percent
                                                   Fit al year                                     increase from
                                  192        31974
                                   _________________                             1
                                                                                TTfiscal                 year   1972
      Basis    Number   Percent    Number Percent                     Number   Percent
                                                                                Numberto           fiscal year 1975

Race/color     11,733    69.7       16,988       63.8     18,029      57.3      19,398     52.4           65

Religion          420     2.5             599     2.2        713       2.3         833       2.3          98

Sex (female)    2,833    16.8        4,819       18.1      6,925      22.0       8,404      22.7         197

Sex (male)        786     4.7        1,414        5.3      3,482      11.1       3,897      10.5         396

National
  origin        1,061     6.3        2,807       10.6      2,16G       6.9       2,41.       6.5         128

Age               (b)     (b)         j            b)          130     0.4       2,073       5.6         (b)

      Total    16,833   100.0       26,627      100.0     3 ,445     100.0      37,021     100.0         119



a/The fiscal year 1975 data on the basis of informal complairnts was the most recent available           s of
  January 12, 1977.

b/Not applicable for these years.




                                                          37
     CSC did not compile Government-wide information on the
causes of informal complaints.  However, we obtained infor-
mation on the causes of informal complaints in two agencies.

                     Air Force
Matters              (Mar. 1973            Postal Service
resulting in     through Dec. 1974)       (fiscal  year 1975)
informal      Number of     Percentage  Number  of     Percentage
counseling   informal cases of  total  informal  cases  of total

Initial
  appointment     186          4.2        1,074            8.6
Promotion       1,266         27.9        1,812           14.5
Reaqsignment      465         10.2        1,056            8.4
Separation        184          4.1          981            7.8
Suspension         25           .1          785            6.3
Reprimand          66          1.4        1,644           13.2
Duty hours        181          4.1          763            6.1
Job training      253          5.6          468            3.7
Detail            173          3.8          673            5.4
Other           1,755         38.6        3,251           26.0

    Total       4,554        100.0       12,507          100.0

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IN INFORMAL STAGE

      CSC records indicate that many cases result in corrective
action after counseling at the informa' stage.   There were
6,817 corrective  actions (40 percent Cf the complaint
cases) in fiscal year 1972; 12,594 corrective actions (47
percent of the complaint cases) in fiscal year 1973; and
11,080 (35 percent of the complaint cases) in fiscal year
1974.   Information on the types of corrective actions taken
was not compiled by CSC nor readily available from most
agencies we reviewed.   However, we obtained information at
two  agencies on corrective actions resulting after counseling.




                              38
                             Interior
                        (Mar. 1973 through     Postal Service
     Type of               Dec. 1974)        (fiscal yeal 1975)
    corrective         Number oT  Percent    Number of   Percent
     action            actions    of total   actions     of total

Agency improved
  personnel
  practices (note a)      61         15.8      1,355       35.3
Promotion given           59         15.3        143        3.7
Training opportunity
  given                   47         12.2        246        6.4
Reappointment/
   reinstatement          23          5.9        112        2.9
Requested reassignment
  given                   35          9.1        176        4.6
Adverse action reduced
  or rescinded            23          5.9        336        8.8
Other disciplinary
  action reduced or
  rescinded               14          3.6        318        8.3
Priority consideration
  for next promotion      79         20.5       114         3.0
Other                     45         11.7     1,040        27.0
    Total                386        100.0     3,840       100.0
a/Training policies clarified, changes in hiring procedures,
  improvement of upward mobility programs, and planning and
  publication of awards program, etc.
FORMAL RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS

     Formal complaint cases were well documented and     irfor-
mation relative to such cases was readily available and
appeared to be reasonably accurate, especially when compared
to the statistics on informal complaints.
BASIS FOR AND CAUSES OF
FORMAL COMPLAINTS

     Government-wide statistics showed that formal complaints
were made on the bases presented in the chart on the following
page in fiscal years 1972 to 1975 and during the first half of
fiscal year 1976.




                               39
                                                                                                            Percent
                                                                                                             increase
                                                                                                            from fiscal
                                                    Fiscal   /ear                                           year 1972      July-December
                       157'                 1973                1974                           1975          to fiscal
                                                                                                                    7
                                                                                                                                1975
                                               P^    enet    NmbePen                 t   Number   Percent   ze 19 5       Number Percent
   Oasis         Number     Percent    Number
                                                 60.5         2.074        58.6           1,159    52.7        152         1,841   51.3
RaPe color         1,256    68.5        1,661                                                                                150    4.2
                                          137     5.0            149        4.2             216     3.6        141
Rel iion              49     2.7                                                                               290           660   18.4
                     294    16.0          551    20.1           748        . .1           1,147    19.1
SPx    female)                                                                                                 411           22'    6.A
                      67     1.7          123     4.5           217         6.1              156    6.0
Sex mau!)
Nat itoalI                                                                                  564      9.4       236           324     9.1
  oriqin             168    9.1          271        9.9             329        9.1
                                                                     25         .7          550      9.2       (a)           3a4    10.7
Aqe                  (a) _(             _(3)    _   (a)

                                                              3541         100.0          5,992    lqO.0       227          58     100.0
     Total         1,834   100.0        2,743   100.0

a'Not asplicdble    for these years.




The July to December 1975 data on the bases for formel
complaints was the most recent data available as of January
12, 1977.

     CSC could provide Government-wide data on the causes of
complaints only for fiscal year 1974.    Causes for complaints
usually were related to  personnel  actions.   The primary
cause for complaints concerned   promotions  (28 percent of the
cases).  Other primary  causes  of complaints  and  percentages
of occurrence, in order of  cited  incidence,  were  separation
(8.4 percent), harassment  (7.0  percent),  work conditions
(6.2 percent), suspension (4.9 percent), nonselection
(4.3 percent), and training (4.1 percent).

     Specific reasons cited for complaints concerning pro-
motion were:

             -- Preselection which may virIate the CSC Merit
                Promotion Plan.

             -- Lack of communication or poor relationship between
                supervisors and subordinates regarding subordinates'
                performance.

      The basis, cause, and volume of complaints at agencies
and installations within agencies often were influenced
greatly by factors such as differences in work force
composition, agency functions, and degree of union involve-
ment.   Specific examples are:

             -- An agency had few complaints based on age because
                many of its positions had statutory age limits.

                                                                          40
      -- An agency had a large number ot complaints involving
         training because training was an unusually important
         factor for advancement in the ageincy.

     -- An agency had few complaints overall because most of
        its employees occupied high level positions.  Also,
        its work force had few females and/or minorities.

     -- Members of unions filed complaints at rates far in
        excess of other employee at an agency installation.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON FORMAL COMPLAINTS

     The only Government-wide data available for corrective
actions taken on formal cases was for fiscal year 1974. This
data indicated that 881 corrective actions (34 percent of
total formal complaints for  iscal year 1974) had occurred.

     The primary types of corrective action taken and
percentages of occurrence were:

     -- Promotion made   (15.7 percent).

     -- Reassignment made (6.5 percent).

     -- Removal of adverse materials from personnel folders
        (6.0 percent).

     -- Awards of backpay    5.6    percent).

     -- Reinstatement made    5.1 percent,.

     -- Retroactive promotion made (4.4 percent).

     --Priority consideration for next vacancy provided
       (4.1 percent).

     --Training given (4.0 percent).

     -- Manacement practices improved (3.4 percent).

AGENCY DISPOSITION OF CASES

     Data obtained from CSC showed, as presented on the
following page, the number of cases decided on merit, with-
drawn, rejected, and canceled for fiscal years 1973, 1974,
1975, and July through December 1975.



                                   41
                                      Fiscal Year                                July-December
                    1973                  1974                  1975                 1975
               Number Percent        Number Percent       Number Percent         Number Percent
Decision on
  the merits     865     44           1,410    53          1,855      47          1,059    46
Withdrawn        773     39             870    33          1,359      34            728    31
Rejected         260     13             265    10            514      16            424    18
Canceled          75      4             105     4            132       3            108     5
    Total      1,973    100          2,650    100         3,960      100         2,319    100




COMPLAINTS ACTED ON BY
APPEALS REVIEW BOARD

     The number of complainants filing appeals with CSC's
Appeals Review Board after final agency decisions has in-
creased yearly since fiscal year 1973.  The Appeals Review
Board received 677 cases in fiscal year 1973, 808 in fiscal
year 1974, and 1,121 in fiscal year 1975.

     The Appeals Review Board received and processed cases in
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975, as follows:

                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                   1973               1974                      1975

Closed                                              685                727                       749
Canceled                                             10                 51                        54
Action not completed                                158                188                       506
    Total appeals
       handled                                      853                    966              1,309

        The disposition of cases closed by the Appeals Review
Board    in fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975 was:

                                                                   Fiscal  ear
                                                   1973               1973    19                975

Affirmed agency
  decision                                          616                    595                   564
Reversed agency
  decision                                           44                     50                    74
Remanded (sent back)            to
  agency                                             25                    82                    111

    Total                                           685                727                      749



                                              42
COMPLAINTS APPEALED TO
CSC COMMISSIONERS

     CSC regulations provide that the complainant or agency
has the right to request CSC's Commissioners to reopen an
Appeals Review Board decision upon presentation of certain
evidence.  There were requests for reopening 33 cases in
fiscal year 1973, 55 in fiscal year 1974, and 12 during July
to December 1974.  CSC's Commissioners reopened for investi-
gation 7 of these 100 cases.

FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATION

     Official findings of discrimination occur when cases
proceed through the complaint system process to a final
agency decision.  Available data concerning findings of
discrimination, therefore, did not include cases resolved
by agencies after counseling at the informal stage.  It is
also important to note that after a complaints examiner
conducts a hearing, he or she issues only a recommended
decision which an agency may adopt, reject, or modify.
However, when an agency has failed to issue a final decision
on the complaint within 180 days, an examiner's recommendation
fo- a finding of discrimination will become binding 30 days af-
ter the recommendation is made.  The following data indicates the
findings of discrimination by complaints examiners and
agencies for cases decided on merit in fiscal years 1973
and 1974.



                                                Fiscal year
                          1973                                1974 (note a)
Cases decided     Number         Findings of           Number    Findings of
  on merit        of cases       discrimination        of cases discrimination

Overall             840              179                1,410        181

By agencies (no
  hearings)         333               66                  767         72

By complaints
  examiners
  (hearings)        507              113                  643        109

 a/Most recent data available as of January 30, 1976.




                                           43
     Agencies did not agree and rejected the complaints
examiners' decisions when the examiner found discrimination
much more often than hen he or she did not find discrimi-
nation. The followin, data shows statistics on agencies'
rejections of examiners' decisions:

                                             Fiscal year
     Hearings and rejections               1973       1974
Hearings conducted                          507        643
Number of rejections                         26         36
Number of findings of
  discrimination                            113        109
Agency rejected findings of
  discrimination                             23         29
Number of findings of no
  discrimination                            394        534
Agency rejected findings of
  no discrimination                           3          7
NEED TO IDENTIFY PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
OEFICIENCIES AND SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES

     CSC guidance for investigating individual complaint
cases discusses, but does not emphasize, surveying the general
environment for detecting agencies' patterns or practices
which may lad to discrimination. In addition, agencies are
authorized to correct personnel management deficiencies which
allow dis-rimination to occur.
     Agencies have not identified, to any great degree,
personnel management deficiencies that cause discrimination
to occur. Officials in most agencies we reviewed said that
discrimination does not result from improper personnel
policies and procedures but is due to misapplication or
lack of adherence to policies and procedures.

     Neither CSC nor the nine agencies we reviewed had made
any major attempt or achieved progress in identifying the
system's discriminatory practices.   Several ELO officials
questioned the ability of current EFO officers and investi-
gators to deal effectively with such discrimination. An
official of CSC's Office of Federal Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity advised us that most EEO officers are not capable
of dealing with the system's discriminatory practices
because they do not adequately communicate with personnel
officals. However, in our opinion, efforts to improve


                               44
 this communication will have to be made by both personnel
 officials and EEO officers.

 LITTLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 TAKEN BY AGENCIES

      Agencies were generally not taking disciplinary
                                                       action
 against discriminatory officials when findings of
 tion are made, although they were authorized to    discrimina-
                                                 do so.
 Selected information obtained at agencies reviewed
                                                     shows:
      -- Two documented cases of disciplinary action taken
         agencywide in a 16-month period ending April 1975,
         though 113 cases were closed involving 9 findings
                                                            of
         discrimination during this period.

      -- No disciplinary action taken agencywide for the
                                                         30-
         month period ending December 1974.  This agency
         closed 159 cases involving 3 findings of discrimina-
         tion during this time frame.

     -- Disciplinary action taken in 1 case during a 32-
        month period ending August 1975, though the agency
        closed 724 cases involving 20 findings of discrim-
        ination during this period.

     --No disciplinary action taken in fiscal year 1974
       and the first half of fiscal year 1975, though 06
       cases were closed involving 2 findings of discrimina-
       tion during this time frame.

     The kind of disciplinary action usually taken was
                                                        to
issue letters of reprimand to discriminatory officials.

     Officials in the agencies we reviewed provided the
following reasons for the rarity of disciplinary
                                                 action:
     -- The investigation itself is punishment enough
                                                      for
        the alleged discriminatory official.

     -- Discrimination cases are not clear cut and/or
                                                      overt.
     In addition, some agency officials informed us
                                                     that
informal disciplinary actions such as training and
                                                    reassign-
ment are taken by agencies at times rather than formal
disc'plinary actions. Officials in two agencies
                                                  advised us
that many of the more serious or overt cases were
                                                   resolved
early in the complaint process, thereby resulting
                                                   in no


                              45
disciplinary action because no official findings of
discrimination were made in such cases.

APPEALING CASES TO CIVIL COURTS

     CSC did not have a complete count of the number of
complaint cases appealed to civil courts.  CSC, however,
using information provided by the Department of Justice,
reported that as of September 1975 about 500 cases were
pending in courts.

      There has been continual concern about the costs to
complainants of appealing their complaint cases to civil
courts.   CSC has taken the position that it is in the best
interest of each agency's EEO program to facilitate
volunteer representation for complainants to the extent
possible and practicable. The District of Columbia Bar
and other bar associations have established programs for
providing volunteer legal representation to Federal
employees in connection with complaints of employment
discrimination. Also, in October 1975, CSC took the position
that a conflict-of-interest situation would not exist if
Federal employees who are attorneys represent complainants
in discrimination complaint cases.   Hence, an agency may
grant official time away from normal duties to its em-
ployees, including attorneys, for the purposes of repre-
senting other employees in the same agency.   In this regard,
the Attorney General of the United Stetes has authorized
attorneys in the Department of Justice to use official
time in certain circumstances for the purpose of repre-
senting employees of other agencies in EEO complaint cases.

CONCLUSIONS

     The   importance   and success   of   the   informal   resolution
 stage were not determinable because of unreliable statistical
 information. We believe informal resolution statistics
were overstated in most instances. We believe that though
CSC and the agencies generally interpreted the percentage
of cases resolved in the informal stage to indicate the
importance and success of informal resolution counseling,
this is not a valid, conclusive technique because of un-
reliable statistics and lack of knowledge about how many
of these cases would have become formal had an informal
resolution not been attempted.

     Agencies, when findings of discrimination were made,
were generally making seemingly appropriate remedies but


                                46
 were not correcting personnel management deficiencies or
 taking disciplinary action against discriminatory officals.

      Although CSC in its guidance to agencies provides that
 each agency requires its EEO director to make changes in
 agency programs and procedures to eliminate discriminatory
 practices, CSC has not directed its primary attention to the
 subject of systemic discriminatory practices. CSC's primary
 efforts have been directed almost solely at the processing
 of individual complaints.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Chairman of CSC:

     -- Direct that CSC and the agencies make a more con-
        certed effort to identify personnel management
        deficiencies by systematically analyzing the
        experience on completed complaint cases.
     -- Direct that CSC (both on a Government-wide and
        individual agency basis) and the agencies make a
        more active effort to identify and eliminate
        systemic discriminatory practices and develop
        management controls or mechanisms to monitor and
        evaluate progress and accountability in identifying
        and eliminating such practices.
     -- Reexamine the circumstances under which discip-
        linary action is to be taken, while making certain
        in the meantime that agencies are consistent and
        fair in taking disciplinary action against discrim-
        inatory officials.

     We also recommend that the heads of the agencies
reviewed make a more concerted effort to identify personnel
management deficiencies and identify systemic discrim-
inatory practices.
AGENCY COMhENTS

     CSC advised us that it does not contemplate at this
time a revision of its present position that disciplinary
action is a personnel management decision which properly
belongs to the agency within which the complaint arises.
CSC said it does not believe that a uniform table of
penalties is appropriate, but rather that any disciplinary



                             47
action taken should give due consideration to the circum-
stances of each case.

     We agree with CSC that due consideration should be given
to the circumstances in each case.  However, in the interest
of agencies' consistency and fairness in taking disciplinary
action against discriminatory officials, we believe that CSC
should provide guidance as to the types of circumstances
under which disciplinary action should be taken.

     CSC also advised us that i believes that currently
available data, while not comprehensive or complete, has
offered significant insights into the relative frequency with
which specific personnel actions and other matters have
formed the basis for complaints. CSC also believes that its
new reporting procedures, together with its current system
for indexing decisions, will provide it with an enhanced
capability to  yvstematica ly analyze complaint issues to
identify manac  ent problems giving rise to complaints.




                            48
                          CHAPTER 5

             TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING

     Quantitative standards for processing discrimination
complaints were established by th   Equal Employment Opportun-
ity Act of 1972 and the Civil Service Commission regulations
to enhance system effectiveness.  The act states that a
complainant may file a civil action

     -- within 30 days o  notice of final action by an agency
        or by CSC upon appeal of a decision on a complaint of
        discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
        and national origin or

     --180 calendar days after filing the initial discrimin-
       ation charge with the agency or after filing an appeal
       with CSC if a decision has not been made.

     In response to these provisions of the act, CSC has
attempted, through the issuance of gu'anice and procedures,
to impress upon agencies the importance of timely complaint
processing by emphasizing the importance of not exceeding 180
calendar days in processing complainits.

     On the basis of available data, agencies generally
handled informal complaints in a more timely manner than
formal complaints.  All nine agencies we reviewed averaged
mote than 180 days in processing frnal complaints through
final agency decision.  Thou,. numerous formal complaints
exceeded the prescribed 180-lay limit, thereby entitling
the complainant to file civil action, few civil actions
resulted.

PROCESSING TIME FOR COMPLAINTS

     The prompt and objective resolution of complaints is
critical from the standpoint of justice to the individual
and impact on positive program efforts.  CSC regulations
specify that a complaint must be resolved 180 calendar days
after the filing of a formal complaint and that CSC may take
action within 75 days after the complaint has been filed if
the agency has not issued a decision or requested CSC to
provide a complaints examiner.




                              49
 Informal counseling

      CSC   egulations   provide    that:

      -- The complainant shall inform the EEO counselor
                                                        of the
         circumstances in which he or she believes
                                                   he or she
         was discriminated against within 30 calendar
                                                      days
         of the date of the matter.

      -- The EEO counselor will conduct final interviews
                                                          with
         aggrieved individuals, to the extent practicable,
         within 21 calendar days after the date on
                                                   which the
         matter was called to the attention of the
                                                   couns- !or
         by the individual.  If counseling has not been
         completed within 21 days, the individual must
                                                        ,
         notified of his or her right to file a formal
                                                        cc -
         plaint.

      --The complainant will submit his complaint
                                                  to the EEO
        cfficer within 15 calendar days of the date
                                                    of his
        final interview with the EEO counselor.

     We reviewed files on informal counseling
                                               cases for
which adequate documentation existed, that
                                            did not result in
formal complaints of discrimination.  Also, we reviewed
files on cases that did become formal complaints.
                                                    Files on
inf.rmal counseling cases that did not result
                                               in formal
complaints generally either did not exist
                                           or were incomplete.
However, from information that was available,
                                               we determined
that complainants or the EEO counselors were
                                              often not
complying with CSC requirements in three important
                                                    areas:
     --Employees in 27 of 207 cases had not contacted
                                                      an
       EEO counselor within 30 calendar days of
                                                the most
       recent alleged discriminatory act.

     -- EEO counselors in 119 of 390 cases had not
                                                   advised
        complainants within 21 calendar days of success
                                                        or
        failure at attempted informal resolution.

     -- Employees in 19 of 115 cases had not filed
                                                    formal
        complaints within 15 calendar days of final
                                                     inter-
        views with counselors.

We were not able to determine in most instances
                                                why the CSC
requirements were exceeded.  However, reasons cited for some
cases included the extensive development that
                                              cases required,



                                   50
absences of the officials involved, and           inaction on    the part
of the complainants.

Forml complaints

     Every agency we reviewed had serious difficulties meeting
the 180-day time limit for completing formal complaint pro-
cessing.  In fact, the average processing time for formal
cases closed with decisions on merit (cases processed through
final agency decision at the headquarters level) exceeded the
180-day limit in every agency for fiscal years 1974, 1975,
and the first half of fiscal year 1976.       The following chart
shows the average processing    time  in  calendar  days for
complaints decided  on  merit.   Cases   in which  the agency made
an early decision on a    case before  all  processing   steps were
completed, complaints   withdrawn  by  the  employee,   and  cases
rejected or  canceled  by  the agency  are  not  included   in these
statistics.

         Average Processing Time in Calendar Days for
          Comlaints Closed_by  Decision on the Merits

                             Fiscal vear              July 1, 1975 to
                      1974                 1975       December 31, 1975

Range of average
  for the nine
  agencies
  reviewed           211 to 490        227 to 466        229 to 454

Government-wide         281                295                  315

Agencies were aware of the overall timeliness goals and had
generally established interim time limits to aid in achieving
the goals. However, the agencies that established interim
time limits were not adhering to them.

FACTORS AFFECTING PROCESSING OF
FORMAL COMPLAINT CASES

     Processing formal compaints in time frames that exceeded
the limits prescribed by CSC was affected by agencies'
financial and manpower resources (see ch. 2) and the emphasis
placed on fairness and impartiality (see ch. 3).  Other
factors, however, such as the degree to which complaint
systems were monitored and evaluated (see ch. 6), also
affected processing of formal complaints.



                                  51
The information we obtained showed that milestones were not
met at virtually every formal complaint processing stage.
Stages in which important processing delays occurred were
these:

     -- Transmitting complaints to the appropriate level    in
        the agency where actual processing begins.

     -- Obtaining the counselor's report so that adequate
        consideration could be given to accepting and re-
        jecting complaints.

     -- Assigning of investigators and starting formal in-
        vestigations.

     -- Completing investigations.

     -- Formulating proposed decisions.

     -- Conducting hearings (under control of complaints
        examiner).

    -- Preparing final agency decision-.

     Agency officials cited or we found a variety of reasons
why time limits were not being met, including:

    -- Reluctance of field offices to forward complaints to
       agencies' headquarters.

    -- Lack of availability and turnover of investigators.

    --Inexperiericed or inadequately trained investigators,
      especially collateral duty investigators, causing
      additional investigative work.

    -- Failure of EEO officers to see that coinplaints are
       legible and that all issues in the complaint are
       presented clearly and specifically.

    -- Insufficient number of complaint review officials at
       agencies' headquarters.

    -- Emphasis on complaint review and qualitative
       processing.




                             52
      -- Stringent CSC    time limits.

      --Delays   caused   by   complainants.

     We aetermined that although informal resolution of
complaints was encouraged, delays occurred in at least
                                                        th'ee
agencies when agency components held on to complaints
                                                       instead
of forwarding them to the appropriate levels for formal
processing.  Though agency components may believe they are
properly handling complaints, complainants may feel
                                                    that the
agency is not processing the case in the most expeditious
manner.

     Agencies do not have total control over all processing
steps though primary responsibility for processing
                                                     complaints
in a timely manner lies with the agency involved.
                                                     For
instance, agencies at'times rely on CSC investigators
                                                         and the
hearing examiners who must be from an agency other than
                                                           THe
one in which the complaint originated.   In many instances.
investigators and examiners exceeded prescribed 45-
                                                      and Gb-
calendar-day time limits, respectively.   These activities
averaged approximately 63 and 76 days Government-wide
                                                         during
fiscal years 1974 and 1975, respectively.   There was a    reat
variance between the high and low time frame by case
                                                       and b,
CSC region.  Hearing examiners' time, for example, varied
from 8 to 222 days   case in fiscal year 1974.

      Processing stages, including the investigation and
hearing, were also delayed because complainants, their
                                                         rep-
resentatives, or witnesses were not always available
                                                      when
needed, such as when an agency needed an affidavit
                                                    or wanted
to start the hearing.   These delays, which ranged up to 4
months, were not usually within control of the agencies
                                                          but
did affect timeliness.   A study by the Department of Commerce
showed that complainants contributed to processing
                                                    delays
in one-third of the cases examined.

CSC MONITORING AND ACTION TAKEN

     CSC is responsible for assessing agency compliance
                                                         with
the time limits established for the complaint process.
Although CSC evaluations of timeliness have improved
                                                     in past
years, they have not provided sufficiently mnin,ful
                                                       data
to evaluate agency compliance with the 180-callnd r-day
standard or to assess the validity of the standard.

     CSC, to obtain information to assist in evaluating
agency complaint processing timeliness, has required
                                                     agencies


                                  53
to submit monthly reports on precomplaints and both
in-process and closed formal complaints since January 1973.
Before that time, these reports were prepared quarterly.
These reports show precomplaint activity (basis, cause, and
volume) and the status of formal complaint cases which in-
clude dates of each processing stage and when cases were
closed.  Additionally, agencies submit disposition reports
to CSC within 10 days of the close of each formal case.

     The monthly and disposition reports enable CSC to
monitor individual formal cases, determine which formal
cases to take over from agencies, and analyze average pro-
cessing time on formal complaints. Although CSC became
aware as early as 1973 that some agencies were failing to
submit monthly and/or disposition reports, some agencies
were still not filing reports in 1975.

     Until March 1975 CSC assessed timeliness by computing
the average processing time for all closed cases.   Agencies
that averaged less than approximately 18G calendar days in
trie r ocessing of such cases were usually sent a letter by
CSC advising them that their timeliness was satisfactory.
Agencies averaging over approximately 180 days were sent
letters stating that it seemed that sufficient resources
and/or attention were not being given to this critical
activity. At least three agencies reviewed--the Departments
of Health, Educaticn, and Welfare and Interior and the
Postal Service--considered the letters from CSC to be the
basic evaluation by CSC of the issues of their systems,
especially with respect to timeliness.

        In reviewing CSC's use of this information, ;we noted
that:

        --The average number of days as computed by CSC in-
          cluded cases which did not go through all admin-
          istrative processing steps.   Thus, an agency that
           rejected, canceled, or resolved a substantial number
          of cases or had cases withdrawn by complainants early
           in the formal process was at an advant.ge over an
          agency that normally did not experience many rejec-
           tions, cancellations, early resolutions, or with-
          drawals.   In addition, rejected cases were not
           reported by two agencies, which caused their
          average to be higher.




                                54
     -- ASrncies generally were apprised of how timely or
        untimely they were, but not of the stages of the
        process contributing to delays.

     --CSC did not evaluate agencies' performances by
       determining the number or percentage of processed
       cases that exceeded 180 calendar days, a measu r e
       which would better   eflect an agency'; ability to
       process individur.l cases within 180 days.

     CSC modified its   J.luation of agency timeliness in
March 3975 when it beg .n separating closed cases intc four
categories, rejections, cancellations, withdrawals, and
decisions on the nerits.   Also, CSC determined average pro-
cessing times for each category.   As a result, three
agencies--Interior, the Air Force, and the Veterans Adminis-
tration, which CSC had earlier praised for timeliness in
complaint processing, were determined to actually be un-
timely.  A comparison follows of the two approaches to
evaluating timeliness used by CSC for the agencies we re-
veiwed and also Government-wide for fiscal year 1974:

                           Average processing time in calendar
                            _____days_for fiscal year_1974
                                              Cases closed with
                           All cases closed   decisions on merit

Range of average for
  nine agencies reviewed     153 to   395       211    to   J

Government-wide                 201                   281

     While CSC's approaches to timeliness evaluation are of
some benefit, they do not adequately show the extent to
which agencies exceeded the initial 75-day period without
cases being adjudicated or without CSC being requested to
supply a complaints examiner.  Our review of selected cases
closed in three agencies in which a hearing was requested
during the first half of fiscal year 197., showed the
following:




                               55
                            Average age        Number        Percent
               Number       of complaint        over          over
              of cases    when complaints        75            75
              involve6   examiner requested     days          days

HEW              17              207             17           100

Air   Force      43               87             22            51

Commerce             4           217              4           100

      CSC's approaches to timeliness evaluation also do not
adequately show to what extent agencies are exceeding the
180-day time frame for completing agency processing.   We
examined many cases closed during fiscal yea, 1974 and the
first half of fiscal year 1975 for the three agencies and
determined these results for each of the agencies, respec-
tively:

                 Fiscal year 1974        July-December 1974
                       Percentage of              Percentage of
              Number   closed cases     Number    closed cases
                of     exceeding 180      of      exceeding 180
              cases       days          cases        days
              closed    processing      closed    processing

HEW            190          89            67            67

Air
  Force        216          44           152            39

Cnmmcrce        38          47            11            82

This information she s that these agencies were not processing
a majority of their formal complaints within prescribed
calendar-day time limits.

CONCLUSIONS

     The processing of informal complaints appears to be
timely; however, an analysis of the quality or cost effec-
tiveness of this aspect of the system is not possible be-
cause of the variance in recordkeeping by the agencies.
Accordingly, the impact of the informal stage on the over-
all system is not measurable.

     Processing formal compaints is not generally accomp-
lished within the established l80-caltndar-'ay standard.


                                 56
CSC evaluations of timeliness, though improved in past years,
did not provide sufficiently meaningful data to evaluate
agency compliance with the 180-calendar-day standard.
Further, CSC had not studied the appropriateness of the 180-
calendar-day case processing standard since it had been
established.  (The need to evaluate the 180-day standard is
further discussed in ch. 6, which discusses monitoring and
evaluating the complaint system.)
RECOMMENDATION

     We recommend that the Chairman of CSC issue definitive
guidance on the records to be maintained by counselors on
informal complaints.

AGENCY COMMENTS
     CSC advised us that existing CSC guidance to monthly
reports of precomplaint counseling, complaint activity, and
disposition reports is subject to ambiguous interpretation,
particularly with reference to reporting counseling activity,
and that the resulting confusion has impaired the reliability
of data on this phase of the complaint process. CSC also
advised us that a Federal Personnel Manual Letter has been
drafted which specifically requires agencies to report only
those cases which have exceeded the 75-day and 180-day time
limits and requires counselors to maintain written records.
(See app. III.)




                             57
                           CHAPTER 6

               PROGRAM REVIEWS AND EVALUATION

     Sound management practice dictates that programs have
built-in mechanisms for self-evaluation and be subject to
periodic independent reviews.  Although Civil Service Com-
mission guidance referred to the need for program review and
evaluation, neither the agencies nor CSC had made reviews
of sufficient depth to determine the effectiveness, adequacy,
and costs of the Government's discrimination complaint
systems.

AGENCY EVALUATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINT SYSTEMS

      CSC guidance states that each agency should have a system
 for internal equal employment opportunity program evaluation
which provides periodic progress reports to agency heads.
CSC, in its guidance on the preparation of affirmative action
plans, advised agencies that the first step in action plan
development is to assess the current status of EEO within the
agency, locate problem areas, assign objectives and goals,
and develop action items designed to overcome identified
problems.   Further, CSC advised agencies that, in action plan
development, the use of vague generalities in describing
actions to be undertaken should be avoided.   CSC also
suggested that agencies avoid emphasis on statements of policy
or general intent which lack specificity.

     Our review at nine agencies disclosed that none had con-
ducted an indepth agencywide review or evaluation of their
discrimination complaint systems.  Every agency, however, had
made some analysis, as evidenced by information obtained
during our review and presented in affirmative action plans
and other reports forwarded to CSC. Most frequently, though,
thue reviews were done informally.

     Information in every agency's plan was often general,
vague, not problem-oriented, and accordingly not properly
responsive to CSC guidance. Few agencies addressed dis-
crimination complaint systems in the evaluative section of
their action plans. Agencies that did address discrimination
complaint systems did so in a general way by flaking statements
of policy and general intent, which CSC had suggested they not
do.  Examples of such statements of policy and general intent
included i. affirmative action plans were:




                             58
    -- Conduct counseling and complaint processing under
       applicable regulations.

    -- Have EEO officers see that all complaint counseling
       duties are performed by  roperly trained individuals.

    -- Organize training for al new investigators and for
       investigators needing retraining.

    -- Provide adequate staff throughout the organization
       to effectively carry out a result-oriented EEO
       program.

    -- Submit accurate and timely reports.

     -- Review and evaluate staff and budget resources.

     --Review, evaluate, and assess all EEO affiruative
       action program activities.

CSC EVALUATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINT SYSTEMS

     The EEO Act of 1972 requires that CSC be responsible   for
reviewing and evaluating the operation of all agency EEO
programs.

     As of November 1975, CSC had not conducted adequate
formal evaluations of the effectiveness and efficiency of
problems affecting agencies' discrimination complaint systems.
CSC's Bureau of Personnel Management Evaluation had conducted
reviews of agencies' EEO programs at some locations, but in
only a few cases was the discrimination complaint system
addressed specifically, and in those instances the reviews
were not large enough to address all aspects of the system
that influence effectiveness and efficiency.

     The only substantive study by CSC's Office of Federal
Equal Employment Opportunity was a 1973 survey made of the EEO
counseling program at 88 Federal installations.  The  esults
of the study, which discussed employee views of counselors
and counseling, counselor views, management views, counselor
qualifications and accessibility, and counselor sel]cticn,
were disseminated to agencies' EEO directors and directors
of personnel.

     CSC's Office of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
requires agencies to submit monthly reports on cmplaints    to


                              59
assess complaint processing timeliness on formal cases.
CSC's approaches to timeliness evaluation do not adequately
show the number of cases which exceed the 180-calendar-day
time frame for completing agency processing.  More impor-
tantly, though, the Office has not evaluated discrimination
complaint systems from the standpoint of system quality and
costs or attempted to relate complaint processing timeliness
to quality and costs.  Further, CSC has never reviewed the
180-calendar-day time frame for processing complaints to
determine its relevance. The fact that large numbers of
cases are not processed within this time frame may indicate
the standard is not appropriate.
     An official of the Office of Federal Equal Employment
Opportunity advised us that his office primarily evaluated
the complaints system in terms of agencies' timeliness in
processing; complaints.
CONCLUSIONS

     Neither CSC nor the agencies we reviewed have adequately
reviewed and evaluated the discrimination complaint systems
in operation to know the effectiveness, efficiency, or costs
of the systems or how to enhance them. More importantly,
however, sound reviews and evaluations are not possible
because of the lack of documentation and reports, or in-
adequate ones.
      Neither CSC nor the agencies know or have assessed the
relationship between the qualitative processing of complaints,
the processing of complaints within certain time frames, and
the cost of operating a complaint system.   In addition, data
either does not exist or is of insufficient quality to assess
system performance and to use for making appropriate improve-
ments or modifications to the system.
RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Chairman of CSC:

     ---Take action to improve CSC's reviews and evaluation
        of complaint systems.
     -- Develop criteria for and assess the effectiveness
        and efficiency of agencies' complaint systems that
        consider qualitative and cost aspects in addition to
        timeliness consideration.   (Depending on the results
        of this effort, CSC may have to coordinate with the

                             60
       Office of Management and Budget matters involving
       complaint system budgeting and costs.)  These
       criteria should include identification of discrim-
       inatory personnel practices in relation to charges
       of discrimination and corrective action taken.

     We also recommend that the heads of departments and
agencies reviewed take action to improve reviews and evalu-
ations of their complaint systems.

AGENCY COMMENTS

     CSC stated that it issued guidance in April 1976
concerning improving the agency reviews and evaluations
of complaint systems.   In addition, it will consider
whether more specific coverage should be included in the
CSC evaluation process.

     CSC stated that resolution of complaints involves
 ctions by employees and officials which are an essential
part of the fabric of day-to-day supervision and management
and that the value of a complaint system really sould not
be measured in cost effectiveness terms.  CSt D=id that the
more it has examined this issue, the more it is certain
that efforts to gather cost data are not productive.   (See
app. III.)

     We note an inconsistency, however, since CSC, in
commenting on the need for specific guidance to agencies
for accumulating and reporting complaint system costs,
stated that its revised cost reporting feature of the EEO
plans may elicit more reliable cost data from agencies
sufficient to permit a qualitative assessment of this
aspect of agency EEO programs.

     In our opinion, cost effectiveness does have relevancy.
For example, it would be important for an agency to know
that 20 percent, 30 percent, or even 50 percent of its
resources are being used for complaint processing and be
able to relate this cost to complaint processing time-
liness and quality to determine if it should allow that
percentage of its resources to be used for that purpose.




                             61
                          CHAPTER 7

                        OTHER MATTERS

NEED FOR IMPROVED CSC PROCEDURE
FOR HANDLING THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS

     The Civil Service Commission does not provide for pro-
cessing third-party complaints similarly to individual
complaints by employees or applicants for employment.

     The regulation pertaining to third-party complaints
provides for submission of general allegations by organi-
zations or other third parties of discrimination in personnel
matters which are unrelated to individual complaints of
discrimination.  Third parties under this procedure can call
an agency's management attention to policies or practices
which they believe to be discriminatory.   Such matters are
handled solely through an agency investigation and, at the
request of the third party, reviewed by CSC.   This varies
with the procedure for handling individual complaints of
discrimination in' that individual complaints are handled
initially on an infor'il basis and then formally under spec-
ifically described p    edures.

     Third-party procedures according to CSC guidance are
not intended as a means of obtaining redress in individual
cases without the filing of complaints personally.  Such
procedures are not designed or intended to be used as a
substitute for equal employment opportunity counseling and
complaint procedures.

     Effective April 18, 1977, procedures allowing for con-
solidation of complaints (class complaints) will replace
the procedures for processing third-party allegations.

NEED FOR UNIFORMITY IN EEO LAWS

     CSC regulations on the processi.ng of age discrimination
complaints do not entirely parallel those for complaints
based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin
with respect to the right to pursue civil actions because of
variances between the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended in 1974.

     The EEO act provides that anyone filing a complaint based
on race, color, sex, religion,, or national origin may file a
civil action acer the final agency decision or if the
complaint has not been resolved within 180 days.



                             62
      Tne 1974 law dealing with age discrimination complaints
provides than an individual may file a civil action after
giving CSC 30 days' written notice of one's intent to do so
if one has not filed a formal complaint.   The law is silent,
however, on an individual's right to pursue civil action if
a formal complaint has been filed.

     CSC has interpreted the 1974 law to exclude third-party
complaints based on age and has provided that age discrimin-
ation complainants not be advised of their right to pursue
civil action after final agency decision or the expiratiun of
180 days.

     These variances, in our opinion, are inequitable with
respect to age discrimination complainants and create a
climate of confusion not only for complainants but also for
EEO personnel responsible for administering the complaint
system.  If an individual files a discrimination complaint
based on age and sex, the issues related to the two bases
must be separated when the complainant wishes to pursue civil
action without first pursuing administrative remedies.

RECOMMENDATION

     We recommend that the Chairman of CSC initiate a legis-
lative proposal to bring uniformity to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Age Discrimination in Employ-
ment Act of 1967, as amended in 1974.

CSC COMMENTS AND ACTIONS

     CSC stated that it is exploring the initiation of proposed
legislation to bring uniformity to the EEO act and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.   In addition, it plans to
issue a CSC bulletin to clarify the distinction between
complaints related to the two areas.




                            63
APPENDIX I                                                    APPENDIX I




                                  HI




             U)                   ;

             E-4


                   pi~L
                      14~~~~~~~~

             10
             H          ~                  ~r
             zi3i~
                         Hi,;rn        6
             0n
             O
             z




             U)

                        L                   LE]

                                                  :IJ~~~~~i
                     z~~~~~~
                     o~~~~6
APPENDIX    II                                           APPENDIX   II


                   DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES AT WHICH

        EEO DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT SYSTEMS WERE REVIEWED

Civil    Service Commission             Headquarter, Washington,
                                        D.C.; Atlanta, Chicago,
                                        Dallas, Los Angeles,
                                        Philadelphia, and St.
                                        Louis Regional Offices

Department of Agriculture               Headquarters, Washington,
                                        D.C.; Farmers Home Admin-
                                        istration, Headquarters,
                                        Washington, D.C., Farmers
                                        Home Administration,
                                        Temple, Tex., and Kansas
                                        City, Mo.

Department of the Air Force             Headquarter, Washington,
                                        D.C.; Kelly Air Force Base,
                                        San Antonio, Tex., McGuire
                                        Air Force Base, Wrightstown,
                                        N.J.

Department       of Commerce            Headquarters, Washington,
                                        D.C.; National Oceanic
                                        and Atmospheric Adminis-
                                        tration Headquarters,
                                        Rockville, Md.; and Fort
                                        Worth, Tex. and St. Louis

General Services Administration         Headquarters, Washington,
                                        D.C.; Region V, Chicago;
                                        Region III, Washington,
                                        D.C.; Region VI, Kansas
                                        City, Mo.

Department of Health, Education, Headquarters, Washington,
   and Welfare                   D.C.; Social Security
                                 Administration, Head-
                                 quarters, Baltimore, Md.;
                                 Atlanta Regional Office,
                                 Chicago Regional Office,
                                 and Program Center,
                                 Philadelphia




                                   65
APPENDIX   II                                             APPENDIX   II


Department of      the Interior          Headquarters, Washington,
                                         D.C.: Geological Survey
                                         Headquarter, Reston, Va.,
                                         and Rolla, Mo.

U.S.   Postal Service                    Headquarters, Washington.
                                         D.C.; Post Office, Los
                                         Angeles and St. Louis

Department      of Transportation        Headquarters, Washington,
                                         D.C.; Federal Aviation
                                         Administration, Headquarters
                                         Washington, D.C., and
                                         Atlanta, Kansas City, Mo.,
                                         and Los Angeles

Veterans Administration                  Headquarters, Washington,
                                         D.C.; Regional Office,
                                         Chicago; Hospital, Dallas
                                         Regional Office; Los
                                         Angeles; Hospital,
                                         Philadelphia




                                    66
APPENDIX III                                                     APPENDIX III




                   UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION              IN Mn   rtlt    NI   TO



                             WASHINGTON, D.C.   20415

                                                                       10UR RFLREN([




       Mr. H. L. Krieger
       Director, Federal Personnel and
         Compliance Division
       U.S. General Accounting Office
       Washington, D.C. 20548




       Dear Mr. Krieger:

       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft General
       Accounting Office report on its assessment of the discrimination
       complaint system over which the Civil Service Comzmissiot, has
       major responsibility for enforcement and guidance. We are
       reassured that the substantial effort devoted to the report by
       the GAO reflects fitting concern for the operation of a system
       designed by the Civil Service Commission to assure Federal
       employees and applicants full protection of their rights to equal
       opportunity within the Federal work environment. As noted
       throughout the report, implementation by the Commission of the
       charter outlined for it by Executive Order 11478, Public Law 92-261
       and rubic Law 93-259 to provide for the prompt, fair and impartial
       consideration of complaints of discrimination in Federal employment
       has been essentially successful, although you pointed to some
       problems.

       On the whole we believe the report targets problem areas in which
       the Commission anticipates issuance of specific additional guidance
       to agencies subsequent to the completion and publication of complaint
       regulations, currently under revision, and regulations for the
       administrative proce sing of class actions.

                                          Sincerely yours,



                                           l   nd Jacopson
                                          Fxe4 tiveDrector

       Enclosure




         THE MERIT SYSTEM-A GOOD INVESTMENT      IN GOOD GOVERNMENT


                                     67
APPENDIX III                                        APPENDIX III




                 U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
                  COMMENTS ON DRAFT OF REPORT
                              TO
               THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
               ASSESSMENT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
                DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT SYSTEM




                                     Office of Federal Equal
                                       Employment Opportunity
                                               September 1976


                             68
APPENDIX III                                       APPENDIX   III

                    (Ste GAO note, p.   76.)

Our comments on the specific   recommendations for action by the
Chlirman are as follows:

Recommendation
Emphasize that agencies properly plan and implement their
discrimination complaint systems to better insure system ob-
jectives are met.  Agency planning and in)lementation should
include a more systematic approach tu the placing and struc-
turing of systems; obtaining top management commitment; deter-
mining financial rsourccs to be applied; and analyzing
manpower needs, including deciding on full-time versus part.-
time staffirg, staffing representation, documenting the re-
view of qualifications o   individuals occupying certain EEO
positions, determining training needs of EEO staff, and moni-
toring and evaluating employees performing EEO functions
on a collateral duty basis.

Comment
We regard resource allocation, analysis of manpower needs,
and determinations involving the appropriate balance of full-
time versus part-time staffing as agency personnel manage-
ment decisions and stressed this in the issuance of FPM
Letter 713-35 on Eual Employment Opportunity Plans.     We
believe we have gone a long way toward assisting agencies
in monitoring their allocation or personnel and resources for
their EEO programs, in assessing the effectiveness of their
complaint systems and in evaluating the performance of
equal employment opportunity program staff.     copy of FPM
Letter 713-35 is attached for your information.   This gui-
dance supplements and updates the body of regul   'ions, policy
issuances, and procedures which now exist to asui-t agencies
in the development of effectively managed complaint systems
within their EEO program-.  For example, in the area of up-
grading the quality of system managers, the Commission has
required documentation from agencies of the qualifications
of major program officials in the equal employment oppor-
tunity plan evaluation program.   Work groups have been
established, consisting of staff from major agencies which
are represented on the IAG Subcommittee on Discrimination
Complaint Processing, for the purpose of  creening and
evaluating materials currently in use within these agencies
to train EEO counselors and complaint investigators.    Our
goal in this effort is to develop training modules for
use Governmentwide with a view to standardization of high
quality training for EEO counselors and investigators, and
requiring Commission crtification.   We concur with    nrle
report's assessment of a need for effective evaluation by
agency EEO program officials of employees who are performirj



                               69
APPENDIX   III                                     APPENDIX III



EEO functions on a collateral duty basis.    We also concur
with the need to reemphasize planning and   implementation
of agency complaint systems.

Recommendation
Complete a review of qualification standards for   EEO
positions.

Comment
FPM Letter 713-35, Equal Employment Opportunity Plans, dated
April 30, 1975, places major emphasis    n the quality of pro-
gram staffing by requiring certification that the qualifica-
 tions of all EEO staff officials full-time or part-time, in-
cluding the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity, have
Leen reviewed by competent authority and the incumbents of
these positions meet the standards outlined in Qualificatio;.,
Standard Handbook X-118 under "Equal Employment Opportunity
Specialist GS-160" or "Qualifications Guide for Collateral
Assignments Involving Equal Employment Opportunity Duties."
In addition, instructions require that the findings of such
review be available for review by the Commission.    We are
cognizant of the essential nature of personnel expertise for
agency EEO staff and we feel the emphasis      training in
recent guidance has been a strong first step in alleviating
this aspect of the problem.   New written grade evaluation
and qualification standards will be issued for comment by the
Commission late this fall.   The written standard will ade-
quately deal with issues identified.

Recommendation
Issue additional and more specific guidance to agencies for
accumulating and reporting complaint system costs.

Comment
The newly revised cor' reporting feature of the equal employ-
inent opportunity plan found outlined in FPM Letter 713-35
may elicit more reliabie cost data from agencies sufficient
to permit a qualitative assessment of this aspect of agency
EEO programs.   Additional work needs to he done in relating
costs reported in the equal employment opportunity plan to
those reported to the Commission in annual reports on civil
rights expenditures gathered and consolidated by the Commis-
sion for the Office of Mandgement and Budget

Recommendation
Develop criteria for and assess the efectiveness and effi--
ciency of agencies' complaint systems tat consider quali-
tative and cost aspec's in addition to timeliness



                              17 0
APPENDIX III                                          APPENDIX III



considerations. Depending on the results of this effort,
there may be a need to coordinate with the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, especially with respect to matters in-
volving complaint system budgeting and costs.
Comment
Our recognition of the importance of the Commission's ability
to assess complaint system effectiveness is reflected in re-
cent guidance (FPM Letter 713-35). The value of a complaint
system really should not be measured in cost effectiveness
terms. The more we have examined this issue, the more we
are certain that efforts to gather cost data are not pro-
ductive. Resolution of complaints involves actions by em-
ployees and officials which are an essential part of the fab-
ric of day-to-day supervision and management.
Recommendation
Emphasize to agencies the importance of insuring that all
complainants are generally apprised of and afforded their
rights.
Comment
While we have no evidence that this is a major problem. com-
municat' n to individuals of heir rights through-',l 'the com-
plaint   L   ocess is a continuing concern.   We will look into
the need for additional guidance in th.-- area
Recommendation
Consideration should hb given to apprising complainants of
their rights in   standardized format such as on a printed
card.

Comment
This matter is currently under o!nsideration. We have
standardized materials in the form of Pamphlet 10 and hand-
outs attached to correspondence. The broad spectrum frno
which applicants come fo:ward makes standardization extremely
difficult.
Recommendation
Tisue more definitive guidance on apprising complainants of
i eir rights to appeal their      ases to CSC's Commissioners
wheni nes: evidence becomes availai:le.
Comment
Icevised guidance and handbooks accompanying the new regula-
tions will explain the right to request reconsideration by
the Commission more definitively.   As we indicated above,


                                 71
APPENDIX III                                           APPENDIX III



Commission regulations do not provide     for   "appeal"   to the
CcmTmissioners.

Recomimendation
Provide more definitve      uidance on rejecting and canceling
complaints including the variance between the two actions and
employee rights as a result of each action.
Comment
While we feel FPM Letter 713-21 has partially alleviated prob-
lems wnich may have given rise to this recommendation, we
concur fully with the recommendation and proposec revisions
to Part 713 of Commission regulations dealing with this prob-
lem and the related problem cf abuse of the complaint system
addressed by the report (p.28).

Recommendation
Emphasize to agencies the necessity of rejecting and canceling
complaints in a consistent manner.

Comment
Again we concur with the report's recommendation in this re-
gard.   The current bases for the rejection and cancellation
of complaints (Section 713.215) have been amplified and
clarified in the proposed revisions to Part 713. We expect
that one of the results of these newly drafted revisions, if
accepted in final form, will be to make agency decisions
consistent in this regard.
Recommendation
Monitor more clo-   7y   emoloyee use of the complaint system and
take action, a ._cessary, to insure that the complaint sys-
tem does not process grievance matters.

Comment
It i not possible to monitor employee USE of the complaint
system. We object to the word "monitor." The only disti-c-
tion between a grievance and d complaint is what the employee
perceives is the cause and what the employee believes the
contested action was based upon. Frequently and typically,
com,?laints are grievable matters. The difference is the
basis upon which the issue is founded (race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, and/or age'.

We agree that employe~e need to better understand the dis-
tinctions in processing requirements between grievances and
complaints. We can intensify training efforts so :hat coun-
selors can provide better advice to aggrieved persons.


                                72
APPENDIX III                                        APPENDIX III




Recommendation
Consider reviewing complaint procedures to insure that
agencies are making every effort to preclude non-EEO com-
plaints from entering and being processed in the discrimina-
tion complaint system.

Comment
See Comment for recommendation immediately above.
Recommendation
Reemphasize to agencies their obligation to insure that
complainants are not being subjected to reprisal actions.
Comment
We agree that reprisal is a problem of significant oncern as
indicated by the rising number of complaints and charges on
this basis. We expect to continue to stress to agencies' EEO
program officials their responsibilities to see that operating
officials do not subject complainants to reprisal.
Recommendation
Reexamine the rights of alleged discriminating officials with
a view towards improving protection of their rights especially
with respect to providing full consideration of their "due
process" rights.
Comment
The Commission has been aware for some time of the due pro-
cess concerns of officials who have been named by complainants
as responsible for alleged dicriminatory acts. This complex
subject is currently under review and we expect to issue de-
tailed guidance in the regulations and in guidance material
which will substantially expand the rights of such officials.
In addition a proposed new standard complaint form will de-
lete all reference to alleged responsible officials.
Recommendation
Issue specific guidance to agencies as to actions that should
be taken relative to potential conflict situations when EEO
officers are named as alleged discriminating officials.
Comment
We concur and noted in FPM Letter 713-35 that agencies should
have alternative delegations. The subject will be included
in a handbook for equal employment opportunity officers,
currently in draft form. Guidance to agencies on conflict of
interest questions is provided now on a case-by-case basis.


                              '3
APPENDIX III                                          APPENDIX III



Recommendation
Require that agencies take measures to insure that all
employees and applicants for employment are properly in-
formed of the complaint system.

Comment
We concur and can include suggestions in the guidance to be
issued subsequent to the revised regulations.

Recommendation
Issue definitive guidance on the records to be maintained
by counselors on informal complaints.

Comment
We recognize that existing Commission guidance to agencies
on monthly reports  f precomplaint counseling, complaint
activ ?y and disposition reports (FPM Letter 713-19) is
subject to ambiguous interpretaion, particularly with re-
ference to reporting counseling activity, and that the
resulting confusion has impaired the reliability of data
on this phase of the complaint process.  The report notes
that the reporting system currently in use by the Commission
fails to readily identify the number or percentage of ds-
crimination complaints pending with agencies which exceed
the 180 calendar day time limiL and/or which exceed the 75
day time limit where either no final decision has been is-
sued or the agency has not requested the Federal Employee
Appeals Authority  o furnish a complairts examiner (pp. 41-42).
An FPM Letter )n this subject hias been rafted to revise and
clarify existing reporting procedures and specitfclly re-
quire that agencies report only those cases which have ex-
ceeded the 7-day and 180--day time limits.  Additionally,
the proposed  egulations  equire that counselors maintain
written records.

Recommendation
I:-sure that CSC and the agencies make a more concerted ef-
fort to identify Deron.el management deficiencies Dy        ys-
tematically   analy   ng   the expezience on completed complaint
cases.

Comment
We believe that the additional focus which will be provided
by the  ew? reporting procedures, together with the system
currently in place for indexing FEAA and ARB decisions will
provide us with an enhanced capability to systematica3lly
analyze compleint issues to identify management problems
giving rise to complaints. Our evaluation staff can also



                                  74
APPENDIX III                                      APPENDIX III



provide insights in this area. We believe, however, that
currently available data, while not comprehensive or com-
plete as pointed out in the draft report, has offered
significant insights into the relative frequency with which
specific personnel actions and other matters have formed the
bases for complaints.
Recommendation
Insure that CSC, both on a Governmentwide and individual
agency asis, and the agencies make a more active effort to
identify systemic discriminatory practices.
Comment
We believe that class action regulations, currently in the
final stages of Commission review, will promote the discovery
of systemic discrimination. Reemphasis of agency responsi-
bility to affirmatively root out discriminatory practices as
a result of the resolution of complaints will be provided
in guidance :naterial.
Recommendation
Reexamine the matter of the circumstances under which dis-
cipliniary ac':ion is to be taken while insuring in the mean-
time that agencies are consistent and fair in taking dis-
ciplinary action against discriminating officials.
Comment
We do not contemplate at this time a revision of the Commis-
sion's present position that disciplinary action is a person-
nel management decision which properly belongs to the agency
within which the complaint arises. We do not believe that
a uniform table of penalties is appropriate, but rather that
any disciplinary action taken should give due consideration
to the circumstances in each case.
Recommendation
Take action t improve both CSC's and the agencies' reviews
and evaluations of complaint systems.
Comment
As we indicate above the Commission has issued guidance in
this area to agencies in April 1976. We will, in addition,
consider whether more specific coverage ought to be in-
cluded in our evaluation process.
Recommendation
Consider initiating a legislative proposal to bring uniformity


                             75
APPENDIX III                                       APPENDIX III




to the EEO Act of 1972    and the Age Discrimination   in
Employment Act of 1967,   as amended in 1974.

Comment
This recommendation is being explored.    It should be noted,
however, that a forthcoming  SC  Bulletin  will clarify the
distinction between complaints  related to  the two areas.

Recommendation
Consider modifying CSC guidance to provide for the processing
of class action complaints in a way that is more similar to
the processing of individual complaints.   The impact on the
administrative and logistical process  should be an integral
part of this process of consideration.

Commnent
A complete revision to Part 713 is presently being considered
by the Commission.  As proposed, the class and first party
procedures are substantially similar.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and uomm:ent
on your report in draft form.  We hope that our observations
and comments will  e helpful to you and we look forward to
publication of the final report.



GAO note:   Deleted material suggested minor changes to the
            report.  We have considered these changes in this
            final report.  Page numbers mentioned refer to
            the draft report, and may not correspond to those
            in the final report.




                               76
APPENDIX   IV                                                              APPENDIX   IV




                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                            OFFICE OF THE SECPETARY
                            WASHINGTON. D. C. 20250



                                                           q-otember 1 3. 1976


       Mr. Henry Eschwege
       Director, Community and Economic
         Development Division
       U.S. General Accounting Office
       Washington, D.C.   20548

       Dear Mr. Eschwege:

       The 'U.S. Department of Agriculture has reviewed the draft
       report entitled "Assessment of Federal Government's Dis-
       crimination Complaint System" and found it to be
       comprehensive and informative. We find ourselves in
       agreement with the recommendations to the Civil Service
       Commission and the Agencies.

       Of particular interest to us was the section on the placement
       and structure of the discrimination comr-_itnt process since
       we are currently reviewing the placement of' the USDA dis-
       crimination complaint system. We would he interested in a
       more in-depth review of credibility as related to placement.

       We are also interested in your omments on potential conflict'
       when EEO Officials are named as alleged discriminating
       officials. We feel Commission guidance is much needed in this
       area.

       Thank you very much for the opportunity t      review this draft.

       Sincerely,




       Assistant Secretary for Admir stration
                       and
       Director, Equal Employment Opportunity




                                        77
APPENDIX V                                                                       APPENDIX V



                               DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                      WASHINGTON    20330




OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY




                                                                  8 SEP      6

         Mr. H. L. Krieger
         Director, Federal Personnel
           and Compensation Division
         U. S. General Accounting Office
         441 G Street, Northwest

         Dear Mr. Krieger:

                This is in reply to your letter to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

         regarding the GAO report dated July 13, 1976, "Assessment of Federal

         Government's Discrimination Complaint System".        It has been reviewed

         and we concur with its conclusions and recommendations.

                                                  Sincerely,




                                             78
APPENDIX VI                                                      APPENDIX VI



                                 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                The Assistant Secretary for Administration
                                , Washington, D.C. 20230




    AUG 2 3 976



   Mr. Henry Eschwege
   Director
   Camnunity and Economic
    Development Division
   U. S. General Acc6unting Office
   Washington, D. C.   20548

   Dear Mr. Eschwege:

  We have reviewed a copy of your proposed report to the
  Congress on the "Assessment of Federal Government's
  Discrimination Complaint System." it is our opinion that
  the Report accurately reflects many of the general problems
  associated with the Government's complaint system. Further,
  the Report's specific findings and related recommendations
  clearly highlight many of the problems inherent in the
  Government's conplaint system.

  We eel that if the recommendations addressed to the Civil
  Service Commission are properly implemented, the overall
  effectiveness of the Federal Government's complaint system
  will be substantially enhanced. For our part, the Department
  of Commerce has recently initiated specific corrective actions
  closely related to several of the conditions and findings
  contained in your Report which will also contribute to a more
  effective Governmental complaint system.

  We appreciate this opportunity to provide our general reaction
  to your proposed Report and look forward to receiving your
  final Report.

  Sincerely,




   ssbtant Sertary
   for Administration




                                 79
APPENDIX VII                                                                  APPENDIX VII


                               UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                         GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
                                   WASHINGTON, DC       2WO5




      September 17, 17?6



      Honorable Elmer B. Staats
      Comptroller General of the United States
      General Accounting Office
      Washington, DC 20548

      Dear Mr. Staats:
      We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report "Assessment
      of Federal Government Discrimination Complaint System".

     We agree with ll of the recommendations to the Civil Service
     Commission (CSC) nd offer cnrents en number three. The third
     recommendation sta';es that the CSC should issue additional and
     more specific guidance to agencies for accumulating and reporting
     complaint system costs. "Complete" operational cost cannot be
     accurately formulated under present CSC regulations. The informal
     counseling system does not require reporting to the EEO Officer
     work done on a informal complaint. Even if such a complaint
     eventually becomes a formal complaint, there is no written require-
     ment for EO Counsclcrs to report hours spent in the counseling
     process. Also, there is no requirement for accounting for time
     spent by management officials, deponents, representatives and witnesses
     who likewise participate in the omplaint system. Unless agencies are
     authorized to get into this area, even in the "informal" stages. for
     the purpose of report g time spent by individuals involved, there
     can be no complete cost figures a.cumulate6 and maintained.

     if you have any questions, please let us know.

     Sincerely,




     JCK r(KI.RD
     Administrator




                     Keep F-eedom,in   rour   Fture With U.S. Savings Bonds


                                              80
APPENDIX VIII                                                  APPENDIX VIII




            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                          WASHINGTON. DC.    1OI




     Mr. Gregory J. Ahart
     Director, Human Resources
       Division
     United States General
       Accounting office
     Washinqton, D.C. 20548
     Dear Mr. Ahart:

     The Secretary asked that I respond to your request for
     our general reaction to your report, "Assessment of
     Federal Government's Discrimination Coinplaint System."
     Department officials have carefully reviewed the subject
     report and wish to commend GAO on the fine work that
     went into identifying many of the complex issues involved
     in EEO complaint processing. We look forward to further
     discussions with the Civil Service Commission on issues
     raised in the report and possible corrective action.

     We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft
     report before its publication.

                                     Sincerely yours,




                                     J~       D. Yung
                                            istant SecreLary, Comptroller




                                      81
APPENDIX IX                                                          APPENDIX IX




              United States Department of the Interior
                            OFFICE OF THZ SECRETARY
                             WASHiNGTON, D.C. 20240




       Mr. Henry Eschwege
       Director, Community and
         Economic Development Division
       U.S. General Accounting Office
       Washington, D,C. 20548

       Dear Mr. Eschwege:

       This is in response co your draft report, "Assessment of Federal
       Government's Discriminati-r omplaint System."

      Although the report di not address recommendations to the Department,
      EO officials of the Department conclude that the report accurately
      Identifies the many problems related to the complaint system. Those
      recoamendations dealing with obtaining top management commitment,
      determining financial requirements, and analyzing personnel needs are
      particularly relevant. As a vehicle for corrective action, the report
      would be improved if it specified which Federal agencies, in addition
      to the Civil Service Commission, should address the specific problems
      identified,

      We appreciate the oportunity to comment on your report.

                                              Sincerely,




                                          Aseistant Secretar~ of the In   rior




                                         82
APPENDIX X                                                                       APPENDIX X




                                      -r           t




                             THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
                                  Washington, D'       ?0260


                                                               September 2,   1976

     Mr. Victcr Lowe
     Direct.r, General Government
      Division
     Uo S. General Accounting Office
     Washington, D. C. 20548

     Dear Mr. Lowe:

     This responds to your July 15, 1976 letter in which you requested
     the Postal Service's general reaction to your draft report on the
     Assessment of Federal Government's Discrimination Complaint
     System.

     The report effectively summarizes problems in the administration
     of the Federal Government's discrimination complaint system.
     The recommendations the report makes to the Civil Service Com-
     mission should prove useful in promoting fresh initiatives towards
     solving the problems cited.

      In your final rep.at you may also wish to comment on the additional
      complications that will arise in the handling of discrimination
     complaints as a result of the recent Supreme Court opinion in
     Chandler v. Rouaebush, 44 U. S. L. W. 4709 which recognizes a
     right of trial de novo at the district court level after all administra-
     tive procedures have been completed.

     You may also wish to comment o the possible impact that the
     Privacy Act may have on the complaint system, and particularly on
     how requested information nay be released to a complainant without
     violating the privacy of other individuals to whom the nformnation
     pertains.

                                           Sincerely,




                                           Benjamin/.          Bailar




                                           83
APPENDIX XI                                                                APPENDIX XI




                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
                               WASHINTON. D.C.    20590


                                                                     l

     ORgADSTRTI




      Mr. Henry Eschwege
      Di rector
      Community and Economic Development Division
      U. S. General Accounting Office
      Wushington, D. C. 2054P
      Dear Mr. Eschwege:
      This is in response to your letter of July 19, 1976, requesting
      comments from the Department of Transportation on the General
      Ac.ounting Office draft report entitled, "Assessment of Federal
      Government's Discrimination Complaint System." We have reviewed
      the report in detail and prepare= a Departent of Transportation
      reply.
      Two copies of the reply are enclosed.
                                                 Sincerely,


                                                 William S. HeffelfiFger
      Enclosures




                                       84
APPENDIX XI                                                          APPENDIX XI




              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REPLY

                                   TO

                     GAO Draft Report of July 19. 1976

                                   ON

         Assessment of the Federal Government's Discrimination
                           Complaint System

           Summary of GAO Findings and Recommendations

          Although the Civil Service Commission has established,
      and agencies have implemented, an extensive framework to
      operate discrimination complaint systerls, many aspects of the
      planning and implementation, operation .tnd evaluation systems
      were in need of improvement.

          Agencies aried with espect to the placement of the
      discrimination complaint system in the agency and in the
      structuring or rganization of certain functions. The place-
      ment and structure of the complaint syrsem impacts n both
      the qualitative and timely processing ot complaints. Therefore,
      numerous relevant factors mudt be considered before deciding
      on the placement and structure of the discrinination complain'
      system. It is believed that the necessary planning was not
      conducted nor adequate management support provided by agencies
      before making these decisions,. For example, it did not appea r
      that agencies had given adequate consideration in the planning
      phase to such factors as system credibility, coordination with
      those knowledgeable in personnel, and staffing matters,
      including determinations on full-time versus part-time staff

           Department of Transportation Position

          We generally ccncur in the findings and recommendations
      contained in the Draft Report. Certain aspects of the report,
      however, deserve comment. First, it is the position f the
      Department of Transportation that the discrimination complaint
      pro.essing system is most effective ',en it is centrally located
      wvithin the Agency with its director o, ZE() reporting directly to
      the head of the Agency. It is the Department's position thai a




                                        85
APPENDIX XI                                                        APPENDIX XI



         centralized placement of the system directly under the
         head of the Agency provides for maximum credibility.

               Second, the Department strongly supports the recom-
         mendation for USCSC guidelines for a more systematic
         approach to structuring of systems and asalyzing manpower
         needs, including deciding on full-time versus part-time
         staffing.

              Third, the report's recommendations for USCSC
         determinations of (a) training needs of EEO staff and (b)
         methods of maintaining and evaluating employees performing
         EEO functions on a collateral duty basis warrant serious
         con sideration.

               Fourth, as regards the recommended re-evaluation of
         the relevance and validity of the 180-day time limit for
         processing complaints, the Department takes the position
         that the Commission should make a thorough examination
         of -gencies' resource allocations    is-a-vis untimely com-
         plaint processing before any change is rnac, in the currently
         prescribed time limits. We believe there is a direct
         correlation between resource allocations and timely pro-
         cessing of complaints.

               Fifth, the Department concurs in the recommendation
         that CSC issue d finite guidance on records to be maintained
         by EEO Counsel ,rs on informal complaints and suggests
         further that this recommendation be expanded to require the
         numerical evaluation of agency complaint systems in terms
         of the relative number of their total complaint incidents that
         are resolved informally as against the number that go formal.

             Sixth, the Department supports the recommendation that
        the USCSC re-examine the matter of the circumstance under
        which disciplinary ction is taken while insuring in the mean-
        time, that agencife are consistent and fair in taking disciplinary
        action against discriminating officials.

             Finally, it is the Department's position that the GAO's
        examination of the Federal Government's Discrimination Com-
        plaint System on the whole has been thorough and its conclusions
        and recommendations by and large have been objective and
        sound.


                                     Acting Director of Civil Rights




                                     86
APPENDIX XII                                                                     APPENDIX XII




                              VETERANS         iOMINISTRATION
                           OFFICE OF TI. ADMINISTRATO   OR V     .     AFrUI s
                                  WASHINGTON. D.C.             20420                   '"a.-   .

                                  SEPTEMBER 8 - 1976

       Mr. Gregory J. Ahart
       Director, Human Resources Divition
       U. S. General Accounting Office
       441 G Street N. W.
       Washington, D. C. 20543

       Dear Mr.   Ahart:

                 We have read your draft report "Assessment of Federal
       Government's Discrimination Complaint System" and concur in its
       finding . Many of the deficiencies cited ere already nown to
       the Civil Service Commission (CSC) ind to us. Draft revised
       regulations, prepared by the Commission after consultation with
       the agencies, address a number of them.

                 Recomendations for improvement are directed to the
       Chairman, CSC, for implementation. We have no objection to
       any of them.

                                                 Sincerely,




                                               RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH
                                               Administrator




                                                87
APPENDIX XIII                                          APPENDIX XIII


                        PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS
                  RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING

                ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

                                          Tenure of office
                                         From                To
         Civil Service Commission

Chairman, Civil Service Commission:
     Georgiana H. Sheldon (Acting)       Dec. 1976         Present
     Robert E. Hamptcn                   Jan. 1974         Dec. 1976
Executive Director:
     Bernard Rosen                       Jan. 1974         Jan. 1975
     Raymond Jacobson                    Jan. 1975         Dec. 1976
Director, Bureau of Personnel
    Management Evaluation:
     John D. R Cole                      Jan.   1974       Dec. 1976
Director, ede'ral Equal
    Employment Opportunity:
     Anthony W. Hudson                   Mar. 1974         Dec. 1976

         Department of Agriculture
Secretary of Agriculture:
     Bob Bergland                        Jan. 1977         Present
     John A. Knebel (Acting)             Oct. 1976         Jan. 1977
     Earl L. Butz                        Jan. 1974         Oct. 1976
Assistant Secretary for
    Administration:
     Paul J. Bolduc                      Jan.   1974       Present
Director of Personnel:
     S. B. Pranger                       Jan. 1974         Present
Director, Office of Equal
    Opportunity:
     James Frazier                       July 1976         Present
     M. S. Washington (Acting)            Jan. 1974         July 1976




                                88
APPENDIX XIII                                           APPEND:. XIII


            Department of the Air Force

Secretary of the Air Force:
     Thomas C. Reed                       Dec. 1975         Present
     James W. Plummer (Acting)            Jan. 1975         Nov. 1975
     John L. McLucas                      Nov. 1974         Dec. 1975
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
  Personnel Policy:
     James P. Goode                       Jan. 1974         Present
Assistant for Equal
    Opportunity:
     William R. Beard                     Jan. 1974         Present

            Depatment
                   _  of Commerce
Secretary of Commerce:
     Juanita Morris Kreps                 Jan.   1977       Present
     Elliott L. Richardson                Feb.   1976       Jan. 1977
     Rogers C. B. Morton                  Jan.   1975       Feb. 1976
     Frederick B. Dent                    Jan.   1974       Jan. 1975
Assistant Secretary for
  Administration:
     Guy W. Chamberlin, Jr.               Jan.   1977       Present
     Joseph E. Kasputys (Actinq)          Feb.   1976       Jan. 1977
     Guy W. Chamberlin, Jr. (Acting)      Jan.   1975       Feb. 197o
     Henry B. Turner                      Jan.   1974       Jan. 1975
Director,   Office of Personnel:
     John   M. Golden                     Feb.   1976      Present
     Wade   B. Ropp                       Aug.   1974      Feb. 1976
     Wade   B. Ropp (Acting)              July   1974      Aug. 1974
     John   Will                          Jan.   1974      June 1974
            Department of Health, Education, and
                  Welfare
Secretary of Health, Education, and
  Welfare:
     Joseph Califano, Jr.                 Jan. 1977        Present
     David Mathews                        Jan. 1976        Jan. 1977
     Casper W. Weinberger                 Jan. 1974        Jan. 1976




                                   89
APPENDIX XITI                                        APPENDIX XIII


Deputy Assistant Secretary for
  Personnel and Training:
     Raymond Sumser                    Feb. 1976         Present
     Robert M. Fisk                    Dec. 1975         Feb. 1976
     William Russell                   Jan. 1974         Dec. 1975
        Department of Interior
Secretary of Interior:
     Cecil D. Andrus                   Jan.   1977      Present
     Thomas S. Kleppe                  Oct.   1975      Jan. 1977
     Stanley K. Hathaway               June   1975      Oct. 1975
     Kent Frizzell (Acting)            May    1975      June 1975
     Rogers C. B. Morton               Jan.   1974      Apr. 1975
Director, Organization and
  Personnel Management:
     John F. FIKune                    Jan. 1974        Present
Jirector, Office cf Equal
  Opportunity:
     Edward E. Shelton                 Jan. 1974        Present
        Department of Transportation
Secretary of Transportation:
     Brock Adams                       Jan.   1977      Present
     William T. Coleman, Jr.           Mar.   1975      Dec. 1976
     John W. Barnum (Acting)           Feb.   1975      Mar. 1975
     Claude S. Brinegar                Jan.   1974      Feb. 1975
Director, Personnel and
  Training:
     R. J. Alfultis                    Jan. 1974        Present
Director, Equal Opportunity:
     Carmen Turner                     Jan. 1976        Present
     James Frazier                     Feb. 1974        Jan. 1976
        U. S. Postal Service
Postmaster General:
     Benjamin F. Bailar                Jan. 1975        Present




                               90
APPENDIX XIII
                                                   APPENDIX XIII


Senior Assistant Postmaster
  General, Employee and Labor
  Relations:
     James V. P. Conway             Sept. 1975
     Vacant                                         Present
                                     Apr. 1975      Aucust 1975
     Darrell F. Brown                Jan. 175       April 1975
Director, Office of Equal
  Opportunity:
     Alvin Prejean                  Jan. 3.975      Present
          General Services Administration
Administrator:
     Robert T. Griffin (Acting)     Feb.    1977
     Jack M. Eckerd                                 Present
                                    Nov.    1975    Feb. 1977
     Dwight A. Ink (Acting)         Oct.
     Arthur F. Sampson                      1975    g:,. 1975
                                    Jana.   1974    Oct. 1975
Director, Office of Personnel:
     James W. Hardgrove             Jan. 1974       Present
          Veterans Administration
Administrator:
     Richard L. Roudebush           Oct.
     Donald E. Johnson                      1974    Present
                                    Jan.    1974    Oct. 1974
Assistant Administrator for
  Personnel:
     Richard D. Brady               Jan. 1974      Present




                              91