In a series of interviews and responses to an in-person or mailed survey, EEOC staff have provided substantial background information and constructive suggestions for change. Some of the surveys were the product of group meetings in field offices, so while 146 responses were tabulated, they actually reflect the comments of more than 200 individuals. This appendix is organized to discuss their input in terms of the Academy's 39-question structured interview guide (referred to as the survey).

Academy staff visited five district, two area, and two local offices, and 123 of the 146 total interviews/surveys analyzed were from field staff. Thus, the results reflect more of their perspectives. However, as the discussion in this chapter will show, the views of headquarters and field staff are very similar. Sixty of the 146 surveys were from individuals interviewed in person, and the other eighty-six were mailed or emailed to the Academy. All EEOC staff had the chance to comment, as they had access to the survey on the EEOC Intranet site, know as In-Site. Some of the surveys were the product of group meetings in field offices, so while 146 responses were tabulated, they actually reflect the comments of more than 200 individuals.

Given that EEOC has more than 2,700 staff, the 146 respondents do not represent a statistically significant sample. However, there were many common themes among the in-person and mailed responses. The Academy staff used the responses as a point of reference for asking for additional information or conducting additional interviews, not as conclusive information in and of themselves.

Most questions survey were asked in general terms, such as whether respondents had adequate tools to do their work, or what suggestions they would make to the Academy as it developed the commission's restructuring plan. A few were specific, such as those that asked about respondent familiarity with the strategic plan or the chair's Five Point Plan. Thus, when the responses discussed in this appendix talk about those who thought, for example, that there was inadequate clerical help (58 or 40%), these were comments made at their own initiative rather than 58 of the 146 responding positively to a question on this topic. Even when there were specific questions, not all respondents answered them at all, especially for the mailed surveys. Thus, while 44 (30%) said they were familiar with past strategic plans it does not mean that 70% were not.

The disciplines in which the 146 respondents worked were:

PRIVATE SECTOR CHARGE PROCESSING

Twenty-one respondents said that 1995 changes that introduced the Priority Charge Handling Process (PCHP), which permits EEOC to dismiss without investigation charges that are clearly without merit, have substantially improved the timeframe and quality of case processing. Prior to PCHP, investigators had as many as 125 cases and there was a substantial backlog. With 25-50 cases each (it varies by office), staff can more fully investigate; interviewees said a large proportion of the cases were closed within the 180-day goal.

Offices manage charge processing differently. Some do intake (initial interviews) only with appointments, some accept walk-ins, some do a mix of appointments and walk-ins with phone intake; one office does all intake via phone. There is generally a rotation process whereby investigators do intake some days or weeks and investigation work the rest of the time; 20 of respondents favored having a single intake unit, staffed by individuals who did only this.

The intake investigator decides on the status of a case (A for potential cause; B for mediation; and C for dismissal). In most offices, whoever does Intake is assigned the case for investigation. In some offices there is concern that this is conflictive since the intake investigator controls his/her own caseload by coding more Cs. In one district, interviewees suggested developing a good video on what is discrimination that could answer some initial questions for persons walking into the offices, which would reduce what the intake investigator has to say each time he/she begins an interview.

There are mixed opinions on using the Internet for electronic charge processing. Twenty-one specifically mentioned it as a needed innovation; others strongly believe that one-on-one interviews are important since perceived discrimination is such an emotional issue and the face-to-face interview helps the EEOC staff assess a charging party's credibility. Some of those who favored electronic charge filing noted the need for tightly worded questions for the complainant with the opportunity for phone or in-person follow up as needed to clarify issues. A few had concerns about privacy issues in electronic filing.

Among the suggestions that EEOC staff had to better serve the public through the intake process were to:

· Develop for each office a modern phone system that would have options for different types of information and would route the caller directly to a staff member for intake or permit the caller to leave a voice message.

· Create one national or several regional call centers with staff experienced in taking charges over the telephone, then route the completed intake forms (electronically) to the appropriate office.

· Establish a central intake unit so that investigators do not have to stop work on cases for a week to handle initial intake interviews. (21 had suggestions on revamping intake procedures.)

· Ensure that intake interviews deal with the facts of the case and do not become an opportunity for counseling the complainants on issues other than on topics such as how to file with EEOC and how the EEOC process works.

· Permit web-based charge taking (21 said this) or entering charges at kiosks in public places. (There were some cautions about ensuring privacy for these options.)

· Establish "satellite" offices, which in EEOC parlance means regularly scheduled meetings in underserved areas, so that people don't have to travel far to reach EEOC.

· Stress telecommuting (and the IT systems to support it) so that investigators do much work from home and periodically hold intake sections in local government offices (such as the Post Office) of underserved areas. (25 favored more options for telecommuting.)

· Hire more bilingual staff and/or have established interpreter contracts so that monolingual charging parties have full access to EEOC services.

The primary concern was that there be easily accessible ways to contact EEOC. For some charging parties, technology enhancements (such as phone centers or web-based charges) would be a great benefit. For others, such tools would be threatening. No one thought that all face-to-face charge taking should be eliminated.

Managing Charge Data

Respondents noted that there is no mechanism for field staff to see cases beyond their own office, which means they cannot, for example, tell if an employer has charges elsewhere. Headquarters can do this because they have access to the full Charge Data System (CDS); the field can request that HQ check this; some offices say this process moves quickly, others said it did not. A few referred to the new tracking system being piloted in three offices (the Integrated Mission System, or IMS), and that it could provide more access. One respondent expressed frustration that the new system was not developed by the users but rather by OIRM and then handed off to the field; they question whether it will fully meet their needs.

Pursuing the Investigation

A number of staff said that declining resources strained their ability to address all aspects of each investigation as quickly or as well as they would like. They also said that many cases were more complex than in the past, especially those involving violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires becoming familiar with a number of medical issues.

Several offices cited regular contact with trial attorneys during the investigation, which enabled the investigators to prepare better cases should they need to go to litigation. Other offices said there was relatively little contact, while a few said there was almost hostility between the two groups. Some offices have established "A-1 Units," teams of investigators and attorneys that develop those charges of discrimination that are deemed litigation-worthy, based on the NEP and LEP.

EEOC staff suggestions for pursuing the investigation were that EEOC:

· Make sure successful strategic cooperation between enforcement and litigation is an element in each division director and regional attorney performance evaluation, and counsel these officials if there is not good cooperation.

· Replace Corel software (Wordperfect, Quattro Pro, Paradox) with Microsoft Office so that EEOC can more efficiently receive and send information from employers and private sector attorneys.

· Stress thorough charge investigation.

Closing Cases

Thirty-six of the 146 who were interviewed or replied to surveys said that they thought that EEOC put more emphasis on closing a given number of cases than on how they were closed. They thought that mandating quotas could lead to questionable "cause" findings.

One district director thought that allocating resources to field offices based on numbers of charges received and resolved was a practice subject to abuse and could provide a disincentive to maintain low inventories. Specifically, the intake of charges could be inflated or deflated easily. This individual thought that considering total services rendered would be more accurate, and that upgraded databases would eventually let EEOC collect the data to track this. Another district director seconded this opinion, noting that basing staffing allocations on intake receipts resulted in "offices playing the intake numbers game. There are other measures to assess, such as proactive prevention, proficient, resolution, ADR, and strategic enforcement of litigation."

EEOC staff recommendations regarding closing cases were that EEOC:

· Use intake and resolution data as only one of several factors in allocating staff resources to field offices
· Fully implement PCHP plan of a cause determination being "more likely than not" cause(41)
· Permit staff to fully investigate cases as they see fit rather than stressing the need to close cases quickly

LITIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT WORKING TOGETHER

A number of interviewees noted there are inherent problems in the fact that litigation is under the regional attorney (RA) and enforcement under the district director, and that how well these two disciplines work together is up to the personalities of the individuals in the two positions.

Often cited-by attorneys, investigators, managers-was that OGC has pulled back the RA authority to determine which cases to litigate, and that this has greatly increased the time for making these decisions. Twenty respondents said that RAs should have greater authority to determine whether a case moved to litigation. Attorneys said their recommendations were reresearched in HQ, and the many layers of review were wasteful. Cases dealing with the Americans with Disabilities Act receive the most scrutiny, though they are reviewed primarily in the Office of Legal Counsel. One investigator said that cases could take so long in OGC that if it comes back for additional research it is like having a new case.

Some offices had close working relationships, with legal staff serving as a readily available resource for investigators or holding lunchtime seminars with investigators to continually increase their skills at developing cases that could be well litigated. Others reflected difficulty in developing and maintaining good working relationships. Several HQ and field managers indicated that a district director should not have persons working in his/her office who are not under his/her direction and authority, and a few said that the RAs should report to an attorney (the implication being the general counsel) rather than the district director.

MEDIATING PRIVATE SECTOR CHARGES

A number of respondents said that contract funds for mediators were not available as they completed the survey or there were long period when they were not. This meant all mediation had to be done in-house.

Eighty respondents noted what additional resources or tools were needed to fully implement ADR in the public and private sector arenas; ten of these were from headquarters.

· Twelve encouraged EEOC to hire more internal mediators to better balance the workload since contract funds were not available or were insufficient. Two of these said there should be mediators for the federal sector work.
· Ten said EEOC should work with employers to publicize the program better, some of these suggesting publicizing very successful cases as an incentive.
· Some people think investigators can be trained as mediators while others think the skills are different; some think mediation should remain in enforcement and some think it should be separate.

OUTREACH

There is one outreach staff member per district. Other staff said they volunteered to assist, but that they must still maintain a full caseload. Several people commented that mediation and outreach (the latter geared to prevention by working with employers) are chair priorities, but this is not reflected in resources.

There were only three responses from field outreach staff, and none from anyone in headquarters who dealt exclusively or largely with the program. However, field office directors and investigative staff often commented on it, too. Some of the suggestions were:

· Allocate more resources to outreach.

· Provide tools to help set up speaker bureaus and develop other resources.

· Collect more data on companies and issues so that EEOC can better track trends and know which companies are having problems, so the limited outreach budget can be better targeted.

FEDERAL SECTOR HEARINGS

This area was discussed by the administrative judges (AJs) who conduct the hearings and a number of other senior staff. There were two primary concerns. A number of respondents noted the disconnect between AJs reporting to the district directors yet getting the policy guidance on their work from the Office of Federal Operations; six suggested that a separate Office of Administrative Judges be formed, or that AJs in the field report directly to the Office of Federal Operations rather than the Office of Field Programs. As one AJ said, "The prime problem is the management structure. The people who manage us have no accountability for our work; it is 25% of one element of a district director's performance appraisal." A couple of interviewees suggested that AJs should report to the RAs, and a couple of RAs said they did not want the function.

There was also concern about a perceived chair proposal that the hearings function be abolished. Respondents' concern was that eliminating the EEOC hearing process and compelling complainants to go to federal district court would lengthen the time for resolution and take away from the confidentiality and privacy that the hearings process engenders. [Note: this was not a formal chair proposal.]

Some administrative judges would like subpoena power, and several were concerned with what they saw as a growing commission focus on the numbers of cases processed rather than the quality of the work. Nearly all of them mentioned the lack of clerical support.

One of the AJs summed up the redesign needs as, "OFO needs to change some definitions to come into line with the federal courts, and the AJs need additional authority to dismiss nonmeritorious complaints so that time is spent more effectively, on cases that may have merit. The AJs are in a difficult position due to the fact that any of our decisions that are appealed go to OFO, which is not in our chain of command…The result is we are under pressure from OFO to process cases in certain ways, which takes longer, while our district directors want the numbers to increase."

More common suggestions for the federal Hearings process were to:

· Separate Hearings from Enforcement by putting it under OFO, which would oversee fieldwork, coordinate activities, provide training, and ensure quality work.

· Provide appropriate clerical and paralegal support so that AJ time is spent effectively.

· Seek full input from EEOC staff and stakeholders before making decisions on how to streamline the Hearings process.

TOOLS NEEDED TO GET THE WORK DONE

There were some positive comments about tools at hand. Fifty-six respondents said either the support they received was adequate or there something good about the support they received. Not all of these comments were made in conjunction with the question on adequacy of support tools.

The responses for the 39 who elaborated on what worked well are shown in Table B-1 (attached to this appendix) as a way of sharing some best practices ideas and compliments.

Many indicated that the tools are inadequate and out-of-date when received. The summary of responses of additional tools staff need to do their work well is as follows:

58 More clerical support
48 More staff or staff with interpreting skills
45 Training (computer training often noted)
25 Software (Microsoft programs, case litigation)
24 Equipment (better phone system, working copiers, scanners, laptops)

Field staff often mentioned their antiquated phone system (which appears to be a significant problem in many field locations), unpredictable first and fourth-quarter funding, use of Corel rather than Microsoft products (which made it hard to communicate with employers or litigants), and inadequate training. Attorneys in the field also indicated that they do not have sufficient computer or technology support, for example, shared printers or laptops, slow scanners, or outdated scanning software. Many field offices voiced the need for more bilingual staff.

The 40% of respondents who cited the lack of clerical support cited such things need for receptionists, a duty that some senior staff sometimes shared with investigators as a form of moral support. Most staffs do all their own clerical work. This was particularly vexing to a number of attorneys who said their work was very paper intensive, especially as they were preparing for trials. Fifty percent of those in litigation cited the need for more clerical support. It is important to note that there was no specific question on this, these were responses to open ended questions about additional tools needed.

Attorneys said there is no software to track their work, and they must generate most reports by hand. Such software had been planned but resources were not made available. Some mentioned there is commercial software that could be used, but EEOC does not buy it. They mentioned software would assist in case preparation and ensure that there is appropriate sharing of information among offices to avoid duplication of work and embarrassment to the agency.

ENHANCING MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

Planning Efforts of the Past and Present

Several questions asked for opinions on the current and past strategic plans and the chairs Five Point Plan. Eighty-five (58%) said they were familiar with the current strategic plan, and 51 of them could say how it affected their organization. Some of these replies were rather terse, such as "all of it," and some referred to implementing the PCHP or the National Enforcement Plan (NEP) as the strategic plan. Others were more specific and mentioned things such as increased interaction between attorneys and investigators, outreach, and mediation. A number of field respondents said that all parts of the plan affected their offices. In addition to the 51 who said how the plan affected there office were fourteen others who had a less positive reaction to it in their description, such as they didn't think it affected their office much, the only goal was to close cases, or that the plan was short on substance and it offered no realistic way to address workload and resource changes.

Forty-four (30%) indicated familiarity with past strategic plans. Many of those who commented on past ones were complimentary of the change to PCHP (which technically was not part of a strategic plan); they would use terms such as "brilliant" or "genius" in referring to it. Other positive references were to outreach, getting computers for all staff, and moving attorneys to area and local offices. Others said past plans had not been implemented, or plans changed with each chair so were not especially relevant.

Fully 119 respondents (82%) said they were familiar with the chair's Five Point Plan. Though some were skeptical, the majority thought it made sense and emphasized some recent priorities (such as outreach and mediation) even more strongly. Respondents were also asked to comment on how the Five Point Plan would affect their organization.

Examples of positive ways the plan would affect the respondents' organizations are:

· Model workplace changes. Changes to move staff and shift functions, increase technology.
· More emphasis on mediation may affect EEOC's goal of eliminating systemic discrimination.
· Streamline/consolidate staffing and maximize work and results.
· Want to know how outreach will be defined and interpreted, and how it will be incorporated into our position descriptions.
· Proactive prevention is effective, but if it is seen as "soft" on litigation it will lower ADR participation.
· Plan is similar to our current operations-proactive resolution. Want to do more mediation.

Healthy skepticism about the potential impact came from a an almost equal number, and examples are:

· It won't affect how my [field] office operates. The chair is in DC and is not familiar with our office's operations.
· It's a broad plan and we need a focus on specific program activities. My office supports the model workplace effort.
· The emphasis on mediation has led to decreased amount of litigation.
· Legal will have a more difficult time getting funds or services needed to perform similarly to a top law firm.

Enhancing Internal Communication

Sixty-four respondents (44%) said that communication within the organization was effective, though some of these qualified their response by saying "somewhat" or "partially." Though much was said to be informal (the word grapevine was used much more often than rumor mill), staff said there had been improvements. They most often mentioned email and Internet access, including EEOC communication via email. However, the EEOC Intranet was considered substantially underused. Especially in the field, staff sensed that other offices had developed tools they would find useful, and they thought EEOC should share these on the Intranet. One respondent said that it had taken her 40 hours to develop a Technical Assistance Program (TAPS) presentation, and she assumed many other offices had already done this. In the field, there were varied comments about the district director role in communications; it clearly varied.

Sixty-eight (47%) had suggestions to improve communication. The following represent suggestions that were made by a number of individuals.

· Have more regular staff meetings so that managers better communicate with staff.
· Use the EEOC Intranet (InSite) a great deal more, and make it more user-friendly.
· Use the email system to inform staff of changes or other news.
· Ensure that headquarters communicates more regularly with the field.

Several respondents, all from the field, complimented their top managers for regularly communicating with staff throughout the office.

INTERACTING WITH OTHER EEOC OFFICES

Fifteen respondents said they did not interact with other field or headquarters offices, and two said they thought this was too bad that they did not. Twenty-six said that they had some level of interaction with other offices, and eighty-four said they had more than "some" interaction.

The many examples give a sense of fairly limited interaction; many comments were that they dealt with other offices only when they went to training or an investigation or case was transferred. A number of field respondents mentioned monthly conference calls dealing with outreach, mediation, or federal sector work. Contact with headquarters was on a range of issues, including administrative assistance, often with personnel issues.

RECENT CHANGES TO WORKLOAD LEVEL OR TYPE OF WORK

Eighty-nine respondents said there had been at least one change to workload or type of work in recent years, and sixty-five of these had specific comments on workload.

Staff in enforcement or investigation were most likely to comment on the positive impact of PCHP, especially on reducing individual caseloads so that staff could better focus on the most important ones. As one person said, "Before PCHP I was drowning. Now I can mostly handle it." However, other things had increased the workload, such as the need for investigators to do intake regularly and the complexity of cases involving the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

Administrative judges and paralegals who worked on Hearings comment on the impact of the 1999 regulatory changes. While cases are more complex, they thought this gave the AJs a more complete picture. They also noted that the backlog had been reduced because more attorneys were doing Hearings work.

Staff in litigation also commented that PCHP was effective, and several commented that they now worked more closely with investigators. Some said the workload had grown because of staff shortages, while one who had recently transferred to a new district said the workload there was far less than in the attorney's former office. Several attorneys commented that they did more clerical work because of staff shortages.

Mediators said that their workload had grown, and one said that they did more internally because their office had used its contract funds. Another said that the workload varied depending on whether they had contract funds.

Directors and deputy directors in the field commented on the drop in each investigator's caseload since PCHP was introduced and noted that the goal of handling cases in no more than 180 days was realistic. One noted there were more negotiated settlements and another also mentioned the complexity of ADA cases.

DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

Suggestions for Realigning the Field

Forty-four respondents (six from headquarters) noted the need to reassess office locations, taking into consideration such things as whether to close or move those that are in close proximity to another or do not serve a given number of cases. There were many specific examples, but just as many cautions that many offices were opened for political reasons (generally to please a member of Congress) and will be hard to close.

Many field staff suggested that EEOC would better serve the public by having what they called "satellite" offices, which translated into going to a given city on a regular basis to do intake. Field staff generally did not think that electronic case filing would meet everyone's needs. Not everyone has access, and they were not keen on doing away with the initial interview, which they described as essential in assessing case validity. However, twenty-one respondents did say that they thought EEOC should have electronic charge filing as one of its ways of filing the initial paperwork. A couple spoke of having kiosks in retail centers for this purpose.

Twenty five (17%) discussed having more staff work from home on a regular basis, and a few of these mentioned at-time at-home workers holding periodic intake sessions in local public buildings, such as post offices.

No one spoke in favor of having just a few large regions and closing a lot of offices. They thought that proximity to stakeholders was essential. Two suggested reestablishing a small number of regional litigation centers, but several others spoke against this, saying the prior system did not work or it was essential to have the attorneys close to the investigators.

Suggestions for Modifying Headquarters

In the field many of the respondents said they had a hard time figuring out what HQ staff did, and thus would have a harder time making suggestions. People noted that one-quarter to one-third of EEOC's staff are in HQ, while nearly all work relating to the agency's mission is in the field. (Note: 24% are in headquarters.) Forty-five respondents said, in one way or another that HQ was too big or had too many layers of people reviewing work.

Most suggestions dealt with processes rather than structure, even though survey questions dealt with modifying EEOC's structure.

Among the specific restructuring suggestions were:

· Merge the OGC and the Office of Legal Services (OLS), which have many parallel functions.
· Examine why there are Systemic Units in HQ and the field.
· Combine Strategic Planning and Budget, and make it parallel to the CFO.
· Move Procurement and Contracting out from under Budget, as a separate office.
· Eliminate the Federal Affirmative Action Program unit (which looks at federal agency programs)
· Build up the Affirmative Action program.
· Move Records Management from the CFO to IT, since most records are or will be electronically stored.
· Integrate research and planning under the CFO.
· Make sure HQ functions as a resource for the field (this was the gist of many comments)
· Examine the overlapping responsibilities of OGC, Federal Operations, and the Office of Field Programs.
· Examine administrative functions to see if they can be provided centrally or regionally rather than in each district office.

Centralizing or Consolidating Functions

There were twenty-six suggestions for functions that could be centralized. Some of the more common ones were:

· Centralize or regionalize responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
· Information or "data" functions in one office
· Administrative or "backroom" functions
· Some aspects of training

The several suggestions to consolidate administrative functions said this did not mean a Washington, DC location; office real estate and housing would be cheaper in other locations.
Perhaps predictably, field staff thought that most HR decisions could be made in the field and thus more resources were needed there; conversely, some in HQ and one field person thought that most HR tasks could be centralized. It was apparent that one point affecting opinions was the perceived inability to get good service from the Office of Human Resources (OHR).

Decentralizing Functions

There were thirty-one suggestions to decentralize, including the two most prominent:

· Budget management or generally more field discretion (21 respondents)
· Litigation approval with RAs (20 respondents)

There were several suggestions that the Technical Assistance Program Seminars (TAPS) administrative functions (registering participants, publicizing, preparing materials) should again be done in the field. Since HQ took over this function (through which EEOC provides information to the federal or private sector organizations, which pay into a revolving fund), staff said registration services have been poor and enrollment has gone down because HQ does not publicize the programs until shortly before the date.

ISSUES WITH CURRENT HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE STRATEGIC HUMAN CAPITAL PLAN

Districts do not have a given staffing level within which to manage; many respondents mentioned the need for a "staffing floor," with the ability to replace staff who leave within these limits. Staff in HQ and the field noted that when they lose a staff member they cannot replace them. Forty-eight respondents (33%) mentioned staffing shortages, five from headquarters, the others from the field.

District staff said they cannot redeploy staff but must get headquarters approval for all hires, promotions, and reassignments-essentially all personnel actions. There were many examples of requests for staff being sent to HQ and dropped into a "black hole." Frustration with the inability to hire and the time it took to do so was expressed a number of times.

Many respondents mentioned the need to plan ahead to replace the many staff who will retire in the next few years. A few saw this as an advantage, as others could move into these positions, but most who noted it were worried that there would be no transition opportunity and work would suffer.

There were 102 respondents (70%) who offered suggestions about what the Academy should consider in developing a Strategic Human Capital Plan, though not all were in response to this specific question. The issues they addressed dealt with:

Staff were forceful in saying that training is inadequate, even in areas in which the chair has stated specific priorities. Some noted that their offices did not support staff who were willing to pay for their own coursework by letting them take leave when they needed to study or permitting a flexible work schedule. Nearly all interviewees mentioned training in some way.

Often cited was that headquarters does not support the field in disciplining or firing poor performers. Forty-one surveys (28%), including a number that represented groups of interviewees, noted this, some quite emphatically. Three were from headquarters, the rest from the field. One RA noted even if an office has established a good paper trail they are not supported. One HQ respondent said that EEOC should not only have a plan to replace and retain staff but one to be sure they retain only the effective performers. Several staff said that staff had to absorb work of poor performers or that if these individuals were replaced it would greatly reduce staffing problems.

Other suggestions were that EEOC develop:

· An effective approach for staff management that would let DDs recruit and deploy staff to best meet EEOC's mission.
· An effective plan for the upcoming attrition as many staff retire. Some saw these retirements as an opportunity to get rid of people who were not willing to change.
· A much better employee recognition program.
· Better training programs, with emphasis on computer training.

Staff Morale

While there was no question on this, it came through in many ways, and it varied by office. In general, it is not high in many places. Some issues were beyond district office control (staff decreases, lack of training funds, budget allocation unpredictability), while others seemed to be a function of local leadership. For example, several district offices had staff members were generally positive about their work methods and leadership and were enthusiastic about how well the legal and enforcement sides of the office worked together. Staff in another district office clearly believed that the director was reluctant to show leadership and make a decision. Staff in one office said this was because top managers did not want to upset headquarters, but others seemed to think that their managers simply were not good leaders.

Among mailed-in survey respondents, there were clusters of responses from individual offices that clearly had leadership problems. All in all, there appears to be a feeling among the field and HQ managers that risk-taking and working "outside the box" are not supported by top management and to do so may jeopardize one's career.

While all staff mentioned the frustration of resource deficiencies, this was the primary focus of headquarters interviewees. Field staff mentioned this often, but had a larger proportion of comments on frustrations related to work methods. The field does, however, strongly believe that resources must be scrutinized and redeployed---particularly, assigned to where the program work is actually performed and delivered.

ISSUES FOR THE ACADEMY TO CONSIDER
IN DEVELOPING A RESTRUCTURING PLAN

Ninety-four respondents had comments for the Academy to consider as it develops the EEOC Five-Year Restructuring Plan. Some of these were very specific (such as more telecommuting), while some were broad (such as resize EEOC based on its mission and automate functions when possible). Several counseled that EEOC needed to carefully communicate the plan and how it would be implemented.

A number respondents though that more decision-making authority should be delegated as low as possible within the organization, and several specifically mentioned budget authority. One person thought that EEOC should find the most efficient offices and model other offices after that one. Though not always mentioned in the context of the restructuring plan, 19 respondents said that EEOC needed to focus less on numbers and more on effective case processing. Some of these comments were very pointed.

Fears and Hopes About Reorganization

Respondents were asked what their fears and hopes were for a reorganization of EEOC. For the 102 (70%) who expressed at least one fear, there were come very common themes.

· Losing a job (30)
· Fear that nothing would change or changes would make things worse (18)
· Lessened customer service or less focus on mission (13)
· The federal Hearings function will be eliminated (5)

In addition to these, there were 30 others who names a specific negative impact they thought the reorganization could have, such as EEOC becoming more politicized, creating more bureaucracy under the guise of becoming more effective, staff demoralization or burnout, or that headquarters would expand as the field shrinks. Several respondents were concerned about specific work-related issues, such as that ADR would take precedence over litigation, or supposed efficiencies would lead to reduced investigation work.

Hopes About Reorganization

One hundred six (73%) had at least one hope about an EEOC reorganization. Thirty-nine hoped that EEOC would become more effective in a given area. Examples were better charge intake, restructuring enforcement so that law enforcement is a priority for A-1 cases, mediation would get more respect in concert with and not opposition to enforcement, and EEOC develops smarter ways to improve the litigation process. A few of these thirty-nine offered general comments such as provide better service to the public.

Twenty-eight saw reorganization as a way to further EEOC's mission of eliminating discrimination in the workplace, while twenty-five hoped EEOC would be better managed. Some of the latter hopes were that EEOC make better use of limited resources, new technology would help handle inquiries and support field offices, there would be more consistency in operations, and that management layers would be reduced.

Twenty had hopes that related to human capital management. These included recognizing good performance, creating "staffing floors" so district directors could hire when the office dropped below that level, redeploying staff from areas with less need to areas with more, and providing more growth opportunities for staff. There were seven comments that reorganization could lead to better managers in individual offices.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS

Eighty-four respondents had a miscellaneous or said they wanted to add something that was not addressed on the survey. Some of these related to a specific EEOC function, such as giving AJs subpoena power or restructuring the attorney evaluation form so it recognized the work attorneys do to assist investigators. It was when responding to this question that a number of staff said that EEOC placed too much emphasis on closing cases; a couple respondents said that district director bonuses should not be tied to production, because the incentive was to focus more on numbers than quality. One person suggested that field office goals and performance indicators should be related to the local market and employment forces.

In general, there were a number of comments that reflected dissatisfaction; more than a few referred to specific managers who did not inspire confidence. Two people suggested resuming field office audits, so that headquarters could better understand the problems in some offices. A few people cautioned the Academy to ensure that it gathered comprehensive information in developing its findings and restructuring plan for EEOC.

Table B-1: Examples of Effective Tools

_________________

41. In the March 1995 report of the Charge Processing Task Force, one recommendation was that a new policy be that, "A wide variety of cases may be dismissed after the intake investigation is completed, or at a later stage after some additional examination if the evidence obtained does not establish that it is "more likely than not that discrimination occurred." p. 11.

To continue to Appendix C, please click here