The EEOC structure of widespread field offices and a headquarters Office of Field Programs (OFP) that guides policy implementation and program focus for most work done in the field has worked reasonably well for its 30-year history. However, this approach was more appropriate when paper-based methods were the only ones available for processing complaints, interacting with respondents, or communicating with federal agencies. It was also designed for twentieth century programs and technology, and does not permit the Commission to meet all aspects of its current mission, which now emphasizes prevention and mediation in addition to enforcement, or to take maximum advantage of technology advances.

Technology will enable EEOC to move away from a solely place-based focus of interacting with its customers. This could not be more timely because EEOC cannot afford to maintain a bricks-and-mortar structure of 51 field real estate locations whose rental costs are rising at more than $1 million per year.

EEOC's restructuring should not be limited to the field and those headquarters organizations that support it. The agency needs to put similar functions together to minimize top-management infrastructure requirements and facilitate cross-training whenever possible. EEOC also needs to integrate the internal processes that support mission achievement, reduce staffing in administration, and consolidate some functions in locations where the cost of doing business is lower.

The Panel believes that major restructuring decisions need to consider principles such as:

· Organizational structure will best facilitate effective performance and maintain accountability if it is designed to meet distinct requirements of the agency's programs.
· The structure should minimize hierarchy and management layers.
· The structure should take full advantage of information technology.
· Business practices and processes should provide the highest level of customer service at the lowest possible cost.
· When field offices are the primary point of citizen service delivery, headquarters' functions should make their first priority supporting field service delivery.

A combination of in-person service and technology can enhance EEOC's service delivery and increase customer access and satisfaction. This will entail some major changes in how EEOC organizes to do business, and the Commission will need to consult with a broad mix of internal and external stakeholders. Ultimately, the Chair will need to make some difficult decisions; a thorough consultation process will permit everyone to be heard.

The Panel believes there is a set of factors the EEOC should consider in making these decisions. These are:

1. What have been the filing patterns for private and federal cases during the past three years by state and major metropolitan areas within each state? Does analysis of Census and other data indicate that patterns could change?
2. What are the filings-per-capita per state, and does this vary for states that have an EEOC office compared to those that do not?
3. Are there some industries or parts of the country that appear to generate more charges of discrimination?
4. How does the presence of a FEPA or TERO affect the need for an EEOC physical presence?
5. To what extent can a physical presence in some locations be replaced by a well-publicized, regularly scheduled EEOC site visits to the location?
6. Is it necessary to have all or nearly all EEOC services provided from a full-service office, or can there be some intake-only locations, supplemented by staff who conduct investigations while working out of their homes?
7. If there are some intake-only units, can they be co-located with another federal agency?
8. Can staff who conduct outreach, mediation, hearings, or technical assistance be attached to an office but work in a distant part of a state, coming to an office only occasionally and regularly visiting customer locations that are within a relatively short drive from their homes?
9. Is it necessary for EEOC offices to be located in prime downtown locations, or can they be located on the outer rim of downtown (where real estate might be less expensive), assuming they are served by public transportation?
10. Are there some locations to maintain, regardless of direct service provided there, because the distance to other EEOC offices is too great?

The Panel believes the highest-priority recommendations in the area of aligning mission and functions are those that address: establishing a National Call Center; realigning the field structure to reduce the number of physical locations; consolidating administrative support functions; and reorganizing portions of headquarters so that there are clearer organizational distinctions between private sector enforcement and other functions, such as mediation, prevention/technical assistance. The other issues discussed in this chapter are also essential, but these four sets of recommendations are those that will most substantially affect operations and thus customer service.

NEED FOR A NATIONAL CALL CENTER

The concept of requiring the public to do business with a government agency office close to where they live is a carryover from times when geography governed nearly all decisions related to where to shop, bank, work, or get an education. While proximity is still a factor in many such decisions, it no longer has to predominate, and there may be less expensive or more efficient ways to achieve the same objectives.

The Panel recommends that EEOC establish a nationwide, toll-free National Call Center staffed by individuals who have been thoroughly trained in responding to questions about EEOC's mission and services and in taking charges over the phone.

The purpose of the National Call Center would be to:

· Have highly trained staff in one location so that customers receive accurate and consistent information and can often have their questions or issues resolved in one call
· Relieve individual offices of a large proportion of routine inquiries and calls about the status of cases
· Probe and provide information so that callers understand whether EEOC is the appropriate agency to address their problem, and provide information on the alternative organizations
· Obtain sufficient information through telephone charge-filing so that a field investigator can begin work, or EEOC can determine that the charge is without merit
· Reduce operating costs through economies of scale

EEOC field offices get hundreds of thousands of calls directly related to service delivery, and field offices have varying staff and phone system capabilities to handle them. One office Academy staff visited had a backlog of more than 900 unreturned messages. At another district office visited, every phone call was entered into a tracking database that office had developed and the district director and deputy reviewed the status on a regular basis. An area office used carbon-based message books for each call and the assigned investigator had to record when the call was returned and how it was resolved so the manger could compare actions taken to the log.

Offices with backlogs generally said that staff shortages were the cause, noting that there were no longer receptionists to field calls or sufficient investigation support assistants to track or return calls. They also noted some phone systems were outdated, and advocated a common phone system that would enable callers to get routine information by selecting certain menu options, always with a "bailout option" to talk to a person. However, OFP staff said that some offices were in buildings that could not handle the modern phone systems without adding additional switch capability to the building. For example, in one location where EEOC explored this, it would have had to pay $25,000 just to install the switch. In addition, the past two administrations have strongly favored having a person answer the phone rather than an automated system. In at least one field office, an automated system had been discontinued to accommodate this goal.

Examining Other Organization's Call Centers

The federal government has been benchmarking private sector customer service call centers and creating its own for more than a decade. There are well-established systems at organizations such as the Social Security Administration (which gets more than 1 million calls per day) and Internal Revenue Service (about 70 million calls per year). The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer Center places its telephone menu guide on the web so that callers can know all the options before they place a call.

In a 1997 study,(8) the Federal Benchmarking Consortium found that companies that had successfully switched to one-stop customer service started by examining how key processes were designed and managed. Despite considerable differences in motivation, products or services, all of the organizations studied shared the following attributes:

· A reliance on technology as a key enabler of one-stop service
· A focus on cross-functional teamwork to provide comprehensive service
· The ability to manage change effectively by attending to the human factors(9)

Some firms had teams organized around geographic regions so that incoming calls could be automatically directed to the appropriate team based on the caller's area code. Most of the organizations used telephone systems with interactive voice recorders capable of sophisticated call routing based on the caller's selection from a menu of service options.

While this Academy study was underway, the District of Columbia's 9-1-1 system reported on the operator-assisted delivery of a baby. What made this particularly exciting was that the caller spoke only Spanish and the 9-1-1 operator did not. However, the operator had immediate access to a contract interpreter service that served as the essential link to a successful delivery. A decentralized system could not afford that level of technical support in each location.

The U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts dozens of ongoing surveys every year, has three call centers that initiate calls or receive them from its many survey respondents. One is located in Tucson, Arizona so that there is a readily available pool of Spanish-speaking staff, and the other two are in Hagerstown, MD and Jeffersonville, IN. At all three locations, operating costs are lower than if the call centers were housed at Census Bureau headquarters. Its Jeffersonville Center, the largest, also has bilingual capabilities and supplements them with a contract with the language department at the University of Louisville. Like EEOC, the Census Bureau deals with individuals in every demographic, ethnic, and age group. It may be a good organization from which to secure advice or even subcontract for some initial testing.

Appendix D provides information on using a call center to resolve EEO issues, benchmarking for call centers in the public and nonprofit sectors, and examples of savings from consolidating calls.

Panel Discussion: Need for a National Call Center

From retail to government, organizations have moved to centralized call centers to provide better customer service. Among the benefits for EEOC would be that a National Call Center allows some staff to specialize in phone interaction and allows others to focus on more analytical work. It may be a more effective use of the Commission's human capital.

An EEOC National Call center should be staffed with individuals who can do far more than provide information on the status of a private sector charging party's case. Developing necessary staff skills will require concerted initial training, and these skills will be best maintained by having immediate access to information and regular interaction with others who provide the same service. Having a National Call Center would facilitate the development of a pool of bilingual staff in languages most commonly needed. It should also be easier to staff a central location in the evenings, when EEOC's customers may find it more convenient to call, and to provide regular staff training.

The technology investment will be substantial. However, private sector companies have documented savings that have more than offset the initial investment and updates over time. Agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Census Bureau acknowledge that they could never meet their volume of calls without centralized calling centers. While EEOC does not handle the same volume, the economies of scale and enhanced customer service suggest that a National Call Center would be a wise investment.

ALIGNING FIELD OFFICE LOCATIONS WITH SERVICE NEEDS

EEOC needs to reduce the costs of maintaining its physical presence to operate within its appropriation without severely limiting customer service. Key components of an approach that would rely less on physical presence would include a National Call Center, secure electronic charge filing, and a group of permanent teleworkers, some of them living in areas near major rural employers so that they could conduct periodic intake interviews in nearby federal or local government offices. Electronic charge filing and increased telework are discussed in Chapter Four.

· The Panel recommends that EEOC establish a network of lead offices in areas with high workload levels, defined to include private sector charge filings but also to consider other factors, such as local industries and population demographics and EEOC's mediation and outreach efforts. Lead offices might have satellite offices under them, and perhaps a mobile unit that could travel to areas not close to EEOC offices.

· Initial implementation should begin with pilots of this combination of place-based, mobile, and remote services so that the EEOC can develop and test service to customers, infrastructure support, management checks and balances, revised work processes, and supporting human resources systems for recruitment, training and performance assessment, and other components.

The following sections discuss the costs of maintaining a large number of offices and the varied levels of service provided in them.

The High Cost of Fifty-One Locations

EEOC's rental costs rose from $25.6 million in FY 2002 to an estimated $29.4 in FY 2003 and $31.2 million in FY 2004. Part of the FY 2003 increase was attributable to the September 11, 2001 loss of the New York District Office and the more expensive rent for the new space. The OCFO believes that the steady annual increase will continue if the agency does not find more cost effective alternatives.

EEOC's headquarters office is located at 1801 L Street NW in Washington, DC, in one of the most expensive rental areas of the city. Some field offices are in federal buildings, while others are in commercial space, some in more expensive parts of a downtown area than others. Escalation clauses vary, as do the square footage costs per location.

Table 3-1 shows the rental costs and for each office, the number of staff and the square feet and rental costs per staff member. The costs per staff member will vary substantially, in part because of variable rental costs. The square feet per staff member includes the square feet for individual staff offices plus all space for conferences, intake, copy equipment, reception, etc.

In general, if an office had fewer than 10 staff it had more than 500 total square feet per staff member, a reflection of the fact that, no matter how few staff there are, there has to be at least a small reception area, an intake area, and other common space. There were exceptions. Savannah with nine staff has 359 square feet per staff member. Buffalo, with only 12 staff, has only 247. Most of the offices with more than 70 staff (Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, Miami, New York, Phoenix and San Francisco) are more likely to have closer to 300 square feet per staff member. Here, too, there were exceptions. Dallas has 82 staff and about 500 square feet and Los Angeles has 68 staff and 515.

Also, most offices had lost staff since they entered into their current lease. Had these calculations been done one year ago the average square footage per staff member would have been lower. In all of the offices visited, individual staff appeared to have cubicles or offices in accordance with GSA square footage regulations. However, some offices had vacant office space, since staff had left and not been replaced.

Ten EEOC field offices have leases that expire in late 2002 or 2003 (San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Savannah, Milwaukee, Chicago, Newark, Cleveland, Minneapolis, San Antonio). The total annual rent for these offices currently is $3.9 million; the new amounts were initially estimated to be $5.6 million, an increase of $1.7 million. To reduce this increase, the OCFO worked with the first three offices whose leases expire, to reduce square footage by doing such things as putting some staff in shared offices. They were thus able to reduce the increase for just three offices by $1.6 million.

Table 3-1
Workload Data by Office
FY 2001 and Total FY 1999-01 Private Sector Charge Receipts
Full-Year Mediations for Each District for FY 2001
FY 2001 Federal Sector Cases Received

For a text description of Table 3-1, please click here

The calculation for square feet per staff member includes all common space, such as conference rooms and reception area.
Because most offices have lost staff, the square feet per staff member and annual rent per staff member are larger numbers than they would have been even one year ago.

There are no federal cases listed for Albuquerque because that office does not conduct Hearings.

Workloads Vary by Location

The number of mediations per district and the private sector charges per district, area, and local offices vary considerably. In addition to rental costs, Table 3-1 also shows all private sector charge receipts and mediations for FY 2001, the total of FY 1999-2001 private sector charge receipts, and federal sector cases received during FY 2002. As these data show, there are wide variations among numbers of private sector charges among district offices; they range from three-year highs of approximately 15,000 for Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, and Miami to lows of less than 5,000 for Albuquerque, Denver, Detroit, Seattle, and the Washington Field Office. All of the districts with lower numbers have no area or local offices, though Chicago also has no other offices associated with it and it had one of the highest three-year private sector charge receipt totals.

Mediation data are reported by district rather than individual office, in part because there are a number of offices with only one mediator, and it would not be appropriate to report individual production numbers. In addition, mediators assigned to the district office may conduct mediations on behalf of area or local offices. Successful mediations (which EEOC defines as those that resulted in a resolution agreed to by both parties) ranged from 557 for the Indianapolis District to 82 for Albuquerque. The number of mediations differs in part because the number of opportunities for mediation relates to the number of charges, and those vary widely. Differences may also be because of the emphasis placed on mediation or how an office organizes its mediation work. (See Chapter Six.) While the Washington Field Office had only 50 mediations, it covers a city of 572,000, while other districts cover larger geographic and population areas.

The number of federal sector cases received also varied widely from 128 per year in Indianapolis, 137 in Detroit, and 161 in Milwaukee to 952 in the Washington Field Office, 765 in San Francisco, and 728 in Los Angeles. Cities with higher numbers are those that used to be defined as one of the ten standard federal regions,(10) and still have a major federal presence. Generally, the AJs who hold the federal hearing are assigned to district offices and travel to other cities as needed.

Thirty percent of the EEOC staff surveys cited the need to reexamine the number and locations of offices. The most often-cited example was west-central California, where there are offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. There are also three district offices in Texas (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio), each staffed by an SES-level district director.

When arrayed on a map (see Figure 3-1), the more than 238,000 private sector charges received between FY 1999 and 2001 are heaviest in New York and through the Mid-Atlantic Region and into the Midwest and South, across to Texas, and in California. There are fewer in Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona and Washington, and far fewer in Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Oregon and all the upper Plains states.

Figure 3-1
EEOC Private Sector Charges Filed by State 1999-2001

For a text description of Figure 3-1, please click here

Map does not depict territories served by EEOC
Charges shown by location of charging party.

Many things could account for the varied numbers of charges, population density first among them. However, it cannot be the sole factor. If it were, then New Mexico (1.8 million people) and Utah (2.2 million), which are located near each other and are reasonably close in size, might have similar complaint-density on Figure 3-1. Instead, Utah's is far lower. Factors other than population include the racial and ethnic mix of the population, types of industries, local economies, education levels, and proximity to an EEOC office. New Mexico has an office in Albuquerque and Utah has none, but New Mexico also has a more diverse population and the two states' industries are different.

Examining Private Sector Charges by State

Table 3-2 shows the states and some other locations' FYs 1999-2001 private sector charge receipts by state of origin of the receipts.(11) It also shows the 2000 population for each state, the states' rankings in terms of U.S. population, the population growth in that state, and the number of people in each state per charge.

Table 3-2 shows that Texas (with three district offices) has the most private sector charge receipts and has the second-largest population. California (with two district offices) has 10,000 fewer charges, yet it has in excess of 13 million more people than Texas. Some other states have similar charge receipts and population rankings (only West Virginia is identical), while others (such as Alabama) rank high in EEOC charges and much lower in population ranking, or Massachusetts, which is low in charges and higher in population.

There cannot be an exact relationship between charge receipts and populations, but discussion and analysis would be able to explain wide variations. For example, Massachusetts has a strong FEPA, which handles a large proportion of charges that would otherwise come to EEOC.

Table 3-2
Comparison of 1999-2001 EEOC Private Sector Charge Receipts
per State and 2000 State Population

For a text description of Table 3-2, please click here

Perhaps the most telling information in Table 3-2 is the last column, which shows the number of people within a state for each charge filed. The larger the number the fewer the charges per capita. For example, Texas (with the most charges overall) has one charge per 779 people while California has one per 2,044. The smaller the number the more "dense" the charge filing pattern. States with the most charges per capita (the smallest number) are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico. All are in the South or Southwest.

Panel Discussion: Aligning Office Locations with Service Needs

Having more options to accept charges (Internet filings, a National Call Center, mobile units that travel to more remote locations) would give private and federal charging parties, and private sector employers and federal agencies, more avenues to interact with EEOC.

A review of the number of private sector charges filed and mediations conducted at the 24 District Offices and the Washington Field Office shows that private sector workload levels vary, as do the approaches taken by the offices to manage charge processing and staffing for mediation. Workload cannot be the only factor for choosing office locations. However, as EEOC decides which offices to close or downsize, it will be an important consideration.

Analysis leading to a decision on the most appropriate number of lead EEOC offices should consider a number of factors, such as clients served, economies of scale, maintaining a core group of staff for training and service-provision purposes, and the rental costs associated with each location. Previously, this chapter listed ten factors that EEOC can consider in making office location decisions. The Panel believes that regardless of the state and city, physical locations for EEOC work should, to the extent possible, be:

· Accessible to customers by public transportation
· Cost efficient to operate
· Organized so that staff can be trained effectively at a reasonable cost

No single approach to deciding the exact mix of physical locations and other modes of service can satisfy every situation. For example, Internet-based charge processing would be less expensive than office-based interviews, but not all workers have access to or are comfortable conveying sensitive information this way. Even though EEOC will always maintain some face-to-face charge taking, the more initial contacts can be made via phone or Internet, the more time investigators will have for follow-up work and investigation.

Cost effectiveness is important, and EEOC will want to think of its physical locations in terms of their returns on investment-number of clients served vs. rent, for example. However, there may be some locations that show a lower return but are important to maintain. For example, real estate is expensive in Honolulu and they process only a few hundred private sector charges per year. However, it may not be cost-effective to continually send staff there to investigate charges, and charging parties who need face-to-face interaction could not easily travel to other EEOC offices. On the other hand, does EEOC need 4,000 square feet?

Because the Commission's budget constraints have made location decisions even more urgent, EEOC could start by examining the impact of eliminating offices with the lowest private sector workload. Seventeen handled less than 1,000 private sector charges in FY 2001, including four of the six offices in California (one of which had less than 200). Of the three offices in North Carolina, two had less than 1,000, and both Virginia offices did. Though all four Texas offices handled more than 1,000, one was just above that level. EEOC cannot set an arbitrary caseload level, but when there are multiple offices in a state, lower workload levels at one or more of them could point toward consolidation options.

There may need to be relatively few full-service offices, but if staff in these offices have to travel throughout the country to conduct mediations or investigate charges at a respondent's location, the high cost of travel could erase many of the savings of having fewer offices. Perhaps in addition to the "lead" offices there can be several mediation or mediation and intake-only offices in locations distant from the lead offices. Another option could be to have mediations conducted by staff who are permanent teleworkers, with access to conference rooms for mediation sessions. The General Services Administration maintains telework centers in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, and provides information on non-GSA centers in other parts of the country. As this concept (discussed more in Chapter Four) grows, there will be more ways for EEOC staff to work out of their homes and yet have access to a center that has the full range of office services and equipment, often including conference room use.

EEOC's rental payments to GSA are growing at a rate of more than $1 million per year, in part because of escalation charges, but also because the Commission has chosen to locate its offices in prime office space in major cities. The Panel understands that because the Commission interacts with the public and employers, it needs to be accessible and its space should present an appropriate setting. Charging parties and employers need to see that the federal government values the EEOC's mission, and professional office space is one way to make that clear. However, much of EEOC's work can take place in locations other than prime downtown buildings. Access to public transportation is important, so a far suburban location may not be appropriate. However, there are alternatives between the two types of locations and they should be explored. A key question is: are high-cost rents worth having less money to spend on technology updates or replacing staff who retire?

The Panel realizes that these are difficult decisions, especially given that some EEOC offices are in their present locations because of political considerations. Perhaps one way to mitigate the concern that could come with an office's closing is to present the full cost of maintaining ongoing place-based service and illustrate the services that cannot be offered because of these costs. For example, if it costs $400,000 for a location, how many outreach efforts cannot be conducted to advise citizens of their rights or educate employers on how to avoid discriminatory practices? What is the cost of the mobile EEOC unit that cannot be purchased and thus serve a wide area of rural or smaller towns on a scheduled basis? What portion of an electronic charge-filing system (accessible 24 hours per day) cannot be developed?

There are many factors to weigh. For example, if a lease is not up for immediate renewal, what is the cost of breaking it? It will likely be less than maintaining it, but it is important to consider.

There are also strategic considerations. Would OMB and Congress be willing to make the required investments in technology and training in one fiscal year to avoid spending several times that amount over the next few fiscal years? Can EEOC develop its technology systems fast enough to offset more limited daily physical presence and equip more staff for telework?

Options for the Number of Office Locations

While factors such as population density or historical patterns for charge filings may explain current office locations, with technology providing more opportunities than face-to-face contact, population may not be the predominant factor driving office location in the future. This section of the report describes three frameworks to consider in establishing office locations. The assumption in discussing a smaller number of "lead" offices is that EEOC will supplement brick-and-mortar locations with mobile units that can reach beyond them, and will locate teleworkers so that they can provide outreach to a variety of stakeholders in or near their locale.

Option 1: Maintain a Dispersed Group of Offices

Even with a National Call Center, EEOC could choose to maintain a mix of full-service offices throughout the country. These could be in different locations than currently, after EEOC looks at changes in demographics, immigration patterns, and employment trends. This would likely entail having relatively few teleworkers, and making less use of a mobile workforce that travels to underserved locations. EEOC could also reduce rental costs somewhat by moving offices to city rims or sharing office space with other federal or state agencies.

Advantages to maintaining a dispersed group of offices are:

· Networks of staff that can train new employees and serve as resources to one another
· Opportunities for citizens to visit EEOC offices in a number of cities, on any given workday

Disadvantages to maintaining a dispersed group of offices are:

· Lack of budget flexibility, given that there will still be substantial real estate costs
· A wide span of control for the headquarters office that oversees field operations
· A relatively large number of office infrastructures to maintain, and the requisite costs of doing this

Option 2: The Ten Federal Regional Cities

Another approach to establishing the locations for the "lead" offices would be to start with the ten federal regions, and adjust from there to reflect EEOC's workload. The ten regions are:

1. Atlanta
2. Boston
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Denver
6. Kansas City
7. San Francisco
8. New York
9. Philadelphia
10. Seattle

There are EEOC offices in all of these federal regional cities, and all but two (Boston and Kansas City) are district offices. EEOC could use these ten as a starting point and make necessary revisions. For example, if workload does not justify a lead office in Boston, the current structure, which has Boston under the jurisdiction of the New York office, could be retained.

Advantages for using the standard federal structure as a starting point are:

· Proximity to other federal agencies, making it convenient to negotiate partnership arrangements
· Access to cost saving arrangements for common services (such as sharing videoconferencing facilities or setting up a site for teleworkers to come in for occasional work)
· Entrée to state and local networks related to other federal agencies' programs
· Access to state agencies in these major cities, especially the ones that are state capitals or big enough to attract major state agency offices
· Substantially reduced rental costs, with more funds available for technology development, regular visits to underserved areas, and support for a network of teleworkers
· Proximity to federal agencies for review of their affirmative action programs and ease of federal workers' filing of complaints

The standard federal structure need not be a straightjacket. Since a large part of EEOC's workload comes from states in the southeast part of the country, it may be advisable to establish more than one lead office in that area. EEOC could also decide to supplement its major eight to ten offices with small intake-only centers that can serve as "home base" for a group of teleworkers. The decision should be based on a detailed analysis of current and projected
workload, and has to be EEOC's.

Option 3: Locate Offices in Highest-Volume Cities

A third option is to examine those cities that have a history of the highest level of private sector charge receipts and position lead offices there. Table 3-3 shows cities which (based on the zip code of the charging party) had nearly 500 charges or more each year from FY 1999-2001. All of these cities currently have an EEOC office, thought not all are district offices.

Table 3-3
Cities with Approximately 500 Charge Receipts Per year
FY 1999-2001

For a text description of Table 3-3, please click here

The disadvantage to this option is that it does not consider factors such as recent changes in population or population demographics that could cause future charge-filing patterns to change. In addition, it is possible that, while these offices may have received the most charge receipts in any circumstance, the availability of an EEOC office in these cities led to higher charge filing. This would not be as much a factor when EEOC has a National Call Center and electronic filing. Appendix E lists the 500 cities in which the most charges were filed. For the states that do not have any cities in the top 500 (New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming), the city with the most charges is listed at the end of Appendix E.

CONSOLIDATING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS

There were comments in the field and headquarters about inadequate administrative support or some poorly trained staff in this area. The Academy Panel believes that EEOC's offices should receive effective administrative support when they need it at the least cost. A central (or regional) organization can provide the services well if it is customer-focused. Large federal departments and agencies have regionalized or consolidated most of these services, usually leaving a generalist in each major office to handle some things and coordinate with the central service provider. EEOC may want to try that. However, EEOC has had success in finance and in personnel processing by entering into cross-servicing agreements with the Department of Interior, and may want to continue moving in that direction with the department or other organizations.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

· Consolidate most administrative support functions, leaving in each major office one highly skilled, fully trained administrative staff member to provide those services that must be performed on site and coordinate those that are performed at another location.

· Locate at least some of its consolidated support functions (should EEOC choose to provide them directly) outside of Washington, DC, in locations where real estate costs are lower and it may be easier to recruit and retain staff.

· Develop the costs and benefits of establishing a full servicing agreement with the Department of Interior, instituting additional cross-servicing agreements with other federal organizations, or contracting out administrative functions to the private sector.

Each district has administrative staff in personnel, budget, or traditional administrative job series, though they may not have staff in all three kinds of positions. The ceiling in the field for these positions is 62, and 56 of the positions were filled as of September 21, 2002. All of these positions are in the 24 district offices and the Washington Field Office, none are in area or local offices.

Administrative officers perform a mix of finance and personnel functions, although in offices with a personnel management specialist they would focus less on human resources issues, and in offices with a budget analyst they could deal less with finance. In the interviews Academy staff conducted and the surveys received, EEOC staff said that there was a wide mix of skills and backgrounds in these positions. In some, former clerical staff had been promoted to administrative slots, while in others there was a seasoned staff member with human resources or financial experience acquired in other agencies. In general, the focus is on transaction functions. All field administrative staff report to the district director (some through the administrative officer), and there is no technical supervision from either OCFO or OHR.

When Andersen Business Consulting did its December 2001 study, they noted that 40% (32.5 of 81.5) of the human resources positions are in district or headquarters programs offices, outside the direct control of OHR; 50% of the finance positions (42 of 84) were located outside of OCFO.(12) Each headquarters office has an administrative unit or employee, and EEOC describes their duties as coordinating one or more of the following:

· records management program
· preparation, procurement, and distribution of publications, directives, and blank forms
· preparation and tracking of personnel actions
· mail distribution and control
· individual and group training requests
· budget preparation and control of appropriated funds
· approval of overtime and submission of time and attendance cards
· personnel position authorization and ceiling and organization control matters including maintaining staffing patterns
· personal property and office equipment-procurement and control
· duplicating and printing services

In addition, the program office administrative staff allocate office space and requisition and distribute office supplies.

Varied Satisfaction Levels with Administrative Services

Staff in headquarters and the field said that in the recent past they had long delays in getting travel expenses reimbursed or worried that when they checked into a hotel the EEOC credit card they used would not be honored because it had been canceled for nonpayment. However, they were very complimentary of changes that had taken place in the past year, especially prompt reimbursement for travel expenditures.

On October 1, 2001, EEOC implemented the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), a commercial off-the-shelf financial software application composed of core accounting, budget execution, and project cost accounting modules. It provides centralized access to a corporate-wide financial database and a mechanism for consolidated reporting. EEOC's system operations and software maintenance are performed under a cross-servicing agreement with the Department of Interior's NBC. NBC also performs centralized commercial vendor and employee master file maintenance, travel voucher processing, and invoice and debt collection mail operations.

The reaction to human resources support was not as positive. Headquarters OHR staff said some field human resources staff are not qualified, and field management and headquarters staff almost universally said the service they get from OHR was not good. Many field staff talked about the length of time to get a vacancy filled or promotion processed, but it appeared that some of the delay was in getting permission to fill a position rather than processing time in OHR. Nonetheless, there were examples of identifying qualified candidates and being frustrated when they took other jobs because it took EEOC too long to hire them. In its October 2001 report, Andersen Business Consulting noted that, "The recruitment process is not timely and does not yield the information necessary to make informed hiring decisions without significant involvement of line managers."(13)

As Academy staff talked to OHR managers, it appeared that some changes were underway there. For example, in FY 2001, EEOC also implemented the Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS), which is to integrate the HR and payroll data and permit EEOC to develop a compensation model to provide better management of staff attrition rates and better project FTE-related spending.

In FY 2001, OHR's GPRA goal for hiring was 10 weeks. In FY 2002, EEOC implemented the Secure Online Recruiting System (SOARS), an automated employment application processing system, which electronically prescreens and ranks candidates. As a result, OHR expects that the delays normally associated with rating and ranking candidates and issuing selection certificates will be lessened and has reduced its GPRA hiring goal to six weeks. OHR does not yet have measurement tools in place to assess these goals, and examples of recruitment problems from EEOC executives the Academy staff interviewed suggest that this goal is not yet met. Setting the goal is admirable, but OHR needs to track actual experience so that it can see when the goal is met and ascertain what circumstances prevented it from being met in other instances.

OHR indicated that the agency's Merit Promotion Plan and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which requires that all announcements remain open for a minimum of 10 working days, affect its hiring goal. Depending on the uniqueness of the position, this minimum can be extended. After the vacancy closes, if more than six qualified applicants apply for the vacancy, the Merit Promotion Plan requires a three-person merit promotion Panel; scheduling conflicts are guaranteed. After the applications are rated, a selection certificate is issued. The hiring manager has 60 days to interview (or not interview) candidates and make a selection from the certificate.

The most innovative federal agencies allow no more than 30 days for the interview process. Agencies that hire more regularly than EEOC have generally developed more streamlined approaches. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) purchased Quick Hire and worked with the vendor to develop an application for USGS use. Jobs are now filled in four days plus the length of time the position is advertised. USGS, which uses a web-based system for most of its personnel work, has also experienced a $6 million reduction in annual operating costs expenses, with an offsetting Quick Hire operating expense of only $1 million.(14) EEOC has purchased Quick Hire, but has not yet implemented it.

In some cases, EEOC managers requested lists of non-status candidates. In the past, this process was entirely dependent on OPM involvement and time schedules. OPM announced vacancies, accepted applications, and prepared selection lists. To reduce delays, OHR now has delegated examining authority for non-status candidates; EEOC no longer solely relies on OPM assistance.

There were a range of other support service concerns. Staff often spoke of needing approval for small purchases and delays in getting supplies and equipment. While some of the concerns appeared to be related to lack of funding, others were not. As one attorney pointed out, a trial attorney in a district office could handle multimillion dollar litigation but had to request, via memo, approval to send a package via overnight mail.

Agencies that have handled consolidation well have not begun to reduce administrative positions before deciding on and beginning implementation of the alternative service delivery mechanisms. The Academy has done substantial research on downsizing, and if not handled effectively it can result in decreased productivity, loss of organizational intellectual capacity, and a negative effect on mission accomplishment.(15)

How Other Agencies Have Consolidated Administrative Functions

Nearly all federal agencies have consolidated their administrative support in some way. Larger organizations are more likely to create their own service units. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development consolidated its financial operations in four offices (down from 81), and eventually moved all financial services to Fort Worth. Much of its HR processing function is operated from Chicago.

The Department of Commerce began implementing the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS) in 1998. The goal of this enterprise-wide system is to integrate most of the administrative functions to ensure that administrative tasks are streamlined, and that all administrative systems that feed the financial system are integrated to the extent that users are required to enter information only once. The Coast Guard moved its financial operations to the Norfolk, VA area and its information technology function to West Virginia. They report that both moves resulted in significant savings, improved service, and a greater number of well-qualified candidates for positions to be filled in each function.

Smaller organizations are more likely to enter into cross-servicing arrangements with organizations such as the National Finance Center (NFC) or the Department of Interior's National Business Center (NBC). NBC is providing FPPS and IFMS for EEOC, and the agency is planning to adopt NBC's Interior Department's Electronic Acquisition System--Procurement Desktop (IDEAS-PD), which is a windows-based electronic procurement system. Even larger agencies are likely to use an organization such as NFC or NBC for payroll services. The Agriculture Research Service has its SF-50 personnel actions processed under an agreement with the Department of Commerce, and all federal agencies now enter into cross-servicing agreements with the Department of the Treasury for delinquent debt collection.

Transaction-based functions have become common for outsourcing. However, some organizations are turning to cross-servicing agreements or other modes of outsourcing for such high-touch support as recruitment, staffing, or performance management. NBC provides these and other services.

The Merit Systems Protection Board contracted out its entire human resources function several years ago, and its staff say they continue to be pleased with service quality, quantity, and timeliness. The Internal Revenue Service is experimenting with a private sector vendor who is conducting supervisory assessments via telephone, and has contracted with a consortium of universities to develop and provide a variety of traditional and computer-based training directly linked to workforce competency requirements.

Panel Discussion: Consolidating Administrative Support Positions

Given the number of staff in administration, finance, and human resources, EEOC should have such things as streamlined systems, ongoing strategic workforce planning, regular reports to managers about the status of spending, and a procurement tracking system that is routinely updated and available to line managers. This has not been the case. It is clear that there is now strong leadership in headquarters (in the form of a new CFO appointed in 2001 and a new HR director appointed in 2002) to tackle these kinds of issues, and there has been progress. However, EEOC will find it difficult to marshal its administrative resources to full effectiveness if it maintains its labor-intensive, decentralized approach with varied skill levels throughout the organization.

Under EEOC's current system, a staff member is usually the lone individual in an office with expertise in their field. Internally combined services can enhance service, reduce staffing, and create a core group of cross-trained specialists. The perceived advantage to managers of the decentralized approach in the program or field office is that they can "reach out and touch someone" when they need something. However, when using a customer-service based service provider, the support is still available. Most service providers organize their staff in teams, so that each customer has "their" representative. Systems are characterized by quick turnaround because there is a well-trained cadre of staff who can fill in for one another as needed.

EEOC cannot afford its decentralized approach to administrative support. This does not mean that office directors should be without anyone to oversee implementation of decisions regarding contracting, human resources, finance, and procurement. The Academy Panel suggests that each major headquarters and field office have a highly skilled administrative officer who reports to the office director but receives technical guidance and support from offices such as OHR, OCFO, and OIT. The single staff member would, for example, prepare the office's request to execute a contract for mediation or forward an invoice for payment, but would not have to arrange for the contract or make a payment. The single staff member would also provide a range of higher-level services as well, such as managing budget formulation and execution, identifying IT needs, and integrating the trade-offs among hiring, contracting out, and improving productivity by using information technology. This would be a manageable workload for one individual if EEOC develops standardized procedures, positions descriptions, and the like.

Given that some aspects of EEOC's central administrative support have not always functioned well, there could be resistance from office directors who do not want to lose "their" personnel specialist, budget analyst, or accounting clerk. They should not begin to lose these individuals until reliable alternatives are in place and have been tested. As EEOC develops additional cross-servicing agreements or decides to operate, for example, its own centralized HR service, it should involve office directors in system design and plans for implementation.

CONSIDERING THE HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE FOR PROGRAM WORK

EEOC needs to have clearer organizational distinctions between private sector enforcement and other functions, such as mediation, outreach/prevention, and technical assistance. As a small organization that has made some major changes in work methods in the past decade (including a revised charge processing system and stronger focuses on mediation, outreach/prevention, and technical assistance), EEOC needs to consider whether its program direction and implementation functions need to be more separate than they now are. One reason for this is stakeholder concern that the field's traditional enforcement side of the house also manages mediation and outreach. As part of the administration's "Freedom to Compete" initiative, EEOC held ten roundtable sessions in major cities throughout the country. (See Chapter Two.) One of the themes that emerged was that EEOC should separate enforcement activities from prevention efforts. The Panel can understand the perception concerns.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC establish more distinct focuses of accountability at the headquarters level for:

· Prevention and technical assistance.
· Enforcement
· Mediation

These three areas should have appropriate priority in field offices, even though resource allocation cannot be equally divided.

The Panel considered whether EEOC needed to create separate entities for these major functions. On the surface, this may not be not in keeping with the chair's goal of delayering. However, the Panel did not want to suggest only one approach. When an organization wants to make a clear break from a past way of operating, a change in structure or terminology can be action-forcing. However, these are not the only mechanisms.

Current Headquarters Program Organization

Most federal agencies with a field structure have headquarters program units that set policy and broadly oversee implementation in primary functions and have a field operations unit that oversees field implementation of these activities. GAO and Census are examples. Most work is in the field and there is a central field coordination office in headquarters, but other headquarters units oversee the substance of the various activities.

The way EEOC is organized, policy is established in the Office of Legal Counsel and all headquarters program functions are in the OFP (with headquarters staff of 59), so that organization oversees policy implementation of the programs the 2,156 field staff operate. The principal exceptions are litigation and, to a certain extent, federal sector programs. OFP also represents field office interests in all agency activities and initiatives.

In addition to the immediate Office of the Director, there are three key units within OFP. A portion, but not all, of their duties are summarized here.

Field Coordination Programs (FCP) develops, coordinates, designs, and reviews field and agency programs, included mediation, outreach and education to the public (including training sponsored by the Revolving Fund). This includes strategic planning and field national training programs. It also coordinates with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) regarding all aspects of the field's federal sector programs. There are designated coordinators for outreach, mediation, and federal sector programs, and these individuals are primary points of contact for field staff who work in these areas. They generally hold monthly conference calls for lead staff in each of these areas.

Field Management Programs (FMP) has more of an across-the-board focus. It develops annual national goals and individual office goals in concert with the chair's priorities, allocates funds and staffing among the offices, and provides technical guidance on charge processing, operational or employee relations issues. It coordinates and monitors field office implementation of commission policies and programs, conducts on-site reviews of field operations, reviews charge files, and assesses field office (FO) performance in meeting agency goals. Using these data and information from other headquarters offices, FMP prepares the annual performance appraisals for district directors. FMP is also the FOs' liaison on administrative issues including information management, finance, staffing, and travel.

State and Local Programs (SLP) administers the annual appropriation for state and local agencies' enforcement activities, which includes coordination with the state and local FEPAs. SLP monitors and evaluates those charges that are dual-filed with FEPAs under contract with EEOC, and works with the TEROs, which address discrimination occurring on or near Indian reservations. It also works with FOs in their oversight of FEPA and TERO contracts in their jurisdictions.

FCP staff do serve as coordinators for mediation, outreach and technical assistance, but these are GS-13 staff, not senior managers. The Chair also has a special assistant who also handles mediation.

Panel Discussion of Options for Headquarters Reorganization

It may be difficult for prevention and mediation to secure the emphasis that all want to see-within EEOC and among its stakeholders-when EEOC's organizational culture continues to emphasize the charge-processing aspects of enforcement. It is essential to create a national workplace in which there is less, or no, need to file charges.

As the Academy staff examined EEOC's reports and initiatives, it appeared that the litigation function focused on its initiatives very clearly and worked strategically with other parts of the organization, specifically OFP. The work of the Office of Federal Operations was also visible through its annual report, web page, and role with federal agencies. This could be solely a result of leadership, but it may also be because these two functions have top-level staff who are visible within and outside the organization.

To better achieve results, in headquarters there should be visible, senior-level staff who handle the policy and analysis functions for prevention/technical assistance, enforcement, and mediation. This could mean taking the policy-setting functions out of the Office of Legal Counsel. Most federal agencies consult with legal staff or have them vet policy drafts, but it is not common for the legal staff to have primary responsibility for policy-setting. That usually rests with the lead program office or an assistant secretary.

Suggestions, which are not meant to be all-encompassing, for the work of offices that would handle major areas are:

Prevention and Technical Assistance. Set policy for and manage the national elements of the Outreach and TAPS programs, collect and disseminate employer best practices, identify underserved industries or parts of the country that need more information on EEOC's mission and services, and provide guidance and information to EEOC outreach staff in the field.

Enforcement. Set policy for private sector enforcement work; coordinate with the Office of General Counsel to develop methods for seamless cooperation to ensure expert charge investigation and, thus, case development; and work with the Office of Information Technology on data collection and the Office of Information Research and Planning on data analysis.

Mediation. Set policy for mediation work; educate more companies about the benefits of universal mediation agreements and urge them to sign them; examine mediation resources and results in the field; and assess what works well in mediation in some field offices and work with others to use similar methods.

Without distinct representation at the table, when enforcement, mediation, and prevention are under the same umbrella, the strong cultural tradition of enforcement as the primary tool takes precedence in resource allocation and program emphasis. More distinct lines of accountability may reassure charging parties, employers, and other stakeholders that private sector mediation and charge processing are not inappropriately intertwined, and better align organizational emphasis with the chair's goals of on using prevention to eradicate discrimination. Internally there may be stronger voices for mediation and prevention when the individuals leading those efforts are peers to the person leading enforcement.

Two figures (3-2 and 3-3) present revised EEOC organization charts that reflect the preceding discussion. Figure 3-2 shows EEOC if it were to establish separate offices for Private Sector Charge Enforcement, Mediation, and Prevention/Technical Assistance. Staff would be drawn from OFP and OLC. OFP's role would evolve to one of resource management and coordination, with program oversight and policy-setting coming from the new program offices. Figure 3-3 shows EEOC if it were to establish three program offices within OFP. It would still be appropriate to draw staff from OLC, so that policy setting and program development are within the same units.

Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show that the Offices of Human Resources, Information Technology, and CFO/Administrative Services are together reporting to the chair through another individual. On the organization chart, this is shown as the COO, but that is for purposes of illustration. This would decrease the number of offices reporting directly to the chair, and would ensure coordination of these important resource functions.

Figure 3-2. Revised Organization Chart with Separate Offices for Program Functions

For a text description of Figure 3-2, please click here

Figure 3-3. Organization Chart Revised Program Function within the Office of Field Programs

For a text description of Figure 3-3, please click here

CAN FOCUSING LITIGATION BY CIRCUIT ENHANCE THE STRATEGIC FOCUS?

Would it save time (and possibly reduce or refocus a few positions) if attorneys generally only worked on cases that went before one judicial circuit? Would document preparation be easier if staff only had to learn one circuit's methods? Should some attorneys serve only as advisors to investigators while others litigate, should they do both, or should they rotate among the roles?

EEOC's cases come to the Commission's district office that handles a given geographic area, and if the agency litigates a case it would go to a Federal District Court in the same area. However, if there are multiple cases from a national company, the Commission could choose the court in which to file a suit. This is one of many issues the Office of General Counsel (OGC) considers as it prepares for litigation. Given that circuit precedents vary, the Panel discussed whether EEOC would have a more strategic focus for some of its legal work if the work for one circuit were handled by the same team of lawyers. In other words, would having all the attorneys who work with the 10th Circuit on the same team better coordinate case preparation and take advantage of lessons learned in previous presentations before that court? Would it be appropriate for groups of lawyers to specialize in certain kinds of cases, such as in class action suits or ADA cases?

The timeframe for the project did not permit the Panel to fully consider these questions, but they should be considered further as part of EEOC's restructuring efforts. It is important to note that organizing litigation work by circuit does not imply that attorneys need to be located in the same city as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. A relatively small proportion of the time the attorneys work on a case is spent in the trial phase. Figure 3-4 shows EEOC private sector charge receipts filed grouped by states within each Federal Circuit, for FYs 1999 through 2001. There are wide variations among circuits, and this is to be expected since the charges are not spread evenly throughout the country.

Figure 3-4
EEOC Charges Filed Grouped by Circuit States

For a text description of Figure 3-4, please click here

As Table 3-4 shows, it is not uncommon for a federal circuit's cases to be handled by several EEOC district offices. The 1st Circuit (Boston) and 2nd Circuit (New York) have all of their cases handled in the EEOC New York District, and the 3rd Circuit (Philadelphia) has all of its cases handled in the EEOC Philadelphia District, which also handles West Virginia (part of the 4th Circuit, which is located in Richmond). However, for circuits 6 (Cincinnati), 7 (Chicago), and 11 (Atlanta) there is a different EEOC district office for each state the circuit covers. The 5th Circuit has three states but has to work with five EEOC offices, and the 8th also works with five EEOC offices. The other circuits have similar multiple EEOC offices handling their cases. This may or may not be a problem for the federal court.

Where problems can arise for EEOC is having some of its offices work with multiple circuits. The following districts work with two circuits: Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, NY, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Birmingham. Denver works with the 8th, 9th, and 10th circuits.

Circuit requirements vary; for example, some will accept only electronic filings. Some EEOC offices have been pilots for all-electronic filings. These create added technology needs, such as high-speed scanners. Several survey respondents said things such as "our scanner broke" or "we have a scanner but our software is too old to use it efficiently." Staff saw these as resource issues, but if there were fewer than 24 lead litigation units there might be more resources to concentrate in the locations and there could be more than one scanner, for example. Just as important, if a circuit does not do electronic filings, work methods to prepare for these cases would be more labor-intensive in terms of making copies and might require more clerical staff and equipment.

While several EEOC staff advocated organizing work by federal circuit, there was little sentiment among officials interviewed for returning to "regional litigation centers," a past organizational structure in which all attorneys were in five locations. Also, many investigators and attorneys cited the benefits of having attorneys and investigators working closely together, something the litigation centers prevented. Several of the external stakeholders concurred with the EEOC staff assessment that regional litigation centers provided little added value, and their assessment was that there were benefits to attorneys and investigators working closely together. In discussions with attorneys in area offices, it appeared they were closely linked to the district office regional attorney staff.

Organizing work by circuit does not mean having offices in circuit locations or specifically isolating staff to prevent them from working in the same location as staff who work on another circuit's cases. For example, there are few charges and thus a low litigation workload in the New England region, and EEOC staff said this was because the FEPA in Massachusetts is particularly good. Thus, it may make sense to have a one "Lead Office" handle cases for the 1st and 2nd circuits, though within that office it may wish to have staff primarily assigned to one circuit's work.

Table 3-4
Charges Filed by Federal Circuit
For Private Sector Charge Receipts Filed from FY 1999-2001
Full Litigation Workload for FY 1999-2001

For a text description of Table 3-4, please click here

(1) Each district's workload is listed only the first time the district appears in column 4.
(2) The litigation unit for the Washington, DC Field office was established during the fourth quarter of FY 2001, so there are data only for part of that year; thus, the low workload number.
(3) Albuquerque's litigation is handled by Denver.

CONSIDERING WHERE LEGAL WORK IS DONE

There were two areas where the Panel believed that specific functions needed to be realigned. One pertains to legal work, the other to reviews of federal agency affirmative action programs, which are discussed in the next section. EEOC has an Office of General Counsel (OGC) and an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), each of which requires top-level staff and administrative infrastructure. Though functions are different, there are some operational roles in each.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC put all operational legal work in the Office of General Counsel and ensure that the Office Legal Counsel maintains a policy guidance and internal advice role.

As an organization that enforces federal laws, EEOC has an OGC, which works directly on enforcement issues, and an OLC that provides legal advice to the Chair and Commissioners and develops policy for the Commission. This is similar to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has an OGC and an Office of the Solicitor. However, EEOC's OLC has also adopted some operational work.

The General Counsel is a presidential appointee who serves for a four-year term. It was the only legal entity within EEOC for its first 20 years. In the mid-1980s, then-Commission Chair Clarence Thomas saw a need for an in-house counsel separate from the OGC and created the OLC. Until the mid-1990s, the head of this office was a career SES appointee, but since that time the individual has been a non-career SES.

The overall mission of the General Counsel and thus OGC (staff of 80) is primarily to conduct litigation on behalf of the commission. The overall mission of the OLC (staff of 53) is to: provide legal advice and counsel to the Chair, Commission and Commission offices; develop Commission decisions, regulations, and other statements of the commission legal policy in connection with implementing the laws EEOC enforces; and represent the commission in litigation in which it is a defendant, on matters other than those arising out of enforcement litigation brought by the Commission. OLC has an ADA Policy Division that drafts Commission decisions related to that Act.

As EEOC works to delayer and streamline operations, the Panel believes it should examine whether it needs two complete office infrastructures for its legal work. The Panel recognizes that an OGC function in non-regulatory agencies is to advise, represent, and defend the agency, and that in EEOC the OGC function is an integral part of the agency mission. Should the Commission want to have legal counsel to advise the Chair, that is a matter of the Chair's discretion. However, this can be a small staff reporting to the Chair or within OGC. Prior to OLC's creation, the OGC set policies and conducted enforcement litigation. If there is a true conflict of interest in this mode of organization, then it is inappropriate. However, if one office can do both and the OLC can be an advisor to the Chair and represent EEOC when it is a defendant, there will be fewer management layers and possibly some fewer positions.

CONSIDERING FEDERAL SECTOR WORK

The Chair is consulting with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way to manage federal sector complaints that come to EEOC. Because the Commission has this series of consultations underway, the Academy Panel did not develop broad recommendations in this area. However, it does have some observations about this work and the possibility of using federal sector and private sector attorneys to reinforce one another. The one area in which the panel does have a recommendation deals with review of federal agency affirmative action programs.

The Office of Federal Operations (OFO) manages the national affirmative action program, which advises federal agencies and reviews their programs. Most of this work is in Washington, DC, because most federal programs are there. The field affirmative action supervision comes from district directors or AJs, and their policy guidance comes from the Office of Federal Operations. As of September 2002, seven district staff perform affirmative action reviews of federal agencies and are located in six EEOC districts, all of which are in federal regional cities.

The Academy Panel recommends that the staff who review federal agency affirmative action programs report directly to the Office of Federal Operations.

Given the constrictions on EEOC's travel budget, the Panel believes it may make sense to leave some of this staff in the field, although EEOC may want to reexamine the extent to which the work requires an ongoing physical presence in the field.

The issues the Chair is now discussing with stakeholders relate to the hearing component of the federal sector work. As the private sector enforcement litigation workload in the field has decreased, the federal hearings workload still has a large backlog of cases. EEOC's federal sector work changed substantially in November 1999 when new regulations became effective (29 C.F.R.Part 1614). In addition to issuing a decision rather than a recommendation to the agency, AJs(16) were given authority to dismiss complaints on procedural grounds, such as for lack of timeliness or failure to state a claim. Also, the amended regulations provided new rules for consolidations and amendments of complaints at the investigation state and the hearing state. The AJ may, after giving appropriate notice, issue a decision without a hearing, where there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. These changes directly affect the number of hearing requests, the pending inventory, and the number of resolutions. AJs believe cases have grown more complex because of these changes, but believe this is appropriate.

Table 3-5 shows that the private sector litigation workload (defined as active cases at the beginning of a fiscal year plus lawsuits filed during the fiscal year) has decreased recently. Concurrently, attorneys in some districts have been working more directly with investigators to build better cases. In addition, though EEOC has more trial attorneys than it did at the beginning of FY 1999, they are now assigned to area and local offices as well as district offices. Table 3-5 also shows changes to the federal sector hearing workload and reductions in the pending inventory, which has been substantially backlogged.

Table 3-5
Workload Data for Private Sector Litigation(17)
And Federal Sector Hearings

For a text description of Table 3-5, please click here

During Academy staff visits to field offices and on a number of the written surveys, EEOC staff raised the issue of to whom AJs in the field should report. The Academy Panel looked at this issue not just from the concept of federal sector reporting lines, but from the broader issue of use of attorneys in the field.

Most AJs report to district directors, and some to a regional attorney. As noted, oversight is from OFP, and policy guidance comes from the OFO, which also prepares the Administrative Judge Handbook. AJs believed that district directors had to put their time and priorities where most of the work of their office is, which is private sector enforcement and litigation. They also believed that the hearings function should report to OFO, which already sets policy and reviews AJ decisions that agencies appeal. OFO's other functions include: providing technical assistance to federal agencies on ADR and appropriate techniques for using ADR to resolve federal sector EEO complaints, developing and overseeing policies for agency affirmative action programs, coordinating with the Office of Field Programs on implementation of federal agency affirmative action programs, and preparing, from department and agency input, the annual report on federal sector EEO complaints.

In addition to broad questions of to whom AJs should report, there were tensions in some district offices because district directors did not believe that OFO staff should have direct contact with AJs. AJ views were summed up by one survey respondent who said that, "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." Several interviewees suggested that AJs should report to the regional attorneys, but several regional attorneys said they did not want the function. The Office of Field Programs believed that to have the AJs report to OFO would create a "stovepipe" in the field.

Panel Discussion: Considering Federal Sector Work

Constrained resources highlight the need to streamline an organization's infrastructure and consolidate or cross-train as much as possible. If EEOC decides to have AJs continue to report within the field office structure, they could continue to report to district directors or they could report to the regional attorneys, which would place all attorney resources together.

The Office of Regional Attorney and the federal sector hearings function in each field office use the same disciplines-- attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants. The private and public sector attorney workloads have been changing, and while trial attorneys may be working more with investigators or doing mediation work, there is the potential to have some cross-training of trial attorneys in hearings work. In the short term, with the backlog in hearings, there may not be cross-training of AJs in trial work. Ultimately, this backlog will be reduced and with federal agencies doing more ADR work before cases come to EEOC, there may be fewer hearings. With the continuing constraints in EEOC's resource levels, the Panel believes that having all attorneys report to the regional attorney could make for better long-term workload management.

Regardless of whether the hearings function reports to district directors or regional attorneys, EEOC should develop consistent approaches for having the Office of Federal Operations provide guidance to the AJs. Because Office of Federal Operations staff handle federal agency appeals of AJ decisions, it can see trends or problems that needs to be resolved. In addition, it provides guidance to and oversight of federal agencies, so it has the best overall perspective on federal sector work. The Office of Federal Operations' interactions with AJs are not a matter of incursion on a field office's lines of authority.

Another option would be for the federal hearings function to report to the Office of Federal Operations (OFO). The reasons for considering this option are:

· The OFO staff hear the appeals from agencies when they do not agree with AJ findings. If there are consistent problems with an individual AJ's findings (or within one district), OFO staff are in a position to address these directly.

· When OFO wants to make substantive changes to hearings policy it must secure the approval of 24 district directors, only two of whom have experience in the hearings process.

· The AJs believe that they would function more effectively if they had direct supervision from managers in their function.

DISCUSSING THE "BIFURCATION" ISSUE

In the field and headquarters, EEOC staff repeatedly brought up the issue of whether reporting in the field should move along functional lines or whether the head of an office should have full resource and operational control over a field office. This is most often discussed as the "bifurcation issue," because regional attorneys not only receive technical guidance from the OGC, but also have a separate budget allocation from that office. In the recent past, the regional attorney received all resources through the district director and that individual had to approve any litigation proposal before it went to the OGC. That is no longer the case.

What EEOC describes as the "bifurcation issue" between district directors and regional attorneys is one federal entities have wrestled with for years. For example, prior to 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development had regional directors in the field, and all functions (single family housing, community planning and development, etc.) reported to that individual, who made all resource decisions and set priorities for the regional office. In 1993, HUD changed to a functional structure, in which all of its field staff report directly to the headquarters policy unit that directs an area (such as Community Planning and Development). The respective assistant secretaries allocate resources and set priorities. However,