A Report by a Panel of the

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

for the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

February 2003

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:

ORGANIZING FOR THE FUTURE

Panel
Singleton Beryl McAllister, Chair
Fernando Burbano
Gail Christopher
Mary R. Hamilton
Barry White

Carl W. Stenberg, III, Chair of the Board
Philip M. Burgess, President
Cora Prifold Beebe, Vice Chair
Frank A. Fairbanks, Secretary
Sylvester Murray, Treasurer

Project Staff

Myra Howze Shiplett, Director, Center for Human Resources Management
Kenneth Hunter, Deputy Director, Center for Human Resources Management
J. William Gadsby, Director, Management Studies
Mary Lou Lindholm, Deputy Project Director
Michael Doaks, Senior Consultant
Pam Farr, Senior Consultant
Greg Keller, Senior Consultant
Elaine L. Orr, Senior Consultant
Janice Warden, Senior Consultant
Catherine Garcia, Research Assistant
Mark Hertko, Research Assistant
Martha S. Ditmeyer, Program Associate

The views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution.

This document was funded by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under contract number 2CFPMD0164.

REPORT SUMMARY

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) works to prevent discrimination from occurring in the workplace, eliminate discrimination that has occurred in the workplace and investigate and adjudicate allegations of such discrimination. The Commission serves every industry, every segment of the population, and every part of the country. Its workload nationwide and in its individual offices is affected by such things as the state of the economy, demographic characteristics of the workforce, the growing immigrant population of the nation, and the challenges of serving customers from diverse backgrounds and with varied English-speaking abilities. EEOC asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to assist in preparing the restructuring plan and the strategic human capital plan required by the President's Management Agenda and related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directives.

EEOC's current structure, which was designed for twentieth century programs and technology, does not permit it 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. It faces rising lease costs at its 51 field locations, a budget so constrained that the Commission had to institute a hiring freeze and delay some technology modernization, a growing private sector workload, and a long-term backlog in federal cases. The Commission streamlined its processing of private sector discrimination cases in the mid-1990s, substantially revised the federal hearings process in 1999, and is examining ways to cut lease costs. However, these changes are not sufficient to align EEOC's structure and processes with its budget and broadened mission. The Commission needs more fundamental changes to enable it to provide its diverse, far-flung customers with the level and quality of services they need.

The Academy Panel report contains a wide-ranging set of recommendations to address a number of interrelated issues of organizational structure, budget realignment, technology use, human capital management, and performance management. The Panel believes these changes are necessary to help lower costs, improve organizational and individual performance levels, and meet the other challenges facing the Commission. The report also contains recommendations for implementing the substantive changes and for the communications strategy essential to successful organizational and cultural transformation.

To help the Commission reach these goals, the current Chair has continued and refined strategies that place significant emphasis on preventing discrimination and mediating cases. However, the Commission is not yet organized to move most effectively in that direction. In addition, the Panel found that the Commission could take advantage of modern telecommunications technologies that would allow it to efficiently centralize much of its intake of private sector charge receipts, provide one-stop information about all services, trim its costs, and concurrently improve its services to individuals.

The Panel's recommendations are designed to respond to these current Commission needs. Most urgent are those for a National Call Center that could be accessed by anyone from anywhere in the country, and a system of electronic charge filing. These new systems would allow individuals to ask questions, become better informed about their rights and procedures to protect those rights, file complaints, and follow up on their cases and other concerns. Employers could learn more about their responsibilities. The National Call Center should be established at one or more low-cost locations to reduce costs, improve services, and enable the Commission to streamline its existing high-cost field office structure. It could include the electronic charge-filing system, or that could be operated elsewhere.

The second major area of emphasis is to streamline the field structure and reduce the number of full-service locations. EEOC needs to have staff capabilities throughout the country so that the Commission can investigate charges by interviewing relevant individuals, conduct mediations, and hold federal sector hearings. However, technology will permit EEOC to develop mobile units to travel to underserved areas, and develop a network of dispersed staff who work from home offices and can be near a larger proportion of the public it serves. The Commission does not need 51 traditional field office locations to fully serve employers and employees in the private and public sectors.

The third major thrust of the Panel's recommendations is to reorganize the Commission's headquarters to establish a more balanced distribution of functional capacities between the traditional enforcement activities and the prevention and mediation activities. Improvements in the operations of some enforcement activities and reorienting the Commission's management to a performance-based model are also recommended.

Underpinning these major initiatives, the Panel makes a series of recommendations for upgrading the Commission's human resources and technology support systems. The purpose of these upgrades is to meet the very substantial organizational and functional challenges presented by these realignments. Although the mission and function recommendations are presented before the others, the Panel is not implying that changes in, for example, technology should be delayed. Many recommendations can be implemented concurrently. Also critical to success are the recommendations for implementation and for communication with the many internal and external stakeholders. Successful organizational transformation depends on a well organized implementation process and a communications strategy that involves stakeholders and keeps all parties informed of the purpose, content, and timing of changes.

The issues considered by the Panel in developing this reform strategy, and the specific recommendations made to implement it, are presented in more detail in this report summary.

ALIGNING MISSION AND FUNCTIONS

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 35-year history. However, this approach was more appropriate when most business was done face-to-face and paper-based methods were the only ones available for processing complaints, interacting with respondents, or communicating with federal agencies. It was also designed when most headquarters and field functions were geared to enforcement, and today EEOC emphasizes prevention to a much larger degree.

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 and prevention/technical assistance.

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 is 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

ALIGNING FIELD OFFICE LOCATIONS WITH SERVICE NEEDS

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 office real estate locations whose rental costs are rising at more than $1 million per year.

The number of mediations and private sector charge receipts per district vary considerably. While workload cannot be the sole factor in assessing whether current office locations should be those of the future, it is a strong consideration. 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 with conveying sensitive information this way. Even though EEOC will always maintain some face-to-face charge taking, the more initial contacts that can be made via phone or Internet, the more time investigators will have for follow-up work and investigation.

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

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 state Fair Employment Practices Agency or Tribal Employment Rights Organization 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 out of an 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?

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. 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 place teleworkers in such locations that they can provide outreach to a variety of stakeholders in or near their locale.

The report discusses three options for a framework for offices locations, and discusses pros and cons of each.

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: Align with 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. 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.

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. The drawback 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.

CONSOLIDATING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS

There were comments in the field and headquarters about inadequate administrative support or some poorly trained staff in this area. 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.

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.

Nearly all federal agencies have consolidated their administrative support in some way. Larger organizations are more likely to create their own service units. Smaller organization 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 now provides personnel and financial information services for EEOC, and the agency is planning to adopt its Windows-based electronic procurement system. Even larger agencies are likely to use an organization such as NFC or NBC for payroll services.

EEOC cannot afford its decentralized approach to administrative support from both a cost and a quality of service standpoint. 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 the Office of Human Resources (OHR), Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), and Office of Information Technology (OIT). This should 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 human resources service, it should involve office directors in system design and plans for implementation.

CONSIDERING THE HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE FOR PROGRAM WORK

EEOC's restructuring should not be limited to the field. 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/prevention.

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.

The report presents two examples of organizational design, which are shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 in Chapter 3. 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 the Office of Legal Counsel (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.

CAN FOCUSING LITIGATION BY CIRCUIT ENHANCE THE STRATEGIC FOCUS?

It is not uncommon for a federal circuit's cases to be handled by several EEOC district offices. Three circuits have all of their cases handled in a single district, three circuits (Atlanta, Cincinnati and Chicago) must deal with a different EEOC district office for each state the circuit covers. Another circuit (New Orleans) has three states but has to work with five EEOC offices, and the St. Louis Circuit also works with five EEOC offices. The other circuits have similar multiple EEOC offices handling their cases.

While this may or may not be a problem for the federal court, individual EEOC offices can encounter difficulties working with multiple circuits. The following districts work with two circuits: Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, NY, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Birmingham. Denver works with three circuits. While several EEOC staff advocated organizing litigation 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.

Given that circuit precedents vary, the Panel discussed whether EEOC would have a more strategic focus for some of its legal work if the same team of lawyers handled the work for one circuit. Would having all the attorneys who work with one 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 all cases dealing with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

These questions 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.

CONSIDERING WHERE LEGAL WORK IS DONE

EEOC has an Office of General Counsel (OGC) and an 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. OLC has an ADA Policy Division that drafts commission decisions related to that Act.

As EEOC works to delayer and streamline operations, 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 Commission's federal sector work has changed substantially since 1999, when field-based administrative judges (AJs) began to issue rulings rather than recommendations on federal employee complaints, and federal agencies had to appeal if they did not want to implement a ruling. 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. 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 OFO. 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 constraints on EEOC's travel budget, 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. This section of the report also has some general observations about federal sector work and the possibility of using federal sector and private sector attorneys to reinforce one another.

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 usually referred to 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. This is no longer the case.

The current EEOC organizational mix of budget and reporting has led to tension in some districts, though in others the district director and regional attorney have excellent lines of communication and work together on investigation and litigation issues and strategies. This is a good example of how good managers can work well together in any structure or any set of processes. However, the structure and processes should facilitate good management, not impede it.

The Panel does not have a specific recommendation as to whether the regional attorney budget should go through the district director, but it does lean this way. If investigation and litigation are to work in full coordination, there should be one person clearly accountable. The district director would not provide the technical guidance for a regional attorney, even if the director were an attorney. Technical guidance should come from the OGC.

HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO ACHIEVE THE MISSION

EEOC has established funding priorities to use technology to increase agency productivity and make information more easily available to its employees, customers, and stakeholders. These efforts include developing its public web site, placing computers and Internet access on every desk, developing local and wide-area networks, and creating an internal web site to do such things as share best practices and communicate policies. While these are basic systems, they largely did not exist at EEOC prior to 1999. More recently, EEOC has implemented the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS).

EEOC is piloting the Integrated Mission System, which will replace the cumbersome Charge Data System and permit staff to access case data in all other offices, and is developing electronic charge filing, which will be implemented in FY 2003. However, some actions may be delayed, because EEOC has targeted IT funds for reprogramming to cover other expenses.

OMB has supported past EEOC initiatives for technology improvement, and EEOC's restructuring efforts clearly tie in with administration priorities. The Commission will need to develop a comprehensive assessment of its added technology needs, and supplement this with data on long-term cost savings brought about because of reduced rental costs and, over time, possibly fewer staff.

Although EEOC has focused on developing its technological resources, there is still work to be done to use IT capabilities to meet mission needs. The Panel believes the top priorities should be on balancing technology with customer service, creating the tools needed to make the workforce more mobile, and expanding the Commission's telework resources. In the short term, EEOC will benefit from enhancing its analytical capabilities and addressing operational technology needs. Because of the efficiency gains possible through better data and employing effective software tools, these two areas are discussed prior to the mobile workforce and telework recommendations.

BALANCING TECHNOLOGY WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE

Technology will enable EEOC to better serve the public, but it is not sufficient to provide all the services employees and employers need. For example, an Internet-based system will provide information and help individuals screen themselves out if their concern is not one that EEOC addresses. If individuals do wish to file a charge electronically, they will provide details, but this information will not replace the judgment an EEOC investigator can exercise in a face-to-face or phone interview. The challenge for EEOC is to develop methods of electronic input that provide sufficient information to permit the Commission to begin its work, and yet do not require a potential charging party to have advanced computer knowledge or keyboarding skills.

The Panel recommends that the secure technology tools for electronic filing be designed so that customer service is user-friendly, staff routinely follow up on Internet-filed charges with phone or in-person interviews, and information is promptly provided to those whose queries or submissions do not involve employment discrimination.

The Academy Panel believes that the e-filing system is a critical infrastructure component that, combined with mobile outreach to underserved communities, will allow the agency to reach a substantially larger audience and to break away from having solely a bricks-and-mortar traditional workplace structure. Once the agency is less dependent on a traditional workplace configuration, it will be able to more easily reach and serve a variety of populations that are currently not well-served or not served at all. It is also breaks the agency's dependence on traditional office space and its attendant costs. While creating and managing a mobile workforce has costs, they are not as rigidly fixed. For example, if the population or the problems needing attention shift, EEOC can seek staff to transfer as teleworkers to a new location, or send a mobile workstation into an area on a periodic basis.

NEED FOR ENHANCED ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES

The EEOC processes thousands of individual private sector charges (84,442 in FY 2002) and interacts with hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of organizations each year. It collects massive amounts of charge data and processes countless charging documents, court records, hearing documents, legal documents, and mediation agreements. A number of employees, as well as external stakeholders, identified the need to be more strategic in identifying problems and focusing the proper resources on preventing and resolving these problems.

The Panel recommends that EEOC enhance its analytical capabilities by acquiring software that will allow it to access and analyze data from its multiple systems to improve its strategic decision making.

Current data systems hold a rich source of information for the agency to use in its strategic decision making, but they do not permit EEOC to pull together the varied types of data to better inform its decisions on current and emerging issues, or provide focus for the Commission's prevention activities as well as its charge processing and litigation activities.

To become more strategic in its information use, the agency must be able to access its data across technology systems. For example, EEOC must be able to assess it workload statistics against workforce data. It also needs to be able to analyze industry and demographic trends in terms of how they affect the agency's work and the overall field of employment discrimination. EEOC will then be more able to assess how the agency should optimize deployment of its scarce resources to combat these issues and problems.

MANAGING TECHNOLOGY FOR OPERATIONAL NEEDS

EEOC uses litigation software only in the few district offices that have purchased it independently, so most staff continue to search for documents and coordinate case-related paperwork manually. In addition, office software platforms are not compatible with those used by most public and private sector organizations, which has created compatibility problems in handling some work. EEOC plans to purchase the Microsoft Office Suite®, but there are as yet no plans underway to purchase officewide litigation software.

The Panel recommends that:

--EEOC invest in litigation management software and new primary office software platforms to better support program delivery. If funds are not available to purchase the entire primary office software, the agency should begin its investment with the presentation software to allow preparation of outreach and other presentations.

--EEOC conduct business case analyses on some longer-term possibilities for savings and more effective operations. These include: reducing the square footage for district libraries by creating a good virtual library; and using videoconferencing or web cameras for mission activities such as mediation or conciliations, and internal organization meetings.

SUPPORTING A MORE MOBILE WORKFORCE

A key element in improving service to the American public while reducing EEOC's costs is to create an organization in which EEOC staff can go to employers and employees who need service rather than having them come to the Commission. While technology improvements such as electronic charge filing will provide better access for many, there are millions of people who do not use or have access to the Internet. There are likely many who do not know about how EEOC can assist them.

The Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Develop the secure technology tools to support teleworkers and other staff who travel to the customers. This would include secure remote access to major EEOC systems, appropriate equipment, and methods to keep the workforce current on EEOC software and data systems.

--Protect data at the sensitive-but-unclassified level by such things as Protective Key Infrastructure for mobile staff. This includes adequate firewalls, anti-virus protection for clients and servers, intrusion detection systems, one-time password authentication ID systems, and encryption software for laptops.

One EEOC district office has already created a mobile workstation that permits staff to create and print witness affidavits for immediate signature. The mobile workstation is also used for mediation. This office envisions eventually marrying this approach with wireless networking technology to permit exchange of documents between parties, or to allow retrieval of missing or needed documents via email or fax.

CONSIDERING EEOC'S OPTIONS FOR TELEWORK

EEOC has 914 employees who are now on alternate work schedules, and some of these telework at least one day per week. Recognizing the value of telework, the Chair asked the EEOC's Inspector General (IG) to conduct an analysis of the potential costs and benefits of telework for the agency. OIG staff reviewed potential costs and benefits of frequent telework at four EEOC field offices. The primary objective was to determine if EEOC could save on infrastructure costs and achieve other benefits through extensive use of telework, while sustaining or improving mission performance. A recent OIIG report presents the results of this work.

The Academy Panel supports the Office of Inspector General recommendation that EEOC institute pilot telework programs.

The OIG found that telework requires start-up costs in the first two years, but would begin to show savings by the third year for each of the four offices it studied. The cost model the OIG developed shows cumulative savings of about $1.3 million after five years. The Academy Panel found the EEOC OIG telework study to be thorough and well presented.

ADAPTING THE ORGANIZATION'S CULTURE TO TECHNOLOGY

There is a difference between using a computer well enough to send emails or compose short memos and fully understanding how technology can enhance how the work gets done. There were offices the Academy staff visited where technology was the primary tool for monitoring activity and using the information to change work methods, and there were others where this was clearly not the case.

EEOC has made a strong commitment to improve services to the public and give its staff better technology tools. Overall, the technology culture needs to be broadened so that all staff, especially those in leadership positions, understand the importance of technology and how it can enhance EEOC's ability to provide a greater presence in all communities it serves.

To ensure that leaders can operate effectively in a technology environment, the Panel recommends that EEOC make it a condition of advancing to a senior management position that an individual understand the value of technology in accomplishing EEOC's mission and demonstrate that they can lead others in applying this value.

This concept needs to be built into EEOC's recruitment and training programs, performance management system, and rewards program.

MAKING THE BEST USE OF EEOC'S WORKFORCE

In any organization, human capital strategies must be directly linked to organizational mission, goals, and objectives. Given the breadth of the Panel's recommended restructuring, staff realignment is essential. However, before it begins realignment, the Commission needs to have its leadership structure in place and its comprehensive workforce planning well underway. These should be the Commission's the top three priorities as it develops its Strategic Human Capital Plan.

STAFF MANAGEMENT AND REALIGNMENT

Past budget shortfalls as well as some decisions related to management of Commission staffing and budget resources have led to some of EEOC's staffing constraints. In addition, given the breadth of changes EEOC needs to make in its organizational structure, there is likely to be a mismatch between some staff skills and/or locations. In addition, 23% of the agency's staff are in headquarters, and there were many comments throughout the study (from staff in headquarters and the field) that this was disproportionately high for an organization that serves most of its customers in the field.

Changing office structure and locations can create anxiety among staff, who are quite naturally concerned with relocating families and maintaining ties within their present communities. As EEOC makes a thorough assessment of where permanent office facilities are and what locations could be adequately served with mobile units, it should position itself to deal with the impacts these decisions will have on the workforce. EEOC has a large number of staff close to retirement, and some offices that might be closed are very close to others. This should lessen the need for directed reassignments. In addition, the enhanced use of telework may enable EEOC to retain most talented staff, though their workplace and methods may change.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Assess agency position descriptions to determine such things as which are current, which need to be redesigned to reflect new work methods, whether existing career ladders are appropriate, and whether positions accurately distinguish supervision from production.

--Seek approval from the Office of Personnel Management for a targeted early-out retirement option for staff in those headquarters and field offices that will be downsized.

--Design and implement a cost-effective career transition center.

· Work in partnership with EEOC's unions as the agency makes decisions to realign staff work locations.

A key element of the workforce planning process will be to review current positions in terms of their relation to mission, skills they require, and whether they are in the appropriate geographic locations. Agencies that have most effectively realigned work or integrated technology most successfully have often worked with their unions, such as the Internal Revenue Services and its partnership with the National Treasury Employees Union.

The extent of its budget constraints will likely mean that EEOC will need to close some locations and find new ways to make its services more accessible to the public through alternate service delivery methods, such as electronic charge-filing, the National Call Center, mobile offices, and teleworkers. The Chair has said repeatedly that she wants to avoid a reduction-in-force, and that is a commendable goal. To achieve this goal efficiently, EEOC needs to be prepared to retrain a number of staff and work closely with its unions to ensure that any needed employee relocation decisions are made in ways that meet organization needs but also accommodate employee needs as often as possible.

It does appear that the current CFO and director of OHR have established sound projections for staffing costs and can apply these to related decisions. In addition, the implementation of new software systems that improve the agency's ability to manage financial and human resources will assist in better monitoring the impact of staffing decisions on budget. It is essential that EEOC ensure that its human resources decisions are adequately funded for the short and long term. This does not mean an increased layer of review for individual decisions. Once the agency knows its appropriations level, senior staff can decide how much of the appropriation to allocate to salary and benefits costs, considering the number of hires and separations throughout the year and any expected cost-of-living increase. This will permit the CFO to advise senior management on whether there are funds for promotions and hiring to replace those who leave the agency.

LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL

All EEOC executives, managers, and staff that the Academy staff interviewed were dedicated to eradicating employment discrimination, most even passionate about it. However, there is no well-understood model of what successful leadership looks like in the organization, nor is there an established approach to developing strong managers and effective leaders. This may be the primary reason Academy staff heard such varied opinions on the quality of current leadership.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC build a model of leadership that integrates achieving results, leveraging resources, maintaining accountability, and improving the organizational culture. Using this model, EEOC should:

--Create executive development activities for all senior executives and managers by partnering with other federal agencies for mobility assignments, developmental activities, and enhancement of leadership skills.

--Partner with whichever federal, academic, nonprofit, or for-profit entities can most effectively tailor leadership development training programs for all levels of EEOC staff.

--Hold all managers accountable for performance, reward those whose performance meets or exceeds expectations, and provide assistance or sanctions for those who fail to meet expectations.

--Design performance measures and metrics that support accountability and the full scope of management.

--Focus on inspiring, leading, motivating, and sustaining high-performing organizations and offices within the EEOC as well as managing staff resources and workload.

Agency staff interviewed did not view EEOC as a high-performing organization. Time and again, in individual and group interviews, agency employees characterized themselves and their agency as one that was "beleaguered," constantly short of resources, and unable to successfully confront performance issues to either reward those who were performing or assist or terminate those who were not performing.

However, EEOC staff repeatedly singled out several field offices as having strong leadership and corresponding high performance, and Academy staff visited some of these offices. A number of factors that influenced this success were observed during the site visits, noted in analysis of office statistics, and provided in written surveys EEOC staff sent to the Academy. The factors included:

--Continual communication between the director and deputy and the staff. The staff felt included and knowledgeable of relevant issues
--Established performance goals for processing private sector charges and conducting mediation
--Consistent monitoring of performance through a range of office-developed tracking mechanisms and through individual performance discussions
--A positive working relationship between the regional attorney and district director and an open-door policy between attorneys and investigators
--Available tools for staff to do their work
--Encouragement to staff to play to their strengths-some investigators enjoyed doing outreach presentations, others liked to stick to research and interviews, and the differences were recognized as appropriate

This was in contrast to some other offices in which staff said they rarely saw or communicated with top management, were resentful because some had to work harder to compensate for those who did not (and they thought management paid no attention to this), indicated that the district director and regional attorney were at regular loggerheads, or thought some managers treated staff disrespectfully. In a number of survey responses, staff said that EEOC's top leadership was aware of their office's problems and did nothing.

Whether the staff assessment is reality or perception, a sufficient number of employees believe this to warrant top management resolution. For the agency to become a high-performance organization, these practices and perceptions will need to change.

WORKFORCE PLANNING

EEOC does not yet have a workforce plan, but is working with outside consultants to develop one. Workforce planning provides the opportunity to link an organization's mission with its best resource, its staff. It is always important, but even more so now, as most federal agencies face substantial retirements in the next three to seven years. EEOC is no exception. Some other agencies have done a better job of preparing for these retirements or devising methods to reskill employees. While, for example, some basic investigative skills stay the same, the tools EEOC staff use to conduct them involve more Internet access and the data available grow more complex. Many staff have acquired more analytical and computer skills; others have found it difficult to do so. From discussions with staff, it appears EEOC also faces skill shortages in foreign languages and technology. When EEOC finishes its assessment of current and needed skills (termed a gap analysis) it will have a road map to designing approaches to fill the gap.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC expedite its workforce planning effort and link it to the planning and budget processes. This is a complex and long-term effort and the agency cannot wait until its completion to institute its components. The first components the Panel suggests be implemented are:

--Develop an inventory of the competencies required to perform mission-critical work such as investigation, litigation, mediation, analysis, outreach and prevention.

--Determine which of those staff who are eligible to retire plan to do so, the gaps this will create in individual offices, the size of the pool needed to replace those retiring from specific positions, and the level of training or outside hiring required to put people with the right skills in the areas most critical to mission fulfillment when they are needed.

--Prepare a comprehensive cost estimate for skill development needs so that EEOC can present an integrated strategy with cost implications to the Office of Management and Budget.

--Prepare Individual Development Plans for staff so that EEOC has better information on the skills that staff have and whether anticipated development efforts match staff aspirations and agency needs.
· Revise individual performance appraisal elements to reflect changes in roles and the linkage to achieving organizational performance goals.

--Develop the metrics for the revised performance elements.

Given the start-and-stop nature of EEOC's recruiting and training, staff may not understand that workforce planning is not only an EEOC goal, but is part of the administration's broader management agenda. The Chair's leadership is essential. If she names the members of the workforce planning efforts, publicly defines her expectations, and sets an ambitious timeframe, it will help EEOC move ahead quickly.

In addition, EEOC should develop true cost estimates for the many steps that will flow from the workforce plan and present the case for these funds to OMB as strongly as it has pushed to get funds for technology improvements. The agency must convince OMB and Congress that there is no choice but to develop EEOC's workforce to provide the best service to customers and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.

LIMITED TRAINING FUNDS TO MEET SKILL NEEDS

EEOC's training budget has varied from substantial ($3.5 million for FY 1999 and $2.7 million in FY 2001) to modest ($745,347 in FY 2000 and $1.3 million for FY 2002). Such variations make it difficult to develop and sustain an effective program. The recent budget variations are simply continuations of the lack of consistent training, skill enhancement and staff development. Longtime senior staff said that there was training in the mid-1970s, a 1988 conference on full investigation, a one-week training on ADA in 1992, and training for new investigators and in mediation in 1999. The fact that senior staff can provide such a short synopsis of EEOC's episodic agencywide training is indicative of the ad hoc nature of training and the lack of a continuous learning philosophy buttressed by a systems approach to setting priorities and meeting staff training and development needs. Consequently, much of the return on investment, such as on the substantial funds spent to train new investigators and mediators in 1999, will be lost.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC develop:

--A multi-year training plan, anchored in the competencies required for mission-critical staff, that reflects an adequate, stable level of spending through a mix of on-site, e-training, and other methods, and use this plan as the basis for funding requests.

--A strong first-line supervisor and mid-level manager training program, so that individuals moving into these and into more senior leadership positions have the competencies they need to succeed.

--An expanded SES Candidate Development Program that leverages EEOC resources with those of other federal organizations for such things as mobility assignments or developmental activities.

Many federal agencies with a core group of mission professionals have extensive training programs. While their programs would not meet EEOC's needs, the approach they have taken to developing them could provide a framework for designing and marketing to OMB a comprehensive, mission-based development program. Every other federal, law enforcement organization has such a program, and Congress has traditionally funded them reasonably well.

As EEOC pursues its training programs, it could explore whether other law enforcement agencies have investigation training courses Commission staff could attend, or whether its attorneys could attend the Department of Justice trial attorney/litigation skills seminar. While these might not be 100% related to EEOC's needs, this would enable staff to receive such training while EEOC designs its own programs and secures more stable training funds. One EEOC field office, for example, has an agreement with the FBI to provide investigative skills training to its investigators.

Training does not stop with technical skills, whether for enforcement, mediation, or outreach/prevention. There must be a comprehensive, visible program to identify which top-performing mid-level managers can translate their technical skills to broader management and leadership abilities, and ensure that they receive the kind of internal and external training needed to assume top leadership positions. The current SES Candidate Development Program has involved only field staff. While there are more senior leadership positions in the field at this point, headquarters also has a number of SES positions and needs a pool of well-trained potential candidates available for consideration when vacancies occur.

ALIGNING SKILLS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES

The role of support staff changed with the advent of personal computers. In the past it was largely focused on document production. Now that many staff do much of their own data entry, support needs may be reduced, but this does not mean an organization wants its program and management staff doing routine administrative tasks on a regular basis. Throughout government, especially in high-cost cities, it has also become difficult to recruit and retain administrative support staff, who generally receive higher salaries in the private sector.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Determine, by office and function, the extent to which higher-grade employees are spending time on support-like functions, and consider, within the availability resources and work priorities, whether investment in additional support staff would be justified by a measurable increase in productivity.

--Provide adequate training and career development for administrative and support staff.

The 40% of the 186 survey respondents who cited the lack of administrative and support staff in EEOC mentioned such things as the need for receptionists, a duty that some senior staff sometimes shared with investigators as a form of moral support. Most staff 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 survey question on this, these were responses to open-ended questions about additional tools needed or what the strategic human capital plan should address.

There has been what is termed "the professionalization of the clerical staff and the clericalization of the professional staff," according to the International Institute of Administrative Professionals, which ascribes this condition to the advent of personal computers. PCs help everyone become more productive, and have essentially obviated the need for the typing pools of old. However, administrative staff perform a wide range of other responsibilities. It is one thing for non-clerical staff to make a few copies or address an envelope as needed, but quite another to do bulk copying or prepare 20 documents for mailing.

EEOC's approach to assessing the potential inefficiencies resulting from inadequate clerical support should be based on an analysis of productivity. Adding clerical staff may not be the right approach if it results in lowered productivity. Therefore, the Commission should structure an approach that makes the measured change in productivity the key factor in deciding whether to realign staff around this issue.

STAFF AWARDS AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS

EEOC has had an inconsistent employee rewards program, which sends a message to staff that there are only a very few among them who should be recognized for outstanding performance. Also, there were literally dozens of EEOC staff who said that the Commission's employee evaluation system did not appropriately identify employees with performance problems and that it was difficult to remove them even when the problems were severe. At a time when skill needs are changing and resources are constrained, EEOC needs to create incentives for good work, recognize strong performers, and take action against poor performers.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Revamp the agency awards systems to ensure they meet the four key elements of effective reward design: performance requirements (financial, operational, customer satisfaction); talent needs (skills, experience, behaviors, employee preferences); cost and funding (affordability); and culture and branding (alignment with mission, vision, values).

--Revise the process for evaluating, counseling, and (if necessary) terminating poor performers to ensure that EEOC's cadre of staff includes those who are not only dedicated to its mission but demonstrate this through effective performance.

EEOC allocated no funds to its awards program in FYs 1999 and 2000, and in 2001 allocated $700,000, but only to the former Chair's awards program, which usually recognizes groups of staff. For the 2001 program, there were no published selection criteria, which led to a number of questions as to how award decisions were made. For 2002, funds and authority were given to headquarters office directors and district directors. Although staff described the amount they could distribute for FY 2002 awards as "a pittance," they indicated that the new awards program is very flexible.

Often cited was that EEOC does not support managers in disciplining or firing poor performers. In its June 2001 Workforce Analysis submitted to OMB, EEOC noted that difficulty in removing poor performers impeded its ability to recruit and retain a high-quality, diverse workforce. Every agency wrestles with this issue. However, though Academy staff hear about cumbersome employee removal processes at other agencies, the extent and forcefulness of the comments at EEOC were unusual.

EEOC needs to create a performance culture. This is straight forward, but not at all simple. Components are:

--The strategic plan sets the goals and outcomes.
· These are translated to each executive and office through the organizational and individual performance plans, with timetables, metrics, and clearly stated outcome expectations.
--The performance of those organizations and individuals who exceed those expectations is identified, rewarded and celebrated very publicly.
--The performance of those who do not meet the expectations is identified, and the individuals receive coaching and counseling to improve. If they improve, the improvement is recognized and celebrated. If they do not, the individual is either reassigned to a position that more properly fits with his/her interests and capabilities, or the individual is asked to leave the organization.
--The leaving can be through mutual agreement and assisted with coaching and counseling, administrative time to look for another job, and the like. Leaving can also be through the adverse action process of termination.

PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT

The agency budget is the vehicle that translates the goals, performance standards, and measures of the Strategic and Annual GPRA plan and the Chair's Five-Point Plan into resource allocations. EEOC is now in the process of developing program performance measures that can be used to make management and budget decisions. The challenge will be to make this more than a paper effort, to help staff see that their daily work is directly related not only to achieving specific production or outreach goals but also to reducing discrimination through better performance as individuals and as an agency. In the short term, the chair's Five-Point Plan presents the broad priorities, but it is not a substitute for having the long-term strategic plan integrated with the budget.

The top priorities for achieving performance-based management in EEOC are to use budget management to enhance accountability, achieve balance in case management, and expand the Commission's capacity to apply best practices.

USING BUDGET MANAGEMENT TO ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

EEOC is developing stronger financial systems and has started relating the performance measures in its Annual Performance Plan to program results. Like most agencies, it does not yet have an integrated budget and performance process, and is in the early stages of defining and integrating performance measures into agency budget submissions and operations.

A high-performing organization builds the capacity of its senior managers to make program decisions and manage the budgets that relate to them and vests that authority in them, as appropriate. As capable managers gain more control over resources they will have more control over production/other results and EEOC can more readily hold them accountable for the work of their units.

The Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Delegate authorities to senior executives with accompanying budgets, management tools, and accountability.

--Include with the delegation for compensation funds such features as a requirement that the Office of Chief Financial Officer provide each year's funding level and an estimate for the following year, as well as the requirement that the funding for hiring, promotions, within-grade step increases and the like must be within budget allocation for the current year and the estimate for the following year.

--Train field and headquarters senior executives and associated staff to manage that portion of the EEOC budget for which they are accountable, and phase in additional delegations as appropriate.

--Periodically review program accomplishment against expenditures for which each senior executive is responsible.

--Annually assess the quality of budget and other resource deployment by each senior executive. Ensure that this assessment is a significant factor in performance appraisals, and withdraw or modify the delegation where circumstances indicate the need.

--Conduct a periodic review of spending by all offices to inform the reallocation of resources during the year to adjust for unanticipated imbalances in workload and new needs.

EEOC needs to let its managers manage to a budget. This does not mean there is no centralized management of the overall EEOC budget, but does mean that EEOC should involve managers in budget development and use its budget execution process as a tool for managers. A centrally managed budget process can work well. However, EEOC is an agency in which the mission-critical work is done in the field, and its top field executives need to be responsible for the resources related to the work undertaken there. As EEOC moves toward a smaller number of "lead" offices than the current 24 districts, it should seek to staff them with senior executives and associated staff who have the capability to manage budgets and other resources.

There are plans underway with OFP and OCFO to decentralize the salaries and benefits portion of the budget in FY 2004. They expect this will include training for field staff and probably a transfer of resources, since the OCFO will no longer handle day-to-day management of these funds.

ACHIEVING BALANCE IN CASE MANAGEMENT

Thirty-six of the 146 survey and interview responses (a number of which involved groups of respondents) said that EEOC puts more emphasis on closing a given number of cases than on the decisions made as the cases were closed. They thought that stressing quotas could lead to questionable "cause" findings. While this is difficult to verify, the concern seemed strong enough that it would be worthwhile to examine whether the Commission's emphasis on reducing case-processing time is having any adverse influence on the thoroughness of case investigation.

The Academy Panel recommends that:

--The Office of Field Programs routinely examine a random sample of closed cases from each office, on a rotating basis, to ensure that they were adequately investigated given the information the charging party and respondent provided.

--The Office of Field Programs circulate and discuss aggregate case-processing timeliness data from each field office and use it to: determine whether variations are the result of especially good or poor work methods or management styles; share the best practices with other field offices; and work closely with offices that have problems to correct them.

· The Commission stress that cases are to be closed with the most appropriate resolution at the most appropriate time.

Clearly, it is appropriate to set goals such as the 180-day target for investigating and resolving a case. However, at the same time, there will be factors that impede achieving this in some instances, such as case complexity or a language barrier, that do not permit the charging party to speedily answer EEOC's requests for additional information.

CREATING A MORE STRATEGIC FOCUS
BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND LITIGATION

EEOC has stressed the need for early attorney involvement for several years. The Chair's Five-Point Plan notes that EEOC's enforcement, litigation and federal sector programs will identify emerging trends and issues to become better able to make informed decisions on what topics merit Commission attention and allow the Commission to better integrate its policy, guidance, investigative, litigation and federal coordination functions to prevent employment discrimination.

The FY 2001 litigation workload (which consists of active cases at the beginning of the year plus lawsuits filed during the year) among districts varied from 66 in New York to 19 in New Orleans. There were 405 cases resolved that year, and these represented a combination of consent decrees, settlement agreements, favorable and unfavorable court orders, and voluntary dismissals. These ranged from 7 in New Orleans to 30 in Philadelphia.

These data come from a recent five-year study of the EEOC litigation program, which the OGC prepared. Overall, district attorney staffing numbers grew from 196 in FY 1997 to 248 in FY 2002. During this time (starting in 1999), EEOC began putting attorneys in its area offices, a decision many believe has led to stronger case development. The litigation workload has varied from 582 in 1997 to 750 in 1998, to 890 in 1999; it then drops to 875 in 2000 and 842 in 2001. As EEOC examines the number of office locations, and as the amount of private sector litigation appears to be decreasing, there is an opportunity to examine attorney staffing levels and determine whether private sector litigation work could be aligned differently.

EXPANDING CAPACITY TO APPLY BEST PRACTICES

EEOC will have greater potential to bring more consistency to its work methods as it moves toward having fewer field locations and a National Call Center. EEOC's anticipated electronic filing system will also contribute to this. All EEOC field offices do not need to function the same way any more than all headquarters managers should use the same methods to motivate staff.

However, some methods clearly work better than others, and effective methods should be identified and applied.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

--Expand its capacity to analyze, validate, and disseminate information on best practices and take this one step further to correlate work methods or processes with results. If some methods are clearly better, the results achieved through them should be used in designing new standards of performance.

--Reinforce that the director of the Office of Field Programs is the individual who can determine which methods or operations appear most effective and require that all offices either use these methods or achieve similar results with the methods they use.

--Reward those offices or key staff within them when their work methods are selected as best practices that other offices can emulate, and ensure that those with poor practices are directed to improve and receive the support necessary to do so.

EEOC staff said that prior to 1995 the approach to field operations was rigid, and since then flexibility has been the key. This would account for the different approaches to some core functions that the Academy staff observed, and may allow EEOC to apply some best practices to organizations that are not now using them.

Chapter Six discusses some examples of variations observed in mediation, intake procedures and issues related to litigation workload. These are examples of the kinds of management analysis that can be overseen and acted upon by the more visible, senior-level staff the Panel recommended should handle the policy and analysis functions for prevention/technical assistance, enforcement, and mediation. A focus on process or methods can make a major difference in performance.

DEVELOPING THE CAPACITY TO LINK PERFORMANCE TO OUTCOMES

EEOC has done a great deal to assess and improve its operations, such as its charge-handling task force review that led to the Priority Charge Handling Process, and its review of best EEO practices of private sector employers. As EEOC processes charges faster, its work may have made more of a difference in the lives of charging parties. It is harder to document EEOC's impact on reducing discrimination overall.

As with most other federal agencies, it is easier to examine work processes rather than the results or impact of the work. For EEOC, this is in part because there are a number of factors that can affect employment discrimination besides EEOC activities, such as the economy, employers' organizational cultures, the growth of the immigrant population, personal biases, and many others. In addition, actions EEOC takes in one area affect others, and can be interpreted differently. For example, if EEOC does more outreach, charge filings may rise. While a higher volume of charges may appear to indicate more employment discrimination, they may simply mean more individuals know how to seek redress to discrimination they believe they have experienced. A reduced number of EEOC court filings as charge filings increase may appear to show lax enforcement. However, a larger proportion of cases may be resolved through mediation, therefore allowing EEOC to concentrate on more complex litigation and use its attorneys to help investigators develop better cases.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC develop methods to demonstrate the impact its work has on reducing employment discrimination in the workplace. This would be a multi-phased process, including:

--Developing baseline discrimination metrics for certain industries, nationwide firms, or geographic areas

--Planning specific EEOC activities to direct toward the industries, firms, or areas that are implementing the activities and recording the level of effort

--Tracking discrimination levels in the selected industries, firms, or geographic areas

This will have to be a very focused approach. For example, EEOC could target a given industry or nationwide firms based on factors of EEOC's choosing (such as past practices, proportion of workforce that has low literacy or English-language capabilities and thus may not understand their rights) and establish the current baseline for charge filing with state Fair Employment Practices Agencies and EEOC. EEOC could then develop an enhanced education and outreach efforts for employers and employees, and monitor charges over time. In theory, the increased exposure would lead to more charges in early years and reduced charges over time. The words "over time" are important. Impact assessments are longitudinal studies, not short-term assessments.

IMPLEMENTING THE EEOC RESTRUCTURING PLAN

The administration's timeframe for agency restructuring plans is five years; the timeline proposed in this implementation strategy and plan is four years. If sufficient resources are made available it may be possible for the Commission to accomplish these recommendations within three years. A few of the recommendations can be implemented almost immediately, and others can be phased in over the next several years. Implementation must be addressed with commitment and a sense of urgency. The more quickly the agency can proceed with its restructuring, the more quickly it can improve its efficiency and effectiveness and ensure a total focus on mission accomplishment.

Organizational transformation demands leadership and the involvement of all the organization's stakeholders - political and career leaders, managers, supervisors, individual employees, unions and interest groups, as well as the OPM, OMB and congressional committees and staff who provide oversight and assistance to the EEOC. With the commitment and involvement of these individuals and groups, the agency will have a powerful coalition of supporters who can assist its transformation efforts.

Organizational transformation also requires substantial upfront investments to realize the ultimate benefits of organizational restructuring and performance improvement. Examples of investments the EEOC will need to make include those associated with: the transfer and outflow of employees as the workforce is reshaped; the need to invest in technology to realize productivity increases; the information technology investment needed to facilitate telework and other forms of a more mobile workforce; and the leadership and staff time and effort required to develop and refine the Strategic Human Capital Plan items, such as identifying and developing competencies, assessing the degree to which the workforce has those competencies, and related activities.

Implementation Strategy and Plan

The implementation plan must identify who has the overall responsibility for the implementation process. In the Panel's judgment this is the Chair's role, with delegation to appropriate subordinate staff. The plan should identify every action to be taken, who is responsible for that action, the date it is to start and the date it is to be completed, as well as identify the responsibilities of executives, managers, supervisors, employees, union representatives, and external stakeholders.

The Academy panel recommends that the EEOC develop an implementation strategy and detailed implementation plan for the changes it decides to make and use the plan to manage the implementation process.

As part of the implementation strategy the EEOC should:

--Decide which of the Panel's recommended changes do not require extensive consultation and can be implemented immediately.

--Identify a small staff responsible for planning, execution, tracking and implementation assessment efforts.

--Present to OMB funding estimates and justifications for the multi-year restructuring plan, seeking the first-year resources at minimum as a change to the pending FY 2004 request now at OMB. Explore with OMB whether any additional resources for FY 2003 might be provided as a small amendment to the FY 2003 appropriation.

A critical first step in successful change is to announce that the Chair, the Commissioners, and the EEOC executive staff are the champions of these recommendations and committed to implementing them. Among their most important tasks is to explain the impact, within and outside the organization, that the Chair expects the changes to have.

The Academy Panel recommends that:

The EEOC develop a communication strategy and plan that identifies all the internal and external stakeholders, the issues and communications methodologies to be used with each, the frequency of communications, and the mechanisms for stakeholder feedback.

The communications strategy and plan are at the heart of successful implementation of the Panel's recommendations. The strategy must include: a philosophy of open, candid sharing of information and listening to the feedback it generates; top-down as well as bottom-up communications channels within the organization that include executives, managers, supervisors, employees and union representatives; and a commitment to involving external stakeholders, including interest groups, OPM, OMB, and General Accounting Office, and congressional committees and staffs.

Develop Resources Estimates

The goal of restructuring is to improve the EEOC's performance, its resource utilization and its service delivery. To achieve these outcomes will require significant upfront investments. Each action to be taken will require an assessment of the upfront investments and other related costs as well as the benefits to be gained. In addition, the agency will want to capture the metrics of what is currently being done, as well as develop metrics for what is to be done so that it can assess progress toward goal achievement, and make adjustments as needed.

The Academy Panel stresses that to achieve substantive improvements requires real increase in resources each year for several years. This would be over and above the flexibility that can be realized against internal realignment and reallocations.

Provide Training

Training is a key ingredient if the EEOC is to realize the full benefit of the changes and investments it will be making.

The Academy Panel recommends that:

The EEOC develop appropriate training to ensure that staff who use or are responsible for the new methods and policies have the knowledge to fulfill new roles and responsibilities successfully.

Just-in-time training will be a critical success factor for agency employees. The agency must identify what subject matter knowledge and process change knowledge is required for those who will be held accountable. The training should also include any related information about the metrics that will be used to judge performance.

* * * *

The EEOC is working to find the most effective ways to structure its organization, harness appropriate technology, utilize its workforce, and create a culture of performance. The Panel's recommendations and observations provide a framework within which the agency can achieve best use of its scare resources to achieve its strategic goals and ultimately provide the country's citizens with products and services that contribute to the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.

Please press on the following to view other sections of the report

FOREWORD

[CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ]

[CHAPTER TWO: EEOC'S WORKLOAD, WORKFORCE, AND
WORK PROCESSES]

[CHAPTER THREE: ALIGNING MISSION AND FUNCTIONS]

[CHAPTER FOUR: HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO ACHIEVE
THE MISSION ]

[CHAPTER FIVE: MAKING THE BEST USE OF EEOC'S WORKFORCE]

[CHAPTER SIX: PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT ]

[CHAPTER SEVEN: IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS]

APPENDICES

[Appendix A: Panel Member and Academy Staff Biographies]
[Appendix B: Results of Interviews with and Surveys of EEOC Staff]
[Appendix C: Bibliography ]
[Appendix D: Information on Call Centers]
[Appendix E: Cities that Rank Among the Top 500 for Private Sector Charge Receipts ]
[Appendix F: Five-Year Technology Plan]
[Appendix G: Examples of Other Organizations' Workforce Planning Efforts ]
[Appendix H: Strategic Human Capital Plan]
[Appendix I: Draft Communications Plan ]