**U. S. Department of Justice**

**FY 2008 PERFORMANCE BUDGET**

**CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION**

**Congressional**

**Budget Submission**

**Table of Contents**

Page No.

**I.
Overview**...............................................................................
. 1

**II Summary of Program
Changes**................................................\...\... 6

**III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language**
... N/A

IV\. Decision Unit Justification

A. Civil Rights Decision Unit 16

1\. Program Description 16

A. Criminal Enforcement 16

B. Civil Enforcement 18

2\. Performance Tables 27

3\. Performance, Resources, and Strategies 31

V. Exhibits

A.  Organizational Chart

B.  Summary of Requirements

C.  Program Increases by Decision Unit

D.  Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective

E.  Justification for Base Adjustments

F.  Crosswalk of 2006 Availability

G.  Crosswalk of 2007 Availability

H.  Summary of Reimbursable Resources

I.  Detail of Permanent Positions by Category

J.  Financial Analysis of Program Increases/Offsets

K.  Summary of Requirements by Grade

L.  Summary of Requirements by Object Class

> M. Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports, and
> Evaluations

Overview for the Civil Rights Division

**1. Introduction**

In FY 2008, the Civil Rights Division (CRT) requests a total of
\$116,789,000, 726 positions and 722 direct FTE, to enforce the
country's civil rights laws in a fair and uniform manner. This request
includes a total increase of \$1,713,000, 7 FTE and 13 positions (of
which eight are attorneys). Increases requested are as follows:

  ----------- ------------------ ------------- -------- ------------- ----------
  Strategic   Item               Dollars       Pos      Agent/Atty    FTE
  Goal                                                                

  2.4         **Human            \$1,713,000   13       8             7
              Trafficking**                                           

  Total                          \$1,713,000   13       8             7
  ----------- ------------------ ------------- -------- ------------- ----------

**2. Background**

CRT's enforcement mission has three significant prongs: (1) to fulfill
the promise of federal laws entitling all persons to basic civil rights
protections as they engage in everyday conduct throughout the United
States; (2) to deter illegal conduct through the successful judicial
enforcement of these federal laws; and (3) promoting voluntary
compliance and civil rights protection through a variety of educational,
technical assistance, and outreach programs. Each time compliance is
achieved, a significant result has occurred.

Established in 1957 following enactment of the first civil rights
statutes since Reconstruction, CRT is the sole program institution
within the Federal Government responsible for enforcing federal statutes
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability,
religion, and national origin.

CRT's mission supports the Strategic Plan of the DOJ; specifically
Strategic Goal #2 - Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the Rights and
Interests of the American People. These laws influence a broad spectrum
of conduct by individuals as well as public and private institutions.
CRT enforces laws that prohibit discriminatory conduct in housing,
employment, education, voting, lending, public accommodations, access to
services and facilities, activities that received federal financial
assistance, and the treatment of juvenile and adult detainees and
residents of private institutions.

Within CRT, there are no regional offices; all Division employees are
stationed in Washington, D.C. Since litigation activities occur in all
parts of the United States nearly all CRT attorneys and, occasionally,
some paralegal and clerical personnel are required to travel. This
allows CRT employees to be deployed quickly to the areas requiring
attention.

In 2005, CRT completed the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review,
as part of the review of components of the General Legal Activities and
Antitrust appropriations, and received an overall rating of
\"Effective\"; the highest rating possible. To ensure the programmatic
functions of this office continue to perform at a high level, DOJ was
not able to have an independent evaluation of sufficient scope and
quality, the one area that this diverse array of program areas did not
meet the criteria to get credit, based on the PART guidelines.

In FY 2006, the Department\'s Justice Management Division (JMD) offered
a proposal to the Management and Planning Staff (MPS) and the Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) to perform an independent evaluation of the
General Legal Activities (GLA) components. The proposal recommended that
MPS perform initial background interviews in a manner consistent with
OIG yellow book regulations. MPS would later hand off their preliminary
research to OIG to review and offer their findings and recommendations.
However, OIG was unable to include the GLA evaluation in their FY 2007
docket, and as a result, JMD and the GLA components are currently
exploring other options to meet the PART follow-up action of
\"Performing an independent evaluation of the GLAs.\"

**3. Challenges**

DOJ is the protector of the rule of law within the Executive Branch of
government. Fair and uniform enforcement of federal laws is crucial to
the public's trust of government and law enforcement. DOJ now includes
numerous issues of national attention, including the trafficking of
persons, the treatment of juvenile and adult detainees as well as
residents of public institutions, official misconduct by law enforcement
personnel, and bias motivated crimes. These unpredictable events require
DOJ to respond both appropriately and creatively.

These and CRT's traditional responsibilities for fighting discrimination
in housing, education, employment, mortgage lending, public
accommodations, access by the disabled to services and facilities, and
voting will continue to be high priorities in

FY 2008.

**FY 2008 Total Civil Rights Request by DOJ Strategic Goal**

Following is a brief summary of the DOJ's Strategic Goal and Objective
in which CRT plays a role:

[**DOJ Strategic Goal 2**: **Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the
Rights and Interests of the American People (FY 2008 Request:
\$116,789,000)**]{.underline}

-   Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights of all Americans, and
    protect vulnerable members of society (2.4)

![](media/image1.bmp)

**4. Full Program Costs**

CRT's budget is integrated with its own priorities as well as the DOJ's
Strategic Goal and Objective, and therefore each performance objective
is linked with the costs of critical strategic actions.

CRT is requesting 726 permanent positions, 722 direct FTE, and
\$116,789,000, to support DOJ's Strategic Goals, which represents an
added program increase over the

FY 2007 Congressional request level.

Resources for each Strategic Goal and Objective that CRT supports are
provided under each programmatic area. The [total]{.underline} costs
include the following:

1.  The direct costs of all outputs

2.  Indirect costs

3.  Common administrative systems

Both performance and resource tables define the total costs of achieving
the strategies CRT will implement in FY 2008. The various resource and
performance charts incorporate the costs of numerous strategies, which
also contribute to the achievement of CRT's objectives. Also included
are the indirect costs for continuing activities, which are central to
the operation of CRT.

Current services positions and FTEs reflect estimates that may be
changed once final staffing decisions have been determined.

5\. Performance Challenges

DOJ is the chief agency of the Federal Government charged with upholding
the civil and constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans. Our
objective also requires that we educate the public to promote voluntary
compliance with civil rights laws.

Among the most important challenges facing CRT are:

-   Enforcing compliance with civil rights laws in an increasingly
    complex and diverse society;

-   Responding to high profile incidents resulting in media attention
    and community interest requiring prompt attention; and

-   Providing timely and adequate responses to the tens of thousands of
    complaints and other correspondence received each year.

The challenges that impede progress toward achievement of CRT's goals
are complex and ever changing. Internal agency dynamics, technological
developments, and compliance with civil rights statutes are only a few
factors that can impact a litigating component's practices and pose
challenges that demand attention. The following are challenges that CRT
sees as potential obstacles.

**[External Challenges:]{.underline}**

-   The ability to secure the diverse array of testers needed throughout
    the country will affect CRT's effort to implement the Attorney
    General's new Operation Home Sweet Home initiative, including
    increased testing for discrimination, and its continuing efforts to
    implement fully the President's New Freedom Initiative in the area
    of access to housing for persons with disabilities, which includes
    outreach to encourage voluntary compliance.

-   CRT has limited control over the composition and size of its
    caseload. It has no control over the number of complaints it
    receives. Much of the work is defensive or based on referrals from
    other agencies. CRT\'s work is also closely related to the output of
    the U.S. Attorneys, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other
    agencies. Its Supreme Court activity is dependent upon the number
    and types of cases that the Court decides to hear.

-   CRT's trafficking caseload has essentially tripled. As these cases
    are extremely labor intensive, CRT's resources are being stretched
    to handle them. The workload associated with the 42 recently formed
    anti-trafficking task forces, funded by the Bureau of Justice
    Assistance (BJA), is also having a substantial impact on the
    program's workload. These task forces have begun to produce high
    volume and complex trafficking cases, often involving multiple
    districts and requiring significant coordination efforts by CRM. CRM
    foresees further, possibly exponential, expansion of its caseload
    and coordination responsibilities.

-   The demand for technical assistance to achieve compliance of civil
    rights laws is increasingly significant. Substantial resources are
    expended for training in the areas of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (ADA), Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA),
    and Limited English Proficiency (LEP), among others.

-   The Supreme Court, court of appeals, and district courts determine
    the pace of the litigation when they set briefing schedules, oral
    arguments, and trial dates. CRT must abide by those schedules
    regardless of other cases, matters, or events. Absent CRT's timely
    and effective response, the government may face sanctions and
    default judgments. Alternatively, delayed resolution of cases may
    occur. Additionally, CRT continues to encounter uncooperative
    jurisdiction -- necessitating initiation of lawsuits which require
    [unanticipated](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=unanticipated)
    and sometimes substantial fiscal and human resources.

-   The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) received a substantial
    increase in its budget to hire worksite investigators, and to
    sanction employers who hire undocumented workers. Pending
    legislation would also substantially increase the penalties imposed
    upon employers for hiring undocumented workers. In 1991, five years
    after the creation of employer sanctions, the Government Accounting
    Office (now the Government Accountability Office) determined that
    these sanctions led to a widespread pattern of discrimination --
    primarily against Hispanics and Asians. Likewise, we anticipate that
    higher penalties and enhanced enforcement of those sanctions will
    lead to an increase in discrimination charges filed with the Office
    of Special Counsel (OSC), because employers will be more hesitant
    about hiring workers who look or sound "foreign."

-   CRT's workload will also increase if legislation is enacted
    requiring all employers to use a computerized employment eligibility
    verification program run by DHS and the Social Security
    Administration (SSA) to determine whether new hires are authorized
    to work in the United States. Studies have documented that employers
    sometimes use such systems in a discriminatory manner, including
    pre-screening applicants and prematurely terminating workers, which
    may lead to the receipt of additional charges.

-   Pending immigration reform proposals, millions of workers may
    receive legal status that was not previously protected under the
    Immigration and Nationality Act's (INA) anti-discrimination
    provision. Thus, upon receiving lawful permanent resident status,
    these individuals will be protected under the anti-discrimination
    provision and will be able to file charges with OSC.

-   In September 2004, DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
    (MOU) with the Department of Labor (DOL) for enforcement of the
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
    of 1994. As more members of the National Guard and Reserve return
    from duty, it is anticipated that complaints against employers will
    increase. Since receiving this enforcement authority, CRT has
    received a considerable number of USERRA referrals from DOL.
    Assumption of this enforcement authority will continue to impact the
    workload of CRT in FY 2008 and into the immediate future.

-   CRT faces the challenge of enforcing the ADA at a time when national
    attention and resources must be focused on providing for the safety
    and well being of all citizens. State and local governments, as well
    as the business community, are burdened with monetary shortfalls
    that tend to place the correction of access violations at a lower
    priority. This places an increased premium on securing voluntary
    compliance.

-   With the passage of The Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments
    Act of 2006, additional resources will need to be devoted to address
    the increased litigation workload. In addition the amount of
    enforcement work necessary under Section 203 of VRA will be
    dependent on the extent to which election officials take appropriate
    steps to ensure fully bilingual elections.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   CRT, in its legal counsel capacity, faces the challenge of providing
    formal opinions and informal advice on legal and policy matters to
    CRT's Assistant Attorney General\'s Office, CRT\'s litigating
    sections, and the U.S. Attorneys Offices that continue to rely upon
    CRT in its role as the government\'s expert in court of appeals
    litigation.

**[Internal Challenges]{.underline}:**

-   Law enforcement relies primarily on people. Civil rights law
    enforcement is no different. Expanding skills and expertise through
    positive managerial intervention in areas of training, policy
    supporting career development and upward mobility programs will play
    a critical role. DOJ needs to continue its efforts to attract the
    "best and brightest" of all talents, and should continue to provide
    an accessible, welcoming work environment that increases retention.
    Extensive training and development will be required for any new
    staff hired for those positions.

-   Many of CRT's responsibilities are not performed by any other
    government agency. The recent loss of numerous senior staff has
    impacted CRT on many levels particularly in the loss of
    institutional memory, expertise and skill, all of which have been
    integral to our enforcement, training and outreach efforts. CRT
    expects this challenge to continue through FY 2007 and into FY 2008.
    Expanding the skills of existing employees through internal training
    and career development is critical.

-   Training is a vital tool to sharpen our enforcement efforts -- both
    across the

> Department and within CRT. The Professional Development Office (PDO),
> newly created in November 2005, has spearheaded CRT's creation of two
> training conferences at the National Advocacy Center in FY 2006. These
> national training seminars continue our mission of educating,
> encouraging, and working collaboratively with the U.S. Attorney's
> Offices in the vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws; two more
> training conferences are scheduled for
>
> FY 2007. PDO also has created -- for the first time in CRT history --
> a formal program of training for new CRT attorneys, as well as
> programs to provide continuing legal education for experienced CRT
> attorneys.

-   Many of CRT's cases are extremely complex; requiring teams of two or
    three lawyers for each case. Such long-term efforts, which tie up
    lawyers and support personnel for months, challenge the remainder of
    the staff to \"cover\" for them.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Several of CRT's current cases involve large developers who have
    built multiple housing complexes that do not comply with the
    accessibility requirements. This has resulted in large, complex,
    resource-intensive cases.

F.  Performance of Commercial Activities

Since ensuring compliance with civil rights laws is an inherently
governmental function, CRT does not have a formal A-76 study underway.

**II. Summary of Program Changes**

  ------------------- --------------------------- ---------- --------- ------------- ----------
  **Item Name**       **Description**                                                **Page**

                                                  **Pos.**   **FTE**   **Dollars     
                                                                       (\$000)**     

  **Human             **Address and Expand the    **13**     **7**     **\$1,713**   **7**
  Trafficking**       anti-trafficking                                               
                      enforcement program**                                          

                      **TOTALS**                  **13**     **7**     **\$1,713**   
  ------------------- --------------------------- ---------- --------- ------------- ----------

**1.** **[Human Trafficking Enforcement Efforts]{.underline}**

President Bush and the Attorney General have made combating human
trafficking a top priority of this Administration. In a September 23,
2003, address to the United Nations, the President noted: "There's a
special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and
vulnerable. The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see
the very worst of life -- an underground of brutality and lonely fear.
Those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must be
severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase themselves
and deepen the misery of others. And governments that tolerate this
trade are tolerating a form of slavery." In addition, CRT is requesting
funding for its respective portion of costs associated with the Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC).

Trafficking in humans stands among the most offensive moral scourges in
America. It is a form of modern day slave trade. A large majority of
victims are forced, defrauded, or coerced into prostitution or other
forms of sexual exploitation. Others are compelled to work in sweat
shops, in agricultural fields, or as domestic servants. Each year, up to
an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked
against their will across international borders. Of those, 14,500 to
17,500 may be trafficked into the United States. While the actual
numbers are difficult to quantify, clearly the problem is of sufficient
magnitude that substantiates the need for increased dedication of
resources.

The Criminal Section (CRM) of CRT currently devotes approximately 21
positions to combating human trafficking. CRM's productivity and
workload requirements in this programmatic area have increased
dramatically since passage of the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act
("TVPA") in 2000, which greatly expanded the scope of federal
enforcement authority over human trafficking offenses. Since that time,
CRM's trafficking investigations have quadrupled and prosecutions have
tripled. Moreover, increasingly we are investigating and prosecuting
complex cases that encompass multiple districts, multiple law
enforcement agencies, numerous victims, and can require cooperation from
other countries. Collateral to investigating and prosecuting these
crimes, CRM staff have trained thousands of federal, State, local, and
international law enforcement agents, prosecutors, NGO staff, and
officials to identify, investigate, and prosecute these crimes**.**
Accordingly, CRM urgently needs additional resources to continue its
impressive anti-trafficking enforcement program, as well as to expand
its ability to effectively coordinate and expand the enforcement program
throughout the nation. The Department convicted more trafficking
defendants in FY 2006 than in any other single year on record. CRT's
commitment to protecting society's most vulnerable members has never
been stronger.

**[Background]{.underline}**

**A.** **[Summary of Current Criminal Section Workload]{.underline}**

CRM enforces federal criminal civil rights statutes, including those
which prohibit official misconduct, bias-motivated violence, and human
trafficking. While the number of official misconduct and bias-motivated
violence investigations have remained relatively constant over the last
five years, passage of the TVPA dramatically increased the type and
number of human trafficking allegations which require investigation and
prosecution. For example:

> \(1\) In the past six fiscal years, CRM, working with the United
> States Attorneys' Offices, opened 639 new investigations into
> allegations of human trafficking -- approximately 399% more than were
> opened in the previous six-year period.

\(2\) During this same six-year period, CRM initiated prosecutions of
360 traffickers, more than a 300% increase over the previous six years.
This resulted in 238 convictions and guilty pleas, a 250% increase over
the 67 obtained over the previous six years.

\(3\) During FY 2006, 168 new investigations were opened, 111 defendants
were charged, and a record number of trafficking defendants (98) were
convicted.

(4) As of December 15, 2006, CRM had 260 open trafficking
    investigations, or 294% more than the 66 open in January 2001.

> \(5\) CRM launched a new initiative to support and assist the 42 Human
>
> Trafficking Task Forces funded through the BJA. In FY 2007, CRM staff
> will meet with all 42 task forces and provide training and technical
> assistance.

(6) CRM has trained thousands of federal, State, and local law

> enforcement officers and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
> representatives, including through our JTN Broadcast to all USAO's,
> the National Conference in New Orleans, and at training programs in
> cities across the nation. Division personnel also trained foreign
> officials from a wide variety of countries, including Azerbaijan,
> China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Thailand, among
> others**.**

In addition to the dramatic increases in the number of investigations
and prosecutions, the breadth of our investigations and prosecutions is
widening significantly. While early cases were limited to one or two
districts, we are now coordinating investigations that involve multiple
brothels or businesses in different jurisdictions. Thus, CRM is now
required to provide considerable coordination not only among law
enforcement and prosecutors of multiple jurisdictions, but also among
local and State law enforcement, the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), DOL, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and NGOs.

**B. [Victim-Centered Trafficking Investigations and Prosecutions are
Labor Intensive and Costly]{.underline}**

The raw statistics alone do not tell the full story of the impact of
trafficking cases on the workload of CRM as a whole. Given the
particular vulnerability of our victims and the very sensitive nature of
the trauma they suffered, CRM employs a victim-centered approach to its
human trafficking investigations and prosecutions. While this model is
highly effective, trafficking investigations and prosecutions are
significantly more labor-intensive than other types of matters handled
by CRM. Unlike typical official misconduct or bias-motivated violence
matters, trafficking allegations commonly involve up to hundreds of
victims, and often require international investigations, which can be
extremely sensitive, time-consuming, and expensive.

The typical trafficking investigation usually requires a series of
victim interviews before the prosecutor is able to ascertain the true
scope of the case. These interviews often involve several sessions that
are spread over several weeks. In many cases, the victim interviews
alone can last hundreds of hours. Interpreters often are employed
because the victim cannot speak English. Interviews requiring
interpreters last at least twice as long as interviews that do not
require interpreters. Pre-trial preparation and trials are also longer
and more expensive as interpreters are needed for the non-English
speaking witnesses.

Human trafficking investigations often involve proactive raids of
brothels and other locations where victims are held by their captors.
These raids require substantial CRM resources because Section personnel
have the expertise in trafficking and, as such, play a leading role in
coordinating and participating in the raids. This central coordination
role avoids the duplication of efforts by various USAOs, as well as
federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, and non-governmental
organizations. CRM attorneys, victim-witness and support staff spend
months establishing probable cause, protocols, locating resources,
making logistical arrangements for the victims (including food, clothing
and shelter), using psychologists as interviews are conducted for
traumatized individuals, and coordinating efforts to keep victims
legally in the United States and to provide benefits and other
governmental services. During and after the raid, CRM personnel are
involved in debriefing sessions with the victims to assess the merits of
the case, which can take weeks and even months.

CRM's victim-centered approach has proven quite effective in combating
trafficking. Recounted below are some recent successful prosecutions,
with a brief description of the significant CRM resources required to
successfully prosecute these cases:

[United States v. Kil Soo Lee, et al]{.underline}.

In the Department's largest ever human trafficking prosecution, three
CRM attorneys spent nearly 2½ years in American Samoa investigating
allegations that over 200 Vietnamese victims were held in involuntary
servitude by the owner of a garment factory. After indictment, the
victims were assigned to service providers in 25 different districts.
Each victim was interviewed at least once, and many several times,
requiring substantial travel by CRM attorneys to meet with them,
especially as the trial approached. CRM's victim-witness coordinator
spent two years working almost full time to provide and monitor the
services and immigration relief to which the 200 victims were entitled
under the TVPA. In the end, five attorneys and two paralegals were
involved in the trial of the case. They spent over six months in trial
preparation and trial. Fourteen interpreters in four languages were
hired for the trial at a cost of almost \$150,000. Defendant Lee was
convicted, and in 2005, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

[United States v. Zavala and Ibanez]{.underline}

Two CRM attorneys, working with numerous Assistant United States
Attorneys in two districts, agents and victim-witness personnel,
investigated allegations that over 60 Peruvian men, women and children
had been smuggled into the country and forced to work in factories on
Long Island, New York. After the indictment, an additional 30 victims
were identified. Simply interviewing the victims and assisting them to
obtain trafficking victims' benefits required months of full-time
effort. After the defendants pled guilty in November 2004, the
sentencing process also required significant attorney and victim-witness
time and funding. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004, victims
have a right to speak at sentencing and to provide victim impact
statements. When the defendants were sentenced on two different days,
six months apart, in November 2005 and April 2006, almost all of the
victims had provided victim impact statements that were translated from
Spanish into English and were provided interpretation assistance to
understand the proceedings.

[United States v. Carreto, et al.]{.underline}

This was a high profile case featured on national television that
involved eight defendants charged in 2004 with operating a sex
trafficking ring that smuggled Mexican women and girls into the United
States and ultimately forced them into prostitution in New York.
Attorneys spent a tremendous amount of time preparing for trial, when
unexpectedly three of the eight defendants pled guilty to all 27 counts
of the indictment shortly after jury selection. In addition, attorneys
and victim-witness staff made considerable efforts to assist the victims
to regain custody of their children, who were held by the traffickers'
families in Mexico to control the women. The attorneys devoted a
tremendous amount of time and energy to develop a lasting relationship
of trust and support with the victims, a common phenomenon in human
trafficking cases where victims are reluctant to testify about
profoundly traumatic sexual experiences to foreign law enforcement that
have authority to seek their prosecution. Moreover, these victims still
had strong emotional and romantic ties with the defendants. Ultimately,
six of the eight defendants decided to plead guilty rather than be
confronted by the victims' critical testimony. In April 2006, two of the
defendants were sentenced to fifty years in prison, among the highest
sentences ever in a trafficking prosecution. Two defendants remain
fugitives and resources will again be needed to bring them to trial when
they are apprehended.

Cases with fewer victims are resource-intensive as well. Domestic
servant cases, which generally involve one or two victims, pose major
challenges as the level of traumatization can be significant for these
isolated and often sexually abused victims. In such cases, attorneys
must work closely with victim service organizations and victim-witness
coordinators to help restore the traumatized victim before a thorough
debriefing can take place. In addition, these investigations often
require investigation in the victim's home country. For example, in
[United States v. Djoumessi]{.underline}, a husband and wife smuggled a
14-year-old girl from Cameroon into the United States with the promise
of an American education. For more than four years, she was beaten and
sexually assaulted, not allowed to attend school, forced to care for
three young children, clean the home and prepare meals. The couple was
tried in State court, but their punishments did not vindicate federal
interests, nor were the victim's interests well served. A CRM attorney
then conducted four years of investigation, including travel to
Cameroon, and required the nearly full-time assistance of a paralegal
for six months. This led to the conviction of both defendants on federal
charges in March 2006.

CRM also employs a full-time victim-witness coordinator who devotes
virtually all of her time to the human trafficking program. The
victim-centered model of trafficking prosecution requires the
victim-witness coordinator to play a central role in all stages of CRM's
trafficking cases. The victim-witness coordinator plays an essential
role in CRM prosecutions, as she coordinates with the numerous
non-governmental organizations who assist in the rehabilitation of
trafficking victims, facilitates immigration relief benefits for the
victims, and acts as a liaison between DOJ and other governmental
agencies that play critical roles in the government's overall
anti-trafficking program --HHS, ICE, FBI, Criminal Division, and the
State Department. In addition, she spends considerable time preparing
reports and providing information on CRM's human trafficking
enforcement.

**C. [CRM's Human Trafficking Workload Expected to
Increase]{.underline}**

In addition to the increase in the trafficking caseload triggered by the
passage of the TVPA, we are now seeing the fruits of the 42 recently
formed anti-trafficking task forces, funded by BJA. These task forces
have begun to produce high volume and complex trafficking cases, often
involving multiple districts and requiring significant coordination
efforts by CRM. CRM foresees further, possibly exponential, expansion of
its caseload and coordination responsibilities.

The task force approach has enabled CRM to spread its successful model
of victim-centered prosecutions. This approach puts the rights of the
victims first and relies on working closely with non-governmental
organizations to get restoration and rehabilitation for the survivors.

Because the TVPA is a relatively new statute, and because investigation
and prosecution of these matters are complex and labor intensive, CRM
plays a critical leadership role coordinating the trafficking task
forces throughout the country. Among other resource-intensive
responsibilities, CRM attorneys and victim witness personnel are called
upon to provide the task forces with regular anti-trafficking training,
mentoring, and technical assistance.

Even after these task forces are up and running, coordination will be
vital to ensure that these districts are not duplicating efforts as they
target the same criminal organization in multiple cities. There is
currently no formal coordination -- other than the efforts currently
being provided by the 21 CRM employees -- for all of these task forces.
Yet, we anticipate that our law enforcement efforts with respect to
human trafficking will require many of the same coordination needs as
multi-district, international narcotics investigations and prosecutions
currently ongoing in the Criminal Division.

The Houston task force is a prime example of how CRM attorneys
facilitate effective prosecutions through intensive coordination,
mentoring and training. Formed in 2004, CRM has assisted the Houston
task force in developing a number of successful prosecutions. For
example, in 2005, working with task force members, CRM indicted six
defendants in [United States v. Salazar]{.underline}, eight defendants
in [United States v. Mondragon]{.underline}, and liberated over 100
women from their captors. Investigation and prosecution of those cases
has required the full attention of CRM attorneys, two Assistant U.S.
Attorneys and countless agents. After planning and assisting in the raid
of the Mondragon operation in November 2005, CRM attorneys spent three
straight months in Houston conducting follow-up interviews. Leads from
these cases are being used to develop cases in other districts as well.

In October 2006, the Division created a Slavery and Trafficking in
Persons Unit within CRM. This new Unit will work to enhance DOJ's
investigation and prosecution of human trafficking and slavery cases,
such as multi-jurisdictional cases and those involving financial crimes.
The Unit will also engage in training, technical assistance, and
outreach initiatives to federal, State, and local law enforcement and
NGOs.

**D. [CRM Is Uniquely Positioned To Lead Anti-Trafficking
]{.underline}**

**[Efforts In The United States]{.underline}**

In the United States, CRM has taken the lead in prosecuting trafficking
cases and in training others in the skills necessary to successfully
investigate and prosecute trafficking cases. CRM attorneys have gained
years of experience in trafficking cases by actually investigating and
prosecuting the cases. No other organization in the Nation has acquired
as much knowledge or developed as many skills in fighting trafficking as
CRM. Over the last six years, CRM has established effective working
relationships with United States Attorneys' Offices, as well as with the
law enforcement agencies which investigate trafficking cases. CRM has
also developed close working relationships with the non-governmental and
other organizations which provide assistance to victims of trafficking.
Finally, CRM has created and refined sophisticated training programs for
other prosecutors and investigators involved in the anti-trafficking
effort.

The Houston task force's success, mentioned above, is based on the
intensive mentoring and training which can be provided only by CRM
attorneys with extensive real world experience. Replicating the Houston
model in other task forces will require similar engagement by CRM
attorneys, both to provide initial guidance to the task forces and the
expertise to handle the many prosecutions we expect will result once the
task forces are fully functioning. CRM is uniquely qualified to
coordinate that effort, given its substantive expertise and its
excellent working relationships with the various districts.

CRM is already playing a critical role in coordinating the task forces
throughout the country. CRM personnel have developed a new initiative to
conduct quarterly teleconferences involving all of the task forces, to
share best practices, and encourage cooperation and coordination among
the districts. During the summer of FY 2006, CRM hosted an
anti-trafficking training program at the National Advocacy Center
designed specifically for task force members, which will further enhance
the effectiveness of the task forces. CRM also hosted the National
Conference on Human Trafficking for prosecutors, service providers, and
others in New Orleans in October 2006.

**E. [CRM Anti-Trafficking Training and Outreach
Initiatives]{.underline}**

Providing coordination and training for the task forces is only one of
the many demands for training the Section receives for assistance
regarding human trafficking. Since passage of the TVPA of 2000, CRM
attorneys and other staff have invested substantial time in training
federal investigators, State Department officials, Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, local law enforcement and victim service providers.

CRT has supplemented task force training with a "train the trainer"
curriculum that is available to the task forces through the 40 Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) offices that the Department supports.
This training is designed to improve the skills of each component of the
trafficking team, and it provides advice on cross-

disciplinary collaboration. Training emphasizes proactive
investigations, victim safety and restoration, and the importance of
conducting investigations across State and international borders.

In addition, in FY 2005 and FY 2006, CRM attorneys and victim-witness
staff conducted more than 150 training programs for federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and victim coordinators;
non-governmental and health care organizations; business leaders and
legal practitioners; national victim groups; and organized and
newly-established anti-trafficking task forces in over 40 jurisdictions
in 25 States. In those two years, they also met in the United States
with foreign officials and representatives from 30 countries and
traveled abroad to ten countries to conduct training on human
trafficking prosecutions and victim protections.

In addition to the rapidly increasing demands on CRM to prosecute
trafficking cases and to provide training, CRM personnel are tasked to
contribute to a number of Department-wide human trafficking outreach
initiatives. These initiatives are important to the

Department's comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, but our
participation diverts resources from our enforcement efforts. The
following are examples of these initiatives:

-   During FY 2006, CRT continued to publish an Anti-Trafficking News
    Bulletin. This Bulletin was initially published monthly in FY 2004,
    and then twice in FY 2005. Current plans are to continue publishing
    the newsletter twice a year to provide information on the
    Department's anti-trafficking efforts. Each issue of the bulletin
    provides updates of recent case activity and describes outreach and
    policy activities of CRT and DOJ.

-   CRM attorneys and the victim-witness coordinator regularly provide
    training and technical assistance to foreign officials both here and
    abroad. Some recent activities include conducting assessments of
    anti-trafficking programs in Asia, Africa, and Central America,
    assistance in drafting legislation to combat trafficking, and
    training law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and service
    providers on issues confronted in enforcing trafficking laws and
    providing victim-centered services.

-   CRM personnel are regularly tasked to provide information for
    detailed reports on human trafficking for the annual report to
    Congress mandated by the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003, the annual U.S. Assessment,
    Attorney General reports and speeches, and in response to inquiries
    from Congress, scholars, researchers, and the media.

-   CRM attorneys assist the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG)

    created by statute to coordinate the government's anti-trafficking
    efforts.

    CRM employees participate in special tasks requested by SPOG sub-

    committees on various issues, such as the development of a model
    regulation

    to be adopted by various federal agencies, research to identify the
    number and

    location of trafficking victims as well as the routes employed by
    traffickers,

    and services to citizen victims of domestic trafficking.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   HSTC will share intelligence information related to human
    trafficking and alien smuggling. DOJ along with the Department of
    State and DHS, will co-chair the HSTC. Within DOJ, CRT, Criminal
    Division, and the FBI are providing direct participation. The HSTC
    leverages the strengths and authorities of those organizations to
    more effectively support the government's efforts to address
    criminal support to terrorist mobility, human smuggling and human
    trafficking. The Center was established in 2004 to bring together
    multiple federal agencies from the policy, law enforcement,
    intelligence, and diplomatic areas to work together to increase the
    development of intelligence regarding human trafficking and other
    transnational issues.

-   CRM helped develop a model anti-trafficking law that has been
    adopted by sixteen States, with many others considering passing
    their own legislation. CRM attorneys consult frequently with State
    officials on developing these laws, and, in fact, one State passed a
    trafficking law after a CRM prosecution highlighted the problem
    within the State. As more States adopt these laws, the need for
    coordination will increase substantially to ensure that State and
    federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors are using their
    resources efficiently and effectively. Even a single State
    prosecution involving non-citizen victims will necessitate the
    involvement of CRM's victim-witness staff as those victims may be
    eligible for immigration relief and refugee benefits which fall
    under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

These additional outreach, training, and policy functions consume the
time and effort of several attorneys, the victim-witness coordinator,
and CRM management. These important initiatives use the time of CRM
personnel that would ordinarily be devoted to the development and
prosecution of federal cases.

The projected workload associated with resources being requested are as
follows:

**Number of criminal defendants charged FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09**

200 120 214 230

**Number of trafficking cases filed FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09**

32 22 35 43

**Number of trafficking defendants charged FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09** 111
40 105 129

**Number of trafficking victims successfully FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09**

**protected**

93 67 105 129

FY 2008 estimates reflect a lower than expected productivity because of
the time lag caused by the hiring process and the learning curve
associated with new hires. FY 2009 estimates will provide a better
reflection as to the annualized impact that the additional resources
will have.

**F. [Human Trafficking Additional Resources Being
Requested]{.underline}**

CRM is seeking additional resources of 13 positions, (eight attorneys) 7
FTE and \$1,713,000 both to address current case demands and to further
enhance CRM's anti-trafficking program. Specifically, CRM is seeking
additional personnel resources as follows:

**[Position]{.underline} [Grade]{.underline} [Series]{.underline}
[Number]{.underline}**

Manager, Trafficking Enforcement Program 14 905 1

Coordinator, Anti-Trafficking Task Forces 14 905 1

Special Litigation Counsel, Money Laundering 14 905 1

and Asset Forfeiture

Trial Attorneys 14 905 5

Victim-Witness Coordinators 13 301 1

Investigators 11 360 2

Paralegals 9 950 1

Clerical 7 318 [1]{.underline}

13

Increasing the number of CRM personnel is instrumental in creating an
effective coordination structure to ensure that these larger, more
complex human trafficking cases are investigated and prosecuted
efficiently and effectively in a systematic, proactive fashion.
Moreover, as we bring more complex cases involving trafficking networks,
we anticipate that the United States will be able to more effectively
seize greater assets from these criminal organizations.

Additionally, CRM is seeking \$303,000 to address on-going funding
requirements that present logistical challenges not seen in other CRM
cases. CRM is requesting resources for abnormally high or unique costs
associated with trafficking cases (e.g., depositions (\$55,000), housing
and shelter for victims immediately following raids, until such time
that the victims can be placed accordingly (\$95,000), interpreters
(\$93,000) and translations (\$60,000)). The funding requested would
also enhance the training material needed for outreach activities, and
meet the unique requirements for trafficking-related cases.

CRT is requesting \$210,000 for its respective costs associated with the
HSTC. CRT has no base funding for this requirement. However, costs are
being distributed among DOJ, DHS, and the State Department. DOJ costs
are being distributed among the FBI, Criminal Division, and CRT. The
Chief Financial Officer of each of the organizations mentioned above are
still working out the details of the FY 2008 anticipated cost, so this
request level may change. Currently, costs will be incurred by the State
Department and reimbursed by the other components. Therefore, all
trafficking-related costs are included in object class 2500 and will be
recurring in nature.

**III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language**

**N/A**

**IV. Decision Unit Justification**

**A. Civil Rights Division**

  -------------------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------------
  Civil Rights Division TOTAL            Perm.   FTE \*     Amount
                                         Pos.               

  2006 Enacted w/Rescissions and         737     755        109,037,000
  Supplementals                                             

  2007 Estimate                          733     751        108,777,000

  Adjustments to Base and Technical      -20     -20        6,299,000
  Adjustments                                               

  2008 Current Services                  713     731        115,076,000

  2008 Program Increases                 13      7          1,713,000

  2008 Request                           726     738        116,789,000

  Total Change 2007-2008                 -7      -13        8,012,000
  -------------------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------------

\* Includes 16 reimbursable FTE in each fiscal year

**Civil Rights Division's IT infrastructure is funded through the
Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON).**

> **1. Program Description**

An Assistant Attorney General, who is assisted by Deputy Assistant
Attorneys General, heads CRT. They establish policy and provide
executive direction and control over enforcement actions and the
administrative management activities in CRT.

CRT is comprised of one decision unit and two programmatic areas:
criminal and civil enforcement. These areas are broken down into ten
program-related Sections and the Management and Administration (M&A)
Section.

Following is a brief summary of the major programmatic responsibilities
in enforcing the laws and regulations for which it is charged, and how
these efforts tie to the strategic

objectives in the DOJ Strategic Plan for its responsibilities in
upholding the civil rights of all Americans.

**Criminal Enforcement (124 FTE; \$ 15,034,000)**

The Criminal Enforcement responsibilities of CRT frequently\
involve prosecuting significant cases, implicating violations

of basic constitutional rights. These are invariably matters

of intense public interest. CRT's caseload includes violations of

human trafficking and involuntary servitude statutes, and acts of
racial, ethnic, or religious violence such as cross burnings and church
arsons. CRT also handles "color of law" offenses by local and federal
law enforcement officials, investigating and prosecuting allegations of
excessive force, sexual assaults and other forms of official misconduct
in violation of fundamental constitutional protections. Criminal
Enforcement's jurisdiction includes, as well, criminal violations of the
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The federal criminal
civil rights statutes also provide for prosecutions of conspiracies to
interfere with federally protected rights. CRT

frequently prosecutes criminal statutes arising out of and related to
civil rights investigations, such as obstruction of justice, weapons
violations and immigration charges.

These criminal enforcement responsibilities play an integral role in
DOJ's Strategic Plan, designed to uphold the civil and constitutional
rights of all Americans and to protect vulnerable members of our
society.

The TVPA of 2000 expanded the scope of federal enforcement authority
over human trafficking offenses. The law strengthened CRT's ability to
investigate and prosecute modern day slavery offenses. The Act broadened
the reach of servitude statutes to reach psychological and non-violent
forms of coercion. CRT works closely with the FBI, DOJ's Criminal
Division, DHS, the U.S. Attorneys Offices, DOL, and NGOs to identify
victims of illegal trafficking, many of whom are women and children.

Trafficking in humans stands among the most offensive moral scourges in
America. It is a form of modern day slave trade. Each year, an estimated
600,000 to 800,000 individuals around the world are trapped, tricked,
bought, sold, or transported across

international borders and held in sexual or labor servitude. There are
estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 victims are trafficked into America.

Approximately 80% of the victims of human trafficking are female.
Trafficking profits support organized crime. Trafficking has also been
linked to other serious crimes including document fraud, money
laundering, and migrant smuggling.

In addition, working with DHS, DOL, and HHS, as well as State and local
law enforcement and NGOs, DOJ has formed 42 anti-trafficking task forces
across the country. Task forces have been established in Houston,
Northern Virginia, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, the District of
Columbia, and other locations.

CRT's mission also includes combating racial profiling. This is the
invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops,
searches, and other law enforcement investigative procedures. Racial
profiling is based on the erroneous assumption that a particular
individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in
misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity.
The Bush Administration was the first to ban racial profiling in
traditional law enforcement activities and remains fully committed to
the elimination of invidious racial profiling by law enforcement
agencies.

CRT also enforces several criminal statutes to uphold the civil rights
of all Americans, reduce racial discrimination, and promote
reconciliation through vigorous enforcement of civil right laws,
including:

-   Criminal provisions of the CRA of 1964 and 1968, which prohibit
    using force or threats of force to injure or intimidate any person
    involved in the exercise of certain federal rights and activities
    because of that person's race, religion or ethnicity;

-   The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which amended 18 U.S.C.
    §247, strengthened the criminal law against church burning and
    desecration by broadening the interstate commerce nexus, adding a
    racial motive element, and eliminating the \$10,000 damage
    requirement; and

-   Relevant Provisions of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003,
    which bans partial birth abortions. The Act provides both criminal
    and civil penalties for individuals who perform such abortions.
    Immediately, after the Act was signed into law, federal judges in
    California, Nebraska, and New York enjoined enforcement of the Act
    against abortion providers and their affiliates nationwide. These
    cases are now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. If the
    injunctions are lifted, CRT will be responsible for enforcing the
    Act's criminal prohibitions.

Performance and Resources Table -- Criminal Enforcement

The Performance and Resources Table displays four performance measures,
two outcome measures associated with CRT's criminal enforcement
responsibilities, and is included in six Division-wide measures
regarding cases and matters. The performance measures reflect the number
of cases filed and defendants charged, by both involuntary servitude and
all criminal civil rights violations. The outcome measures reported are
the percentage of criminal cases favorably resolved, and the number of
trafficking victims successfully prosecuted. Accomplishments are
described under section IVA3 Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes.

**B. Civil Enforcement** **(598 FTE; \$101,755,000)**

The Civil Enforcement responsibilities of CRT encompasses a vast array
of responsibilities, including enforcement of the CRA of 1957, 1960,
1964, and 1968; the VRA of 1965, as amended through 1992; the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; the Fair Housing Amendments Act
of 1988; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; the ADA; the NVRA; the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; the HAVA, and
additional civil rights provisions contained in other laws and
regulations. These laws prohibit discrimination on a variety of grounds
including: disability; race; sex; national origin; and religion in areas
such as education; employment; credit; housing; zoning and land use;
public accommodations and facilities; State and local government
offices; voting and certain federally funded and conducted programs.

CRT enforces the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)
of 1980, which authorizes the Attorney General to seek relief for
persons confined in public institutions where conditions exist that
deprive residents of their constitutional rights; the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); the FACE, the Police
Misconduct Provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994; the pattern or practice provisions of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; and

Section 102 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as
amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin
and citizenship status as well as document abuse and retaliation under
the INA.

The civil enforcement responsibilities also play an integral role in
achieving the overall goals and mission of DOJ. CRT's civil enforcement
responsibilities are reflected in the eight program areas and its
Appellate Section. They perform civil responsibilities to uphold the
civil rights of all Americans, reduce racial discrimination, and promote
reconciliation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws. These
program areas, listed below in alphabetical order, perform many integral
responsibilities to protect the rights and interests of the American
people by legal representation.

**Appellate** **Section (APP)**

APP has primary responsibility for handling civil rights cases in the
courts of appeals and, in cooperation with the Solicitor General, in the
Supreme Court. APP also provides legal counsel to other components of
DOJ regarding civil rights law and appellate litigation.

Most of APP's appeals are from district court judgments in cases
originally handled by trial sections within CRT. The appellate caseload
is both affirmative and defensive. Thus, APP handles all appeals from
both favorable and adverse judgments in which the government
participates.

A significant proportion of APP\'s work involves participation as amicus
curiae (friend of the court) or as intervenor in cases that have the
potential for affecting CRT enforcement responsibilities. In this
capacity, APP closely monitors federal court cases to which the United
States is not a party. In many of these cases, especially those
concerned with developing or problematic areas of civil rights law, APP
uses the Federal Government\'s

authority to file an amicus curiae brief to register the government\'s
position. APP also intervenes in a substantial number of cases to defend
the constitutionality of federal statutes.

Coordination and Review (COR)

COR operates a comprehensive, government-wide program of technical and
legal assistance, training, interagency coordination, and regulatory,
policy, and program review, to ensure that federal agencies consistently
and effectively enforce various landmark civil rights statutes and
related Executive Orders that prohibit discrimination in federally
assisted programs and in the Federal Government's own programs and
activities.

Under Executive Order 12250, COR coordinates and ensures consistent and
effective enforcement of Title VI of the CRA of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in
federally assisted programs; Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally
assisted education and training programs; and other assistance-related
statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, or religion in federally assisted programs. The
approximately 30 federal agencies that provide federal financial
assistance are subject to these nondiscrimination statutes.

COR plays a central role in the Administration's priority of ensuring
implementation and enforcement of civil rights laws affecting persons
with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). COR has taken significant steps
to implement Executive Order 13166, which mandates meaningful access for
LEP individuals in federal and federally funded programs. In addition,
COR continues to work with approximately 80 federal agencies to ensure
that they produce plans to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals
in their own conducted programs. COR provides a training and outreach
program, which includes regular LEP presentations to recipients and
other groups, as well as widespread distribution of LEP materials to DOJ
recipients. COR also oversees the Interagency Working Group on LEP,
which has active representation by more than 35 federal agencies, as
well as the Working Group's LEP website, [www.lep.gov]{.underline},
which is a prime source of LEP information for federal agencies,
recipients, and community groups.

In order to ensure consistent and effective enforcement, COR engages in
a wide variety of activities, including the development or review and
approval of model regulations, policies, and enforcement standards and
procedures. It also reviews plans and data submitted by all federal
funding agencies, which describe their civil rights enforcement
priorities, activities, and achievements. It provides ongoing technical
assistance to federal agencies and, upon request, assists agencies in
investigations of particular complaints and compliance reviews raising
novel or complex issues.

COR also has an implementation and interagency coordination role with
respect to Executive Order 13160, which applies to approximately 90
federal agencies. It prohibits

discrimination in federally conducted education and training programs on
the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion,
age, sexual orientation, and status as a parent.

Disability Rights Section (DRS)

The ADA extends the promise of equal access to everyday life to people
with disabilities. Through its multi-faceted approach toward achieving
compliance with the ADA, DRS works to make this promise a reality. DRS\'
enforcement, certification, regulatory, coordination, and technical
assistance activities, required by the ADA, combined with an innovative
mediation program, provide a cost-effective and dynamic approach for
carrying out the ADA\'s mandates. DRS also carries out responsibilities
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the HAVA of 2002, the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Executive Order 13217,
Community-based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities, and
Executive Order 12250, and the President's New Freedom Initiative,
designed to improve the lives of millions of Americans with
disabilities. DRS activities affect six million businesses and
non-profit agencies, 80,000 units of State and local government, over 38
million people with disabilities, and more than 100 other federal
agencies and commissions in the Executive Branch.

DRS' wide variety of enforcement activities serves to encourage
compliance with Titles I, II, and III of the ADA. Shortly after taking
office, President George W. Bush launched the "New Freedom Initiative"
to advance the promise of the ADA -- expanding access and equality for
people with disabilities in every facet of American life. CRT has
pioneered a multi-track approach to advancing these important rights:
promoting expanded opportunities through cooperative compliance
assistance; providing technical assistance; and backing these up with a
robust enforcement program.

DOJ's Project Civic Access (PCA) has worked cooperatively with local
governments to expand access to public facilities, services, and
programs. Since January 2001, DOJ has signed 145 agreements under PCA.
Through PCA, DOJ assesses entire towns and counties, providing local
officials with a roadmap to bringing all of their facilities, services,
and programs into compliance with federal law. PCA settlement agreements
cover important civic facilities such as town halls, courthouses,
polling places, libraries, and police stations. They also include
recreational facilities, sidewalks, parks, emergency services, and
shelters. Participants, including both local officials and people with
disabilities, have lauded DOJ for the access and opportunity the PCA
program has brought to their communities.

DRS is the only government entity with authority to initiate litigation
under Title I (Employment) against State and local government employers.
Consequently, investigations and litigation have resulted in numerous
formal and informal settlement agreements enforcing the ADA's employment
provisions throughout the country. DRS has also made case law and
achieved consent decrees, formal settlement agreements, and

informal resolutions with respect to hundreds of complaints or
compliance reviews under Titles II (State and local government programs)
and III (public accommodations and commercial facilities).

DRS has built an impressive mediation program to assist with disposition
of the thousands of complaints received each year and the mediation
program receives a portion of these to expeditiously address these
issues. In FY 2006, the mediation program referred 305 matters,
completed 223 of these matters and successfully resolved 82% of these
cases.

The Technical Assistance Program, mandated under Section 506 of the ADA,
provides answers to questions and free publications to businesses, State
and local governments, people with disabilities, and the general public.
The ADA Information Line and the ADA Website are utilized by millions of
individuals each year, providing an unparalleled reference source on
DOJ's enforcement and interpretation of the ADA.

**Educational Opportunities Section (EOS)**

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in *Brown v. Board of Education*
held that the segregation of students on the basis of race in public
schools was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequent federal
legislation and court decisions mandate that school officials not
discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, language barriers, or disabilities. Thus, the
work of the EOS covers a variety of legal issues involving both
elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.

EOS enforces federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in public
elementary and secondary schools and public colleges and universities.
The laws enforced by EOS include Title IV of the CRA of 1964, and the
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. EOS also initiates
enforcement activities upon receiving a referral from other agencies to
enforce Title VI of the CRA of 1964; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the
ADA; and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. EOS may
intervene in private lawsuits which allege violations of the Equal
Protection Clause or the education related anti-discrimination statutes
referred to above. EOS also participates as amicus curiae, addressing
issues in which the government has an interest. EOS represents the
Department of Education (DOE) in certain types of suits filed against or
on behalf of the DOE.

Among EOS' most important priorities is its responsibility to monitor
approximately 308 school districts currently covered by desegregation
orders in cases in which the United States is a party. To ensure that
districts comply with their obligations, EOS routinely reviews matters
relating to student assignment, faculty assignment and hiring,
transportation policies, extracurricular activities, the availability of
equitable facilities, and the distribution of resources. EOS also
routinely responds to requests by other parties to modify court orders
to reflect current circumstances. It also responds to requests by
parties and courts regarding unitary status and the ultimate dismissal
of the lawsuit. As a result of these activities, EOS obtained relief in
a number of cases, including: improved facilities for minority students;
the elimination of one-race classrooms and schools; consolidation of
schools to ensure desegregation; the desegregation of faculty and
recruitment of minority faculty and staff; more equitable transportation
routes for minority students; the elimination of segregative transfers;
and the elimination of racially dual awards. Also, where appropriate,
EOS agreed that the desegregation process had been completed and agreed
to declarations of unitary status.

**Employment Litigation Section (ELS)**

ELS enforces the provisions of Title VII of the CRA of 1964, as amended
and related federal laws such as the Crime Control Act prohibiting
employment practices that discriminate on grounds of race, sex,
religion, and national origin.

ELS initiates litigation under Title VII and other federal laws in two
ways. Under the statutes it enforces, the Attorney General has authority
to bring suit where there is reason to believe that pattern or practice
discrimination exists. Generally, these are factually and legally
complex cases that seek to alter an employment practice, such as one
involving recruitment, hiring, assignment or promotion, which has the
purpose or effect of denying employment or promotional opportunities to
a class of individuals. Under its pattern or practice authority, ELS
typically obtains relief in the form of employment offers or promotion,
back pay and other remedial relief for individuals who have been the
victims of unlawful employment practices. These cases are frequently
resolved by consent decree prior to trial.

ELS also files Title VII suits based upon individual charges of
discrimination referred to it by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). These charges are filed with the EEOC by individuals
who believe that they were unlawfully denied an employment opportunity
or otherwise discriminated against by a State or local government
employer. If, after investigation, the EEOC determines that the charge
has merit and efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are unsuccessful,
the EEOC refers it to ELS. ELS may also intervene in Title VII lawsuits
filed against public employers by private plaintiffs.

Enforcement authority for USERRA is the responsibility of ELS. USERRA
complaints are initially filed with DOL. DOL investigates USERRA
complaints, makes determinations as to whether they have merit, and
attempts to voluntarily resolve those complaints that it determines have
merit. If DOL does not resolve a complaint, it refers the complaint to
DOJ upon the request of the service member who filed the complaint. Upon
receipt of an unresolved USERRA complaint from DOL, ELS reviews DOL\'s
investigative file accompanying the complaint and makes a determination
as to whether to extend representation to the complainant. Under USERRA,
DOJ has authority to appear on behalf of a claimant in a suit filed in
federal district court if it is satisfied that the claimant is entitled
to the rights or benefits being sought. Since the transfer of USERRA
enforcement authority in 2004, ELS has been actively reviewing
complaints referred to it by DOL and has initiated several lawsuits on
behalf of service members.

ELS also represents DOL, the Department of Transportation, and other
federal agencies when they are sued. In addition, ELS has authority to
prosecute enforcement actions upon referral by DOL of complaints arising
under Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination in
employment by federal contractors.

**Housing and Civil Enforcement Section (HCE)**

HCE enforces the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which prohibits discrimination
in all types of housing transactions. FHA applies not only to actions by
direct providers of housing such as landlords and real estate companies,
but also to actions by local governments; banks; insurance companies;
and other entities whose discriminatory practices make housing
unavailable to persons because of their race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, handicap, or familial status. The statute authorizes
DOJ to bring lawsuits to address discriminatory policies or "patterns or
practices." It also creates a mechanism by which individuals may file a
complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a
process that sometimes results in a lawsuit brought by DOJ.

HCE also enforces the fair lending provisions of both the FHA, which
prohibits discrimination in residential real estate loans, and the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibits discrimination in these and
other types of lending, such as commercial and consumer loans.
Discrimination in home mortgage lending has been a particular focus of
HCE's enforcement efforts, because home ownership is so important to
American families. HCE works with the Federal Reserve Board, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other banking regulatory agencies to
promote voluntary compliance with the fair lending requirements.

Section 2 of the RLUIPA of 2000 prohibits State and local governmental
actions that discriminate on the basis of religion in land use and
zoning practices or impose substantial burdens on religious exercise.
HCE enforces the land use provisions of this Act.

HCE also enforces the prohibition against discrimination and segregation
in public accommodations under Title II of the CRA of 1964, and public
facilities under Title III of the CRA of 1964. The public accommodations
cases include those involving claims of systemic discrimination by
restaurants and hotels.

**Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment
Practices (OSC)**

OSC enforces the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, which
prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination with
respect to hiring, firing and recruitment or referral for a fee,
discrimination during the employment eligibility verification process,
and retaliation. OSC receives discrimination complaints directly from
the public, including U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and
refugees, many of whom have limited English proficiency and are low wage
workers. On its own initiative, OSC opens

independent investigations where there

is reason to believe that employers are

engaging in a pattern or practice of

discrimination. For meritorious claims,

OSC brings litigation before administrative

law judges if settlement discussions are not

successful.

Through its employer and worker hotlines, OSC conducts informal
telephone interventions with employers to explain lawful employment
practices. This is done to prevent discrimination from occurring, and
remedy unlawful practices. A large number of complaints are resolved
each year through this process, generally resulting in the

immediate return to work of the injured party and obviating the need for
a formal charge. OSC leverages its civil enforcement effectiveness
through its public education grant program by awarding grants to
organizations with ties to immigrant workers and employers. It also
cultivates a network of grantees and other nonprofit and government
partners, who educate employers and workers on the requirements of the
INA and who, when appropriate, refer possible violations to OSC for
review. In addition, OSC

conducts direct outreach throughout the country, supplying speakers for
presentations and distributing a large volume of outreach materials in
several languages upon request.

OSC anticipates that its workload will increase significantly during FY
2007 and

FY 2008 based upon a number of external factors that will have a huge
impact on OSC's enforcement and outreach work.

First, DHS has, and will continue to increase resources to address the
escalating number of undocumented workers in the United States,
including bringing criminal actions against employers that knowingly
employ undocumented workers. As DHS's efforts expand in this regard, OSC
will see an increase in discrimination charges filed by U.S. citizens
and work authorized immigrants.

Second, legislation has made possible the greater use of computerized
verification systems by private employers to determine whether new hires
are authorized to work in the United States. Studies have documented
that many employers use such systems in a discriminatory manner, which
will also lead to an increase in the number of charges filed with OSC.

Third, comprehensive immigration reform will likely lead to significant
changes in employer responsibilities and worker obligations under the
law, which means that OSC will face an environment of confusion about
immigration, which may lead to greater numbers of work-authorized
immigrants and U.S. citizens who appear "foreign" being denied work or
fired by confused employers. Legislation may create a new class of
immigrant workers, who may face exploitative working conditions.

**Special Litigation Section (SPL)**

SPL protects the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons
confined in certain institutions owned or operated by or on behalf of
State and local governments. These institutions include: facilities for
individuals with mental illness or developmental disabilities; nursing
homes; juvenile justice facilities; and adult jails and prisons. SPL
derives its primary authority in this area from CRIPA, enacted in 1980.
CRIPA gives the Attorney General the authority to investigate
institutional conditions and file suit against State and local
governments for a pattern or practice of egregious or flagrant unlawful
conditions. SPL also is responsible for enforcing Title III of the CRA
of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities on the
basis of race, religion, or national origin.

As a result of SPL's CRIPA efforts, tens of thousands of
institutionalized persons who were living in dire, often
life-threatening, conditions now receive adequate care and services.
SPL's work in institutions has focused recently on abuse and neglect in
nursing homes and facilities for persons with mental illness or
developmental disabilities; abuse and victimization of juveniles;
inadequate special education services in facilities serving children and
adolescents; and the unmet mental health needs of inmates and pre-trial
detainees.

SPL enforces the police misconduct provision of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which authorizes the Attorney
General to seek equitable and declaratory relief to redress a pattern or
practice of illegal conduct by law enforcement agencies and agencies
responsible for the administration of juvenile justice. SPL also
enforces the pattern or practice provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which authorizes the Attorney General to
initiate civil litigation to remedy discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, gender or religion involving services by law
enforcement agencies receiving financial assistance from DOJ.

The civil provisions of FACE are also within the area of enforcement for
the SPL. Its attorneys work closely with offices of the U.S. Attorney
and State Attorneys General by providing technical assistance and
conducting joint FACE prosecutions.

RLUIPA was signed into law on September 22, 2000. SPL has enforcement
responsibilities under Section 3 of the Act, which protects the rights
to free exercise of religion for institutionalized persons. Pursuant to
this authority, SPL is authorized to

investigate and bring civil actions for injunctive relief to enforce
compliance with RLUIPA. The vast majority of these cases have led
swiftly to local rules being changed to end the challenged
discrimination.

Voting Section (VOT)

VOT is responsible for the enforcement of VRA of 1965, National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), HAVA and other statutory provisions
designed to safeguard the right to vote of racial and language
minorities, disabled and illiterate persons, overseas citizens, and
military personnel.

To carry out its mission, VOT brings lawsuits against States, counties,
cities, and other jurisdictions to remedy violations of the above
statutes. With respect to VRA, high priority has been given to
enforcement of Section 203 of the Act to ensure that appropriate
language assistance is provided to citizens who are limited English
proficient. In addition, extensive activities have been taken to enforce
Section 2 of the Act with respect to denials and abridgements of the
right to vote on account of race, color, or

membership in a language minority. VOT also defends lawsuits that the
VRA authorizes

to be brought against the Attorney General.

VOT also has extensive programs to enforce two other provisions of the
VRA. First, it reviews changes in voting laws and procedures
administratively under Section 5 of the VRA. Section 5 of the VRA of
1965 is one of the special provisions of the VRA that apply to nine
States in their entirety and one or more counties in seven other States.
Second, VOT has an extensive election monitoring program pursuant to
Section 8 of the Act which authorizes the assignment of federal
observers to those jurisdictions certified by the Attorney General and
through the assignment of staff to monitor elections in other parts of
the country.

VOT is also responsible for enforcing the NVRA of 1993, UOCAVA, and
HAVA. The HAVA, signed into law in October 2002, aims to improve the
administration of elections in the United States, primarily by 1)
creating a new federal agency to serve as a clearinghouse for election
administration information; 2) providing funds to States to improve
election administration and replace outdated voting systems; and 3)
creating uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and
administration requirements that States must implement for all federal
elections. Most of these requirements were effective as of 2004; the
remaining requirements became effective in 2006. VOT has taken the lead
in outreach and monitoring of this law. It also has ongoing outreach and
monitoring efforts to ensure effective and timely implementation by the
States.

**2. Performance and Resource Tables**

The Performance and Resource Table reflects two programmatic activities
(criminal and civil). The table displays performance, outcome, and
efficiency measures associated with CRT's enforcement responsibilities.
The performance measure included in the Department's Performance and
Accountability Report (PAR) reflects the percentage of cases favorably
resolved. Accomplishments are described under section IVA3 of
Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes.

  ------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
  **PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE**                                                                                                                                       

  **Decision Unit: Civil Rights                                                                                                                                             
  Division**                                                                                                                                                                

  **DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: 2.4                                                                                                                                       
  Uphold the civil and Constitutional                                                                                                                                       
  rights of all Americans, and protect                                                                                                                                      
  vulnerable members of society.**                                                                                                                                          

  **WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES**                                **Final                **Actual**               **Estimate**               **Changes**               **Requested   
                                                         Target**                                                                                             (Total)**     

                                                         **FY                   **FY 2006**              **FY 2007**                **Current                 **FY 2008     
                                                         2006**                                                                     Services                  Request**     
                                                                                                                                    Adjustments                             
                                                                                                                                    and FY 2008                             
                                                                                                                                    Program                                 
                                                                                                                                    Changes**                               

  **Workload :                                           ** **      ** **                                                                                                    
  Investigations/Technical                                                                                                                                                  
  Assistance/Mediation/Prosecution**                                                                                                                                        

  ** **                                                  ** **      ** **                                                                                                    

  ** **                                                  ** **      ** **                                                                                                    

  **Total Costs and FTE (reimbursable                    **FTE**    **\$000**   **FTE**      **\$000**   **FTE**        **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**
  FTE are included, but reimbursable                                                                                                                                        
  costs are bracketed and not included                                                                                                                                      
  in the total)**                                                                                                                                                           

                                                         739 \[16\] \$109,037   660 \[10\]   \$108,564   735 \[16\]     \$108,777   \(13\)        \$8,012     722 \[16\]    \$116,789

  **TYPE/ STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE**        **PERFORMANCE**   **FY                   **FY 2006**              **FY 2007**                **Current                 **FY 2008     
                                                         2006**                                                                     Services                  Request**     
                                                                                                                                    Adjustments                             
                                                                                                                                    and FY 2008                             
                                                                                                                                    Program                                 
                                                                                                                                    Changes**                               

  **Program Activity**                                   **FTE**    **\$000**   **FTE**      **\$000**   **FTE**        **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**

                                       Criminal          117 \[0\]  \$12,567    117 \[0\]    \$12,563    117 \[0\]      \$12,595    7             \$2,439     124 \[0\]     \$15,034

  **Performance Measure**              Number of         80                     89                       75                         15                        90            
                                       criminal cases                                                                                                                       
                                       filed                                                                                                                                

  **Performance Measure**              Number of         135                    200                      120                        94                        214\*         
                                       defendants                                                                                                                           
                                       charged                                                                                                                              

  **Performance Measure**              Number of         25                     32                       22                         13                        35\*          
                                       trafficking cases                                                                                                                    
                                       filed                                                                                                                                

  **Performance Measure**              Number of         40                     111                      40                         65                        105\*         
                                       trafficking                                                                                                                          
                                       defendants                                                                                                                           
                                       charged                                                                                                                              

  **OUTCOME**                          \% of criminal    80                     92                       80                         N/A\*\*                   80            
                                       cases favorably                                                                                                                      
                                       resolved                                                                                                                             

  **OUTCOME**                          \# of trafficking 67                     93                       67                         38                        105\*         
                                       victims                                                                                                                              
                                       successfully                                                                                                                         
                                       protected                                                                                                                            

  \* Numbers have been updated to                                                                                                                                           
  reflect CRM enhancement                                                                                                                                                   

  \*\* N/A due to timing of hiring of                                                                                                                                       
  new staff.                                                                                                                                                                
  ------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------

  ------------------------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
  **PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE**                                                                                                                                            

  **Decision Unit: Civil Rights                                                                                                                                                  
  Division**                                                                                                                                                                     

  **DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: 2.4                                                                                                                                            
  Uphold the civil and Constitutional                                                                                                                                            
  rights of all Americans, and protect                                                                                                                                           
  vulnerable members of society.**                                                                                                                                               

  **WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES**                                     **Final                **Actual**               **Estimate**               **Changes**               **Requested   
                                                              Target**                                                                                             (Total)**     

                                                              **FY                   **FY 2006**              **FY 2007**                **Current                 **FY 2008     
                                                              2006**                                                                     Services                  Request**     
                                                                                                                                         Adjustments                             
                                                                                                                                         and FY 2008                             
                                                                                                                                         Program                                 
                                                                                                                                         Changes**                               

  **Workload :                                                ** **      ** **                                                                                                    
  Investigations/Technical                                                                                                                                                       
  Assistance/Mediation/Prosecution**                                                                                                                                             

  ** **                                                       ** **      ** **                                                                                                    

  ** **                                                       ** **      ** **                                                                                                    

  **Total Costs and FTE (reimbursable                         **FTE**    **\$000**   **FTE**      **\$000**   **FTE**        **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**
  FTE are included, but reimbursable                                                                                                                                             
  FTE are bracketed and costs are not                                                                                                                                            
  included in the total)**                                                                                                                                                       

                                                              739 \[16\] \$109,037   660 \[10\]   \$108,564   735 \[16\]     \$108,777   \(13\)        \$8,012     722 \[16\]    \$116,789

  **TYPE/ STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE**        **PERFORMANCE**        **FY                   **FY 2006**              **FY 2007**                **Current                 **FY 2008     
                                                              2006**                                                                     Services                  Request**     
                                                                                                                                         Adjustments                             
                                                                                                                                         and FY 2008                             
                                                                                                                                         Program                                 
                                                                                                                                         Changes**                               

  **Program Activity**                                        **FTE**    **\$000**   **FTE**      **\$000**   **FTE**        **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**   **FTE**       **\$000**

                                       Civil                  622 \[16\] \$96,470    543 \[10\]   \$96,001    618 \[16\]     \$96,182    \(20\)        \$5,573     598 \[16\]    \$101,755

  **Performance Measure**              Number of matters      300                    385                      300                        0                         300           
                                       successfully resolved                                                                                                                     

  **Performance Measure**              Number of successful   150                    183                      150                        10                        160           
                                       mediations                                                                                                                                

  **Efficency Measure**                Percentage of mattters 75                     82                       75                         0                         75            
                                       successfully resolved                                                                                                                     
                                       through mediation                                                                                                                         

  **OUTCOME**                          \% of civil cases      80                     95                       80                         0                         80            
                                       favorably resolved                                                                                                                        
  ------------------------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE**

  **Decision Unit: Civil Rights Division**

  **DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: 2.4 Uphold the civil and Constitutional
  rights of all Americans, and protect vulnerable members of society.**

  ** **

  **DATA DEFINITION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE:**

  All Workload and Performance Indicators: The data source for all
  indicators is the Civil Rights Division's Interactive Case Management
  (ICM) System,

  which will be transitioning to the Litigative Case Management Systems
  (LCMS) in late FY 2008 or early FY 2009.

  Quality assurance efforts include: regular interviews with attorneys to
  review data listings for each case; input screens programmed to
  preclude the entry of

  incorrect data; exception reports which list data that is questionable
  or inconsistent; attorney manager review of numerous monthly reports
  for data completeness

  and accuracy; and verification of representative data samples. Despite
  these measures, some data limitations do exist. Most significantly,
  incomplete data

  can cause the system to under-report case terminations and attorney
  time.

  **ISSUES AFFECTING SELECTION OF FY 2007 AND 2008 ESTIMATES:**

  An entry of N/A reflects information not available at the time for that
  specific measure.

  Current services adjustments in 2008 reflect some minor reductions to
  performance measure categories, in order to bring the projected
  workload goals in line with the increased complexity of the criminal
  cases being prosecuted and reductions to available funding.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------- ------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  **PERFORMANCE                                                                                                                                             
  MEASURE TABLE**                                                                                                                                           

  **Decision Unit:                                                                                                                                          
  Civil Rights                                                                                                                                              
  Division**                                                                                                                                                

  **Performance                        **FY 2000**  **FY 2001**  **FY 2002**  **FY 2003**  **FY 2004**  **FY 2005**  **FY 2006**               **FY 2007**  **FY 2008**
  Report and                                                                                                                                                
  Performance Plan                                                                                                                                          
  Targets**                                                                                                                                                 

                                       **Actual**   **Actual**   **Actual**   **Actual**   **Actual**   **Actual**   **Target**   **Actual**   **Target**   **Target**

  **Performance    Number of criminal  87           93           76           63           95           83           80           89           75           90
  Measure**        cases filed                                                                                                                              

  **Performance    Number of criminal  141          190          122          126          151          157          135          200          120          214
  Measure**        defendants charged                                                                                                                       

  **Performance    Number of           N/A          N/A          10           11           25           34           25           32           22           35
  Measure**        trafficking cases                                                                                                                        
                   filed                                                                                                                                    

  **Performance    Number of           N/A          N/A          40           27           43           93           40           111          40           105
  Measure**        trafficking                                                                                                                              
                   defendants charged                                                                                                                       

  **Performance    Number of civil     449          416          522          429          341          399          300          385          300          300
  Measure**        matters                                                                                                                                  
                   successfully                                                                                                                             
                   resolved                                                                                                                                 

  **Performance    Number of           28           105          203          212          170          184          150          183          150          160
  Measure**        successful                                                                                                                               
                   mediations                                                                                                                               

  **Performance    Number of matters   4,015        4,716        3,989        3,990        3,615        3,626        3,500        2,989        3,500        3,500
  Measure**        received                                                                                                                                 

  **Performance    Number of cases     318          345          327          213          260          403          280          331          280          290
  Measure**        received                                                                                                                                 

  **Performance    Number of matters   6,911        6,358        6,077        6,076        5,818        5,714        6,200        5,215        6,200        6,220
  Measure**        opened/pending                                                                                                                           

  **Performance    Number of cases     1,438        1,365        1,314        1,276        1,149        1,148        1,200        1,211        1,200        1,210
  Measure**        opened/pending                                                                                                                           

  **Performance    Number of matters   4,508        4,941        3,952        4,197        3,679        4,063        3,300        3,263        3,500        3,510
  Measure**        closed/resolved                                                                                                                          

  **Performance    Number of cases     403          409          365          340          261          346          260          340          300          305
  Measure**        closed/resolved                                                                                                                          

  **Efficiency     Percentage of       N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          74           78           75           82           75           75
  Measure**        matters                                                                                                                                  
                   successfully                                                                                                                             
                   resolved through                                                                                                                         
                   mediation                                                                                                                                

  **OUTCOME        \% of criminal      86           88           91           96           87           94           80           92           80           80
  Measure**        cases favorably                                                                                                                          
                   resolved \*                                                                                                                              

  **OUTCOME        \# of trafficking   N/A          N/A          54           33           72           249          67           93           67           105
  Measure**        victims                                                                                                                                  
                   successfully                                                                                                                             
                   protected                                                                                                                                

  **OUTCOME        \% of civil cases   96           86           90           88           90           97           80           95           80           80
  Measure**        favorably resolved                                                                                                                       
                   \*                                                                                                                                       

  **OUTCOME        \% of successful    100          100          100          84           100          100          80           98           80           80
  Measure**        trafficking                                                                                                                              
                   prosecutions                                                                                                                             

  **\* Denotes                                                                                                                                              
  inclusion in the                                                                                                                                          
  DOJ Performance                                                                                                                                           
  and                                                                                                                                                       
  Accountability                                                                                                                                            
  Report (PAR)**                                                                                                                                            
  ---------------- ------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

**3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies**

> **a.** **Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes**

Our Nation's civil rights laws prohibit discriminatory conduct in a wide
variety of settings, such as housing, employment, voting, mortgage
lending, education, public accommodations, access by the disabled to
services and facilities, activities that receive federal financial
assistance, and the treatment of juvenile and adult detainees as well as
residents of public institutions. The federal civil rights laws also
provide safeguards against criminal actions such as official misconduct
by law enforcement personnel, trafficking in persons, and bias motivated
crimes. The Department of Justice ensures compliance with basic federal
civil rights protections through a multifaceted program of criminal and
civil enforcement designed to target and deter discriminatory conduct.
We also seek voluntary compliance with civil rights statutes through a
variety of educational, technical assistance, and outreach programs.

**Strategies**: CRT intends to achieve its objective by fairly and
evenhandedly enforcing each of the laws within the scope of its
responsibility. The Division strives to make individualized litigation
decisions based on the application of the law to the facts of each case.

Among CRT's enforcement strategies are: (1) improving efforts to
eradicate the modern-day slavery of human trafficking, including the
trafficking of women, children, and other vulnerable victims, through
more vigorous and intensified enforcement efforts, interagency
coordination, and continued efforts to rescue the victims of this
atrocity; (2) combating housing discrimination through "Operation Home
Sweet Home," which seeks to ensure equal access to housing by improving
and increasing the Division's fair housing testing program; (3)
expanding efforts (a) to address voting rights violations, (b) to ensure
access to the polls for all who qualify, (c) to protect the integrity of
the ballot process, and (d) to promote voter confidence in our country's
democratic system through activities such as vigorous election
monitoring, outreach, and the Department's Ballot Access and Voting
Integrity Initiative; (4) expanding the President's New Freedom
Initiative to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to our
nation's civic life in accordance with the ADA; (5) vigorously enforcing
the requirements of Title VII by more carefully targeting governmental
employers who discriminate in employment; (6) combating religious
discrimination and promoting religious liberty for persons of all
religious faiths and denominations; and (7) strategic targeting of
outreach programs, technical assistance, and training efforts that will
promote voluntary compliance with our Nation's civil rights laws.

**Long-term outcome goals:** CRT will target specific actions through
vigorous litigation as part of its comprehensive strategy to safeguard
the civil rights of all persons residing in the United States. CRT also
will continue to be vigilant and aggressive in its enforcement,
outreach, and training efforts. These efforts span the full breadth of
its' jurisdiction, from fair housing opportunities, equal access to the
ballot box, and criminal civil rights prosecutions to desegregation in
America's schools and protection of the rights of the disabled.
Additionally, CRT has worked swiftly and aggressively to pursue its
newfound enforcement responsibilities over its expanded jurisdiction,
including aggressive enforcement of USERRA, TVPA, and RLUIPA.

In the proceeding Performance and Resources Tables, CRT's performance,
resources and outcomes are illustrated by these two programmatic areas.
CRT's Interactive Case Management (ICM) System provides the data source
for all indicators. The ICM system provides uniform guidance and
reporting guidelines for the workload tracking system. A regular
validation process is in place to ensure the system's integrity.

In support of DOJ's Strategic Objective 2.4 (Uphold the civil and
constitutional rights of all Americans, and protect vulnerable members
of society) CRT reports outcome measures in DOJ's Performance and
Accountability Report (PAR). CRT reports outcome performance measures
for its accomplishments in percent of cases favorably resolved (both
criminal and civil related cases) in the PAR.

The Criminal enforcement area includes performance measures to track
enforcement efforts to protect victims from involuntary servitude and
human trafficking, an important Attorney General initiative. CRT works
closely with the FBI and ICE to identify victims, many of who are women
and children, of illegal trafficking.

In the area of DRS' mediations program, the percentage of successful
mediation has increased this fiscal year, despite the increasing
complexity of matters referred. In

FY 2006, the mediation program handled 305 matters and completed 223, of
which 82% were successfully resolved, compared to 78% in FY 2005. The
mediation program saves the tax payers a significant level of funding,
versus these cases having to resort to costly litigation, while bringing
the most expeditious resolution to the issues.

![](media/image2.wmf)**Criminal Enforcement**:

During FY 2006, CRM received more than 9,000 complaints alleging
criminal interference with civil rights, with more than 3,300 requiring
investigation by the FBI and other investigative agencies. A substantial
majority of the complaints involved allegations of official misconduct,
especially allegations of physical abuse by law enforcement officers. In
FY 2006, 89 new cases were filed charging 200 defendants with civil
rights violations, representing the highest total number of defendants
charged in the past two decades. A total of 180 defendants, including
some defendants charged in prior years, were successfully prosecuted.

Allegations of police abuse and other official misconduct, which
comprises the majority of complaints reviewed by CRM, continue to be a
high priority. Also, in FY 2006, 66 law enforcement officers, including
police officers, deputy sheriffs and State and federal prison
correctional officials, were charged with having used their positions to
deprive individuals of constitutional rights, such as the right to be
free from unwarranted assaults and illegal arrests and searches.

Racial and religious violence incidents remain another priority area for
prosecution. During FY 2006, 19 defendants were convicted in connection
with crimes such as cross-burnings, arson, vandalism, shootings and
assault.

As part of CRM's hate crime enforcement responsibility and in support of
the war on terrorism, it has spearheaded DOJ's law enforcement response
to address post-September 11th \"backlash\" violence and threats against
Arabs, Muslims and South Asians. The FBI has investigated more than 750
incidents. Federal charges have been brought in 27 cases against 35
defendants, yielding the convictions of 32 defendants. With the
assistance of DOJ in a number of cases, State and local authorities have
brought more than 150 criminal prosecutions.

Additionally, DOJ enforces the criminal provisions of FACE, working in
conjunction with CRT's Special Litigation Section, which has enforcement
responsibility over the civil provisions of that Act.

CRM lawyers continue to participate in training and outreach programs
relating to criminal civil rights enforcement. For example, CRM
participated in training Border Patrol Agents along the southwest
border, lectured at FBI In-Service Training of local law enforcement
supervisors from across the country at the FBI training center in
Quantico; and trained new diplomatic security agents for the State
Department.

CRM continues to devote substantial attention to combating human
trafficking. The TVPA, enacted in October of 2000, broadened the
servitude statutes to reach psychological and non-violent forms of
coercion. During FY 2006, 93 victims were protected as a result of
federal charges filed in 32 new cases against 111 defendants for holding
persons in involuntary servitude and forced labor.

CRM also designed and launched a series of interactive human trafficking
training sessions broadcast live on the Justice Television Network in
which nearly 80% of the U.S. Attorney's Offices participated; and
designed and provided the content at the 2006 National Conference on
Human Trafficking in New Orleans, LA. They also trained thousands of
federal, State, and local law enforcement officers and NGO
representatives at training programs across the nation, including at the
National Advocacy Center, and in Austin and Houston, Texas; Charleston,
South Carolina; Lee County and Miami, Florida; Los Angeles, Sacramento
and San Francisco, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Quantico, Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah; and other
cities. CRM personnel also trained foreign officials from a wide variety
of countries, including Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and the United
Kingdom. CRM has supported the President's Initiative Against
Trafficking and Child Sex Tourism by performing assessments of
anti-trafficking activities in targeted countries and making
recommendations on program development. For example, Division
prosecutors have worked with their Mexican counterparts to undertake
joint investigations, to conduct training for police and prosecutors,
and to assist Mexican policymakers in developing anti-trafficking
legislation in that country.

Here are a few human trafficking case examples:

Two defendants in New York were sentenced to 50 years in prison, two of
the longest prison sentences ever imposed in a sex trafficking case, and
a third defendant was sentenced to 25 years in prison, after pleading
guilty to forcing young Mexican women into sexual slavery in brothels
throughout the New York City metropolitan area.

Five defendants in Houston pled guilty to forcing women to work as
"bargirls" in Houston area bars. The defendants had smuggled the women
into the United States from Honduras and El Salvador, and sold some of
the women to other bar owners. The defendants threatened to harm the
women and their families if they tried to escape or stop working in the
bar.

A defendant in Dallas was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison and
fined \$460,000 after pleading guilty to forcing Korean women to work as
prostitutes at several Dallas area brothels. The women owed large
smuggling debts to the defendant and worked as prostitutes to discharge
that debt.

Two affluent doctors in Milwaukee were sentenced to four years in prison
following their conviction of forced labor for using coercion and
threats to force a 38 year old Filipina national into providing domestic
labor and services for them for over 20 years.

Guilty pleas were entered by seven Detroit-area defendants who
participated in a scheme to recruit Russian and Ukrainian women to
travel to the United States, where they were held in a condition of
servitude in strip clubs in southeastern Michigan. Also, five defendants
pled guilty to conspiring to bring aliens from other countries into the
United States illegally to provide them with employment at their granite
and marble business. Once in the United States, the aliens resided in
apartments leased by the granite company, and they were induced to
provide labor for cash or for credit against the cost of their rent,
furniture, utilities and visa applications. The defendants threatened to
report the aliens\' illegal status to DHS as a means to keep the aliens
under their employment.

Because the TVPA is new and criminal investigations are inherently fact
driven and unpredictable, it is difficult to forecast the anticipated
number of victims in future years. While new investigations initiated
and cases brought remain at a historically high level, CRM simply does
not have control over the number of victims that are involved in any
given involuntary servitude litigation effort.

**Civil Enforcement:**

![](media/image3.wmf)

This measure was established for reporting Department-wide targets for
its legal components. The FY 2006 success rate level was 95%. Target
levels of an 80% success rate are being established for both FY 2007 and
FY 2008. This includes enforcement responsibilities associated with
eight of the programmatic areas within CRT.

A summary of significant civil programmatic accomplishments is included
below:

**APP:** From October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, APP filed 144
briefs and substantive papers in the Supreme Court, the courts of
appeals, and the district courts. Eighty-seven of these filings were
appellate briefs for the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL).
Excluding OIL decisions, 90% of the decisions reaching the merits were
in full or partial accord with CRT\'s contentions. The Supreme Court
reached the merits in five cases; all were consistent with the
government\'s position. The courts of appeals rendered 31 merits
decisions, 87% of which were in full or partial accord with CRT\'s
contentions. The district courts rendered three decisions; all were
consistent with the government's position.

The following are highlights of significant wins in the Supreme Court in
FY 2006:

*Arlington Central School District Board of Education* v. *Murphy*, No.
05-18. The Court interpreted whether the fee-shifting provision of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.
1415(i)(3)(B), allows prevailing party parents in an IDEA action to
recover expert fees. The Court substantially agreed with the United
States as amicus curiae, that because the IDEA is Spending Clause
legislation, it has to give clear notice of any expert fee recovery, and
the clear statutory language did not provide such notice and did not
allow for recovery of expert fees.

*United States* v. *Georgia*, No. 04-1203. A State prison inmate claimed
the Georgia corrections system violated Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate his disabilities. The
Solicitor General argued that Title II is a valid exercise of Congress's
authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied in the
prison context. The Court declined to decide whether Title II\'s
abrogation is valid with respect to the statute's prophylactic
protection in the prison context but held the abrogation is valid for
private claims independently stating constitutional violations.

In the courts of appeals, our successes have included the following:

Courts of Appeals -- Constitutionality

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in *Tennessee* v. *Lane* in
2004, CRT has actively defended the constitutionality of Title II of the
ADA and its abrogation of States' Eleventh Amendment immunity in a
variety of contexts.

## Courts of Appeals -- Criminal Cases {#courts-of-appeals-criminal-cases .unnumbered}

*United States* v. *Picklo*, No. 05-14989 (11th Cir.). The Eleventh
Circuit affirmed all counts of Picklo's conviction. A jury convicted
Picklo of violating (1) 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of a federal right
under color of law); (2) the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951 (robbery
affecting interstate commerce); (3) 18 U.S.C. 1521(a)(1)(C) (attempted
murder to prevent that person from reporting a crime to federal
officials); and (4) 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (using and carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence). []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

*United States* v. *Hobbs, Kratzer*, Nos. 05-4744 & 05-4745 (4th Cir.).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions. Defendants were
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 241 after they and others agreed to
hang a noose, burn a cross, and throw a dead raccoon on the property of
an African-American family that had recently moved into the previously
all-white town. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

*United States* v. *Briston*, No. 05-1292. The Third Circuit affirmed
defendant's conviction. Briston falsely claimed the police department
had already spent the money. He then forged documents and planted false
evidence to cover up his actions. Briston was convicted of violating 18
U.S.C. 242 by depriving the victim of property without due process of
law; 18 U.S.C. 666 by embezzling, stealing, or unlawfully converting to
his own use property valued at \$5,000 or more; and 18 U.S.C. 1503 by
obstructing justice. []{.mark}

Court of Appeals -- Amicus

*Wisconsin Community Services* v. *City of Milwaukee*, No. 04-1966 (7th
Cir.). CRT filed an amicus brief at the en banc level at the court's
invitation. The Seventh Circuit agreed with CRT that the Title II
regulation, 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7), "makes clear that the duty to
accommodate is an independent basis of liability under the ADA," and
thus "a plaintiff need not allege either disparate treatment or
disparate impact in order to state a reasonable accommodation claim
under Title II." The court also agreed that Section 35.130(b)(7) applies
to municipal zoning decisions and that in order to prevail on a
reasonable-accommodation claim, the plaintiff must show that the
challenged rule or decision "hurt\[s\] persons with disabilities '*by
reason of their handicap.*'"

Although APP anticipates that its workload will increase significantly
during FY 2007 and

FY 2008, there will be factors that may significantly impact its work:

APP's work is closely related to the output of trial-level litigation
programs of CRT, and its Supreme Court activity is dependent on the
number and types of cases which the Court decides to hear. The Supreme
Court and courts of appeals determine the pace of the litigation when
they set briefing schedules and oral arguments.

On November 4, 2004, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey requested
assistance from the six litigating divisions and U.S. Attorneys Offices,
in handling immigration litigation for the Office of Immigration
Litigation. Since November 2004, APP has been assigned to prepare and
file approximately 230 briefs in response to petitions for review from
decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Such assignments are
expected to continue through at least FY 2007.

**COR:** The mission of COR is multi-faceted, with responsibilities
under Executive Order 12250 for overseeing the implementation and
enforcement by federal agencies of Title VI of the CRA of 1964, as
amended, and similarly worded non-discrimination statutes. In addition,
COR is responsible for overseeing the implementation of Executive Order
13166, which requires access for persons with limited English
proficiency (LEP) in federal and federally assisted programs.

COR continued to coordinate meetings of the Federal Interagency Working
Group on LEP (IWG), which includes more than 35 federal agencies, to
help ensure consistency and information sharing regarding language
access activities across the Federal Government. COR maintains the IWG's
LEP website, [www.LEP.gov](http://www.lep.gov/), which has fast become a
prime source of LEP information for federal agencies, recipients, and
community groups. The site's hits rose from 83,599 in FY 2004 to 220,495
in FY 2005. At the end of FY 2006, hits had exceeded FY 2004 and 2005
combined, with a total of 338,869 hits. The site is currently being
revamped to make it more user-friendly, and COR anticipates that
individuals accessing the site will continue to increase in

FY 2007 and FY 2008 in response to improvements and significant
additions to the site.

Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim is supportive of COR's leading
role with a major two-day Interagency LEP Conference, which will be held
on March 15 and 16, 2007, at the National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda, MD. This Conference is sponsored by a number of federal
agencies working together, and will build upon the success of CRT's
original 2004 LEP Conference and the subsequent 2005 Law Enforcement LEP
Summit. We anticipate having between 400 to 500 attendees from around
the country, who will represent a wide variety of LEP experts, including
federal, State and local government officials, public sector and
community organization representatives, invited by the federal agencies
involved. COR will be inviting the Governors' offices of all 50 States
and the Executives of local counties and cities.

At the beginning of FY 2006, COR carried a docket of 206 open
administrative complaints of discrimination against recipients of DOJ
assistance, most of which were in various preliminary stages. During FY
2006, COR completed five investigations and issued Letters of Findings
in each matter. At the end of the first quarter of FY 2007, COR had a
caseload of 66 active investigations (in which the recipient has been
formally notified of the initiation of the investigation). Of those 66
cases, 39 allege discrimination on the basis of national origin because
of denial of services to LEP individuals and the remaining matters
involve other types of discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or religion. COR will continue, during FY 2007 and FY
2008, to investigate and resolve complaints alleging race, color,
national origin, sex, and religious discrimination and to provide
technical assistance to recipients, federal agencies, and the public.

COR continues to pursue negotiations with many police departments,
courts, and corrections departments to resolve complaints against those
recipients, especially in the area of LEP issues. In a number of cases,
the recipients are eager to work with DOJ to develop plans to provide
services to LEP persons and comply with Title VI. COR has had success in
developing new LEP policies in negotiations with a number of recipients,
including two court systems, two police departments, a town and a large
State corrections system. It is expected that COR will sign settlement
agreements with a number of recipients in the early part of FY 2007,
since negotiations are ongoing and reaching the final stages with these
recipients. During FY 2006, COR conducted 33 LEP training sessions, more
than doubling the 15 training sessions it conducted in FY 2005. COR has
received requests for training in FY 2007 and expects the number of
these requests to continue to grow during this fiscal year and in FY
2008. In the first quarter of FY 2007, COR has conducted four LEP
training sessions**.**

In the areas of Title VI and Title IX, COR conducted 11 Title VI
training sessions and three Title IX training sessions during FY 2006.
COR may begin conducting Title VI training in Spanish during FY 2007, as
part of its outreach efforts. Requests for training sessions during FY
2007 have already been received and three Title VI training sessions
have been conducted so far in the first quarter of FY 2007. As with its
LEP training, COR expects requests for this training to continue to grow
during FY 2007 and FY 2008. During FY 2006, there was a 62 percent
increase in hits on COR's website over FY 2005; the website provides
extensive technical assistance on federally assisted programs.

COR is continuing to provide extensive technical assistance on Title IX
compliance reviews of universities to the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation, and the National Atmospheric and Space
Administration. COR has also initiated two Title VI projects examining
outreach that were approved in FY 2006 and will be conducted during FY
2007. One involves outreach to community organizations and the other
looks at ensuring outreach by federal agencies.

**DRS:** Since the January 2001 signing of the New Freedom Initiative,
CRT has achieved results for people with disabilities in over 2,000 ADA
actions including lawsuits, settlement agreements, and successful
mediations. Examples of the DRS's most meritorious resolutions are:

> DOJ has signed 146 settlement agreements with 139 communities under
> its PCA initiative, a wide-ranging effort to ensure that cities,
> counties, towns, and villages throughout the United States comply with
> the ADA. These agreements with communities in all 50 States and the
> District of Columbia improve access at town halls; police and fire
> stations; courthouses; recreation facilities and parks; as well as the
> accessibility of sidewalks; voting technology; disaster response
> planning; and government websites. Some of the communities recently
> reaching agreements with DOJ include Springhill, LA; Fontana, CA;
> Barnstable County, MA; Maui, HI; Waukegan, IL; Durham, NC; North Las
> Vegas, NV; Billings, MT; Arlington County, VA; and Newark, NJ.
>
> In FY 2006, DRS entered a consent decree to improve the accessibility
> of Detroit's fixed route public bus systems and negotiated nationwide
> consent decrees with the country's largest movie theater chains to
> provide "comparable lines of sight" for patrons who use wheelchairs in
> stadium style movie theaters.
>
> DRS joined a settlement agreement with Washington Hospital Center and
> private plaintiffs to provide accessible hospital rooms and equipment
> to individuals with disabilities. It resolved by consent decree a
> lawsuit alleging that Royal Oak, MI, violated the ADA by denying
> Easter Seals a land use permit needed to relocate a day facility,
> Dreams Unlimited Clubhouse, that provides support services for adults
> with severe and persistent mental illness.
>
> DOJ entered into an agreement with Ticketmaster, Inc., to make its
> ticketing services more accessible for people with disabilities. It
> also required a Missouri nursing home, by consent decree, to pay
> damages to a nurse's aide allegedly fired because of HIV disease and
> to adopt policies to prevent HIV discrimination in its employment
> practices. In addition, DOJ entered a consent decree that resolves
> allegations that Town Sports International, Inc., excluded a child
> from one of its summer camps because of her diabetes in violation of
> the ADA. Under the order, the company and its local sport club have
> agreed to provide all campers with diabetes with an equal opportunity
> to attend TSI camps and to participate in all camp programs, services,
> or activities.
>
> DOJ reached two comprehensive settlement agreements with the
> University of Chicago and Colorado College, the first under an
> initiative to review private colleges and universities, including
> proprietary schools. Both agreements address a wide array of issues
> and require the schools to ensure increased access to their campuses
> for students, faculty, and visitors - particularly those with
> mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities. DOJ also entered into a
> settlement agreement with NPC International, Inc., which operates
> approximately 800 Pizza Hut restaurants in 25 States and is the
> largest single franchise of Pizza Hut restaurants in the United
> States. NPC will ensure accessible parking, entrances, seating areas,
> toilet rooms, self-service counters, and accessible routes through the
> restaurants. NPC also will build future facilities in compliance with
> the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

DOJ's ADA Technical Assistance Program carries out a wide variety of
activities to promote voluntary compliance with the ADA, providing free
information and technical assistance directly to businesses, State and
local governments, people with disabilities, and the general public.
Highlights from FY 2006 include:

> -- More than 46,000 calls to the ADA Information Line were answered by
> ADA Specialists who assisted callers in applying the ADA to their own
> unique situations.

-- The ADA Website has been visited 3.1 million times and its pages and
graphics viewed more than 49.2 million times, increases of 48% and 37%
over FY 2005.

> -- Created "Expanding Your Market", a new series of concise,
> reproducible documents about bottom-line benefits for businesses who
> provide accessibility to customers with disabilities. The series
> offers resources for businesses working to improve access and everyday
> examples of how accessibility can serve diverse market segments. The
> first four publications in the series are titled "Customers with
> Disabilities Mean Business," "Tax Incentives for Businesses,"
> "Accessibility Benefits Older Adult Customers" and "Building a Diverse
> Customer Base."
>
> -- DRS added a fully accessible streaming video titled "*Police
> Response to People with Disabilities,"* an eight-part video for use in
> law enforcement roll call training, to its Website.
>
> -- More than 25,000 State and local law enforcement agencies and
> police training academies throughout the country received two new
> compliance assistance publications on providing effective
> communication with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The pocket
> guide on *Communicating with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing:
> ADA Guide for Law Enforcement* and a *Model Policy for Law Enforcement
> on Communicating with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing* were
> mailed to departments, as well as information on how to order the
> videotape *Police Response to People with Disabilities* and other ADA
> publications. Each of the 671 police training academies also received
> a copy of the video.
>
> -- Participated in more than 70 speaking and outreach events in FY
> 2006, reaching over 210,000 people, including sending staff to
> distribute information and answer questions at nine national
> conferences and one State fair to promote public awareness of the ADA.

-   DOJ has continued its initiative to help small businesses comply
    with the ADA. In FY 2006**,** the ADA Business Connection conducted
    four leadership meetings in four cities with more than 180
    participants from small and mid-sized businesses, large
    corporations, and organizations of people with disabilities. The
    program also produced *Customers with Disabilities Mean Business*, a
    document providing demographic and economic information, identifying
    people with disabilities as a largely untapped market of customers
    and potential employees.

-   DOJ published a notice of certification in the Federal Register and
    held a ceremony in Cary, NC, to recognize that the NC Accessibility
    Code had been certified as equivalent to the accessibility
    requirements of title III of the ADA. NC is the sixth State in the
    country to receive ADA certification.

In FY 2007 and 2008, CRT will continue its innovative and multi-faceted
approach toward achieving compliance with the ADA. Activities will
include:

> DRS continuing its successful PCA initiative to ensure that cities,
> counties, towns, and villages throughout the United States comply with
> the ADA.
>
> DRS continuing to work to ensure that new facilities are constructed
> in compliance with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and that
> covered entities, including universities, hospitals, public transit
> systems, social service agencies, and sports and cultural
> establishments, meet all applicable accessibility obligations.
>
> DRS continuing to provide free information and technical assistance
> directly to businesses, State and local governments, people with
> disabilities, and the general public. Both the highly-acclaimed ADA
> Information Line and the popular ADA website anticipate increases in
> the number of people served in FY 2007 and
>
> FY 2008.
>
> DRS continuing to respond to States requesting that their
> accessibility codes be evaluated for consistency with ADA standards.
> Currently, four State codes are under review.
>
> DRS continuing to offer complainants and respondents the opportunity
> to resolve complaints by participating in mediation.
>
> DRS will issue a regulatory assessment and Notice of Proposed
> Rulemaking to adopt updated ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

**EOS:** In FY 2006, EOS continued its initiatives. First**,** EOS's
school desegregation docket was active in FY 2006. It opened 16
investigations, initiated 38 case reviews, identified 14 districts as
needing further relief, and negotiated seven consent decrees and six
out-of-court settlements. It also obtained relief in 11 litigated cases,
which desegregated schools and classrooms, improved facilities for
minority students; desegregated faculty and recruited minority faculty
and staff; eliminated segregative transfers; eliminated the practice of
granting awards on a racially dual basis; and denied intervention to
parties whose interests did not further the goals of the cases.

Finally, EOS worked with school districts to achieve unitary status, and
as a result, 38 of the long-standing desegregation lawsuits were
dismissed. In [U.S. v. Covington County Sch. Dist.]{.underline} (MS),
after discovery and on the eve of trial, the parties negotiated a
consent decree entered by the court that integrated a virtually
all-white K-12 school, provided enrichment programming at a virtually
all-black elementary school, and reduced the bus ride times for students
attending the virtually all-black elementary school. In [U.S. v.
Columbus Munic. Sch. Dist. (Lowndes County)]{.underline} (MS), the court
entered a consent decree requiring the district to engage in specific
construction and renovations to make the virtually all-black schools
comparable to the majority white schools and remedy educational
inequalities at the virtually all-black schools, including offering
advanced class and teacher training. In [U.S. v. Bertie Board of
Education]{.underline} (NC), the court entered a consent decree
requiring the district to close two schools, one which was majority
white in the heavily black district, and the second which was majority
black with an aging facility.

EOS projects that these initiatives will continue in FY 2007 and FY
2008.

Second, in FY 2006**,** to ensure equal educational opportunities for
English Language Learners (ELL), EOS, as part of a nationwide effort,
opened five investigations involving school districts in New York, Texas
and Illinois. These districts have significant or new immigrant
populations. The purpose of the investigations were to ensure that ELL
students were receiving proper services to enable them to overcome
language barriers that impede equal participation in the school
districts' educational programs. In [U.S. v. State of Texas]{.underline}
(TX), EOS successfully defended the constitutionality of the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), with the court ruling that the
EEOA validly abrogated the individual States' Eleventh Amendment
immunity. In [U.S. v. Chicago Bd. of Educ.]{.underline} (IL), EOS
negotiated a consent decree that requires the District to offer magnet
schools, to monitor student transfers, to offer compensatory programs at
racially identifiable schools, and to ensure adequate services to
English Language Learner students.

To ensure the civil rights of children, EOS will continue in FY 2007 and
FY 2008 with its initiative begun in FY 2005 to ensure equal educational
opportunities for ELL. This will ensure that immigrant children are
receiving proper services to assist them in overcoming language
barriers.

EOS also continued its religious discrimination docket to ensure that
students are not discriminated against on the basis of religion in
public schools. In FY 2006, 20 investigations were opened into
complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of religion in, among
other areas, free speech, religious dress, access to facilities, and
harassment. In [O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School
District]{.underline} (NJ), EOS filed an amicus brief supporting the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In the brief, EOS argued that
the defendants engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by
censoring the plaintiff's performance of a religious song at an
after-school talent show based solely on the song's religious
perspective. Summary Judgment was granted in our favor. In [Colorado
Christian University v. Weaver]{.underline} (CO), EOS filed an amicus
brief in support of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenge their exclusion
from State-funded financial assistance programs that enable Colorado
students to attend any college in the State if it is not pervasively
sectarian. EOS's brief argues that the exclusion violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments by granting a preference to some religious faiths
but not to others.

**ELS:** During FY 2006, ELS filed three Section 707 pattern or practice
suits and three Section 706 suits under Title VII, as well as four
USERRA suits; obtained 17 judgments, consent decrees and out-of-court
settlements; and initiated 56 investigations.

TITLE VII, SECTION 707 SUITS:

On April 3, 2006, ELS filed [United States v. City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia]{.underline}, alleging that the City has engaged in a pattern
or practice of discrimination, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII,
by using a mathematics test to screen applicants for the entry-level
position of police officer in a manner that had an unlawful disparate
impact against African-American and Hispanic applicants. The same day we
filed our complaint, the parties filed a proposed consent decree. The
Court provisionally entered the decree on April 14, 2006; and, following
a fairness hearing, the Court gave final approval to the decree on July
24, 2006. The decree enjoins the City from using the challenged
mathematics test as a separate pass/fail screen with its own cutoff
score, but allows the City to continue to use it as one component of its
written examination. The decree also requires the City to provide
remedial relief (including up to 15 priority police officer hires,
retroactive seniority and a total back pay award of \$160,000) to those
African-American and Hispanic applicants who were otherwise qualified
for the position of entry-level police officer, but failed the
mathematics test between 2002 and the present.

On July 24, 2006, ELS filed [United States v. City of Chesapeake,
Virginia,]{.underline}

alleging that the City has engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination, in violation of Title VII, by using a mathematics test
(the same mathematics test as that used by Virginia Beach, above) to
screen applicants for the entry-level police officer position in a
manner that has an unlawful disparate impact against African-American
and Hispanic applicants. This case is currently in discovery.

TITLE VII, SECTION 706 SUITS:

On March 21, 2006, ELS filed [United States]{.underline} v. [Municipio
de Vega Alta]{.underline}.

Our complaint alleged that the defendant municipality discriminated on
the basis of sex against three female police officers who filed charges
with the EEOC and similarly situated female officers in the terms,
conditions and privileges of their employment. The discrimination
alleged against the female officers included barring them from
supervisory duties, regular shift work, driving patrol cars and other
motorized vehicles, and conducting investigations commensurate with
their experience. Our complaint also alleged that the defendant
municipality retaliated against a male police officer by giving him
inferior terms, conditions and privileges of employment because he
participated in the EEOC's investigation of discrimination charges filed
by the female officers. The case currently is in discovery.

On September 29, 2006, ELS filed [United States v. City of San
Antonio]{.underline}.

Our complaint alleges that the City, in its Police Department,
unlawfully discriminated against Detective Cheri Estrada on the basis of
sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the
department forced her to take a light-duty position under the
department's mandatory maternity light-duty policy, despite Detective
Estrada's ability to perform her job in her full-duty capacity. The
department has since revised the policy to eliminate the requirement.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to require compliance with Title VII
and monetary compensation for Detective Estrada.

USERRA SUITS:

On January 12, 2006, ELS filed [Woodall, et. al v. American Airlines,
Inc]{.underline}., alleging that American Airlines violated USERRA when
it reduced the benefits to Mark Woodall, Michael McMahon and Paul
Madson, and a class of similarly situated military pilots employed by
American who had taken military leave, while American Airlines did not
reduce the same benefits of those of its pilots who had taken similar
types of non-military leave. This is the first class action filed by DOJ
under USERRA.

On March 1, 2006, ELS filed [Bower v. Roadway Express,
Inc]{.underline}., alleging that Roadway violated USERRA when it failed
to properly reemploy Mr. Bower after his active military duty, and to
make reasonable efforts to accommodate Mr. Bower's disability that he
incurred while in the Army. A confidential agreement was reached
resolving this case in November 2006.

In FY 2007 and FY 2008 ELS will continue:

> Its current target effort to investigate jurisdictions for possible
> Title VII §707 violations. ELS also anticipates the initiation of
> approximately 8 new investigations from this targeting effort in FY
> 2007;
>
> Assisting APP with its OIL briefs investigations of USERRA matters
> referred to the section by the DOL;
>
> Reviewing and investigating §706 charges of violations by State and
> local governments referred to ELS by the EEOC; and
>
> As a part of a consortium of five federal agencies, continue to assist
> in the development of the 2010 census EEO Special File.

**HCE**: HCE has implemented the Attorney General's February 2006
initiative to combat housing discrimination -- called "Operation Home
Sweet Home" -- with improved targeting of discrimination testing,
increased testing, and expanded public awareness efforts:

-   HCE achieved a 38% increase in the number of paired tests conducted
    in

> FY 2006 (compared to FY 2005). For FY 2007, HCE has an even more
> ambitious goal. HCE plans to increase the number of tests from the FY
> 2006 level by approximately 50% in order to achieve an all-time,
> single-year high in testing.

-   In addition to increasing the record high level of testing, HCE
    expects to achieve in FY 2007, we will continue to enhance our
    efforts to obtain testers of the type, in the locations, and at the
    time they are needed. The contract testers will give HCE greater
    ability to respond quickly to allegations of discrimination and to
    expand the types of discrimination that can be tested as well as the
    locations where we can conduct testing.

-   The expanded testing conducted in FY 2006 - FY 2008 is likely to
    produce substantial evidence to support cases alleging systemic
    discrimination in violation of the FHA that otherwise would not be
    identified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In order to better target our testing, and focus our enforcement
    efforts more generally, HCE has broadened its outreach efforts to
    private fair housing groups, as well as to government agencies that
    enforce State and local fair housing laws, by contacting those
    groups by mail and speaking at major fair housing conferences.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   HCE created a new website devoted to fair housing enforcement to
    increase public awareness. In addition, HCE continued its
    Multi-Family Access Forum, a program designed to educate housing
    professionals, and to establish a dialogue between housing
    professionals and disability advocates, about compliance with the
    accessibility requirements of the FHA for new multi-family housing.
    HCE held two sessions in FY 2006, one in Dallas, Texas and one in
    Atlanta, Georgia. In November 2006, HCE held an additional session
    in Phoenix, Arizona.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   HCE established a tip line and e-mail address to enable persons who
    believe they have been victims of housing discrimination to contact
    us easily.

    HCE has continued to achieve major accomplishments in its
    enforcement efforts. HCE's FY 2006 accomplishments include the
    following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fair Lending: HCE engaged in pre-suit negotiations in several cases
    involving home, business, consumer and automobile lending, including
    one redlining case that resulted in a \$4.3 million settlement in
    October 2006. HCE opened significant investigations of alleged
    pricing discrimination in home loans, utilizing home mortgage
    reporting data that first became available in 2005. HCE also
    distributed almost \$1.7 million in damages and consumer financial
    grants to 50 victims and four non-profit agencies, resulting from
    the settlement of a fair lending lawsuit alleging discrimination
    against Hispanic customers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Religious Discrimination: In HCE's first consent decree in a RLUIPA
    case, an Orthodox Jewish group obtained the right to continue to
    operate a house of worship at its current location. HCE also filed
    its fourth RLUIPA case.

-   HCE filed a major pattern or practice case alleging race, national
    origin and familial status discrimination against one of the largest
    landlords in the Los Angeles area. HCE settled one case alleging
    systemic race discrimination by a landlord for \$575,000. During FY
    2006, HCE negotiated the principle terms of a significant settlement
    of a systemic discrimination case, including claims of race,
    disability and familial status discrimination, which we expect to
    finalize in the near future. HCE also successfully litigated a race
    discrimination case based upon evidence developed by our testing
    program, settling with the owner of the rental property and
    obtaining a favorable judgment and a civil penalty against the
    rental agent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   HCE continues to enforce vigorously the FHA's accessibility
    requirements for multi-family housing. In FY 2006, HCE filed three
    such cases, and the courts entered five settlements. HCE also
    engaged in pre-suit negotiations in five cases. HCE is also making
    sure that the more than 12,000 new accessible housing opportunities
    resulting from our FY 2005 settlements are becoming available on
    schedule. In other disability discrimination matters, HCE is
    enforcing the rights of disabled residents of senior housing
    complexes to use their mobility aids in the public and common use
    areas, settling one such case and litigating another. HCE also has
    filed, and is engaged in pre-suit negotiations or is litigating
    several cases aimed at preventing discrimination against persons
    with disabilities who reside in group homes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   HCE's efforts to end sexual harassment by landlords continued in
    FY 2006. HCE filed four cases, and settled two cases. HCE also filed
    its first sexual harassment case under the Equal Credit Opportunity
    Act.

    In the second half of FY 2006, the Department transferred authority
    to enforce the Service Members Civil Relief Act from its Civil
    Division to CRT, with HCE being tasked with that responsibility. We
    have established contacts with the Department of Defense and the
    private bar, which we anticipate will lead to enforcement activity
    in FY 2007 and FY 2008.

**OSC:** During FY 2006, OSC received 346 charges filed by U.S. citizens
and legal immigrants (or their representatives) alleging unlawful
employment discrimination based upon citizenship status or national
origin, unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility
process, or retaliation. During this period, OSC issued letters of
resolution or entered into settlement agreements in 76 charges, or 27%
of the 281 charges closed during this period, and recovered \$221,913 in
back pay for victims, and \$25,710 in civil penalties. Employers also
agreed to change discriminatory practices so that all U.S. workers, both
U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, would not face unnecessary hurdles
in seeking, or retaining, employment. In addition to complete charge
investigations, OSC also reviewed 122 incomplete charges to determine
jurisdiction and obtain additional information necessary to make the
charges complete.

OSC's investigations covered the full gamut of employers, from the
nation's largest employers to small businesses with only a few
employees. Investigations also included a broad range of industries,
including food processing, restaurant and hospitality, retail, and job
referral agencies. OSC's successful resolutions included charges filed
by U.S. citizens who alleged adverse treatment in favor of temporary
visa holders or undocumented workers and by work authorized immigrants
who were denied hire, or were fired, because of their legal status or
over-documentation in the employment eligibility verification process.

For example, since March 2006, OSC has received approximately 85 charges
of citizenship status discrimination filed by the Programmers Guild (a
non-profit organization representing technical and professional workers
in the information technology (IT) field). These charges, arising in
multiple jurisdictions, allege that the respondent companies placed job
advertisements on various internet job search engines seeking temporary
visa holders to the exclusion of U.S. citizens and work authorized
immigrants.

In addition to investigating and resolving charges, OSC conducts an
extensive, nationwide public education campaign to teach workers,
employers and concerned organizations about the anti-discrimination
provision of the INA. An essential component of OSC's outreach includes
its grant program. In FY 2006, OSC awarded grants to 11 organizations to
educate workers and employers in areas with sizable and/or emerging
immigrant populations about their rights and responsibilities under INA.
Directly and through its grantees, OSC participated in 436 public
outreach sessions. OSC also handled approximately 7,567 calls through
its employer and worker hotlines, and distributed thousands of written
educational packets to the public annually.

OSC has pioneered an informal intervention process that permits
resolution of employment issues at the earliest possible stage,
minimizing injuries to victims and employers' exposure to liability.
Many callers are confused about proper practices to follow when hiring
immigrant workers. During FY 2006, through telephone hotlines available
to both workers and employers, OSC successfully intervened with 189
employers to facilitate the hiring or immediate return to work of
potential victims and to assist employers with systemic changes to
policies and practices to prevent future discrimination. OSC will
continue to conduct informal intervention activity to resolve questions
and disputes, including misunderstandings about employment eligibility
documentation requirements.

In FY 2007 and 2008, OSC's workload may increase significantly based
upon a number of factors that portend increased discrimination against
U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who look or sound "foreign." DHS is
expected to significantly expand its efforts to address the growing
number of undocumented workers in the United States, including
heightened enforcement of employer sanctions by ICE. The General
Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that employer sanctions have
led to a widespread pattern of discrimination -- primarily against
Hispanics and Asians. Thus, heightened enforcement of employer sanctions
is likely to lead to an increase in discrimination charges received by
OSC. We expect this phenomenon to be magnified by greater use of
computerized verification systems by employers to determine whether new
hires are authorized to work in the United States. Studies have
documented that some employers use such systems in an unlawfully
discriminatory manner. Immigration reform, if passed by Congress, will
likely create new immigrant workers who may face exploitative working
conditions. Further, post 9-11 backlash discrimination will likely
continue.

**SPL**: CRT continues to build on its impressive record of actively
protecting the rights of institutionalized persons under CRIPA. These
investigations involve a range of issues, including abuse and neglect in
nursing homes and facilities for persons with mental illness or
developmental disabilities; abuse and victimization of juveniles; and
the unmet mental health needs of inmates and pre-trial detainees, sexual
misconduct; and the use of excessive force.

For FY 2006, CRT conducted over 123 investigatory and compliance tours;
initiated eight new CRIPA investigations of 12 publicly operated
facilities; issued eight findings letters; and entered into eight formal
agreements with jurisdictions to remediate deficiencies in 15 public
facilities. As a result of CRT's CRIPA efforts, institutionalized
persons who were living in dire, often life-threatening conditions now
receive adequate care and services.

Additionally, SPL invigorated its commitment to monitoring settlement
agreements to ensure compliance is achieved and matters are closed
promptly thereafter. Significantly, SPL settled two highly contested
litigations involving two separate juvenile justice facilities in
Mississippi and Maryland. Illustrative of CRT's important health care
work is a recent historic settlement with California involving four
state mental health care facilities that provide inpatient psychiatric
care to nearly 5,000 people committed civilly or in connection with
criminal proceedings. SPL found a pattern and practice of preventable
suicides and serious, life-threatening assaults by staff and other
patients. In two instances, patients were murdered by other patients.
The extensive reforms required by the consent decree ensure individuals
in the hospitals are adequately protected from harm, are provided
adequate services to support their recovery and mental health, and are
served in the most integrated setting appropriate for their needs.

In FY 2006, CRT has aggressively pursued contempt actions against
several recalcitrant jurisdictions to address their failure to, after
having ample opportunity, achieve compliance with agreed-upon settlement
remedies. These actions involved a prison, a set of juvenile facilities,
and a system of community-based mental health service providers. For
example, on December 4, 2006, the court issued a permanent order
granting the relief sought by the United States in [United States v.
Puerto Rico]{.underline}, 94-2080 (D.P.R.). In November 2006, the United
States applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction directing Puerto Rico to immediately prevent facility staff
criminally charged with institutional child abuse from having contact
with confined youth in Puerto Rico's juvenile facilities.

Where SPL's attempts at cooperative settlement failed, we aggressively
pursued litigation against recalcitrant jurisdictions in FY 2006, to
secure constitutional reform. In September 2006, CRT's motion for
summary judgment against the Terrell County, Georgia Jail was granted.
The court resolved all claims in favor of DOJ and determined that
conditions relating to medical care, mental health care, protection from
harm and fire safety at the jail were unconstitutional.

So far in the first quarter of FY 2007, SPL has opened a country-wide
investigation involving 19 juvenile facilities, and continued its
investigations of 67 facilities, and monitor the implementation of
consent decrees, settlement agreements, memoranda of understanding, and
court orders involving 97 facilities. Most recently, on December 15,
2006, SPL filed a lawsuit against Oklahoma pursuant to the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to address a
pattern or practice of unlawful conditions at the L.E. Rader Center, a
juvenile justice facility in Sand Springs, Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges
that conditions at the facility routinely and systemically deprive
youths of federally protected civil rights. During SPL's two and a half
year investigation, we found evidence of numerous civil rights
violations, including youth-on-youth violence, staff-on-youth violence,
sexual misconduct between youths and staff, an inadequate system to
prevent suicide and self-injurious behavior, and inadequate psychotropic
medication administration. Numerous efforts by CRT to settle the case
amicably failed.

In FY 2008 SPL plans to open at least 10-14 new CRIPA investigations,
covering juvenile justice facilities, nursing homes, and facilities for
persons with developmental disabilities; issue 8-14 findings letters,
enter 6-12 agreements resolving investigations; and tour over 100
facilities. Similarly, at least seven significant CRIPA settlement
agreements are set to conclude in FY 2008, depending upon each
jurisdiction's successful compliance with the terms of the settlement
agreements. Confirming each jurisdiction's compliance status will likely
require significant manpower, including multiple on-site tours with
consultants and extensive document review.

Regarding our police misconduct statutory authority, SPL continues to
pursue all allegations of constitutional violations we receive to
determine if a pattern or practice investigation is warranted. During FY
2006, CRT focused its resources on vigorously monitoring the enforcement
of its twelve existing settlement agreements to ensure timely,
compliance with the terms of those agreements. For example, on December
23, 2006, SPL timely terminated its December 23, 2003 settlement between
the City of Villa Rica and the United States -- having found that the
city fully complied with required remedial measures to ensure that the
police department conducts its law enforcement activities in a
non-discriminatory manner.

Additionally, SPL anticipates continuing in FY 2008 to work
cooperatively with police departments to implement widespread reforms,
including training, supervising, and disciplining officers and
implementing systems to receive, investigate, and respond to civilian
complaints of misconduct.

**VOT:** In FY 2006, VOT continued to place major emphasis on the
monitoring of elections. VOT monitored 66 elections in 55 political
subdivisions in 22 States, using 817 federal observers from the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) and 271 DOJ staff.

VOT's priority on enforcement of Section 203, which mandates that
certain jurisdictions provide language assistance to affected language
minority communities, continued

throughout FY 2006. In FY 2006, VOT filed four Section 203 and 208
lawsuits; the courts also approved consent decree in four cases and
another claim was resolved by a Memorandum of Agreement.

Section 2 prohibits against voting practices and procedures that are
intended to be racially discriminatory or shown to have a racially
discriminatory impact. In FY 2006, one case, which was resolved with a
consent decree, was filed under Section 2 in Georgia. A second case was
filed against the City of Euclid in Ohio. VOT also won a preliminary
injunction in a Florida case.

VOT initiated litigation under the UOCAVA against the States of North
Carolina, Alabama and Connecticut. A consent decree was entered with the
State of North Carolina to ensure that the rights of uniformed and
overseas voters were protected. The Alabama case was resolved by State
legislation, and a settlement was reached with the State of South
Carolina without filing in court. In Connecticut, the court entered a
stipulated agreement.

Voting filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri to enforce the list
maintenance requirements of NVRA. Another NVRA case was filed against
the State of Indiana and was resolved with a consent decree, and a case
against the State of Maine under HAVA and the NVRA was filed and also
resolved by consent agreement.

With respect to Section 5 of the VRA, the level of submissions received
has been far in excess of comparable years. In FY 2006, CRT received
20,393 submissions of voting changes for administrative review. This
high number is due to the provisions in HAVA which took effect on
January 1, 2006. VOT has filed one lawsuit under Section 5 which was
resolved with a consent decree.

Under its' enforcement responsibility under Title III of the HAVA, CRT
continues to place priority on compliance with the requirements that
went into effect on January 1, 2004, and to prepare for expansive new
requirements (integrated State voter registration lists; new accessible
voting devices and polling places) that went into effect on January 1,
2006. In FY 2006, CRT continued its multi-faceted approach to informing
State and local officials of their obligations under the new law. DOJ
filed lawsuits against the States of New York, Alabama and Maine and was
able to resolve another lawsuit with a settlement agreement in
California. VOT also filed a lawsuit against a county in Arizona under
HAVA which was resolved with a consent decree.

VOT anticipates an increased workload in FY 2007 and 2008 for the
following reasons:

On July 27, 2006, President Bush signed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks
and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments Act
of 2006. The Act has been strengthened so as to make objections and
litigation under the statute more likely. In addition, a number of
individuals and groups have indicated publicly that they will attempt to
challenge the new provisions, and one such case already has been filed.
This will involve VOT in a significant volume of contested litigation.
There may be unanticipated litigation in FY 2007 and FY 2008 resulting
from the new Act;

VOT anticipates increasing activity under Section 2. VOT has initiated a
major outreach effort that has begun to identify problems for new
minority groups (Hispanic and Asian citizens), especially in the
Southeastern United States, and is initiating outreach to Arab American
and South Asian groups. This outreach promises to result in the
identification of additional cases of discrimination;

VOT has had increasing activity under Sections 203 and 208. Since 2001,
VOT has set a record for the number of cases filed in each of the past
three years. The Section anticipates a high volume of such cases to
continue;

VOT has begun active enforcement of Section 208 of the VRA, and will
have filed, since 2001, at least 80 percent of all cases ever filed
under this provision in the history of the Act. We anticipate a
significant volume of such cases;

VOT expects increased litigation under Section 5 of the VRA. VOT also
recently has identified a significant backlog of unprecleared voting
changes that may lead to litigation;

VOT anticipates increased activity under the bailout provisions of VRA.
Again, in the wake of amendments to the Act, a significant number of
officials have expressed an interest in promoting bailout lawsuits;

VOT anticipates an increase in litigation under the NVRA. VOT recently
obtained SSA list of deceased Americans, and will match that list
against State voter registration lists to identify violations of the
NVRA list maintenance provisions. This will assist us in identifying
violations and lead to increased litigation;

VOT anticipates a significant increase in HAVA litigation. The dearth of
available qualifying voting machines for States to purchase and the
special sensitivity of forcing major adjustments on State election
machinery on the eve of major elections --with the prospect of a
complete collapse -- have been major barriers to enforcement actions;
and

VOT anticipates a high level of election monitoring in FY 2007, and,
indeed, has already experienced a record off-year monitoring effort in
the beginning of FY 2007. Additional heavy monitoring is expected in
municipal and other elections in Section 203 jurisdictions, and in the
State of Mississippi, which has its major State and local elections in
2007. VOT anticipates another record level of election monitoring in FY
2008.

**b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes**

In FY 2006 and continuing throughout FY 2008, CRT will perform its
mission of protecting the civil rights of all Americans by: (1)
improving efforts to eradicate the modern-day slavery of human
trafficking, including the trafficking of women, children, and other
vulnerable victims, through more vigorous and intensified enforcement
efforts, interagency coordination, and continued efforts to rescue the
victims of this atrocity; (2) combating housing discrimination through
"Operation Home Sweet Home," which seeks to ensure equal access to
housing by improving and increasing the Division's fair housing testing
program; (3) expanding efforts (a) to address voting rights violations,
(b) to ensure access to the polls for all who qualify, (c) to protect
the integrity of the ballot process, and (d) to promote voter confidence
in our country's democratic system through activities such as vigorous
election monitoring, outreach, and the Department's Ballot Access and
Voting Integrity Initiative; (4) expanding the President's New Freedom
Initiative to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to our
nation's civic life in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA); (5) vigorously enforcing the requirements of Title VII by
more carefully targeting governmental employers who discriminate in
employment; (6) combating religious discrimination and promoting
religious liberty for persons of all religious faiths and denominations;
and (7) strategic targeting of outreach programs, technical assistance,
and training efforts that will promote voluntary compliance with our
Nation's civil rights laws.

**Long-term outcome goals:** CRT will target specific actions through
vigorous litigation as part of its comprehensive strategy to safeguard
the civil rights of all persons residing in the United States. CRT also
will continue to be vigilant and aggressive in its enforcement,
outreach, and training efforts. These efforts span the full breadth of
its' jurisdiction, from fair housing opportunities, equal access to the
ballot box, and criminal civil rights prosecutions to desegregation in
America's schools and protection of the rights of the disabled.
Additionally, CRT has worked swiftly and aggressively to pursue its
newfound enforcement responsibilities over its expanded jurisdiction,
including aggressive enforcement of USERRA, TVPA, and RLUIPA.

**Other Initiatives:**

DOJ's PCA initiative will be one of the focal points for DRS. This
initiative ensures that cities, counties, towns, and villages throughout
the United States comply with the ADA. Pattern or practice cases will
continue to be a high priority also, including a vigorous pursuit of
access to transportation and travel (including mass transit and
privately operated transportation services), gateways to economic
self-sufficiency (higher education, child care, and employment),
consumer access to the free market (health care, access for people with
assistance animals, physical access to consumer goods), voting, and
Olmstead issues (making sure people with disabilities can live and
receive services in their own communities and with their own families).

In order to maximize voluntary compliance with the ADA, DOJ has launched
the "ADA Business Connection" to bring together a community's senior
business leaders and disability advocacy groups in order to build trust
and understanding with regard to the needs of and challenges facing
Americans with disabilities. DOJ has reached out specifically to small
businesses.

Training is a vital tool to sharpen our enforcement efforts -- both
across the Department and within CRT. The PDO, newly created in November
2005, has spearheaded CRT's creation of two training conferences at the
National Advocacy Center this year. These national training seminars
continue our mission of educating, encouraging, and working
collaboratively with the U.S. Attorney's Offices in the vigorous
enforcement of the civil rights laws; two more training conferences
already are scheduled for next year. PDO also has created -- for the
first time in CRT's history -- a formal program of training for new
Division attorneys, as well as programs to provide continuing legal
education for experienced Division attorneys.

CRT has resolved major police misconduct investigations with numerous
police departments across the United States. This dramatic increase in
successful resolutions reflects DOJ's innovative cooperative approach to
such matters, focusing on fixing the problems, not the blame.
Previously, DOJ approached such investigations with a purely litigation
mindset, which requires secrecy and creates adversaries. The
Administration determined early on that this approach was largely
counterproductive. Rather, CRT has begun approaching these
investigations with a cooperative model, with litigation held as a
fallback position if cooperation does not work. This model is driven by
the assumption that most, if not all, police departments want to comply
with the law and provide quality public service in a constitutional
manner. This cooperative approach has implemented more reform -- faster,
in more cities -- than would have been possible solely through
litigation. Moreover, ongoing monitoring and technical support enhances
the success of these agreements and ensures their enforcement.

In other sections, to ensure the civil rights of children, EOS will
continue in FY 2008 with its initiative begun in FY 2005 to ensure equal
educational opportunities for ELL this is to ensure that immigrant
children are receiving proper services to assist them in overcoming
language barriers. Monitoring elections will continue as a priority for
VOT to ensure compliance with Section 203 (which mandates that language
assistance be provided), the UOCAVA, and Title III of HAVA.

Activities promise a continued mix of litigation, amicus briefs, formal
and informal settlements, and mediated resolutions. Much of CRT's
enforcement efforts will continue to focus on resolution without
litigation. For example, under a contract, DOJ refers complaints to
professional mediators who have been trained in the legal requirements
of the ADA. Since January 2001, the mediation program has successfully
resolved more than 1,000 complaints. The average cost of a successfully
mediated case is about \$2,800 in mediation contractor costs, minimal
when compared to the costs of investigating and litigating individual
cases. The mediation program allows DOJ to rapidly resolve individual
cases to achieve meaningful ADA compliance while utilizing fewer
resources \-- both in terms of cost and staff hours. It also has
resulted in increased access for thousands of individuals throughout the
country. This reflects CRT's commitment to linking resources and
performance.

Outreach and technical assistance will continue to play a significant
role in many of the programmatic areas to ensure compliance with the
civil rights statutes. This will include operating a comprehensive,
government-wide program of technical and legal assistance, training,
interagency coordination, and regulatory, policy, and program review, to
ensure that federal agencies consistently and effectively enforce
various landmark civil rights statutes and related Executive Orders.

CRT will provide technical assistance and speakers to educate
immigrants, national origin minorities, State and local governments, and
service providers to combat discrimination. Countless informal
complaints will be resolved each year through this process, generally
resulting in the immediate resolution to the issue, negating the need
for a formal charge or litigation. For example:

OSC will teach workers, employers, and concerned organizations about the
anti-discrimination provision of the INA;

CRM attorneys will participate in training and outreach programs
relating to criminal civil rights enforcement, such as trafficking of
persons, training Border Patrol Agents, lecturing at the FBI training
center, etc;

COR will provide technical assistance and training as requested by State
and local recipients, federal agencies, organizations and the public
such that individuals from across the country can learn the importance
of language access; and

VOT will work with the United States Election Assistance Commission on
voluntary guidance to jurisdictions on compliance with HAVA.

In the area of Human Capital Workforce Planning, specific activities
and/or actions are planned to meet the standards for success under the
Human Capital initiative of the President's Management Agenda (PMA)
include:

Using the skills assessment study conducted by DOJ to determine employee
development needs and targeting recruitment for employees to fill skills
gaps;

Improving recruitment and selection through improved productivity
permitted by use of the Web based assessment system, AVUE;

Continuing the use of digital fingerprinting of applicants to speed
security approvals;

Ensuring that all new supervisors have received appropriate training
within the first three to six months after selection;

Improving opportunities for, and completion of, training for attorneys
to improve mission effectiveness; and

Continuing to respond to DOJ initiatives to improve human resources
management.

In the PMA area of improved financial performance, CRT continues to
implement new measures to streamline operations and strengthen internal
control processes. The Administrative Section created the position of
Comptroller to restructure CRT's financial and business processes. This
allows all financial activities to be managed uniformly. Sound financial
management is the foundation of an effective organization.

In addition, CRT has implemented new automated tracking systems to help
ensure timely, accurate, and reliable financial reports. Key performance
information is carefully tracked to continually improve program
performance and overall cost effectiveness. CRT continues to excel in
its ratings on DOJ's financial audits.

**c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

During FY 2005, the Civil Rights Division was assessed through OMB\'s
PART along with five other litigating components **[(ATR, CIV, CRM,
ENRD, and TAX)]{.underline}**, collectively named the GLA Program. At
the end of the assessment, the GLA Program received a rating of
Effective. Other findings showed that:

-   The Program effectively achieves its goal of resolving cases in
    favor of the government. Favorable resolutions, in turn, punish and
    deter violations of the law; ensure the integrity of federal laws
    and programs; and prevent the government from losing money through
    unfavorable settlements or judgments.

-   The Program collaborates effectively with its partners, notably the
    U.S. Attorneys Offices. The two programs work closely to share
    expertise, make referrals, and designate cases for prosecution,
    while minimizing any overlap of responsibilities.

-   The Program exhibits good management practices. This includes strong
    financial management, collecting and using performance information
    to make decisions, and holding managers accountable for program
    performance.

Additionally, to exhibit continual improvement of our practices, the
Program was to

perform the following follow-up actions:

-   Seek regular, independent evaluations of the Program\'s
    effectiveness at resolving cases in favor of the government. GLA
    components are contemplating possible options to perform our
    independent evaluation.

-   Complete leadership training and mentoring program to improve the
    quality of the program\'s management. CRT has completed this task
    with the establishment of PDO. The program offered a five-day
    training course to new and recently hired attorneys during the month
    of June and offered a second course in September. PDO has been
    coordinating training material with staff throughout CRT.

-   Work with the Department\'s Chief Information Officer to evaluate
    and purchase litigation software that will improve productivity and
    efficiency."

> 1\. CRT began using A.L. Coder - (Artificial Intelligence Corder) This
>
> application streamlines the process of coding by automating the
> process.
>
> 2\. CRT purchased Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software to
>
> convert 3 million voting applications to VOT's STAPS
>
> application. This provides a portable readable format allowing
>
> significant efficiencies.
>
> 3\. Software implemented by CRT as a version control to track all
> changes
>
> to source code written. This also allows programmers to recoup
>
> previous versions, as a safety control.
>
> 4\. The Justice Management Division is leading an effort to
> consolidate the
>
> case management functions of all Litigating components into one
>
> system. The new Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) will
>
> introduce new technology to the Department, increase efficiency, and
>
> provide seamless information sharing. CRT will be transitioning to
>
> LCMS in late FY 2008 or early FY 2009.

[Program Increases]{.underline}

**Item Name: Human Trafficking**

Budget Decision Unit(s): Civil Rights Division

Strategic Goal(s) & Objective(s): 2.4 Uphold the civil and
Constitutional rights of all Americans, and protect vulnerable members
of society

Organizational Program: Human Trafficking

Program Increase: Positions **13** Agt/Atty 8 FTE 7 Dollars
**\$1,713,000**

[Description of Item]{.underline}

CRT is proposing an enhancement in its human trafficking program. The
request would fund 13 positions, 7 FTE and \$1,713,000. The FY 2007
current services base funding for human trafficking is 21 positions (18
attorneys), 21 FTE, and \$3,100,000. After enhancement, this program
would represent 34 positions (26 attorneys), 28 FTE and \$4,813,000.

[Justification]{.underline}

In addition to the increase in the trafficking caseload triggered by the
passage of the TVPA, we are now seeing the fruits of the 42 recently
formed anti-trafficking task forces, funded by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. These task forces have begun to produce high volume and
complex trafficking cases, often involving multiple districts.

The task force approach has enabled CRM to spread its' successful model
of victim-centered prosecutions, which comply with the letter and spirit
of the TVPA, the United Nations Protocol and have become a touchstone
for other countries' efforts. This approach puts the rights of the
victims first and relies on working closely with non-governmental
organizations to get restoration and rehabilitation for the survivors.
Because the TVPA is still a relatively new statute, however, and because
investigation and prosecution of these matters is both complex and labor
intensive, the trafficking task forces will require regular training,
mentoring, and technical assistance from CRM attorneys and
victim-witness personnel.

[Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic
Goals)]{.underline}

These criminal enforcement responsibilities play an integral role in
DOJ's Strategic Plan, designed to uphold the civil and constitutional
rights of all Americans and to protect vulnerable members of our
society.

# Funding

Base Funding

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2006-availability" class="heading"> FY 2006
Availability </p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-presidents-budget" class="heading">FY
2007 President’s Budget</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-current-services" class="heading">FY 2008
Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>agt/</p>
<p>atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>agt/</p>
<p>atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>agt/</p>
<p>atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>21</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>$2,900</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>$3,000</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>$3,100</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Type of     | Modular     | Number   | FY 2008      | FY 2009      |
| Position    | Cost        | of       |              |              |
|             |             |          | Request      | Net          |
|             | per         | P        |              | A            |
|             | Position    | ositions | (\$000)      | nnualization |
|             | (\$000)     |          |              |              |
|             |             | R        |              | (Change from |
|             |             | equested |              | 2008)        |
|             |             |          |              |              |
|             |             |          |              | (\$000)      |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Attys       | \$105       | 8        | \$837        | \$675        |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Vic         | \$93        | 1        | \$93         | \$67         |
| tim-Witness |             |          |              |              |
| C           |             |          |              |              |
| oordinators |             |          |              |              |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| I           | \$82        | 2        | \$164        | \$111        |
| nvestigator |             |          |              |              |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Paralegal   | \$63        | 1        | \$61         | \$28         |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Clerical    | \$45        | 1        | \$45         | \$22         |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Total       | \$396       | 13       | \$1,200      | \$903        |
| Personnel   |             |          |              |              |
+-------------+-------------+----------+--------------+--------------+

Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary

+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| No          | Unit Cost  | Quantity    | FY 2008     | FY 2009 Net  |
| n-Personnel |            |             | Request     |              |
| Item        |            |             |             | A            |
|             |            |             | (\$000)     | nnualization |
|             |            |             |             |              |
|             |            |             |             | (Change from |
|             |            |             |             | 2008)        |
|             |            |             |             |              |
|             |            |             |             | (\$000)      |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| Translation |            |             | \$60        | \$3          |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| Depositions |            |             | \$55        | \$2          |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| I           |            |             | \$93        | \$3          |
| nterpreters |            |             |             |              |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| Hous        |            |             | \$95        | \$5          |
| ing/Shelter |            |             |             |              |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| Human       |            |             | \$210       | \$11         |
| Trafficking |            |             |             |              |
| Smuggling   |            |             |             |              |
| Center      |            |             |             |              |
| (HSTC)      |            |             |             |              |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| Total       |            |             | \$513       | \$24         |
| No          |            |             |             |              |
| n-Personnel |            |             |             |              |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+

Total Request for this Item

+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+----------+--------------+
|           | Pos | Agt/ | FTE | P        | Non-P    | Total        |
|           |     | Atty |     | ersonnel | ersonnel |              |
|           |     |      |     |          |          | (\$000)      |
|           |     |      |     | (\$000)  | (\$000)  |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+----------+--------------+
| Current   | 21  | 18   | 21  | \$3,100  | \$0      | \$3,100      |
| Services  |     |      |     |          |          |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+----------+--------------+
| Increases | 13  | 8    | 7   | \$1,200  | \$513    | \$1,713      |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+----------+--------------+
| Grand     | 34  | 26   | 28  | \$4,300  | \$513    | \$4,813      |
| Total     |     |      |     |          |          |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+----------+--------------+