U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

September 2005 

 

FUNDING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT: 

THE PRESIDENT’S 2006 REQUEST 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress

in 1957. It is directed to: 

 Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by

reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of 

fraudulent practices. 

 Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the 

laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national

origin, or in the administration of justice. 

 Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection

of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the 

administration of justice. 

 Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of 

equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national

origin. 

 Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. 

 Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection

of the laws. 

Members of the Commission

Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairperson

Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairperson

Jennifer C. Braceras 

Peter N. Kirsanow 

Ashley L. Taylor 

Michael Yaki

Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

624 Ninth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20425 

(202) 376-8128 voice 

(202) 376-8116 TTY 

www.usccr.gov 
Introduction 

The year 2005 marks 40 years since Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, which was signed into effect by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the 

height of the Civil Rights Movement. The Act protects the right to vote, which is 

guaranteed by the 15th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Impediments to voting 

rights still exist, along with other civil rights problems. Insufficient resources can 

hinder federal agencies from thoroughly investigating and enforcing laws to protect 

individuals from these injustices. It is thus imperative that agencies be given the 

authority and adequate funding to carry out their civil rights responsibilities. At the 

same time, agencies must be accountable for achieving results that can justify 

continued expenditures. The Commission, over a period of years, has collected and 

disseminated data relevant to civil rights enforcement funding, staffing and workload 

levels. This year, the Commission has also collected and reviewed data relevant to 

agency goals and output evaluation factors for 2003 to 2005, in order to assess 

whether each program is producing its intended results. Specifically, the 

Commission requested and obtained data representing fiscal years1

 1994 to 2006 for 

the following agencies: 

• U.S. Department of Education (DOEd), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

• U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division (CRD) 

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) 

• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 

• U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP) 

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), which includes the Fair Housing and 

Assistance Program (FHAP) and Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) 

Since 1957, Congress and the President have greatly expanded the federal civil rights effort 

through the creation of additional substantive rights and enforcement agencies. Today, the 

major statutes and executive orders affecting civil rights enforcement include: 

• Equal Pay Act of 1963 

• Civil Rights Act of 1964 

• Voting Rights Act of 1965 

• President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 of 1965 

• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 

 

1

 Throughout this report, all referenced years are expressed in the federal government accounting period that 

begins October 1 and ends September 30. 
• Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

• Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 

• Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

• Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

• President Carter’s Reorganization Plan No. 1 

• Executive Orders relating to equal opportunity in 1978-1979 

• Voting Rights Amendments of 1982 

• Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act of 1986 

• Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 

• Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 

• Civil Liberties Act of 1988 

• Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

• Civil Rights Act of 1991 

• Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992 

• Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act 

Scope and Methodology 

The Commission tracked and analyzed the budget requests of the William J. Clinton and 

George W. Bush administrations from 1994 to 2006, as well as the funding levels 

appropriated by Congress in response to the Presidents’ requests. The Commission 

documented the changes in workload and staffing levels of the six civil rights agencies. To do 

so, it requested from each agency not only budget and workload data but also information on 

outputs and goals. This report’s emphasis on goals and outputs reflects the importance of 

assessing results and not just expenditures. The information in this report is based on 

documents and data that the agencies provided in response to questionnaires and requests. 

Through interrogatories, the Commission also obtained relevant strategic planning 

information including: agencies’ evaluation factors by which they measure progress; the 

extent to which prior years’ goals had been met; and future output measurements that would 

ensure appropriate resource utilization. Staff also secured public documents from the 

Internet. In some instances, agencies have made corrections to budget data submitted in 

previous years because of rescissions or transfers added after funding appropriations were 

made. This study did not determine the aptness of agencies’ goals to their civil rights 

enforcement obligation, since an evaluation of that nature is beyond the scope of the current 

report. 

 

All references to real funding are expressed in constant 1994 dollars. Expression in 

constant dollars accounts for inflationary trends and more accurately reflects the 

actual purchasing power of the funds. In previous Commission reports, as well as 

this one, adjusted values have been referred to as “real funding” or “real spending 

power.” The deflators used are the same as those used by OMB in the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget, Budget of the United States: Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 

2006, Table 1.3. The deflators have been used in other analyses performed by the 

Commission, including its 1995 Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement report, its 

2001 Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond report, its 2002 
Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000-2003 report, its 2003 Funding 

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004 report, and its 2004 Funding Federal Civil 

Rights Enforcement: 2005 report. 

Analysis 

Adequate funding and resources allow civil rights agencies to fulfill and strengthen their 

enforcement responsibilities by (1) using mediation to assist in efficiently and expeditiously 

resolving complaints; (2) proactively providing education and outreach and technical 

assistance; (3) updating and issuing policy guidance; (4) initiating and conducting 

compliance reviews; and (5) providing staff training as needed. Agencies are hindered from 

enforcing laws against discrimination when resources are not forthcoming. While the amount 

of funding plays an important role in determining the extent to which agencies have sufficient 

resources to carry out their civil rights responsibilities, it is also important that agencies 

demonstrate effective use of resources by achieving set goals, which will show whether they 

are in fact meeting these responsibilities. 

Since 1995, the Commission has issued numerous reports describing and analyzing 

the budget requests and Congressional appropriations for civil rights enforcement 

agencies and programs. In some of its earlier reports, the Commission concluded 

that inadequate funding has hindered most of these agencies from sufficiently 

exercising their civil rights authority.2

 The data which follow demonstrate that since 

the 1995 report, civil rights law enforcement continue to receive decreasing funding 

and staffing. 

For 2005, the President requested increased funding for five civil rights enforcement agencies 

(see Summary Table 1). Congress granted increases for four of the agencies, with EEOC and 

OFCCP receiving less than one percent of the President’s request. HHS and the Commission 

were the only agencies for which Congress met the President’s request. Although the 

President requested a two percent increase in funding for HUD/FHIP, Congress granted a two 

percent decrease. 

For 2006, the President is requesting increased funding for DOJ, level funding for 

the Commission, and decreased funding for all other civil rights agencies (see 

summary table 1). DOJ will receive a budget increase of 1.2 percent. DOEd’s 

budget will decrease 1.4 percent and all HUD program components will receive 

double digit decreases. 

Inflation diminishes the actual dollar amount of an agency’s budget. For 2006, after 

accounting for inflation, the President’s request amounts to decreases for all civil rights 

enforcement agencies (see summary table 2). Of the seven agencies, the President requested 

the largest decreases for all three HUD fair housing components. The President’s request 

calls for a one percent decrease for both DOJ and the Commission (see Summary Table 2). 

HUD/FHEO would decrease by 20.3 percent, HUD/FHAP by 17.7 percent, and HUD/FHIP 

by 23.8 percent.

 

2

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, June 1995; U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001; U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000-2003, April 2002; U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004, June 2003; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding 

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2005. 
Summary Table 1- Civil Rights Enforcement Funding, FY 2004-2005 

(actual dollars) 

Civil rights President’s Congressional 

enforcement agency request appropriation 

 FY 2004-2005 change 

DOEd ↑ 1.7% ↑ 1.2% 

EEOC ↑ 4.7% ↑ 0.9% 

OFCCP ↑ 2.6% ↑ 0.8% 

DOJ/CRD ↓ 0.5% ↓ 1.1% 

HHS ↑ 3.2% ↑ 3.3% 

HUD/FHEO ↓ 7.1% ↓ 3.9% 

HUD/FHAP ↓ 9.1% ↓ 4.7% 

HUD/FHIP ↑ 2.0% ↓ 2.0% 

USCCR 0.0% 0.0% 

 FY 2005-2006 change 

DOEd ↓ 1.4%

EEOC ↓ 5.6% 

OFCCP Not Available 

DOJ/CRD ↑ 1.2% 

HHS ↓ 1.0% 

HUD/FHEO ↓18.7% 

HUD/FHAP ↓16.1% 

HUD/FHIP ↓22.0% 

USCCR 0.0% 

Summary Table 2- Civil Rights Enforcement Funding, FY 2004-2005 

(1994 inflation-adjusted dollars) 

 

Civil rights President’s Congressional 

enforcement agency request appropriation 

 FY 2004-2005 change 

 DOEd ↓ 0.9% ↓ 1.4% 

EEOC ↑ 2.1% ↓ 1.7% 

OFCCP 0.0% ↓ 1.7% 

DOJ/CRD ↓ 3.7% ↓ 3.6% 

HHS ↑ 0.7% ↑ 0.7% 

HUD/FHEO ↓ 8.9% ↓ 5.9% 

HUD/FHAP ↓ 11.2% ↓ 7.1% 

HUD/FHIP ↓ 0.6% ↓ 3.7% 

USCCR ↓ 2.7% ↓ 2.7% 

 

 FY 2005-2006 change 

DOEd ↓ 3.3% 

EEOC ↓ 7.4% 

OFCCP Not Available 

DOJ/CRD ↓ 0.8% 

HHS ↓ 3.2% 
HUD/FHEO ↓ 20.3% 

HUD/FHAP ↓17.7% 

HUD/FHIP ↓23.8% 

USCCR ↓ 1.4% 

For 2005, President Bush requested inflation-adjusted budget increases for only two civil 

rights enforcement offices, EEOC and HHS. The President requested the largest decrease in 

funding for HUD’s FHEO (8.9 percent) and HUD’s FHAP (11.2 percent) programs (see 

Summary Table 2). 

Furthermore: 

• Of the federal agencies reviewed in this report, DOJ/CRD received the 

largest percentage budget increase over the past 12 years. Between 1994 

and 2005, the Division’s budget grew 79.6 percent, 42.5 percent after 

adjusting for inflation. Between 1994 and 2005, even if Congress had 

approved funding based on the President’s request, DOJ/CRD’s budget 

would have grown 85 percent in actual dollars and 46.9 percent in real 

dollars. Between 1994 and 2004, CRD’s FTE level increased 32.9 

percent. However, since 2002 the number of FTEs in all CRD sections, 

except for the Civil Rights Prosecution Section, remained stagnant. 

• Between 1995 and 2005, Congressional appropriation for the Commission 

has increased one percent. However, the amount of funding has not kept 

pace with inflation causing the Commission’s buying power to erode over 

time. After adjusting for inflation, the Commission’s budget has decreased 

18 percent over the past 11 years. In 1995, the Commission’s $9.0 million 

budget was worth $8.8 million; and in 2005, the Commission’s $9.1 million 

budget is worth $7.2 million. Both the President’s request and 

Congressional appropriation have remained at $9.1 million since 2002 

and have not changed substantially since 1995. After adjusting for 

inflation, the Commission’s budget has decreased 8 percent since 2002. 

For 2006, if Congress grants the President’s request, the Commission’s 

budget will be worth $7.1 million, 19 percent less than its worth in 1995. 

• Since 1994, DOEd/OCR’s budget, in actual dollars, has increased 58 

percent. But after adjusting for inflation, the agency realized a 25 percent 

increase during that period. For each fiscal year between 1994 and 2005, 

had Congress appropriated the President’s request, DOEd/OCR’s budget 

would have increased 64 percent, 30.2 percent after adjusting for inflation. 

Between 1994 and 2004, OCR’s FTE level decreased 20.2 percent and 

the number of initiated compliance reviews decreased 62.5 percent. The 

number of backlogged complaints, however, is now lower than the 1994 

level. 

• Between 1994 and 2005, Congressional appropriations for EEOC 

increased 44 percent. After adjusting for inflation, EEOC’s budget has 

increased only 14.4 percent in the past 11 years. If Congress meets the 

President’s request for 2006, EEOC’s budget will increased 44 percent in 
actual dollars, and 12.1 percent in real spending power between 1994 and 

2006. After decreasing to a low of 2,544 in 1998, the number of FTEs now 

stands at 2,942, which is nearly four percent more than the 1994 level. 

EEOC’s private sector pending inventory decreased 65.4 percent, from 

86,547 in 1994 to 29,966 in 2004. Pending inventory for federal sector 

enforcement after increasing from 1994 through 1999, has continuously 

declined. 

• Since 1994, OFCCP’s budget has increased 41.8 percent. But once 

inflation is taken into account, this increase amounts to 12.8 percent. Had 

the President’s requests been met between 1994 and 2005, OFCCP 

would have received an increase of 48.2 percent, which would have 

represented a 17.7 percent increase after adjusting for inflation. Since 

2000, the number of FTEs has continuously declined. In 2004, OFCCP’s 

FTEs were 16 percent below its 1994 level. 

• Between 1994 and 2005, Congressional appropriations for HHS/OCR 

increased 57.9 percent in actual dollars, 25.2 percent after adjusting for 

inflation. Had the President’s requests been met between 1994 and 2005, 

HHS/OCR’s budget would have increased 59.4 percent in actual dollars 

and 26.6 percent in real dollars. In 2004, OCR had less staff (244 FTEs) 

than in FY 1994 (284 FTEs). After decreasing between 2000 and 2003, 

pending inventory of post-grant reviews and investigations decreased 

20.7 percent between 2003 and 2004. 

• HUD/FHEO is the only agency for which Congressional appropriation for 

the past 12 years has always been less than the amount requested by the 

President. Between 1994 and 2005, Congressional appropriation for 

FHEO decreased 6.6 percent. After adjusting for inflation, FHEO realized 

a huge 25.9 percent decrease in its budget. Even if Congress had 

granted the President’s request between 1994 and 2005, FHEO would still 

have received decreased funding. The President’s request would have 

amounted to a decrease of 24 percent, and after adjusting for inflation 

FHEO’s spending power would have been reduced 25.8 percent. The 

number of FTEs dedicated solely to complaint processing declined 

between 2003 and 2004, after continuously increasing between 2000 and 

2003. The total number of program compliance complaints that FHEO 

reviewed and processed as well as reviews it conducted increased 

between 1994 and 2004. 

• Of the two HUD programs, FHAP has received the larger increase in 

funding in the past 12 years. Between 1994 and 2005, FHAP’s budget 

increased 481.7 percent. As for real spending, the budget has grown 

364.4 percent. 

• Unlike FHAP, between 1994 and 2005, FHIP’s budget decreased 3.1 percent in 

actual dollars and 22.9 percent in real dollars. FHIP’s spending power is now less 

than it was in 1994. Had Congress granted the President’s requests between 1994 
and 2005, FHIP’s budget would have increased 22.2 percent in actual dollars, but 

decreased 3 percent in real spending power. 
Chapter 1 

Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education 

 

The U.S. Department of Education’s (DOEd) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible 

for enforcing the following five antidiscrimination statutes: 

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; 

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975; 

• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and 

• Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. 

These laws apply throughout the nation and coverage extends to nearly 15,000 school 

districts; more than 4,000 colleges and universities; about 5,000 proprietary organizations, 

such as training schools for truck drivers and cosmetologists; and thousands of libraries, 

museums, vocational rehabilitation agencies and correctional facilities. 

Budget Analysis 

In 1994, the amount of funding Congress granted OCR matched the President’s request. 

However, between 1995 and 1997, Congress consistently granted funding well below the 

President’s request. For example, in 1996 Congress appropriated $55.5 million in funding, 12 

percent less than the President’s $62.8 million request (see table 1.1). 

Table 1.1 - DOEd/OCR Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year

President’s 

request

Congressional 

appropriation

1994 $56,570,000 $56,570,000 

1995 61,457,000 58,236,000 

1996 62,784,000 55,277,000 

1997 60,000,000 54,900,000 

1998 61,500,000 61,500,000 

1999 68,000,000 66,000,000 

2000 73,262,000 71,200,000 

2001 76,000,000 76,000,000 

2002 79,934,000 79,660,000 

2003 89,710,000 85,715,000 

2004 91,275,000 88,305,000 

2005 92,801,000 89,375,000 

2006 91,526,000 

 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 
Beginning in 1998, congressional appropriation began to steadily increase, as did 

the amount of funding requested by the President. Although OCR’s funding

increased, the amounts were not sufficient to keep pace with inflation. For example, 

in 2004 OCR received funding of $88.3 million, but after adjusting for inflation, the 

amount was worth $72 million (see table 1.1 and figure 1.1). Although OCR did not 

receive the requested $91.3 million in 2004, this did not impair its ability to execute

its civil rights programs. OCR was still able to meet its GPRA Performance

indicators, resolve 4,968 complaints, initiate 54 compliance reviews and provide

technical assistance to parents and recipients.3

 

 Figure 1.1 – DOEd/OCR Funding History

 (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from table 1.1. 

Between 2004 and 2005, OCR’s budget increased 1.2 percent, from $88.3 million to $89.4

million (see table 1.1). After adjusting for inflation, the amount was worth $71 million. For 

2006, the President requested $91.5 million, which is only 1.4 percent more than the level 

requested in 2005 (see table 1.1). If Congress grants the President’s request, after adjusting

for inflation, OCR will receive $71.3 million. Based on the amounts of funding Presidents 

have requested between 1994 and 2006, and if honored, OCR’s budget would have increased 

$35 million, $14.7 million after adjusting for inflation. 

OCR intends to use its 2005 level of funding to process approximately 5,000

complaints to insure civil rights compliance in educational institutions receiving

federal assistance, initiate more than 70 compliance reviews, provide technical 

 3

 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 

Interrogatory for Funding, Feb. 21, 2005, p. 1 (hereafter cited as DOEd OCR’s Response to Funding

Interrogatory, 2005). 
assistance, monitor resolution agreements, develop policy guidance, respond to 

customer inquires, and perform other enforcement activities.4

Staffing and Workload Analysis

Approximately 80 percent of OCR’s annual budget is allocated for staffing. As OCR’s 

funding level decreased, so did its full time staff. The number of FTEs declined from 821 in 

1994 to 681 in 1997 (see table 1.2). The largest decrease in the number of FTEs occurred 

between 1996 and 1997, from 744 to 681 (see table 1.2). Between 1998 and 1999, OCR’s 

staff grew nearly 8 percent but began decreasing again the following fiscal year. Between 

2003 and 2004 there was no significant increase in the number of FTEs (see table 1.2). The 

2004 FTE level was 655, 90 percent of whom were responsible for complaint processing, 

conducting compliance reviews, providing technical assistance, monitoring resolution 

agreements, developing policy guidance, providing technical assistance, responding to 

customer inquiries, among other duties. At no time during the past 11 years has the number 

of full time employees returned to the 1994 level. 

 Table 1.2 - DOEd/OCR Staffing History 

 Fiscal Year FTE Level 

1994 821 

1995 788 

1996 744 

1997 681 

1998 685 

1999 737 

2000 712 

2001 696 

2002 698 

2003 654 

2004 655 

 Source: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office for Civil Rights. 

 

As the number of staff declined, OCR’s workload increased. Decreasing staff during 

the 1990s may have hindered OCR from resolving all of its complaints within the 

fiscal year in which they were received. During the early 1990s, OCR focused on 

investigating rather than resolving complaints, which could also have accounted for 

its inability to resolve complaints in a timely manner.5

 In 1997, when OCR’s budget 

did not increase from the previous year and its staff had been cut by 8.5 percent, it 

resolved 4,981 of the 5,296 complaints it received (see table 1.3). In 1999 and 

2000, OCR accumulated its largest backlog of complaints since 1994. In 1999, the 

backlog of complaints numbered 1,259, which by the following year had grown to 

1,467. By 2001, OCR reduced the backlog to 206 and even further since then. In 

2004, OCR received 5,043 complaints and resolved 4,968, leaving a backlog of only 

75 (see table 1.3). 

 

4

 Ibid. 

5

 U.S. Government Printing Office, “Department of Education: Resolving Discrimination Complaints Has 

Improved with New Processing System,” March 23, 1999. 
Table 1.3 - DOEd/OCR Workload History 

 Fiscal year Complaints received Complaints resolved 

1994 5,302 5,751 

1995 4,981 5,559 

1996 4,828 4,886 

1997 5,296 4,981 

1998 4,827 4,753 

1999 6,628* 5,369 

2000 4,897 6,364 

2001 4,571 4,777 

2002 5,019 4,842 

2003 5,128 5,225 

2004 5,043 4,968 

*1614 of these complaints filed by an individual complainant 

 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 

As OCR’s complaints backlog was increasing in 1999 and 2000, the number of 

compliance reviews it initiated was decreasing. Between 1997 and 2002, the number 

of compliance reviews initiated fell 93 percent, from 152 to 11, respectively (see 

table 1.4). 

Table 1.4 - DOEd/OCR Compliance Workload 

Fiscal 

year 

Compliance reviews 

initiated 

1994 144 

1995 96 

1996 146 

1997 152 

1998 102 

1999 76 

2000 47 

2001 21 

2002 11 

2003 74 

2004 54 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil 

Rights. 

OCR initiated fewer compliance reviews between 1998 and 2002 due to an 

increased monitoring workload.6

 With the number of complaints rising, OCR cut back 

the number of compliance reviews initiated. However, OCR initiated 63 more 

compliance reviews in 2003 than in 2002 (see table 1.4). Again in 2004, OCR cut 

back the number of compliance reviews initiated, and it intends to initiate 30 percent 

more reviews in 2005.7

Strategic and Output Measures 

 

6

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights 

Recommendations? Volume IV: An Evaluation of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and 

Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, September 2004. 7

 DOEd OCR’s Response to Funding Interrogatory, 2005, p. 1. 
While the number of complaints resolved and compliance reviews initiated are 

indicators of OCR’s workload, they do not comprehensively measure program 

effectiveness or mission accomplishment. OCR has developed performance 

indictors in response to Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

requirements. OCR uses these GPRA performance indicators in its strategic selfevaluation and also in the annual budget request to OMB. OMB and Congress 

measure OCR’s effectiveness as they do other agencies by reviewing its ability to 

successfully reach certain targets. OCR’s foremost goal is to ensure equal access to 

education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the 

vigorous enforcement of civil rights. During 2004, OCR pursued two objectives to 

meet its goal: (1) to eliminate discriminatory educational practices within schools and 

(2) to obtain results through efficient management of civil rights compliance 

activities.8

 For 2004, OCR exceeded performance targets that were established. 

To evaluate its first objective to eliminate discriminatory educational practices within 

schools, OCR measured (1) the percentage of technical assistance it provides to recipients 

and (2) the percentage of technical assistance it provided to parents. For 2004, the 

performance target was 50 percent of OCR materials designed to assist recipients in 

identifying and addressing their obligations under federal civil rights laws. OCR’s actual 

performance, 66 percent, exceeded the target. OCR set and succeeded a second target for 20 

percent of materials assisting parents with understanding recipients’ federal civil rights 

obligations. OCR’s actual performance was 34 percent. 

To meet the second objective of obtaining results through efficient management of civil 

rights compliance activities, OCR measured the percentage of complaints resolved within 

180 days of receipt. OCR exceeded its 80 percent target by resolving 92 percent of its 

complaints within 180 days. 

OCR also sets goals for obtaining results through efficient management of civil rights 

compliance activities. OCR measures the percentage of complaints resolved within 

180 days of receipt. In each year between 2001 and 2004, OCR exceeded its 

performance target of resolving 80 percent of its complaints within 180 days.9

 

For 2005, OCR has established the following performance targets to evaluate its civil rights 

programs: 

1. Provide high quality customer service throughout the case resolution process. 

In 2005, OCR’s customer service survey will be used to establish baseline 

data against which a performance target will be developed. 

2. Obtain results by the efficient management of civil rights compliance 

activities. OCR continues to use timely resolution of complaints as a 

measure of effectiveness and efficiency. Using the percentage of complaints 

resolved in 180 days as a measure, OCR will resolve 80 percent of its cases 

within 180 days. 

 

8

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2005, September 2004, p. 10. 9

 DOEd OCR’s Response to Funding Interrogatory, 2005, p. 2. 
OCR also plans to continue to maintain the efficiency of its civil rights compliance 

activities by resolving at least 80 percent of its complaints within 180 days.10

 

10 Ibid. 
Chapter 2 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

 

The Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC), established by Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces the following federal statutes: 

• Equal Pay Act of 1963 

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 

• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 

• Section 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

• Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

• Civil Rights Act of 1991 

Throughout its existence, EEOC has focused on the elimination of illegal discrimination from 

the workplace. With its headquarters in Washington, DC and through the operations of 50 

field offices nationwide, EEOC interprets federal employment discrimination laws, monitors 

programs that protect federal workers from employment discrimination, provides funding and 

support to state and local fair employment practices agencies and tribal employment rights 

organizations, and conducts outreach and technical assistance programs. EEOC’s 

responsibilities have continued to grow throughout its existence, but its budget has not 

always increased to commensurate with its workload. 

Budget Analysis 

Although EEOC’s congressional appropriation was less than the President’s request 

between 1994 and 2005, the agency received increased funding each year except 

1996 when it was flat funded (see table 2.1). In 2003, EEOC received $308.8 million, 

a 5 percent decrease from its 2002 appropriation of $310.4 million. In 2004, EEOC’s 

congressional appropriation increased from $308.8 million to $328.4 million or 6.3 

percent. After adjusting for inflation, EEOC’s budget is worth less, $267.6 million 

(see figure 2.1). At this level of funding, EEOC was only able to accomplish limited 

staffing of vacancies.11

The President requested $350.8 million in funding for 2005 and Congress granted 

$331.2 million (see table 2.1). The appropriation, after adjusting for inflation, is worth 

$263.1 million (see figure 2.1). Approximately 80 percent of EEOC’s budget is 

devoted to fixed costs, such as compensation, benefits and rent. The remainder 

 

11 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 

Interrogatory for Funding, Feb. 16, 2005, p. 1 (hereafter cited as EEOC’s Response to Funding Interrogatory, 

2005). 
primarily supports mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), litigation, state

and local programs, outreach, and technology.12 According to EEOC, this leaves few

resources to devote to human capital investments and transfers and reassignments

to better balance its workload.13

Table 2.1- EEOC Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year

President’s

request

Congressional 

appropriation

1994 $234,845,000 $230,000,000

1995 245,720,000 233,000,000

1996 268,000,000 233,000,000

1997 268,000,000 239,740,000

1998 246,000,000 242,000,000

1999 279,000,000 279,000,000

2000 312,000,000 280,900,000

2001 322,000,000 304,000,000

2002 310,000,000 310,406,000

2003 323,516,000 308,822,000

2004 335,000,000 328,400,000

2005 350,754,000 331,228,000

2006 331,228,000

 Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

 Figure 2.1 - EEOC Funding History (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from Table 2.1. 

 12 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, FY 2005 Performance Budget, February 2004, p. 4. 13 Ibid.
Staffing and Workload Analysis 

At no time during the past 11 years has Congress allocated the number of FTEs the 

President requested. Starting in 1994, the number of FTEs continuously declined 

and by 1998 EEOC had 10 percent fewer FTEs than in 1994 (see table 2.2). By 

2000, EEOC’s staff once again returned to its 1994 level; however, the number of 

actual FTEs has fluctuated in the past four years. In 2004, EEOC requested 2,720 

FTE’s and received 2,442, a 10 percent gap between requested and actual staff. 

According to EEOC, the hiring freeze imposed in 2001 remains in effect today.14

More than 50 percent of EEOC’s current workforce is eligible for retirement and it 

continues to lose high performing, front-line professionals without being able to 

replace them.15 

 Table 2.2 - EEOC Staffing History 

Fiscal year Requested Actual 

1994 3,000 2,832 

1995 3,020 2,813 

1996 3,219 2,676 

1997 3,022 2,586 

1998 2,680 2,544 

1999 2,748 2,593 

2000 2,946 2,852 

2001 3,055 2,704 

2002 3,055 2,783 

2003 2,720 2,617 

2004 2,720 2,442 

 Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

As a result of implementing the Priority Charge Handling Procedures (PCHP), EEOC 

has continued to complete more complaints thus reducing its backlog.16 Under the 

PCHP system, incoming charges are prioritized into three categories based on the 

likelihood that discrimination occurred. Between 1994 and 1996, EEOC received 15 

percent fewer private sector complaints, resolved 45 percent more complaints, and 

reduced its backlog 20 percent (see table 2.3). In 1997, EEOC resolved 106,312 

complaints, the most since 1994. Of the total complaints resolved in 1997, 61 

percent were “no cause” decisions, 28 percent administrative closures, and 11 

percent merit resolutions (see table 2.3). Between 1994 and 2004, EEOC reduced 

its private sector backlog 65 percent (see table 2.3). 

Between 1994 and 1996, the number of merit resolutions decreased from 11,100 to 9,430. 

Merit resolutions began increasing in 1997 and peaked at 19,938 in 2000. Between 2002 and 

2004, the total number of resolutions decreased partly as a result of fewer merit resolutions 

and no cause decisions (see table 2.4). After decreasing 22.3 percent between 2002 and 2003, 

the number of administrative closures increased slightly between 2003 and 2004 (see table 

 

14 Ibid. 

15 Ibid. 

16 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future – An Assessment of the U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Efforts, September 2000, pp. 118-19.
2.4). In 2004, EEOC resolved 85,259 cases of which 18.1 percent were merit resolutions, 

62.4 percent were no cause decisions, and 18.1 percent were administrative closures (see 

table 2.4). 

 Table 2.3 - EEOC Private Sector Enforcement 

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

received 

Complaints 

resolved 

Pending 

inventory 

1994 91,189 71,563 86,547 

1995 87,529 91,774 88,263 

1996 77,990 103,467 69,142 

1997 80,680 106,312 64,850 

1998 79,591 101,470 51,561 

1999 77,444 97,846 38,478 

2000 79,896 93,672 34,297 

2001 80,840 90,106 32,481 

2002 84,442 95,222 30,245 

2003 81,293 87,755 29,368 

2004 79,432 85,259 29,966 

 Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Table 2.4 - EEOC Resolutions 

Fiscal 

year 

Total 

resolutions 

Merit 

resolutions 

No cause 

decisions 

Administrative 

closures 

1994 71,563 11,100 

(15.5%) 

34,451 

(48.1%) 

26,012 

(36.3%) 

1995 91,744 10,921 

(11.9%) 

46,700 

(50.9%) 

34,153 

(37.2%) 

1996 103,467 9,430 

(9.1%) 

63,216 

(61.1%) 

30,821 

(29.8%) 

1997 106,312 11,668 

(11.0%) 

64,567 

(60.7) 

30,077 

(28.3) 

1998 101,470 12,558 

(12.4%) 

61,794 

(60.9%) 

27,118 

(26.7%) 

1999 97,846 16,102 

(16.5%) 

58,174 

(59.5) 

23,570 

(24.1%) 

2000 93,672 19,938 

(21.3%) 

54,578 

(58.3%) 

19,156 

(20.5) 

2001 90,106 19,908 

(21.1%) 

51,562 

(57.2%) 

18,636 

(20.7%) 

2002 95,222 19,075 

(20.0%) 

56,514 

(59.3%) 

19,633 

(20.6%) 

2003 87,755 17,134 

(19.55) 

55,359 

(63.15) 

15,262 

(17.4%) 

2004 85,259 16,661 

(19.5%) 

53,182 

(62.4%) 

15,416 

(18.1%) 

Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Workload demands continued to rise in the federal sector between 1994 and 2000 (see table 

2.5). The number of hearing receipts increased 30 percent and appeal receipts increased 26 

percent. Appeal receipts increased through 2001. Between 1994 and 1999, pending inventory 

increased dramatically each year reaching a six-year high of 24,356 in 1999, an increase of 

155 percent (see table 2.5). Since 2000, pending inventory has continuously declined (see 

table 2.5). Between 2003 and 2004, hearing receipts decreased nine percent and appeal 
receipts increased 11.3 percent. As a result, pending inventory decreased from 12,298 to 

9,609 or 21.9 percent (see table 2.5). 

Table 2.5 - EEOC Federal Sector Enforcement 

Fiscal 

year 

Hearing 

receipts 

Appeal 

receipts 

Total pending 

inventory 

1994 10,712 7,141 9,540 

1995 10,515 8,152 12,865 

1996 10,677 8,001 16,651 

1997 11,198 8,453 20,155 

1998 12,218 8,480 23,193 

1999 12,637 8,690 24,356 

2000 13,942 8,986 21,128 

2001 11,812 9,634 19,195 

2002 9,617 6,725 14,881 

2003 9,918 7,035 12,298 

2004 9,027 7,831 9,609 

 Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Strategic and Output Measures 

EEOC’s 2004-2009 Strategic Plan became effective on October 1, 2004. Because 

most of EEOC’s performance measures were newly implemented in 2004, several 

did not include the required activities that would allow EEOC to access results.17 Of 

the 24 long-term performance goals outlined in EEOC’s Strategic Plan and reported 

in its 2006 performance budget and 2004 PAR, 14 were met, six partially, and four 

unmet. EEOC considered targets as partially met if: (1) the agency completed at 

least half of the activities necessary to meet the measure’s goal, (2) the goal 

represented a two-year target, or (3) information was not yet available to assess 

results.18 The following four goals were not met: 

(1) By 2009, the general public rates their confidence in the EEOC’s enforcement of 

Federal equal employment laws at a certain percentage or higher. 

(2) By 2009, increase to 50 percent the percentage of Federal agencies that 

successfully implement the model EEO program attributed described in 

EEOC guidance. 

(3) By 2009, customers rate their confidence in EEOC’s services at a certain 

percentage or higher. 

(4) By 2009, ensure that at least 50 percent of Federal sector hearings will be 

resolved in 180 days or fewer. 

The first three goals were not met because they involved the use of surveys. 

Originally, EEOC had anticipated conducting surveys in 2004 to establish these 

 

17 EEOC’s Response to Funding Interrogatory, 2005, p. 2. 

18 Ibid. 
baseline and target values through 2009 so that it could begin measuring results. 

However, EEOC was required to balance many critical and competing priorities 

throughout 2004, which impeded its ability to conduct surveys.19 EEOC has initiated 

steps during the fiscal year that will help it complete surveys in 2005. With the survey 

information, EEOC plans to establish intermediate and final target goals and stay 

within its long-term frames for the measures that rely on surveys.20

The goal for hearing resolutions (#4 above) was not met because EEOC achieved a 

rate of 32.8 percent for 2004 and its target was 35 percent. According to EEOC, it 

did not meet its performance target because it focused on reducing the aged 

inventory and the inter-district transfer cases.21 In 2004, EEOC targeted the oldest 

cases in its inventory for resolution. Because of staffing considerations in its field 

offices, EEOC had to utilize complaint transfers to shift its workload. EEOC does not 

expect this to affect the achievement of long-term goals. For 2005 and 2006, EEOC 

has established performance targets as 38 and 40 percent, respectively.22

 

These goals will be achieved by using coordinated initiatives EEOC began in 2004 to 

provide substantive and operational support and oversight toward the resolution of 

hearings cases to help prepare decisions more expeditiously. EEOC plans to 

continue expanding the use of ADR to resolve complaints at the hearings stage. 

Finally, EEOC will make its Federal sector appellate legal tools available to assist 

administrative judges in processing hearings more efficiently. These tools make fully 

researched and computerized legal language available for inclusion in findings and 

decisions and make past decisions fully searchable on the agency-internal Intranet 

site. 

The number of complaints resolved, number of resolutions, number of administrative 

closures, and number of hearing and appeal receipts are other indices that EEOC 

uses to monitor its programs. Managers use this data to assess workload inputs and 

outputs, and the time requirements for processes. The data also enables managers 

to make decisions about resources.23 These indices help ensure that charge and 

complaint processes are implemented in an accurate, appropriate and fair manner, 

and that staff and other resources are deployed effectively and efficiently to ensure 

the quality and timeliness of charge processing, complaints and litigation. 

 

 

19 Ibid. 

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid, p. 3. 

22 Ibid. 

23 Ibid, p. 2. 
Chapter 3 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 

U.S. Department of Labor 

 

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was formed in 1965 as the 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance. In 1971 the word “Programs” was added to the title. 

In the late 1970’s the entire federal contact compliance program was consolidated under the 

Department of Labor (DOL). The Office is responsible for assuring that employers doing 

business with the federal government comply with the equal opportunity (EEO) and 

affirmative provisions of their contracts. OFCCP enforcement authority and responsibilities 

are encompassed in the following: 

• Executive Order 11246, as amended 

• Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 

• Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

• Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 

• Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

OFCCP asserts its authority through the following enforcement activities such as: (1) 

conducting compliance reviews and investigating complaints; (2) negotiating 

conciliation agreements and letters of commitment from contractors and 

subcontractors who are in violation of regulatory requirements; (3) monitoring 

contractor compliance and compliance reports; (4) forming links between contractors 

and DOL job training programs; (5) providing technical assistance to aid contractor 

understanding of and compliance with federal nondiscrimination requirements; and 

(6) recommending enforcement actions to the DOL Solicitor, its chief legal officer.24 

OFCCP’s jurisdiction covers approximately 26 million workers or nearly 22 percent of 

the total civilian workforce.25 OFCCP monitors contactors and subcontractors with a 

federal contract of $50,000 or more, and 50 or more employees. 

Budget Analysis

Over the past 12 years, in most instances Congress did not grant OFCCP the amount of 

funding the President requested. Only during 1994, 2002, and 2003 did Congress fund 

OFCCP above the President’s requested level (see table 3.1). These increases did not keep 

pace with inflation. After adjusting for inflation, the 2002 appropriation of $76 million was 

 

24 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, 

February 2001, p. 21. 

25 Bureau of National Affairs, “Remedies at OFCCP Totaled $34.5 Million in Fiscal 2004; An Increase of 

31 Percent,” Daily Labor Report, Nov. 19, 2004, p. A-3. 
worth $66.2 million and the 2003 appropriation of $78.0 million was worth $65 million (see 

table 3.1 and figure 3.1). 

Table 3.1 - OFCCP Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s

request 

Congressional 

appropriation

1994 $55,398,000 $56,443,000

1995 59,902,000 58,928,000

1996 63,831,000 56,851,000

1997 65,460,000 59,058,000

1998 68,728,000 62,271,000

1999 67,836,000 65,461,000

2000 76,417,000 73,250,000

2001 76,308,000 76,000,000

2002 76,000,000 77,701,000

2003 77,500,000 78,000,033

2004 80,000,000 79,441,513

2005 82,078,000 80,059,000

2006 Not Available

 Source: Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

 Figure 3.1 – OFCCP Funding History

 (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from table 3.1.

OFCCP has received increased funding each year since 1998, although the

increases have been successively smaller since 2000. Between 1999 and 2000, 

OFCCP’s funding increased 11.9 percent; between 2002 and 2003 OFCCP’s

funding increased only 0.7 percent. For 2004, OFCCP received $79.4 million in
funding, but after adjusting for inflation, its budget was worth $64.7 million (see table 

3.1 and figure 3.1). Between 2003 and 2004, OFCCP’s budget increased 1.8 

percent. In 2005, the President requested $82.1 million in funding but Congress 

granted 2.4 percent less. After adjusting for inflation, the 2005 Congressional 

appropriation is worth $63.6 million (see figure 3.1). 

OFCCP indicated that if it did not receive the amount of funding requested by the 

President, it could maintain current services and meet program goals through the 

use of strategies, among others, the following: (1) focus resources on federal 

contractor communities with recurring systemic discrimination indicators; (2) increase 

the use of statistics and statistical techniques; (3) continue to assess and measure 

the effectiveness of program activities; and (4) provide training for compliance 

officers to improve investigative skills.26 OFCCP also stated that if necessary, it 

would also initiate appropriate cutbacks in all discretionary spending including 

enforcement travel, eliminating cost duplication, and imposing a hiring freeze.27 

Staffing and Workload Analysis 

Between 1994 and 1997 OFCCP’s FTE level continuously declined from 785 to 712 staff 

members (see table 3.2). The number of FTEs peaked at 811 in 2000. Since then, OFCCP’s 

staffing level has decreased each successive year. In 2003, OFCCP’s FTE level stood at 707 

and in 2004 fell to 663, its lowest level in 11 years (see table 3.2). The number of staff for 

2003 is 10 percent below the FTE level in 1994. 

 

 Table 3.2 - OFCCP Staffing History 

Fiscal Year FTE Level 

1994 785 

1995 775 

1996 727 

1997 712 

1998 743 

1999 727 

2000 811 

2001 776 

2002 718 

2003 707 

2004 663 

 Source: Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

As OFCCP’s staffing level declined between 1994 and 1997, so did its work output. Between 

1994 and 1997, the number of complaints resolved decreased from 802 to 372. During the 

same period, pending complaint inventory also decreased and the number of compliance 

reviews performed decreased 10 percent (see table 3.3). 

 

26 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ Response to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Mar. 18, 2005, p. 1 (hereafter cited as OFCCP’s 

Response to Funding Interrogatory, 2005). 

27 Ibid. 
Table 3.3 - OFCCP Workload History 

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

resolved 

Pending 

inventory 

Compliance 

reviews 

1994 802 -- 4,179 

1995 566 368 3,9 91 

1996 473 282 3,476 

1997 372 265 3,750 

1998 294 350 5,707 

1999 313 284 5,875 

2000 306 268 6,672 

2001 279 207 7,175 

2002 297 78 6,494 

2003 279 250 7,709 

2004 194 145 6,529 

 Source: Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

Between 1998 and 2002, the number of complaints OFCCP resolved fluctuated 

between 294 and 313, but dramatically decreased between 2003 and 2004. In 2004, 

OFCCP resolved 30.5 percent fewer complaints than in 2003. OFCCP indicated that 

since ADA became effective in 1992, it has been receiving fewer complaints filed 

under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and Executive Order 11246, resulting in 

an overall decline in the number of complaints received.28 The decline in the number 

of complaints filed under the Order may be a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 

which approved compensatory and punitive damages as remedies for unlawful 

employment discrimination under Title VII. Individuals being discriminated against 

may be opting to file with the EEOC to obtain such remedies.29 Also between 2003 

and 2004, pending inventory declined 250 to 145, after increasing 221 percent 

between 2002 and 2003. 

Although the number of compliance reviews decreased from 7,709 to 6,529 between 

2003 and 2004, the smaller number of reviews covered more than 3 million 

workers.30 According to OFCCP, improved methodologies enabled it to target audits 

towards contractor facilities at which discrimination is most likely to occur. 

Consequently, the overall number of compliance reviews has decreased while 

overall performance has increased.31 

In 2004, OFCCP continued to focus workplace audits on finding and remedying 

systemic discrimination.32 So doing allows OFCCP to: 

 

28 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004, attachment, Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ Comments on “Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004,” June 

2003, p. 50. 

29 Ibid. 

30 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, “Improvement in OFCCP Begin to Pay Off As Agency Obtains $34,479,294 in Financial Remedies 

for 10,434 American Workers in Fiscal Year 2004,” p. 1(hereafter cited as OFCCP, “Improvements in OFCCP 

Begin to Pay Off.”) 

31 Ibid. 

32 Systemic refers to discrimination that impacts a large number of workers. 
• prioritize its enforcement resources for those individuals who allow 

discrimination to be their standard operating procedure or allow 

employment standards that are not legitimate to adversely impact a 

significant number of women or minority workers or job applicants. 

• encourage employers to engage in self audits of their employment 

practices, by increasing the consequences of not self auditing. 

• maximize its resources to protect the greatest number of workers from 

discrimination. 

 

• complement its compliance assistance strategy by assisting contractors 

who comply voluntarily.33

During 2004, OFCCP continued to conduct a large number of compliance 

evaluations, although the number of reviews decreased 15 percent from the previous 

year (see table 3.4). However, the 6,529 compliance evaluations conducted in 2004 

covered more than 3 million workers and aside from last year’s record, represented 

more reviews than any year since 1991.34 

 Table 3.4 - OFCCP Enforcement Litigation and Other Statistics 

Fiscal year 2002 2003 2004 

Enforcement Statistics 

 Financial remedies obtained $23,975,000 $26,220,356 $24,479,294 

 Workers in facilities subject to compliance evaluation 1,449,162 2,527,420 3,065,470 

 Corporate management reviews 42 52 50 

 Compliance reviews 6,494 7,709 6,529 

Enforcement Litigation 

 Estimated liability of filed systemic discrimination cases $2,363,241 $6,269,169 $6,760,445 

 Referred systemic discrimination cases 4 12 10 

 Source: Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

OFCCP also continued obtaining record amounts of financial remedies. Between 

2002 and 2004, the amount of financial remedies increased from $24.0 million to 

$34.5 million or 31 percent (see table 3.4). During 2004, the Solicitor’s Office filed 

enforcement litigation in 3 OFCCP systemic discrimination cases, with an estimated 

liability of more than $6.7 million.35 One of the cases filed by the Solicitor’s Office 

involved Dr. Pepper Bottling Company and was settled within the fiscal year. 

 

Corporate management reviews or glass ceiling audits ensure that women have 

equal opportunity to rise to management and executive positions. In 2004, OFCCP 

performed 50 such reviews recovering more than $17.9 million in financial remedies 

 

33 OFCCP, Improvements in OFCCP Begin to Pay Off, p. 1. 

34 Ibid. 

35 Ibid., p. 2. 
for 6,150 women.36 In 2003, OFCCP performed 52 corporate management 

reviews.37 The Solicitor successfully litigated a case against Wachovia, recovering $ 

5.5 million for 2,021 current and former females whom OFCCP alleged were 

unlawfully subjected to compensation discrimination.38

Strategic and Output Measures 

When determining the effectiveness of its program activities, and in conformance 

with the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), OFCCP evaluates 

two outcome goals: (1) reducing the occurrence of discrimination among federal 

contractors and (2) increasing compliance among federal contractors in all other 

respects of equal opportunity workplace standards.39

Internally, OFCCP also measures its effectiveness and efficiency by tracking: (1) the 

number of systemic discrimination cases resolved through settlement or referral to 

the Office of the Solicitor; (2) the number of systemic discrimination cases 

substantially developed; (3) the number of potential systemic discrimination cases 

identified; (4) the number of workers protected through financial settlements; (5) the 

number of corporate management reviews; and (6) the number of compliance 

assistance events.40 OFCCP establishes goals for each region and ties each to 

regional directors’ personal performance plans. 

The output goals OFCCP established for 2003 were also used in 2004. During 2004, 

OFCCP met the foregoing output goals. For example, OFCCP expressed a goal to 

resolve 46 systemic discrimination cases through settlement or referral to the Office 

of the Solicitor (see table 3.5). OFCCP actually resolved 56 such cases (see table 

3.5). Another goal was to protect 5,677 workers by obtaining financial settlements; 

OFCCP protected 10,434 workers. OFCCP nearly doubled the number of planned 

compliance assistance events. 

 Table 3.5 – OFCCP Performance Objectives 

Objective 

Performance 

target 

Actual 

performance 

2003 2004 

Systemic cases resolved 46 52 56 

Workers protected by systemic relief 5,677 14,361 10,434 

Systemic cases to resolve next year 57 72 10 

Systemic cases identified 94 147 56 

Compliance assistance events 535 964 1,002 

Corporate management reviews 47 52 50 

 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ Response 

 to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Apr. 23, 2004, p. 2; U.S. 

 

36 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Continues Strong Enforcement in Fiscal Year 

2003,” p. 2. 

37 Ibid. 

38 The case was originally filed against First Union National Bank and transferred to Wachovia when the two 

banks merged in June 2002. Ibid., pp. 2-3. 

39 OFCCP’s Response to Funding Interrogatory, 2005, p. 1. 

40 Ibid. 
 Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ Response to the U.S. 

 Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Mar. 18, 2005, p. 2. 

For 2005, OFCCP will use the same performance goals to measure effectiveness and 

efficiency that it used for 2003 and 2004. 
Chapter 4 

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

 

The Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) original responsibility was enforcing voting and criminal 

statutes. But, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and more recent laws and 

executive orders, the authority of CRD has greatly expanded. CRD has 10 subject-matter 

sections: the Appellate Section, the Coordination and Review Section, the Civil Rights 

Prosecution Section, the Educational Opportunities Section, the Employment Litigation 

Section, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, the Special Litigation Section, the 

Disability Rights Section, the Voting Rights Section, and the Office of Special Counsel. 

Budget Analysis 

Between 1994 and 2004, Congress has most often funded CRD below the level requested by 

the President. However, in 1994 and 1999, CRD received more funding than the President 

requested. In 1999, the President requested $71.6 in funding and Congress appropriated $77.3 

million, resulting in CRD receiving 8 percent more than the President requested (see table 

4.1). After adjusting for inflation, CRD’s 1999 funding level was worth $70.6 million (see 

figure 4.1). CRD received its largest increase in funding, 19 percent, between 1998 and 1999. 

 Table 4.1 - DOJ/CRD Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation 

1994 $59,000,000 $59,956,000 

1995 71,895,000 62,602,000 

1996 65,304,000 64,546,000 

1997 69,648,000 62,419,000 

1998 67,477,000 64,689,000 

1999 71,594,000 77,267,000 

2000 82,200,000 82,150,000 

2001 97,922,000 92,000,000 

2002 100,872,000 100,547,000 

2003 105,099,000 104,416,000 

2004 109,690,000 108,842,000 

2005 109,141,000 107,638,000 

2006 110,437,000 

 Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 

Between 2003 and 2004, CRD’s budget increased four percent, but after adjusting for 

inflation, the 2004 appropriation of $108.8 million is worth $89.4 million (see table 4.1 and 

figure 4.1). In 2005, after increasing for seven consecutive years, CRD’s budget decreased 

1.1 percent from the previous year (see table 4.1) For 2006, the President is requesting 

$110.4 million and if Congress grants the President’s request, CRD’s budget will increase 1.2
percent. However, after adjusting for inflation, CRD’s budget will be worth $86.0 million 

(see figure 4.1). 

 Figure 4.1 – DOJ/CRD Funding History (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from table 4.1.

Staffing and Workload Analysis 

As congressional appropriations increased between 1994 and 1996, CRD’s staffing levels 

increased 2 percent. When Congress decreased its budget 3 percent between 1996 and 1997,

CRD’s staff decreased commensurately, 3 percent from 579 in 1996 to 573 in 1997 (see table 

4.2). In 1999, CRD increased its FTEs to 589, and by 2000 the number of FTEs had 

increased 8 percent. Since 2000, CRD has continued to receive increases in the number of

FTEs, most significantly between 2000 and 2001. The smallest increase, less than one 

percent, in the number of FTEs occurred between 2003 and 2004. 

 
 Table 4.2 - CRD Staffing History 

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 568 

1995 579 

1996 579 

1997 573 

1998 573 

1999 589 

2000 639 

2001 713 

2002 744 

2003 750 

2004 755 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Disability Rights Enforcement 

The Disability Rights Section has enforcement responsibilities for Titles I and II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability in 

state and local government employment, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and 

the programs and services of state and local governments. The Section also has the 

responsibility to coordinate federal enforcement of statutes that prohibit discrimination on the 

basis of disability in programs that receive federal financial assistance. In FY 1995, when all 

disability-related coordination and enforcement responsibilities were transferred from the 

Coordination and Review Section, 66 FTEs handled the disability workload (see table 4.3). 

Table 4.3 - Disability Rights Staffing History 

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 48 

1995 66 

1996 69 

1997 69 

1998 69 

1999 73 

2000 81 

2001 92 

2002 97 

2003 97 

2004 97 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

DRS’ FTE level grew from 69 in 1996 to 97 in 2002, presenting a 40.6 percent increase in its 

staffing level (see table 4.3). During the same period, the number of ADA-related calls 

specialists received increased from 38,000 to 52,000. The number of successfully resolved 

mediations also increased from 76 in 1998 to 209 in 2000 (see table 4.4). The number of 

project civic access agreements increased 163.6 percent between 2000 and 2001 (see table 

4.4). 
 Table 4.4 - Disability Rights Section Workload History 

Fiscal 

year 

Mediations 

successfully 

resolved 

Project civic 

access 

agreements 

Hits on 

ADA.gov 

(in millions) 

ADA calls 

handled by 

specialists 

1997 NA NA 1.9 NA 

1998 76 NA 3.6 38,000 

1999 162 NA 6.0 43,000 

2000 209 11 11.0 47,000 

2001 136 29 17.0 52,000 

2002 202 12 22.0 52,000 

2003 209 12 25.0 52,000 

2004 170 39 29.3 47,200 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Since 2002, DRS’ FTE level has remained stagnant, while its workload has 

fluctuated (see tables 4.3 and 4.4). Between 2002 and 2004, specialist handled 9.2 

percent ewer ADA calls. In addition, the number of mediations successfully resolved 

increased slightly between 2002 and 2003 and then decreased from 209 in 2003 to 

170 in 2004 (see table 4.4). Although DRS’ workload decreased, the public still 

sought information from its website. Between 1997 and 2004, the number of visits to 

DRS’s ADA website increased from 1.9 million in 1997 to 29.3 million in 2004 (see 

table 4.4). 

Coordination and Review 

The Coordination and Review Section (CORS) coordinates the civil rights 

enforcement activities of other federal agencies. Among its many duties, the Section 

develops and assists other agencies in developing guidelines and regulations for 

civil rights enforcement. Throughout the 1990s, FTE levels declined from 32 to 19 

(see table 4.5). In 1996, the Commission concluded that CORS was “without the 

staff necessary to conduct an effective and comprehensive Title VI coordination and 

enforcement program.”41 In 2004, CORS had 21 FTEs who were responsible for 

enforcing Title VI and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This FTE level 

has remained stagnant since 2001. Between 1994 and 2004, CORS’ FTE level 

declined 34 percent. 

Table 4.5 - Coordination and Review 

Section Staffing History 

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 32 

1995 21 

1996 22 

1997 21 

1998 19 

1999 19 

2000 20 

2001 21 

2002 21 

 

41 U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 139. 
2003 21 

2004 21 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Voting Rights Enforcement 

The Voting Rights Section is responsible for bringing lawsuits to remedy alleged 

discriminatory actions in elections conducted in all jurisdictions and has the authority to 

commence civil action against any state or political subdivision that has imposed or 

applied a discriminatory device or procedure. It is responsible for enforcing Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act, under which nine states, mostly in the Deep South, as well as 

scattered counties and townships across the nation from California to New York, are 

required to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) before implementing any proposed 

electoral changes. 

Between 1994 and 1999, the Voting Rights Section’s FTE levels fluctuated, albeit minimally 

(see table 4.6). Between 2000 and 2002, the FTE levels increased from 92 to 109. The 2004 

FTE level remained unchanged from the two previous years. Since 1994, the number of FTEs 

has increased 24 percent. 

 Table 4.6 -Voting Rights Section 

 Staffing History 

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 88 

1995 86 

1996 86 

1997 86 

1998 85 

1999 86 

2000 92 

2001 104 

2002 109 

2003 109 

2004 109 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Civil Rights Prosecution 

 

The objective of the Civil Rights Prosecution Section is to reduce police and other official 

criminal misconduct and to eliminate or reduce violent activity by private citizens (including 

organized hate groups) against others because of their race, religion, national origin, or sex. 

To accomplish its objectives, the Section prosecutes cases of national significance involving 

the deprivation of personal liberties, which either cannot be, or are not, sufficiently addressed 

by State or local authorities. Its jurisdiction includes acts of racial violence, misconduct by 

local, State, or Federal law enforcement officials, violations of the peonage and involuntary 

servitude statutes that protect migrant workers and others held in bondage and violations of 

the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The Section ensures that complaints are 

reviewed on a timely basis for investigation and potential prosecution. 

In 1994, 49 FTEs were assigned to the Civil Rights Prosecution Section. The number of 

FTEs decreased to 47 in 1995 and remained at that level through 1997. Since 1998, the 

number of FTEs has continuously increased, and as of 2004 101 employees were assigned to 
the section. Since 1994, the Civil Rights Prosecution Section’s FTE level has increased 106 

percent (see table 4.7). 

 Table 4.7 - Civil Rights Prosecution 

Section Staffing History

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 49 

1995 47 

1996 47 

1997 47 

1998 54 

1999 61 

2000 71 

2001 85 

2002 95 

2003 101 

2004 101 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

In 1997, the Civil Rights Prosecution Section received 77 cases involving the deprivation of 

personal liberties, charged 189 individuals with various types of misconduct, and convicted 

117 individuals charged with a crime (see table 4.8). Over the next two years, although there 

was an increase in the number of cases filed, the numbers of individuals charged and 

convicted of misconduct declined (see table 4.8). 

Throughout the early 2000s, the number of cases filed fluctuated, as did the number of 

individuals charged and convicted (see table 4.8). In 2004, the Civil Rights Prosecution 

Section filed 25 percent more cases, charged 17 percent less individuals with a crime, and 

convicted five percent fewer individuals of misconduct. 

Table 4.8 - Civil Rights Prosecution Section Workload History 

Fiscal 

year 

Cases 

filed 

Individuals 

charged 

Convictions 

1997 77 189 117 

1998 79 153 166 

1999 89 138 98 

2000 84 122 112 

2001 93 191 119 

2002 76 125 124 

2003 63 125 104 

2004 96 156 111 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Fair Housing Enforcement 

The Fair Housing Section enforces federal fair housing laws that proscribe discrimination in 

housing, the provision of credit, and in places of public accommodation. The section 

investigates complaints and litigates cases under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In 1994, the 

Fair Housing Section had 89 FTEs dedicated to fighting housing discrimination. In 1995, the 

number of FTEs increased to 96, but beginning in 1997 the number of FTEs started 

decreasing, and by 1998 the section had 86 FTEs (table 4.9). 
Table 4.9 - Civil Rights Housing Section 

Staffing History 

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 89 

1995 96 

1996 95 

1997 93 

1998 86 

1999 91 

2000 91 

2001 95 

2002 95 

2003 95 

2004 95 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Between 1998 and 1999, the Fair Housing Section’s staff increased 6 percent, from 

86 to 91. The number of FTEs remained stagnant in 2000 and increased again in 

2001. Since 2001, the FTE level has remained at 95 (see table 4.9). 

Strategic and Output Measures 

CRD’s strategic goal is to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, and to 

protect vulnerable members of society. To implement this goal, the agency has established 

objectives under the criminal and civil programmatic areas. To assess its effectiveness within 

the criminal enforcement area, CRD measures the percentage of criminal cases favorably 

resolved. When evaluating its effectiveness within the civil enforcement area, CRD measures 

the percent of pattern or practices cases favorably resolved. 

Although CRD measures the number of investigations initiated and completed in the 

Disability Rights Section and the number of matters investigated by the Civil Rights 

Prosecution Section, these alone do not comprehensively gauge effectiveness. 

Furthermore, these workload categories are limited in that CRD does not report them 

in any of the Department plans, only in the Division’s case management system for 

distribution to senior division management quarterly.42

Two of CRD’s performance goals were the same as those used in 2003. For 2004, 

CRD established and met all three of its goals. One of CRD’s goals was to favorably 

resolve 80 percent of its criminal cases. CRD surpassed its goal by resolving 88 

percent of its criminal cases (see table 4.10). Another goal was to favorably resolve 

80 percent of its civil enforcement cases. CRD exceeded its performance target by 

resolving 90 percent of its civil cases (see table 4.10). CRD’s final goal was to 

favorably resolve 80 percent of its pattern or practice cases. CRD surpassed this 

goal by resolving 94 percent of its pattern or practice cases. For 2005, CRD will use 

these same performance goals.43 

 

42 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 

Interrogatory for Funding, Apr. 2, 2004, p. 2 (hereafter cited as CRD Funding Interrogatory). 43 Ibid. 
Table 4.10 – DOJ/CRD Performance Measures, 2003 and 2004 

Performance measures 

Performance 

target 

Actual 

performance 

Percentage of criminal cases favorably resolved 

 2003 87 95 

 2004 80 88 

 

Percentage of civil cases favorably resolved 

 2003 80 95 

 2004 80 90 

Percentage of pattern or practice cases favorably 

resolved 

 2003 NA 

 2004 94 

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division’s Response to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Apr. 2, 2004, p. 2; U.S. Department of 

Justice, Civil Rights Division’s Response to the U. S. Commission on Civil rights’ Interrogatory for 

Funding, Apr. 25, 2005, p. 2. 
Chapter 5 

 

Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

 

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

is responsible for carrying out civil rights for improving the health and well-being of all 

people affected by its many programs. OCR enforces statutes including Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination 

Act of 1975, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the community service 

requirements of Titles VI and XVI of the Public Health Service Act, provisions of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 relating to nondiscrimination in block grant 

programs, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Approximately 

230,000 group and institutional providers, including state agencies, are subject to the 

nondiscrimination laws that OCR enforces. 

Budget Analysis 

Between 1994 and 1999, OCR’s funding began decreasing and did not return to its 1994 level 

until 2000. However, in 2000, OCR’s congressional appropriation was only 1.7 percent more 

than the $22.2 million the President requested (see table 5.1). Although OCR received its 

largest increase in funding, 24.3 percent, between 2000 and 2001, the amount was not 

sufficient to keep pace with inflation. After adjusting for inflation, the 2001 appropriation of 

$28.0 million was worth $24.4 million (see table 5.1 and figure 5.1). 

 

Table 5.1 - HHS/OCR Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation 

1994 $22,182,000 $22,181,000 

1995 22,390,000 21,891,000 

1996 21,160,000 19,710,000 

1997 21,790,000 19,965,000 

1998 20,530,000 19,659,000 

1999 20,659,000 20,618,000 

2000 22,159,000 22,533,000 

2001 27,456,000 28,005,000 

2002 32,005,000 31,430,000 

2003 33,257,000 33,038,000 

2004 34,250,000 33,902,000 

2005 35,357,000 35,014,000 

2006 34,996,000 

 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. 
Since 2001, OCR’s funding has continued increasing, but the increases have become smaller

each year and the increases have not kept pace with inflation. For 2005, OCR received 27.8

million in funding, which is worth only $27.7 million after adjusting for inflation. Between

1994 and 2005, OCR’s budget increased by 57.9 percent. However, OCR’s current budget is

worth 27.9 million once adjustments for inflation are made (see figure 5.1). For 2006, if 

Congress grants the President’s request of $35 million, after adjusting for inflation OCRE 

will have buying power of $28.6 million (see table 5.1 and figure 5.1). 

 Figure 5.1 – HHS/OCR Funding History

 (in constant 1994 dollars)

 Source: Calculated from table 5.1. 

Staffing and Workload Analysis 

In the past 10 years, OCR has never received the level of staffing it has requested. 

In addition, OCRs staff decreased from 284 in 1994 to a low of 210 in 1999 (see

table 5.2). As a result, 26 percent fewer employees were available to perform its civil 

rights activities including complaint investigations, post-grant reviews and 

investigations, pre-grant reviews, monitoring and voluntary compliance reviews, and

outreach. By 2000, OCR’s staff returned to its 1998 level and has continued to

increase (see table 5.2). Between 2001 and 2002, OCR’s staff increased 10 percent, 

possibly in anticipation of an increased workload as a result Congress passing the

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).44 For 2004, OCR 

requested a staffing level of 267, but its actual level is 244 (table 5.2). 

 44 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) establishes for the first time, a foundation 

of Federal protections for the privacy of protected health information. HIPAA sets national standards to protect

individuals’ medical records and other personal health information. The Act gives patients more control over 

their health information; sets boundaries on the use and release of health records; establishes appropriate 

safeguards that health care providers and others must achieve to protect the privacy of health information; and

holds violators accountable, with civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed if they violate patients’ privacy
 Table 5.2 - HHS/OCR Staffing History

Fiscal 

year 

Requested 

staffing level

Actual 

staffing level

1994 297 284 

1995 297 259 

1996 276 242 

1997 274 232 

1998 242 216 

1999 232 210 

2000 225 215 

2001 259 223 

2002 273 246 

2003 267 244 

2004 267 244 

 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office for Civil Rights. 

 

 Table 5.3 - HHS/OCR Post-Grant Review and Investigation 

 Workload History 

 

Fiscal 

year 

New 

starts 

Total 

workload 

Pending 

inventory 

1994 203 256 46 

1995 122 168 36 

1996 181 217 60 

1997 328 388 90 

1998 301 391 164 

1999 287 451 181 

2000 317 498 276 

2001 137 413 250 

2002 140 390 264 

2003 41 305 302 

2004 13 315 222 

 Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. 

The decreasing staff level has dramatically affected OCR’s workload history. As staff levels 

fell between 1994 and 1999 OCR’s pending inventory rose exponentially, from 46 in 1994 to 

1,881 in 1999 (see tables 5.2 and 5.3). In 2000, OCR’s staff increased by five, but was still 

not enough to handle increased post-grant review and investigation inventory. Between 1999 

and 2000 OCR’s pending inventory escalated to 276, a 52.5 percent increase. Between 2001 

and 2003 OCR’s pending inventory increased 20.8 percent. After surpassing the 2000 level 

of 276, pending inventory declined to 222 in 2004 (see table 5.3). 

Between 1994 and 1998, OCR reduced the number of staff dedicated to complaint 

processing by 47.5 percent. In 1994, the complaint processing staff totaled 141 and 

by 1998 that number had dwindled to 74 (see table 5.4). The decrease in the 

complaint processing staffing level reflects the decrease in OCR’s complaint 

workload. OCR’s complaint receipts decreased from 2,222 in 1994 to 1,548 in 1998 

(see table 5.5). Between 1999 and 2002, the number of complaint receipts fluctuated 

 

rights. 
as did staff assigned to specifically handle complaints processing (see tables 5.5 

and 5.4). 

Table 5.4 - HHS/OCR Complaint 

Processing Staff History 

 Fiscal year Staffing level 

1994 141 

1995 145 

1996 129 

1997 84 

1998 74 

1999 79 

2000 74 

2001 83 

2002 90 

2003 94* 

2004 89* 

 *Excludes 28 FTEs dedicated to processing 

complaints alleging violations of the Health 

Information Portability and Accountability Act 

(HIPAA) Privacy Rule. 

Source: Department of Health and Human 

 Services, Office for Civil Rights. 

As a result of health care providers and businesses being required to comply with HIPAA by 

April 2003, OCR’s complaint workload continues to dramatically increase. In 2003, OCR’s 

staffing level increased to 94; however, this did not include the 28 FTEs dedicated to 

processing complaints alleging violations of HIPAA (see table 5.4). OCR’s complaint 

workload also increased. In 2003, OCR received 2,221 complaints but this increase does not 

reflect the 2,267 complaints received after the April 2003 HIPPA compliance date (see table 

5.5). The number of complaints OCR received in 2004 increased by 22.2 percent from the 

previous year. This increase does not reflect the 6,473 complaints alleging violation of 

HIPAA. 

 Table 5.5 - HHS/OCR Complaint Workload 

 History 

Fiscal year Complaints received 

 1994 2,222 

1995 2,094 

1996 1,827 

1997 1,741 

1998 1,548 

1999 1,950 

2000 2,185 

2001 2,148 

2002 1,948 

2003 2,221* 

2004 2,716** 

 *Excludes 2,267 complaints alleging violations of the HIPPA 

 Privacy Rule received on or after the compliance effective 

 date of April 14, 2003. **Excludes 6,473 complaints alleging 

 violations of the HIPPA Privacy Rule received during FY 2004. 

 Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Office 

 for Civil Rights. 
 

Strategic and Output Measures 

OCR measures its civil rights program’s effectiveness and efficiency as part of 

Results Act reporting. OCR has streamlined our measures into two major goals: first, 

to increase nondiscriminatory access and participation in HHS programs and protect 

the privacy of protected health information. This goal encompasses three program 

performance objectives: (1) to increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory 

quality health care and to protect the privacy of personally identifiable health 

information while protecting the integrity of HHS Federal financial assistance; (2) to 

increase access to and receipt of community-based services and nondiscriminatory 

treatment for persons with disabilities, while protecting the integrity of HHS Federal 

financial assistance. With respect to each of these objectives, OCR’s output 

measure is an increased number of corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, 

outreach, consultations, technical assistance and collaborative activities. 

The second OCR strategic goal is enhancing operational efficiency. This goal 

encompasses one program objective: to increase the efficiency of case processing. 

With respect to this objective, OCR’s output measure is the average age of all case 

closures. 

In its effort to evaluate program effectiveness, OCR also uses information about the 

number of initiated and completed post-grant reviews and complaint investigations. 

OCR measures “decreased average age of all case closures” to assess how 

efficiently staff are processing cases and the extent to which staff are able to resolve 

issues raised in these cases. In 2004, OCR’s goal was to close all cases within 255 

days, including pre-grant reviews, post-grant reviews, and investigations.45 OCR 

actually closes cases in 172 days on the average, exceeding its goal by 83 days. 

OCR committed and plans to continue to expend considerable energy to streamline 

case processing, and develop guidance for and training of investigators.46 

In 2004, OCR exceeded its output targets for each of the program performance objectives 

encompassed in the strategic goal to increase nondiscriminatory access and participation in 

HHS programs and protect the privacy of protected health information. The targets and 

accomplishments cited below envelop OCR’s work under its traditional civil rights 

authorities. 

With respect to the objective to increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory quality 

health care and treatment and protecting the privacy of personally identifiable health 

information, while protecting the integrity of HHS Federal financial assistance, OCR’s output 

goal for civil rights issues was 1,470 corrective actions, no violation findings, review, 

outreach, consultation, technical assistance and collaborative activities (see table 5.6). OCR 

exceeded this goal by 721. 

 

45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights’ Response to the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Mar. 4 2005, p 1. 

46 Ibid. 
With respect to the objective to increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory social 

services, while protecting the integrity of HHS Federal financial assistance, OCR’s output 

goal was 295 corrective actions, no violation findings, review, outreach, consultation, 

technical assistance and collaborative activities (see table 5.6). OCR’s actual performance of 

426 corrective actions, no violation findings, review, outreach, consultation, technical 

assistance and collaborative activities well exceeded this goal. 

With respect to the objective to increase access to and receipt of community-based services 

and nondiscriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities, while protecting the integrity 

of HHS Federal financial assistance, OCR’s output goal was 1,265 corrective actions, no 

violation findings, review, outreach, consultation, technical assistance and collaborative 

activities (see table 5.6). OCR’s actual performance of 1,474 corrective actions, no violation 

findings, review, outreach, consultation, technical assistance and collaborative activities 

exceeded this goal by 209. 

Finally, OCR also exceeded the output goal for the operational efficiency 

performance measure of decreased average age of all case closures. 

 Table 5.6 - HHS Performance Measures, 2003 to 2004 

Objectives/measures Performance 

targets 

Actual 

performance

Increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory quality health care 

 Corrective actions, no violation findings, review, outreach, 

 consultation, technical assistance and collaborative activities 

 2003 

 2004 

 

 770 

1,470 

 783 

2,191 

Increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory social services 

 Corrective actions, no violation findings, review, outreach, 

 consultation, technical assistance and collaborative activities 

 2003 

 2004 

614 

295 

617 

426 

Increase access to and receipt of community-based services and 

nondiscriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities 

 Corrective actions, no violation findings, review, outreach, 

 consultation, technical assistance and collaborative activities 

 2003 

 2004 

 258 

1,265 

 491 

1,474 

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights’ Response to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Feb. 10, 2004, pp. 1-3 and U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office for Civil Rights’ Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Mar. 4 2005, 

pp. 1-2. 
Chapter 6 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), 

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), and Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) 

 

FHEO 

Under the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, the Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) administers federal laws and establishes national 

policies designed to ensure that all Americans have equal access to housing of their choice. 

The following laws and executive orders extend fair housing enforcement powers to FHEO: 

• President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11063 relating to equal opportunity in federally 

financed housing 

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

• Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 196847

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

• Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 197448

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

• Housing and Community Development Act of 198749 

• Fair Housing Amendments Act of 198850

• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

• President Clinton’s Executive Order 1289251 

Budget Analysis 

The Bush Administration is focused on giving more Americans the opportunity to 

own their own homes, especially minority families. HUD is proposing several new or 

expanded initiatives for 2005 to continue efforts to make the home buying process 

 

47 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of 

dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

48 Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination in 

Community Development Block Grant Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. 49 The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 authorized the Public Housing Comprehensive 

Transition Demonstration, a program intended to move residents out of public housing and into their own homes. 50 Title VIII was amended in 1988 to expand the coverage of the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination 

based on disability or on familial status. 

51 Executive Order 12,892 requires HUD to coordinate certain fair housing efforts with executive departments 

and agencies. 
simpler, clearer and less expensive, and less likely to be targeted by predatory 

lenders. However, at no time during the past 12 years has FHEO’s congressional 

appropriation matched the President’s request. For example, in 1994 the President 

requested $51.1 million, but Congress appropriated $49.4 million (see table 6.1). In 

fact, congressional appropriation has been lower than the President’s request by as 

much as 34 percent. One demonstration of this is evident in 2003, when the 

President requested $70.0 million in funding, but Congress granted only $46.0 

million (see table 6.1). 

Table 6.1 - HUD/FHEO 

 (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation

1994 $51,080,000 $49,380,000 

1995 52,228,000 50,081,000 

1996 48,790,000 45,500,000 

1997 49,496,000 46,258,000 

1998 48,695,000 45,510,000 

1999 49,887,000 47,555,000 

2000 50,776,000 47,455,000 

2001 54,986,000 51,389,000 

2002 60,081,000 57,771,000 

2003 69,968,000 46,000,000 

2004 51,000,000 48,000,000 

2005 47,700,000 46,128,000 

2006 38,800,000 

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and Administrative 

Support Division. 

Between 2000 and 2003, the President consistently requested increased funding for 

FHEO (see table 6.1). Except for 2003, Congressional appropriations increased 

each year. However, these increases were not enough to keep pace with inflation. In 

2003, when Congress appropriated 34 percent less funding than in the previous 

year, after adjusting for inflation the $46.0 million was worth only $37.9 million (see 

table 6.1 and figure 6.1). 

Since 2004, the President has consistently requested less funding than in the 

previous year, at times by as much as 27 percent (see table 6.1). For example, in 

2004, the President requested 51 million in funding, which was nearly $19 million 

less than the 2003 request (see table 6.1). For 2005, the President requested $47.7 

million in funding, which is 6.7 percent less than the amount requested in 1994. 

Congressional appropriation, $46.1 million, was less than the President’s request 

and after adjusting for inflation was worth $36.6 million, well below the level of any 

previous year. The President is requesting $38.8 million for 2006. After adjusting for 

inflation, the President’s request will be worth only $30.2 million, which is 

significantly lower than its 1994 funding level. If Congress grants the President’s 

request for 2006, FHEO’s budget will be 15.9 percent lower than the previous year’s 

budget. However, after adjusting for inflation the budget will have decreased 17.5 

percent. 
 Figure 6.1 – HUD/FHEO Funding History

 (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from table 6.1.

Staffing and Workload Analysis 

Throughout the latter half of the 1990s and into 2000, FHEO’s FTE level 

continuously declined (see table 6.2). From 1994 to 2000, the number of FTEs 

decreased 22 percent. By 2001, the number of FTEs began increasing, and for 2003

the FTE level stood at 758, resulting in a 22 percent increase between 2001 and

2003. However, the number of FTEs declined again in 2004 and is significantly

lower, specifically 17 percent, than the previous year. The number of FTEs is also

significantly lower than in 1994 (see table 6.2). 

 Table 6.2 - HUD/FHEO Staffing 

 History

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 750

1995 727

1996 664

1997 643

1998 591

1999 592

2000 587

2001 608

2002 653
2003 758 

2004 620 

 Source: Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

As the number of staff decreased between 1994 and 2000, the number of Title VIII 

complaints FHEO received climbed. By 2000, FHEO reached its lowest FTE level, 

which corresponded with its largest number of complaints received (see table 6.2 

and 6.3). Most housing discrimination complaints are based on race or disability and 

most often allege discrimination in the terms and conditions of a housing transaction, 

refusal to rent, the refusal to make a reasonable accommodation and interference, 

coercion or intimidation due to filling a complaint.52 Since 2000, the number of 

complaints has been decreasing. FHEO received 27 percent fewer complaints in 

2003 than in 2002. It is noteworthy that previously FHEO estimated it would receive 

10,000 Title VIII complaints for 2003, but actually received only 5,532 (see table 

6.3).53 In 2004, FHEO received 9,187 Title VIII complaints. The number of FTEs has 

declined at a time when the number of complaints has increased. 

 Table 6.3 - HUD/FHEO Title VIII Complaint 

History 

Fiscal year Complaints received 

1994 9,524 

1995 8,187 

1996 10,945 

1997 10,227 

1998 10,266 

1999 10,836 

2000 11,218 

2001 8,252 

2002 7,557 

2003 5,532 

2004 9,187 

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Budget and Administrative Support Division. 

Between 1994 and 1998, the total number of program compliance complaints fluctuated for 

Title VI, Section 109, Section 504, and ADA. In 1998, Title VI and Section 504 complaints 

began rising, and consequently the total number of program complaints. Between 1999 and 

2000, the total number of program compliance complaints increased 93 percent overall as a 

result of a 93 percent increase in Title VI complaints and a 92 percent increase in Section 504 

complaints. At the same time, the number of Section 109 and ADA complaints also 

increased, but the increase was not as great as the increases for Title VI and Section 504 (see 

table 6.4). Since 2002, the number of program compliance complaints has increased, as has 

the number of Section 504 and ADA complaints (see table 6.4) During this time, Section 109 

complaints fluctuated (see table 6.4). In 2004, FHEO received 1,516 program compliance 

complaints of which 35.3 percent were Title VI, 4.6 percent were Section 109, 46.3 percent 

 

52 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Fair 

Housing News, Vol. 2, Issue 2, Winter 2004, p. 3. 53 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004, June 2003.
were Section 504, and 13.4 percent were ADA. In 2004 the staff decreased for the first time 

since 1997 and received 935 more complaints compared to the 2001 value. 

Table 6.4 - HUD/FHEO Program Compliance Complaints 

Fiscal year Title VI Section 109 Section 504 ADA Total 

1994 228 48 285 42 603 

1995 193 38 380 17 628 

1996 143 103 218 107 571 

1997 175 175 250 150 700 

1998 74 67 206 62 409 

1999 144 21 225 64 454 

2000 278 42 433 123 876 

2001 266 85 451 146 948 

2002 339 39 522 128 1,028 

2003 422 36 618 160 1,236 

2004 535 70 702 209 1,516 

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and Administrative Support Division. 

The total number of compliance reviews conducted peaked in 1997 and 1998, when 

FEHO conducted 100 Title VI reviews, 30 Section 109 reviews, 150 Section 504 

reviews, and 40 ADA reviews (see table 6.5). Between 1999 and 2002, FHEO 

continuously conducted fewer and fewer ADA compliance reviews, but more Section 

504 reviews. In 2004, FHEO conducted 180 compliance reviews, of which 41.4 

percent were title VI, 7.3 percent were Section 109, 51.3 percent were Section 504, 

and less than one percent were ADA (see table 6.5). 

Over the past 11 years, field offices have composed 74 to 81 percent of FHEO’s total staff. 

Headquarters staff began declining in 1996 and reached its lowest level of 115 in 1999 (see 

table 6.6). During the same period, field staff levels fluctuated (see table 6.6). For example, 

between 1997 and 1998 field FTEs decreased 4.4 percent; however, between 1998 and 1999 

Table 6.5 - HUD/FHEO Program Compliance Reviews 

Fiscal year Title VI Section 109 Section 504 ADA Total 

1994 21 2 34 0 57

1995 12 2 155 0 169

1996 51 6 121 10 188

1997 100 30 150 40 320

1998 100 30 150 40 320

1999 39 3 38 32 112

2000 45 0 47 28 120

2001 39 1 54 21 115

2002 56 5 84 6 151

2003 67 19 93 1 180

2004 76 14 98 3 191

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and Administrative 

Support Division. 
FTEs increased 4.8 percent. From 2000 to 2003 the number of field FTEs has increased 28 

percent and the number of headquarters FTEs has grown 22 percent. In 2003, field FTEs 

accounted for 79 percent of all FHEO FTEs. However, in 2004 both field FTEs and 

headquarters FTEs decreased 5.1 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively. 

Table 6.6 - HUD/FHEO Staffing History 

Fiscal year Field FTE Headquarters FTE 

1994 603 147 

1995 555 172 

1996 497 167 

1997 476 167 

1998 455 136 

1999 477 115 

2000 461 126 

2001 480 128 

2002 492 161 

2003 590 154 

2004 560 150 

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget 

and Administrative Support Division. 

 

Except in 1994, 1996 and 2004 the ratio of enforcement to compliance field staff has 

hovered around five to one. In 1996, for every program compliance FTE there were 

three fair housing enforcement FTEs. By 2004, for every one program compliance 

staff member, there were nearly five fair housing enforcement FTEs. In 2004, there 

were 225 fair housing enforcement FTEs, a decrease of 13.4 percent from the 

previous year. Between 2003 and 2004, the number of program compliance FTEs 

decreased less than one percent. 

Table 6.7 - HUD/FHEO Field FTE Staffing History 

Fiscal 

year 

Fair housing 

enforcement 

Program 

compliance 

1994 406 100 

1995 356 78 

1996 255 77 

1997 351 74 

1998 356 70 

1999 328 66 

2000 319 61 

2001 333 63 

2002 339 67 

2003 259.7 50.9 

2004 225 49.7 

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Budget and Administrative Support Division. 

FHAP and FHIP 

In addition to its enforcement responsibilities, FHEO administers two funding 

assistance programs: the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). FHAP provides financial assistance to 
supplement the enforcement activities for state and local enforcement agencies that 

have been certified as providing rights, remedies, procedures, and the availability of 

judicial review that are substantially equivalent to that provided in the Fair Housing 

Act. Although organizationally part of FHEO, these programs have separate funding. 

FHAP

Budget Analysis 

Between 1994 and 1997, congressional appropriation continuously increased from 

the previous year, but not enough to keep pace with inflation. For example, between 

1994 and 1997, congressional appropriation increased from $4.2 million to $15 

million (see table 6.8), or 231.9 percent. After adjusting for inflation, FHAP’s budget 

increased 211 percent. FHAP’s budget leveled off between 1997 and 1998, then 

decreased 15.4 percent between 1998 and 1999, although the President requested 

funding which would have resulted in an increase of 153 percent. 

In 2003, congressional appropriation of $25.4 million exactly matched the 

President’s request (see table 6.8). After adjusting for inflation, the 2003 

appropriation was worth $21.5 million (see figure 6.2). Congress appropriated $26.3 

million in funding for 2006; however, once inflation is taken into account, this level of 

funding is worth $21.5 million (see figure 6.2). If Congress grants the President’s 

request for 2006, FHAP’s funding level will decrease 16.1 percent from its 2005 

level. 

Table 6.8 – HUD/FHAP Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation 

1994 $ 4,519,000 $ 4,519,000 

1995 7,400,000 7,375,000 

1996 15,000,000 13,000,000 

1997 15,000,000 15,000,000 

1998 15,000,000 15,000,000 

1999 23,000,000 13,000,000 

2000 20,000,000 20,000,000 

2001 21,000,000 22,000,000 

2002 22,950,000 25,600,000 

2003 25,649,000 25,400,000 

2004 29,750,000 27,586,000 

2005 27,050,000 26,288,000 

2006 22,700,000 

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

Because Congress granted FHAP 2.8 percent less funding than the President requested, HUD 

reduced funding for technical assistance by $200,000.54 This money was to be used to assist 

 

54 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’s 

Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Feb. 14, 2005, p. 1. 
FHAP agencies with education and outreach and to coordinate their efforts. In addition, HUD 

cut $562,000 from its initiative to conduct testing and outreach in six cities to follow-up on 

the findings of HUD’s Housing Discrimination Study.

55 As a result, two fewer cities will

receive this targeted education and outreach. 

 Figure 6.2 – HUD/FHAP Funding History (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 Source: Calculated from table 6.8 

FHIP 

FHIP expends funds to help grantees provide assistance to individuals who believe they have

been victims of housing discrimination. FHIP grantees help individuals identify government 

agencies that can help, and conduct preliminary claims investigations, including sending

“testers” to properties suspected of practicing housing discrimination. FHIP also administers 

four programs that promote fair housing laws and equal housing opportunity awareness. 

Budget Analysis 

 

At no point between 1995 and 2005 did Congress meet the President’s request (see table 6.9). The 

President’s request and congressional appropriation were erratic during this time. For example, in 

1995 the President requested $23.0 million and Congress appropriated $26.0 million (table 6.9). 

In 1996, the President requested $30.0 million, but Congress reduced the amount 57 percent and

provided FHIP $17.0 million. After adjusting for inflation, the $17.0 million was worth $16.2 

million (see figure 6.3). 

 55 Ibid. 
For 2004, Congressional appropriation of $20.2 million matched the President’s request (see

table 6.9). In 2005, the President requested $20.65 million in funding for FHIP and Congress 

granted $19.8 million. Because Congress did not grant the President’s request, funding for 

FHIP’s Education and Outreach Initiatives will be decreased by $610,000.56 Fewer

organizations will receive funding under each of the following components: Asian 

American/Pacific Islander Component, Minority Serving Institutions Component, and the 

General Component. In addition, HUD reduced funding for Fair Housing Accessibility

FIRST by $200,000, which educates builders, architects, code officials, advocates, and others 

on how to design and construct accessible multifamily housing in compliance with the Fair 

Housing Act.57 

Table 6.9 - Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s

request 

Congressional 

apropriation 

1994 $16,900,000 $20,481,000

1995 23,000,000 26,000,000

1996 30,000,000 17,000,000

1997 17,000,000 15,000,000

1998 24,000,000 15,000,000

1999 29,000,000 22,000,000

2000 27,000,000 24,000,000

2001 29,000,000 24,000,000

2002 22,949,000 20,300,000

2003 22,050,000 20,050,000

2004 20,250,000 20,250,000

2005 20,650,000 19,840,000

2006 16,100,000

 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

 Figure 6.3 – HUD/FHIP Funding History

 (in constant 1994 dollars) 

 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 
 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Management, Planning and Budget. 

The President’s request for 2006 is lower than the amount requested in 1994 (see table 6.9). 

If Congress grants the President’s request, FHIP will receive its lowest level of funding since 

before 1994 (see table 6.9). And after adjusting for inflation, the $16.1 million in funding will 

be worth $12.5 million (see figure 6.3). 

Strategic and Output Measures 

In 2004, FHEO identified four goals: (1) to effectively address the challenge of 

homelessness; (2) to embrace high standards of ethics and management 

accountability; (3) to ensure equal opportunity and access to housing; and (4) to 

support community and economic development efforts.58 To fulfill these goals, FHEO 

identified 13 measurable outputs and met or surpassed nine of these goals.59 HUD 

considered the following four goals as being unmet, substantially achieved, or 

partially achieved: 

• No more than 25 percent of HUD’s Section 3 complaints were to be aged 

at the end of fiscal year. At the end of fiscal year 2004, 37 percent of the 

Section 3 complaints were aged.60 This goal was not met because of 

significant increases in Section 3 complaints due to education and 

outreach.61 Simultaneously, the office lost four staff members. With 

insufficient staff to handle the increased volume of complaints, the office 

concentrated on thoroughly investigating the complaints rather than 

closing them before they aged.62

• HUD was to conduct monitoring reviews of 195 FHIP grants and 100 

FHAP grants. During FY 2004, all 100 FHAP agencies were monitored 

and determined to be in full compliance with statutory requirements. HUD 

completed reviews of 204 FHIP grantees, exceeding its goal by four 

percent.63

• HUD was to complete a least 1,200 housing conciliation or settlement 

agreements in fiscal year 2004. HUD completed 1,057 or 88 percent of its 

goal.64 Although HUD attempts to conciliate every complaint, the parties 

are ultimately the individuals who make the decision as to whether or not 

enter into a settlement or conciliation agreement. Hence, HUD’s goal was 

 

58 Ibid. 59 Ibid., p. 2. 

60 Ibid. 

61 Ibid. 

62 Ibid. 

63 Ibid. 

64 Ibid., p. 3. 
not met because fewer parties than expected chose to enter into this 

resolution. Because this goal is beyond its control, HUD removed this goal 

from its 2005 output measures.65 

• Within FHAP, HUD set a goal to complete at least 2,150 fair housing 

conciliation/settlement agreements in fiscal year 2004. FHAP completed 

2,126 settlements or conciliation, meeting 98.8 percent of its goal.66 HUD 

considers this goal to be substantially achieved. 

 

FHEO identified seven measurable outputs for 2005 to evaluate it civil rights 

programs’ effectiveness and efficiency: 

• Monitor cooperative and grant agreements to ensure appropriate use of 

funds among FHIP and FHAP grantees. 

• Increase the number of fair housing complaints closed in 100 days to 75 

percent. 

• Increase the percentage of FHAP complaints closed in 100 days to 60 

percent. 

• Provide training at the National Fair Housing Training Academy to 600 fair 

housing investigators to ensure consistent, efficient, and effective 

investigations. 

• Using the 2004 level of conducted Title VI and/or Section 109 compliance 

reviews, conduct 2 percent more Title VI and/or Section 109 compliance 

reviews. 

 

• Conduct monitoring and compliance reviews or provide technical 

assistance to 40 housing authorities and other recipients of HUD direct 

financial assisted projects covered under Section 3. 

 

• Increase the percentage of Section 3 complaints closed in 120 days to 75 

percent.67

 

65 Ibid. 

66 Ibid. 

67 Ibid., 2-3. 
Chapter 7 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an independent, bi-partisan, fact-finding Federal 

agency, was established in 1957 to monitor and report on the status of civil rights in the 

nation. While it does not have enforcement power, it requires adequate funding to carry out 

its mission. 

Budget Analysis 

The Commission’s budget has remained stagnant since 1995 and flat since 2002 (see table 

7.1). Between 1994 and 2001, Congress has continuously funded the Commission below the 

President’s request (see table 7.1). However, between 2001 and 2002, the Commission’s 

budget increased 2.2 percent, from $8.9 million to $9.1 million. Since 2002, the 

Commission’s level of funding has not changed. 

Table 7.1 - U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Funding History (in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation 

1994 $7,923,000 $7,776,000 

1995 19,022,000 9,000,000 

1996 11,400,000 8,750,000 

1997 11,400,000 8,740,000 

1998 11,000,000 8,740,000 

1999 11,000,000 8,900,000 

2000 11,000,000 8,900,000 

2001 11,000,000 8,900,000 

2002 9,096,000 9,096,000 

2003 9,575,000 9,096,000 

2004 9,096,000 9,096,000 

2005 9,096,000 9,096,000 

2006 9,096,000 

 Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

Inflation has absorbed any increases in the Commission’s budget. After adjusting 

for inflation, between 1995 and 2001, the Commission’s budget slowly 

decreased, from $8.8 million to $7.7 million. Since 2003, once inflation is taken 

into account, each year the Commission’s $9.1 million budget is worth less (see 

figure 7.1). For 2006, if Congress grants the President’s request, the 

Commission’s budget will have decreased by nine percent since 1994. In 1994, 

the Commission’s budget was worth $7.8 million and for 2006 the Congressional 

appropriation will be worth $7.1 million (see figure 7.1). 
 

Figure 7.1 - U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

Source: Calculated from table 7.1.

Decreasing and/or level funding over the past decade has forced the Commission to 

curtail some of its responsibilities. For example, the Commission’s monitoring

program was once funded with a $1 million budget and a staff of 13 dedicated solely

to that function.68 In 2002, both functions were carried out by one office with 11

employees.69 Today, both functions continue to be carried out by one office, but the

number of employees has declined to 8.

 68 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil 

Rights Recommendations? Volume II: An Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, and 

Transportation, September 2002, p. 4. 69 Ibid. 
Conclusion 

This report updates and presents the President’s requests, congressional appropriations, 

staffing and workload levels, and strategic and output measures of six principal civil 

rights agencies. Funding levels are also presented for the Commission. Funding, or the 

lack of it, affects how agencies carry out their civil rights responsibilities. Inadequate 

funding results in stagnant or decreasing staffing levels, restricts the types and amounts of 

compliance activities an agency can perform, and may hinder an agency from sufficiently 

exercising their enforcement authority. Ultimately, however, agencies must be evaluated 

based upon results. 

For 2005, although the President requested increased funding for five civil rights 

enforcement agencies, Congress appropriated increases for four agencies. HHS’ budget 

increased 3.2 percent with other agencies receiving smaller increases of one percent or 

less. Of the agencies receiving decreased funding, HUD’s programs experienced the 

largest decreases. For 2006, DOJ is the only agency for which the President is requesting 

increased funding. 

Inflation diminishes the actual worth of an agency’s budget. After adjusting for inflation, 

all agencies, except HHS, received decreased funding for 2005, and even its increase was 

small, less than one percent. HUD’s programs received the largest decreases in funding, 

its FHAP receiving seven percent less in 2005 than 2004. 

After adjusting for inflation, the President is requesting decreased funding for all 

agencies in 2006. If Congress grants the President’s request, DOJ will be the only agency 

to receive less than a one percent decrease in funding. When agencies do not receive the 

amount of funding they request, they must find a way to do more with less. For example, 

with salaries absorbing the bulk of agency budgets, HUD/FHAP will be forced to reduce 

funding for technical assistance and conduct testing and outreach in fewer cities. 

All agencies in this report track inputs and output indicators that measure 

program success; however, they show great variation in how they apply the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 to civil rights 

enforcement. While all of the agencies establish GPRA goals, those that are civil 

rights related vary in number and specificity. For example, EEOC uses 24 goals 

to measure its success while OFCCP uses six goals. DOJ has one overall goal, 

but uses numerous objectives/indicators to meet that goal. Nearly all agencies 

use their complaints workload to gauge effectiveness in achieving results. For 

2004, all agencies except EEOC and FHEO met all of their goals. Some 

agencies, such as DOEd, far exceeded many targets. For example, DOEd set a 

target of resolving 80 percent of its complaints within 180 days of receipt, but 

actually resolved 92 percent. HHS set a goal to close all cases within 255 days 

and actually did so in 83 fewer days. Of those which fell short, EEOC met only 14 

of its 24 goals; FHEO identified 13 and met six. Agencies unable to meet their 

goals most often cited competing priorities, including limited staffing, as the 

reason. Variation in how agencies express strategies renders comparisons 
difficult. Furthermore, this report did not attempt to test the quality of evaluation 

factors agencies set for themselves. For example, some agencies express goals 

to process certain numbers of complaints, yet maintain perennial unresolved 

inventories. Conversely some, such as OFCCP, exceed goals by such high 

margins as to suggest targets were set too low. 
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Washington, DC 20425 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300