U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

September 2004 

FUNDING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT: 2005
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

Mary Frances Berry, Chairperson

Cruz Reynoso, Vice Chairperson

Jennifer C. Braceras 

Christopher Edley, Jr. 

Peter N. Kirsanow 

Elsie M. Meeks 

Russell G. Redenbaugh 

Abigail Thernstrom

Les Jin, 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 
FUNDING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT: 2005 
Acknowledgments 

This report was produced under the direction of Terri A. Dickerson, assistant staff director

for civil rights evaluation. The report was prepared by Margaret Butler, civil rights analyst.

Teresa Brooks provided assistance. Dawn Sweet,* editor, helped prepare the report for publication, and Dorothy Pearson-Canty provided duplicating services. 

* No longer with the Commission.

ii 
Contents 

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1

Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................2 

Analysis.................................................................................................................................3 

1. Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education...................................................6

Budget Analysis.....................................................................................................................6 

Staffing and Workload Analysis............................................................................................7 

Strategic and Output Measures..............................................................................................9 

2. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission......................................................11

Budget Analysis...................................................................................................................11 

Staffing and Workload Analysis..........................................................................................12 

Strategic and Output Measures............................................................................................15 

3. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor..........17

Budget Analysis...................................................................................................................17 

Staffing and Workload Analysis..........................................................................................18 

Strategic and Output Measures............................................................................................21 

4. Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice........................................................23

Budget Analysis...................................................................................................................23 

Staffing and Workload Analysis..........................................................................................24 

Disability Rights Enforcement ........................................................................................25 

Coordination and Review................................................................................................26 

Voting Rights Enforcement.............................................................................................27 

Civil Rights Prosecution..................................................................................................27 

Fair Housing Enforcement ..............................................................................................28 

Strategic and Output Measures............................................................................................29 

5. Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ...................31

Budget Analysis...................................................................................................................31 

Staffing and Workload Analysis..........................................................................................33 

Strategic and Output Measures............................................................................................35 

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)...............................................................................38

FHEO...................................................................................................................................38 

Budget Analysis ..............................................................................................................39

Staffing and Workload Analysis .....................................................................................40

FHAP...................................................................................................................................44 

Budget Analysis ..............................................................................................................44

FHIP ....................................................................................................................................45 

Budget Analysis ..............................................................................................................45

Strategic and Output Measures............................................................................................47 

iii 
Introduction 

The year 2004 marks 40 years since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 50 

years since the two historic Brown v. Board of Education cases,1

 which ordered Southern

schools to integrate “with all deliberate speed.” In recognition of the anniversaries, Americans are gathering to take stock of how much has been accomplished, and how much yet 

must be done to ensure equality for all. The Commission’s recent studies have demonstrated,

for example, that many Native Americans continue to live in substandard conditions and suffer higher rates of poverty, lower levels of educational attainment, and higher rates of health

care problems;2

 impediments to enforcing voting rights still exist;

3

 and federal agencies given 

the authority and responsibility to enforce the laws to protect the civil rights of individuals

often fail at their civil rights obligations.4

 It is thus imperative that agencies charged with enforcing the laws that protect civil rights posses sufficient funding to do so. The Commission’s

Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE), over a period of years, has reviewed data relevant 

to civil rights enforcement funding, staffing, and workload levels. This year, OCRE analyzed

data representing fiscal years5

 1994 to 2005 for: 

 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 Assistance Program 

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

OCRE also analyzed each agency’s civil rights goals and output evaluation factors for 2003 

and 2004. 

 

1

 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education, 39 U.S. 294 (1955). The 

1954 case is referred to as Brown I and the 1955 case is often referred to as Brown II. Brown II was necessary

because the courts could not agree on a remedy as it related to Brown I. See Harrell R. Rodgers, Jr., and Charles 

S. Bullock, III, “Law and Social Change: Civil Rights Laws and Their Consequences,” 1972, p. 70. 2

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country, July 

2003.

3

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Election Reform: An Analysis of Proposals and the Commission’s Recommendations for Improving America’s Election Systems, November 2001. 4

 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; Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations—Volume III: 

An Evaluation of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Small Business Administration, September 2003. 5

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

begins October 1 and ends September 30.

1 
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 are:

 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 

 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 2005, as well as the funding levels appropriated by Congress in response to the Presidents’ requests. The Office of Civil Rights Evaluation documented the changes in workload and staffing levels of the six civil rights agencies.

To do so, it requested from each agency budget and workload data as well as information on 

outputs and goals. The information in this report is based on documents and data that the 

agencies provided in response to interrogatories and requests. 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. 

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 2005, 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 re2 
port, its 2002 Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000–2003 report, and its 2003

Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004 report. 

Analysis 

Funding is an important part of presidential policy-making and also an indicator of government commitment to civil rights.6

 While the President may make his priorities known in his 

requests, Congress ultimately determines how much will be appropriated. With adequate

funding and resources, civil rights agencies can execute and strengthen their enforcement 

programs by (1) efficiently and expeditiously processing complaints; (2) providing necessary 

education and outreach and technical assistance; (3) updating and issuing policy guidance as 

needed; (4) conducting more compliance reviews; and (5) providing staff training. Agencies 

are hindered from enforcing laws against discrimination when they do not have adequate resources. 

To improve the internal working of the federal government, GOP legislators with bipartisan

support, initiated the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in 1993 and now 

require agencies to submit plans along with budget requests. Among other things, agency

plans must include: (1) which performance goals they will pursue and (2) how they will 

measure progress. Agencies must also prepare performance reports on progress made during 

the previous year, including explanations for unmet goals. Since GPRA requires a direct 

linkage between performance reports and an agency’s budget request, Congress can ultimately use GPRA as a tool to determine an agency’s appropriation. 

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 each of its reports, the Commission concluded that inadequate funding has hindered most of these agencies from sufficiently exercising their civil rights authority.

7

 

For 2005, after accounting for inflation, the President’s request amounts to increases for three 

civil rights enforcement agencies, which includes one of HUD’s programs.8

 Of the six agencies, the President requested the largest increase for EEOC, 3 percent, followed by HUD/FHIP 

for which the President requested a 2 percent increase. The President’s largest request for decreased funding is a 10.6 percent reduction for HUD/FHAP (see Summary Table 1).

 

6

 Steven A. Schull, American Civil Rights Policy from Truman to Clinton—The Role of Presidential Leadership, 

1999, p. 104.

7

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

Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001; Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000–

2003, April 2002; Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004, June 2003. 8

 HUD’s FHAP and FHIP programs are evaluated separately in this study.

3 
Summary Table 1—Civil Rights Enforcement Funding, FY 2003–2005 

(1994 inflation-adjusted dollars) 

Civil rights 

enforcement agency

President’s 

request 

Congressional 

appropriation

FY 2003–2004 change

DOEd ↓ 0.1% ↑ 1.3%

EEOC ↑ 4.4% ↑ 2.2%

OFCCP ↑ 1.2% 0.0% 

DOJ/CRD ↑ 2.4% ↑ 2.3%

HHS ↑ 0.7% ↑ 1.1%

HUD/FHEO ↑ 2.6% ↓ 28.3%

HUD/FHAP ↑ 6.0% ↑ 13.9%

HUD/FHIP ↓ 0.6% ↓ 9.7%

FY 2004–2005 change

DOEd ↓ 0.1%

EEOC ↑ 3.0%

OFCCP ↑ 0.9% 

DOJ/CRD ↓ 2.1%

HHS ↑ 1.4%

HUD/FHEO ↓ 8.1%

HUD/FHAP ↓ 10.6%

HUD/FHIP ↑ 2.0%

For 2004, President Bush requested budget increases for six civil rights enforcement offices, which includes HUD’s FHEO program, but not DOEd and HUD’s FHIP (see Summary Table 1).

Furthermore: 

 Since 1994, DOEd/OCR’s budget, in actual dollars, has increased 56.1 percent. But 

after adjusting for inflation, the agency realized a 28 percent increase during that period. For each fiscal year between 1994 and 2004, had Congress appropriated the 

President’s request, DOEd/OCR’s budget would have increased 61.3 percent, 32.7 

percent after adjusting for inflation. Between 1994 and 2003, OCR’s full-timeequivalent staff (FTE) level decreased 20.3 percent and the number of initiated compliance reviews decreased 48.6 percent. The number of backlogged complaints is

now lower than the 1994 level. 

 Between 1994 and 2004, congressional appropriations for EEOC increased 42.8 percent. After adjusting for inflation, EEOC’s budget has increased only 17.5 percent in 

the past nine years. If Congress meets the President’s request for 2005, EEOC’s 

budget would have increased 52.5 percent in actual dollars, and 23.3 percent in real 

spending power between 1994 and 2005. After decreasing to a low of 2,544 in 1998,

the number of FTEs now stands at 2,617, which is nearly 8 percent less than the 1994

level. EEOC’s private sector pending inventory decreased 66.1 percent, from 86,547 

in 1994 to 29,368 in 2003. Pending inventory for federal sector enforcement after in4 
creasing from 1994 through 1999, has continuously declined. The majority of 

EEOC’s total resolutions continue to fall under the no cause decision category.

 Since 1994, OFCCP’s budget has increased 40.7 percent. But once inflation is taken

into account, this increase amounts to 16 percent. Had the President’s requests been 

met between 1994 and 2004, OFCCP would have received an increase of 44.4 percent, which would have represented an 18.8 percent increase after adjusting for inflation. Between 1994 and 1997, the number of FTEs declined, as did the number of

resolved complaints and compliance reviews. 

 Of the federal agencies reviewed in this report, DOJ/CRD received the largest percentage budget increase over the past 11 years. Between 1994 and 2004, the division’s

budget grew 81.5 percent, 49.2 percent after adjusting for inflation. Between 1994 and

2004, if Congress had approved funding based on the President’s request, DOJ/CRD’s

budget would have grown 86 percent in actual dollars and 52.9 percent in real dollars.

Between 1994 and 2003, CRD’s FTE level increased 32 percent, with all its sections, 

except for the Coordination and Review Section, receiving additional staff. 

 Between 1994 and 2004, congressional appropriations for HHS/OCR increased 52.8

percent in actual dollars, 25.7 percent after adjusting for inflation. Had the President’s 

requests been met between 1994 and 2004, HHS/OCR’s budget would have increased

54.4 percent in actual dollars and 27 percent in real dollars. In 2003, OCR had fewer 

staff (244 FTEs) than in 1994 (284 FTEs). After decreasing between 2000 and 2002, 

pending inventory of post-grant reviews and investigations increased 10 percent between 2002 and 2003. 

 For 11 consecutive years, Congress has appropriated less than the President requested 

for HUD/FHEO. Between 1994 and 2004, congressional appropriations for FHEO

decreased 2.8 percent. After adjusting for inflation, FHEO realized a huge 20 percent 

decrease in its budget. Even if Congress had granted the President’s request between

1994 and 2004, FHEO would still have received decreased funding. The President’s 

request would have amounted to a decrease in funding of 0.2 percent, and after adjusting for inflation FHEO’s spending power would have been reduced 17.8 percent. 

The number of FTEs dedicated solely to complaint processing continuously increased

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 2003. 

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

past 10 years. Between 1994 and 2004, FHAP’s budget increased 514.1 percent. As 

for real spending, the budget has grown 406.7 percent. 

 Unlike FHAP, between 1994 and 2004, FHIP’s budget decreased 1.1 percent in actual dollars and 18.5 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 

2004, FHIP’s budget would have increased 19.8 percent in actual dollars, but decreased 1.2 percent in real spending power. 

5 
Chapter 1 

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

The Department of Education’s (DOEd) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing the following 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 

 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 $55.3 million, 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 $– 

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

6 
Beginning in 1998, congressional appropriations began to increase steadily, 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 2003 OCR received 

funding of $85.7 million, but after adjusting for inflation the amount was worth $71.8 million 

(see table 1.1 and figure 1.1). 

Figure 1.1—DOEd/OCR Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

68.1 72.7

56.6

63.4 66.1

56.8 52.8 51.4 57.0 60.3 71.8

75.0

56.6

60.0 59.9

56.2 57.0

62.1

65.2 66.1 68.4

75.2 75.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 1.1.

Between 2003 and 2004, OCR’s budget increased 3 percent, from $85.7 million to $88.3 million. After adjusting for inflation, the $88.3 million was worth $72.7 million. For 2005, the 

President is requesting $92.8 million, which is only 1.7 percent more than the level requested

in 2004 (see table 1.1). If Congress grants the President’s request, after adjusting for inflation 

OCR will receive $75 million. Based on the amounts of funding Presidents have requested 

between 1994 and 2005, and if honored, OCR’s budget would have increased $36.2 million,

$18.4 million after adjusting for inflation. 

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. The largest annual 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. The 2003 level was 654 FTEs,

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, and other en7 
forcement activities. At no time during the past 11 years has the number of full-time employees returned to the 1994 level. When asked what effect staff decreases had on OCR’s ability

to fulfill its mission, agency officials said none but could not elaborate as to how the office 

carried out its duties given the 6 percent staff reduction between 2002 and 2003.1

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

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 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.2

 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. 

In 2003, OCR received 5,128 complaints of which 5,225 were resolved (see table 1.3). 

 

1

 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 (forthcoming), September 2004 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Ten-Year Check-Up, Vol. IV). 2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Department of Education: Resolving Discrimination Complaints Has Improved with New Processing System,” Mar. 23, 1999. 

8 
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

*1,614 of these complaints were filed by a single complainant. 

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

As OCR’s backlog of complaints 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. OCR initiated fewer compliance reviews

between 1998 and 2002 due to an increased monitoring workload.3

 With the number of complaints rising, OCR cut back the number of compliance reviews initiated; however, the number

is again rising. In 2003, OCR initiated 74 compliance reviews (see table 1.4). 

Table 1.4—DOEd/OCR Compliance Workload

Fiscal 

year 

Compliance reviews 

initiated 

1994 144

1995 196 

1996 146

1997 152

1998 102

1999 176 

2000 147 

2001 121 

2002 111 

2003 174 

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

Strategic and Output Measures 

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 self-evaluation and also in the annual budget request to OMB. OMB and 

Congress measure OCR’s effectiveness by reviewing its ability to reach certain targets.

OCR’s goal is to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence 

 

3

 USCCR, Ten-Year Check-Up, Vol. IV.

9 
throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. To meet that goal,

OCR pursues two objectives: (1) to eliminate discriminatory educational practices within

schools and (2) to obtain results through efficient management of civil rights compliance activities. OCR will use the same GPRA measures in FY 2004 that it used in FY 2003.4

To evaluate its goal to eliminate discriminatory educational practices within schools, OCR 

measures (1) the percentage of technical assistance it provides to recipients5

 and (2) the percentage of technical assistance it provides to parents. For 2003, OCR established a performance target that 50 percent of its technical assistance materials would help recipients identify 

and fulfill federal civil rights obligations. OCR’s actual performance of 76 percent exceeded 

its target. OCR also set a performance target that 20 percent of its materials would assist parents in understanding recipients’ federal civil rights obligations; OCR’s actual performance 

was 40 percent.6

 

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 2003, OCR exceeded its performance target of resolving 80 percent of its complaints within 180 days. According to OCR, in 2003, 91 percent of 

complaints were resolved within 180 days of receipt.7

 

4

 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Feb. 20, 2004, pp. 1–2 (hereafter cited as DOEd Funding Interrogatory). 5

 A recipient is a state or its political subdivision, instrumentally of a state or its subdivision, trust territory, public or private agency, institution, organization, or other entity, or person to which federal assistance is extended. 6

 DOEd Funding Interrogatory, p. 1. 7

 Ibid., p. 21.

10 
Chapter 2 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

The Equal Employment 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, D.C., 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, but its budget has not always increased to accommodate its

workload. 

Budget Analysis 

Only twice between 1994 and 2004 did Congress match or exceed the President’s request for 

funding, in 1999 and 2002. During the other years, the congressional appropriation was less 

than the level requested by the President by as much as 13 percent. In 2002, the President’s 

request was $310.0 million and Congress appropriated $310.4 million. The congressional appropriation was not enough to keep pace with inflation and, as a result, was worth $265.5 

million (see table 2.1). 

Although the congressional appropriation was often less than the President’s request between 

1994 and 2002, EEOC received increased funding each year, except for 1996 when it was flat 

funded. In 2003, EEOC received $308.8 million, a 5.0 percent decrease from its 2002 appropriation of $310.4 million. The 2003 appropriation was worth $258.8 million after adjusting

for inflation (see figure 2.1). In 2004, EEOC’s congressional appropriation increased from 

$308.8 million to $328.4 million or by 6.3 percent. The President is requesting $350.7 million in funding for 2005. If Congress grants the President’s request, after adjusting for inflation EEOC’s budget will be worth $283.6 million (see table 2.1 and figure 2.1). 

11 
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 $– 

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Figure 2.1—EEOC Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

224.3 254.8 224.5

227.4 222.4 250.1 264.4

230.0 265.5 258.8 270.2

265.1 271.1

277.7 280.1

254.8

228.0

255.8 250.9 239.8 234.8

275.6 283.6

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 2.1.

Staffing and Workload Analysis

During the last half of the 1990s, EEOC’s actual FTE level had decreased and reached its

lowest in 1998. Between 1994 and 1998, EEOC’s FTEs declined 10.2 percent. At no time 

within the past 10 years has EEOC been given the number of FTEs that it has requested. For 

12 
example, during 1996 EEOC requested 3,219 FTEs, but the actual number of FTEs for that 

year was 2,676, which resulted in a 17 percent gap between requested and actual staff. The 

gap was not as great in other years. In 2000, EEOC requested 2,946 FTE but received 2,852, 

resulting in a 3.2 percent difference between requested and actual staff (see table 2.2). 

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

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

By 2000, EEOC’s staff had once again returned to its 1994 level. However, staffing has fluctuated in the past three years. In 2003, EEOC’s actual staffing level of 2,617 was nearly 4 

percent less than the requested 2,720, and the actual level had decreased 6 percent from the 

previous year (see table 2.2). 

 

Table 2.3—EEOC Private Sector Enforcement 

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

received 

Complaints 

resolved

Pending 

inventory

1994 91,189 171,563 86,547

1995 87,529 191,774 88,263

1996 77,990 103,467 69,142

1997 80,680 106,312 64,850

1998 79,591 101,470 51,561

1999 77,444 197,846 38,478

2000 79,896 193,672 34,297

2001 80,840 190,106 32,481

2002 84,442 195,222 30,245

2003 81,293 187,755 29,368

Source: U.S. 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.1

 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. In 1997, 

 

1

 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.

13 
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. Between 1994 and 2003, EEOC reduced its backlog 66 percent (see table 

2.3). 

Between 1994 and 1996, the number of merit resolutions decreased from 11,100 in 1994 to

9,430 in 1996. Merit resolutions began increasing in 1997 and peaked at 19,938 in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003, as the total number of resolutions fluctuated, the numbers of merit 

resolutions and no cause decisions continued to decrease. In 2003, EEOC resolved 87,755 

cases of which 19.5 percent were merit resolutions, 63.1 percent were no cause decisions, and 

17.4 percent were administrative closures (see table 2.4). 

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

(19.5%) 

55,359 

(63.1%) 

15,262 

(17.4%) 

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Workload demands continued to rise in the federal sector between 1994 and 2000. The number of hearing receipts increased 30 percent and appeal receipts increased 26 percent. 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. Between 2000 and 2002, hearing receipts

decreased and appeal receipts fluctuated, but pending inventory continued to decline. In 2003,

both the number of hearing and appeal receipts increased 3.1 and 4.6 percent, respectively.

Pending inventory decreased from 14,881 to 12,298, or 17.4 percent (see table 2.5). 

14 
Table 2.5—EEOC Federal Sector Enforcement

Fiscal 

year 

Hearing 

receipts 

Appeal 

receipts 

Total pending 

inventory

1994 10,712 7,141 19,540 

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 19,617 6,725 14,881

2003 19,918 7,035 12,298

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Strategic and Output Measures 

According to EEOC, it uses 32 performance measures to evaluate the agency’s civil rights 

program.

2

 In addition, the agency uses information collected from the number of complaints 

resolved, number of resolutions, number of administrative closures, and number of hearing 

and appeal receipts to help managers assess workload inputs and outputs, and the timeliness 

of a process to manage its program. This information also enables management to make decisions about resources throughout the year. Table 2.6 highlights only those measures for 

which EEOC provided performance targets and actual performance data. EEOC met, substantially met, or substantially exceeded all but three of its 2003 performance measures.3

 

EEOC did not meet the following measures: 

 During 2003, EEOC was required to resolve all hearings cases filed with the agency 

before September 30, 2001. As a result of the agency balancing workloads among 

field offices, time frames had to be extended. 

 EEOC was required to issue all investigative reports on internal EEO (equal employment opportunity) complaints within 180 days. Several of the older cases could

not meet this target. 

 EEOC was to implement a plan to reposition the agency. At the end of the fiscal year, 

these plans had not been completed.4

 

 

2

 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Funding, Mar. 11, 2004, p. 2. 3

 Ibid.

4

 Ibid.

15 
Table 2.6—EEOC Performance Measures, 2003 and 2004 

Goals/measures 

Performance

target 

Actual

performance 

Measures of proficient resolution 

By 2009, ensure that at least 75 percent of private 

sector charges will be resolved within 180 days 

2003 

2004 

60.0 

65.0 

68.9 

– 

By 2009, ensure that at least 50 percent of federal 

sector hearings will be resolved within 180 days 

2003 

2004 

30.5 

35.0 

20.0 

– 

By 2009, ensure that at least 70 percent of federal 

sector appeals will be resolved within 180 days 

2003 

2004 

320.0*

3145.0**

44.8 

– 

*29 percent of cases received in 2003. 

**45 percent of cases received in 2004. 

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request and GPRA 

Annual Performance Plan,” February 2003.

All 2003 measures listed in table 2.6 will be used to ensure the efficient use of resources and 

effectiveness of evaluation in 2004. The three measures for which EEOC did not meet its target will not be used to evaluate the agency’s effectiveness in 2004. EEOC has adopted a new 

strategic plan with goals that are more outcome oriented. These new goals will enable the

agency to better measure its effectiveness. Some of the new measures established for 2004 

include: 

 By 2009, reviews of investigative files indicate that the percentage of files meeting

established criteria for quality is set at a certain percentage or higher. Criteria need to 

be defined to evaluate quality and develop a system to collect information. 

 By 2009, the general public rates its confidence in EEOC’s enforcement of federal 

equal employment laws at a certain percentage or higher. EEOC needs to design survey methodology, conduct a survey, and establish a baseline of confidence. 

 Assess the contributions of EEOC’s private sector mediation/alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program toward improved workplaces. 

 By 2006, increase by 20 percent the number of private sector employers that agree to

participate in mediation from the 2003 baseline. 

 By 2009, increase the percentage of federal employees who participate in ADR during the pre-complaint stage of the EEO process to 50 percent or higher.5

 

5

 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request and GPRA Annual Performance Plan,” February 2003. 

16 
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 1970s the entire federal contract compliance program was consolidated into the

Department of Labor (DOL) under OFCCP. OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that employers doing business with the federal government comply with the equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action provisions of their contracts. The enforcement authority 

and responsibilities of OFCCP 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: (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, the department’s chief legal officer.

1

 OFCCP’s jurisdiction covers approximately 26 million workers, 

or nearly 22 percent of the total civilian workforce.2

 OFCCP monitors contractors and subcontractors with a federal contract of $50,000 or more, and 50 or more employees. 

Budget Analysis

Over the past 10 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 level requested by the President (see table 3.1). These increases did not keep pace 

with inflation. After adjusting for inflation, the 2002 appropriation of $77.7 million was 

worth $66.2 million and the 2003 appropriation of $78.0 million was worth $65.4 million 

(see table 3.1 and figure 3.1). 

 

1 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001. 2

 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, “What We Do,” <http://www.dol. 

gov.esa.ofccp/ofwedo.htm> (last assessed May 10, 2004).

17 
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 $– 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

Figure 3.1—OFCCP Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

66.2 56.4 57.5 54.3 55.3 57.7 65.2 66.1 59.8 65.4 65.4

55.4

58.5 60.9 61.3 63.7 61.9

68.0 66.4 65.0 65.0 65.8 66.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 3.1.

OFCCP has received increased funding each successive year since 2000, although the increases have become smaller each year. Between 1999 and 2000, OFCCP’s funding increased 11.9 percent; between 2002 and 2003, OFCCP’s funding increased only 0.4 percent.

18 
For 2004, Congress appropriated OFCCP $79.4 million. After adjusting for inflation,

OFCCP’s 2004 budget was worth $65.8 million (see table 3.1 and figure 3.1). Between 2003 

and 2004, OFCCP’s budget increased 1.8 percent. The President is requesting $82.1 million

in funding for 2005. If Congress grants the President’s request, after adjusting for inflation 

OFCCP’s budget will be worth $66.4 million (see table 3.1 and figure 3.1), a 0.9 percent increase over last year’s appropriation. 

Staffing and Workload Analysis

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

members. 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, its lowest

level in 10 years. The number of staff for 2003 is 10 percent below the FTE level in 1994

(see table 3.2). 

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

Source: U.S. 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 dropped 10 percent (see table 3.3). 

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

279 and 313, but decreased to 279 in 2003. Between 1998 and 2003, pending inventory declined 28.6 percent, from 350 to 250. Also during this period, OFCCP demonstrated high 

output with respect to its compliance program. Compliance reviews rose 35 percent, from 

5,707 to 7,709 (see table 3.3). The number of reviews completed in 2003 covered more than 

2.5 million workers, representing the most reviews and covered workers since 1991.3

 

 

3

 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. 1 (hereafter cited as OFCCP, “Enforcement in Fiscal Year 2003”).

19 
Table 3.3—OFCCP Workload History

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

resolved

Pending

inventory

Compliance 

reviews 

1994 802 – 4,179

1995 566 368 3,991

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 297 178 6,494

2003 279 250 7,709

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

According to OFCCP, since the Americans with Disabilities Act became effective in 1992, it 

has been receiving fewer complaints filed under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of complaints filed under Executive Order 11246. Both of these decreases have resulted in an overall decline in the number

of complaints received. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of complaints filed under Executive Order 11246 decreased from 920 to 472. The decline in 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.4

With the decline in the number of complaints, OFCCP began focusing its compliance reviews 

on systemic discrimination.

5

 So doing allows OFCCP to: 

 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 affect 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.

6

Over the past 10 years, the number of persons receiving back pay and the amount of monetary benefits those persons received have fluctuated (see table 3.4). Nearly 60 percent of

 

4

 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.

5

 Systemic refers to discrimination that affects a large number of workers. 6

 OFCCP, “Enforcement in Fiscal Year 2003,” p. 1.

20 
OFCCP financial remedies come from hiring discrimination cases, which fluctuate depending

on economic circumstances. When the economy is in a downturn, employers cut back on hiring and hiring discrimination decreases. The decrease or increase in monetary benefits in a

given year could be a result of a compliance review that was started several years ago. 

Table 3.4—OFCCP Financial Agreements 

Fiscal 

year 

Persons

receiving back pay

Back pay monetary

benefits

1994 10,986 $14,400,000

1995 16,704 $12,284,953 

1996 14,203 $$8,216,187 

1997 14,435 $10,791,520 

1998 16,306 $10,524,000 

1999 18,493 $13,935,000 

2000 17,639 $15,568,000 

2001 16,925 $$9,036,000 

2002 18,878 $$9,048,515 

2003 Unavailable Unavailable 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP. 

In 2002, OFCCP obtained nearly $24.0 million in financial remedies for 8,969 workers. In 

2003, the amount of financial remedies OFCCP obtained increased 8 percent to $26.2 million, and the number of minority and female workers who received these remedies increased

36 percent to a record 14,361.7

Corporate management reviews, or glass ceiling audits, ensure that women have equal opportunity to rise to management and executive positions. In 2003, OFCCP performed 52 such

reviews recovering nearly $12 million in financial remedies for 7,118 women. In 2002, 

OFCCP performed 42 corporate management reviews. Since the mid-1970s, the Office of the 

Solicitor has filed two litigation suits against Wyeth and Wyeth Pharamaceuticals and First 

Union Corporation, alleging systemic compensation discrimination.8

Strategic and Output Measures 

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

Government Performance and 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.9

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 

 

7

 Ibid.

8

 Ibid., p. 2. 9

 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. 

21 
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.10 OFCCP establishes goals for each region 

and ties each to regional directors’ personal performance plans. 

OFCCP established and met the forgoing output goals for 2003. For example, OFCCP expressed a goal to resolve 46 systemic discrimination cases through settlement or referral to

the Office of the Solicitor. OFCCP actually resolved 52 such cases. Another goal was to protect 5,677 workers by obtaining financial settlements. OFCCP protected 14,361 workers, exceeding its goal by 153 percent. OFCCP nearly doubled the number of planned compliance 

assistance events (see table 3.5). 

Table 3.5—OFCCP Performance Objectives, 2003 

Objective 

Performance 

target 

Actual

performance 

Systemic cases resolved 5,646 52 

Workers protected by systemic relief 5,677 14,361 

Systemic cases to resolve next year 57 72 

Systemic cases identified 94 147 

Compliance assistance events 535 964 

Corporate management reviews 47 52 

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. 

For 2004, OFCCP will use the same performance goals to measure its effectiveness and efficiency that it used for 2003. 

 

 

10 Ibid., p. 1.

22 
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 million and Congress appropriated $77.3 

million, giving CRD 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 –

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Between 2003 and 2004, CRD’s budget increased 4 percent, but after adjusting for inflation 

the 2004 appropriation of $108.8 million is worth $89.5 million (see table 4.1 and figure 4.1). 

For 2005, the President is requesting $109.1 million for 2005. If Congress grants the Presi23 
dent’s request, after adjusting for inflation CRD’s budget will be worth $88.3 million (see 

figure 4.1). 

Figure 4.1—DOJ/CRD Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

86.0 60.0 61.1 61.6 58.4 60.0 70.6 73.1 80.0 87.5 89.5

59.0

70.2

62.3 65.2 62.6

65.4

73.2

85.2 86.3 88.1 90.2 88.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

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 by 3 percent between 1996 and 

1997, CRD’s staff decreased 1 percent, from 579 in 1996 to 573 in 1997. 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 experience increases in the number of FTEs, most significantly 

an 11 percent hike between 2000 and 2001. The smallest increase, less than 1 percent, in the 

number of FTEs occurred between 2002 and 2003. 

24 
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

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Disability Rights Enforcement 

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

Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit 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 1995, when all disabilityrelated coordination and enforcement responsibilities were transferred from the Coordination

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

year, the Disability Rights Section initiated 2,444 investigations, which is the most since the 

creation of DRS. Only 863 investigations were pending, the fewest in the past 10 years (see 

table 4.4). 

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

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

DRS’ FTE level grew from 69 in 1996 to 97 in 2002, a 40.6 percent increase. During the 

same period, the numbers of cases filed, cases pending, investigations initiated, and investigations pending fluctuated. Between 2002 and 2003, DRS’ FTE level remained stagnant at 

97, the number of cases filed decreased 56.7 percent, the number of cases pending decreased

18.8 percent, the number of investigations initiated declined 32.5 percent, and the number of 

investigations pending dropped 4.6 percent (see tables 4.3 and 4.4). 

25 
Table 4.4—Disability Rights Section Workload History

Fiscal 

year 

Cases 

filed 

Cases 

pending

Investigations 

initiated* 

Investigations 

pending* 

1994 – – 1,692 1,892 

1995 12 112 2,444 1,863 

1996 29 112 1,999 2,888

1997 28 122 1,805 3,017

1998 28 150 1,922 2,707

1999 38 192 1,793 2,537

2000 38 103 1,461 2,391

2001 31 101 1,487 1,970

2002 30 196 1,461 1,878

2003 13 178 1,311 1,791

*Revised to reflect only those investigations that are pending in the Disability Rights 

Section from 1999 through 2003. There are substantial additional investigations that are 

referred to other designated agencies. 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

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.”1

 In 2003, 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 2003,

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

2003 21

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

 

1

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

Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 139.

26 
Voting Rights Enforcement 

The Voting Rights Section is responsible for bringing lawsuits to remedy discrimination in

elections conducted in all jurisdictions and also has the authority to commence civil action

against any state or political subdivision that has imposed or applied a discriminatory device 

or procedure. Between 1994 and 1999, the Voting Rights Section’s FTE levels fluctuated,

albeit minimally. Between 2000 and 2002, the FTE levels increased from 92 to 109. The 

2003 FTE level remained unchanged from the 2002 level. Since 1994, the number of FTEs 

has increased 24 percent (see table 4.6). 

Table 4.6—Voting Rights Section 

Staffing History

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 188 

1995 186 

1996 186 

1997 186 

1998 185 

1999 186 

2000 192 

2001 104

2002 109

2003 109

Source: U.S. 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 2003 101 employees are assigned to the 

section. Since 1994, the Civil Rights Prosecution Section’s FTE level has increased 106 percent (see table 4.7). 

27 
Table 4.7—Civil Rights Prosecution Section 

Staffing History

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 149 

1995 147 

1996 147 

1997 147 

1998 154 

1999 161 

2000 171 

2001 185 

2002 195 

2003 101

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

As the number of FTEs was either decreasing or remaining stable, the number of complaints 

received fluctuated. Between 1994 and 1996, complaints increased 41 percent, from 8,342 to 

11,721. During the same period, the number of matters investigated decreased and then increased, as did the number of pending matters (see table 4.8) 

Beginning in 1998, when the number of FTEs increased, the number of complaints increased

as the number of matters investigated decreased and the pending inventory increased and 

then fluctuated. Between 2002 and 2003, the number of complaints received increased, as did

the number of matters investigated. In 2003, the section received 9,661 complaints, investigated 1,721 matters, and had a pending inventory of 2,229. In 2003, if each FTE was responsible for handling complaints, the section received approximately 96 complaints per FTE (see

tables 4.7 and 4.8). 

Table 4.8—Civil Rights Prosecution Section Workload History

Fiscal year Complaints 

received 

Matters 

investigated

Pending

matters 

1994 18,342 2,633 1,936

1995 18,864 2,370 1,806

1996 11,721 2,619 2,227

1997 10,891 2,753 2,613

1998 12,188 2,955 2,617

1999 12,132 2,547 2,680

2000 12,404 2,320 2,719

2001 12,438 2,261 2,269

2002 19,161 1,659 2,291

2003 19,661 1,721 2,229

Source: U.S. 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

28 
Housing Section had 89 FTEs dedicated to fighting housing discrimination. In 1995, the

number of FTEs increased to 96, but the next year the number started decreasing, and by

1998 the section had 86 FTEs (see 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

Source: U.S. 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 percentage 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 figures alone do not comprehensively gauge effectiveness. Furthermore, these 

workload numbers 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.

2

For 2003, CRD’s performance goal was to favorably resolve 87 percent of its criminal cases.

CRD surpassed its goal by favorably resolving 95 percent of its criminal cases. CRD’s other 

performance goal was to favorably resolve 80 percent of its civil (pattern or practice) cases. 

 

2

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

Interrogatory for Funding, Apr. 2, 2004, p. 2.

29 
CRD exceeded its performance target and favorably resolved 95 percent of its civil cases (see 

table 4.10). CRD indicated that these goals remain the same for FY 2004.3

 

Table 4.10—DOJ/CRD Performance Measures, 2003 and 2004 

Performance measures 

Performance

target 

Actual

performance 

Criminal programmatic area

 Percentage of criminal cases favorably resolved 

 2003 87 95 

 2004 80 – 

 

Civil programmatic area 

 Percentage of civil cases favorably resolved

 2003 80 95 

 2004 80 – 

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

Interrogatory for Funding, Apr. 2, 2004, pp. 1–2, table attachment. 

 

3

 Ibid., p. 1, attachment.

30 
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 improving the health and well-being of all people affected by its many programs. OCR enforces several statutes, including: 

 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

 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

 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 

After decreasing between 1994 and 1996, OCR’s funding returned to its 1994 level in 2000. 

However, in 2000, OCR’s congressional appropriation was 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 up 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). 

Since 2001, OCR’s funding has continued to increase, although the congressional appropriation for 2004 was only 2.6 percent more than the 2003 funding level (see table 5.1). For 

2004, OCR’s budget of $33.9 million is worth $27.9 million after adjusting for inflation. Between 1994 and 2004, OCR’s budget increased 52.8 percent. For 2005, if Congress grants the 

President’s request of $35.4 million, after adjusting for inflation OCR will have buying 

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

31 
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 –

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

Figure 5.1—HHS/OCR Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

18.8 18.7 18.2 21.4 18.8 22.2 20.1 24.4 26.9 27.7 27.9

27.9 27.4

23.9

19.7 18.9 19.0 20.2 20.4 22.2 21.9

28.2 28.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 5.1.

32 
Staffing and Workload Analysis 

In the past 10 years, OCR has never received the level of staffing it has requested from Congress. In addition, OCR’s staff decreased from 284 in 1994 to a low of 210 in 1999. As a result, 26 percent fewer employees performed its 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 continued to 

increase. Between 2001 and 2002, OCR’s staff increased 10 percent, possibly in anticipation 

of an increased workload as a result of Congress passing the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA).1

 For 2003, OCR requested a staffing level of 267, but its actual 

level is 244 (see table 5.2). 

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

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

As staffing levels fell between 1994 and 1999 OCR’s pending inventory climbed, increasing

from 46 cases in 1994 to 181 in 1999. In 2000, OCR’s staffing level 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 

(see tables 5.2 and 5.3). 

Between 2000 and 2002, OCR’s pending inventory decreased 8 percent. However, its inventory has begun to increase again and has now surpassed the 2000 level. Pending inventory as 

a percentage of the total workload has increased from 18 percent in 1994 to 92 percent in

2003.

 

1

 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 rights. 

33 
Table 5.3—HHS/OCR Post-Grant Review and Investigation 

Workload History

Fiscal 

year 

New 

starts

Total 

workload

Pending

inventory

1994 203 256 146 

1995 122 168 136 

1996 181 217 160 

1997 328 388 190 

1998 301 391 164

1999 287 451 181

2000 317 498 276

2001 137 413 250

2002 140 390 254

2003 141 305 280

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

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. The decrease in complaint receipts enabled OCR to alleviate its backlog of complaints. The number of open or backlogged complaints decreased 

from 1,112 in 1994 to 599 in 1998. Between 1999 and 2002, the number of complaint receipts fluctuated as did staff assigned to specifically handle complaint processing (see tables

5.5 and 5.4). Also during this period, the number of backlogged complaints continuously increased and peaked at 1,143 in 2002.

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

April 2003, OCR’s complaint workload has dramatically increased. In 2003, OCR’s staffing 

level increased to 94, and 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 HIPAA compliance date (see table 5.5). In 2003, OCR closed 

fewer complaints than in the preceding year, which more than likely will result in the highest 

number of backlogged complaints since 1994. 

34 
Table 5.4—HHS/OCR Complaint Processing 

Staffing History

Fiscal year FTE level 

1994 141

1995 145

1996 129

1997 184 

1998 174 

1999 179 

2000 174 

2001 183 

2002 190 

2003 1194*

*Excludes 28 FTEs dedicated to processing complaints 

alleging violations of the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. 

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

Office for Civil Rights.

Table 5.5—HHS/OCR Complaint Workload History

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

received 

Complaints 

open 

Complaints 

closed

1994 2,222 1,112 2,231

1995 2,094 1,102 2,358

1996 1,827 1,839 1,996

1997 1,741 1,664 1,806

1998 1,548 1,599 1,644

1999 1,950 1,503 1,758

2000 2,185 1,695 1,749

2001 2,148 1,131 2,138

2002 1,948 1,143 2,015

2003 12,221* 1,076 1,801

*Excludes 2,267 complaints alleging violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule received on or 

after the compliance effective date of April 14, 2003. 

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

Strategic and Output Measures 

For 2003, one of OCR’s strategic goals is to increase nondiscriminatory access and participation in HHS programs and protect the privacy of health information. In fulfilling this goal, 

OCR established 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 nondiscriminatory social services, while protecting the integrity of HHS federal financial assistance; and (3) 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.2

 Although OCR establishes stra-

 

2

 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, p. 1.

35 
tegic evaluation criteria, its performance measures are process and not mission oriented. In 

evaluating progress toward these objectives, OCR measures the number of corrective actions, 

no violation findings, reviews, consultations, and outreach, technical assistance, and collaborative activities. For 2003, OCR met its output goals for each of the program performance

objectives. 

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 2003, 

OCR’s goal was to close all cases within 380 days, including pre-grant reviews, post-grant 

reviews, and investigations.3

 OCR actually closes cases in 257 days on the average, exceeding its goal by 123 days. OCR committed and will continue to expend considerable energy to 

streamline case processing, and develop guidance for and training of investigators.4

 

For 2004, OCR’s goals are the same as those identified for 2003. With respect to its objective

to increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory quality health care, OCR’s output goal

is 1,470 corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, consultations, and outreach, technical assistance, and collaborative activities. In 2003, OCR’s actual performance was 783. In

an effort to increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory social services, OCR’s output 

goal is 295 corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, consultations, and outreach, 

technical assistance, and collaborative activities. In 2003, OCR’s actual performance was 617

corrective actions. To meet its objective to increase access to and receipt of community-based

services and nondiscriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities, OCR’s output goal is

1,265 corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, consultations, and outreach, technical 

assistance, and collaborative activities. In 2003, OCR’s actual performance was 491 (see table 5.6).5

 

3

 Ibid. 

4

 Ibid.

5

 Ibid., pp. 2–3.

36 
Table 5.6—HHS/OCR Performance Measures, 2003 and 2004 

Objectives/measures 

Performance 

target 

Actual

performance 

Increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory quality health care

Corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, 

consultations, and outreach, technical assistance, and 

collaborative activities 

2003 

2004 

1770 

1,470 

783 

– 

Increase access to and receipt of nondiscriminatory social services 

Corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, 

consultations, and outreach, technical assistance, and 

collaborative activities 

2003 

2004 

614 

295 

617 

– 

Increase access to and receipt of community-based

services and nondiscriminatory treatment for persons 

with disabilities

Corrective actions, no violation findings, reviews, 

consultations, and outreach, technical assistance, and 

collaborative activities 

2003 

2004 

1258 

1,265 

491 

– 

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. 2–3. 

37 
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 19681

 Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 19682

 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

 Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 19743

 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

 Housing and Community Development Act of 19874 

 Fair Housing Amendments Act of 19885

 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

 President Clinton’s Executive Order 128926 

 

1

 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. 2

 Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 requires housing and community development

recipients to direct jobs, training, and contracting opportunities to businesses owned by or employing low- and

very low-income residents residing in targeted geographical areas in which HUD assistance takes place. 3

 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. 4

 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. 5

 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. 6

 Executive Order 12892 requires HUD to coordinate certain fair housing efforts with executive departments and

agencies.

38 
Budget Analysis 

In FHEO’s debut issue of its quarterly newsletter Fair Housing News, Assistant Secretary

Carolyn Peoples pledged her commitment to achieve its 2003 goals by conducting timely investigations, reducing impediments to housing choice, and supporting new initiatives to build

public awareness and understanding of federal fair housing laws.7

 Peoples said that these efforts will be enhanced by developing close working partnerships with faith-based and grassroots organizations, local governments, and other agencies to ensure effective program 

compliance, and by developing performance-based measures to ensure quality.

8

 To follow 

through on these commitments, HUD needs appropriate funding, which has not always been 

adequate to fulfill its goals. At no time during the past 11 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. In fact, the 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 Funding History

(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 –

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

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

Except for 2003, congressional appropriations increased each year. However, these increases 

were not enough to keep pace with inflation. In 2003, when Congress appropriated 20 percent 

less funding than in the previous year, after adjusting for inflation the $46.0 million was 

worth $38.5 million. After adjusting for inflation, FHEO’s 2003 funding level was well below the level of any previous year (see table 6.1 and figure 6.1).

For 2004, the President requested $51.0 million, but Congress appropriated $48.0 million. 

After adjusting for inflation, the 2004 appropriation is worth $39.5 million. For 2005 the 

President is requesting $47.7 million in funding, which is 6.6 percent less than the amount 

 

7

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

Housing News, vol. 1, issue 1, Winter 2003, p. 1. 8

 Ibid.

39 
requested in 1994. If Congress grants the President’s request, after adjusting for inflation 

FHEO’s funding will be worth $38.6 million (see table 6.1 and figure 6.1). 

Figure 6.1—HUD/FHEO Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

49.4 48.9 43.4 43.3 42.2 43.4 42.2 44.7 49.4 38.5 39.5

51.1 51.0

46.6 46.3 45.1 45.6 45.2 47.8

51.4

58.6

42.0

38.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 6.1.

Staffing and Workload Analysis

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 744, resulting in a 22 percent increase 

between 2001 and 2003. However, the number of FTEs in 2003 still does not return FHEO to 

its 1994 level (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 744

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Budget and Administrative Support Division.

40 
As the number of staff decreased from 1994 to 2000, the number of Title VIII complaints that 

FHEO received climbed. By 2000, FHEO reached its lowest FTE level, which corresponded to 

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.9

 Since 2000, the 

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

2003 than in 2002. FHEO had previously estimated it would receive 10,000 Title VIII complaints for 2003, but actually received only 5,532 (see table 6.3).10

Table 6.3—HUD/FHEO Title VIII Complaint History

Fiscal year Complaints received

1994 19,524 

1995 18,187 

1996 10,945

1997 10,227

1998 10,266

1999 10,836

2000 11,218

2001 18,252 

2002 17,557 

2003 15,532 

Source: U.S. 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 1999, Title VI, Section 504, and ADA complaints began rising, and consequently so did 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, Section 109 and ADA complaints increased comparably. In 2003, FHEO received 1,236 program compliance complaints of 

which 34.1 percent were Title VI, 2.9 percent were Section 109, 50.0 percent were Section

504, and 12.9 percent were ADA (see table 6.4). 

 

9

 Ibid., p. 3. 10 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2004, June 2003.

41 
Table 6.4—HUD/FHEO Program Compliance Complaints 

Fiscal year Title VI Section 109 Section 504 ADA Total 

1994 228 148 285 142 1,603 

1995 193 138 380 117 1,628 

1996 143 103 218 107 1,571 

1997 175 175 250 150 1,700 

1998 174 167 206 162 1,409 

1999 144 121 225 164 1,454 

2000 278 142 433 123 1,876 

2001 266 185 451 146 1,948 

2002 339 139 522 128 1,028

2003 422 136 618 160 1,236

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

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

conducted 100 Title VI reviews, 30 Section 109 reviews, 150 Section 504 reviews, and 40 

ADA reviews. Between 1999 and 2002, FHEO continuously conducted fewer and fewer 

ADA compliance reviews, but more Section 504 reviews. In 2003, FHEO conducted 180 

compliance reviews of which 37.2 percent were Title VI, 10.6 were Section 109, 51.7 percent 

were Section 504, and less than 1 percent were ADA (see table 6.5). 

Table 6.5—HUD/FHEO Program Compliance Reviews

Fiscal year Title VI Section 109 Section 504 ADA Total 

1994 121 12 134 10 157 

1995 112 12 155 10 169

1996 151 16 121 10 188

1997 100 30 150 40 320

1998 100 30 150 40 320

1999 139 13 138 32 112

2000 145 10 147 28 120

2001 139 11 154 21 115

2002 156 15 184 16 151

2003 167 19 193 11 180

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

Over the past 10 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. 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 FTEs increased 

4.8 percent. Since 2000 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. 

42 
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

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

Except in 1994, 1996, and 2003, the ratio of enforcement to compliance staff has hovered

around five to one. In 1996, for every program compliance FTE there were three fair housing

enforcement FTEs. Between 1994 and 2001, program compliance staff continuously declined 

while fair housing enforcement staff fluctuated. Between 2002 and 2003, fair housing enforcement increased 74 percent, from 339 FTEs in 2002 to 590 in 2003. During the same period program compliance staff more than doubled, from 67 FTEs in 2002 to 154 in 2003 (see 

table 6.7). 

Table 6.7—HUD/FHEO Field FTE Staffing History

Fiscal 

year 

Fair housing 

enforcement 

Program 

compliance 

1994 406 100

1995 356 178 

1996 255 177 

1997 351 174 

1998 356 170 

1999 328 166 

2000 319 161 

2001 333 163 

2002 339 167 

2003 590 154

Source: U.S. 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. 

43 
FHAP 

Budget Analysis 

Between 1994 and 1997, congressional appropriations for FHAP continuously increased 

from the previous year, but not enough to keep pace with inflation. For example, between

1994 and 1997 congressional appropriations increased from $4.5 million to $15 million, or 

231.9 percent (see table 6.8). After adjusting for inflation, FHAP’s budget increased 211 percent. FHAP’s budget leveled off between 1997 and 1998 then decreased 13.3 percent between 1998 and 1999, although the President requested funding that would have resulted in 

an increase of 53.3 percent. 

In 2003, the congressional appropriation of $25.6 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). For 2005, the President is requesting decreased funding for FHAP. If 

Congress grants the President’s 2005 request of $27.1 million, after adjusting for inflation

FHAP will receive $21.9 million (see table 6.8 and figure 6.2). 

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 25,649,000

2004 29,750,000 27,750,000

2005 27,050,000 –

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division.

44 
Figure 6.2—HUD/FHAP Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

21.5 22.8 21.9 19.1 17.8 13.9 11.9 12.4 14.0

7.2 4.5

21.9

24.5

21.5 19.6

18.3

17.8

21.0

13.9 14.3 14.0

7.2

4.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 6.8.

FHIP 

FHIP provides funding to grantees so they can help individuals who believe they have been 

victims of housing discrimination. FHIP grantees assist individuals in identifying government 

agencies that can help, and conduct preliminary investigation of claims, including sending 

“testers” to properties suspected of practicing housing discrimination. FHIP also contains 

four programs that promote fair housing laws and equal housing opportunity awareness. 

Budget Analysis 

At no point between 1995 and 2003 did Congress meet the President’s request. As a matter of

fact, the President’s request and the congressional appropriation were erratic during this time.

For example, in 1995 the President requested $23.0 million and Congress appropriated $26.0

million. In 1996, the President requested $30.0 million, but Congress reduced the amount 43 

percent and provided FHIP $17.0 million. After adjusting for inflation, the $17.0 million was 

worth $16.2 million (see tables 6.9 and figure 6.3).

45 
Table 6.9—HUD/FHIP Funding History

(in actual dollars) 

Fiscal 

year 

President’s

request 

Congressional 

appropriation

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

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Budget and 

Administrative Support Division. 

For 2004, the congressional appropriation of $20.3 million matched the President’s request. 

For 2005, the President is requesting $20.7 million for FHIP. Although this is slightly more 

than the 2004 presidential request, after adjusting for inflation FHIP’s budget will be worth 

$16.7 million (see table 6.9 and figure 6.3). 

Figure 6.3—HUD/FHIP Funding History

(in constant 1994 dollars) 

20.5 25.4 16.2 14.0 13.9

21.5 21.4 20.9 17.4 16.8 16.7

16.9

22.5

28.6

15.9

22.2

26.5

24.0 25.2

19.6

18.5

16.7 16.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional appropriation President's request

Source: Calculated from table 6.9.

46 
Strategic and Output Measures 

To evaluate its civil rights program’s effectiveness and efficiency, 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.11 To fulfill these goals, 

FHEO identified nine measurable outputs for 2003: 

 Complete at least 1,000 fair housing conciliation/settlement agreements. 

 Fund at least two new fair housing groups through collaborative efforts between fair 

housing and community or faith-based organizations. 

 Increase the number of enforcement agencies rated as substantially equivalent to 98. 

 Increase the number of processed fair housing conciliation/settlement agreements by

25 percent. 

 Using the 2002 level of HUD inventory, decrease by 10 percentage points the percentage of fair housing complaints more than 100 days old. 

 Using the 2002 level of inventory of substantially equivalent agencies, decrease by 10

percentage points the percentage of fair housing complaints more than 100 days old. 

 Conduct 50 Title VI compliance reviews of HUD recipients. 

 Conduct 90 Section 504 disability compliance reviews of HUD recipients. 

 Conduct monitoring and compliance reviews or provide technical assistance under 

Section 3 to 30 housing authorities.12 

In addition, FHEO measures the number of complaints resolved, the number of compliance 

complaints resolved, and the number of compliance reviews conducted to evaluate its program’s effectiveness. FHEO also measures program effectiveness by increasing the number

of accessible housing units to persons with disabilities and decreasing the average age of disability cases. FHEO met all its goals for 2003.13 

FHEO identified 11 measurable outputs for 2004: 

 To increase by 5 percent the number of Title VI and/or Section 109 compliance reviews conducted of HUD recipients. 

 Under Section 3, conduct monitoring and compliance reviews or provide technical 

assistance to 35 housing authorities. 

 By the end of the fiscal year no more than 25 percent of Section 3 complaints will be

aged. 

 

11 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. 10, 2004, p. 1. 12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., p. 2.

47 
 Ensure FHIP and FHAP grantees are 100 percent in compliance. 

 Using the 2003 level of HUD inventory, decrease by 2 percentage points the percentage of fair housing complaints more than 100 days old. 

 Using the 2003 level of substantially equivalent agencies, decrease by 2 percentage 

points the percentage of fair housing complaints more than 100 days old. 

 Increase the number of enforcement agencies rated as substantially equivalent to 99. 

 Provide FHAP grantees increased access to sale and rental housing by completing at 

least 2,150 fair housing conciliation/settlement agreements. 

 Under the Fair Housing Act, provide protected classes with increased access to sale

and rental housing by completing 1,200 fair housing conciliation/settlement agreements. 

 Provide FHIP funding for at least two new fair housing groups through collaborative 

efforts between fair housing and community or faith-based organizations.14

Promoting the fair housing rights of persons with disabilities is a departmental priority. Because it is an important initiative within FHIP, one of FHEO’s measurable outputs for 2004 is

to conduct 100 Section 504 disability compliance reviews of HUD recipients. This is 10 more 

reviews than FHIP conducted in 2003.15

 

14 Ibid., pp. 2–3.

15 Ibid., p. 3.

48 
Conclusion

This report updates and presents the President’s requests and congressional appropriations of 

six principal civil rights agencies since 1994. It also presents each agency’s civil rights goals 

and output factors. Funding is an important indicator of government commitment to civil 

rights. The President may make known his civil rights priorities in how much he requests for 

enforcement. However, Congress ultimately determines whether or not to grant an agency the 

amount of funding the President requests. Funding, or the lack of it, affects how agencies 

carry out their civil rights responsibilities. After adjusting for inflation, most agencies received increased funding between 2003 and 2004. If Congress meets the President’s request

for 2005, after adjusting for inflation OFCCP, EEOC, HHS, and HUD’s FHIP will receive 

increased funding. The Fair Housing Assistance Program within HUD will receive the largest

reduction, 10.6 percent. 

Often, salaries absorb the bulk of agency budgets. Inadequate funding results in stagnant or

decreasing staffing levels, restricts the types and amounts of compliance activities an agency

can perform, and hinders an agency from sufficiently exercising its enforcement authority.

Without adequate measures, agencies cannot assess progress toward established goals or ensure efficient resource utilization. 

GPRA was designed as a tool to reform the government’s resource utilization. However, 

agencies show great variation in how they apply GPRA to civil rights enforcement. While all 

of the agencies establish GPRA goals, they vary widely in the number and specificity of civil 

rights references. For example, although agencies express goals to process a certain number 

of complaints, they nonetheless maintain perennial unresolved inventories. Agencies need to 

determine if they are using GPRA measures that isolate the source of recurrent and persistent

aged cases and backlogs. Once agencies identify the sources of any gaps between targeted

and actual performance, they will know better where to apply resources to resolving such 

problems. Furthermore, some of the agencies express process goals while others’ are mission-oriented. 

49