a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2004 FAIR HOUSING

Opportunities to 

Improve HUD’s 

Oversight and 

Management of the 

Enforcement Process

GAO-04-463
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David G. Wood 

at (202) 512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-463, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2004

FAIR HOUSING

Opportunities to Improve HUD’s 

Oversight and Management of the 

Enforcement Process 

The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for 

addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country take 

inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct 

investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur. The 

practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO and the 

FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some discretion in 

determining which practices work best for them. As a result, some agencies 

have developed procedures that they said improved the quality of intake and 

made investigations easier. For example, some FHAP agencies use 

experienced investigators during the intake process to help clients develop 

formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked at such practices to 

determine if they should be disseminated for potential use at other locales. 

Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face a 

lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided. Although 

the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete investigations into 

complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP agencies often do not 

meet that deadline. The typical time to complete an investigation in 1996 

through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some investigations taking much 

longer. However, a lack of data makes it impossible to assess the full length 

and outcomes of fair housing enforcement activities. For example, because 

FHAP agencies are not required to report intake data to FHEO, complete 

information is not available on the number of initial contacts individuals 

alleging discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of data on the 

ultimate outcomes of some investigations conducted by both FHEO and 

FHAP agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time that 

complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital 

management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained staff, 

further affect FHEO’s ability to carry out its mission in a timely manner. 

Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

FHEO FHAP agencies Total

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of completed investigations (In thousands)

Year

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Discrimination in housing on the 

basis of race, sex, family status, 

and other grounds is illegal in the 

United States. Each year, the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Office of Fair 

Housing and Equal Opportunity 

(FHEO) and related agencies carry 

out enforcement activities for 

several thousand complaints of 

housing discrimination. The 

timeliness and effectiveness of the 

enforcement process have been 

continuing concerns. GAO 

describes the stages and practices 

of the fair housing enforcement 

process, looks at recent trends, and 

identifies factors that may 

influence the length and 

thoroughness of the process. 

GAO makes six recommendations 

to the HUD Secretary for improving 

the management and oversight of 

the fair housing enforcement 

process. These recommendations 

include exploring ways to 

disseminate effective practices 

used at various enforcement 

locations, improving tracking and 

data-gathering procedures, and 

finding a way to meet human 

capital challenges in, among other 

things, staffing and skill levels. 

HUD generally agreed with the 

report’s conclusions and 

recommendations and stated an 

intent to look closely at 

incorporating them into planned 

efforts to improve the timeliness 

and effectiveness of enforcement. 
Page i GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 6

HUD’s Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework 

for Handling Complaints 9

Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the 

Enforcement Process 16

Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and 

Outcomes of Cases 23

Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time 

Taken by Each Stage of the Enforcement Process 39

Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the 

Title VIII Enforcement Process 42

Conclusions 56

Recommendations 57

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 58

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 60

Appendix II: Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and Responses 64

Appendix III: Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12 72

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 79

Tables Table 1: FHEO’s Investigation Process for Alleged Act 

Violations 13

Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, 

FY 1996–2003 32

Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or 

FHAP Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable 

Cause to Believe That Discrimination Occurred 

(Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996–2003) 37

Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits 61

Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996–2003 72

Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996–2003 72

Table 7: Prohibited Basis of FHA Complaints Filed with FHEO and 

FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 73
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 74

Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP 

Agencies, FY 1996–2003 75

Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 75

Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, 

FY 1996–2003 76

Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by 

Issue of Discrimination FY 1996–2003 77

Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete 

Investigations by Prohibited Basis, FY 1996–2003 78

Figures Figure 1: HUD’s Fair Housing Enforcement Process 10

Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 

1996–2003 25

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for 

Investigation, FY 1996–2003 26

Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 

2003 27

Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each 

Year with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 28

Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 30

Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP 

Agencies, FY 1996–2003 33

Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 35

Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, 

FY 1996–2003 39

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the 

Enforcement Process (Investigations completed by 

FHEO in fiscal years 1996–2003) 41

Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by 

Issue of Discrimination, FY 1996–2003 43

Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete 

Investigations by Prohibited Basis, FY 1996–2003) 44

Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994–2004a 47

Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment 

Status of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort 

Worth, and New York Regions) 50
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, 

as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York 

Regions) 51

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of 

February 2004 52

Abbreviations

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CMS Contact Management System

DOJ Department of Justice

FERS Federal Employee Retirement System

FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program

FHEO Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

FHIP Fair Housing Initiatives Program

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HIHRTS HUD Integrated Human Resources and Training System

OGC Office of General Counsel

QMR Quality Management Review

REAP Resource Estimation and Allocation Process

TEAPOTS Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 21, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been 

responsible for addressing nearly 57,000 complaints of housing 

discrimination filed in the last 8 years. The Fair Housing Act (the Act)—

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended—prohibits housing 

discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other 

protected groups. The Act, which is administered by FHEO and 100 Fair 

Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies, establishes a 100-day 

benchmark for investigating fair housing complaints.1

 In recent years, 

neither FHEO nor the FHAP agencies have routinely met this benchmark. 

For example, 1,611, or 39 percent, of open fair housing discrimination 

investigations were over 100 days old and thus considered “aged” as of 

September 2003. 

You asked us to review several aspects of the fair housing enforcement 

program. Specifically, we agreed with your offices to (1) describe the steps 

involved in the fair housing enforcement process; (2) determine the 

practices selected FHEO and FHAP agencies use to carry out the 

enforcement process and identify practices with the potential to expedite 

or improve it; (3) determine the trends, if any, that are discernable in HUD 

data on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing 

investigations; (4) determine the median time needed to complete each 

1

FHAP agencies are state and local agencies that receive funding under FHEO’s Fair 

Housing Assistance Program because they have rights and regulations that are substantially 

equivalent to those defined in the Act. FHAP agencies may investigate fair housing 

complaints made in their regions.
Page 2 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

stage of the enforcement process; and (5) identify factors that may 

influence the length and thoroughness of the enforcement process.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the 

legislation, regulations, and other guidance describing each stage of the 

process and interviewed FHEO officials responsible for policymaking. To 

determine the practices used at selected locations and their potential for 

expediting or otherwise improving the process, we visited FHEO offices 

and FHAP agencies in different regions and conducted structured 

interviews with key officials in each location.2

 To identify trends in FHEO 

data on the numbers, characteristics, outcomes, and length of fair housing 

investigations, we obtained and analyzed data from FHEO’s automated 

case-tracking system for an 8-year period (1996 to 2003). We also used 

these data to determine the median time needed to complete fair housing 

investigations. We assessed the reliability of data from this system by 

reviewing documents and interviewing managers to determine the 

reasonableness of system controls and by conducting reasonableness tests 

of system data. To identify the factors that could influence the length and 

thoroughness of the Title VIII enforcement process, we interviewed FHEO 

and FHAP agency officials responsible for management, intake, 

investigation, and legal matters at selected field locations and used a 

questionnaire to survey all of FHEO’s 10 regional directors. We conducted 

our work in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; 

Fort Worth and Austin, Tex.; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La.; and New 

York, N. Y. between September 2003 and February 2004, in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages:

1. Intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive 

inquiries from individuals (complainants), determine whether the 

inquiries involve a potential violation of the Act, and file fair housing 

complaints for those that do.

2

We selected these locations on the basis of several factors within the regions, including (1) 

the number of “aged” cases, (2) the total number of complaints received, (3) the ratio of 

FHEO investigations to all investigations FHEO and FHAP agencies completed, and (4) the 

number of FHEO centers and offices. 
Page 3 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

2. Investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators 

collect evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to 

believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred, or is about to 

occur and simultaneously work with parties to conciliate complaints to 

the extent possible.

3. Adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another 

administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines 

whether a violation of the Act has occurred.

For each stage, either the Act or FHEO guidelines establish timeliness 

benchmarks for certain aspects of the enforcement process.3 For a number 

of reasons, however, not all intake actions proceed through the subsequent 

stages. For example, FHEO or FHAP agency personnel may determine 

during the intake stage that the allegation does not fall within the Act’s 

scope and therefore may not proceed with the investigation. Similarly, 

FHEO or a FHAP agency may help resolve a complaint during the 

investigation stage. 

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied significantly 

among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and officials noted that 

certain practices have helped them expedite or improve the enforcement 

process. For example, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies used 

experienced investigators during the intake stage to gather required 

information from aggrieved parties, a practice that staff at these locations 

believed improved the quality of intake and decreased the overall length of 

the enforcement process. (Other offices used some intake analysts who did 

not have investigative experience.) Similarly, some sites involved attorneys 

earlier and more frequently in the investigation stage than did other sites. 

Officials at locations where attorneys were involved earlier and more 

frequently believed that practice improved the thoroughness and decreased 

the length of the enforcement process. We did not observe any significant 

variations in FHEO and FHAP practices in the adjudication stage. Because 

FHEO and FHAP agencies have some discretion in choosing the practices 

they use to carry out the enforcement process, the variations in practices 

may be greater than what we observed in our limited sample. Many FHEO 

field office directors believed that the practices used during the 

3

When we refer to “timeliness benchmarks,” we mean guidance on completing certain 

enforcement actions. Some of these benchmarks are contained in the Act, and some of them 

are contained in FHEO’s Title VIII Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook.
Page 4 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

enforcement process could be improved, but we found that FHEO had not 

systematically reviewed the practices in use across its field offices and 

FHAP agencies to determine which ones worked best. Because of the 

potential some practices may have to expedite the fair housing 

enforcement process and reduce the backlog of aged cases, we are 

recommending that HUD establish a way of sharing information on 

effective practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP 

agencies.

FHEO’s fair housing program data revealed several trends in the volume, 

characteristics, and outcomes of enforcement actions between 1996 and 

2003. Among other things:

• Overall, the number of inquiries received annually varied only slightly 

but increased substantially in 2003. The number of fair housing 

complaints filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998. Further, 

the nature of discrimination alleged in complaints changed during the 

period, with an increasing proportion alleging discrimination on the 

basis of handicap and a declining proportion alleging discrimination 

because of race.4

 However, race was most often cited as the basis of 

housing discrimination over the period. 

• The total number of fair housing investigations completed each year 

increased somewhat over the period after declining in 1997 and 1998. 

Throughout the period, FHAP agencies conducted more investigations 

than FHEO. 

• The outcomes of investigations also changed, with an increasing 

percentage closed without a finding of reasonable cause to believe 

discrimination occurred. Conversely, a declining percentage of 

investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with the help 

of FHEO or a FHAP agency. The ultimate outcomes for many cases in 

which FHEO and FHAP agencies found reasonable cause were not clear 

because the data from FHEO’s automated case-tracking system were 

incomplete, particularly for cases processed by FHAP agencies. 

4

The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of a dwelling or provision of services 

because of a handicap of the buyer or another person associated with the buyer. According 

to the Act “handicap” means—with respect to a person—a physical or mental impairment 

that substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, or a record of 

having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. It does not 

include the current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.
Page 5 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Accordingly, we are recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that 

its system contains complete data on the outcomes of the adjudication 

process.

• Finally, the percentage of investigations completed within 100 days 

showed a general increase during the period. 

Because of limitations in the data provided by FHEO’s automated casetracking system, we were not able to determine the median number of days 

needed to complete each stage of the enforcement process. Complete data 

were available only for measuring the length of investigations. From 1996 

to 2003, the median number of days required for investigations was 259 

days for investigations that FHEO conducted and 195 for those FHAP 

agencies conducted. Because of the importance of reliable data in 

monitoring progress, managing cases, and achieving timeliness 

benchmarks, we are recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that its 

system includes complete data documenting the key dates in each stage of 

the process.

FHEO and FHAP agency officials identified a number of factors that could 

influence the length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement 

process. First, the nature of the complaint itself could affect the length of 

investigations. For example, complaints involving lending or financial 

practices generally took longer to investigate. Second, as noted above, 

variations in the practices followed appeared to affect the length and 

thoroughness of investigations. Third, human capital issues, including the 

numbers, skill, and experience of investigators and other staff involved in 

the process, could also influence investigations. Several FHEO field 

officials stated that their staff lacked some of the skills needed to conduct 

investigations, and some also pointed to limitations in the quantity and 

timing of training. Fourth, the availability of funds that enabled 

investigators to travel and collect evidence, conduct interviews, or 

undertake related activities impacted investigations. We are recommending 

that HUD consider a wide range of strategies to help ensure that the skills 

and competencies needed to meet the fair housing mission are fully 

developed. 

HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

provided comments on a draft of this report indicating general agreement 

with our findings and recommendations. The comments also included 

technical clarifications, which we have incorporated into this report as 

appropriate. HUD’s comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
Page 6 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Background A number of federal statutes prohibit housing discrimination, but the Act is 

the most comprehensive.5

 This report focuses on enforcement of fair 

housing rights under the Act, which is one of the federal government’s 

central tools for fighting discrimination in housing. The Act (as amended) 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, 

sex, handicap, and familial status. The Act applies to certain issues, 

including discrimination in the sale, rental, or advertising or financing of 

housing, the provision of brokerage services; and other activities related to 

residential real estate transactions. The Act covers all “dwellings,” which 

are defined generally as buildings designed to be used in whole or part for a 

residence, as well as vacant land offered for sale and lease for constructing 

or locating a building, with some exceptions.6

The enforcement process granted to HUD and others under the Act has 

been expanded since the law’s enactment in 1968. The original Act gave no 

enforcement powers to HUD—other than the ability to investigate and 

conciliate complaints—and gave limited enforcement powers to private 

persons and the Attorney General. Under the 1968 Act, private persons who 

believed they had been discriminated against in housing could enforce the 

Act by filing a complaint with HUD, and HUD could investigate and 

conciliate those complaints.7

 The 1968 Act had no mechanism for HUD to 

adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no options for further enforcement if 

conciliation efforts failed. The 1968 Act also authorized aggrieved persons 

to bring a civil action within 180 days of the date of the alleged 

discrimination. The relief that courts could provide in such cases included 

only injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages up to $1,000, and, 

where the plaintiff was not able to pay his or her own attorneys’ fees, those 

5

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §794 and Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as amended prohibit 

discrimination in housing that receives federal funds.

6

The Act does not apply to certain transactions involving private homes marketed without a 

broker and without advertising if the owner does not own more than three single-family 

dwellings at any one time, or to transactions involving units within certain owner-occupied 

dwellings. The Act also does not apply, in certain circumstances, to religious organizations 

or private clubs, and the familial status provisions do not apply to housing for older persons. 

Finally, the Act specifically provides that it does not “limit the applicability of reasonable 

local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted 

to occupy a dwelling.” 

7

Conciliation is the process by which FHEO helps the parties find a “just and mutually 

acceptable” resolution of the disputed issues to a Title VIII complaint.
Page 7 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

fees.8 Under the 1968 Act, the Attorney General could initiate a civil suit 

under some circumstances—for example, when there was reasonable 

cause to believe that a “pattern or practice” of resistance had emerged to 

the provisions of the Act. The Attorney General could also bring a suit if a 

group of persons had been denied a right granted by the Act that raised an 

issue considered to be of general public importance. However, damage 

awards were not available in actions brought in these types of cases. 

The 1988 amendments to the Act provided HUD, private persons, and the 

Attorney General with more tools and remedies for enforcement. Currently, 

under the Act as amended, there is an adjudication mechanism, so HUD’s 

enforcement efforts need not end if conciliation efforts do not succeed. 

Additionally, aggrieved parties can elect not to utilize the administrative 

enforcement process and can file civil actions in federal court within 2 

years of the alleged discrimination; and the Act provides for actual and 

punitive damages without limitation and for injunctive relief and attorneys’ 

fees. As under the original 1968 Act, presently the Attorney General can 

bring a civil action in pattern or practice cases or cases of public 

importance. The 1988 amendments allow the Attorney General to 

commence civil actions in cases of breached conciliation agreements or 

discriminatory housing practices referred by HUD and to enforce 

subpoenas. In cases commenced by the Attorney General, courts can 

award civil penalties up to $100,000 for the second violation, in addition to 

compensatory monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. The 1988 Act also 

created a deadline of 100 days for HUD’s investigation and reasonable 

cause determination. 

FHEO directs HUD’s enforcement efforts, although some state and local 

FHAP agencies handle most enforcement efforts for their states and 

localities. FHEO refers complaints alleging violations of state and local fair 

housing laws that are administered by a certified FHAP to that agency. A 

certified agency that has entered into a memorandum of understanding 

with FHEO is eligible to participate in the Fair Housing Assistance 

program. Under this program, FHAP agencies receive funding for fair 

housing activities and must conform to reporting and record maintenance 

requirements, agree to on-site technical assistance, and agree to implement 

policies and procedures provided to the agencies by FHEO. FHEO has staff 

in each of HUD’s 10 regional offices, called “hubs,” through which it 

8

Injunctive relief is an order that commands or prevents an action.
Page 8 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

conducts its enforcement efforts.9 FHEO staff has responsibility for the 

intake, investigation, and resolution of some of these complaints. 

Aggrieved persons may also go directly to FHAP agencies, which then 

perform the intake process. However, FHEO must ultimately approve the 

filing of all complaints involving alleged violations of the Act. If an 

aggrieved party contacts a FHEO office regarding discrimination that 

allegedly occurred in a state or locality that has a FHEO-certified 

“substantially equivalent” state or local agency (that is, a FHAP agency), 

FHEO will complete the intake process and refer the complaint to that 

agency for enforcement. 

Under the Act and HUD’s implementing regulations, FHEO can certify an 

agency if (1) the rights and remedies available under the state or local laws 

are substantially equivalent to those available under the Act, and (2) the 

operation of the agency demonstrates that it meets performance standards 

for timely and thorough fair housing complaint investigations, conciliation, 

and enforcement. The local law must require the agency to meet the 100-

day investigation benchmark contained in the Act. Although the FHAP 

agency enforcement process must be substantially similar to the HUD 

process, it need not be exactly the same. That is, FHAP agencies review 

incoming complaints to determine if they allege a violation of their state or 

local fair housing laws, the Act, or both; investigate complaints to 

determine if fair housing laws have been violated; and provide for the final 

adjudication of complaints, but each of the 100 FHAP agencies can take 

different actions to accomplish these tasks. These certified state and local 

agencies could be civil rights agencies like the Michigan Department of 

Civil Rights. 

FHEO field offices monitor the FHAP agencies, review cases FHAP 

agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment 

under FHAP, and provide technical assistance. FHEO field offices also have 

responsibility for other functions, such as assessing compliance with fair 

housing regulations for entities receiving federal funds, providing 

community education and outreach efforts for fair housing issues, and 

managing grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which funds 

public and private entities combating discriminatory housing practices.

9

Figure 4 shows the states for which hubs have enforcement authority. These hubs are 

located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fort Worth, Kansas City, New York City, 

Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Page 9 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

FHEO tracks fair housing enforcement efforts through its Title Eight 

Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) database. FHEO 

enforcement personnel input information at major stages of the 

enforcement process, such as when a complaint is filed at FHEO, when an 

investigation of a complaint begins, and when a case is resolved. FHEO 

managers use TEAPOTS to track the progress of fair housing cases and 

enforcement efforts. All FHAPs have access to TEAPOTS and are required 

to report their performance information (such as timeliness milestones for 

initiated and completed investigations) into TEAPOTS or other data and 

information systems technology agreed to by HUD. TEAPOTS captures 

numerous aspects of enforcement efforts both nationally and by hub, 

including the numbers and lengths of enforcement actions; characteristics 

of complaints, such as basis of discrimination (race, religion, etc.) and 

subject matter of discrimination (sale, rental, etc.); and type of resolution.

HUD’s Fair Housing 

Enforcement Process 

Provides the 

Framework for 

Handling Complaints

The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages: (1) intake, 

during which FHEO or FHAP agencies receive inquiries from individuals 

with housing discrimination concerns and determine whether those 

concerns involve a potential violation of the Act; (2) investigation, during 

which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect evidence to determine if 

reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice 

has occurred or is about to occur; and (3) adjudication, during which an 

independent fact finder determines whether the person charged with 

discrimination (the respondent) did in fact violate the Act. The 

independent fact-finding may occur before an administrative law judge 

(ALJ) or, if one of the parties chooses, a federal court or state court for 

complaints filed with HUD and FHAP agencies, respectively. The Act and 

other guidelines establish timeliness benchmarks for completing certain 

parts of the enforcement process. An overview of HUD’s basic fair housing 

enforcement process is shown in figure 1.
Page 10 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 1: HUD’s Fair Housing Enforcement Process

Note: Although the most common way to initiate the enforcement process is through an inquiry made 

by an individual, the HUD Secretary, a FHAP agency, or a private fair housing organization might bring 

Complaint initiation and acceptance Complaint initiation and acceptance

Discrimination

alleged

Aggrieved

person-initiated

Complaint initiation and acceptance Complaint initiation and acceptance

FHEO

FHEO is not provided and cannot obtain appropriate information, or facts and circumstances fail to establish jurisdiction.

Investigators collect evidence in order to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that

a discriminatory housing practice has occurred, or is about to occur; the hub’s Regional Counsel, of

HUD’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), must concur in all “cause” and "no-cause” determinations.

For cause cases, independent fact finder determines whether respondent violated the Act.

These decisions can be appealed.

ALJ

Complainant or respondent can elect to have matter 

heard by federal district court, or

Federal District Court

Federal civil action

No determination of 

discrimination—charge 

dismissed.

Discrimination determined—actual 

damages, injunctive or equitable

relief, civil penalty.

Discrimination determined 

—actual and punitive 

damages can be

awarded.

Sources: GAO analysis of the Act and fair housing regulations and GAO interviews with HUD, FHAPs, and private fair housing advocates.

20

 days

120

 days

End

End

End

Discrimination

inquiry

directed to...

100

 days

Administrative closure (For example, HUD loses contact with complainant, complainant does not cooperate, HUD is 

unable to locate the respondent, complainant withdraws complaint without resolution, or a trial begins in a private 

civil action brought by the complainant in state or federal court.)

HUD

Investigation

complete

No-cause determination (After hub director obtains OGC concurrence, dismisses complaint and notifies public.)

Conciliation (Throughout the investigation, FHEO is required to work with complainant and respondent to conciliate 

complaints to the extent feasible. HUD must approve and sign these agreements, reviewing them for protection of 

the public's interests, and may enforce compliance with any continuing obligations under such an agreement.)

Withdrawal with settlement (Parties may, independent of FHEO, agree to withdraw complaint for some consideration.)

Cause determination (With the concurrence of the Regional Counsel, FHEO will issue a determination 

of reasonable cause. The Regional Counsel will then issue a charge of discrimination, and file the 

charge with the Office of ALJs and notify the parties of the filing of the charge.)

End

End

End

End

End

End

Ideal time within 

which a step should 

be completed

Point in process at which

complaint is resolved or

HUD's administrative

process ends

20

 days

(Aggrieved person believes 

discrimination occurred, 

knows of rules/prohibitions 

against it, knows how to file 

an inquiry, and does so.)

(At any time during HUD's 

process, until the first day of 

an ALJ hearing, aggrieved 

person can file a civil action 

in federal court directly.)

HUD staff ensure appropriate information is provided and inquiry falls under

HUD's fair housing jurisdiction.

FHEO staff obtains appropriate information and establishes jurisdiction, thereby “perfecting” the inquiry, and files 

complaint. FHEO will generally refer complaint to FHAP agency if state/local law is substantially the same as Fair 

Housing Act. 

End

Intake:

Adjudication:

Investigation:

60

 days

ALJ hearings 

(Federal rules 

of evidence, 

parties can be 

represented by 

counsel, can 

call witnesses.)

No determination of discrimination

 —charge dismissed.
Page 11 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

a complaint on behalf of an aggrieved party. For illustration, this figure shows HUD’s basic process. 

FHAP agencies follow a similar process.

Intake: FHEO Analyzes 

Inquiries to Determine 

Whether They Constitute 

Fair Housing Complaints

In the intake stage, FHEO hubs receive inquiries (called “claims” from 1996 

to 2001), determine which ones involve a potential violation of the Act, and 

file fair housing complaints for those that do.10 FHAP agencies also receive 

inquiries and work with complainants to determine whether a potential 

violation of the Act, state or local law, or both has occurred. According to 

FHEO headquarters staff, the process usually starts when an individual 

contacts a FHEO hub by telephone, fax, or mail; in person; or over the 

Internet.11 Intake analysts refer numerous contacts they receive that are not 

related to fair housing to appropriate outside organizations. Intake analysts 

record contacts dealing with fair housing as “inquiries” in TEAPOTS. The 

analysts interview complainants and may do other research—for example, 

property searches and searches of newspaper or corporate records—to see 

if enough information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This 

initial process is known as “perfecting” a complaint, although it does not 

always result in a complaint. In order for a complaint to be perfected, it 

must: 

• contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the name 

and address of the aggrieved party (the person who was allegedly 

injured by a discriminatory housing practice), the name and address of 

the respondent, a description and address of the dwelling involved, and 

a concise statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and 

• satisfy the Act’s jurisdictional requirements that the complainant has 

standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling, subject 

matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or refusal to sell),12 and the 

basis (e.g., race, color, familial status) for alleging discrimination are 

10Of FHEO’s many field locations, only the 10 hubs handle intake. Although complainants 

sometimes contact other offices about fair housing issues, these offices refer the 

complainants to the appropriate hub. 

11FHAP agencies may also contact FHEO with an inquiry that they have received directly. If 

FHEO determines that an inquiry alleges a violation of the Act, FHEO considers the inquiry 

a complaint and “dual files” it, paying the FHAP agency if it investigates the complaint. 

FHEO reviews complaints received from a FHAP agency to ensure that the complaint 

alleges a violation under the Act as well. Intake analysts identify complaints that should be 

“dual-filed” with the appropriate FHAP agency.

12FHEO uses the terms “issue,” “type,” or “subject matter” of discrimination interchangeably.
Page 12 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

covered by the Act; and that the complaint has been filed within a year 

of the last occurrence of the discriminatory practice.

Hub directors decide whether these conditions are met. If so, the inquiry 

becomes a perfected complaint; otherwise, it is dismissed. Intake analysts 

record key information about perfected complaints in TEAPOTS, have 

complainants sign the official complaints, and send letters of notice about 

the complaint and the enforcement process to both complainants and 

respondents.13 The complaint file is then usually delivered to the 

investigator.14

According to FHEO headquarters staff, the intake stage for a complaint 

that will be investigated by FHEO—rather than a FHAP agency—is usually 

considered complete when the complaint file is delivered to a FHEO 

investigator. For such complaints, FHEO’s Title VIII Intake, Investigation, 

and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) establishes a timeliness 

benchmark of no more than 20 days for the intake stage. However, FHEO 

also performs intake for inquiries that, because of their characteristics, are 

ultimately referred to a FHAP agency for investigation. For example, if a 

person alleges a discriminatory practice that is within the jurisdiction of a 

FHAP agency, FHEO intake analysts complete the intake stage, file the 

complaint, and refer the case to the FHAP agency.15 For such complaints, 

the Handbook establishes a timeliness benchmark of no more than 5 days 

for the intake stage.

13Federal regulations allow the complaint to be signed at any time during an investigation, 

but FHEO prefers to have the complaint signed early on to protect against frivolous or false 

claims and erroneous statements. 

14In some cases, however, FHEO has special processing procedures that it follows. These 

cases include complaints requiring assistance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), such 

as those that require prompt judicial action, show a pattern and practice of housing 

discrimination, or involve local zoning laws; complaints involving free speech that might be 

protected by the First Amendment and complaints naming HUD as a respondent.

15FHEO generally does not take further action on a complaint referred to a FHAP agency but 

may reactivate the complaint in certain circumstances—for instance, when FHEO and the 

FHAP agency agree to it or when the FHAP agency has not taken sufficient actions within 

certain time frames.
Page 13 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Investigation: FHEO 

Collects Evidence to 

Determine If Reasonable 

Cause Exists to Believe a 

Discriminatory Housing 

Practice Has Occurred or Is 

about to Occur

During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect evidence to 

determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory 

housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. Similarly, FHAP 

agencies may collect evidence to determine if a local or state fair housing 

law has been violated. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators 

during this process, although the Handbook notes that investigations will 

vary (see table 1). 

Table 1: FHEO’s Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations 

Source: FHEO Handbook.

Task Description

Review case file from intake Review intake documents, including intake log, Housing Discrimination 

Information form (Form 903), interviews or investigation conducted during 

intake, including fair-housing testing.

Review jurisdiction Make sure that the complaint is timely, that the complainant has standing, 

that neither the dwelling nor respondent is exempt, and that the complaint 

alleges violation of the Act.

Interview complainant Inform the complainant of rights and steps in the enforcement process and 

obtain information crucial to investigation.

Receive respondent’s defense Receive (orally or in writing) the respondent’s response to notification made 

during the intake process.

Develop investigative plan Study the respondent’s defense to determine whether it appears valid. 

Supervisors and investigators are responsible for ensuring that all claims 

made in the complaint are adequately investigated.

Request necessary additional data from parties Gather information and documents in preparation for interviews. 

Interview respondent Clarify issues and facts in dispute in the complaint, collect additional 

information about the respondent, and assess all responses to the 

complainant’s allegations.

Make on-site or off-site visits Communicate with parties and witnesses and examine records or other 

documents, either on or off site.

Analyze case Evaluate the evidence gathered and determine whether further 

investigation is needed to make a recommendation of reasonable cause or 

no cause.

Final interviews Request responses to or clarification of all of the evidence collected in the 

case from the complainant and respondent.

Create final investigative report Conduct final check to validate jurisdiction, summarize the position of 

parties, summarize investigation activity and records, and summarize and 

analyze the evidentiary record. Recommend a finding of cause or no cause 

to believe that respondent violated the Act.
Page 14 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

According to agency guidance, once an investigator completes an 

investigation, the appropriate hub director reviews the results and makes a 

determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a 

discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. With the 

concurrence of the relevant HUD’s regional counsel, the hub director 

issues a determination of reasonable cause and directs the regional counsel 

to issue a “charge” on behalf of the aggrieved person. The charge is a short 

written statement of the facts that led FHEO to the reasonable cause 

determination. If the hub director decides that no reasonable cause exists 

to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred; then, upon 

concurrence of the regional counsel, the hub director dismisses the 

complaint. In a March 6, 2003, memorandum, HUD’s Office of General 

Counsel (OGC) in headquarters requested that regional counsels send 

OGC’s Office of Fair Housing the final draft of any charge that they propose 

to file and that they not file charges until they have received a response 

from OGC’s Office of Fair Housing.

At any stage before the investigation is complete, the enforcement process 

can end by either conciliation or administrative closure.16 FHEO’s 

Handbook states that conciliation is the process by which FHEO “assists 

the complainant and respondent in achieving a just and mutually 

acceptable resolution of the disputed issues in a Title VIII complaint.” The 

Act requires that HUD try to conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible, 

starting at the time the complaint is filed and continuing until the final 

charge is issued or the case is dismissed. The Handbook and federal 

regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to act as investigator 

and conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state that generally 

investigators will not conciliate their own cases.17 Instead, other 

investigators not investigating a complaint conciliate such complaints. 

Conciliation agreements are to seek to protect the public interest in 

furthering fair housing through various provisions, such as requiring the 

respondent to provide FHEO with periodic reports.18 FHEO may also close 

complaints administratively for several reasons—for example, if the 

complainant withdraws the complaint. 

16In rare instances, FHEO does not resolve a case or complete an investigation but instead 

refers it to DOJ.

1724 C.F.R. 103.300 (c).

18The Act authorizes DOJ to enforce conciliation agreements. 
Page 15 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

The regulations implementing the Act require FHEO and the FHAP 

agencies to complete an investigation, conciliate a case, or otherwise close 

a complaint within 100 days of the filing date unless doing so is 

“impracticable.”19 An investigation is considered complete, and the 100-day 

deadline ends, when a hub director makes a cause or no-cause 

determination in which the regional counsel concurs. If the investigation 

cannot be completed within 100 days, FHEO must notify the complainant 

and the respondent in writing of the reasons for the delay. This written 

notification is called the 100-day letter. 

Adjudication: An 

Independent Fact Finder 

Determines Whether a 

Violation of the Act Has 

Occurred

Once a determination of reasonable cause has been made and a charge has 

been issued, an independent fact finder determines whether the 

respondent has in fact violated the Act (FHAP agencies also use 

independent fact finders to make this determination). HUD’s regulations 

state that OGC must file charges with the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges within 3 business days. When the complainant and respondent 

receive notice of the charge, each has 20 days to decide whether to have 

the case heard in a federal district court or by an ALJ.20 The complainant 

may intervene as a party, and the complainant and the respondent may be 

represented by a lawyer before the ALJ. The Act also requires that the ALJ 

hearing begin within 120 days of the date of the charge, unless 

impracticable, and that the ALJ decision be issued within 60 days of the end 

of the ALJ hearing, unless impracticable.21 If the ALJ determines that no 

discrimination has occurred, the case is dismissed. If the ALJ determines 

that discrimination has occurred, he or she is authorized to award 

injunctive or other equitable relief, economic and noneconomic damages, 

and civil penalties, as applicable.22 Any party adversely affected by the 

1942 U.S.C.A. 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires investigations to be completed within 100 days after 

the filing of the complaint, “unless doing so is impracticable.”

20HUD enforcement personnel said that parties to a case have a variety of reasons for going 

to court. These reasons include, for a complainant, wanting greater access to the punitive 

damages that a federal district court can levy; for a defendant, fearing that the ALJ might be 

biased in favor of FHEO or the complainant; and for either the complainant or the 

respondent, wanting a jury trial or having been advised by an attorney more comfortable 

with the federal court procedures.

2142 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(1).(2).

22Equitable relief is a nonmonetary remedy, such as a specific performance, when monetary 

damages cannot adequately redress the injury.
Page 16 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

ALJ’s decision may appeal it to the HUD Secretary and then to the 

appropriate appellate court, within certain time frames.23 HUD and any 

person entitled to relief under the final decision may petition the 

appropriate court of appeals to have the final decision enforced.

If either party elects to go to federal district court after the charge is issued, 

the HUD Secretary must authorize a civil action in federal district court, 

and the U.S. Attorney General must undertake the action on the 

complainant’s behalf. The complainant may participate and be represented 

by a lawyer in this court proceeding. The respondent may also choose to be 

represented by counsel. Any party adversely affected by the final court 

decision may file a petition in the appropriate appellate court.

Some Practices 

Suggest Ways to 

Expedite and Improve 

the Enforcement 

Process

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied significantly 

among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and officials noted that 

certain practices had helped them expedite or improve the quality of the 

enforcement process. For example, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies 

used experienced investigators during the intake stage, while others did 

not. Some officials at locations that used experienced investigators said 

that this practice had improved the quality of intake and decreased the 

overall length of the enforcement process. The variation in enforcement 

practices between FHEO and FHAP agency locations is not surprising, 

given the freedom those offices have to administer the enforcement 

process. In fact, there is a potential for the variation to be even greater than 

we observed, as we visited only 3 of the 10 hubs and just 7 of the 100 FHAP 

agencies. Even this limited look revealed practices in some locations that 

could potentially expedite cases if adopted elsewhere. However, HUD has 

not performed a systematic nationwide review of the enforcement 

practices at all of these various locations to identify practices with such 

potential. 

23A party adversely affected by the decision may, within the first 15 days of the decision, file 

a motion with the Secretary explaining how and why the decision should be modified. The 

ALJ’s decision becomes HUD’s official decision after 30 days, during which time the 

Secretary may affirm, modify, or set aside the decision or remand the case for additional 

proceedings. Any party adversely affected by the final decision may file a petition in the 

appropriate appellate court within 30 days of the final decision. If no petition is filed, the 

final order becomes conclusive for any issues in connection with any petition for 

enforcement. 
Page 17 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Involving Experienced 

Investigators in Intake May 

Shorten Process and 

Facilitate Investigations

We found two personnel practices that officials at some FHEO and FHAP 

agency locations believed had improved their enforcement processes. 

First, several locations we visited used experienced investigators during 

their intake processes, while others generally did not. Although all three 

hubs we visited used dedicated intake analysts rather than current 

investigators to handle intake responsibilities, two hubs used some former 

investigators as intake analysts. Several FHAP agencies we visited had no 

dedicated intake analysts. At these agencies, current investigators simply 

shared the intake of complaints. Some FHEO officials told us that using 

investigators for intake improved the thoroughness of intake and 

decreased the overall length of the enforcement process. Some officials 

said that investigators have a better understanding of the information 

needed for jurisdiction and investigations, and they thus focus their intake 

efforts on getting that information. 

Second, one FHAP agency we visited had instituted a team approach to 

enforcement. The agency had changed its entire enforcement process in 

1997 to incorporate this approach, using several teams consisting of “civil 

rights representatives” (as opposed to intake analysts and investigators) 

and a “coach attorney.” Teams handled the enforcement process starting 

with the initial contact and finishing up with the reasonable cause 

recommendation. Teams rotated through the intake function for 1 week 

each month, investigating all cases that originated in intake that week. 

Although this FHAP agency made other changes simultaneously with the 

change to the team approach, FHAP agency officials said that the team 

approach had helped its backlog of cases drop significantly and improved 

the quality of its enforcement process. It is not possible to isolate the team 

approach’s impact on the FHAP agency’s fair housing effort, and the 

complaint numbers provided by the agency included other civil rights 

enforcement work, such as enforcement of equal employment opportunity 

laws. However, FHAP agency officials told us that, after the team approach 

had been fully implemented, the average complaint processing time fell 

from 476 days to 335 days. 

In addition to personnel practices, we found that one FHAP agency was 

using a software system to improve the intake procedure. In addition to 

using TEAPOTS, this particular FHAP agency, in conjunction with a 

software company, had developed Contact Management System (CMS) 

software that had significant extra capabilities. The CMS generated a series 

of initial intake questions for the FHAP agency’s civil rights representative 

to ask during intake and then constructed follow-up questions based on the 

answers to the previous questions. These follow-up questions reflected the 
Page 18 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

elements that would be necessary to prove discrimination in a given case. 

At the end of its approximately 2-hour intake process, the FHAP agency 

tried to have either a perfected complaint or a reason that the contact did 

not warrant a perfected complaint. A FHAP agency official told us that the 

CMS software had helped decrease the length and improve the 

thoroughness of its enforcement process. Again, it is not possible to isolate 

the impact of the CMS software, but after the software was installed, 

average complaint processing times for the FHAP agency’s fair housing and 

other civil rights work decreased from 335 days to 252 days. 

Differences in 

Investigations, Including the 

Degree of Attorney 

Involvement and 

Conciliation Methods, May 

Improve the Enforcement 

Process

We observed numerous variations in investigative practices among the 

FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited. In several locations, officials said 

that their specific practices had helped them expedite the process, improve 

the quality of the process, or both. First, some locations involved attorneys 

earlier and more frequently during the investigation than other locations. 

Second, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies simultaneously 

investigated and conciliated complaints, while others delayed the 

investigation while conciliating. Third, one hub and one FHAP agency 

customarily used separate persons to investigate and conciliate a 

complaint, while at other hubs and FHAP agencies, a single person handled 

both of these tasks. Fourth, some enforcement locations employed a tool 

called a “bubble sheet” to help meet the 100-day requirement for 

completing investigations. Last, one FHAP agency used software that 

provided additional investigative tools that TEAPOTS did not provide. 

OGC Involvement At the FHEO offices and FHAP agencies we visited, investigators and 

attorneys interacted to different degrees, and several officials told us that 

greater interaction had resulted in shorter and more thorough 

investigations. For example, at one hub the regional OGC had weekly 

meetings with investigators at the same location and biweekly meetings 

with investigators at other offices in the region. Interaction at another hub 

was less formal, but both regional OGC attorneys and the investigators said 

that frequent and meaningful interaction occurred on most cases through 

the informal “open-door” approach. At a third hub, OGC attorneys were not 

yet formally interacting with investigators, although they had recently 

signed a memorandum of understanding to do so. At FHAP agencies, we 

saw similar variations. One FHAP agency, as mentioned earlier, had a 

“coach attorney” on each team to help from the earliest stages of the 

investigations. At other FHAP agencies we visited, investigators had more 

limited interaction with the FHAP agency attorney. 
Page 19 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

In our survey of the 10 hub directors, 5 said that involving OGC in 

investigations had a great or very great impact on investigations, improving 

thoroughness, decreasing length, or both.24 Officials cited various reasons 

for this result, including that the interactions with OGC:

• reduced the amount of work wasted on aspects of a case that should not 

receive investigative attention, shortening investigations;

• reduced the amount of additional work involved in seeking attorney 

concurrence, decreasing the length of investigations;

• helped the investigators pursue the appropriate leads at the best times 

during an investigation, increasing thoroughness; and

• created more cooperation among complainants and respondents, as the 

parties believed that attorneys were more involved in the enforcement 

process.

FHEO has recognized the importance of greater FHEO-OGC interaction. A 

May 5, 2003, memorandum to all hub directors and OGC regional counsels 

from the FHEO Assistant Secretary and the HUD General Counsel said, 

“The most effective fair housing enforcement actions are the result of 

frequent coordination and collaboration between investigators and 

counsels.” That memorandum required FHEO/regional counsel to consult 

with FHEO personnel frequently during the enforcement process, including 

having: 

“significant involvement at complaint intake, in determinations of jurisdiction, in 

investigative plan development, in conducting investigations, in the effort to resolve cases 

informally through conciliation, and in making determinations of reasonable cause.” 

That memorandum also required each regional counsel and each FHEO 

hub director to enter into working agreements with each other to formalize 

their working relationships. As of November 24, 2003, every hub had those 

agreements in place, and one HUD official said that the new memorandum 

of understanding had resulted in improved communication between 

investigators and OGC. 

24The complete results of our survey appear in appendix II. 
Page 20 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Simultaneous Conciliations Some HUD locations we visited put investigations on hold when 

conciliation looked likely, while others did not. Some fair housing officials 

at the locations that simultaneously investigated and conciliated told us 

that doing so not only expedited the enforcement process but could also 

facilitate conciliation. Because the parties were aware that the 

investigation was ongoing, two hub directors told us they were sometimes 

more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some officials at the offices that 

delayed the investigation while attempting conciliation told us that this 

practice increased the number of calendar days necessary to investigate a 

case. However, one hub official told us that simultaneous investigation and 

conciliation could waste resources, as it might not be necessary to obtain 

further evidence in a case that would be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10 

hub directors told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation had a 

great or very great impact on the length of the enforcement process, and all 

6 said that the practice decreased the length. Four directors said that the 

practice had a great or very great impact on the thoroughness of 

investigations, and these four told us that it increased the thoroughness of 

investigations.

Investigator Conciliation of Own 

Cases

Investigators at some FHEO locations and FHAP agencies customarily 

conciliated their own cases, while other locations usually used separate 

investigators and conciliators.25 Officials we spoke with were divided on 

the impact of this practice. Some officials told us that having the same 

person performing both tasks had not caused problems. Other officials—

including some at locations where investigators conciliated their own 

cases—indicated a preference to have different people perform these 

tasks. One official said that separating these tasks enabled simultaneous 

conciliation and investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up 

the process. Another official noted that parties might share information 

with a conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that a 

conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The same 

official said that although investigators were not allowed to use 

information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the 

information could still influence the questions conciliators posed—and 

thus the information they learned—as investigators. Similarly, at one hub 

an OGC official told us that information learned as a result of conciliation 

efforts should not be included in investigative findings. A few enforcement 

25Federal regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to act as investigator and 

conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state that generally investigators will not 

conciliate their own cases.
Page 21 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

officials at locations that did not separate the tasks said that they did not 

have enough staff to have separate conciliators. One hub director said that 

a FHAP agency in its region was experimenting with a separate mediation 

track in addition to the conciliation mechanism. The mediation occurred 

early in the process and involved a professional, nongovernment mediator. 

The director said the mediation had usually pleased the parties, resulting in 

timely resolutions of cases and beneficial results. 

Response to 100-day 

Requirement

In responding to the 100-day requirement, several hubs and FHAP agencies 

used variations of what they called a “bubble sheet”-—a list of investigative 

milestones and a time line for completing them-—in order to meet the 100-

day requirement. If an investigator missed a milestone, the “bubble burst,” 

and the investigator might not meet the 100-day requirement. Some 

officials said that the bubble sheet helped investigators complete each of 

the small steps of the investigation in a timely fashion and thus increased 

the likelihood of compliance with the 100-day requirement. Nevertheless, 

some people said that the 100-day requirement was arbitrary and often 

unattainable, and their response to the 100-day requirement was simply to 

send the 100-day letter at the appropriate time. 

Software As in the intake stage, the CMS software used at one FHAP agency offered 

additional tools during investigations that TEAPOTS did not. The CMS 

generated interview questions for investigations based on the information 

obtained in intake and then generated a list of critical documents that were 

usually needed for certain types of investigations. According to FHAP 

agency officials, the CMS improved the quality of investigations and 

decreased the length of cases. One FHEO center we visited was attempting 

to store possible witness questions in a central database for investigators to 

review to see if any were applicable to their cases, but this system was not 

automated and relied on investigators to compile the list. Officials at that 

center hoped that having a central location for all such questions would 

give investigators at least some examples of possible questions to ask. 

Officials at the FHAP agency noted that some data they are required to 

enter into TEAPOTS duplicated information in CMS and indicated that it 

would be preferable not to enter this information twice. Another FHAP 

agency we visited that used other software in addition to TEAPOTS had 

begun a pilot program to alleviate this duplication, using a program that 

would allow information entered into TEAPOTS to be incorporated into the 

FHAP agency software without keying the data again.
Page 22 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Some Hubs and FHAP 

Agencies We Visited Had 

Limited Adjudication 

Involvement over Last 

Several Years

We did not observe any significant variations across agencies in the 

adjudication stage of the enforcement process, possibly in part because the 

hubs and FHAP agencies we visited had adjudicated very few cases 

through their administrative processes. For example, one hub and one 

FHAP agency we visited told us they did not have any cases that had gone 

through the administrative hearing process over the last 5 years. Officials at 

the FHAP agency told us that in the rare cases that could go to an 

administrative proceeding, the FHAP agency encouraged parties to opt for 

state court, since otherwise the FHAP agency would have to commit 

resources to the process. Agency officials said that steering parties to one 

forum is inconsistent with the enforcement framework of the Act and the 

neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with respect to forum 

selection.

FHEO and FHAP Agencies 

Had Discretion in 

Implementing Practices, but 

FHEO Had Not Examined 

Different Practices

The variations among hubs, centers, and FHAP agencies are not surprising, 

given the discretion FHEO locations and FHAP agencies have had to 

administer the enforcement process. While FHEO’s Handbook contains 

significant guidance, policies, and procedures, FHAP agencies have not 

been required to follow them. Rather, FHAP agencies must meet certain 

performance standards to obtain or maintain certification as substantially 

equivalent agencies. Under these standards, FHAP agencies must have 

engaged in timely, comprehensive, and thorough fair housing complaint 

investigation, conciliation, and enforcement activities. For both FHEO 

locations and FHAP agencies, the variations we observed could be even 

greater, given our small sample. Additionally, according to the 2001 

National Council on Disability report, variations in the hubs’ practices had 

increased since 1996.26 Similarly, the potential for variations in FHAP 

agencies’ practices has likely grown with the number of FHAP agencies, 

which increased from 64 at the start of fiscal year 1996 to 100 at the start of 

fiscal year 2004. 

Many FHEO hub directors indicated that practical improvements could be 

made to the enforcement process; in fact, at least four directors believed 

that practical improvements could be made to each stage. Several hub 

26“Reconstructing Fair Housing,” (National Council on Disability) NCD Report, (Washington, 

D.C., November 6, 2001). The NCD Report said that FHEO headquarters had greater 

authority over the enforcement process in the early 1990s but that in 1996 authority began to 

devolve to FHEO’s hubs. As a consequence of that development and other factors, the NCD 

report said, significant differences among hubs emerged.
Page 23 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

directors provided specific ideas for improvements to the intake stage. One 

hub director said that her hub had recently written its own intake 

handbook and had set a requirement of completing intake within 15 days, 

rather than the 20 days specified in FHEO’s Handbook. Five of the 10 

directors said that improvements could be made to the investigation stage 

for FHEO that would reduce the length of the process to a great or very 

great extent. One director specifically mentioned a practice—mediation in 

the early stages of the complaint process—that was in place at FHAP 

agencies in his region. Additionally, 4 of the 10 directors said that practical 

improvements could be made to the investigation stage that would increase 

the thoroughness of the enforcement process to a very great extent. For 

example, several directors suggested either increasing OGC’s staff to 

provide more assistance to investigators or putting a non-OGC attorney on 

staff at the hub or field level as a resource for the investigators. 

Additionally, one hub director said that a checklist she had recently 

developed for supervisors reviewing investigations should increase the 

thoroughness of investigations. Regarding the adjudication stage, one hub 

director said that the region was concerned about not knowing whether 

DOJ would accept a fair housing case if a party in the case elected to have 

it heard in federal district court. 

 Despite the existing differences in practices among the entities involved in 

enforcing the Act and officials’ belief that some practices could be 

improved, HUD has not performed a systematic nationwide review of its or 

FHAP agencies’ enforcement practices since 1996. The 1996 review, a 

business process redesign, focused on FHEO’s practices, although one 

FHAP agency was represented in the process. FHEO uses other reviews for 

practices in its offices, such as Quality Management Reviews (QMR), in 

part as peer reviews that allow collaboration and information sharing 

between FHEO offices. Additionally, FHEO reviews cases FHAP agencies 

investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment under the 

program. However, the QMRs and FHAP agency reviews are not 

systematic, nationwide reviews of the practices that FHEO and FHAP 

agencies are using. 

Enforcement Data 

Show Some Trends in 

Numbers, Types, and 

Outcomes of Cases

Our analysis of FHEO data on fair housing enforcement activities from 

fiscal year 1996 to 2003 revealed a number of trends. We found that:

• The number of claims or inquiries FHEO received annually remained 

stable until 2002 but then increased substantially. The number of 
Page 24 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

complaints filed trended downward in the earlier years but then rose 

steadily.

• An increasing proportion of these complaints alleged discrimination on 

the basis of handicap, while the most frequently cited basis of 

discrimination—race—declined as a proportion of all complaints. 

• While the number of investigations completed fell in 1997 and 1998, 

more investigations were completed in each subsequent year. FHAP 

agencies rather than FHEO conducted most of the investigations. 

• The outcomes of investigations changed over the period, with an 

increasing proportion of investigations closed without finding 

reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. 

• The frequency with which FHEO and FHAP agencies completed 

investigations within 100 days increased over the period. 

The trend data we present are reported on a fiscal year basis. We could not 

measure the volume of claims and inquiries before 1996. Generally, FHEO 

treated all inquiries it received between 1989 and 1994 as complaints, 

regardless of whether the contact alleged a violation of the Act. During 

parts of 1994 and 1995, FHEO did not collect information on those inquiries 

that did not result in an investigation. 

The Number of Inquiries 

and Complaints Filed 

Increased 

From 1996 until 2002, FHEO’s annual numbers of claims and inquiries 

alleging violations of the Act varied only slightly, averaging about 4,600 per 

year, but rose to more than 5,400 in 2003 (fig. 2). Because FHEO does not 

require FHAP agencies to report the number of claims and inquiries 

received during this period, we could not determine the number of claims 

and inquiries received by FHAP agencies.27

27Other FHEO data give an indication of the extent to which FHAP agencies received 

inquiries. Specifically, FHAP agencies were responsible for intake for nearly 24,000 

complaints filed, or 42 percent of all complaints filed during the period.
Page 25 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996–2003 

Note: Does not include inquiries received by FHAP agencies.

The combined number of complaints perfected and filed declined slightly 

from 1996 until 1998, but then began increasing steadily (fig. 3). By 2003, 

the number of complaints filed annually had risen to more than 8,000, with 

FHAP agencies responsible for investigating the largest share. Of the 53,866 

complaints filed during the period, FHAP agencies were responsible for 

investigating 67 percent, and FHEO was responsible for investigating 33 

percent. 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of claims and inquiries (In thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Year

0

2

4

6

8

10
Page 26 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for Investigation, 

FY 1996–2003

Note: Not all inquiries are perfected into complaints.

Overall, FHAP agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing 

portion of complaints filed each year from 1998 until 2003. In part, these 

increases may be attributable to the growth in the number of FHAP 

agencies nationwide. Seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, 

New York, North Dakota, and Vermont), Washington, D.C., and 26 localities 

created FHAP agencies between 1996 and 2003 (fig. 4). FHAP agencies 

were responsible for investigating an increasing number of complaints filed 

between 1998 and 2003 in all except the Denver region (Region 8). In 

comparison, four FHEO regions—Boston, Chicago, New York, and 

Philadelphia—were responsible for investigating a declining number of 

complaints filed during this period.

Number of complaints filed (In thousands)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Year

0

2

4

6

8

10

Total

FHEO

FHAP agencies

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Page 27 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 2003 

Note: Does not include territories in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, none of which had FHAP 

agencies. There are two local FHAP agencies located in Charlotte, NC and Seattle, WA, and two in 

Tampa, FL (one of which existed before 1996).

The Basis, Subject Matter, 

and Regional Distribution of 

Complaints Filed Changed 

As the number of complaints filed rose between 1996 and 2003, the basis of, 

or reasons for, the alleged discrimination changed somewhat (fig. 5). First, 

although complaints alleging discrimination based on race continued to 

dominate, accounting for around 40 percent of the total, the annual 

percentage declined slightly over the period. The share of complaints 

alleging discrimination based on familial status declined from one-quarter 

to about one-sixth of complaints filed during the period. In contrast, 

complaints alleging discrimination based on handicap increased 

CT

ME

MA

RI

VT

AK

HI

IA

KS

NE

MO

AZ

CA

NV

NJ

NY

AL

FL

GA

KY

MS

NC

SC

TN

AR

LA

NM

OK

TX

ID

OR

WA

IL

IN

MI

MN

OH

WI

CO

MT ND

SD

UT

WY

NH

DE

DC

MD

PA

VA

WV

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

State FHAP agency

Local FHAP agency

State FHAP agency

Local FHAP agency

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

As of 1996 Added after 1996
Page 28 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

significantly, rising by more than 13 percentage points to become the 

second most frequently cited basis of complaints. Complaints alleging 

discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, and retaliation also 

grew somewhat, while those alleging discrimination because of sex and 

color declined. 

Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 

Notes: Discrimination based upon retaliation prohibits retaliation against anyone who has filed a fair 

housing complaint, encouraged or assisted another person in the filing of a fair housing complaint. 

Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints alleged more than one basis.

1.5%

7.5%

12.4%

Race

Sex

Color

National origin

Handicap

Familial status

Religion

Retaliation

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Prohibited basis

as a percent of

complaints filed

each year

43.5%

25.2%

12.9%

2.3%

39.3%

16.2%

12.2%

11.4%

2.4%

5.3%

2.7%

37.9%

39.4%

16.0%

13.0%

11.5%

2.2%

5.0%

3.0%

39.0%

39.2%

17.8%

12.9%

11.6%

4.5%

5.9%

2.2%

34.8%

40.2%

18.4%

11.7%

10.5%

4.1%

4.1%

2.3%

34.4%

40.0%

18.9%

11.2%

9.1%

4.5%

3.0%

2.4%

33.9%

45.4%

20.0%

11.4%

11.1%

7.4%

3.1%

1.9%

30.4%

43.6%

22.2%

11.8%

11.9%

10.0%

2.1%

2.0%

25.2% 29.6%

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Page 29 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

The subject matter, or issue covered by the Act, of complaints also changed 

from 1996 through 2003. Most of the complaints filed alleged 

discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges (e.g., refusal to repair, 

charging an inflated rent) or refusal to rent, but the share of these 

complaint issues fell over the period from a high of about 63 percent and 36 

percent, respectively, in 1996 to 55 percent and 23 percent in 2003 (fig. 6). 

At the same time, the share of complaints alleging failure to make 

reasonable accommodation or modification rose significantly, from less 

than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 2003.28 Complaints alleging a single 

issue represented about 68 percent of complaints filed during that period, 

while complaints alleging more than one issue represented the remaining 

32 percent.

28Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of handicap includes a refusal to 

make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services when such 

accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and 

enjoy a dwelling. This category may also include (with the exception of rental 

environments) the refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable 

modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such 

modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. 42 

U.S.C. 3604(f)(3).
Page 30 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 

Notes: Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints involve more than one issue.

a

Retaliation is covered under Section 818 of the Act making it illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or 

interfere with any person in the exercise of, or on account of, his/her having aided any other person in 

the exercise of the right to file a fair housing complaint.

3.8%

4.1%

8.0%

Refusal to rent

Single issue

Advertisingb

Discriminatory

terms

Retaliationa

(Section 818)

Discriminatory

lending or

financial

practicesc

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Complaint issue

as a percent of

complaints filed

each year

Otherg

68.6%

36.3%

13.7%

66.4%

26.3%

12.3%

9.5%

7.3%

6.4%

55.1%

67.9%

23.1%

13.6%

10.7%

5.4%

6.5%

54.7%

67.7%

28.4%

11.1%

6.0%

9.3%

6.1%

57.2%

65.7%

28.1%

12.7%

7.4%

9.3%

5.2%

56.8%

63.7%

27.7%

13.9%

10.6%

10.0%

4.0%

58.4%

68.2%

24.4%

14.8%

8.9%

7.0%

5.0%

60.9%

71.1%

30.2%

Multiple issues 31.4% 28.9% 31.8% 36.3% 34.3% 32.3% 33.6% 32.1%

11.9%

7.4%

4.9%

5.0%

2.8% False

representationd 2.6% 3.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 2.2% 2.5%

Refusal to sell 2.4% 2.7% 3.5% 3.0% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.5%

0.9% Design

and constructione 2.1% 3.7% 4.5% 3.1% 2.2% 2.0% 2.7%

0.8%

Steering,

blockbusting,

and redliningf

0.9% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.5%

0.2%

Reasonable

accommodation

or modification

2.6% 6.3% 11.2% 14.6% 14.6% 17.8% 16.5%

62.7% 64.2%

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Page 31 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

b

Advertising refers to making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published any 

notice, statement or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any 

preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected class (e.g., race, color, etc.). 

c

Discriminatory lending or financial practices refers to engaging in residential real estate-related 

transactions (e.g., mortgages, construction loans, home equity loans, home improvement loans, and 

appraisals) that discriminate against any person making such a transaction on the basis of a protected 

class. This category includes discrimination in the provision of professional opportunities in real estate 

by restricting membership in the associations necessary for success.

d

False representation refers to representing to any person that any dwelling is not available for 

inspection, sale, or rental when such a dwelling is, in fact, so available. 

e

Design and construction refers to discrimination in connection with the failure to design and construct 

a dwelling in such a manner that, for example, the public and common use portions are readily 

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 

f

Steering refers to the practice of guiding prospective tenants or homebuyers to areas where persons 

of their class have previously been housed. Blockbusting refers to the practice of inducing 

homeowners to sell their property at depressed prices by appealing to their fear of integration. 

Redlining refers to a policy of excluding specific geographic areas from the consideration for 

investment. 

g

Other category includes six issues involving (1) criminal activity (i.e., covered under a federal criminal 

statute, Section 901 of the Act, intended to prohibit housing-related acts of violence motivated by a 

prohibited basis such as race, sex, or religion); (2) refusal to insure, which was cited in less than 1 

percent of complaints in 2003; and (3) failure to qualify for the senior housing exemption all of which 

were cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; (4) discriminatory zoning and land use (i.e., the 

practice of applying zoning codes in an uneven manner or voting to rezone tracts of land to prevent the 

construction of housing projected to attract persons of another race), which was cited in about 1 

percent of complaints in 2003; (5) failure to comply with HUD poster regulations, which was not cited in 

any complaints in 2003; and (6) allegations involving otherwise denying or otherwise discriminating in 

housing, which were cited in about 10 percent of complaints in 2003.

While the volume of complaints filed nationwide grew during the period, 

two regions, Denver (Region 8) and Seattle (Region 10) saw a decline (table 

2). Conversely, two regions saw substantial increases. Specifically, 

complaints filed in Kansas City (Region 7) doubled during the period and 

almost tripled in the New York region (Region 2). The increases may be 

attributable, in part, to the addition of FHAP agencies from 1996 through 

2003. By November of 1999, the New York region had two FHAP agencies 

online. In fiscal year 2000, the number of complaints filed in the New York 

region had more than doubled, rising from 213 to 442 complaints, or 6.3 

percent of all complaints filed. FHEO referred 337 of these complaints to 

the FHAP agencies for investigation. 
Page 32 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Excludes 26 complaints filed with Region 00 (Washington, D.C.).

The Number of Completed 

Investigations Rose, While 

Outcomes Varied 

Investigations may be completed in several ways, each leading to a 

particular outcome. First, an investigation is considered complete when it 

is closed administratively—for example, the complainant withdraws the 

complaint or staff are unable to locate the complainant. Second, a FHEOconducted investigation may be considered complete when the complaint 

is transferred to DOJ because of FHEO’s agreement to do so in certain 

instances, such as in cases involving criminal activity or pattern and 

practice issues. Third, FHEO or the FHAP agency may complete the 

investigation through conciliation with the parties, or the parties may settle 

among themselves. Fourth, FHEO or the FHAP agency may determine that 

reasonable cause may exist to believe that a discriminatory housing 

practice has occurred (find cause). Finally, FHEO or the FHAP agency may 

determine that there is not reasonable cause (no cause). 

The number of investigations completed annually during the period rose 

after falling significantly in 1997 through 1998 (see fig. 7). This pattern was 

Complaints by 

region filed each 

year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Region 1 (Boston) 386 382 359 374 436 407 400 458

Region 2 

(New York) 253 239 238 213 442 607 699 685

Region 3 

(Philadelphia) 506 453 368 408 532 536 560 541

Region 4 (Atlanta) 839 851 742 954 1,306 1,266 1,497 1,367

Region 5 (Chicago) 887 953 1,049 924 1,040 1,059 1,142 1,296

Region 6 

(Fort Worth) 892 629 692 693 700 855 942 968

Region 7 (Kansas 

City) 507 580 780 808 654 677 760 1,035

Region 8 (Denver) 401 286 251 281 266 257 280 269

Region 9 (San 

Francisco) 1,118 1,113 1,061 1,089 1,058 1,003 1,067 1,176

Region 10 (Seattle) 479 389 277 379 536 339 298 341

Total 6,268 5,875 5,817 6,123 6,970 7,006 7,645 8,136
Page 33 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

similar for both FHAP agencies and FHEO, though the number of 

investigations completed by FHAP agencies declined in 2003 and the 

number of investigations completed by FHEO declined in 2002. 

Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 

The most frequent outcome of investigations completed during the period 

was a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that 

discrimination had occurred (see fig. 8). The share of investigations 

resulting in this outcome rose from just over 40 percent in 1996 to around 

48 percent in 2003. Conversely, the share of investigations completed 

through successful conciliation or settlement declined somewhat during 

Total

FHAP agencies

FHEO

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of completed investigations (In thousands)

Year

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

0

2

4

6

8

10
Page 34 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

the period, but this outcome remained the second most frequent—about 

one-third of all investigations completed during the period.29

A determination of reasonable cause accounted for the smallest share of 

outcomes, around 5 percent of all completed investigations. TEAPOTS 

does not have a code specifically indicating that an investigation was 

completed with a finding of reasonable cause, but does provide for a date 

on which cause was found. We used this date to measure the number of 

investigations completed with a finding of reasonable cause. According to a 

HUD official, FHEO hubs do not record cause dates in TEAPOTS 

consistently. Specifically, at least two hubs may initially record the date the 

case is transferred to the regional counsel, rather than the date of the 

issuance of a determination of reasonable cause with which the regional 

counsel has concurred. These hubs then enter a new date when the 

regional counsel concurs and a charge of discrimination is issued. 

Therefore, the number of investigations that we report as completed during 

each fiscal year with a finding of reasonable cause may not match the 

number of charges that HUD reports, particularly for fiscal year 2003.

29About 1 percent of investigations completed during this period were closed by FHEO when 

they were transferred to DOJ.
Page 35 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003 

Note: Does not include investigations closed by FHEO through referral to the DOJ (about 1 percent in 

2003).

We sorted HUD’s data on outcomes by basis of complaint, subject matter, 

and region. Our analysis revealed the following:

• The percentage of no-cause determinations varied somewhat according 

to the basis of discrimination alleged. Above-average proportions of 

investigations that involved religion, retaliation, and race ended in nocause determinations, (55, 53, and 54 percent respectively, compared 

with 47 percent overall). Similarly, 41 percent of investigations involving 

familial status and 40 percent of investigations involving handicap as at 

least one of the bases for discrimination ended in conciliation or 

settlement, compared with 32 percent overall.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No reasonable cause

Conciliation or settlement

Reasonable cause

Administrative closures

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Percentage

Year

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Page 36 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

• Outcomes also differed by the subject matter, or issue involved. A 

greater proportion of investigations that resulted in a no-cause finding 

had discriminatory terms or refusal to rent as an issue (61 and 30 

percent, respectively). Conversely, however, relatively few complaints 

determined to have no cause involved refusal to sell or noncompliance 

with design and construction as issues (4 and 1 percent, respectively). 

• Regional differences were also apparent in outcomes. Investigations 

completed in the Atlanta region (Region 4), for instance, were more 

likely to end in no-cause determinations—53 percent—than 

investigations in any other region. Similarly, investigations completed in 

the Denver region (Region 8) were more likely to end in conciliation or 

settlement. Finally, the overall percentage of investigations completed 

with a reasonable cause determination varied widely among regions, 

from as high as 10 percent in the Boston region (Region 1) to as low as 1 

percent in the Fort Worth region (Region 6). 

Complaint investigations that resulted in a determination of reasonable 

cause generally proceeded to the adjudication stage. Because of TEAPOTS 

data limitations, we were not able to determine the final resolutions (that 

is, the reasons for closing the cases, including decisions on whether or not 

an actual violation of the Act had occurred) of all complaints that reached 

the adjudication stage. Specifically, as table 3 shows, for 8 percent of 

investigations in which FHEO made a determination of reasonable cause 

and 30 percent of investigations in which a FHAP agency made a similar 

determination, information on the reason for closure was missing in 

TEAPOTS. For the remaining FHEO and FHAP agency investigations 

(those for which the reason for closure was available), we identified the 

following: 

• The independent fact finder found that discrimination had occurred in 

about 3 percent of the FHEO cases and 7 percent of the FHAP agency 

cases.

• About one-third of all cases (FHEO and FHAP agency) resulted in a 

judicial consent order—that is, the parties negotiated a settlement, 

either alone or through an appointed settlement judge, which was 

submitted to the independent fact finder as a voluntary agreement to 

resolve the case.

• Of the FHEO cases, 46 percent were closed when the parties elected to 

go to court, about 6 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 2 
Page 37 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

percent resulted in administrative closure, about 1 percent resulted in 

judicial dismissal, and in less than 1 percent the independent fact finder 

found that no discrimination occurred.

• Of the FHAP agency cases, the independent fact finder dismissed 16 

percent, 9 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 4 percent were 

closed administratively, and 4 percent resulted in a finding that no 

discrimination occurred. 

Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to 

Believe That Discrimination Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996–2003)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

a

Includes 145 FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed through conciliation or 

settlement. However, FHEO officials are concerned that FHAP agencies are incorrectly coding what 

actually may be cases closed through judicial consent order.

b

Includes complaints that were withdrawn by the complainant after the case was resolved.

c

Includes three FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed because a trial had begun. 

According to FHEO officials, there have been problems in the past with FHAP agencies coding these 

case closures incorrectly.

d

The case is either still open in the adjudication process or TEAPOTS did not include a closure code. 

Types of Closures

FHAP agencies FHEO Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Judicial consent order by ALJ or FHAP 

agency related fact finder 591 30.5 230 32.0 821 30.9

Parties elect to go to court 0 0.0 330 45.9 330 12.4

Judicial dismissal by ALJ or fact finder 

related to FHAP agency 309 16.0 10 1.4 319 12.0

Conciliation or settlement by FHEO or 

FHAP agency 176a 9.1 44 6.1 220 8.3

Discrimination found in legal 

proceedings of ALJ or fact finder related 

to FHAP agency 134 6.9 24 3.3 158 5.9

Administrative closure by FHEO or 

FHAP agencyb 74c 3.8 14 1.9 88 3.3

No discrimination found in legal 

proceedings of ALJ or fact finder related 

to FHAP agency 77 4.0 5 0.7 82 3.1

Open case or information on

adjudication decision missingd 576 29.7 59 8.2 635 23.9

Total 1,937 100.0 719e 99.5 2,656 99.8
Page 38 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

e

Includes 3 complaints, that had a determination of reasonable cause but were coded in TEAPOTS as 

having an adjudication closure code of no cause (one case) or DOJ settlement (two cases). According 

to FHEO officials, the coding for adjudication is likely incorrect.

The Number of 

Investigations Completed 

within 100 Days Increased 

in 2001—2003 

The numbers of investigations completed within 100 days by both FHEO 

and the FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001 (fig. 9).30 Some of 

the improvement in the number of FHEO investigations completed in 100 

days may have been the result of an initiative aimed at reducing the number 

of aged cases in FHEO’s inventory. FHEO undertook the initiative in 2001 

after completing only 14 percent of its investigations within the 100-day 

timeframe in 2000. The number completed in 100 days rose in 2002, to 41 

percent of all investigations.31 At the same time, the number of FHAP 

agency investigations meeting the 100-day benchmark remained fairly 

stable (23 to 33 percent) over the period 1996 to 2003, rising most markedly 

from 2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent. In January 2004, FHEO 

established monthly efficiency goals aimed at monitoring the progress of 

the hubs in meeting both the 20-day intake and 100-day investigative 

timeliness benchmarks. It is too soon to determine what effect this 

initiative might have on the timeliness of investigations.

30HUD requires that the time to complete an investigation be measured from the date a 

complaint is filed, reopened, or reentered (taken back from the FHAP agency)—whichever 

is most recent—to the date the investigation is closed. 

31We found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2003, the most frequent month in which HUD 

reopened or reentered a fair housing complaint was September, the last month of the fiscal 

year. This practice had the effect of increasing the percentage of investigations that were 

aged less than 100 days for statistics reported at the end of the fiscal year. We report data on 

the age of complaints for investigations completed during the year.
Page 39 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 1996–2003

Note: For this analysis, we use HUD’s method of measuring compliance with the 100-day benchmark 

for investigations—that is, the most recent of the dates the complaint was filed, reopened, or 

reentered.

Data Limitations 

Preclude 

Comprehensive 

Measurement of Time 

Taken by Each Stage of 

the Enforcement 

Process 

While data were generally available to measure the length of both FHEO’s 

and FHAP agencies’ investigations, we found that reliable data were 

lacking on the intake and adjudication stages handled by FHAP agencies. 

First, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report on intake activities, 

and FHAP agencies accounted for intake on 42 percent of all complaints 

filed in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Second, while TEAPOTS contained 

data on the dates that inquiries were received for investigations completed 

by FHAP agencies, we question the reliability of these data. According to a 

FHEO official responsible for TEAPOTS, FHEO staff may have routinely 

used the date on which cases were transferred to FHAP agencies as the 

“initial inquiry” date. In addition, TEAPOTS data show that 20,226 (54 

Percentage complete within 100 days

Year

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Total

FHAP agencies

FHEO

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Page 40 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

percent) of complaints investigated by FHAP agencies were filed the same 

day that the inquiries were received—that is, the intake stage began and 

ended on the same date. Third, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to 

report the results of the adjudication of closed investigations. Accordingly, 

for many complaints investigated by FHAP agencies that reached the 

adjudication stage, TEAPOTS did not show an end date for adjudication.32

Finally, TEAPOTS was missing these dates for some complaints 

investigated by FHEO as well. Using the data that were available, we 

measured the typical length of each stage using medians—that is, the 

number at the exact midpoint of the range of days required to complete 

each stage (or where there was an even number of observations, the mean 

or average of two at the midpoint).

TEAPOTS data indicate a median of 12 days for the intake stage (from the 

date of the initial inquiry to the date the complaint was filed) for cases 

handled by FHEO in 1996 through 2003.33 The data showed that 35 percent 

of complaints investigated by FHEO were filed the same day that the claims 

or inquiries were received (that is, the intake stage began and ended on the 

same date), 28 percent within 20 days, and 31 percent within 21 days to 3 

months of the date that the claim or inquiry was received. FHEO’s new 

monthly efficiency reports aim to, among other things, monitor the hubs’ 

progress in completing the intake process within 20 days. 

The median number of days for investigations (from the date the complaint 

was filed to the date the investigation was completed) was 259 for 

complaints investigated by FHEO (fig. 10).34The median number of days 

varied somewhat, depending on the outcome of the investigations (e.g., 

administrative closure, finding of reasonable cause, finding of no cause, 

32Specifically, of the 1,937 FHAP agency investigations that resulted in reasonable cause 

determinations, 575 (30 percent) had no date shown in TEAPOTS to indicate that the 

adjudication period had ended. 

33For the purpose of measuring compliance with the 100-day benchmark for investigations, 

HUD used the most recent of the dates a complaint was filed, reopened, or reentered (i.e., 

when HUD takes over an investigation from a FHAP agency). For the purposes of this 

section of the report, however, we used the date on which the complaint was filed in order 

to represent the elapsed time experienced by a complainant. That is, we measured the 

intake stage from the date the inquiry was received until the date the complaint was filed, 

and we measured the investigation stage starting with the date the complaint was filed.

34In comparison, FHAP agencies took a median of 195 days to complete investigations 

during fiscal years 1996 through 2003. TEAPOTS contained complete information on filing 

and completion dates for 37,600 such FHAP agency investigations.
Page 41 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

etc.). FHEO completed 61 percent of its investigations within a year of the 

date the complaint was filed.35

We could not measure the time required to adjudicate all cases for which 

FHEO found cause. Specifically, of the 719 investigations for which FHEO 

determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that discrimination 

had occurred, TEAPOTS included data on 339 cases that were adjudicated 

within HUD. In these cases, the median time required to complete the 

adjudication process was 203 days. In an additional 330 cases, one or both 

parties elected to have their complaints heard in district court at the cause 

date, or shortly thereafter. For these individuals the enforcement process 

continued, but FHEO did not record the length of the judicial process.36 

TEAPOTS also did not have information on adjudication for 50 cases for 

which FHEO found cause. 

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement Process 

(Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996–2003)

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we measured the end of the intake stage and the beginning of 

the investigation stage using the date the complaint was filed. The median numbers of days shown are 

based on 19,312 inquiries that resulted in FHEO investigations completed during fiscal years 1996 

through 2003, for which TEAPOTS included data on the date the inquiry was received and the date the 

resulting complaint was filed; 19,299 investigations completed during fiscal years 1996 through 2003, 

for which TEAPOTS included data on the date the complaint was filed and the date the investigation 

was completed; and 339 investigations completed during fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that were 

adjudicated within HUD, for which TEAPOTS included data on the date that FHEO determined there 

was reasonable cause and the date the adjudication stage was completed.

35In comparison, FHAP agencies completed 80 percent of investigations within 1 year.

36According to HUD officials, FHEO shares responsibility for inputting adjudication 

decisions into TEAPOTS with OGC and depends upon getting information about the 

adjudication of these cases back from DOJ. 

Intake Investigation Adjudication

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

12 259 203

Days
Page 42 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Many Factors Can 

Influence the Length 

and Thoroughness of 

the Title VIII 

Enforcement Process

We found that numerous factors affected the length and thoroughness of 

the enforcement process. First, hub directors we surveyed said that the 

characteristics of complaints—certain issues, for example, and the 

presence of multiple bases—could increase the time needed for 

investigations, reduce thoroughness, or both. Second, both hub directors 

and FHEO and FHAP agency officials said that specific practices could 

make investigations shorter and more thorough. Third, hub directors and 

other officials pointed to human capital issues as potentially increasing the 

length and decreasing the thoroughness of investigations, including staff 

shortages, low skill levels, lack of training and guidance, and inadequate 

travel resources. Finally, hub directors noted that national performance 

goals could reduce the number of aged cases but had little effect on 

timeliness or thoroughness.

The Characteristics and 

Volume of Complaints May 

Affect Timeliness of the 

Enforcement Process

Most hub directors stated that the issue of a complaint had a great or very 

great effect on the amount of time required to complete the enforcement 

process. Complex issues such as refusing to provide insurance or credit 

could add time to investigations. For example, investigators might have to 

analyze statistics to determine if the complainant was treated differently 

from the norm. According to one director, some issues, such as failure to 

make reasonable accommodation, could require time for staff to conduct 

time-consuming on-site visits. In addition, some directors thought that 

complaints involving multiple issues could take longer to investigate.

Agency data tend to support some of the directors’ observations (fig. 11). 

While investigations took a median of 211 days to complete during the 

period, the median for investigations involving discriminatory lending was 

295 days; and for noncompliance with design and construction issues, it 

took 284 days. However, the median for investigations involving reasonable 

accommodation or modification was just 162 days. 
Page 43 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of Discrimination, FY 1996–2003

Note: See notes to figure 6 for a discussion of issues covered under the Act.

Although directors generally did not believe that any particular prohibited 

basis had an effect on the length of investigations and thus on the 

enforcement process, one director did note that complaints involving 

multiple bases would likely increase the length of the enforcement process. 

We found that the median number of days required to complete 

investigations involving multiple bases was slightly higher than for singleissue investigations—217 days. The median number of days FHAP agencies 

needed to complete an investigation varied more across specific prohibited 

bases than it did for FHEO. For FHEO, the median length of investigations 

ranged from a low of 223 days (handicap) to 302 days (retaliation) (see fig. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

Days

Issue

FHEO

FHAP agencies

Median

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Other

Reasonable

accommodation

or modification

Single issue

Discriminatory

terms

Advertising

Refusal to rent

Multiple issues

Retaliation

Refusal to sell

(Section 818)

Steering,

blockbusting,

and redlining

False

representation

Design and

Discriminator

construction

y

lending or

financial practices
Page 44 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

12). For FHAP agencies, the median length of investigations ranged from a 

low of 175 days (handicap) to 211 (sex).

Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by Prohibited Basis, FY 1996–2003

Most directors stated that the volume of complaints received in their region 

had a great or very great effect on the length of the enforcement process. 

According to one director, a large volume of complaints created competing 

demands on staff time. Another director noted that the volume of 

complaints could lengthen the enforcement process if staff resources were 

in short supply. 

Half (5) of the hub directors also believed that the volume of inquiries and 

complaints had a great or very great effect on the thoroughness of the 

enforcement process. One respondent noted that complex issues in a 

complaint or large volumes of complaints in a region might decrease the 

thoroughness of the process if resources were strained, staff were not 

Days

Prohibited basis

FHEO

FHAP agencies

Median

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

Handicap Single

basis

Familial Religion

status

Sex Multiple

bases

National

origin

Retaliation Race

(Section 818)

Color
Page 45 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

adequately skilled to accommodate the amount or level of difficulty of the 

work to be done, or both. Fewer directors (2 out of 10), said they believed 

that the basis of complaints had a great or very great effect on the 

thoroughness of the process. One director noted that, regardless of the 

factors involved, the thoroughness of the enforcement process should 

never be compromised. 

Certain Practices Could 

Improve the Enforcement 

Process

As we have seen, some HUD and FHAP agency officials identified two 

intake practices that they believe shortened the enforcement process, 

increased its thoroughness, or both. The first—involving investigators in 

intake—was cited by 4 of the 10 HUD hub directors that responded to our 

survey. Further, officials at the FHAP agency that used the team intake and 

investigation approach noted that it had led to better investigations that 

were conducted in less time. The second practice—using CMS 

enforcement software—was credited by the FHAP agency that used it with 

facilitating both timeliness and thoroughness. 

HUD and FHAP agency officials also cited several investigative practices 

that increased the thoroughness or decreased the length of the 

enforcement process or both. First, several HUD officials said that early 

and frequent OGC involvement was important to increasing the 

thoroughness of investigations. Second, some enforcement officials said 

that simultaneous conciliation and investigation might decrease the length 

of investigations. Third, some HUD hub directors said that using TEAPOTS 

affected the length and thoroughness of the process to a great or very great 

extent: specifically, 6 hub directors indicated that using the system 

increased the thoroughness of the enforcement process, decreased the 

length of the process, or both. Some officials, however, also told us that 

TEAPOTS could be improved, and one FHAP agency’s CMS software 

offered an alternative system that the FHAP agency credited with reducing 

the length of its process and improving its thoroughness. The CMS 

software provides investigators more sophisticated tools than TEAPOTS 

offered for planning and conducting investigations. Finally, one hub official 

said that alternative mediation at the outset of the complaint process could 

help decrease the length of some complaint investigations.

Human Capital Challenges 

Also Affect the Enforcement 

Process 

FHEO officials and others we interviewed identified human capital 

management challenges that had negatively affected the fair housing 

enforcement process, including the number and skill levels of FHEO staff, 

the quality and effectiveness of training, and other issues. 
Page 46 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Number of Staff FHEO officials told us that hiring freezes had left a number of FHEO offices 

with chronic staffing shortages, especially among supervisors and clerical 

workers and that these shortages had never been fully resolved. The 

shortages affected not only enforcement of the Act, but also FHEO’s other 

responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier caseloads and 

professional staff to perform administrative duties rather than 

concentrating on enforcement. Hub directors told us that hiring activity in 

the last 3 years had at least partially abated the chronic staffing shortages. 

However, they added that FHEO now faces the prospect of losing staff 

because a corrective action plan requires that FHEO, consistent with 

HUD’s key workforce planning effort, have fewer employees than it 

currently has.

As figure 13 shows, the total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) 37 in 

FHEO has fluctuated over the last 10 years, falling from a high of 750 in 

fiscal year 1994 to a low of 579 in fiscal year 2000. In 2003, FHEO’s FTEs 

rose once more to 744 after a concerted hiring initiative, although the 

workforce effort mentioned above suggested a level of 640. Currently, 

FHEO faces the challenge of meeting a mandatory ceiling of 640. FHEO 

comprised about 6 percent of HUD’s total workforce until fiscal year 2002 

and 7 percent in 2003, when FHEO directors received hiring authority for 

new staff. 38 FHEO staff have other responsibilities beyond enforcing Title 

VIII, including monitoring program compliance by housing providers 

receiving federal funds, performing Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

(FHIP) grant management, monitoring FHAP agencies, providing technical 

assistance, and performing education and outreach activities. 

37A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the number of regular hours a full time equivalent would 

work during a given year. For most years, an FTE equals 2,080 hours. The FTEs reported 

here represent the total number of hours worked by all FHEO or HUD staff during the year 

divided by 2,080.

38FHEO expenses are paid out of the Salaries and Expenses fund. Figure 13 shows FHEO 

FTEs as a proportion of HUD’s total FTEs, including those authorized by the Salaries and 

Expenses fund, the Working Capital Fund, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of 

Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight accounts. From this point forward, FHEO staff will be 

discussed in the context of the Salaries and Expenses fund.
Page 47 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994–2004a

a

In fiscal year 1994, FHEO contained the function of the Office of Departmental Equal Employment 

Opportunity (ODEEO), which is responsible for planning and implementing the department’s internal 

equal employment activities. HUD established ODEEO in 1995 as a separate program area. HUD 

moved ODEEO back under FHEO’s responsibilities in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and FHEO’s FTE 

total for those years includes ODEEO’s FTEs. The department moved ODEEO out of FHEO in fiscal 

year 2003, and the FTE total (744) for that year does not include ODEEO FTEs.

b

Mandated ceiling for 2004.

FHEO hired 167 staff beginning in July 2002 as part of a departmental effort 

to reach its requested ceiling by September 30, 2002. That is, HUD was 

attempting to reach 9,100 FTEs at the end of fiscal year 2002, a number that 

would equal the approved fiscal year 2002 FTE level and the requested 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FHEO HQ FTEs

FHEO field FTEs

2003 2004

(estimated)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Number of FTEs

603

147

750

542

176

718

488

175

663

486

148

634

454

135

589

488

121

609

460

119

579

478

157

635

492

161

653

589

155

744

507

133

640b

Total HUD FTEs

FHEO FTEs as %

of all HUD FTEs

13,068 11,399 10,964 9,846 9,963 10,113 10,069 10,027 10,440 10,627 12,108

5.7% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 6.0% 6.1% 5.7% 6.3% 6.5% 7.1% 6.0%

Sources: HUD, Office of Budget, and Congressional Justifications.
Page 48 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

fiscal year 2003 level.39 FHEO’s hiring initiative, like HUD’s overall, was not 

in line with the department’s workforce planning efforts. The most 

important of these, the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process 

(REAP), a series of department studies conducted from 2000 through 2002, 

to assess HUD’s staffing requirements, recommended a total FTE ceiling 

for FHEO of 640.40 As a result of HUD’s hiring initiative, HUD had a staffing 

level of 9,395 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003—295 above the approved 

fiscal year 2002 and requested fiscal year 2003 levels.41 Therefore, HUD was 

forced both to reprogram more than $25 million to cover the costs of the 

newly hired excess staff and to submit to Congress a corrective action plan 

consistent with REAP. HUD’s Strategic Placement Plan, issued in January 

2004, would reduce FHEO’s excess staff to the mandated level of 640 FTEs 

by the end of fiscal year 2004 through voluntary and, if necessary, 

involuntary reassignments. However, as of February 2004, FHEO remained 

at 727 FTEs, and FHEO officials told us they did not know how they would 

meet the mandated level on schedule. The officials also expressed concern 

that they would lose many of their best staff through the voluntary 

reassignment plan. 

Officials expressed concern not only with the insufficient number of staff 

but also the lack of staff at key positions. Some HUD managers said that 

due to unfilled supervisor positions in their regions, existing supervisors 

were not able to review materials as carefully as they could have with those 

positions filled. For example, one center director told us that investigators 

did not get supervisory input on initial investigative plans due to a vacant 

supervisory post. This center director said that the gap in supervision 

39Congress authorized a total of 10,297 FTEs for HUD for fiscal year 2003 to be funded 

through the Salaries and Expenses fund, the Working Capital Fund, the Office of Inspector 

General, and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight accounts. This amount 

included 9,100 FTEs funded through the Salaries and Expenses account and 643 for FHEO. 

HUD later asked the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to increase the fiscal 

year 2003 FTE ceiling for the entire department, including 758 FTEs for FHEO. 

40The REAP study conducted in 2000 through 2002 suggested 660.2 FTEs for FHEO, but 

officials later revised this figure downward. Under the fiscal year 2003 Corrective Action 

Plan, FHEO received a prorated amount of 655.8 FTEs plus 5 FTEs for interns for a total of 

660.8 FTEs. In its fiscal year 2004 request, FHEO received an additional 8.3 FTEs for a total 

of 669, and HUD removed ODEEO’s 29 FTEs from FHEO, resulting in a ceiling of 640 for 

fiscal year 2004.

41U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Inspector General, 

Review of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Staffing 9/30 Initiative.

2003-AO-0004. (Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2003).
Page 49 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

decreased the thoroughness and sometimes increased the length of 

investigations, as existing supervisors were unable to complete work in a 

timely manner. 

Staff Skills and Experience Some hub directors and other officials we spoke with cited concerns about 

the noncompetitive reassignment of staff into FHEO. They noted that the 

level of staff skills could influence the length and thoroughness of the 

enforcement process and that the reassignment process had a generally 

negative impact on FHEO’s overall skill levels. According to these officials, 

while many of the reassigned staff had worked at HUD for years, their skills 

were often not transferable to FHEO activities, which require specific 

analytical, investigative, and writing skills. Some directors cited the skills 

issue as a greater problem for FHEO than the actual numbers of personnel. 

FHEO’s own internal review also cites concerns about reassigned 

employees’ qualifications, skills, and work products and about the amount 

of time and supervision these employees require.42 FHEO documentation 

shows that 106 staff were reassigned to the program under various HUD 

realignments from 1998 to 2002.43 Figure 14 shows the numbers of staff in 

the three hubs we visited by their years of experience with FHEO and 

reassignment status. Although FHEO has brought many new staff on board 

recently through competitive hiring, many staff in the hubs we reviewed 

came to the organization via noncompetitive reassignment.

42HUD’s internal QMR Program is a peer-review reporting system for evaluating HUD’s field 

office operations. HUD began conducting QMRs in 2000 and had covered the majority of 

FHEO offices by 2003. 

43These realignments included the Community Builder Redeployment, the HUD 2020 

Management Reform, the Office of Administration Redeployment, Cross Placement, and the 

Voluntary Reassignment Initiative. 
Page 50 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status of FHEO 

Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions)

Although figure 14 shows that more than half of the FHEO staff currently 

located in the three sites we visited had fewer than 10 years of experience 

with FHEO, many have a significant number of years of federal service. 

Figure 15 shows a snapshot of the same FHEO employees in the three sites 

we visited by their years of federal service.44 The figure demonstrates that 

half of the FHEO employees in the three sites we visited have 20 or more 

44Employees are eligible for ‘optional’ or immediate retirement under both the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) if they are 

62 years of age with 5 years of federal service; age 60 with 20 years and, under the CSRS, age 

55 with 30 years and, under the FERS, the Minimum Retirement Age with between 10 and 30 

years. Under both systems, employees are eligible for ‘early’ retirement at any age if they 

have 25 years of service or are age 50 with 20 years of service.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

30+

(1970-

1974)

<30-25

(1975-

1979)

<25-20

(1980-

1984)

<20-15

(1985-

1989)

<15-10

(1990-

1994)

<10-5

(1995-

1999)

<5

(2000-

2004)

Employees' years of experience with FHEO

(Year employee started with FHEO)

Staff hired competitively

Staff reassigned to FHEO

Number of staff

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

4

5

15

9

51

21

52

69

13

8

48

17

13

53

16

39

3 4 
Page 51 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

years of federal service, and 14 percent have 30 or more years of federal 

service. 

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as of January 

2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions)

Retirement eligibility was an issue not only for the three sites we visited, 

but also for FHEO as a whole. Officials expressed concern about the loss of 

skilled and experienced staff to retirement, and personnel data provided by 

the HUD human resources staff show that 40 percent of FHEO employees 

overall were eligible for either early or immediate retirement in February 

2004 (see fig. 16). Moreover, as we have noted previously, officials that we 

spoke with also expressed concern that current plans to eliminate a 

significant number of FHEO staff by voluntary reassignment could cause 

skilled workers to leave FHEO and seek opportunities elsewhere. 

30+

(Prior

to 1974)

<30-25

(1975-

1979)

<25-20

(1980-

1984)

<20-15

(1985-

1989)

<15-10

(1990-

1994)

<10-5

(1995-

1999)

<5

(2000-

2004)

Years of service with the federal government

(Year employee started with the federal government)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Number of staff

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

29

8

23

51

34

45

32
Page 52 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of February 2004

Training Providing effective training is another human capital challenge that FHEO 

faces. Half of the directors told us that the quality and effectiveness of 

training helped reduce the length of the fair housing enforcement process, 

and six said that it improved thoroughness. For example, some directors 

said that training serves to expedite investigations as staff gain more 

technical skills. Other directors said that training improves thoroughness 

because staff can recognize issues of discrimination and decide what 

evidence is needed to support complaints. 

We heard concerns from FHEO staff, an ALJ, and others outside of HUD 

about the quality or availability of training for FHEO employees. Most staff 

we spoke with reported that they had received initial formal training for 

their positions, though not always in a timely fashion. A list of courses 

supplied by the HUD Training Academy, which provides the majority of 

formal training for FHEO, showed that the basic course in investigation 

had been offered annually in all but 1 of the last 5 years. However, 

depending on the hiring date, a new staff member might have to wait 1 year 

or more to attend the basic course. Potentially compounding this problem, 

hub directors told us that although training was available in fiscal year 

2003, lack of travel funds sometimes prevented them from sending staff to 

training out of the area. Finally, budget data show that although FHEO had 

initial approval from the HUD Training Academy to spend $416,000 for 

19%

21% 60%

Employees eligible for 

optional retirement now (139)

Employees eligible for early retirement (154)

Total number of employees in FHEO: 732

All other employees (439)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Page 53 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

training in fiscal year 2003, the HUD Training Academy reduced FHEO’s 

training funds to $200,000 as part of the department’s overall efforts to 

reduce expenditures to cover the cost of excess staff hiring.

FHEO recognized the need for additional training by establishing the HUD 

Fair Housing Training Academy, which is slated to open in the summer of 

2004. FHEO officials told us that they hope to standardize what the agency 

believes are uneven fair housing processes and practices implemented 

around the nation by FHEO and its FHAP agency partners, create a more 

professional group, and possibly reduce turnover rates at FHAP agencies 

by certifying attendees. Initially, however, the academy will serve staff from 

only FHAP agencies, not FHEO employees. Officials explained that FHAP 

agency funds would cover the costs of this initial training. 

FHEO’s human capital challenges are symptomatic of those facing HUD as 

a whole. FHEO, like the department and other federal agencies, is 

experiencing significant challenges in deploying the right skills in the right 

places at the right time, is facing a growing number of employees who are 

eligible for retirement, and is finding it difficult to fill certain missioncritical jobs—a situation that could significantly drain its institutional 

knowledge.

We have observed that federal agencies need effective strategic workforce 

planning to identify and focus on the long-term human capital issues that 

most affect their ability to attain mission results. We identified five key 

principles that strategic workforce planning should address, which include 

(1) involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in 

developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce 

plan; (2) determining the critical skills and competencies that will be 

needed to achieve current and future programmatic results; (3) developing 

strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and 

alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the 

contributions of all critical skills and competencies; (4) building the 

capability needed to address administrative, educational, and other 

requirements important to support workforce strategies; and (5) 

monitoring and evaluating the agency’s progress toward its human capital 

goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward 

achieving programmatic goals. In developing strategies to address 

workforce gaps, we reported that agencies should, among other things, 

consider hiring, training, staff development, succession planning, 

performance management, use of flexibilities, and other human capital 
Page 54 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

strategies and tools that can be implemented with resources that can 

reasonably be expected to be available.45

We have reported in the past that HUD had not done the strategic 

workforce planning necessary to address its human capital challenges.46

Like HUD, FHEO does not have a comprehensive strategic workforce plan 

to help it meet key human capital challenges. REAP, which estimates the 

staff needed to handle HUD’s workload in each of its offices, does not 

include the extensive analysis involved in a comprehensive assessment. 

However, since we last reported, HUD contracted a technical adviser to 

conduct a comprehensive workforce analysis. Such an assessment would 

cover current workforce skills, anticipated skill needs, current and future 

skill gaps, and needed training and development that will be used to 

develop a comprehensive 5-year departmental workforce plan. 

Additionally, HUD plans to rollout over the next 3 years a customized 

human resources and training information system known as the HUD 

Integrated Human Resources and Training System (HIHRTS). HUD 

documentation says that the system will replace several legacy systems; 

will integrate all human resource information into one platform, making 

information available to managers for strategic planning and employee 

development; and helping ensure that HUD employees are used effectively. 

Lack of Travel Funds Can 

Affect How Thoroughly 

Cases Are Investigated

Officials from headquarters and the sites we visited also told us that 

inconsistencies in the amount and availability of travel funds impaired the 

length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement process. As 

mentioned previously, in May 2003, Congress approved the reprogramming 

of funds within HUD to cover the cost of excess staff hiring, including a 

$7.7 million reduction in travel funds. FHEO officials told us that following 

this reprogramming, they had no travel funds for up to 6 months, 

preventing investigators from making timely visits to the sites of 

complaints. Budget data show that FHEO has experienced larger decreases 

in travel funds than HUD as a whole. From fiscal year 2002 to 2003, HUD’s 

allotment for travel decreased by 12 percent. FHEO’s travel allotment, 

however, decreased by 17 percent over the same period. Directors reported 

45U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 

Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003).

46U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive 

Strategic Workforce Planning Needed, GAO-02-839 (Washington D.C.: July 2002).
Page 55 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

that interruptions in travel funds in fiscal year 2003 had impeded efforts to 

plan and manage investigations. Directors also told us that uncertainties 

regarding the department’s ultimate annual appropriations amount had 

forced headquarters to limit travel funds at the beginning of fiscal years and 

prevented them from establishing a firm annual travel budget. Without this 

budget, directors said, they could not plan for the travel that would have 

helped reduce the length of investigations. 

Directors reported using several methods to stretch their travel funds, 

including curtailing and delaying travel, limiting the time investigators 

could spend in the field, catching up on needed travel when funds became 

available at the end of the fiscal year, reducing travel for FHEO’s other 

responsibilities outside of fair housing enforcement, and asking 

investigators from offices closer to the site of the complaint to assist with 

the investigation. Some investigators told us that they had used their own 

vehicles or funds for site visits and conducted desk investigations. At the 

same time, budget data show that hub directors’ routine meetings 

consumed an increasing share of FHEO’s travel budget from fiscal year 

2001 to 2003. Director’s meetings utilized 13 percent of FHEO’s travel 

expenditures of approximately $900,000 in fiscal year 2003.47

Performance Goals May 

Affect the Length of 

Investigations

Hub directors we visited told us that while FHEO’s national performance 

goals have helped reduce the number of aged cases, these goals have had a 

negligible impact on the thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement 

process and could create competing demands for staff time. Performance 

reports show that the percentage of aged fair housing complaints for HUD 

nationwide has declined steadily since fiscal year 2000, exceeding the 

national goals in fiscal year 2001 through 2003.48 For example, in fiscal year 

2003, the national goal was a 25 percent maximum for aged cases and 

47Up significantly from 2 percent of total travel expenses in fiscal year 2001 and 7 percent in 

fiscal year 2002.

48U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and Accountability 

Report: Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 2-121. In fiscal year 2000, HUD’s percentage of aged cases 

nationally was 82 percent. In fiscal year 2001, the goal called for a maximum of 40 percent; 

FHEO’s actual percentage was 37 percent. For 2002, the corresponding percentages were 35 

and 29 percent, respectively. 
Page 56 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

FHEO achieved 23 percent.49 However, there are no national goals that 

directly relate to the thoroughness of investigations or the fair housing 

enforcement process. Regardless, some directors told us that although they 

strive to meet performance goals, they are more motivated by the statute’s 

100-day benchmark and the need to provide good customer service. 

Directors also cited a tension between the need to meet the 100-day 

benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough investigation 

and said that at times one goal cannot be achieved without some cost to the 

other. One director stated that while mindful of the 100-day benchmark, she 

would not close a case to meet the time limit unless she felt that the 

investigation had been thorough. Directors told us that the existence of 

overall performance goals for FHEO could exacerbate the problem of 

competing demands. For example, annual goals routinely set achievement 

targets in FHEO’s area of responsibility outside of Title VIII enforcement, 

including program compliance review, monitoring FHIP and FHAP 

agencies grantees, increasing the number of substantially equivalent 

agencies, and providing training on accessibility and handicap rights. The 

time and resources needed to meet these targets could increase the 

challenges involved in meeting Title VIII commitments in a timely and 

thorough manner.

Conclusions The fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for 

considering complaints of housing discrimination. However, persons who 

have experienced alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a 

lengthy wait before their complaint is resolved. Because flexibility is built 

into the process, enforcement practitioners have devised a variety of 

practices for processing inquiries and complaints, some of which could 

improve the timeliness and thoroughness of investigations. Our limited 

look at enforcement operations at FHAP agencies and FHEO centers 

within 3 of FHEO’s 10 regions revealed practices that could potentially 

expedite cases if they were adopted elsewhere. Further, many FHEO hub 

directors told us they believed that every stage of the fair housing 

enforcement process could be improved. However, practitioners may be 

unaware of such practices because FHEO has not taken steps to identify 

49According to HUD’s Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2003, FHEO 

achieved 19 percent maximum aged cases, however, a HUD official told us this figure is 

incorrect because it omits open aged cases, which are with OGC, and that the correct figure 

is 23 percent.
Page 57 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

those practices that hold the promise of improving the fair housing 

enforcement process. 

Because of data limitations—specifically, data that are of questionable 

reliability, missing, or not currently collected—FHEO does not know how 

much time individuals face from the day they make an inquiry to the day 

they learn the outcome of their cases, particularly when FHAP agencies 

handle the investigation. Without comprehensive, reliable data on the dates 

when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot judge how long 

complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes an 

investigation. Similarly, without comprehensive, consistent, and reliable 

data concerning the dates that complaints are finally decided, HUD cannot 

determine how long the intended beneficiaries of the Act typically wait for 

a decision. Data that provide a comprehensive view of the enforcement 

process from start to finish for both FHEO and FHAP agencies could help 

HUD target problem areas and improve management of the enforcement 

process. TEAPOTS provides a platform that FHEO and FHAP agencies may 

use for recording these key enforcement data.

FHEO’s human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge of 

improving enforcement practices. Human capital management issues at 

both HUD and FHEO are an immediate concern. FHEO’s planned reduction 

in staff and other human capital factors may affect its ability to enforce fair 

housing laws. To meet such challenges, HUD managers will need to 

continue their efforts to analyze workforce needs and to develop a 

workforce planning process that makes the best use of the department’s 

most important resource—the people that it employs now and in the 

future. A comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that builds 

on the five principles that we have observed at other federal agencies will 

help FHEO and other departmental programs identify and focus their 

investments on the long-term human capital issues that most affect the 

agency’s ability to achieve its mission. 

Recommendations To improve the management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement 

process, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant 

Secretary of FHEO to take the following 4 actions:

• establish a way to identify and share information on effective practices 

among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies;
Page 58 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

• ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 

reliable data on key dates in the intake stage of the fair housing 

enforcement process for FHAP agencies; 

• ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 

reliable data on key dates in the adjudication stage of the fair housing 

enforcement process for both FHEO and FHAP agencies;

• ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 

reliable data on the outcomes of the adjudication stage of the fair 

housing enforcement process for FHEO and FHAP agencies; and

• ensure that hubs enter cause dates into the automated case-tracking 

system in a consistent manner.

Further, we recommend that the Secretary take the following action:

• In developing HUD’s 5-year Departmental Workforce Plan, follow the 

five key principles discussed in this report. As part of the 

comprehensive workforce analysis, ensure that HUD fully considers a 

wide range of strategies to make certain that FHEO obtains and 

maximizes the necessary skills and competencies needed to achieve its 

current and emerging mission and strategic goals with the resources it 

can reasonably expect to be available.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. We 

received written comments from the department’s Assistant Secretary for 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These comments, which are included 

in appendix IV, indicated general agreement with our conclusions and 

recommendations. The Assistant Secretary noted that FHEO has already 

begun to take steps to improve the quality and timeliness of the fair housing 

enforcement process. Specific planned actions that are consistent with our 

recommendations include (1) implementing a new Business Process 

Redesign review; (2) establishing a reporting requirement addressing postcause results; and (3) enhancing, in conjunction with the department, 

FHEO’s efforts at workforce analysis. The Assistant Secretary commented 

that FHEO would take a close look at all of the report’s recommendations. 

HUD’s comments also included several suggestions to enhance clarity or 

technical accuracy. We revised the report to incorporate these suggestions 

and have included them in this report where appropriate.
Page 59 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, 

we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issuance 

date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chair of the 

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the HUD 

Secretary; and other interested congressional members and committees. 

We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this 

report will also be available at no charge on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me or Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-6794 if you or your staff 

have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors to this report 

were Emily Chalmers, Rachel DeMarcus, Tiffani Green, M. Grace Haskins, 

Marc Molino, Andrew Nelson, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, and Anita Visser.

David G. Wood

Director, Financial Markets and

Community Investment 
Page 60 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations 

conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 

rather than fair housing activities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the 

legislation, regulations, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity’s (FHEO) guidance for intake, investigation and adjudication 

of fair housing complaints. We also interviewed officials at FHEO 

headquarters who are responsible for oversight and policymaking. In 

addition, we conducted site visits and structured interviews with key 

FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency officials, 

including FHEO hub, FHAP agency, and center directors; intake staff; 

investigators and attorneys. We selected 3 of the 10 FHEO hubs and 8 of the 

18 centers for site visits (table 4). We selected the hub sites on the basis of 

(1) the number of “aged” cases within the region, (2) the total number of 

complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to all 

investigations, and (4) the number of organizational components—that is 

the number of centers and offices within the hub. We ranked each hub on 

the basis of whether they were among the 3 hubs with the highest values, 

the 3 with the lowest values or the 4 hubs with the middle values for the 

dimensions we measured. We also visited at least one FHAP agency in each 

of the selected hub regions. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 61 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

To describe the trends in FHEO data on the numbers, characteristics, 

outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, we used data from 

FHEO’s automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS). Specifically, we 

obtained data on inquiries and claims made and investigations completed 

as of September 2003, for each fiscal year from 1996 through 2003. Using 

these data, we computed the following:

• number of inquiries and claims made,

• number of complaints filed,

• number and outcome of investigations completed,

• percentage of investigations completed within 100 days, and 

• median length of each enforcement stage.

For the purposes of measuring the percentage of investigations completed 

within 100 days, we measured the time elapsed between the most recent of 

the date filed, date reopened, or date reentered and the date the 

investigations were either transferred to the Department of Justice, closed 

administratively, conciliated or settled, found to have reasonable cause, or 

found not to have reasonable cause. 

Location

Percentage of aged 

cases

Number of complaints 

received

HUD investigations as 

a percentage of all 

investigations

Number of organizational 

components

Chicago Hub

Centers

Detroit 

Columbus

Chicago

Medium High Medium High

Fort Worth Hub

Centers

Fort Worth

New Orleans

Austin

High Medium High High

New York Hub

Centers

New York City

Newark

Low Medium Low Medium
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 62 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

To assess the reliability of TEAPOTS data we used, we examined (1) the 

process FHEO and FHAP agencies use to capture and process inquiry and 

complaint information and (2) the internal controls over the TEAPOTS 

database that store and retrieve this information. We interviewed the 

system’s managers, reviewed documentation of and reports produced by 

the system, compared some of our results to summary reports previously 

produced by FHEO, and performed basic reasonableness checks on 

TEAPOTS data. Missing values and fields, inconsistencies between fields, 

and out-of-range values in fields were infrequent and did not pose a 

material risk of error in our analysis. We concluded that the data we 

analyzed were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. However, 

we encountered several limitations in the TEAPOTS data that prevented us 

from using them to fully describe the trends in the numbers, 

characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing investigations. Because of 

indications that TEAPOTS data may either be incomplete or inconsistent 

regarding the dates that inquiries were made, and the dates that an 

independent fact finder ultimately determined that discrimination did or 

did not occur, we were unable to provide complete information on one of 

our report objectives. Specifically, we were unable to report on the average 

time taken by two phases of the enforcement process for cases handled by 

FHAP agencies. 

In attempting to determine the average time needed to complete each stage 

of the fair housing enforcement process, we relied on data from TEAPOTS. 

Specifically, we obtained TEAPOTS data on complaint investigations 

completed from 1996 through 2003 by FHEO and FHAP agencies and 

attempted to measure (1) the time elapsed between a complainants’ first 

contact with either the FHEO or a FHAP agency and the date that the 

complaint was filed; (2) the time elapsed between filing a complaint and 

completing an investigation; and (3) the time elapsed between completing 

an investigation and the final disposition, the end of the adjudication 

process. Because of inconsistent intake data and missing adjudication data, 

we were unable to determine the average time that had been required to 

complete the first and last stages of the complaint process for cases 

handled by FHAP agencies.

To determine the factors that could influence the length and thoroughness 

of Title VIII investigations, we interviewed FHEO and FHAP agency 

officials responsible for management, intake, investigation, and legal 

matters at selected field locations. We also surveyed the 10 FHEO hub 

directors. Appendix II reproduces our questionnaire. We also reviewed and 

analyzed information concerning the allocation, numbers, experience, and 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 63 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

tenure of FHEO staff, including Quality Management Reviews and 

Resource Estimation and Allocation Process analyses. In addition, we 

interviewed officials and staff responsible for implementing the fair 

housing process at selected fair housing enforcement hubs and selected 

centers within these hubs. We also reviewed reports on HUD human capital 

challenges prepared by GAO, the HUD Inspector General, and other 

relevant sources
Page 64 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses ApendxiI

1

 United States General Accounting Office 

Survey of Regional HUB Directors in the U.S. Department 

 of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and 

 Equal Opportunity 

Introduction 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is 

currently reviewing HUD’s Fair Housing 

Enforcement efforts. As part of this review, we 

have visited a number of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity (FHEO) offices to talk with 

enforcement management and staff. 

To ensure the broadest coverage, GAO is now 

conducting this survey of all 10 regional FHEO 

HUB Managers. 

The purpose of this survey is to identify the 

factors that HUD fair housing enforcement 

practitioners believe impact the length and 

thoroughness of the Title VIII fair housing 

enforcement process including intake, 

investigation, and adjudication. 

Definitions

In the survey, we use the following terms: 

Length: The amount of time that elapses 

between the date a Title VIII complaint is 

received at HUD as an inquiry and the date that 

the complaint is resolved (e.g., administrative 

closure, conciliation, adjudication through ALJ 

hearing, or other means). 

Thoroughness: The extent to which accurate 

and complete evidence is collected and analyzed 

to enable staff (investigators, attorneys, etc.) to 

recommend and make the appropriate 

resolution. 

Subject matter/issue: As used in the HUD 

Title VIII Investigations Handbook (p. 3-24), 

subject matters and issues include items such as 

rentals, sales, lending, and redlining. 

Prohibited basis of discrimination: As used 

in the HUD Title VIII Investigations Handbook 

(p. 3-44), this term covers race, color, religion, 

sex, national origin, familial status, and 

handicap. 

Instructions

For all questions, please consider the conditions 

in your entire HUB region, including centers 

and sites. 

If you are using the Microsoft Word format, 

please save it to your computer and enter your 

answers directly into the form. To use the .PDF 

format, please save it to your computer, print it 

out and enter your answers by hand. You may email a completed copy of the Word version of 

the survey to __________ at ___________, or if 

you like, you may print out a completed copy of 

either the Word or .PDF version and fax it to 

______ at ___________ at least one day before 

the interview. Your follow-up interview has 

been scheduled for: 

_______________________________________

During the interview, we will ask you to read 

and discuss your answers, providing examples 

to the extent possible. 

If you have any questions about this survey or 

the GAO study, please contact _____________ at 

____________ or e-mail her at: _______________ 

Thank you for your participation. 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 65 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 2 of 8 

1. To what extent do the following factors influence the amount of time 

it takes to complete the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process? 

We understand that many things can affect the length of the process. 

However, we ask that when responding to each specific factor, you hold all 

others constant and check the box that comes closest to your “best answer.”

Check one box for each row.

NUMBER OF RESPONSES DISPLAYED FOR EACH ANSWER

IF GREAT OR VERY GREAT 

EXTENT- Does this make 

the enforcement process: 

Characteristics & 

Volume of 

Complaints 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent Longer Shorter 

It

Depends 

A. Subject 

matter/issue of 

discrimination 

4 5 1 0 0 9 0 0 

B. Prohibited basis of 

discrimination 1 1 5 3 0 2 0 0 

C. Volume of 

inquiries and 

complaints 

2 6 2 0 0 6 1 1 

Staffing Levels, 

Skill & Resources 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent Longer Shorter 

It

Depends 

D. Number of staff 

3 4 2 1 0 3 3 1 

E. Level of skill 

among staff 7 3 0 0 0 3 4 3 

F. Amount and 

availability of 

training funds 

1 2 5 2 0 1 2 0 

G. Quality and 

effectiveness of 

training 

1 5 4 0 0 1 5 0 

H. Amount and 

availability of 

travel funds 

4 2 3 1 0 4 0 2 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 66 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 3 of 8 

Human Capital 

Management & 

Planning 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent Longer Shorter 

It

Depends 

I. Annual 

performance 

management goals 

set for your Region 

2 3 2 1 2 0 3 2 

J. The annual 

Director’s 

Elements set for 

you as a HUB 

Director 

1 2 4 1 2 1 2 0 

K. Succession 

planning 0 4 0 3 3 4 0 0 

L. Workforce analysis 

(Alignment of staff 

skill with mission 

accomplishment) 

1 4 3 1 1 4 1 0 

M. REAP/TEAM 3 0 1 2 4 2 1 0 

Other 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent Longer Shorter 

It

Depends 

N. Please specify. 

(Type in the 

shaded blank 

below.) 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2. To what extent do the following factors influence the ability of your 

staff to thoroughly complete the Title VIII fair housing enforcement 

process? We understand that many things can affect the thoroughness of the 

process. However, we ask that when responding to each specific factor, you 

hold all others constant and check the box that comes closest to your “best 

answer.” Check one box for each row. 

IF GREAT OR VERY GREAT 

EXTENT- Does this cause 

the enforcement process to 

be conducted: 

Characteristics & 

Volume of 

Complaints 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent 

Less

Thoroughly 

More 

Thoroughly 

It

Depends 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 67 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 4 of 8 

A. Subject 

matter/issue of 

discrimination 

2 3 3 0 2 4 1 0 

B. Prohibited basis of 

discrimination 1 1 4 3 1 2 0 0 

C. Volume of 

inquiries and 

complaints 

1 4 2 2 1 4 1 0 

Staffing Levels, 

Skill & Resources 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent 

Less

Thoroughly 

More 

Thoroughly 

It

Depends 

D. Number of staff 

1 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 

E. Level of skill 

among staff 2 6 1 0 1 4 1 3 

F. Amount and 

availability of 

training funds 

1 2 2 3 2 1 2 0 

G. Quality and 

effectiveness of 

training 

0 6 2 1 1 0 6 0 

H. Amount and 

availability of 

travel funds 

4 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 

Human Capital 

Management & 

Planning 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent 

Less

Thoroughly 

More 

Thoroughly 

It

Depends 

I. Annual 

performance 

management goals 

set for your Region 

2 1 1 2 4 2 1 0 

J. The annual 

Director’s 

Elements set for 

you as a HUB 

Director 

1 1 2 2 4 2 0 0 

K. Succession 

planning 1 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 68 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 5 of 8 

L. Workforce analysis 

(Alignment of staff 

skill with mission 

accomplishment) 

2 2 3 0 3 1 3 0 

M. REAP/TEAM 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 0 

Other 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent 

Less

Thoroughly 

More 

Thoroughly It

Depends 

N. Please specify. 

(Type in the 

shaded blank 

below.) 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

3. To what extent do the following enforcement practices impact the 

overall length of the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process (or 

to what extent would they impact the length of the process, if your 

office does not practice them)? We understand that many things can 

affect the length of the process. However, we ask that when responding to 

each specific practice, you hold all others constant and check the box that 

comes closest to your “best answer.” Check one box for each row. 

IF GREAT OR VERY GREAT 

EXTENT- Does this make 

the enforcement process: 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent Longer Shorter

It

Depends

Title VIII Enforcement Process 

A. Involving 

investigators in 

the intake process 

1 3 1 2 3 1 3 0 

B. Involving regional 

counsel’s office in 

planning and 

monitoring 

investigations 

1 3 3 1 2 0 4 0 

C. Using TEAPOTS 

as a tool for 

planning, 

conducting, and 

monitoring 

investigations 

1 3 4 2 0 0 4 0 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 69 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 6 of 8 

D. Continuing to 

conduct 

investigations 

while in 

conciliation 

3 3 2 1 1 0 6 0 

4. To what extent do the following enforcement practices impact the 

overall thoroughness of the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process 

(or to what extent would they impact the thoroughness of the process, 

if your office does not practice them)? We understand that many things 

can affect the thoroughness of the process. However, we ask that when 

responding to each specific practice, you hold all others constant and check the 

box that comes closest to your “best answer.” Check one box for each row. 

IF GREAT OR VERY GREAT 

EXTENT- Does this cause 

the enforcement process to 

be conducted: 

Very 

Great 

Extent 

Great 

Extent

Moderate

Extent 

Some 

Extent 

Little 

or No 

Extent

Less

Thoroughly 

More 

Thoroughly 

It

Depends

Title VIII Enforcement Process 

E. Involving 

investigators in 

the intake process 

1 2 1 4 2 1 2 0 

F. Involving regional 

counsel’s office in 

planning and 

monitoring 

investigations 

1 3 3 2 1 0 4 0 

G. Using TEAPOTS 

as a tool for 

planning, 

conducting, and 

monitoring 

investigations 

2 2 2 3 1 0 4 0 

H. Continuing to 

conduct 

investigations 

while in 

conciliation 

1 2 1 2 4 0 3 0 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 70 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 7 of 8 

5. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the following 

Title VIII activities that would reduce the amount of time required to complete 

the entire process? Please consider any ideas or practices that differ from HUD's 

current enforcement process and that, with proper funding and training, would 

improve the overall length of the process. You will have an opportunity to share these 

ideas and practices during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row. 

Very

Great 

Extent

Great 

Extent

Moderate 

Extent

Some

Extent

Little or 

No

Extent

Title VIII Enforcement Process 

A. Intake stage 3 1 0 4 2 

B. Investigation stage (including 

the conciliation process)a 4 1 2 3 0 

C. Adjudication stagea

3 3 2 1 1 

6. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the following 

Title VIII activities that would improve the overall thoroughness of the entire 

process? Please consider any ideas or practices that differ from HUD's current 

enforcement process, and that, with proper funding and training, would improve the 

overall thoroughness of the process. You will have an opportunity to share these ideas 

and practices during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row. 

Very

Great 

Extent

Great 

Extent

Moderate 

Extent

Some

Extent

Little or 

No

Extent

Title VIII Enforcement Process 

A. Intake stage 3 0 1 3 3 

B. Investigation stage (including 

the conciliation process)a 4 1 0 4 1 

C. Adjudication stagea

3 1 1 3 2 

7. Please describe any noteworthy practices that your office uses in each stage of the 

Title VIII fair housing enforcement process. (If you are using the Word version of 

this survey, please type your answers in the shaded blanks.) 

Intake Stage 
Appendix II

Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and 

Responses

Page 71 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Page 8 of 8 

Investigation Stage (including the conciliation process) a

Adjudication Stagea

a

Some hub directors may have defined the investigation and adjudication stages differently than 

other directors. 
Page 72 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12 ApendxiI

Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 2.

Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 3.

Claims Inquiries Total

1996 4,614 0 4,614

1997 4,333 0 4,333

1998 4,791 1 4,792

1999 4,831 1 4,832

2000 4,445 2 4,447

2001 1,323 3,140 4,463

2002 0 4,628 4,628

2003 0 5,417 5,417

Total 24,337 13,189 37,526

FHAP Agencies FHEO Total

1996 4,213 2,055 6,268

1997 4,057 1,819 5,876

1998 3,792 2,026 5,818

1999 3,888 2,251 6,139

2000 4,823 2,150 6,973

2001 5,034 1,975 7,009

2002 5,079 2,568 7,647

2003 5,397 2,739 8,136

Total 36,283 17,583 53,866
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 73 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 7: Prohibited Basis of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Data also represented in figure 5.

Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may have more than one basis.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Race 2,729 43.5 2,562 43.6 2,638 45.4 2,457 40 2,801 40.2 2,745 39.2 3,000 39.3 3,198 39.4

Handicap 1,577 25.2 1,740 29.6 1,766 30.4 2,082 33.9 2,398 34.4 2,438 34.8 2,888 37.9 3,166 39

Familial 

Status 1,578 25.2 1,306 22.2 1,165 20 1,163 18.9 1,281 18.4 1,248 17.8 1,238 16.2 1,297 16

National 

Origin 810 12.9 693 11.8 660 11.4 690 11.2 818 11.7 903 12.9 930 12.2 1,052 13

Sex 780 12.4 698 11.9 644 11.1 559 9.1 729 10.5 812 11.6 870 11.4 935 11.5

Color 470 7.5 589 10 429 7.4 277 4.5 285 4.1 317 4.5 186 2.4 180 2.2

Retaliation 142 2.3 123 2.1 180 3.1 184 3 286 4.1 411 5.9 401 5.3 408 5

Religion 95 1.5 116 2 113 1.9 145 2.4 163 2.3 155 2.2 204 2.7 241 3

Total 6,268 5,875 5,813 6,138 6,972 7,004 7,624 8,111
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 74 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Data also represented in figure 6.

Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may involve more than one issue.

Total 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Num. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Discriminatory 

terms 31,466 3,932 62.7 3,775 64.2 3,539 60.9 3,586

58.4

3,961 56.8 4,008 57.2 4,213 55.1 4,452 54.7

Refusal to rent 15,011 2,274 36.3 1,775 30.2 1,417 24.4 1,699 27.7 1,962 28.1 1,990 28.4 2,014 26.3 1,880 23.1

Reasonable 

accommodation 

or modification 5,954 11 0.2 154 2.6 367 6.3 685 11.2 1,018 14.6 1,020 14.6 1,357 17.8 1,342 16.5

Retaliation 

(Section 818) 6,990 857 13.7 699 11.9 863 14.8 855 13.9 887 12.7 777 11.1 942 12.3 1,110 13.6

Advertising 3,854 257 4.1 286 4.9 408 7.0 611 10.0 645 9.3 649 9.3 558 7.3 440 5.4

Discriminatory 

lending or 

financial 

practices 2,876 238 3.8 293 5.0 291 5.0 246 4.0 359 5.2 427 6.1 492 6.4 530 6.5

False 

representation 1,405 175 2.8 150 2.6 193 3.3 163 2.7 189 2.7 159 2.3 169 2.2 207 2.5

Refusal to sell 1,788 153 2.4 156 2.7 203 3.5 181 3.0 260 3.7 261 3.7 288 3.8 286 3.5

Design and 

construction 1,418 55 0.9 126 2.1 215 3.7 278 4.5 219 3.1 152 2.2 154 2.0 219 2.7

Steering, 

blockbusting, 

and redlining 605 51 0.8 53 0.9 68 1.2 62 1.0 93 1.3 80 1.1 79 1.0 119 1.5

Other 4640 498 8.0 437 7.4 516 8.9 650 10.6 517 7.4 421 6.0 727 9.5 874 10.7

Single issue 36,287 4,300 68.6 4,176 71.1 3,969 68.2 3,912 63.7 4,579 65.7 4,748 67.7 5,076 66.4 5,527 67.9

Multiple issues 17,574 1,968 31.4 1,700 28.9 1,847 31.8 2,226 36.3 2,393 34.3 2,261 32.3 2,570 33.6 2,609 32.1
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 75 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 

1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 7.

Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 8.

FHAP Agencies FHEO Total

1996 4,737 3,190 7,927

1997 4,430 1,921 6,351

1998 4,038 1,449 5,487

1999 3,806 1,963 5,769

2000 4,216 2,336 6,552

2001 4,846 3,089 7,935

2002 5,860 2,474 8,334

2003 5,667 2,877 8,544

Total 37,600 19,299 56,899

Administrative 

Closure

Reasonable 

Cause

Conciliation or 

Settlement No Cause

Transfer to DOJ 

(FHEO only) Total

Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num.

1996 1,454 18.3 293 3.7 2,833 35.7 3,323 41.9 24 0.3 7,927

1997 896 14.1 262 4.1 2,316 36.5 2,844 44.8 33 0.5 6,351

1998 812 14.8 300 5.5 1,971 35.9 2,349 42.8 55 1 5,487

1999 833 14.4 290 5 2,057 35.7 2,412 41.8 177 3.1 5,789

2000 929 14.2 324 4.9 2,301 35.1 2,892 44.1 106 1.6 6,552

2001 1,104 13.9 405 5.1 2,325 29.3 3,958 49.9 143 1.8 7,935

2002 1,087 13 409 4.9 2,464 29.6 4,285 51.4 89 1.1 8,334

2003 1,035 12.1 373 4.4 2,912 34.1 4,126 48.3 98 1.1 8,544

Total 8,150 14.3 2,656 4.7 19,179 33.7 26,189 46 725 1.3 56,899
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 76 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 9.

FHAP Agencies FHEO Total

Total 

Investigations 

complete

Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num.

1996 1,110 23.4 524 16.4 1,634 20.6 7,927

1997 1,060 23.9 407 21.2 1,467 23.1 6,351

1998 957 23.7 308 21.3 1,265 23.1 5,487

1999 1,014 26.6 491 25 1,505 26.1 5,769

2000 1,145 27.2 328 14 1,473 22.5 6,552

2001 1,316 27.2 539 17.4 1,855 23.4 7,935

2002 1,471 25.1 1,011 40.9 2,482 29.8 8,334

2003 1,893 33.4 1,448 50.3 3,341 39.1 8,544

Total 9,966 26.5 5,056 26.2 15,022 26.4 56,899
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 77 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of 

Discrimination FY 1996–2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD Data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 11.

FHAP 

Agencies FHEO Overall

Discriminatory terms 197 261 214

Refusal to rent 218 283 234

Reasonable accommodation or 

modification 156 175 162

Retaliation (Section 818) 218 296 245

Advertising 219 267 231

Discriminatory lending or financial 

practices 240 408 295

False representation 206 373 250

Refusal to sell 216 347 242.5

Design and construction 203 398 284

Steering, blockbusting, and redlining 228 359 265.5

Other 192 199 194

Single issue 184 242 199

Multiple issues 220 293 240
Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in 

Figures 1-12

Page 78 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by Prohibited 

Basis, FY 1996–2003 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 12.

FHAP 

Agencies FHEO Overall

Race 210 294 230

Handicap 175 223 190

Familial Status 204 269 219

National Origin 181 290 209

Sex 211 275.5 226

Color 168 340 191

Retaliation 196 302 216

Religion 210 267.5 224

Single Basis 195 253 211

Multiple Bases 194 283 217
Page 79 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 80 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 81 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

(250156) Page 82 GAO-04-463 Fair Housing
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00