a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2005 FAIR HOUSING

HUD Needs Better 

Assurance That Intake 

and Investigation 

Processes Are 

Consistently Thorough

GAO-06-79
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2005

FAIR HOUSING

HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake 

and Investigation Processes Are 

Consistently Thorough 

Highlights of GAO-06-79, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Each year, the Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) Office of Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and 

related state and local Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP)

agencies receive and investigate

several thousand complaints of

housing discrimination. These 

activities, including required

conciliation attempts, are directed 

by HUD’s standards, which are 

based on law, regulation, and best

practices. GAO’s 2004 report 

examining trends in case outcomes

raised questions about the quality

and consistency of the intake (the

receipt of initial inquiries) and 

investigation processes. This 

follow-up report assesses the 

thoroughness of fair housing intake 

and investigation (including 

conciliation) processes, and 

complainant satisfaction with the 

process.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes recommendations to 

the HUD Secretary for improving 

the thoroughness and timeliness of

the fair housing complaint process,

including establishing standards

and benchmarks for initial intake 

activities, improving data needed to 

monitor timeliness of intake, and 

improving planning and 

documentation of investigations. 

HUD generally agreed with the 

report’s conclusions and stated that

it would work to incorporate the 

recommendations into its policies 

and procedures. 

Evidence from several sources raises questions about the timeliness and 

thoroughness of the intake process. Thirty percent of complainants GAO 

surveyed noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach a live

person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency. GAO experienced 

similar difficulty in test calls it made to each of the 10 FHEO and 36 state 

FHAP agency intake centers. For example, 5 locations did not respond to 

the test calls. Further, FHEO and FHAP agencies do not consistently record 

in their automated information system contacts they receive that they 

consider potential fair housing inquiries and timeliness data are unreliable, 

limiting the system’s effectiveness as a management control. 

GAO’s review of a national random sample of 197 investigative case files for 

investigations completed within the last 6 months of 2004 found varying 

levels of documentation that FHEO and FHAP investigators met

investigative standards and followed recommended procedures. Further, 

though the Fair Housing Act requires that agencies always attempt 

conciliation to the extent feasible, only about a third of the files showed 

evidence of such attempts. FHEO officials stated that the required

investigation and conciliation actions may have been taken but not 

documented as required in case files. 

According to GAO’s survey of a national random sample of 575 complainants 

whose complaint investigations were recently completed, about half were 

either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the outcome of the fair housing 

complaint process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a 

complaint in the future. Although GAO and survey respondents found that 

FHEO and FHAP agency staff were generally courteous and helpful, 

important lapses remain in the complaint process that may affect not only 

how complainants feel about the process but also how thoroughly and 

promptly their cases are handled. 

Survey Respondents’ Overall Satisfaction with the Fair Housing Complaint Process 

Investigative

stage

Intake

stage

Overall

process

Very/somewhat dissatisfied Very/somewhat satisfied

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither” 

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that 

estimate. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-79.

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. 
Page i GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 8

Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about 

Thoroughness of Intake Process and Effectiveness of 

Controls 15

Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met 

Required Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures 27

Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate 

Complaints 48

Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint 

Process, Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and 

Investigation 56

Conclusions 70

Recommendations for Executive Action 72

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 73

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 76

Intake 76

Investigation and Conciliation 78

Complainant Satisfaction 80

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 85

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 89

Tables Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files 

Sampled 79

Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from 

July 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, by Organization 

and Closure Type 80

Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and 

Response Rates 84

Figures Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD’s 10 Regions 10

Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during 

Calendar Year 2004, FHAP vs. HUD 12

Figure 3: HUD’s Fair Housing Complaint Process 14
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls 17

Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level 20

Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing 

Agencies 24

Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition 25

Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction 

Addressed 30

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint 

Notification Letters Addressed to Complainants and 

Respondents and Evidence of Receipt 32

Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure 

Notices Addressed to Complainants and Respondents 

(No Reasonable Cause) 33

Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for 

Investigations Lasting over 100 Days 36

Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases 

with Specific Content in Investigative Plans 39

Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, 

by Investigating Agency and Closure Type 40

Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and 

Respondent Interviews, by Closure Type 41

Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative 

Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits 44

Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure 

Information Requests, by Closure Type 46

Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff 

Conciliation Assistance 49

Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type 51

Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case 53

Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not 

Satisfied with the Overall Complaint Process and the 

Outcome (Percentage of all Complainants) 57

Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and 

the Intake and Investigative Stages 58

Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure 

Type 60

Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided 

Understandable Information and Satisfactory 

Explanation on Whether the Complaint Would Be 

Investigated 61

Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake 

Activities, by Closure Type 62
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff 63

Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out 

Certain Activities 65

Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, 

Overall and by Closure Type 66

Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact 67

Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain 

Investigative Activities, by Closure Type 69

Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative 

Staff 70

Abbreviations

Act Fair Housing Act

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

DOJ Department of Justice

FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program

FHEO Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

FIR Final Investigative Report

FTE full-time equivalent

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

OGC Office of General Counsel

TEAPOTS Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking Office 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-06-79 Fair Housing

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

October 31, 2005 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

In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 

the 100 state and local agencies it has certified through its Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP agencies) handled over 9,000 complaints of

housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968, as amended).1

 The act generally prohibits 

discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other 

protected groups in the sale and rental of residential dwellings. The act as 

amended provides HUD with enforcement powers and establishes a 

100-day benchmark for completing investigations of complaints.2

 HUD’s 

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

program and handles complaints of housing discrimination. FHAP agencies 

also handle complaints that allege violations of substantially similar state 

and local laws. 

To meet the Fair Housing Act’s (Act) requirements, FHEO has developed a 

process for receiving, investigating, and resolving housing discrimination 

complaints. This process has three stages:

1

Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (Apr. 11, 1968) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 

3601-3619). 

2

Persons alleging housing discrimination also have up to 2 years after the discriminatory 

housing practice occurred or was terminated to file a civil action in United States district 

court or in state court. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A).
Page 2 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

• intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive inquiries 

from individuals (complainants), determine whether the inquiries 

involve a potential violation of the Fair Housing Act (or equivalent state 

law), and file fair housing complaints for those that do;3

• 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, or reach a mutually 

acceptable solution; and

• 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.

The Act requires that efforts be made to conciliate complaints—that is, to 

reach a resolution acceptable to all parties—throughout the complaint 

process, beginning with the intake stage. FHEO and FHAP agencies use an 

automated case tracking system, the Title Eight Automated Paperless 

Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) to record information about 

complaints and key steps in the investigative process. 

HUD reported in 2002, that the incidence of consistent adverse treatment 

against minority home seekers had declined over the last decade. 

Nonetheless, a series of reports using paired testing to measure the level of 

discrimination in the U. S. housing market found that about 20 percent of 

the time a member of a protected group will experience discrimination 

when attempting to rent an apartment. 

This report, which focuses on intake, investigation, and conciliation (the 

complaint process), is the second in a series on HUD’s handling of housing 

discrimination complaints. GAO’s earlier report on fair housing found, 

among other things, that as of September 2003 more than a third (39 

percent) of open housing discrimination investigations had passed the 

100-day benchmark.4

 GAO noted at the time that FHEO and the FHAP 

agencies were trying to speed their efforts to resolve these cases. Further, 

3

An inquiry is an allegation of a discriminatory housing practice that has not yet been 

determined to meet the standards for an investigation.

4

GAO, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Enforcement 

Process, GAO-04-463 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 2000).
Page 3 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

GAO reported that FHEO hub directors cited tension between the need to 

meet the 100-day benchmark and the need to conduct a thorough 

investigation, stating that at times one goal cannot be achieved without 

some cost to the other. The report also found that increasingly the most 

common outcome of housing discrimination investigations was a finding of 

“no reasonable cause” to indicate discrimination occurred. In 2004, almost 

half of all investigations closed had a finding of no-cause and less than 7 

percent had a finding of reasonable cause. About one third were 

conciliated. 

This report addresses the thoroughness of the process for resolving 

housing discrimination complaints—that is, the extent to which FHEO and 

FHAP agencies meet HUD standards, policies, and best practices in a 

timely manner. GAO reviewed

• the thoroughness and timeliness of FHEO and FHAP agencies’ efforts 

during the intake process;

• the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies ensure the thoroughness 

of investigations, regardless of the outcome;

• the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies attempt to conciliate fair 

housing complaints; and

• complainants’ satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, and 

outcomes of the fair housing process.

To assess the thoroughness of the intake process, we asked FHEO offices 

and FHAP agencies around the country to keep logs of inquiries they 

received during a 4-week period and measured (1) the extent to which 

these inquiries were in FHEO’s information system and resulted in fair 

housing complaints and (2) the timeliness of the responses. The centers 

that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent of 

investigations in 2004. We also made “test” telephone calls to 46 selected 

intake centers (one FHEO office in each of HUD’s 10 regions and all 36 

statewide FHAP agencies) during which GAO analysts posing as 

complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We used 

these calls to measure the time it took to ultimately reach a staff person or 

to receive a return call. We also determined the extent to which, during the 

initial contact, intake staff gathered necessary information for deciding 

whether to undertake a full investigation, including whether Title VIII 

appeared to cover the alleged incident. Because of the limitations of this 
Page 4 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

sample, the results are not generalizable to all potential complainants of 

housing discrimination. To assess the thoroughness of investigations and 

efforts to conciliate complaints, we reviewed the documentation in 197 

randomly selected case files of housing discrimination cases from around 

the country that were completed during the second half of calendar year 

2004 with outcomes of no-cause or that were closed administratively or 

conciliated. We used a structured data collection instrument to record 

whether the files contained specific evidence of investigation steps and 

their timing. We sampled a sufficient number of case files to permit 

national estimates—that is, to permit statistical generalization to all cases 

closed with these outcomes during the second half of 2004. Using the same 

data collection instrument, we also reviewed 12 of the 15 FHEO cases with 

reasonable cause outcomes that completed the adjudication process during 

this period.5

 In addition, for each case we compared selected file contents 

with TEAPOTS records used to track the case. We did not assess whether 

investigations reached an appropriate decision regarding any specific fair 

housing inquiry or investigation. To measure complainants’ satisfaction 

with the complaint process, we conducted a nationwide telephone survey 

of a random sample of 575 complainants in housing discrimination cases 

that were investigated and closed between July 2004 and December 2004. 

The survey had an overall 38 percent response rate.6

 Appendix I contains a 

detailed description of our methodology. In addition, our detailed survey

results can be found on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov. We conducted our 

work from September 2004 to October 2005 in Atlanta; Chicago; San 

Francisco and Oakland; Kansas City, Kansas; Baltimore; Columbia, South 

Carolina; and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Results in Brief While often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and 

information, FHEO and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely 

5

Three of the 15 cases with reasonable cause outcomes could not be located. According to 

FHEO officials, these files had been transferred to DOJ pursuant to an election by one of the 

parties to proceed in federal court. FHEO officials also stated that in recent years FHEO and 

DOJ have made efforts to better track the election case files.

6

Despite the low response rate, we concluded that the survey allowed us to make estimates 

that are generalizable to the population of complainants—those whose cases were closed 

during the last 6 months of calendar year 2004. Unless otherwise noted, the confidence 

intervals due to sampling error for all survey estimates are plus or minus 6 percentage 

points or smaller. 
Page 5 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

in carrying out intake activities; moreover, missing or inconsistent data 

suggests that TEAPOTS may be of limited usefulness as a management 

control over the intake process. First, we found that potential complainants 

may encounter difficulty in making initial contact with a FHEO or FHAP 

agency staff person. For example, although fair housing agencies receive 

allegations of discrimination principally via telephone, in five locations we 

called, the agency did not return our test calls, even after three attempts. 

Similarly, about 30 percent of complainants we surveyed—while generally 

expressing satisfaction with aspects of the intake phase—reported that it 

was somewhat or very difficult to reach someone the first time they 

contacted a fair housing agency. Second, the agencies did not consistently 

obtain information in a way that was expeditious for complainants or that 

met recommended guidelines, as can be seen in the following examples:

• The intake centers to which we placed test calls did not consistently 

collect information that would help them recontact the complainant or 

assess the urgency of the situation.

• Among our test calls, none of the intake centers collected all of the 

information during the initial contact considered by HUD policy to be 

critical to collect at intake, including the name and telephone number of 

the respondent (the person or persons who allegedly committed the 

prohibited discriminatory act). Rather, most of the agencies we 

contacted used as their primary means of collecting information a 

written intake form, which must be mailed to the complainant, filled out, 

and mailed back to the agency, adding to the time required to act on the 

inquiry.

• Of the 306 inquiries that the centers, during the period of our review, 

found met HUD’s initial criteria for filing a complaint, only half of the 

time did FHEO and FHAP agencies complete this process within the 

20-day benchmark period.

Our comparison of logged contacts with TEAPOTS data indicates that the 

system’s usefulness as a management control may be limited. While the 

intake centers logged 2,000 unique new potential Title VIII violations, only 

631 (32 percent) were entered into TEAPOTS during the period of our 

review.7

 Further, because the initial contact dates shown in the logs were 

sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of first contact shown in 

7

We collected TEAPOTS data from February 21, 2005, through May 1, 2005. 
Page 6 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

TEAPOTS, HUD’s use of TEAPOTS data overstates its performance in 

meeting the 20-day intake timeliness benchmark. About 40 percent of 

inquiries that completed the intake process took more than 20 days to 

complete.

Evidence demonstrating the thoroughness of investigations—that is, the 

extent to which investigative standards were met, recommended 

procedures were followed or were timely, or internal control measures 

were used and documented—varied among the 197 case files and 

corresponding TEAPOTS records. First, some files lacked documentation 

showing that investigators had carried out certain required actions, such as 

sending complaint notices, or copies of amended complaints, to both 

complainants and respondents; sending copies of final closure notices; 

preparing final investigative reports; and obtaining supervisory approval of 

final investigative reports and letters describing the agency’s final 

determination. Second, an estimated 62 percent of the complaint files did 

not contain detailed investigative plans that HUD guidance strongly 

encourages.8

 Further, while HUD has recommended procedures for 

interviewing complainants and respondents or making on-site visits, an 

estimated 28 percent of the files did not include evidence of interviews with 

respondents, while an estimated 73 percent showed no evidence of on-site 

visits. Third, we found that while HUD relies on TEAPOTS as a control to 

assure that investigations meet statutory and regulatory requirements, 

some FHEO and FHAP agencies did not include detailed information about 

cases that would permit effective monitoring in the system. Among 

complainants we surveyed, about one-third stated that they believed their 

investigations had not been very thorough or at all thorough. FHEO and 

FHAP agency officials and staff said that resource shortages often 

presented a challenge in meeting program guidelines and noted that 

investigative and management review steps that actually occurred may not 

have been documented.

Complainants whose cases were closed through conciliation were the most 

satisfied with their case outcomes; however, our review of case files and 

corresponding TEAPOTS records found inconsistent documentation of 

conciliation attempts. HUD requires FHEO and FHAP agencies to 

8

Since each sample could have provided different estimates (sampling error) our results 

have confidence intervals of plus or minus 8 percentage points or smaller, unless otherwise 

noted, at a 95 percent level of confidence. In other words, this interval would contain the 

true value for the actual population for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn.
Page 7 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

document conciliation attempts with each party and record in writing the 

terms and conditions of any agreement. The written agreements must be 

signed by all parties and approved by HUD or the FHAP agency. Our 

review of the case files and TEAPOTS records disclosed the following:

• In an estimated 36 percent of the cases, the files contained no evidence 

that complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation, and an 

estimated 32 percent of the files contained no evidence that respondents 

had been contacted.

• Among those cases that HUD closed with an outcome of conciliation, an 

estimated 9 percent did not have written agreements in the case file.9

Among those that did contain written agreements, about 5 percent did 

not contain signatures of all parties, and about 10 percent showed no 

evidence of approval by HUD or the FHAP agency.10

• Information in TEAPOTS regarding conciliation efforts varied widely, 

from a citation of “conciliation discussed” to the inclusion of significant 

details.

Some surveyed complainants reported experiencing at least some pressure 

to conciliate their complaints, most commonly because they feared losing 

their cases. Others reported that they were not offered help in resolving 

their complaints. HUD officials said that the statutory mandate inherently 

creates some pressure to conciliate complaints and that such pressure is 

not attributable to HUD’s administration of the statute. 

While survey respondents reported a number of positive impressions, 

particularly with the intake phase of their complaints, they generally 

expressed more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with both the overall 

process and the case outcome. About 71 percent of complainants were 

somewhat or very satisfied with the intake process, citing clarity of 

information about steps in the process and generally professional and 

courteous treatment. Nevertheless, we estimate that about half of all 

complainants in cases closed during our survey period were either 

somewhat or very dissatisfied with the fair housing complaint process 

9

The confidence interval for this estimate is 3 percent to 20 percent.

10The confidence intervals for these estimates are 1 percent to 16 percent and 3 percent to 22 

percent, respectively.
Page 8 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

overall. Similarly, nearly 60 percent were dissatisfied with the outcome of 

the process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a complaint in 

the future. Complainants’ satisfaction varied among stages of the complaint 

process and outcomes. 

• Some complainants viewed the intake process favorably. Although 

complainants rated the investigation stage less favorable than intake, 

over half were satisfied with the investigation stage. However, a 

substantial number rated poorly certain aspects of intake and 

investigation.

• Complainants whose cases ended with a finding of no-cause were the 

most dissatisfied with the complaint process (72 percent dissatisfied, 23 

percent satisfied) and with specific aspects of investigations. 

Complainants whose cases were conciliated were the most satisfied (75 

percent versus 25 percent, respectively). 

Complainants’ satisfaction was not linked to the type of agency conducting 

the investigation (FHEO or FHAP). 

We are recommending that HUD consider a number of strategies to help 

assure that the fair housing complaint process is thorough and timely, 

including steps to facilitate complainants’ initial inquiries, improve data 

needed to monitor timeliness of intake activities, improve planning and 

documentation of investigations, and help ensure that conciliation is 

available to all complaints.

HUD’s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity provided written 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. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary’s letter is 

reprinted in appendix II. 

Background The Fair Housing Act is the most comprehensive of the federal statutes that 

prohibit discrimination in the rental and sale of housing.11 Passed in 1968 

11Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794; and 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 

prohibit discrimination in housing that receives federal funds.
Page 9 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

and amended in 1988, the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, 

family status, handicap, national origin, race, religion, and sex.12 It applies 

to a number of what are termed “issues,” including discrimination in the 

sale, rental, advertising, and financing of housing; in the provision of 

brokerage services; and in other activities related to residential real estate 

transactions.13 Generally, the Act covers all dwellings—that is, buildings 

designed to be used wholly or in part as residences and land where a 

dwelling will be located.14 When first enacted in 1968, the Fair Housing 

Act’s administrative enforcement process was limited principally to 

conciliation. In 1988, Congress strengthened HUD’s authority and 

established a comprehensive administrative process to enforce the law, but 

conciliation remained a primary feature.15

The Act gives HUD, private persons, and the U.S. Attorney General tools 

and remedies to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions. Using HUD’s 

administrative process, individuals who believe they have experienced 

discrimination in a housing-related situation can file a complaint that HUD 

may then investigate and resolve. Individuals may also elect to file suit in 

civil court rather than using the administrative procedure set out in the act. 

The Attorney General can bring a civil action in cases that show a pattern 

of discriminatory practices. 

The Act Is Administered by 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies

FHEO has staff in each of HUD’s 10 regional offices, or hubs, who respond 

to complaints (see fig. 1). Agencies certified to participate in HUD’s Fair 

Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and receive funding from HUD for 

handling fair housing complaints are obligated to comply with FHEO’s 

reporting and record maintenance requirements, must agree to on-site 

12For a detailed discussion of the provisions of the 1968 Act and the 1988 amendments, see 

GAO-04-463, 6-7.

13FHEO uses the terms “issue,” “type,” and “subject matter” of discrimination 

interchangeably.

14The Act does not apply to transactions involving private homes sold without a broker and 

advertising unless the owner owns more than three single-family dwellings at any one time 

or to transactions involving units in some owner-occupied dwellings. Also not covered in 

some circumstances are religious organizations and private clubs, and the familial status 

provision does not apply to housing for older persons. Finally, the Act does not supersede 

local, state, and federal restrictions on how many people may occupy a dwelling.

15H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 34 (1988).
Page 10 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

technical assistance provided by HUD, and are obligated to implement 

certain policies and procedures. FHAP agencies must be in states or 

localities whose laws provide rights and remedies that are substantially 

similar to those in the Act—for example, local laws must provide for the 

same 100-day benchmark for investigations that is stipulated in the Act. 

FHEO offices refer complaints alleging violations of state and local fair 

housing laws to FHAP agencies—for example, a certified state office of 

civil rights. Currently, there are 100 of these agencies around the country.

Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD’s 10 Regions

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. If an aggrieved 

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

Sources: GAO analysis of HUD data; Art Explosion (map).

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
Page 11 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

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. 

In 2004, FHEO and the FHAP agencies received approximately 9,500 filed 

complaints (see fig. 2). For this same period, only 5 percent of the closed 

case files resulted in reasonable cause outcomes.16 HUD reimburses FHAP 

agencies for carrying out investigations once FHEO has reviewed the 

completed cases. Along with reviewing cases to determine whether HUD 

should pay for services rendered, FHEO monitors FHAP agencies and 

provides technical assistance.17 FHEO monitors the fair housing 

enforcement efforts through TEAPOTS. 

Our last report identified a number of human capital challenges facing 

FHEO, including the number and skill level of FHEO staff, the quality and 

effectiveness of training, and other issues. An FHEO official noted that the 

staff shortage 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 the complaint process. The total number of full-time 

equivalents (FTE)18 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 

fiscal year 2004, FHEO had 650 FTEs. 

16Reasonable cause outcomes have remained around 5 percent since 1996. 

17FHEO offices have other responsibilities, such as assessing compliance with fair housing 

regulations for entities receiving federal funds, providing community education and 

outreach on fair housing issues, and managing grants for HUD.

18A 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. 
Page 12 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during Calendar Year 

2004, FHAP vs. HUD

Complaint Process Includes 

Intake and Investigation 

Phases

The complaint process beginning at intake represents the initial contact a 

complainant has with an agency responsible for enforcing the Act or 

equivalent state law. Figure 3 describes the complaint process for 

HUD-investigated complaints. FHAP agencies would follow a similar 

process. In the intake stage, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies receive 

inquiries by telephone, fax, mail, in person, or over the Internet. Intake staff 

record inquiries in TEAPOTS, interview complainants, and may do other 

research—for example, searches of public records—to see if enough 

information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This process is 

known as “perfecting” a complaint. In order to be perfected, a complaint 

must

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

and addresses of the person alleging the discriminatory practice and the 

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

a statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and

Region Total FHAP HUD

Atlanta 1,660

Chicago 1,542

Fort Worth 1,293

San Francisco 1,259

Kansas City, KS 986

NY/NJ 769

Philadelphia 772

Seattle 336

Denver 326

Boston 473

Source: GAO analysis of TEAPOTS data.

9,503

1,020

1,174

822

1,058

478

594

741

195

194

430

6,706

640

368

471

201

508

175

31

141

132

0 87 87

43

2,797

Headquarters

Complaints by recipient (FHAP or HUD)

Total complaints
Page 13 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

• 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 sell) and the basis (e.g., 

race, color, or familial status) for the alleged discrimination are covered 

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

occurrence of the alleged discriminatory practice. 

Hub directors decide which complaints meet these criteria and become 

perfected complaints. Complaints that do not meet the criteria are 

dismissed. Intake staff record information about perfected complaints in 

TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the complaints, send letters notifying 

complainants and respondents about the complaint and the process that 

will be used to address it, and send the complaint file to an investigator.19

FHEO’s Title VIII Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook

(Handbook) sets a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake stage for 

these cases, but a 5-day benchmark for cases that it first takes in and then 

refers to FHAP agencies.

Complaints that are perfected proceed to an investigation. During this 

stage, FHEO and FHAP agencies gather evidence to determine whether a 

violation of the Act or a state or local housing law has occurred or is about 

to occur. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators but notes that 

investigations may vary. Agency guidance directs that directors of FHEO’s 

hub offices review the results of completed investigations to determine 

whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing 

practice has taken place or could take place. With the concurrence of the 

relevant HUD regional counsel, the hub director issues a determination and 

directs the regional counsel to issue a charge, or short written statement of 

facts, that led to the decision. 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. Figure 3 provides 

an overview of HUD’s basic fair housing complaint process, including 

timeliness benchmarks established by the Act or agency guidance.

19Procedures differ for certain cases, including those that require assistance from the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), those that may involve free speech protected by the First 

Amendment, and those that name HUD as a respondent.
Page 14 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 3: HUD’s Fair Housing Complaint Process 

An investigation can be closed at any point for administrative reasons or 

through conciliation. Cases are closed administratively for several 

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, and civil penalties can be 

awarded.

Discrimination determined 

—actual damages, 

injunctive or equitable 

relief, civil penalties, 

and punitive damages

can be awarded.

Sources: GAO analysis of the act, fair housing regulations, and GAO interviews with HUD, FHAP agencies, and private fair housing 

advocates; Art Explosion (images).

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 of a civil action, 

seeking relief with respect to the alleged discriminatory housing practice, has commenced)

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 Administrative Law Judges 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 a conciliation 

agreement is signed or the 

first day of an ALJ hearing, 

an 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 must 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 15 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

reasons—for instance, when a complainant withdraws from the case or 

cannot be located. The Act requires HUD to make conciliation efforts 

throughout the complaint process, beginning when the complaint is filed 

and continuing until the charge is filed or the case dismissed. The 

Handbook and federal regulations allow investigators to make conciliation 

efforts, but the regulations also state that generally officers, employees, 

and agents not associated with the case will attempt conciliation. 

Conciliation agreements are intended to protect the public interest through 

provisions such as requiring respondents to file periodic reports with HUD. 

When a conciliation agreement is reached, the Act authorizes the 

Department of Justice to enforce the agreement in the event of a breach. In 

2004, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies closed about one-third of their cases 

via conciliation.

The Act set a deadline of 100 days from the date the complaint is filed for 

completing an investigation or conciliating or otherwise closing a case, 

unless doing so is “impracticable.” If the investigation cannot be completed 

within this time frame, FHEO or the FHAP agency must notify the 

complainant and respondent in writing in what is called the “100-day 

letter.”20 In our previous report, we found that the number of investigations 

completed within 100 days by the FHEO or FHAP agencies increased 

significantly after 2001, partly in response to FHEO’s initiative to reduce 

aged cases.

Test Calls and Analysis 

of Log Data Raise 

Questions about 

Thoroughness of 

Intake Process and 

Effectiveness of 

Controls

Although often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and 

information, our test calls and analysis of contact logs found that FHEO 

and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely in carrying out 

intake activities. Our test calls, while not generalizable, suggest that 

potential complainants may have difficulty in making initial contact with an 

intake staff person; moreover, 30 percent of the complainants we surveyed 

reported such difficulty. Our test calls also showed that FHEO and FHAP 

agency staff sometimes did not seek information needed to determine 

whether a potential violation of the Act had taken place and to file a formal 

complaint, or gather limited information that might help the agency 

recontact the complainant or assess the urgency of the situation. Among 

the logged contacts that the agencies determined were potential violations 

of the Act and were recorded in TEAPOTS, half resulted in formal 

2042 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) and (C).
Page 16 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

complaints. However, only 57 percent of these completed the process 

within the 20-day benchmark. Additionally, missing or inconsistent data 

suggests that TEAPOTS may be of limited usefulness as a management 

control over the intake process. 

Agency Staff Did Not 

Always Return Test Calls or 

Collect Initial Intake 

Information Promptly

The intake process is the first contact prospective complainants have with 

the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act or an equivalent state law. 

Depending on the quality of intake, potential complainants may or may not 

feel comfortable continuing the process, and those who do not may give up 

on pursuing their complaints. Thus, the agency’s initial response to 

complainants plays an important role in the fair housing complaint process. 

However, our test calls revealed some potentially serious lapses in 

agencies’ responses to complainants’ inquiries.

First, we found that agencies did not always respond promptly to initial 

attempts to contact them to file a complaint and that because of 

requirements that some agencies imposed, trying to file a complaint could 

be a challenging process. In 5 of the 46 calls, the agency did not return the 

test call, even after 3 attempts.21 In another 2 cases, the intake organization 

required that the caller provide intake information via the Internet or in 

person. As shown in figure 4, in 20 of the remaining 39 test cases, the caller 

spoke with a live person on initial contact. Of the 9 calls requiring a 

callback, 6 were not returned within 1 business day, and 3 were not 

returned for 3 or more days. Our survey of complainants suggests that they 

experienced similar difficulties to ours in contacting intake staff. An 

estimated 30 percent noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to 

reach a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency, and 

34 percent said they had difficulty contacting staff after the initial contact. 

These percentages were relatively constant regardless of whether FHEO or 

a FHAP agency handled the case or its outcome, with one exception. 

Complainants whose cases were conciliated reported that they had less 

difficulty contacting staff than complainants whose cases were closed with 

other outcomes. 

21Our experiences with the intake test calls constituted a case study, and the results cannot 

be generalized to the entire population of potential complainants or other program 

locations.
Page 17 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls

We also found that intake staff did not seem to display a sense of urgency in 

dealing with complaints. Over half of the agencies (23 of 39) relied 

primarily on a form that the complainant must fill out (HUD-903 or state 

equivalent) to collect the information needed to begin an investigation, and 

in the initial phone call requested little more than the complainant’s name 

and mailing address. Using such a form to gather information for a 

potential complaint could take a week or more—during which the caller 

could lose a housing opportunity. Two other agencies would not mail a 

complaint form, insisting that the caller come in to the office to file a 

complaint. However, information from contact logs that the FHAP agencies 

and FHEO offices maintained for 4 weeks, at our request, showed that the 

most prevalent mode of contact is telephone, and that walk-in and Internet 

contacts represented less than 5 percent. Given this situation, requiring 

potential complainants to appear in person added an additional challenge 

that could potentially make it difficult for a complainant to continue with 

the process. Further, a test caller to one of these agencies, stressing the 

urgency of her situation, was informed that filing a complaint was a “slow 

process” and that her complaint would not be acted on for some time, 

whether intake was done over the phone or via the organization’s form. 

FHEO’s annual performance goals do not include goals for the time it takes 

to return initial contacts from complainants. However, FHEO has 

established a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake process, starting 

with the date that the initial inquiry is recorded in TEAPOTS. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, HUD’s General Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that the agency 

tracks the time it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial contact, 

and that a new initiative, the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research 

Complainant spoke with someone who

could help with intake on intitial contact

36 of 39

20 of 39

23 of 39

Number

of cases

Agency mailed form for complainant to sign

Agency primarily relied on complaint

form to gather intake information

Source: GAO analysis of test calls.
Page 18 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Project, is expected to assist with decision making during the intake 

process since it uses a triage system to determine case complexity.22

Despite any inconveniences, when our test callers did reach the agencies, 

the staff treated them well. In none of our test cases did hold time exceed 3 

minutes, and staff at several agencies spoke extensively with test callers, 

answering questions and providing guidance and information on the 

process. Our survey of former complainants that completed the 

investigation process showed similar findings. While complainants had 

difficulty reaching an agency, once they did, more than half said that 

agency staff did either a good or an excellent job of explaining the process 

and timing of each step.

FHEO and FHAP Agencies 

Collected Limited 

Information during Initial 

Intake Contacts

When collecting intake information during our test calls, FHEO and FHAP 

agency staff focused primarily on collecting the complainant’s name, 

address, and protected class, as well as a description of the discriminatory 

act. Staff sometimes did not ask for other information that would be helpful 

in recontacting the complainant or assessing the urgency of the situation. 

To systematically assess the thoroughness of the intake test calls, we 

identified criteria from the Act (the minimum elements of information 

needed to proceed with the complaint), HUD’s Title VIII Handbook, and 

training materials from the National Fair Housing Training Academy. 

Additionally, we obtained information on best practices from a fair housing 

advocacy group as well as HUD’s training materials and interviews with 

agency officials. We categorized these criteria at four levels: 

• Level 1—information that, according to HUD policy, should always be 

collected during intake, though not necessarily during the first contact, 

regardless of the basis of the complaint or the protected class.

• Level 2—information that is potentially applicable to all complaints and 

that should be collected during the intake process.

• Level 3—information that is relevant to a particular basis or protected 

class—that is, information necessary to determine, for example, 

22HUD’s Office of Policy, Development, and Research (PDR) assisted FHEO and OGC in 

developing the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research Project, which is aimed at early and 

continuous interaction between FHEO and OGC, and the methodology will be tested in 

selected FHEO regional offices before implementation.
Page 19 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

whether the complainant met a certain protected class (e.g., handicap or 

familial status).

• Level 4—information that is considered to be a best practice—for 

example, information that may be used for testing.

We also discussed these criteria and the designated levels with agency 

officials. 

We measured the percentage of information elements collected at each of 

these levels during our test calls. The elements associated with each level, 

and the results we observed during our test calls, are shown in figure 5.

While level 1 information should always be collected in order to proceed 

with a complaint, some of this information may not always need to be 

collected during the initial contact. However, HUD policy recommends that 

staff obtain as much information as possible during the initial intake 

interview. We also believe that level 1 items should, with little exception, be 

collected as part of the initial contact in order to have information 

necessary to recontact the complainant and determine the urgency of the 

situation.
Page 20 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level 

Note: Cases in which the test caller volunteered the information item are included in the count of the 

number of cases in which intake staff asked for the information. The total number of cases is 39.

44%

Level 1 information

7%

Level 2 information

11%

Level 3 information

9%

Level 4 information

Information item Number of cases

Physical description of respondent

Respondent's sex 13

Respondent's race 9

Witness name

What outcome does the 

complainant hope to see 

result from the complaint?

Complainant's employer

Complainant's job title

Complainant's salary

Employer of complainant’s spouse

Other sources of household income

Rent complainant is willing to pay

8

5

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

Information item Number of cases

Date of birth of complainant

27

Marital status of complainant

10

Race of complainant

6

Disability of complainant (if any)

Complainant's family size

Complainant's national origin

Dependent's race

Dependent's sex

Dependent's national origin

Pet/service animal

Current lease terms/expiration

Reason client is moving

For rental unit, did complainant 

submit application?

Was complainant informed 

that credit check would be done?

Was complainant informed 

that previous landlord 

would be contacted?

Was complainant informed 

about other checks/inquries?

5

5

4

4

3

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

Source: GAO analysis of test calls.

Average percentage of information items collected in each case

Information item Number of cases

Complainant’s name 38

Respondent’s first name

36

Respondent’s last name

36

Respondent’s organization

36

Address of complainant

29

Address of respondent

Complainant’s home phone number 28

27

Complainant's work phone number

Respondent's phone number

Alternate contact person

Respondent's position/job title

Details of discriminatory act

Description of dwelling

25

24

18

18

18

18

Is alleged discrimination

continuous or ongoing?

Violation date

Protected class

Name of spouse/domestic partner

Dependent's name

Dependent's date of birth

Dependent's relationship

Does complainant have any

relevant supporting

documentation?

If renting, is there currently

a housing subsidy?

Date (if any) complainant must move

Did complainant attempt to do any

"testing" of respondent?

14

8

8

7

7

5

5

4

4

3

0

Information item Number of cases

Best time to call

12

Respondent's fax number

Does client want unit/property?

Did complainant suggest to 

respondent that an investigation 

might commence?

How did complainant feel 

about the discriminatory act?

Length of time complainant has

resided at current address

Current rent/mortgage

Complainant's description 

of credit history

Present type of housing

Rent/own

How complainant knew 

of this property/unit

What was complainant 

wearing when act occurred?

9

6

4

Complainant's fax number

Did complainant discuss this

complaint with any other 

organization?

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

0

0

0
Page 21 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

On average, intake staff collected approximately 44 percent of level 1 

information, which is identified by HUD policy as critical to collect during 

intake.23 For example, 21 agencies did not ask for the respondent’s first and 

last name, and 15 did not ask for the respondent’s organization. As 

indicated in figure 5, in only 8 agency test cases did intake staff ask the 

complainant for the name of an alternate contact person and in only 7 

agency test cases did the intake staff request a work number—an important 

piece of information because, according to FHEO officials, many 

complainants are in the process of moving and are difficult to recontact. 

Also, intake staff about half of the time asked for the respondent’s 

telephone number. Further, the agencies collected little information 

beyond level 1. On average, they gathered 8 percent of level 2, 11 percent of 

level 3, and 9 percent of level 4 information. Some level 4 (best practice) 

information that was most often collected during our case study includes 

the respondent’s gender (13 test calls), respondent’s race (9 test calls), and 

what the complainant hoped to see as a result of filing a complaint (8 test 

calls). (See fig. 5.) 

Although HUD policy recommends that intake staff obtain as much 

information as possible regarding the aggrieved person’s allegations during 

the initial intake interview, the amount of information collected on initial 

contact varied significantly by agency. One location collected nothing 

beyond the complainant’s name and mailing address, while another 

collected up to 80 percent of the level 1 data. However, in none of the test 

calls did intake staff collect 100 percent of the level 1 information. While 

most agencies appeared to collect the remainder of the critical information 

through their intake forms (either the HUD-903 form or state equivalent), 

this practice prevents the agency from taking any further action on the 

complaint until a signed form is received.24 According to HUD officials, the 

revised Title VIII Handbook contains standards for information that HUD 

will collect during initial contact with a complainant. However, these and 

other standards may not apply to FHAP agencies since their certification by 

HUD does not ensure that they follow identical procedures. 

The time it takes to receive the form can delay the enforcement process, 

potentially resulting not only in the loss of a housing opportunity but also in 

23This figure represents the average percent of level 1 data elements that were collected on 

each call.

24According to HUD, some states’ laws prevent FHAP agencies from pursuing a complaint 

until a signed complaint form is received.
Page 22 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

complainants becoming frustrated with the process and deciding not to 

pursue their complaint. In particular, some complainants may need urgent 

attention, such as when they are about to become homeless because they 

are being evicted from their rental home or apartment, or are losing the 

home they own in a foreclosure. HUD has authority under the Act in such 

urgent circumstances to take prompt judicial action by authorizing the 

Attorney General to initiate a civil action seeking appropriate temporary or 

preliminary relief pending final disposition of the complaint. HUD’s Title 

VIII Handbook establishes that intake staff has a critical role in identifying 

when a complaint may involve a situation warranting prompt judicial 

action. Time is critical, and the efforts of the intake staff are helpful in 

gathering sufficient information for determining when prompt judicial 

action may be necessary. This is also important for intake by the FHAP 

agencies, since they must have substantially equivalent authority to seek 

prompt judicial action.

Intake Log Data Indicate 

That TEAPOTS Is of Limited 

Effectiveness as 

Management Control of 

Intake Process

Our prior report noted that while FHEO offices kept records of potentially 

Title VIII-related contacts, it had not required FHAP agencies to do so. (For 

that reason, when preparing our prior report, we were unable to determine 

the extent to which FHAP agencies met the goal of perfecting complaints 

within 20 days of initial contacts.) FHAP agencies typically entered 

information only for perfected complaints. Accordingly, we recommended 

that HUD ensure that the automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS) 

include complete, reliable data on key dates in the intake stage for FHAP 

agencies. The latest version of HUD’s Title VIII Handbook (issued in May 

2005) requires FHEO intake staff to record in TEAPOTS each inquiry that is 

potentially Title VIII-related, regardless of whether it results in a perfected 

complaint.

Our comparison of information from the logs—that intake centers kept, at 

our request, during February and March 2005—with TEAPOTS data 

highlights the need for reliable information regarding potentially Title 

VIII-related contacts and the dates of their occurrence. First, the analysis 

showed that a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-related contacts 

(68 percent) were not entered in TEAPOTS, and of those that were, about 

half resulted in perfected complaints. While there are valid reasons for this 

“attrition,” our results suggest that staff are not recording in TEAPOTS a 

substantial number of potentially Title VIII-related contacts (inquiries in 

which the caller alleges housing discrimination and intake staff believe the 

call represents a potential Title VIII violation). Further, we found that, for 

those contacts that were entered into TEAPOTS, the initial contact dates 
Page 23 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

shown in the logs were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of 

first contact shown in TEAPOTS. Thus, HUD’s use of TEAPOTS data is 

likely overstating its performance in meeting its 20-day intake timeliness 

benchmark. Without assurance that TEAPOTS is being used consistently, 

HUD is unable to account for potentially Title VIII-related contacts that do 

not appear in the system or accurately measure timeliness of those that are 

recorded in the TEAPOTS system, thus limiting TEAPOTS’ utility as a 

management control.

Many Logged Contacts Did Not 

Appear in TEAPOTS

To determine the volume of intake-related contacts received by fair 

housing agencies and the proportion of these contacts that resulted in 

perfected complaints, we had 47 sites record all incoming 

contacts—telephone calls, walk-ins, and Internet queries—that were 

related to fair housing over a 4-week period (February 22 through March 

21, 2005).25 The 32 state FHAP agencies, 5 local FHAP agencies, and 10 

FHEO offices that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent 

of the volume of investigations in 2004. Specifically, we asked the sites to 

record the date, method, and purpose of each contact; the name of the 

person making the contact; whether the contact alleged having 

experienced housing discrimination; and whether the intake staff agreed 

that the matter pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related complaint.

During our tracking period, the sites recorded a total of 9,655 contacts. As 

shown in figure 6, the majority (80 percent) of contacts for which we had 

complete data was by telephone, and 42 percent were new potential 

complaints. Furthermore, a sizable number of initial contacts 

(approximately 24 percent) did not pertain to fair housing (confirming, as 

our prior report noted, that intake analysts receive numerous contacts that 

are not related to fair housing.) The time necessary for handling the calls 

can place an additional burden on FHEO’s limited resources.

25The Chicago FHEO office maintained their contact log from March 1 through March 28, 

2005.
Page 24 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing Agencies

Note: The “nature of contact” pie chart does not include data for the 1,274 contacts from one agency, 

where staff did not record the nature of contact. In addition, totals do not equal 100 percent due to 

rounding and missing data.

Our review of the log also showed that a sizable number of new potential 

complaints that intake staff believed could involve a Title VIII violation did 

not result in perfected complaints in TEAPOTS (see fig. 7):

• Agency staff coded 2,000 contacts as coming from a named individual 

whose allegations they believed both involved a new potential 

complaint and pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related violation.26

Telephone

Mail

3% Walk-in

2% Other

4% Internet

10%

80%

New potential

complaint

Other

Previous

contact

follow-up

4% Referral

from/to/by

other agency

24%

28%

42%

Source: GAO analysis of intake logs.

Nature of contact (as coded by intake staff) Method of contact (as coded by intake staff)

26Where individuals made more than one contact, we included them only once in our count 

of individuals. We also excluded contacts where a name was not provided or where a 

complainant was identified, but the intake staff believed the allegation was not a new 

potential complaint or was not a potentially Title VIII-related violation.
Page 25 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

• Of these 2,000 individuals, we were able to match 631 to a new inquiry 

shown in TEAPOTS.

• Of the 631 inquiries, 306 are shown in TEAPOTS as perfected 

complaints.

Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition

We sorted these data into two groups: contacts recorded by FHEO offices 

and contacts recorded by FHAP agencies. We found that the attrition rates 

differed somewhat between these groups. At FHEO sites, intake staff 

identified 1,347 unique individuals as having potentially valid new Title VIII 

complaints. Of these, 506, or 38 percent, were shown as unique inquiries in 

TEAPOTS, and 216 of those—16 percent of the original 1,347—resulted in 

perfected complaints shown in the automated system at the time of our 

analysis. At the same time, FHAP sites identified 620 unique individuals27

27The numbers of contacts at FHEO and FHAP sites do not add to 2,000 because 33 

individuals filed at both HUD and FHAP locations (24 of which resulted in perfected 

complaints). These 33 cases are not included in our analysis of attrition by type of agency.

New potential complainants

with potentially jurisdictional

Title VIII complaints

Unique inquiries in TEAPOTS 631

Perfected complaints 306

2,000

= 100

Source: GAO analysis of intake logs.
Page 26 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

with potential new Title VIII violations, of which 92, or 15 percent, were 

shown as unique inquiries in TEAPOTS and 66, or 11 percent, became 

perfected complaints.28

Attrition can occur for a number of reasons. For example, because some 

state laws contain additional protected classes, some calls that FHEO 

offices receive may be for matters that are covered under a FHAP agency’s 

jurisdiction. Also, intake staff may believe that a contact pertains to a valid 

Title VIII violation at the outset but may later find out that the respondent is 

exempt from Title VIII or that the 1-year statute of limitations has expired.

Furthermore, the intake process is sometimes terminated because a 

complainant either does not cooperate with agency staff or resolves the 

issue with the respondent and voluntarily discontinues the complaint 

process. Finally, it is possible that, during our process of matching names 

in the log to TEAPOTS records, a small number of matches were not made, 

either due to misspellings of names or timings of entry into the system. 

Information in TEAPOTS provides some insight as to the reasons why 

inquiries were not perfected during this time period. In 20 percent of all 

inquiries for which TEAPOTS had data, the complainant failed to respond; 

in 13 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid basis for 

complaint; and in 8 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid 

issue. However, TEAPOTS shows that 43 percent of the inquiries that were 

not perfected were coded as “Other Disposition,” which means that no 

further information is available to indicate why the contact did not result in 

a perfected complaint. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD’s General Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that while HUD 

considered requiring FHAP agencies to record initial inquiry dates for all 

potential complaints, it has not done so because of the way HUD funds 

FHAP agencies. Specifically, HUD reimburses the FHAP agencies for each 

(actual) complaint that they investigate, and does not reimburse them for 

their consideration of inquiries that do not result in complaints. However, 

this continues to leave HUD without data or knowledge of a significant 

number of potential Title VIII-related inquiries or a means of assessing the 

FHAP agencies’ response to such inquiries. 

28The number of FHAP contacts alleging discrimination that result in a TEAPOTS inquiry is 

less reliable, as we have found that FHAP agencies vary in their use of TEAPOTS.
Page 27 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Some Logged Contact Dates 

Differed from TEAPOTS’ ‘Date of 

First Inquiry’

Our prior report questioned the reliability of initial inquiry dates shown in 

TEAPOTS. Our analysis for this report raises further questions, because we 

found differences in the dates recorded in the contact logs and those in 

TEAPOTS for the same contacts. HUD policy requires that FHEO offices 

perfect or close all inquiries within 20 days of initial contact. Statistics 

generated by HUD show an approximate 95 percent compliance with this 

policy. However, for internal measurement and benchmarking purposes, 

HUD begins counting the 20 days on the day the inquiry is entered into 

TEAPOTS. Because HUD does not track the actual initial contact dates, it 

can not use them to begin measuring the 20-day period. Our analysis of the 

contacts recorded in the logs leading to the 306 perfected complaints noted 

above indicates that 57 percent of the complaints were perfected within 20 

days of initial contact, based on the earliest contact date in the log. 

However, using the inquiry date in TEAPOTS as the starting point for the 

20-day benchmark, as HUD does, indicates that 79 percent of the 

complaints were perfected within 20 days. In fact, the median number of 

days to perfect complaints was 11 using TEAPOTS inquiries, but 18 using 

the data recorded in our log. These results indicate that HUD lacks an 

accurate picture of how much time individuals face from the day they make 

an inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, and that HUD’s 

reliance on TEAPOTS data leads to an inaccurate assessment of 

performance in meeting its timeliness benchmark.

Case Files and 

TEAPOTS Lacked 

Evidence That 

Investigations Met 

Required Standards or 

Followed 

Recommended 

Procedures

In reviewing investigative case files and associated TEAPOTS records, we 

found that some lacked evidence that required investigative standards were 

met, investigators followed recommended planning and procedure 

guidelines, or that internal control measures were used and documented. 

Throughout this section, we present estimates of agency compliance with 

certain requirements and recommended practices based on our review of a 

random sample of 197 FHAP agency and FHEO investigations that were 

closed during the last half of 2004 either administratively, through 

conciliation, or with a finding of no reasonable cause. Unless otherwise 

noted, these estimates are surrounded by a confidence interval, due to 

sampling error, of plus or minus 8 percentage points or smaller. We also 

present results from our review of 12 of the 15 FHEO cases that completed 

the adjudication process and subsequent monitoring during the same
Page 28 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

period.29 Our review of each case was limited to reviewing the contents of 

case files and the associated TEAPOTS records (that is, we did not 

interview case investigators, other officials involved in the case, 

complainants, or respondents), and it is important to note that the lack of 

evidence we found does not necessarily indicate that required or 

recommended steps were not taken. However, the lack of evidence does 

raise questions about HUD’s ability to assure that investigations are as 

thorough as they need to be. 

Some Files Lacked 

Evidence of Adherence to 

Investigative Standards

The Act sets several standards for investigators to follow during the 

complaint process. First, investigators must establish and document four 

jurisdictional elements to ensure that the complaint is covered under the 

Act.30 Second, certain notifications to the complainants and respondents 

must be sent and received.31 Third, a Final Investigative Report (FIR) must 

be prepared at the end of each investigation.32 As a practical matter, this 

means a FIR is required for investigations that conclude with a 

determination of reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and 

for investigations closed with a determination of no reasonable cause (i.e., 

there is no reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred). 

Investigators must also meet a 100-day deadline for completing an 

investigation unless it is impracticable to do so.33 If the investigation is not 

29The remaining three files we did not review could not be located. We did not review files 

where a FHAP agency had found reasonable cause because we could not identify FHAP 

agency cases that had completed the adjudication process in the last 6 months of 2004.

30The four elements of jurisdiction require that: (1) the complaint is timely (filed within one 

year of the most recent act of alleged discrimination); (2) the complainant has 

standing—that is, the complainants claim that they have been injured or will be injured by a 

discriminatory housing practice; (3) neither the dwelling nor the respondents are exempt; 

and (4) the complaint alleges a violation of the Act, and there is a prohibited basis for the 

alleged discriminatory conduct.

3142 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(i) requires notice to be served on complainants acknowledging 

such filing and advising the person of the time limits and choice of forums. Section 

3610(a)(1)(B)(ii) of title 42 of the United States Code requires notice to be served on 

respondents not later than 10 days after the filing of the complaint or the identification of 

the respondent. (This notice advises respondents of their procedural rights and obligations.) 

HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. §§ 103.201 and 103.202) require these notifications to be done by 

certified mail or personal service. 

3242 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A). 

3342 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv).
Page 29 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

completed in 100 days, complainants and respondents should be notified in 

writing of the reasons.34

Elements of Jurisdiction Our review of investigative case files completed during the last half of 2004 

showed that the elements of jurisdiction we measured were addressed in 

nearly all of the no-cause cases (see fig. 8).35 Similarly, we observed that 

with one exception, all of the cause case files we reviewed addressed the 

elements of jurisdiction we reviewed. The high incidence of documentation 

addressing jurisdiction may be explained by the fact that jurisdiction 

should be verified throughout the complaint process. Consequently, there 

is more than one opportunity to identify deficiencies. FHEO officials at 

one location said that in addition to an intake analyst, the intake and 

enforcement or compliance branch chiefs also reviewed complaints before 

investigations began. However, they also said that in some instances, 

complaints for which jurisdiction had not been established had been 

inadvertently accepted and later found to lack a required jurisdictional 

element. For example, one case we reviewed showed that as the 

investigation proceeded, investigators determined that the respondent was 

exempt as a result of not owning more than one rental property. The Act 

provides that certain properties and property owners are exempt, and 

owners who do not have an interest in more than three single-family homes 

or condominium units meet the guidelines for exemption.36

3442 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(C).

35We considered an element of jurisdiction as “addressed” if the HUD 903 or equivalent form 

included information on that element. We did not verify that the information on HUD 903 

was accurate.

3642 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(2).
Page 30 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction Addressed 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

Notification Although most files contained evidence that jurisdictional elements had 

been addressed, we did not always find evidence that complainants and 

respondents received required notifications. As noted above, the Act 

requires the fair housing agency handling the complaint to send 

complainants an initial notice acknowledging the filing of the complaint. 

Further, HUD’s complaint notification letter advises complainants of 

certain guidelines of the complaint process.37 Respondents must be served 

by certified mail or personal service with an initial notice of the original 

complaint no later than 10 days after the complaint is filed or when the 

respondent is identified. Respondents must also be notified whenever a 

complaint is amended (complaints may be amended at any time during an 

investigation to add or remove parties, and complainants must sign the new 

complaints).38 Complainants and respondents should also be notified when 

an investigation is closed. We therefore looked for evidence indicating that 

these requirements were followed in all cases. 

Respondents

not exempt

Complaint

timely filed

Discrimination

basis identified

Aggrieved

parties named

Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

0 20 40 60 80 100

37These guidelines include: (1) the complainant’s rights during the processing of the 

complaint; (2) the rights of each respondent in responding to the complaint; and (3) the 

steps that HUD (or the investigating agency) will take to determine whether the complaint 

has merit.

3842 U.S.C. § 3610(a).
Page 31 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

HUD regulations require that complainants be notified by certified mail or 

personal service, but FHEO officials said that some FHAP agency 

procedures do not require this. While we found initial notification letters 

addressed to complainants in 97 percent of the files and letters to 

respondents in 91 percent for closure types other than reasonable cause, 

we frequently did not find evidence that the letters had been received (see 

fig. 9). The lack of evidence in case files that complainants and respondents 

had received initial notifications does not necessarily mean that they did 

not in fact receive the notices. Some FHEO officials told us that certified 

mail receipts were sometimes maintained in separate files. We looked not 

only for evidence such as return receipts from certified mail or certificates 

of personal service, but also for correspondence indicating receipt or 

knowledge of the complaint notification. Fifty-nine percent of these cases 

contained evidence that complainants had received initial notifications, 

and 67 percent contained evidence that respondents had received initial 

notifications. Our survey of complainants that completed the investigation 

process also indicates that some may not have received initial notifications. 

Specifically, 86 percent said they received a letter informing them whether 

an investigation would be conducted. We did not observe a significant 

difference in documentation between organizations. For the cases where 

HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found initial notification letters 

addressed to complainants in 9 of the 12 files, and letters to respondents 

were found in 10. Evidence of receipt was greater for reasonable cause 

cases than for other closure types—8 and 9 of the 12 files, respectively, had 

evidence that complainants and respondents received initial notification 

letters.
Page 32 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint Notification Letters 

Addressed to Complainants and Respondents and Evidence of Receipt

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Some cases did not contain evidence that final closure notices had been 

addressed to complainants and respondents (see fig. 10). For closure types 

other than reasonable cause, 10 percent and 21 percent of the files, 

respectively, did not include copies of closure letters addressed to 

complainants and all named respondents. Investigations conducted by 

FHAP agencies were more likely not to have closure notices addressed to 

respondents (26 percent) compared with FHEO-investigated cases (8 

percent).39 Similarly, FHAP agency-investigated cases did not have 

evidence of closure notices addressed to complainants 14 percent of the 

time, compared with 2 percent for FHEO-investigated cases.40 Our survey 

of complainants revealed that about 9 percent said they did not receive 

notification of the case being closed. We found that for the cases where 

HUD had determined reasonable cause, there were more notices of 

reasonable cause determination addressed to respondents than 

complainants. Specifically, 5 of the 12 files did not include notices 

addressed to complainants informing them that the FHEO investigation 

39The confidence intervals for these estimates are 19 percent to 34 percent and 2 percent to 

19 percent, respectively.

40The confidence intervals for these estimates are 8 percent to 21 percent and 0 percent to 6 

percent, respectively.

Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Letters received

by respondents

Letters addressed

to respondents

Letters received

by complainants

Letters addressed

to complainants
Page 33 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

was completed, and of the reasonable cause finding. Two of the files did 

not include such notices addressed to respondents.

For reasonable cause determinations, HUD’s regulations require that all 

parties to a complaint be notified of the reasonable cause determination by 

certified mail or personal service.41 For no reasonable cause 

determinations, the parties must be notified by mail and the notification 

must include a written statement of the facts upon which the determination 

was based.42 HUD guidance also states that for administrative closures, all 

parties and their designated representatives must be notified by regular or 

certified mail. 

Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure Notices Addressed to 

Complainants and Respondents (No Reasonable Cause)

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Fifteen percent of the case files for closure types other than reasonable 

cause had evidence that the complaint had been amended. We also could 

not find evidence in all cases that copies of the amended complaints had 

been received by all respondents even though the statute requires that all

4124 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(2)(i).

4224 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(1) and (2)(ii).

Addressed to

complainants

Addressed to

respondents

No Yes

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

FHEO

FHAP

40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Page 34 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

respondents receive them.43 Finally, not all of the cases, where applicable, 

contained evidence that new respondents received a copy of the 

complaint.44

As stated, FHEO officials noted that not all FHAP agency procedures 

require certified mail notices, while HUD notifications are sent by certified 

mail. As with initial notifications, we looked not only for evidence of 

certified mail or personal service, but also other forms of evidence that a 

notification was made, including response letters or subsequent 

correspondence that indicated the parties’ knowledge. FHEO officials 

noted that the absence of notices in FHEO case files is more likely a 

clerical omission than a failure to follow procedure.

Final Investigative Reports Our file review showed that the Final Investigative Report (FIR) required 

for reasonable cause and no reasonable cause outcomes and the 

Determination showing the outcome of cases were not always present. 

The documents are intended to demonstrate that investigations were 

thorough and that the investigator’s conclusions were founded in fact and 

evidence. FIRs, which HUD guidance states fulfill the statutory 

requirement to document investigations, are used as a basis for preparing 

the charge for reasonable cause cases. FIRs should summarize the 

allegation and evidence, including such things as dates and summaries of 

contacts with parties, witness statements, descriptions of pertinent 

records, and answers to interrogatories.45 The Act requires FHEO, 

following the completion of the investigation, to make information derived 

from the investigation—including the FIR—available upon request to the 

parties to the complaint.46 The Determination includes the elements of 

jurisdiction as well as a summary of the complainant’s allegations, the 

respondents’ defenses, and the investigator’s findings and conclusions. 

For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found the FIR 

and Determination in all 12 of the files. However, for cases closed with a 

4342 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B) and (D). HUD regulations require FHAP agencies to serve notice 

on both complainants and respondents upon the filing of a complaint. 24 C.F.R. § 

115.202(a)(1)(ii) and (iii).

44Estimates were unreliable for the percentage of cases that did not contain evidence that 

new respondents received a copy of the complaint.

4542 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A).

4642 U.S.C. § 3610(d)(2).
Page 35 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Determination of no reasonable cause, we found the FIR missing in 5 

percent of the files, and a Determination missing from 8 percent.47 The 

percentage of FIRs for no reasonable cause cases was similar for FHAP 

agency and FHEO files. 

HUD requires that FIRs and Determinations of reasonable cause and no 

reasonable cause be approved by the FHEO regional director. FHAP 

agency managers approve and sign these documents for FHAP agency 

investigated cases. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable 

cause, we found that 11 FIRs and 10 Determinations had been signed. For 

cases with no reasonable cause outcomes, 71 percent of Determinations 

were signed, compared with only 45 percent of FIRs.48 For no reasonable 

cause outcomes, FHEO files showed more evidence of Determination 

approval—100 percent compared with 60 percent of FHAP agency 

Determinations.49 FHEO noted that missing signatures for FIRs and 

Determinations are more likely an oversight rather than a question of 

thoroughness or lack of review. They also noted that case files will not 

document informal means of review.

Adherence to 100-Day Notice 

Requirement

As noted above, the Act requires that fair housing investigations be 

completed within 100 days from the date the complaint was filed, unless it 

is impracticable to do so. An investigation is completed when a 

Determination or charge is issued, a conciliation agreement is executed, or 

the complaint is otherwise closed. 50 We estimate that 98 percent of all 

cases with closure types other than reasonable cause—including relatively 

more no reasonable cause cases—took more than 100 days to complete. If 

investigators do not meet the 100-day deadline, the investigating agency is 

required to notify both complainants and respondents in writing,

47The confidence interval for the second estimate is 4 percent to 17 percent.

48The confidence intervals for these estimates are 60 percent to 80 percent and 34 percent to 

55 percent, respectively.

49The confidence intervals for these estimates are 86 percent to 100 percent and 47 percent 

to 73 percent, respectively.

50The Secretary of HUD will issue a charge on behalf of the aggrieved person to a complaint 

if there is a determination of reasonable cause. The charge consists of a short statement of 

the facts upon which the Secretary has found reasonable cause of a discriminatory housing 

practice, and is based on the FIR. 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2).
Page 36 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

explaining why the investigation is not complete.51 We found 100-day letters 

in each file for these closure types with investigations that took more than 

100 days to complete. We found that in about two-thirds of these cases, the 

100-day letter was sent after 100 days had passed.52 Moreover, about 14 

percent of the notices we found were dated more than 130 days after the 

HUD filing date (see fig. 11).53 For cases where HUD had determined 

reasonable cause, all 12 investigations lasted longer than 100 days, but 2 of 

the files did not have copies of 100-day letters. 

Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for Investigations 

Lasting over 100 Days

Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percent.

51We were told that 100-day notices, when appropriate, are automatically generated by 

TEAPOTS, and the investigator inserts the data indicating the reasons or circumstances 

causing delay. TEAPOTS identifies 13 reasons investigations may not be completed on time 

including a need to “complete interviews with parties and/or witnesses.”

52The combined estimates are 60 percent and 10 percent with confidence intervals of 48 

percent to 72 percent and 4 percent to 20 percent, respectively.

53The confidence interval for this estimate is 7 percent to 26 percent.

More than 130 days

121 to 130 days

111 to 120 days

101 to 110 days

Less than 100 days

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

 14%

31%

 32%

 18%

 5%
Page 37 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

According to FHEO officials in one location, for cases with complex issues, 

it was often difficult to meet the 100-day investigative requirement and 

conduct a thorough investigation. Officials in another FHEO location said 

that the 100-day time frame is a critical factor at day one, and a new 

initiative had been implemented to track and focus on cases at the 50-day 

mark. The FHAP agencies’ record of meeting the 100-day requirement is 

directly tied to their performance ratings and to the reimbursement they 

receive for completed cases. Officials at one FHAP agency stated that the 

100-day requirement was a priority for each new investigation and their 

agency had established shorter investigative deadlines internally, using 

their own streamlined process to assist them in meeting the 100-day 

requirement. In our last report, we observed that the percentage of 

investigations completed within 100 days increased between 2001 and 

2003, particularly for FHEO cases. Specifically, the percentage of FHEO 

investigations completed within 100 days increased from 17 percent in 

fiscal year 2001 to 50 percent in fiscal year 2003. We also noted that FHEO 

hub directors reported that the 100-day benchmark and the simultaneous 

need to conduct a thorough investigation were sometimes competing goals.

Some Files Lacked 

Evidence That Investigators 

Followed Recommended 

Procedures

In addition to the statutory requirements, HUD guidance recommends a 

number of activities that contribute to a more complete investigation. 

Among these are preparing investigative plans, conducting on-site visits 

and interviews, and requesting policy and procedure information from 

respondents.54 The guidance also recommends that investigators follow 

certain procedures before closing a case administratively. HUD officials 

said that an investigation may be thorough without following each 

recommended practice; moreover, as noted above, a lack of evidence does 

not necessarily indicate that a procedure was not followed. However, the 

relative infrequency with which some practices were used, according to 

documentation in the case files, raises questions about investigation 

thoroughness.

Investigative Plans HUD guidance states that investigative plans are critical to efficient and 

effective investigation. The guidance also provides extensive instruction on 

preparing plans, and adds that, in developing investigative plans, 

investigators and their supervisors should consult with Regional Counsel. 

54Policy and procedure requests seek information on the respondent’s practices in dealing 

with the alleged discriminatory matter.
Page 38 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

According to HUD’s revised Title VIII Handbook, investigative planning 

allows supervisors and investigators to ensure that the scope of the 

investigation is carefully tailored for adequate investigation of all claims 

made in the complaint, and careful planning should also prevent 

“over-investigation” of claims. However, FHEO officials stated that most 

experienced investigators do not prepare investigative plans for any except 

technical and very complex cases since investigators are familiar with the 

procedures for more common discrimination cases. 

Our file reviews showed that 62 percent of the cases with closure types 

other than reasonable cause did not include investigative plans. Further, 

the plans we found were not as detailed as the guidance suggests. For 

example, while the type of discrimination was identified in 93 percent of 

plans, the theory of discrimination was identified in 65 percent.55, 56 Also, 

planned interviews with complainants and respondents were specified in 

59 percent and 62 percent of plans, respectively, and a list and sequence of 

interview questions was present in 27 percent of plans (see fig. 12).57 For 

cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found an 

investigative plan in 10 of the 12 files, but these also contained little detail. 

For example, the type of discrimination was identified in all 10 of the plans, 

but the theory of discrimination was identified in only 3. Additionally, only 

2 and 3 of the plans, respectively, specified interviews with complainants 

and respondents, and a list and sequence of interview questions was 

present in only 2 of the plans. With regard to supervisory review, officials at 

the agencies we visited stated that there was no established procedure for 

documenting review of investigative plans.

55According to HUD’s Title VIII Handbook, violations of illegal discrimination of the Fair 

Housing Act may be established under either (1) a disparate treatment theory, which is also 

known as “discriminatory intent” or (2) a discriminatory impact theory, which is also known 

as “discriminatory effect.” The disparate treatment theory includes overt discrimination 

cases where there is direct evidence of intentional discrimination and other cases where 

there is only circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of a discriminatory motive. 

Further, there are single motive cases and mixed motive cases. The particular theory of the 

case determines the evidence needed to prove or rebut the allegations. These theories 

developed in federal employment discrimination cases, but they are generally applied by the 

courts to cases brought under the Fair Housing Act.

56The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 98 percent and 54 percent to 

76 percent, respectively.

57The confidence intervals for these estimates are 48 percent to 70 percent, 51 percent to 74 

percent, and 17 percent to 39 percent, respectively.
Page 39 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases with Specific Content in Investigative Plans

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

We found substantially more investigative plans in FHEO case files (74 

percent) than in FHAP files (24 percent). There was little variation in the 

percentage of cases with investigative plans across closure types (see fig. 

13). 

Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Identified a list

and sequence

of questions

Specified respondents

should be interviewed

Specified complainants

should be interviewed

Identified theory

of discrimination

Identified type

of discrimination

Files that contained investigative plan

(out of all files)

Files with investigative plan content

(out of files that contained investigative plan)

38%
Page 40 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, by 

Investigating Agency and Closure Type

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Interviews with Complainants 

and Respondents

HUD’s training manual for fair housing investigators states that interviews 

are a vital part of collecting evidence, and that they allow an investigator to 

probe for additional information that otherwise might not be provided. The 

manual recommends that investigators interview not only complainants 

and respondents, but also other individuals, such as witnesses for the 

parties and independent witnesses. FHEO officials noted that there are 

circumstances where complainant or respondent interviews are not 

necessary, such as when a case is conciliated before the investigation has 

begun or when an investigator determines that a respondent is exempt 

under the Act. 

The majority of cases with closure types other than reasonable cause 

included interviews with the parties to the complaint, but 28 percent did 

not include interviews with respondents. Cases with no reasonable cause 

outcomes were more likely to include interviews with complainants and 

respondents (see fig. 14). FHEO cases for these closure types were more 

likely than FHAP cases to include interviews with complainants. 

Specifically, we estimate that FHEO cases did not include interviews with 

complainants 8 percent of the time, compared with 21 percent of the time

90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 90 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Closure

type

FHEO

FHAP

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Investigative agency

Percentage Percentage

No Yes
Page 41 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

for FHAP cases.58 We found at least one respondent interview for all cases 

where HUD had determined reasonable cause. By contrast, only seven of 

these cases included interviews with complainants.

Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and Respondent 

Interviews, by Closure Type 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

In a number of cases, investigators interviewed complainants and 

respondents once or twice. Forty-seven percent of cases with closure types 

other than reasonable cause showed one or two complainant interviews, 

and 40 percent showed one or two interviews with a respondent or 

representative. We found that the content of interviews recorded in the 

TEAPOTS database varied widely.

We looked specifically for evidence explaining why interviews were not 

conducted or whether it was apparent why interviews were not conducted. 

While we often could not find documentation as to why complainants and 

respondents were not interviewed, the reason was apparent in a number of 

cases. 

58The confidence interval for the first estimate is 3 percent to 17 percent.

Respondent

interviews

Complainant

interviews

No Yes

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Page 42 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

We also looked at the time frame within which the parties were interviewed 

for the first time following the official HUD filing date. The 100 days that 

HUD allocates for conducting fair housing investigations begins on the date 

a complaint is officially filed with HUD. HUD’s training manual for fair 

housing investigators suggests that investigators interview complainants 

first to clarify the details of the allegation and to evaluate the viability of the 

complaint. We found that complainants were typically interviewed first, but 

that in a number of cases, initial investigative interviews were conducted 

weeks and even months after the complaint had been filed.59 For closure 

types other than reasonable cause, 65 percent of cases with complainant 

interviews showed the first investigative interview occurring more than 2 

weeks after the complaint was filed; this was also the case for 67 percent of 

respondent interviews.60 Further, 52 percent of cases with complainant 

interviews showed the first investigative interview occurring more than 1 

month after the complaint was filed; this was also the case for 46 percent of 

respondent interviews.61

FHEO officials noted that it may be appropriate to conduct a respondent’s 

initial interview after first receiving documentation. Respondents have 10 

days to provide a response to the complaint. FHEO officials noted that in 

addition to caseload, the time involved in mail delivery and the difficulty of 

locating people who have moved are factors that can impact the initial 

interview with the parties. Officials at some of the FHAP agencies we 

visited indicated that time may be of the essence in housing discrimination 

cases since housing opportunities may be lost during the initial filing 

period. For pending evictions, one agency’s practice was to request an 

eviction abeyance through the court or to petition the landlord to postpone 

eviction pending a speedy investigation. To expedite the filing process, the 

intake coordinator at another agency may go on site to have the complaint 

form completed and signed in order to begin the investigation.

On-Site Visits HUD’s guidance does not require that an investigator visit the site of the 

alleged discriminatory act, such as the subject dwelling and respondent’s 

place of business, and FHEO officials stated that many cases do not require 

59The estimate is 60 percent with a confidence interval of 51 percent to 69 percent.

60The confidence intervals for these estimates are 55 percent to 74 percent and 59 percent to 

75 percent, respectively. 

61The confidence intervals for these estimates are 42 percent to 63 percent and 37 percent to 

55 percent, respectively.
Page 43 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

an on-site visit. However, the guidance also states that an on-site visit is the 

most efficient way to conduct an investigation in most situations involving 

fair housing complaints. Additionally, it states that while such a visit may 

not appear necessary at the beginning of an investigation, issues may 

develop as a case progresses that support the necessity of an on-site 

investigation. One FHAP agency we visited had a policy of conducting 

on-site interviews or inspections for each investigation, and officials there 

reported that 95 percent of their cases included visits to the property in 

question to conduct interviews and to obtain supporting documentation. In 

contrast, officials at FHEO offices and other agencies said that limited 

financial resources and time constraints may prevent investigators from 

including on-site visits as a routine part of their investigations.

About three-quarters of the cases we reviewed with closure types other 

than reasonable cause showed no evidence that investigators made on-site 

visits. For non-cause cases that included an on-site visit, we found that 

investigators toured the property in question, collected physical evidence 

such as photographs, and interviewed complainants and respondents (see 

fig. 15). We saw no statistically significant difference in use of on-site visits 

among the non-cause closure types, but we found substantially more 

on-site visits documented for cases where HUD had determined reasonable 

cause. Ten of these cases included on-site visits, and investigators generally 

carried out more activities while on site. The investigator toured the 

property in 4 cases, physical evidence was collected in 9, and both 

complainants and respondents were interviewed in 7 of the 10 cases. 
Page 44 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Information Requests HUD’s training manual for fair housing investigators recommends that 

investigators request information on respondents’ policies and procedures 

to compare the established policies and procedures with the alleged 

discriminatory practice. Policy and procedure documents may take a 

variety of forms, including lease agreements and housing covenants. We 

found that 74 percent of cases for closure types other than reasonable 

cause contained evidence that investigators requested policy and 

procedure information from respondents. Although policy and procedure 

documents are not always necessary to establish reasonable cause, we 

found that such documents were requested in all of the cases where HUD 

had determined reasonable cause.

The manual also suggests that investigators request comparative 

information, especially in cases alleging unequal treatment, about persons 

in the same protected class as the complainant and persons not in the

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Interviewed

complainants

Interviewed

respondents

Toured

subject

property

Collected

physical

evidence

Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

Investigative activities conducted on site 

(out of cases with on-site visits)

Cases with on-site visits

(out of all cases)

27%
Page 45 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

complainant’s protected class.62 We found that the files for 58 percent of 

cases for closure types other than reasonable cause showed that 

comparative information was requested. FHEO officials noted that for 

cases involving refusal to rent, they generally would expect that 

investigators collect such information. However, in cases involving design 

and construction for access by persons with disabilities, such information 

typically is not necessary. For cases with closure types other than 

reasonable cause, we found that 30 percent of cases where refusal to rent 

was at least one issue did not show evidence that comparative information 

was requested. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we 

saw evidence in 10 of the 12 files that comparative information was 

requested. 

Comparative information was requested most often for cases with a finding 

of no reasonable cause (see fig. 16).63 Specifically, we estimate that 82 

percent of no reasonable cause cases had comparative information 

requests.64 FHEO officials believe that recommended practices for planning 

investigations, interviewing complainants and respondents, conducting 

on-site visits, and seeking policy information need not be carried out in 

every case. They believe that every case is unique and each investigation 

should be tailored to the case. Our prior report noted that at least one 

FHAP agency had developed software that automatically generated a list of 

critical documents that were usually needed for certain types of 

investigations. According to officials of this FHAP agency, this system 

improved the quality of investigations and decreased the length of cases.

62Comparative information may include documentation for persons being compared with 

the complainant in terms of general qualifications for the housing opportunity, location 

relative to the property in question, and timing relative to the allegation date.

63The confidence interval for this estimate is 18 percent to 44 percent.

64The confidence interval for this estimate is 63 percent to 94 percent.
Page 46 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure Information Requests, by 

Closure Type

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Attempts to Reach Complainants 

Prior to Administrative Closure

Finally, we found that investigators documented multiple attempts to reach 

complainants before closing complaints administratively. Twenty-one 

percent of the cases we reviewed had been closed administratively, most of 

them because complainants withdrew their complaints. Relatively few of 

the cases closed administratively resulted because a complainant could not 

be located or was uncooperative with the investigator. Nonetheless, 

investigators documented as many as 11 attempts to contact uncooperative 

complainants by telephone, certified mail, and regular mail. The 

investigating agency is required to notify the parties of administrative 

closures as with other closure types, and 82 percent of administrative 

closures had evidence that such notices had been addressed to the 

parties.65

TEAPOTS Was Used 

Inconsistently to Record 

Investigation Activity

Selected information entered in TEAPOTS was generally consistent with 

the information found in source documents in the case files, but use of the 

system varied considerably among agencies conducting fair housing 

investigations. Complete and reliable TEAPOTS information is important 

for each case since the database is used to record activities and 

information throughout the investigation and subsequently as a resource 

for preparing investigative reports. In addition, HUD officials point to 

Policy and

procedure

information

No Yes

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

65The confidence interval for this estimate is 70 percent to 90 percent.
Page 47 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

TEAPOTS as a control to determine that investigations are conducted in 

accordance with statute and regulation. Without including evidence as an 

investigation is completed, TEAPOTS cannot provide an accurate 

representation of the evidence. 

As part of our review of case files, we traced information in TEAPOTS 

relating to the basis and issue of discrimination, the date of the last alleged 

violation, and the HUD filing date and found that it generally matched 

source document information, with some exceptions. We found that for 

more common complaint issues—discriminatory terms and refusal to 

rent—the information matched 83 percent and 81 percent of the time, 

respectively.66 Similarly with regard to the discrimination basis, the 

information matched 92 percent and 84 percent for race and national 

origin, respectively, but the evidence is less clear for color.67 For familial 

status, the information matched 86 percent of the time.68 When we 

compared the date of the last alleged violation and the HUD filing date in 

TEAPOTS with the same dates in the source documents, we found that 

these matched 91 percent and 84 percent of the time, respectively.69 Also, 

an estimated 91 percent of the last alleged violation dates in TEAPOTS 

matched the source documents. Finally, filing dates in TEAPOTS matched 

those in the source documents in 84 percent of cases. 

In reviewing TEAPOTS reports for investigation details, we saw that the 

amount of information varied a great deal depending on which agency had 

investigated the case and entered the information. In some instances, entire 

sections such as those for recording interviews, case chronology, and the 

investigator’s findings and conclusion had not been completed. Without a 

complete record of an investigation, investigators may be unable to utilize 

TEAPOTS functions for preparing investigative reports. Further, because 

the statute requires that information derived from investigations, including 

the FIR, be made available to complainants and respondents upon request, 

it is pertinent that all appropriate details be included.

66The confidence intervals for these estimates are 75 percent to 90 percent and 68 percent to 

90 percent, respectively.

67The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 97 percent and 66 percent to 

95 percent, respectively.

68The confidence interval for this estimate is 68 percent to 96 percent.

69The confidence interval for the second estimate is 78 percent to 89 percent.
Page 48 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Evidence Indicates a 

Lack of Consistent 

Efforts to Conciliate 

Complaints

Although HUD requires fair housing agencies to attempt conciliation 

throughout the complaint process, our review of case files, survey of 

complainants, and test calls revealed that FHEO and FHAP agencies did 

not always attempt to conciliate complaints, made limited efforts to do so, 

or did not meet HUD’s requirement that they document these efforts. While 

having the fair housing specialists act as both investigators and conciliators 

is permitted, investigators faced with pursuing conciliation as well may 

focus on investigative activities, particularly considering FHEO’s emphasis 

on completing investigations within 100 days.

Conciliation Was Not 

Always Discussed during 

Intake 

FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook states that conciliation should be discussed 

during the initial intake interview and should be noted in the standard 

notification letters to the complainant and respondent. Further, the statute 

requires that conciliation must be attempted to the extent feasible 

commencing with the filing of the complaint and concluding with the 

issuance of a charge on behalf of the complainant, or upon dismissal of the 

complaint. For time-sensitive complaints, conciliation may be the most 

effective procedure and, given that the resources of FHEO and FHAP 

agencies are limited, an effective means of reducing staff workloads. 

FHEO’s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity noted that conciliation is an integral part of the complaint 

process. He noted that FHEO officials have “confidence that every party is 

informed during the initial interview or contact of HUD’s statutory 

obligation to attempt conciliation and is asked about the possibility of 

conciliating the complaint and what it might take to effect conciliation.”

According to our survey of complainants, fewer than half (42 percent) were 

offered assistance with conciliation (see fig. 17).70 In 26 percent of the 

cases, complainants said staff suggested that the parties work out their 

differences on their own. 

70We asked, “Did anyone from a fair housing organization offer to work with you and the 

other party to find a way to resolve your differences?” However, in FHEO’s view, intake staff 

should not tell complainants that they could help resolve differences with the other party. 

Rather, intake staff should explain that HUD will assist the complainants by trying to 

conciliate or settle their complaint. 
Page 49 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff Conciliation 

Assistance

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Further, during the test calls we placed to FHEO and FHAP agencies, we 

found the possibility of conciliation was discussed in only 18 percent of the 

locations we called. FHAP agencies mentioned conciliation 23 percent of 

the time, and FHEO did not mention conciliation at all.

Based on our survey of complainants, we estimate that nearly 90 percent of 

complainants who were offered conciliation accepted it. About 12 percent 

of complainants said they sought help with conciliation through other 

organizations. The percentages did not vary among cases depending on 

whether they were investigated by FHEO or a FHAP agency, but did vary 

based on closure type, with approximately half of the complainants who 

were offered conciliation far more likely to have their case end with a 

conciliation outcome. We estimate that complainants with conciliation 

outcomes were offered conciliation 67 percent of the time, while those 

with no-cause outcomes were offered conciliation just 27 percent of the 

time. 

Overall, we estimate that parties involved in fair housing complaints were 

more likely to reach conciliation agreements when FHEO or a FHAP 

agency was involved. For example, we estimate that complainants reached 

agreement 64 percent of the time when FHEO or a FHAP agency assisted 

with conciliation, but only about 35 percent of the time when another 

organization did the conciliation. Complainants who worked with FHEO or 

a FHAP agency were satisfied with the outcome about 81 percent of the 

time and with the other party’s compliance with the agreement more than 

90 percent of the time, compared with 47 percent and 90 percent, 

respectively, for complainants working with other organizations.

No Yes

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

Did anyone from

fair housing agency 

offer to help?

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Did anyone from fair

housing agency

suggest you work out

differences on your own?

0 10 20 30 40 50
Page 50 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Our previous report noted that one FHAP agency was experimenting with a 

separate “mediation track” when handling complaints. At this agency, 

mediation attempts occurred early in the process during intake and 

involved a professional private-sector mediator. The mediation had usually 

pleased the parties, resulting in timely resolutions of cases and beneficial 

results. Two FHAP agencies we visited for this study offered mediation. 

Further, other FHAP agencies had begun offering mediation during the 

intake stage, and the complainants’ decision to participate or not 

participate in mediation was almost always documented. One FHAP in its 

notification letter to the complainant offered the complainant the choice of 

two options—either conciliation or investigation. Staff from one FHEO 

regional office noted the use of mediation by a FHAP agency in their region 

reduced complaints by approximately one-third. 

Case Files Often Contained 

No Documentation of 

Conciliation Attempts

During our file review of no-cause cases, we found no documentation of 

conciliation attempts around a third of the time and often no 

documentation of contacts with either party to attempt conciliation. 

Specifically, an estimated 36 percent of the files contained no evidence that 

complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation, while 30 percent 

of files lacked evidence that respondents had been contacted to attempt 

conciliation. For the 12 cases with outcomes of reasonable cause that we 

reviewed, we found documentation that conciliation was attempted in 11 of 

them.

When an agency contacted parties to a complaint, they often did so once or 

twice. For example, we estimate that 21 percent of complainants in cases 

with no-cause outcomes were contacted only once.71 As indicated in figure 

18, we also found that conciliation attempts varied somewhat by closure 

type. Conciliation was attempted with complainants less often for cases 

that were closed administratively. However, for all cases, we found that 

information on conciliation contained in the case file varied tremendously, 

with some cases noting “conciliation discussed,” while others included 

significant details. 

71The confidence interval for this estimate is 13 percent to 31 percent.
Page 51 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

As is the case with other aspects of our file review, the lack of evidence of 

conciliation attempts does not necessarily indicate that such attempts did 

not occur; attempts may not have been documented. However, according 

to FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook, the lack of detailed documentation of 

conciliation attempts could be problematic. For example, the Handbook

noted that FHEO Headquarters or the Office of General Counsel 

occasionally questioned the sufficiency of conciliation efforts for cases 

forwarded to FHEO Headquarters with recommendations of a 

Determination of reasonable cause. Further, it stated that when these 

questions were asked, the case was often remanded to the agency handling 

the case with instructions to undertake additional late-stage conciliation 

Conciliation

Administrative

No cause

Conciliation

Administrative

No cause

Cases with evidence of conciliation attempt

Cases with no evidence of conciliation attempt

Source: GAO review of complaint files.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage Percentage

0

20

40

60

80

100

Attempts with complainant Attempts with respondent

Closure type Closure type
Page 52 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

efforts. The Title VIII Handbook noted that a number of these remands 

result not from a lack of initial conciliation attempts, but rather from a lack 

of documentation of conciliation attempts in the case file. 

Conciliation attempts should be documented in TEAPOTS before a case 

can be closed. TEAPOTS includes a separate section that allows the intake 

specialist and investigator to document conciliation efforts. While HUD 

relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that investigations, including 

conciliation attempts, are performed in accordance with statute and 

regulation, information that we obtained from TEAPOTS shows that its use 

varied from one location to another. For example, the descriptions of 

conciliation attempts varied in detail, and the case information recoded by 

some FHEO and FHAP offices did not include a chronological listing of 

conciliation attempts as suggested by the Title VIII Handbook. 

Finally, we found that conciliation agreements were generally 

well-documented. Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of cases closed 

with conciliation included copies of conciliation agreements in the case 

file.72 A HUD conciliation agreement is a written, binding agreement to 

resolve the disputed issues in a Title VIII housing discrimination complaint. 

The HUD conciliation agreement must contain provisions to protect the 

public interest in furthering fair housing.73 According to the Act, a 

conciliation agreement requires HUD approval.74 Approximately ninety-five 

percent of these agreements were signed by all parties and approximately 

90 percent were approved by FHEO or the FHAP agency.75

Complainants Viewed 

Conciliation as a Case 

Outcome More Favorably 

Than Other Possible 

Outcomes

Based on our survey, complainants whose cases were conciliated were 

more positive with this outcome than those who experienced 

administrative closure or a finding of no-cause, but complainants felt at 

least some pressure to conciliate their complaints, most commonly 

because they felt their cases would not be handled otherwise. As shown in 

figure 19, 52 percent of the complainants surveyed indicated that they felt a 

72The confidence interval for this estimate is 80 percent to 97 percent.

7324 C.F.R. § 103.310(a).

7442 U.S.C. § 3610((b)(2). 

75The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 99 percent and 78 percent to 

97 percent, respectively.
Page 53 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

little to great pressure to resolve their cases. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity noted that the Fair Housing Act mandates attempts at 

conciliation and that this statutory construct may result in what 

complainants perceive to be pressure to resolve their case.

Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Our survey of complainants indicated that conciliation seemed to work 

when an agency such as FHEO or FHAP agencies were involved (over 64 

percent resulted in a conciliation). However, a significant number of survey 

complainants indicated that this opportunity was not presented to them. 

Moreover, those who sought conciliation assistance from any other 

organization were less likely to reach a satisfactory outcome; 47 percent 

did not realize a satisfactory agreement. 

44.4%

Perceived pressure to resolve case Cited pressures to resolve case

Told case

was weak

Told to

settle

Financial

reasons

Chance

of losing

Fear eviction

Case wasn't

being handled

Other

Percentage

Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

No

extent

Little

extent

Some

extent

Great

extent
Page 54 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Emphasis Given to 

Conciliation May Be 

Affected in Cases of Dual 

Investigator/Conciliator 

Role

Our previous report noted that investigators at some FHEO locations and 

FHAP agencies customarily conciliated their own cases, while other 

locations usually used separate investigators and conciliators.76 Also, our 

previous report noted that officials 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 FHEO 

location 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 officials at locations that did not separate the functions said 

they did not have enough staff to have separate conciliators. We 

recommended in our previous report that FHEO establish a way to identify 

and share information on effective practices among its regional fair 

housing offices and FHAP agencies.

According to the Title VIII Handbook, conciliation may be a fertile source 

of information regarding a respondent’s housing practices. However, the 

Handbook notes that nothing said or done during the course of conciliation 

can be used in the investigator’s reasonable cause recommendation, in the 

final investigative report, or in any subsequent Title VIII enforcement 

proceeding. Information discovered during conciliation should not be 

made public without the written consent of the persons concerned. 

Although information discovered during the conciliation process cannot be 

factored into the investigator’s recommendation, if this same information is 

discovered outside of the conciliation process, it is permissible for 

76Federal regulations implementing the Act state that generally investigators will not 

participate in or advise in the conciliation of their own cases. 24 C.F.R. § 103.300(c). 

Nevertheless, the regulations allow an individual to act as investigator and conciliator on 

the same case when the rights of the parties “can be protected and the prohibitions with 

respect to the disclosure of information can be observed.” Id. 
Page 55 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

investigators to use this information in their recommendations. For 

example, if respondents make an admission during conciliation 

negotiations, investigators cannot use this admission in their 

recommendations. However, if respondents make this same admission in a 

later deposition, the investigator can use this admission in their 

recommendations. 

In our previous report, we also noted that some HUD locations we visited 

put investigations on hold when conciliation looked likely, while others did 

not.77 Some fair housing officials at the locations that simultaneously 

investigated and conciliated cases 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 FHEO 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 

FHEO 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 complaint process, and all 6 

said that the practice decreased the length. 

During our current review, officials from one FHEO regional office noted 

that using separate conciliators would definitely assist in making their 

investigative process more effective. However due to staffing constraints, 

they believed it was impractical to do so without a significant increase in 

staff. These officials noted that they needed additional staff to speed up 

the investigative process, separate investigation from conciliation, conduct 

more thorough investigations, and more effectively monitor compliance 

with conciliation agreements.

7724 C.F.R. § 103.300(c) states that an investigator “may suspend fact finding” and engage in 

conciliation efforts. 
Page 56 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Complainants Were 

Dissatisfied with the 

Fair Housing 

Complaint Process, Its 

Outcome, and Certain 

Aspects of Intake and 

Investigation

While an estimated 44 percent of complainants were somewhat or very 

satisfied with the fair housing complaint process, based on our survey, we 

estimate that about half of all complainants were either somewhat or very 

dissatisfied.78 Similarly, nearly 60 percent were dissatisfied with the 

outcome of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent 

would be unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Complainants’ 

dissatisfaction varied for each stage of the complaint process, as well as by 

type of complaint closure (administrative, conciliation, and no-cause 

finding), with complainants in no-cause cases expressing the least 

satisfaction with various aspects of investigations. However, according to 

FHEO, the low satisfaction levels of complainants with a no-cause finding 

is not wholly unexpected given that they failed to receive the desired 

outcome and thus question the process that produced the outcome. 

Many Complainants Were 

Dissatisfied with the 

Complaint Process, but 

Satisfaction Varied 

According to the Stage of 

the Process and Case 

Outcome

Overall, about 34 percent of all complainants were satisfied with both the 

process and the outcome; conversely, 48 percent of all complainants were 

dissatisfied with both the process and the complaint outcome (see fig. 20). 

When looking at complainants’ overall satisfaction level, we found no 

significant differences when we sorted by type of agency--that is, between 

cases investigated by FHEO and those investigated by FHAP agencies. 

However, variations by closure type existed. For example, over two-thirds 

of those with a no-cause finding were dissatisfied with both the process 

and the outcome of their complaint (about 68 percent). In contrast, over 

two-thirds of those closed through conciliation were satisfied with both the 

process for handling their complaint and its outcome (about 68 percent). 

Also, just under half of the complainants with administrative closures were 

dissatisfied with both the process and outcome (about 43 percent). 

78The estimates provided are based on our survey of a national random sample of 575 

complainants whose complaints were closed by either FHEO or a FHAP agency during the 

last half of Calendar year 2004 either through conciliation, administrative closure, or a 

finding of no cause. As noted earlier, the confidence intervals due to sampling error for all 

survey estimates are plus or minus 6 percentage points or smaller. 
Page 57 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not Satisfied with the 

Overall Complaint Process and the Outcome (Percentage of all Complainants)

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” responses. 

While an estimated one-half of all complainants—regardless of their case 

outcomes--were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with their experience 

with the overall complaint process, the percentages expressing 

dissatisfaction with the intake and investigative stages were smaller (see 

fig. 21). Specifically, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat to 

very satisfied with the intake stage and nearly 55 percent with the 

investigative stage.

Satisfaction

with the

outcome

Satisfaction with the process

Somewhat/very

satisfied

Somewhat/

very

satisfied

Neither

Neither

Somewhat/very

dissatisfied

Somewhat/

very

dissatisfied

34.00% 0.75% 1.86%

2.44% 0.99% 0.80%

7.63% 2.85% 48.26%

Source: GAO survey of complainants.
Page 58 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and the Intake and 

Investigative Stages

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

In addition, we found that complainants who were dissatisfied with the 

outcome of the complaint process were also likely to express 

dissatisfaction with the process itself. These results were consistent across 

FHEO offices and FHAP agencies. Further, complainants with a no-cause 

finding were more likely to be dissatisfied with both the process and 

outcome than complainants whose complaints were conciliated or closed 

administratively. For example, complainants with a no-cause outcome 

were somewhat to very dissatisfied with the process 72 percent of the time 

(23 percent were satisfied) and with the outcome of their cases 84 percent 

of the time, while those with a conciliation outcome reported 

dissatisfaction levels of 21 percent with the process (75 percent were 

satisfied) and 25 percent with the outcome. 

About 40 percent of complainants said they would be somewhat to very 

unlikely to file any future complaint with the same fair housing agency. 

These results did not differ significantly by type of agency but did differ by 

closure type. For example, complainants with a no-cause outcome said 

they would be somewhat to very unlikely to file another complaint about 56 

percent of the time, compared with 14 percent of those whose cases were 

conciliated. 

Generally, complainants’ level of satisfaction with the process and its 

outcome did not vary with the expectations they had before talking to 

anyone at a fair housing organization. There were a few important 

Investigative

stage

Intake

stage

Overall

process

Very/somewhat dissatisfied Very/somewhat satisfied

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Page 59 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

exceptions, however. About 20 percent of complainants reported that they 

expected that the fair housing organization would not help both sides 

equally. These complainants were significantly more dissatisfied with the 

overall process and its outcome. The same was true for the approximately 

30 percent of complainants that expected the fair housing organization 

would get the complainant a financial award. Half of all complainants had 

expectations that were not listed in our survey.79 Those complainants that 

had expectations other than those we listed were significantly more 

dissatisfied with each stage of the process, the overall process, and its 

outcome. These results may indicate that some complainants have 

different or greater expectations than others.

Complainants Viewed the 

Overall Intake Process 

Positively but Expressed 

Concern about Specific 

Intake Activities 

According to our survey, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat 

or very satisfied with the intake process (see fig. 22). More than half of the 

complainants reported that they received clear information during the 

intake process and that intake staff were courteous and mostly acted 

promptly. Yet, a substantial number of complainants gave poor ratings to 

specific aspects of the process, citing difficulty contacting intake staff and 

the lack of timeliness of some intake activities. These opinions were 

generally true across agency type and closure types. 

79We specifically listed the following expectations in our survey—the organization would: 

(1) take your side in pursuing the complaint, (2) prevent the other party from taking 

immediate action against you while investigating the complaint, (3) conduct an 

investigation, (4) help you and the other party resolve your differences, (5) help both sides 

equally, (6) punish the violator, (7) get you a financial award, and (8) other.
Page 60 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure Type 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

Complainants reported that intake staff at both FHEO and FHAP agencies 

provided understandable information more than half of the time, including 

satisfactory explanations about an agency’s decision on whether to pursue 

an investigation. In general, about 60 percent of the time complainants told 

us that they received clear information on the likely length of each step in 

the process and explanations of the complaint and investigative process. 

Moreover, an estimated 66 percent of complainants were very or somewhat 

satisfied with the way the organizations explained their decision to pursue 

or not pursue a case (see fig. 23). The results varied by closure type with 

the exception of the organization’s explanation of their decision whether to 

investigate. For example, fewer complainants with no-cause outcomes, 

relative to complainants with conciliation outcomes, felt that they had 

received understandable information on the time involved or felt that they 

had received explanations of the complaint and investigative processes. 

Intake

stage

Very/somewhat dissatisfied Very/somewhat satisfied

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Overall 

40 20 0 20 40 60 0 80 100
Page 61 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided Understandable 

Information and Satisfactory Explanation on Whether the Complaint Would Be 

Investigated

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Complainants Reported That 

Intake Staff Took Prompt Action 

Most of the Time and Were 

Generally Professional and 

Courteous

Based on survey results, complainants believe intake staff took action in a 

timely manner more than half the time on the intake activities we reviewed. 

Specifically, we estimate that about 70 percent of the time intake staff 

sought the complainant’s signature somewhat to very quickly after the 

initial contact and that 62 percent of the time intake staff acted somewhat 

to very quickly in deciding whether to pursue an investigation (see fig. 24). 

Staff performance in getting back to complainants was apparently less 

satisfying, with just 55 percent of complainants responding that intake staff 

acted somewhat to very quickly, a result that complements our findings on 

the difficulty of contacting intake staff. In general, these results were true 

regardless of whether FHEO or FHAP agencies had handled the 

complainants’ cases. Complainants with no-cause outcomes cited the 

slowest response time, saying that staff responded somewhat or very 

quickly only about 40 percent of the time. On the other hand, complainants 

whose cases were conciliated reported the fastest agency action for certain 

actions.

Fair to poor or 

very/somewhat dissatisfied Excellent to good or very/somewhat satisfied

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Intake staff explained

complaint and

investigative process

Intake staff explained

time for each

step in process

Satisfaction with

explanation of

decision whether to

investigate complaint
Page 62 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake Activities, by 

Closure Type 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

In general, complainants felt that intake staff provided services in an 

acceptable and professional way (see fig. 25). We estimate that intake staff 

at both FHEO and FHAP offices treated complainants with courtesy and 

respect about 85 percent of the time and were helpful and impartial more 

than 70 percent of the time, according to complainants we surveyed. 

Complainants with no-cause outcomes reported positive treatment less 

often. For example, these complainants said that intake staff were helpful 

and interested in their complaint about 60 percent of the time and thorough 

about half of the time. 

Very/somewhat slowly Very/somewhat quickly

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Fair housing

organization

answered questions

Fair housing

organization asked

complainant to sign

complaint

Fair housing

organization made

investigation

decision

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Overall 
Page 63 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” responses. 

Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Complainants Reported That 

Intake Staff Performed Some 

Activities More Often and More 

Quickly Than Others 

We asked complainants whether intake staff carried out a variety of 

activities that were either required or that could be considered best 

practices—for example, did intake staff notify complainants whether the 

fair housing organization would pursue the case? According to survey 

results, FHEO and FHAP agency staff carried out some intake-related 

activities, such as seeking signatures for a complaint, more frequently and 

more quickly than others, such as taking action to prevent the loss of a 

housing opportunity. Among other things, our survey showed the following:

• Intake staff very often asked complainants to sign a complaint. This was 

true for about 90 percent of complainants who were working with a 

Helpful

Courteous

Not very/not at all Very/somewhat

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Impartial

Respectful

Interested in

your complaint

Thorough

Understandable

Knowledgeable
Page 64 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

single fair housing agency. In contrast, only about 48 percent of those 

complainants who were working with two or more fair housing agencies 

were asked to sign a complaint.80 We did not observe any significant 

differences by type of agency (FHEO or FHAP) or closure type. Because 

we surveyed only complainants that had filed complaints, we would 

expect that all would have been asked to sign the complaint. According 

to the Title VIII Handbook, a complaint should generally be signed 

before it can be considered as filed, so as to provide protection against 

frivolous or false claims or inadvertent erroneous statements on the 

intake form.

• Complainants stated by a large margin—about 81 percent—that intake 

staff asked questions that would help the agency understand what led to 

the complaint, and 86 percent stated that the agency notified them with 

a decision on whether an investigation would be undertaken. Again, all 

complainants should be asked questions about their allegation, 

including information needed to satisfy the required elements of 

jurisdiction. In general, these results were similar across FHEO, the 

FHAP agencies, and the closure outcomes.

• Complainants reported that intake staff were less likely to take some 

actions or to ask certain questions (see fig. 26). For example, according 

to complainants we surveyed, about 69 percent of the time both FHEO 

and FHAP intake staff did not attempt to prevent the loss of a housing 

opportunity when asked to do so, although the percentage varied across 

outcome types. Complainants with administrative closures or 

conciliated cases were slightly more likely to report that staff took 

action for them than those with a no-cause outcome. 

• Complainants also said that intake staff did not offer to resolve 

differences between parties about 45 percent of the time. Again, the 

results differed according to case outcome, with complainants who 

conciliated reporting the most offers (76 percent) and those with a 

no-cause outcome the least (37 percent). As previously discussed, the 

80This difference may be due to the fact that these agencies did not investigate the complaint 

and deferred to the agency that conducted the investigation. However we have no definitive 

evidence on this issue. In addition, if complainants dealt with more than one agency, they 

may have been confused as to which organization took which actions; this confusion could 

extend to being asked to sign a complaint. Further, it should be noted the information 

provided is the complainants’ best recollection and does not mean that a complaint signing 

did not occur. 
Page 65 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Act requires the fair housing organization to offer conciliation to the 

extent feasible in all cases.

Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out Certain Activities

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” responses. 

Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Most Complainants 

Reported Being Satisfied 

with the Investigative Stage, 

but Substantial Numbers 

Rated Poorly Certain 

Aspects of the Investigation 

Process 

Although most complainants were satisfied with the investigative stage of 

the complaint process, they were generally less positive than they were 

about the intake stage. Further, a substantial number of complainants 

expressed dissatisfaction and concern about certain aspects of 

investigations.

We estimate that about 40 percent of complainants were dissatisfied with 

the conduct of investigations, whether it was conducted by FHEO or a 

FHAP agency (see fig. 27). As they were with other activities, complainants 

whose cases were closed with a no-cause outcome were the most 

dissatisfied with the conduct of investigations, with nearly two-thirds 

reporting dissatisfaction. The concerns that led to this dissatisfaction 

included problems contacting staff, concern that staff did not perform 

actions such as informing complainants about options after their case was 

closed, and difficulty obtaining clear information. However, those whose 

cases were conciliated very often reported being satisfied with the 

No Yes

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Asked fair housing

organization for

immediate

assistance?

Asked about

conciliation?

Received

complainant notice?

Were asked

questions to find

out what happened?
Page 66 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

investigation. Despite the concerns cited, complainants in general believed 

that staff treated them professionally and with respect and courtesy. 

Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, Overall and by 

Closure Type 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

We estimate that a quarter to a third of complainants had problems 

reaching investigators, believed that investigators performed poorly in 

providing case updates, and were dissatisfied with the amount of contact 

they had with investigators. An estimated one-quarter of the complainants 

found it hard or somewhat hard to reach investigators, and more than 30 

percent of the complainants noted dissatisfaction with the amount of 

contact they had with investigators (see fig. 28). These results did not vary 

significantly depending on whether cases had been investigated by FHEO 

or FHAP agencies, but did differ according to the closure type. For 

example, more than one-third of complainants whose cases were closed 

with a finding of no-cause reported difficulties in contacting the 

investigators, compared with 22 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of 

complainants whose cases were closed administratively or conciliated. 

Complainants with a no-cause finding were most dissatisfied with the 

amount of contact they had with the investigator; 49 percent reported 

dissatisfaction, compared with 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively, for 

those having administrative or conciliation outcomes.

Investigative

stage

Very/somewhat dissatisfied Very/somewhat satisfied

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Overall 
Page 67 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Significant numbers of complainants reported that investigative staff 

performed administrative functions acceptably and in a timely manner but 

did only a fair or poor job on others. For example, complainants reported 

that they were told their investigator’s name about 83 percent of the time, 

and 92 percent said they received their closure notifications. But about 59 

percent of complainants whose cases were administratively closed 

reported that they were not told about any options they might have had for 

pursuing a complaint. Further, overall many complainants believed that 

staff did a fair to poor job of listening to them (nearly 40 percent), 

explaining the investigative process (about 36 percent), investigating the 

evidence (about 44 percent), interviewing their witnesses (nearly 40 

percent), and asking for documents related to their cases (about 32 

percent). These percentages were generally similar whether complainants’ 

Providing

case

updates

Very/somewhat hard Very/somewhat easy

Very/somewhat dissatisfied Very/somewhat satisfied

Poor to fair Excellent to good

Percentage Percentage

80 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 60

Amount of

contact with

investigator

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

Ease of

contacting

investigator

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Overall 
Page 68 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

cases had been handled by FHEO or a FHAP agency, with one exception: 

Complainants indicated that FHAP agencies were slightly better at 

interviewing witnesses (33 percent excellent or good) than FHEO (23 

percent). We found more differences among complainants’ experiences 

based on their closure outcomes. Complainants with no-cause outcomes 

were more likely to perceive difficulties in a variety of areas than 

complainants with administrative closures or conciliated cases. 

Specifically, complainants with no-cause outcomes

• more frequently reported problems receiving case updates (62 percent 

of the time, compared with 34 percent for administrative closures and 23 

percent for conciliations);

• were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of 

investigating the evidence (68 percent of the time, compared with 37 

percent for administrative closures and 20 percent for conciliations); 

and

• were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of 

interviewing witnesses (58 percent of the time, compared with 35 

percent for administrative closures and 14 percent for conciliations). 

Despite these views, most complainants reported that staff moved quickly 

in conducting the investigation. About three-fifths of complainants said 

that both FHEO and FHAP investigators were prompt in contacting them to 

start an investigation, responding to questions, and completing an 

investigation. However, complainants with no-cause outcomes typically 

reported problems with timeliness at twice the rate of complainants with 

different outcomes (see fig. 29).
Page 69 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Investigative Activities, by 

Closure Type

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” or “neither”

responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Finally, we found that complainants generally felt they were treated well by 

investigators (see fig. 30), regardless of the type of agency that investigated 

the complaint or the closure type, with one exception: Complainants whose 

cases ended in a no-cause outcome usually felt less well treated by staff. 

For example, an estimated 83 percent said that investigators treated them 

with respect and courtesy, 74 percent said that staff were interested in their 

complaint, about 72 percent believed that staff were impartial, and around 

71 percent found staff helpful. In general, complainants had similar 

responses for FHEO and FHAP investigations. As noted, those with a 

no-cause outcome were less complimentary, and only 53 percent of them 

believed that the investigator had been helpful, versus 78 percent and 90 

percent, respectively, for those with administrative or conciliation closures.

Responded to

questions or

requests

Completed the

investigation

Contacted you to

start investigation

after complaint

notification

received

Very/somewhat slowly Very/somewhat quickly

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Administrative

Conciliation

No cause

Overall 
Page 70 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative Staff

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include “don’t know” responses. 

Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

Conclusions In our April 2004 report, we found that persons who have experienced 

alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a lengthy wait before 

their complaint is resolved. In preparing this current report, the results of 

the test calls even though they are not generalizable to all potential 

complainants and our survey of complainants that is generalizable— 

suggest that some complainants may also face difficulties from the 

outset—that is, during the intake phase—in contacting staff and presenting 

their initial allegations. We also previously reported that without 

comprehensive, reliable data on the dates when individuals make inquiries, 

FHEO cannot judge how long complainants must wait before a FHAP 

Courteous

Knowledgeable

Understandable

Thorough

Interested in

your complaint

Respectful

Impartial

Helpful

Not very/not at all Very/somewhat

Percentage Percentage

Source: GAO survey of complainants.

40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0
Page 71 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

agency undertakes an investigation. For this report, our analysis of logged 

contacts indicates that FHAP agencies and FHEO hubs did not enter into 

TEAPOTS all contacts alleging Title VIII violations. Moreover, the 

discrepancies we observed between the dates of logged initial contacts and 

the corresponding dates entered into TEAPOTS as the beginning of the 

inquiries indicate that FHEO does not have reliable data for measuring the 

extent to which its offices and FHAP agencies meet the benchmark of 20 

days for completing the intake process. 

Our review of case files and TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that 

investigations are consistently as thorough or expeditious as FHEO 

guidance requires or recommends. HUD officials have noted their reliance 

on TEAPOTS for assurance that cases are investigated in accordance with 

applicable requirements and guidance. While the lack of evidence we 

observed may be the result of not documenting certain actions, rather than 

not carrying them out, the very lack of documentation or detailed 

TEAPOTS records raises questions about HUD’s ability to assure that 

investigations are as thorough as they need to be.

The Fair Housing Act has from the outset mandated that persons alleging 

housing discrimination be offered the opportunity to conciliate their 

complaint with the other party. However, our review of case files and 

TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that conciliation attempts were 

consistently made throughout the process, despite HUD’s requirements 

that these attempts be documented. The lack of documentation that 

conciliation is offered raises questions about HUD’s ability to assure that 

such attempts are made as appropriate throughout the fair housing 

process. Further, this lack of documentation, along with complainants’ 

first-hand experience and our observation during mock complaint calls that 

conciliation was not discussed, suggest that FHEO and FHAP agencies are 

not consistently offering conciliation, as required by the Act. We 

recommended in our previous study that FHEO establish a way to identify 

and share information on effective practices among its regional fair 

housing offices and FHAP agencies. We observed during our previous study 

and this study that some FHAP agencies have used independent mediators 

and had staff not involved in a particular case attempt conciliation. 

Officials who use these techniques point to their benefits in speeding up the 

resolution of complaints, while offering the parties a satisfactory outcome. 

In our last report, we concluded that FHEO’s human capital challenges 

serve to exacerbate the challenge of improving enforcement practices. 

However, the identification and use of best practices may help FHEO, as 

well as FHAP agencies, more effectively utilize their limited resources. 
Page 72 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Our work does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate 

decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation. 

Further, our review of case files shows that many investigative 

requirements were met, and former complainants we surveyed expressed 

satisfaction with some aspects of their experience. Nevertheless, we 

believe that our findings are cause for concern. Individuals who believe 

they have experienced discrimination and make the effort to contact a fair 

housing agency, but are unable to easily reach an intake staff person or to 

expeditiously convey needed information, may simply give up and cease 

cooperating. Further, our survey of former complainants shows that some 

who successfully filed complaints have a sufficiently negative view of the 

process that they would be unlikely to file a complaint again—even if they 

were satisfied with the outcome of their case. Events of either type 

diminish the Act’s effectiveness in deterring acts of housing discrimination 

or otherwise promoting fair housing practices. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure that complainants are able to readily contact a fair housing 

agency and file a complaint, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct 

the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to ensure that intake activities are 

conducted consistently. Specific actions may include

• establishing clear standards for information that should be collected 

with the initial contact;

• creating benchmarks and performance goals for the treatment of 

complainants during the initial contact, including measures of 

responsiveness, such as hold times and call-back timeliness, as well as 

measures of completeness of initial information collection;

• developing special procedures for identifying and responding to 

time-sensitive inquiries; and

• establishing means (including automation, where appropriate) of 

assuring that standards, benchmarks, and special procedures are 

followed.

To improve the usefulness of TEAPOTS as a management control in 

assuring that potential Title VIII-related contacts are identified and 

assessing performance in meeting timeliness guidelines, we recommend 

that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take the 

following two actions:
Page 73 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

• Specify that FHAP agencies use TEAPOTS for recording initial inquiry 

dates for all inquiries, as defined in the Title VIII Handbook, that allege 

housing discrimination.

• Require that the initial inquiry date reflect the first contact made by the 

complainant, regardless of whether that contact was with FHEO or a 

FHAP agency. 

To enhance FHEO and FHAP agency ability to assess the thoroughness of 

investigations, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant 

Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:

• Establish documentation standards and appropriate controls to ensure 

that required notifications of complaint, amendment, and closure are 

made and received, and that 100-day letters are sent before an 

investigation has reached 100 days.

• Clarify requirements for planning investigations, including specifying 

when plans must be prepared, their content, and review and approval.

To ensure that some form of conciliation is made available for all 

complainants, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant 

Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:

• Work with FHAP agencies and others to develop best practices for 

offering conciliation throughout the complaint process, including at its 

outset. 

• Ensure that investigators comply with requirements to document 

conciliation attempts, and complainants’ or respondents’ declination of 

conciliation assistance. 

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 General Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The letter, 

which is included in appendix II, indicated a general agreement with our 

conclusions and recommendations. The General Deputy Assistant 

Secretary noted that FHEO conducts analyses of its programs and strives 

to continually improve its operations and those of FHAP agencies in order 

to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are handled in an 

effective and efficient manner. The letter also expressed confidence based 
Page 74 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

on the extensive internal reviews, final determinations, and requests for 

reconsideration, in the integrity of the fair housing process, the soundness 

of decisions and the competent professional service accorded every party 

to the process. The letter noted a variety of initiatives that have been 

implemented to improve the quality of investigations, including

• establishing the National Fair Housing Training Academy, which trains 

fair housing professionals on fair housing law, critical thinking, and 

interview techniques; 

• completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and Conciliation 

sections of the Title VIII Handbook, which provides guidance to 

investigators on case processing standards and sets nationwide policy;

• developing the FHEO-OGC Case processing Research Project, which 

focuses on early interaction and continuous consultation between 

FHEO and OGC; and

• undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify best 

practices in the field among the FHAP agencies, as well as codifying 

operations and procedures in headquarters.

The General Deputy Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would, as 

feasible, work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and 

procedures. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, 

we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report 

date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chair of the Senate Committee 

on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chair, Subcommittee on 

Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 

Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested congressional members 

and committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. 

In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 75 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

David G. Wood

Director, Financial Markets and

 Community Investment
Page 76 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations 

conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. We 

did not address fair housing activities under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For 

certain analyses of the fair housing complaint process, we relied on 

national samples of complaints closed during the last half of 2004—

enabling us to provide national estimates.

Intake To determine the thoroughness of efforts by the Office of Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) 

agencies during the intake process, we conducted two activities. First, we 

asked intake staff to keep a log of the contacts they had with potential 

complainants over a 4-week period and to note the proportion of contacts 

alleging housing discrimination.

We designed an Intake Contact Log for staff to use that enabled us to obtain 

never-before-collected data consistently across agencies for a set time 

period. We asked the 10 FHEO offices, 36 state FHAP agencies, and 5 local 

FHAP agencies with the highest volume (based on number of complaints 

filed during fiscal year 2004) to maintain the log over the 4-week period 

from February 21 through March 21, 2005.1

 All of the FHEO offices, local 

FHAP agencies, and all but 4 of the state FHAP agencies agreed to maintain 

our contact log. These offices represented 78 percent of the volume of 

investigations in 2004. The log required intake staff to document

• the date each contact was received;

• the method of each contact (such as telephone, mail, e-mail); 

• whether the contact involved a new potential complaint or a previously 

existing complaint, or was a referral from another agency;

• whether the callers claimed that they had experienced housing 

discrimination;

• whether the intake staff or supervisor believed the contact potentially 

involved a jurisdictional Title VIII violation; and

1

The Chicago FHEO hub maintained the log from March 1 through March 28.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 77 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

• the name of the individual making the contact.2

Once we received the data, we reviewed them for consistency and logic. 

Where we identified coding that was apparently not consistent with our 

instruction, we called the staff that prepared the log for clarification. In 

some cases, we needed to recode the log based on these conversations.

We focused our analysis on entries that the intake staff indicated pertained 

to a potentially valid Title VIII issue, that included names, and that they 

coded as new potential complaints. Using entries with names allowed us to 

eliminate multiple contacts from the same person and report statistics on 

people rather than on contacts. Once we identified the unique names that 

met these criteria, we matched the names to records in a TEAPOTS extract 

to determine how many of the new potential complaints during the 4-week 

recording period were perfected. Specifically, we requested an extract of 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s TEAPOTS database 

for the time period coinciding with the contact log reporting period, plus 5 

additional weeks to allow sufficient time for perfecting complaints. We did 

not evaluate the judgments of the intake staff in determining whether a 

contact should have been pursued. Since FHAP agencies tended not to 

enter inquiries into TEAPOTS until the complaint was ready to be 

perfected, the results of our name matching are reported both in aggregate 

and separately for FHEO office and FHAP agencies. We also reported on 

the total number of intake-related contacts received during the reporting 

period, the proportion of contacts alleging housing discrimination that the 

intake staff determined did not constitute a valid Title VIII complaint, and 

percentages for each contact method (telephone, e-mail, and walk-in).

In order to assess the degree to which intake staff obtained sufficient and 

appropriate information to determine whether a contact should become a 

Title VIII complaint, we designed a telephone “test call” program of intake 

staff at the 10 HUD hubs and 36 state FHAP agencies. GAO analysts posing 

as complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We 

excluded local FHAP agencies from telephone testing because these 

agencies tend to have a low volume of investigations, compared with state 

FHAP agencies. We placed one test call to each site using the same case 

2

Due to confidentiality concerns and the inability of some agencies to dedicate the 

resources involved with tracking all of the requested contact information, not all locations 

agreed to provide us with caller names. Approximately 20 percent of the entries were 

provided without names. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 78 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

scenario with different identifying information, such as names and 

addresses. Testers were trained to consistently volunteer only certain 

information such as the “name” and description of what happened, and to 

respond in standardized ways to questions asked by intake staff. The calls 

were recorded and later coded against a list of information that might be 

sought as part of the intake process. We developed this list of information 

based on requirements and recommended practices derived from multiple 

sources. Among these were requirements of the Fair Housing Act, guidance 

provided by HUD in the form of policy and training manuals, and training 

materials from the National Fair Housing Alliance, as well as discussions 

with HUD and FHAP agency officials. We categorized the information into 

four levels: information that (1) should always be gathered at intake, (2) is 

potentially applicable to all complaints and should be collected, (3) is 

relevant to a particular basis or protected class, and (4) is considered by 

officials we spoke with and training materials as a best practice. 

We placed one pretest call to each of the 46 sites we planned to contact to 

get a sense of how each location conducts intake. We adjusted the design to 

account for differences in the intake process to the fullest extent possible. 

For example, we allowed for scheduled intake interviews for locations that 

only conducted intake calls on a scheduled basis. We found that 

approximately 25 percent of the time we could expect to speak with a 

person on initial contact who could complete the intake process. In many 

cases, an agency staff member would perform an initial screening before 

forwarding the call to the intake staff, and in other cases, the call was 

forwarded to a voice mailbox. Based on our findings during the pretest, we 

decided to evaluate not only the information collected by intake staff, but 

also the number of attempts required to speak with a live person, hold 

times, and the length of time that elapsed before staff responded to voicemail messages by returning calls. We included information that callers 

volunteered and obvious items such as gender. Because of the limitations 

of our sample—only one call to each site—the results of our analysis are 

not generalizable to the entire population of potential complainants in 

housing discrimination cases. 

Investigation and 

Conciliation

To address the thoroughness of investigation procedures, including 

conciliation attempts, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly 

selected case files of housing discrimination cases completed during the 

last 6 months of 2004 around the country (see table 1). We originally 

sampled 205 cases, but we were unable to locate files or matching 

TEAPOTS data records for 8 cases. The sample files included 58 cases 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 79 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

closed administratively, 63 cases that were conciliated without a finding of 

reasonable cause, and 90 that were closed with a finding of no reasonable 

cause. We oversampled administrative closures to ensure that we had a 

sufficient number of files to permit estimates for this subpopulation. The 

population of complaints and the sample we used are enumerated in tables 

1 and 2. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random 

selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we 

might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different 

estimates (sampling error), our results have confidence intervals of plus or 

minus 8 percentage points or smaller, unless otherwise noted, at a 95 

percent level of confidence. In other words, this interval would contain the 

true value for the actual population for 95 percent of the samples we could 

have drawn.

We also reviewed files for 12 of the 15 complaint investigations FHEO 

concluded with a finding of “cause,” and for which the adjudication 

process, including any agency monitoring, had been completed during the 

last 6 months of 2004. We could not locate files for the remaining cases. All 

12 files were identified by the Department of Justice as having met these 

criteria. We did not review files for which a FHAP agency found “cause” 

and that completed the adjudication because these could not be identified.

Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files Sampled

Source: GAO analysis of FHEO data.

FHEO region FHEO file FHAP agency file Total

Boston 16 0 16

New York 17 3 20

Philadelphia 17 0 17

Atlanta 24 10 34

Chicago 23 11 34

Fort Worth 9 8 17

Kansas City, Kansas 12 14 26

Denver 1 4 5

San Francisco 23 5 28

Seattle 2 6 8

Total 144 61 205
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 80 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from July 1, 2004, 

through December 31, 2004, by Organization and Closure Type

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

We examined the documentation in the files, as well as the full TEAPOTS 

case summary for each case, to determine whether it demonstrated that the 

investigator had met certain requirements and best practices for 

conducting fair housing investigations. We identified these requirements 

and best practices through reviewing the Fair Housing Act, implementing 

regulations, FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook and training material, and other 

guidance. In addition, we interviewed FHEO officials at both HUD 

headquarters and field offices in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco. We 

also interviewed FHAP agency officials in California, Georgia, Maryland, 

South Carolina, and Virginia. We met with the National Fair Housing 

Alliance and attended training at the John Marshall Law School on Fair 

Housing enforcement and at HUD’s National Fair Housing Training 

Academy. We provided a draft summary of our criteria to FHEO officials 

and made technical corrections based on their comments. To ensure the 

consistency of our file review, we developed a structured data collection 

instrument. We anchored each item on the instrument to the criteria 

identified above. We pretested the instrument with several team members, 

and based upon this test, modified the instrument to ensure clarity. For 10 

percent of all files reviewed, another team member reviewed the coding, to 

ensure its accuracy.

Complainant 

Satisfaction

We surveyed a sample of complainants whose cases had been investigated 

and closed by FHEO and FHAP agencies from July 1 to December 31, 2004, 

to determine levels of satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, 

timeliness, and outcomes of the intake and investigation process. We did 

not include cases that proceeded to the adjudication process owing to a 

finding of reasonable cause to avoid surveying complainants that may still 

be involved in the adjudication process. The survey also provided 

FHEO FHAP agency Total

Closure type Population Sample Population Sample Population Sample

Administrative 208 19 335 33 543 52

Conciliation 480 19 1,090 44 1,570 63

No cause 563 23 1,657 67 2,220 90

Total 1,251 61 3,082 144 4,333 205
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 81 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

supplemental evidence for our analysis of the thoroughness of the intake 

and investigation stages of the complaint process and the frequency of 

conciliation.

We determined that there was a population of 4,327 fair housing complaints 

(contact information was not provided for 6 of the original 4,333 cases) that 

had ended in administrative closure, conciliation without determination of 

cause, or a determination of no-cause for the 6-month period between July 

1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. The complainants of record were mostly 

private individuals, but some were fair housing organizations acting on 

their own behalf or on that of one or more individuals. From a list obtained 

from HUD’s TEAPOTS database, the PA Consulting Group, a survey firm 

under contract to GAO, called the complainants of record selected in the 

sample. The total sample of 1,675 was parceled out in seven individual 

waves over the field period, in an attempt to use the smallest possible 

sample to achieve the quota of 575 completed interviews. The sample was 

allocated across six categories—two agency types by three closure types—

to ensure that enough interviews were conducted in each category to allow 

statistically valid comparisons between them. (See table 4 for the 

distribution of the population, sample, responses, and response rates 

across these categories.) With this probability sample, each member of the 

population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that 

probability could be computed for any member. Each sampled complaint 

for which an interview was obtained was subsequently weighted in the 

analysis to account statistically for all the members of the population, 

including those who were not selected and those who were selected but did 

not respond to the survey.

Beginning in early May 2005, GAO mailed letters notifying those sampled 

complainants with valid mailing addresses of the upcoming survey and 

encouraging them to participate. Calling to those complainants typically 

began several days after the letters were mailed. The advance letters also 

included an address correction form. Recipients were asked to revise any 

incorrect information and return the form. A toll-free number also was 

provided for recipients to ask any questions or to correct information such 

as names and phone numbers. Calling began in early May and continued for 

7 weeks, ending on June 20, 2005.

For institutional complaints drawn into our sample, the interviewer helped 

the organization’s representative identify the specific complaint by 

describing the issue, basis, and respondent name. Multiple interviews could 

be conducted with the same institutional informant if more than one 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 82 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

complaint from that organization was randomly drawn. Thirty-three 

interviews were completed on institutional complaints. Proxies (typically 

family members, guardians, or other representatives) for the named 

complainant were interviewed for 19 of the sampled complaints. Not all 

sampled complaints met GAO’s eligibility requirements for the survey: 

Some complainants indicated that their cases were still open and 

experiencing legal activity. GAO could not have any involvement with such 

complaints. For the same reason, other complainants who said they had an 

ongoing agreement with the other party resolving the complaint were also 

not interviewed. Some complaint cases also became ineligible for the 

survey due to the death of the complainant, a complainant’s insistence that 

a case was not a fair housing discrimination case, and complaints sampled 

multiple times (more than four for institutional complainants and one for 

individuals—see table 3). 

Complainants with an issue or basis alleging racial discrimination because 

the complainant was Hispanic received letters printed in both English and 

Spanish. The survey was also administered by Spanish-speaking 

interviewers when the complainant indicated a preference for speaking 

Spanish.

When named complainants could not be found using records provided by 

HUD, interviewers used a variety of search techniques to try to locate 

complainants, including calling alternate contacts named in the complaint 

record and using directory assistance and online tracking services. For 

example, if an address was available but no working phone number could 

be found, interviewers used reverse directories and contacted neighbors by 

phone to ask about the whereabouts of the named complainant. Once 

during the fieldwork period, 547 noncontactable records were submitted to 

Lorton Data’s National Change of Address and Telephone Append services, 

resulting in some updated phone numbers and mailing addresses. To 

maximize the possibility of reaching complainants, multiple attempts were 

made over a period of time on different days of the week and at different 

hours. The number of attempts required to reach subjects ranged from 1 to 

34, with an average of 12.

Results from sample questionnaire surveys are subject to several types of 

errors: failure of the sample frame to cover the study population, 

measurement errors in administering the questionnaire, sampling errors, 

nonresponse errors from failing to collect information from part of the 

sample, and data processing error. To limit coverage errors, we used the 

most recent available data from TEAPOTS to identify eligible 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 83 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

complainants. At the beginning of the interview, we also confirmed that the 

complainant of record had lodged an actual fair housing discrimination 

complaint and that the complaint had been closed as TEAPOTS indicated.

To limit measurement errors, we first took steps in the development of the 

questionnaire to ensure that our questions gathered the information 

intended. GAO asked knowledgeable representatives of fair housing 

organizations and other government agencies to review early versions of 

the instrument. We also conducted a pilot test of an early version of the 

questionnaire with 26 complainants in December 2004 and seven pretests 

with complainants in the study population during March 2005. Finally, the 

telephone survey contractor completed nine pretests of the final 

instrument in late April 2005. Interviewers were trained using materials 

developed by GAO before the survey began and were routinely monitored 

during interviews. 

The survey is also subject to sampling error—our results have confidence 

intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or smaller at a 95 percent 

level of confidence. 

Our survey received a low response rate, with only 38 percent of those 

known or assumed to be eligible in our survey participating. If those who 

did not respond might have answered our survey questions differently from 

those who did, our estimates would be biased because we would have 

missed the answers from a set of people with fundamentally different 

views. In fact, response rates varied widely across the three different 

closure types, which were associated with key variables in the survey such 

as satisfaction with the complaint process and outcome. We tended to get 

relatively more responses from complainants in conciliation cases than 

from complainants in no-cause cases, and those whose cases were 

conciliated tended to be more satisfied. However, we could address this 

potential bias because we controlled the allocation of our sample across 

the closure types. We could statistically adjust, or weight, responses by 

closure type to bring them into proportion with the population and thus 

account for the different nonresponse rate across those types, which 

should compensate for the nonresponse bias. Nevertheless, the possibility 

of bias in the results still remains. Our weighting adjustment only 

compensates for differences in opinion between those with different 

closure types and agency responsibility, not other characteristics that may 

have been over- or under-represented in our responses and that may be 

related to our survey questions. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 84 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

To limit the possibility of data processing errors, the survey firm used a 

computer-assisted telephone interviewing system that recorded electronic 

data directly from the telephone interviewers’ answers, and also checked 

for missing data, inconsistencies, and unlikely answer patterns. Data 

analysis programming was also independently verified.

Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and Response Rates

Source: GAO.

Organization and closure type

HUD FHAP

Conciliation No cause

Admin

closure Conciliation No cause

Admin

closure Total

Population 480 562 208 1,086 1,656 335 4,327

Original sample 198 308 208 288 338 335 1,675

 Ineligible 20 36 26 26 25 25 158

Adjusted sample 178 272 182 262 313 310 1,517

 Refused 4 13 9 13 10 8 57

 Incapable 1 3 2 12 3 12

 Not contacted 75 157 109 139 187 206 873

Complete interviews 98 99 62 109 114 93 575

Response rate 55% 36% 34% 42% 36% 30% 38%
Page 85 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 86 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 87 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 88 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing
Page 89 GAO-06-79 Fair Housing

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact David G. Wood, (202) 512-6878

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to Mathew J. Scirè (Assistant Director), Nicholas Alexander, 

Carl Barden, Johnnie Barnes, Bernice Benta, Emily Chalmers, Arielle 

Cohen, Paul Desaulniers, Grace Haskins, Robert Lowthian, Alexandra 

Martin-Arseneau, Amanda Miller, Marc Molino, Jeff Pokras, Linda Rego, 

Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, Paige Smith, Anita Visser, and Joan Vogel made 

key contributions to this report.

(250204)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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. Government Accountability 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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548