United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Dana Rohrabacher, House of

Representatives

December 1995 DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

Efforts by the Office

for Civil Rights to

Resolve

Asian-American

Complaints

GAO/HEHS-96-23

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-257759 

December 11, 1995

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Rohrabacher:

As with many other federal agencies and departments responsible for

enforcing civil rights and equal employment opportunity laws, over the last

several years the discrimination complaint workload of the U.S.

Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has increased, but

its staffing has remained level. In the early 1990s, compared with the

1980s, generally, the number of compliance reviews decreased and the

average time to resolve complaint investigations and complete compliance

reviews increased. Because of this, concerns have been raised about how

effectively OCR carries out its responsibilities.

On the basis of these concerns, you requested that we examine OCR’s

complaint investigations and compliance reviews of discrimination cases

involving Asian-Americans who applied for or were enrolled in

postsecondary schools, such as colleges and universities.1

Specifically, you asked us to determine the following:

• For 13 specific cases, did Education’s OCR follow established policies and

procedures, particularly with respect to timeliness and recordkeeping, in

conducting complaint investigations and compliance reviews involving

Asian-Americans?

• For fiscal years 1988-95, how did the timeliness and outcomes of

complaint investigations and compliance reviews involving

Asian-Americans compare with the timeliness and outcomes of those

involving other minority groups?

• Have recent administrative changes implemented by OCR improved its

operations in conducting and resolving complaint investigations and

completing compliance reviews?

To address these issues, we studied pertinent laws, documents, reports,

policies, and records in OCR headquarters and in two OCR regional offices.

We also obtained information during interviews with OCR officials on

interpretations and explanations of the documents we obtained. Our study

was limited to OCR activities related to complaint investigations and

1

In this report, we sometimes shorten the term postsecondary schools to schools.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

compliance reviews in postsecondary schools that involved title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, for fiscal year 1988 through June 30,

1995, we analyzed the timeliness and outcomes of all the closed

investigations and reviews. See appendix I for details on our scope and

methodology.

Results in Brief Eleven of the 13 cases we were asked to review have been resolved and 2

remain open. OCR generally followed its established policies and

procedures in these selected cases, except for its time frames. Of the 13

cases, 4 were closed within its time frames. In seven cases, OCR took at

least 26 months. For these seven cases, we could not rely solely on the

official case files to understand the reasons for the delays because the

official case files did not always reflect actions in OCR headquarters.

Therefore, we also had to rely on OCR officials for explanations of what

had occurred.

Overall, OCR has resolved complaints and completed compliance reviews

on average in less than 180 days—its benchmark for assessing timeliness.

Generally, OCR took more time, on average, to resolve cases involving

Asian-Americans than it took for cases involving other minority groups.

This longer resolution period may be explained in part by the relatively

high percentage of investigations and reviews involving Asian-Americans

that included admissions issues, which usually take OCR more time to

resolve than other issues. Furthermore, OCR found relatively more

violations in Asian-Americans’ cases than in those of other minority

groups, and the findings resulted in comparatively more corrective actions

and changes by postsecondary schools.

To OCR’s credit, it has initiated administrative changes to improve the

timeliness, documentation, and quality of all investigations and reviews.

These changes include increasing the use of technology to track and

manage active cases and deploying its staff differently to improve

productivity. Partly as a result of these changes, OCR’s inventory of cases

over 180 days old has decreased. It is too soon, however, to determine

whether these changes will significantly improve OCR’s handling of

investigations and reviews over the long term.

Background The U.S. Department of Education’s OCR is a law enforcement agency. Its

primary responsibility is to ensure that recipients of federal financial

assistance do not discriminate—on the basis of race, color, national origin,

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

sex, disability, or age—against students, faculty, or other individuals in

educational programs and activities. OCR is responsible for enforcing the

following federal civil rights laws as they relate to schools at all levels:

• title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on

the basis of race, color, or national origin;

• title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits

discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities;

• section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits

discrimination on the basis of disability;

• the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits discrimination on the

basis of age; and

• title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits

public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability.

The civil rights laws OCR enforces extend to a wide range of recipients of

federal funds. These recipients include all state education and

rehabilitation agencies as well as nearly every school district and

postsecondary school; thousands of proprietary schools, libraries,

museums, and correctional facilities; and other institutions that receive

federal financial assistance from Education.

To ensure equal opportunity in the nation’s schools, OCR carries out its

civil rights responsibilities through a variety of compliance activities. OCR’s

principal activity is the resolution of discrimination complaints. Most of

OCR’s staff resources are devoted to such activities as processing,

conciliating, and investigating complaints. In an effort to ensure that

recipients of federal financial assistance meet their civil rights compliance

responsibilities, OCR also conducts compliance reviews, monitors

corrective action plans, and provides technical assistance.

Compliance reviews differ from complaint investigations in that they are

initiated by OCR; they usually cover broader issues; and they affect

significantly larger numbers of individuals. OCR selects review sites on the

basis of information from various sources that indicates potential

compliance problems, including survey data and information provided by

complainants, interest groups, the media, and the general public.

In fiscal year 1995, OCR’s staff ceiling was 833 full-time-equivalent positions

and its total funding level was $58.2 million. During fiscal year 1994, about

5,300 complaints were filed with OCR. Of these, 27 percent were filed

against postsecondary schools.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

Until fiscal year 1994, the number of compliance reviews that OCR was able

to conduct was inversely related to the number of complaints received and

the workload engendered. Because OCR’s complaint workload increased

from fiscal years 1988 to 1993, the number of compliance reviews OCR

initiated declined from 247 in fiscal year 1988 to 138, 32, 41, 77, and 101 in

succeeding years.

During fiscal year 1994, OCR started 153 compliance reviews, with about

25 percent directed at postsecondary schools. Of the 153, 62 percent

involved race or national origin issues; 17 percent involved gender issues;

8 percent involved disability and other issues; 7 percent involved other

issues; and 6 percent involved solely disability issues. In fiscal year 1995,

OCR started about 100 compliance reviews.

OCR’s Official Files

Lack Complete

Documentation for 13

Cases

Our review of the 13 identified cases was hampered by the absence of

complete documentation in OCR’s official case files. OCR has policies in

place delineating the documents that should be included in the official

case files in the regional offices. OCR had no similar policies with regard to

the official case files in headquarters. Actions that took place in

headquarters were not always documented and included in regional case

files. According to OCR officials, records pertaining to headquarters activity

for these 13 cases were maintained in a chronological filing

system—rather than a case file system—that suited the needs of

headquarters staff. The lack of documentation hindered our ability to

determine the reasons for delays in completing complaint investigations

and compliance reviews.

Generally, while the 13 cases were in the OCR regional offices, the official

case files were relatively complete, with documents periodically updated

to describe investigation and review activities and the results of these

efforts. When an investigation or review reached the point at which OCR

headquarters became actively involved, however, the official regional files

were seldom updated with pertinent notations or documents.

Furthermore, official case files were not developed or maintained in OCR

headquarters. As a result, we could not trace the full chronology of events

for these cases by examining case files. In addition, even when the official

case files were updated with documents, we could not always determine

what decisions were made or why extended delays occurred because the

documents often did not include such information. Because of such gaps

in knowledge, the full chronology of many of the cases could not be

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

developed. (See app. II for a brief description of each of the 13 cases; see

table II.1 for a summary of the 13 cases.)

Eleven of the 13 cases involved Asian-American men and women; one was

a complaint by a white woman; and another was a complaint by a white

man. In addition, several of the cases, although focusing primarily on

Asian-Americans or Asian-Indians, also dealt with other minority groups.

In analyzing how these 13 cases were investigated and resolved, we found

that OCR generally followed its established policies and procedures. But

OCR did not always meet timeliness standards, which is discussed in detail

in appendix II. As of September 1995, two complaint investigations

remained open. Of the 13 cases, only 4 were closed within OCR’s time

frames. The cases that took the most time to complete were admissions

compliance reviews, which generally involve complex issues and take

more resources to complete, or complaints that dealt with complicated or

controversial issues, such as admissions or race-targeted financial aid.

Two admissions cases demonstrate the demands that individual cases can

make on resources because of the volume of data that must be gathered

and analyzed: (1) the compliance review of the University of California at

Los Angeles (UCLA) undergraduate schools concerning discrimination

against Asian-Americans and the affirmative action program, and (2) the

complaint investigation of the University of California at Berkeley

undergraduate programs concerning discrimination against white

students. Both cases involved premier schools of the University of

California system. The two schools enroll, between them, 67,000 students

annually. Both investigations entailed several site visits, comprehensive

statistical analyses of data for tens of thousands of applicants, and

extensive interviewing and reviews of applicant files. Both schools

completely changed their admissions processes during the course of the

investigations, necessitating additional extensive investigation.

The same regional office that conducted both investigations also

completed, during the same time, a compliance review involving

admission to the UCLA graduate schools. To complete that review, the

regional office investigated, in detail, 40 individual admissions programs;

reviewed 2,000 applicant files; and interviewed more than 200 witnesses.

The demands of class admissions cases, such as these, impose unique

challenges.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

OCR Took More Time

to Respond to

Asian-American Cases

but Found More

Violations

During fiscal years 1988 to 1994, OCR’s overall workload, as well as that for

complaints under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, increased. During

this period, OCR resolved complaints and completed compliance reviews in

less than 180 days on average. OCR does not have a standard definition of

an “overage” case, but it uses 180 days as a benchmark for assessing

timeliness. However, the average time to resolve complaints and complete

compliance reviews concerning Asian-Americans in postsecondary

schools generally was longer than the averages for cases concerning other

minority groups. For complaint investigations, Asian-American cases took

longer to complete, on average, than those for any other minority group.

For compliance reviews, only cases involving class actions (cases affecting

groups of students) and multiple title VI issues (one complaint alleging

multiple issues, namely race and national origin) took more time, on

average, to complete than Asian-American cases. Data indicated that this

occurred partly because (1) Asian-Americans were involved with

admissions cases more often than other minority groups and

(2) admissions cases generally require more resources and time to

complete than other types of cases. In addition, according to the data,

OCR’s investigations and reviews involving Asian-Americans resulted in

relatively more violation findings leading to remedial action or changes by

postsecondary schools.

In providing the information and statistics concerning these complaint

investigations and compliance reviews, OCR cautioned that the data do not

represent the various factors that may affect case resolution. These factors

include the volume of data that must be collected and data analyses that

must be conducted; the scope, complexity, and number of issues in a case;

and the availability of information needed to resolve the issues. The

statistical profile also does not reflect the extent to which any average may

be unduly influenced by a single case of unusual duration.

Complaint Investigations

Usually Took Longer to

Resolve for

Asian-Americans Than for

Other Minorities

For fiscal years 1988-94, OCR completed 1,511 complaint investigations in

an average of 128 days each (see table III.1). The 114 cases involving

Asian-Americans took an average of 175 days to complete. In contrast, the

931 cases involving African-Americans averaged 125 days to complete, and

the 165 cases involving Hispanics averaged 137 days to complete. The 106

cases for minority whites (those from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe,

and the Middle East) averaged 98 days to complete.

During fiscal years 1988-94, 248 of the 1,511 complaint investigations were

admissions cases; that is, the complaints involved allegations that people

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

applying for admission to postsecondary schools were turned down for

discriminatory reasons. The 248 admissions cases, on average, took longer

to complete—specifically, 174 days—OCR officials said and the statistics

documented. The 40 admissions cases involving Asian-Americans took 297

days, on average, to complete. The 115 admissions cases involving

African-Americans took 129 days, on average, to complete. The 31

admissions cases involving Hispanics took 276 days, on average, to

complete. During this period, OCR took an average of 119 days to resolve

1,263 non-admissions complaints. The average time needed to resolve

Asian-American non-admissions complaints was 108 days; this was quicker

than the averages for complaints involving African-Americans, 125 days,

and “others,” 127 days. On the other hand, Hispanics’ non-admissions

complaints averaged 105 days to resolve, while minority whites’

complaints averaged 83 days.

The average time to complete complaint investigations involving

Asian-Americans increased during fiscal year 1994, when OCR took an

average of 304 days to complete 24 investigations. Of these, eight were

admissions cases, which took an average of 602 days to complete. The

average time to complete complaint investigations involving admissions

issues was higher for all minority groups than for investigations that did

not involve admissions issues.

We examined these data further to determine the extent to which the OCR

investigations found violations and resulted in benefits to the complaining

party or in changes by postsecondary schools to remedy violations. OCR

data included four categories as benefiting the complainant or resulting in

changes by the postsecondary schools: (1) remedial action agreed to by

the complainant, the school, and OCR; (2) remedial action completed by the

school; (3) complaint withdrawn by the complainant with changes made

by the school; and (4) administrative closure by OCR after changes were

made by the school. We found that of the total 1,511 cases, 214

(14 percent) resulted in findings supporting the complainants’ allegations

or resulting in changes. However, for admissions cases, 58 of the 248

(23 percent) resulted in benefits or changes; while for non-admissions

cases, 156 of 1,263 cases (12 percent) resulted in benefits or changes.

We also examined these data according to minority groups; 22 of the 114

complaints (19 percent) filed by Asian-Americans resulted in benefits or

changes (see table III.2). This was the highest percentage for any minority

group. Furthermore, 16 of the 40 (40 percent) admissions cases involving

Asian-Americans resulted in benefits to the complainant or changes made

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

by the postsecondary school. This was also the highest percentage of any

minority group.

In summary, during fiscal years 1988-94, OCR took more time, on average,

to complete complaint investigations for Asian-Americans than for cases

involving other minority groups. At the same time, Asian-Americans filed a

higher percentage of complaints involving admissions issues than other

minority groups; these complaints resulted in benefits to the complainant

or changes by the postsecondary schools in a higher percentage of cases

than for other minority groups.

During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1995—that is, from October 1, 1994,

to June 30, 1995—OCR completed a total of 258 complaint investigations;

the average time needed to resolve these cases was 121 days. Of these, 13

involved Asian-Americans and took an average of 302 days to complete.

One case that took 1,776 days to complete skewed the average. In

contrast, the 154 complaints filed by African-Americans took an average of

111 days to complete and the 37 complaints filed by Hispanics, 84 days.

Of the 258 complaint investigations in the first 9 months of fiscal year

1995, 36 resulted in benefits to the complainant and averaged 264 days to

complete. Seven of these were admissions cases; the other 29 were not.

The 222 complaint investigations that did not result in benefits to the

complainant took an average of 98 days to complete. Of the 13

Asian-American cases, 3 were admissions cases that resulted in benefits to

the complainants. These took 73, 151, and 1,776 days to complete. The 10

other Asian-American cases that did not result in benefits to complainants

took an average of 192 days to complete. See table III.3 for a complete

summary, by minority group, of the complaints investigated from 

October 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995.

OCR Conducted Few

Compliance Reviews That

Focused on

Asian-Americans

For fiscal years 1988-94, OCR completed 58 compliance reviews, averaging

174 days each. The four cases involving Asian-Americans took 195 days, on

average, to complete. The 23 compliance reviews involving

African-Americans took 120 days, on average, to complete. The 23

compliance reviews involving class actions, however, took an average of

223 days to complete; those involving multiple title VI issues, 213 days.

(See table III.4.)

Of the 58 compliance reviews completed, 39 involved admissions issues.

For Asian-Americans, of the four reviews, three were admissions cases.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

For African-Americans, 16 of 23 reviews were admissions cases, and 14 of

23 class action compliance reviews were admissions cases. As with

complaint investigations, the compliance reviews involving admissions

issues generally took more time, on average, to complete than the reviews

involving other issues. During fiscal years 1988-94, 67 percent of the

compliance reviews completed involved admissions issues; therefore, the

average time to complete these compliance reviews significantly affected

the average time to complete all compliance reviews.

We examined these data further to determine the extent to which the OCR

compliance reviews found violations and resulted in remedial action to

benefit affected minority groups or changes by the postsecondary schools

to remedy violations. For compliance reviews, OCR only had two categories

to track these results: (1) remedial action agreed to by the schools and OCR

and (2) administrative closure, with changes made by the schools.

As shown in table III.5, 28 of the 58 completed compliance reviews

resulted in remedial action or changes made by the postsecondary schools

after violations were found. (Of the 28, only 2 were administrative

closures—1 Hispanic case and 1 class action case.) Of the 39 admissions

reviews, over 56 percent resulted in remedial action or change; of the 19

non-admissions reviews, about 32 percent resulted in remedial action or

change. Of the four compliance reviews involving Asian-Americans, three

resulted in remedial action or change; these three reviews involved

admissions issues. For Hispanics, the two completed reviews, one of

which was an admissions case, resulted in remedial action or change.

More importantly, a high percentage of all minority groups appeared to

benefit from the compliance reviews OCR conducted—especially when the

focus of a review involved admissions issues.

During fiscal year 1994, OCR completed four compliance reviews. Three of

these involved African-Americans and one was a class action case. None of

the four involved Asian-Americans. The average time to complete the four

reviews was 178 days. The one review involving African-Americans that

led to remedial action or change by the school took 438 days to complete.

During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1995—that is, from October 1, 1994,

to June 30, 1995—OCR completed 11 compliance reviews; all of these

involved admissions issues, averaging 245 days each to complete. None

focused on Asian-Americans; six involved African-Americans; three

involved class actions; and two involved multiple title VI issues. Five of the

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

reviews resulted in benefits to minority groups or changes by schools.

These five reviews took an average of 257 days to complete.

“Overage” Investigations

and Reviews Have

Decreased

OCR considers cases that are open for 180 days or more to be “overage,”

that is, to have taken too much time to complete. We compared overage

data for both complaint investigations and compliance reviews as of

May 21, 1993, when the current Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

assumed her position; as of September 30, 1994; and as of June 30, 1995.

From May 1993 to September 1994, the number of pending complaint

investigations over 180 days old declined from 167 to 122 (27 percent). In

addition, the number of investigations over 500 days old declined from 77

to 34, which significantly decreased the average age of these long-term

cases (see table III.6). According to OCR data, by June 30, 1995, the number

of overage complaint investigations had declined to 100. Of these, 26 were

over 500 days old. Of the 167 overage complaints that were pending in

May 1993, 15 remained pending as of June 30, 1995.

From May 1993 to September 1994, the number of overage compliance

reviews increased from 10 to 18. We could not determine why this increase

occurred, but it may have resulted from the increased number of

compliance reviews that OCR initiated during the 1990s. Specifically, in

1990, OCR started 32 compliance reviews. In fiscal years 1991-94, the

number of such reviews increased to 41, 77, 101, and 153, respectively.

As shown in table III.7, as of September 30, 1994, of the 18 pending

compliance reviews, 14 had been open for less than 600 days and 6 of

these were less than 300 days old. As of June 30, 1995, the number of

pending compliance reviews was 14 and 4 of these had been open for less

than 300 days.

OCR Has

Implemented Changes

to Improve

Operations

During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, OCR implemented several administrative

changes to (1) improve its operations overall and (2) revise the planning

and conduct of complaint investigations and compliance reviews as well

as the documentation required in the official files. These changes included

revising procedures to minimize preparing unnecessary documents during

investigations and reviews, delegating more authority to the regional

offices for decisions on most kinds of cases, and tracking and managing

active cases to help ensure that they are completed in a timely and

efficient manner.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

In its fiscal year 1994 annual report, which was sent to the Congress in

April 1995, OCR stated that to further improve operations it has initiated or

implemented several other changes under four broad categories:

(1) setting priorities, (2) reengineering the approach to respond to

individual discrimination complaints, (3) improving technology, and

(4) initiating innovative approaches to deploy OCR staff to increase

efficiency and effectiveness. It is too soon, however, to determine whether

the changes implemented and planned will significantly improve the

timeliness, documentation, and quality of OCR’s operations over the long

term.

Attention Focused on

Setting Priorities

According to OCR, by focusing attention on setting priorities, it will

improve timeliness and maximize the impact of available resources on

civil rights in schools. To ensure that it addresses the most acute problems

of discrimination, OCR will consider as broad a range of information as

practical in setting priorities.

OCR also stated that it will devote more resources to helping schools—as

well as students and parents—learn to solve the problem of securing equal

access to quality education; it will also focus on systemic education

reform, which enables communities throughout the nation to understand,

commit to, and implement strategies that provide opportunities for all to

learn.

Finally, by October 1, 1995, OCR planned to have its revised strategic plan

developed, OCR officials said. Under this plan, OCR will move from using a

reactive system—almost exclusively responding to complaints—to using a

balanced enforcement approach—proactively targeting resources for

maximum impact. To implement this approach, beginning in fiscal year

1996, OCR will work to ensure that 40 percent of its resources are dedicated

to proactive measures, including priority policy development, high-impact

compliance reviews, and targeted technical assistance.

Changes to How

Complaints Are Resolved

OCR has stated that it has fundamentally reengineered its approach to

responding to individual complaints of discrimination. These changes

move OCR from a required investigative approach to a flexible resolution

approach. This approach is described in OCR’s updated Case Resolution

Manual (CRM) issued in November 1994.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

CRM expanded the reasons for closing complaints and reduced paperwork

by no longer requiring for each case an investigative plan, investigative

report, and letter of findings (LOF). CRM introduced the concept of a case

resolution letter to inform complainants of OCR’s determinations and

provided that LOFs be issued only in limited circumstances; that is, in cases

in which (1) a violation is found and negotiation is unsuccessful, (2) a

no-violation LOF would serve an important policy function, or (3) a

no-violation LOF would have the value of setting a precedent. The revised

procedures also require OCR to inform affected parties in complaint cases

every 60 days of the status of the cases.

All regional employees have received case resolution training based on the

new approach. According to OCR officials, preliminary data show

improvement in case resolution timeliness and, anecdotally, in customer

satisfaction. Under the new approach, OCR expects to resolve more

discrimination complaints with fewer staff.

Improved Technology Used When OCR’s mainframe-based case-tracking system proved inflexible for

the new case resolution process, a team created a personal-computerbased system. Users and developers continue to work together to perfect

the system and ensure that needed data are provided quickly and

efficiently to line staff, managers, and external users.

Two additional technology initiatives were started in fiscal year 1994:

• to network and provide electronic communication among all of OCR’s

regional offices and

• to provide on-line access to critical case-resolution resources through an

OCR electronic library.

As of September 1995, of OCR’s 10 regional offices, 6 were on line and

linked with OCR headquarters as part of the electronic network. OCR

officials plan to have all regional offices on the network by the end of

fiscal year 1996. For the staff linked through the network, OCR policies,

survey information, and case-processing data are available electronically.

In addition, these OCR staff can communicate with each other

electronically. Eventually, OCR officials said, the public will also have

access, as appropriate, to the information on the network.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

Plans to Improve Use of

Staff

OCR has developed plans to redeploy staff to improve productivity. In this

regard, OCR’s goals are to deliver a stronger civil rights enforcement

program; focus energy on internal and external customer service; reduce

formal layers of review; and assign the maximum number of staff to

program activities (as an element of this plan, OCR will have at least

one-third of the headquarters staff assigned to case resolution activities).

In October 1993, employees in Region II (New York) began a pilot program

to improve the region’s operations and service to customers. The structure

in Region II had been a long-standing OCR example of a traditional

hierarchial structure. Under the pilot, Region II reorganized its staff into

teams to carry out OCR’s assigned responsibilities.

According to OCR, this new organizational structure takes full advantage of

the teamwork approach and eliminates most levels of review. The

traditional regional structure involved eight or more review levels. The

new structure envisions teams handling most of the work of the office,

with only a few select documents being forwarded to the regional director

level of review. OCR stated that the new approach emphasizes service,

support, teamwork, and collegiality, within the boundaries of focused

leadership, and it deemphasizes review and control approaches to

management.

OCR reported that Region II had accomplished major changes through its

new approach of using teams. OCR established criteria for measuring

success in terms of efficiency, quality of work products, and improved

morale. The data collected on a pilot group and a control group showed

major improvements in these areas, OCR reported. For example, the new

teams approach reduced the average number of days to resolve a

complaint from 169 days to 129 days, a 24 percent improvement, according

to OCR.

All offices started moving toward a team-based structure in September

1994. In June 1995, OCR Region VII (Kansas City) announced it had

reorganized its staff into case resolution teams, similar to those in Region

II, and thereby changed the way in which complaint investigations and

compliance reviews are planned and conducted. OCR expects all regional

offices and the headquarters office to reorganize similarly by January 1996.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

Conclusions With respect to the specific cases involving Asian-Americans we were

asked to review, OCR’s investigations of the 11 closed cases appear to be

consistent with the policies and procedures in effect at that time, except

for timeliness. However, because OCR’s official case files did not always

record activities that took place in headquarters, we relied in part on OCR

officials’ explanations of delays.

OCR generally took longer to resolve these specific cases as well as other

cases involving Asian-Americans than it took to resolve cases involving

other minority groups. This can be explained by the relatively large

number of time-consuming admissions cases, violations, and corrective

actions associated with Asian-American cases.

Recent administrative changes initiated by OCR appear to be at least partly

responsible for improvements in OCR’s timeliness in resolving cases.

However, the changes have not been in place long enough for us to assess

their long-term impact on the timeliness, documentation, and quality of

OCR’s investigations and compliance reviews.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education

provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. IV). She

stated that OCR’s recordkeeping procedures required that case files be

maintained in the regional offices and include documents related to the

investigation or review. She added that these established procedures did

not require that the regional files include documentation of all case

activity at headquarters. According to the Assistant Secretary, records

pertaining to headquarters activity for the 13 cases we reviewed were

maintained in a chronological filing system—rather than a case file

system—that suited the needs of OCR headquarters staff. She stated that

these records describing headquarters activity on the 13 cases were

available in the chronological filing system during our review.

We found that the established OCR recordkeeping procedures regarding the

regional offices were as described by the Assistant Secretary and the 13

case files we reviewed were generally complete in describing case

activities until OCR headquarters became involved. At headquarters,

however, activities involving the cases, like teleconferences and data

analysis, are not captured in the chronological files. Moreover, while

documents on individual cases may be filed chronologically, the

documents do not usually explain the delays. As a result, we had to rely on

oral statements by OCR headquarters staff for most of the information on

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

the chronology of events while the cases were being worked on at OCR

headquarters. When provided with documents relating to OCR headquarters

activities, decisions, or guidance, we considered the information in our

analysis.

The Assistant Secretary generally agreed with the section of the draft

report that compared the timeliness and outcomes of cases involving

Asian-Americans with the timeliness and outcomes of cases involving

other racial groups. She pointed out that a few individual cases that took a

long time to resolve could unduly skew the results of our statistical

analysis of case-processing times. She also asked us to qualify parts of our

report to show that OCR cases involving Asian-Americans did not always

take the most time to resolve or complete and to highlight that generally

for Asian-American cases, OCR found more violations which led to

remedial action by postsecondary schools and benefits to the

complainants. We revised our report, as necessary, to reflect the Assistant

Secretary’s comments and concerns.

In her comments, the Assistant Secretary stated that OCR initiated the

numerous administrative changes discussed in our report to improve

overall operations generally as well as case processing specifically. She

noted that OCR data show that since the administrative changes were

undertaken, the number and percentage of cases for all levels of education

pending over 180 days have decreased, not only those for postsecondary

schools. She also provided statistical evidence covering fiscal years

1990-94 to show that as a result of the administrative changes, even though

the total number of complaints received and compliance reviews started

have both increased, OCR has resolved greater numbers of both and in a

more timely manner than in the past. Because our review focused only on

complaint investigations and compliance reviews under title VI of the Civil

Rights Act involving postsecondary schools, we did not revise our report

to include these data on OCR’s overall operations.

The Assistant Secretary also provided technical comments on specific

statements and facts included in our draft report, and where appropriate

we used the information to clarify and update our report.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
B-257759 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 7 days from its issue date. At that time, we

will send copies to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of

Education, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to

others on request.

This report was prepared under the direction of Larry Horinko, Assistant

Director, (202) 512-7001; Susan Poling, Assistant General Counsel, and

Laurel Rabin, Communications Analyst, also contributed to the report.

Sincerely yours,

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

20

Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13

Specific Cases

22

University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall (Case No.

10-90-6001)

24

University of California at Los Angeles Graduate Schools (Case

No. 09-89-6004)

25

UCLA Undergraduate Schools (Case No. 09-89-6004) 28

City University of New York, York College (Case No. 02-92-2084) 30

Santa Clara University (Case No. 09-93-2027) 30

University of California at San Diego (Case No. 09-92-2002) 32

University of Texas Law School (Case No. 06-93-2005) 33

University of California at Berkeley School of Optometry (Case

No. 10-88-2201)

34

University of Hawaii at Manoa (Case No. 10-92-2066) 35

University of California at Davis School of Medicine (Case No.

09-92-2015)

37

University of California at Berkeley Undergraduate Schools (Case

No. 09-89-2099)

38

University of Wisconsin at Madison (Case Nos. 05-91-2062 and

05-92-2155)

38

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Case No. 01-92-8083) 39

Appendix III 

Complaint

Investigations and

Compliance Reviews:

Response Times,

Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority

Group

41

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Contents

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of

Education and GAO’s

Evaluation

46

GAO Comments 55

Tables Table II.1: Summary of 13 Cases 23

Table III.1: Average Time of Complaint Investigations Resolved,

by Minority Group

41

Table III.2: Complaint Investigations Resulting in Benefits to the

Complainants or Changes, by Minority Group

42

Table III.3: Title VI Complaint Investigations Resolved, by

Minority Group

43

Table III.4: Average Time of Compliance Reviews Completed, by

Minority Group

43

Table III.5: Compliance Reviews Resulting in Benefits and

Changes, by Minority Group

44

Table III.6: Title VI Complaint Investigations Over 180 Days Old 44

Table III.7: Title VI Compliance Reviews Over 180 Days Old 45

Abbreviations

CRM Case Resolution Manual

CUNY City University of New York

GRE Graduate Record Examination

LAP licensed practical nurse to registered nurse articulation

program

LEOP Legal Education Opportunity Program

LOF letter of findings

LSAT Law School Admission Test

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

OCR Office for Civil Rights

SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test

UC University of California

UCLA University of California at Los Angeles

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

For our overall timeliness examination, we analyzed computer files of all

OCR complaint investigations and compliance reviews closed from October

1, 1987, through June 30, 1995, that focused on allegations of

discrimination at postsecondary schools (colleges and universities) under

title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We also studied OCR’s Investigation

Procedures Manual, which was in effect from June 1987 until

November 1993. The manual describes the procedures OCR staff are

expected to follow in an investigation, including time frames for

completion and the documents and records to be produced. The manual

covers most case-related activities but is not intended to cover all the

circumstances that could arise in the investigation of a case. Specific

sections were updated periodically, as necessary.

The Investigation Procedures Manual was replaced on November 30, 1993,

by the Complaint Resolution Manual, which changed many of the

procedures and documents to be produced. We studied the Complaint

Resolution Manual as well as OCR’s updated Case Resolution Manual

issued in November 1994. We also studied relevant policy documents

concerning major court decisions as well as admissions and affirmative

action issues in postsecondary schools.

Finally, we examined the official case files, compiled and maintained by

OCR’s regional offices, for 13 specific cases. We did this to determine the

chronology of events while the cases were being processed, whether

delays occurred during the investigations and reviews, and whether the

decisions and resolutions of certain cases had a basis in policy and law.

We did not substitute our judgment for OCR’s. For these 13 cases, OCR

headquarters officials said no official case files had been established in

headquarters, so little documentation was available when the cases were

sent to OCR headquarters for additional statistical analyses, legal review, or

management review. As a result, we were unable to obtain or develop a

complete chronology of events for some cases after they left the regional

offices; instead, we had to rely on explanations by OCR headquarters

officials as to what delays occurred and which issues were under review.

To determine the timeliness and outcomes of OCR’s complaint

investigations and compliance reviews for Asian-Americans as compared

with other minority groups, we obtained data tapes and printed reports

from OCR covering fiscal years 1988 through 1995. These tapes summarized

the data according to minority groups or other categories of cases, such as

class action and multiple title VI cases. Our study included closed and

pending cases for each fiscal year and presence or absence of violations of

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

nondiscrimination laws for the closed cases. We used this information to

determine the cases that resulted in (1) benefits to complainants or

minority groups or (2) changes by postsecondary schools to their

affirmative action programs or to their policies and procedures to remedy

violations.

OCR headquarters officials provided us with various manuals, policies, and

procedures, which had been developed from May 1993 through June 1995,

after the current Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was appointed. She

changed many administrative practices affecting how OCR carries out its

complaint investigations and compliance reviews. Some of these policies

and procedures have been implemented; others are still in the planning

stages. To determine whether the administrative changes would improve

OCR operations in conducting complaint investigations and compliance

reviews, we studied the documents provided and considered the

explanations of OCR officials.

Our work was conducted from March 1994 to August 1995 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

This appendix includes brief descriptions and chronologies of the 13 cases

that Representative Rohrabacher asked us to review and, to the extent that

information was available, why OCR’s investigations and reviews were

delayed. The information presented is based on available documentation

in OCR case files and comments and explanations made by OCR officials.

The type of case, the date the complaint investigation or compliance

review was opened, and the date a letter of findings (LOF) was issued or

the case was closed or whether the case was still pending are given in 

table II.1.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

Table II.1: Summary of 13 Cases

University Type of case Date opened

LOF, closure

date, or

pending

Total time to

respond

(months)

UC Berkeley Boalt

Hall Law School

Compliance

review

7/90 9/92 26

UCLA graduate

schools

Compliance

review

1/88 8/93a 67

UCLA

undergraduate

schools

Compliance

review

1/88 9/95 92

City University of

New York

Complaint 6/92 1/93 7

Santa Clara

University

Complaint 12/92 2/93 3

UC San Diego Complaint 10/91 3/94 29

University of Texas

Law School

Complaint 10/92 1/94 4b

UC Berkeley School

of Optometry

Complaint 5/88 2/94 69

University of Hawaii Complaint 7/92 3/93 3b

UC Davis Medical

School

Complaint 11/91 3/94 28

UC Berkeley

undergraduate

schools

Complaint 5/89 Pending

University of

Wisconsin Madison

Law School

2 complaintsc 4/91

7/92

8/94d

Pending

40

Massachusetts

Institute of

Technology

Complaint 8/92 4/94 20

aThe university agreed to change some policies and procedures after OCR found violations

during its investigations; OCR monitoring continues.

bTime frames were tolled for these cases because of pending litigation.

cBoth filed by same person.

dOne allegation is still under investigation by OCR.

In addition, this appendix provides information on specific issues: (1) the

circumstances that caused OCR to revise its findings of discrimination 3

years after the original LOF was issued in regard to the University of

California at Los Angeles (UCLA) graduate mathematics program (case 

no. 09-89-6004); (2) whether OCR followed established policies and

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

procedures in reaching its no-violation decision regarding the University of

California (UC) at San Diego case (case no. 09-92-2002); and (3) whether

OCR’s decision to administratively close the Santa Clara University School

of Law case (case no. 09-93-2027) was consistent with established policy.

In conducting the case file reviews, we focused our attention on whether

OCR’s decisions were based on law and policy, but we did not substitute

our judgment for that of OCR.

We also provide information on our review of the other cases that were

administratively closed and whether OCR followed its policies and

procedures with regard to time frames.

University of

California at Berkeley,

Boalt Hall (Case No.

10-90-6001)

On October 19, 1989, Representative Rohrabacher, Representative

Gingrich, and Mr. Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the Republican Research

Committee, wrote to the Department of Justice about the admissions

program at Boalt Hall, the law school of the University of California at

Berkeley; Justice referred this letter to OCR on October 26, 1989. OCR

provided its report on the case to the requesters on April 4, 1990, and

informed them that OCR would conduct a compliance review based on the

information collected. According to an OCR regional official, this case

involved complicated legal issues with a race-based waiting list and

preliminary documents raised serious questions about compliance.

The OCR regional office conducted its review and submitted to OCR

headquarters a draft investigative report and draft LOF in November 1990.

The regional office case file did not document events from the November

1990 submission to headquarters to the signing of the voluntary

compliance and settlement agreement on September 25, 1992. From

November 1990 to 1992, headquarters had concerns about the statistical

analyses and there were numerous discussions about all aspects of the

case. OCR officials stated that the region began settlement negotiations in

January 1992. OCR officials also stated that during this time Boalt Hall was

in transition with a newly appointed dean. As a result, it was 26 months

from when the compliance review was initiated until the voluntary

compliance and settlement agreement was signed. OCR’s procedures at that

time stated that an LOF should be issued within 90 calendar days from the

date of the first site visit.

Since November 1990, Boalt Hall has (1) revised its admissions and

waiting list procedures and (2) submitted required annual reports to OCR

describing how these changes have been implemented. After receiving the

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

third annual report in November 1994, OCR declared that Boalt Hall was in

compliance and OCR monitoring and activities would cease.

University of

California at Los

Angeles Graduate

Schools (Case No.

09-89-6004)

In January 1988, OCR regional staff began a compliance review of

admissions practices of all 84 departments with graduate programs at the

UCLA. UCLA was targeted because preliminary information indicated that

although UCLA had a large number of Asian-American applicants, the

overall admission rate for Asian-Americans was lower than the overall rate

for whites in many programs and because the Department of Justice had

received a number of inquiries concerning the University of California

system.

Each graduate department had its own admissions policy. After obtaining

preliminary information and analyzing computerized data on all

departments, OCR targeted 40 departments for in-depth file reviews based

on statistical analysis of admission rates and grade point averages, and

other possible indicators of discrimination. From the beginning, data

collection was a problem because not all departments had retained 3 years

of admissions data.

OCR headquarters officials were involved in the decisions on the scope and

approach of the compliance review from the start. OCR officials stated that

OCR had not previously undertaken an admissions review comparable in

magnitude to the UCLA admissions review, and a number of approaches

and means of resolution were explored during the review. Documents

indicate that throughout this review, many differences had to be worked

out between OCR headquarters and OCR regional staff. These differences

included the targeting of departments, the comparison of Asian-American

and white admissions, and whether violations were found during the

investigation of the 40 different admissions programs targeted for in-depth

review.

OCR’s first site visit was in April 1989, more than a year after it informed

UCLA that it would be initiating a compliance review. During that year, OCR

set out the scope of the review, identified the information UCLA had

available, and identified how admissions decisions were made for

individual graduate programs. OCR officials noted that the review was

extensive and included a review of 84 graduate programs, not just the

Mathematics Department eventually cited.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

In its LOF of October 1, 1990, OCR found UCLA in violation of title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of its admissions practices for the

graduate Mathematics Department.2

 In particular, OCR found that the

department had discriminated against five Asian-American applicants

who, if provided equal treatment under admissions standards articulated

by the department, should have been accepted. OCR deemed UCLA’s three

different explanations of admissions decisions given over more than a year

to be pretext for discrimination.

UCLA disagreed with OCR’s findings. UCLA asserted that OCR (l)

misunderstood the department’s initial evaluation rating system, which

was just a recommendation to the vice-chair, and (2) failed to interview

the vice-chair who actually made the admissions decisions but was on

sabbatical when OCR first visited the Mathematics Department in 1989 and

1990. UCLA expanded the statistical analysis and produced statistics

showing no difference in admission rates for whites and Asian-Americans

for numerical applications when they were grouped with ratings of “3.0

and above” and “below 3.0.” OCR had limited its comparison to a group of

whites who had been admitted and a group of Asian-Americans who had

been denied admission. In UCLA’s expanded group comparison, UCLA

showed that there were 22 white applicants in the same rating range (that

is, ratings of 2.4 and above) as the three OCR-identified Asian-Americans

who were denied admission based on the use of the same criteria. UCLA

maintained that three admitted whites in that group had substantially

higher academic qualifications than the three rejected Asian-Americans

OCR identified.

OCR based its violation LOF partially on the fact that the different

explanations by UCLA officials regarding admissions decisions were a

pretext for discrimination. Just days before the LOF was issued, OCR

officials learned that the vice-chair who had actually made the admissions

decisions had not been interviewed; UCLA’s first and second explanations

concerning admissions to the Mathematics Department program were

provided by officials who knew little about the actual admissions criteria

used. OCR interviewed the vice-chair before the LOF was issued, but found

that his explanations could not fully account for all admissions decisions.

OCR issued the LOF without bringing its concerns to UCLA’s attention for

further explanation. Later investigation showed that OCR staff placed great

2

OCR found UCLA to be in compliance with title VI in 75 of the 84 graduate programs examined. For

eight programs in which insufficient data were available to OCR to determine compliance, UCLA

agreed to maintain additional records for 3 years to enable OCR to make a determination of whether

its admissions decisions for these eight programs are in compliance with title VI. OCR continues to

monitor these programs.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

importance on the numerical ratings developed by the Mathematics

Department’s Admissions and Support Committee. But, in fact, admissions

committee members would rate candidates as “admit Ph.D.” despite

numerical ratings below that required for admission to the department.

The regional office continued its negotiations with UCLA and conducted a

post-LOF site visit, including examination of the admissions files, on

February 27, 1991, 4 months after the LOF was issued. This review of the

files was more comprehensive than any prior review. In particular, the

review was expanded to consider unsuccessful white applicants and

successful Asian-American applicants.

OCR found that the admissions decisions were cumulative in nature, with

various objective and subjective factors weighed against each other by the

vice-chair. OCR also found that overall undergraduate grade point average

was of little or no consequence, although it was used in the ratings. The

grade point average for math courses was pertinent, and grades received

in particular math courses were very important. The applicant’s “statement

of purpose” was also important because the department rejected

applicants who suggested that their ultimate career goals were outside

math. In addition, applicants from less renowned schools were at a

competitive disadvantage. They needed strong letters of recommendation

from professors known to UCLA faculty.

The supplemental investigation showed that OCR had not fully understood

the criteria it was given by UCLA officials in September 1990. For example,

one of the criteria given was that an applicant’s stated interest in applied

mathematics would enhance the applicant’s position. The October 1990

LOF stated that OCR’s examination of files had not verified this criterion.

However, during the supplemental examination, OCR discovered that the

boost was not for all candidates interested in applied math, but only for

certain subareas, particularly for applicants in computational fluid

dynamics and those already working in the defense industry. Also, the

supplemental examination found that master’s degree applicants were not

held to the same standard as Ph.D. applicants by the department.

The regional office found at the outset that it had received the wrong

information from university and Mathematics Department officials. In

reexamining files and expanding the examination to files of lower ranked

Asian-Americans admitted, OCR found that lower ranked Asian-Americans

also benefited from the application of subjective admissions criteria.

Further review showed only two possible examples of discrimination.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

Both of these involved students within the range of white applicants

admitted and white applicants rejected. Both cases of possible

discrimination were vulnerable to being rejected, one because the

applicant had a lower quantitative Graduate Record Examination (GRE)

score by a substantial degree than anyone admitted and the other because

the applicant had a combination of low GRE scores, a degree from an

unknown school, and a stated interest in obtaining a certified public

accountant license, a career goal outside mathematics.

The regional office submitted a revised investigative report to

headquarters on July 23, 1991, in which it concluded that UCLA’s

Mathematics Department was not in violation of title VI and recommended

the withdrawal of the violation LOF.

3

 On December 26, 1991, the Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Policy concurred and suggested revisions of the

draft investigative report to the regional office. The next 20 months were

spent by the regional office and headquarters exchanging drafts of the

revised LOF.

On August 8, 1993, OCR issued a revised LOF concerning the Mathematics

Department. It stated that because of new evidence, OCR had revised its

original findings and no violation had been found to have occurred.

However, OCR required the Mathematics Department to keep records of its

admissions decisions for the 1994-95 academic year.

Under its required time frames, OCR should have issued its LOF within 90

days of the first site visit and initiated formal enforcement action within

180 days. However, OCR did not issue its LOF until 18 months after its first

site visit in April 1989 and never initiated formal enforcement action.

UCLA Undergraduate

Schools (Case No.

09-89-6004)

This compliance review was initiated for UCLA’s undergraduate schools in

January 1988 because of the same factors taken into account in initiating

the compliance review of UCLA’s graduate programs (see the previous

case). OCR headquarters was involved in this review from the start.

During this review, OCR had continuing problems obtaining usable data

from the university. For example, OCR originally requested 5 years of

admissions data, but UCLA could only provide data for 2 years. The data

tapes UCLA provided were not compatible with OCR’s system. Although the

3

We asked the regional office and headquarters staff if a violation LOF had ever been previously

withdrawn. The San Francisco Regional Office had never done it before. Headquarters staff indicated

that they knew of two instances, one in 1985 and another in 1988, both dealing with discrimination on

the basis of disability and the definition of a qualified individual with disabilities.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

statistical analyses division in OCR headquarters first became involved with

the university’s data in 1989, it could not complete its work until early

1993. According to OCR, data analysis was hindered because (1) UCLA

originally sent hard copy, which proved insufficient, instead of computer

tapes; (2) UCLA objected to providing certain data; and (3) the data could

not be interpreted without obtaining the master files from UCLA and

identifying and sorting the codes and variables. Because of the enormous

number of admissions applications processed each year by UCLA, the data

were extensive and time-consuming to analyze.

After the OCR regional office completed its site work in April 1989 and

drafted its investigative report, UCLA changed its admissions policy but did

not inform OCR immediately. OCR then reinterviewed university officials

and prepared a revised draft investigative report. UCLA again changed its

admissions policy in 1990. As a result, OCR had to request updated data

from UCLA for 2 additional academic years. Because of the various factors

affecting this case, the investigative plan for this review was not made

final until January 1990—2 years after the review started.

From January 1990 through late 1993, OCR undertook investigative work,

statistical analyses, and legal analyses in both the region and headquarters.

In November 1993, a draft investigative report on the UCLA School of

Letters and Science was prepared, but it was never made final or sent. In

February 1994, OCR sent a letter to UCLA requesting additional data, but

UCLA did not provide the data within the time frames set out by OCR. OCR

ultimately determined that additional data and analysis were not needed to

reach a resolution of the case. In August 1994, the region sent a draft LOF to

OCR headquarters for review.

In September 1995, OCR issued a no-violation LOF to close the case. OCR

found that UCLA had not (1) established quotas or admissions limits for

Asian-American applicants or (2) discriminated against Asian-American

applicants. OCR also determined that UCLA’s affirmative action plan

complied with title VI. From the date the case was opened in January 1988

until it was closed in September 1995, 92 months elapsed, making this the

lengthiest of the 13 cases that Representative Rohrabacher asked us to

review.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

City University of

New York, York

College (Case No.

02-92-2084)

A white woman alleged in May 1992 that the City University of New York

(CUNY), York College discriminated against her on the basis of race

because she was denied admission to the licensed practical nurse to

registered nurse articulation program (referred to as the LAP program). The

LAP program is part of the Collegiate Service and Technology Entry

Program, a New York State program authorized by law to increase the

enrollment and retention of economically disadvantaged or minority

students in programs that lead to professional licensure and employment

in scientific, technical, health, and health-related professions. By law,

eligibility is limited to New York State residents who meet those

qualifications. Also, a potential applicant seeking enrollment in the LAP

program must meet several requirements dealing with licensure, testing,

nursing experience, and basic skills; the applicant must also be either from

a designated minority group (African-American, Hispanic, Native

American, or Alaskan native) or meet the economic eligibility criteria.

OCR’s investigation, begun in June 1992, revealed that the complainant

contacted the college in early May 1992 and requested information about

the LAP program. The complainant later contacted the LAP program director

and was informed of the admissions criteria. After talking to the

complainant, the program director determined that she was not eligible

economically or under the minority criterion. OCR’s investigation showed

that the complainant did not submit a written application.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for consideration of race in

admissions policies and programs when race is not the sole criterion.

Admissions programs in which economic disadvantage and race are two of

the possible criteria for admission have been held valid under title VI.

Accordingly, OCR found that CUNY was in compliance with federal law with

respect to the issue.

All work on this case was done by OCR Region II (New York) staff; and

although the case was open from June 1992 until January 1993—about 7

months—it had been “tolled” from July 29, 1992, until October 8, 1992,

while OCR waited for CUNY to provide detailed admissions data. That is, the

case was kept open, but the time frames were suspended pending the

delivery of the requested data. OCR met its time frames for this case in

accordance with its Investigative Procedures Manual.

Santa Clara University

(Case No. 09-93-2027)

Representative Rohrabacher filed this complaint in December 1992 based

primarily on an article in a San Jose, California, newspaper in May 1991.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

Representative Rohrabacher’s complaint referred to a commentary,

written by the dean of Santa Clara’s Law School, and alleged that the

admissions standards for the 1990 entering law school class were

substantially different for different races. Representative Rohrabacher

alleged that the law school appeared to have a track system of admissions

that insulated some applicants, on the basis of race, from competition with

other applicants.

OCR acknowledged receiving the complaint letter on December 16, 1992,

and asked Representative Rohrabacher to provide additional information

about the alleged discrimination; OCR noted that the complaint would be

closed in 45 days if additional information was not provided. None was

provided, and OCR subsequently closed the case administratively, that is,

without investigation, on February 19, 1993.

Before closing the case, OCR reviewed the news item Representative

Rohrabacher had attached for facts to support his statements that (1) the

admissions standards substantially differed for different races and

(2) Santa Clara has, in effect, a track system that insulates some applicants

from competing with others. OCR noted that the article reported the grade

point averages and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores in which

composite scores for two minority groups were lower than those for the

class as a whole. OCR found that those statistics did not provide sufficient

basis for it to identify an issue of discrimination under the laws OCR

enforces. OCR issued a policy interpretation that explains that affirmative

action programs in admissions cannot have set-asides based on race or

ethnicity. However, OCR also stated that race could be used as a “plus”

factor in admissions processes and that nothing in the article gives

evidence of a quota system, a track system, or a cap by group.

OCR also followed its Investigative Procedures Manual section I.A.4(a),

which listed the elements of a “complete complaint.” A complete

complaint includes (1) description of the discrimination alleged to have

occurred, (2) some indication of the factual bases for a complainant’s

belief that the discrimination has occurred, and (3) sufficient detail to

enable OCR to identify the issues raised under the laws it enforces. OCR did

not find the news item to contain sufficient detailed information.

OCR officials did not communicate with Representative Rohrabacher or his

staff, other than through these two letters, and received no additional

information concerning this complaint, according to OCR officials.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

University of

California at San

Diego (Case No.

09-92-2002)

Representative Rohrabacher filed this complaint in October 1991 with OCR,

partly on the basis of a San Diego newspaper article dealing with eight

Filipino-American high school students from California who had problems

gaining admission to UC San Diego.

Representative Rohrabacher charged that it appeared that about

40 percent of the places in the freshman class were reserved for applicants

of certain races, while applicants of other races, including

Filipino-Americans, were excluded from competing for those places. He

added that this seemed to be a quota based on race that illegally

discriminated against Filipino-Americans and possibly applicants from

other races.

OCR began its investigation in October 1991 and followed its standard

investigative procedures, including time frames found in its Investigative

Procedures Manual, in acknowledging the letter, developing an

investigative plan, conducting its investigation, and drafting its

investigative report.4

On April 3, 1992, the draft investigative report was submitted to

headquarters for review. Although headquarters review was not standard

practice at that time, the cover note from the regional director indicates

that the issues raised in the complaint involved OCR’s fiscal year 1991

national enforcement strategy issues. In addition, admissions questions

dealing with affirmative action are more sensitive than most other issues,

according to the note.

The policy unit at headquarters prepared a memorandum on the

investigative report and forwarded the case to the Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Policy on July 17, 1992. The regional office chronological file

indicates some conversations between headquarters and regional staff in

August 1992, but there is no other record of actions on the case until

April 1993. The case file was apparently “lost” in the Deputy Assistant

Secretary’s office for 10 months, from summer 1992 to April 1993, OCR

headquarters staff stated.5 The OCR tracking system at that time assigned

deadlines until cases reached the Assistant Secretary’s or Deputy Assistant

4

The investigation was tolled briefly from December 20, 1991, to January 13, 1992, because witnesses

were unavailable, but proper documentation appears in the file of the tolling of the time frames in

accordance with the Investigative Procedures Manual.

5

During this time, there was also a change in administration and President Bill Clinton had not yet

appointed an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. The position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

remained vacant until May 1993.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

Secretary’s office but did not track cases or assign deadlines in those

offices.

After the case resurfaced in April 1993, the policy unit again reviewed it

and drafted another memorandum, but no further progress occurred until

November 1993, when headquarters staff provided oral comments to the

regional office on the draft investigative report during a conference call. A

no-violation LOF was issued within 3 months, but that was almost 2 years

after the investigative report was sent to headquarters from the regional

office. From the time the case was first submitted to headquarters in

April 1992 until the LOF was issued, more than 23 months had elapsed:

about 3 months was attributable to the regional office and 20 months to

headquarters. But OCR’s Investigative Procedures Manual at that time

stated that the LOF should be issued within 135 calendar days.

OCR’s investigation found no evidence that the university’s admissions

system used for fall 1991 operated as a quota system, nor did it find that

the university reserved 40 percent of its places for students of a particular

race or national origin. OCR found that one aspect of the appeals process

used in the admissions system in 1991 was inconsistent with OCR’s policy

interpretation because the appeals process was not narrowly tailored.

However, the university had already modified this admission appeals

process before OCR completed its investigation.

OCR also examined whether Filipino-American students were affected by

this admissions appeals process. It found only one student who potentially

was adversely affected. OCR determined that this student did not meet the

minimum requirements for admission and that his chances of success at

the university were so unlikely that further review was not warranted.

The official file for this case included pertinent documentation from

October 1991 until April 1992, when the regional office staff did their

work. After the case was forwarded to headquarters, few documents were

included in the files and little information was included in the official case

file to show the issues that headquarters staff were considering.

University of Texas

Law School (Case No.

06-93-2005)

An Asian-Indian man alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin

because the University of Texas had failed to give equal consideration to

Asian-Indian applicants, as compared with consideration given to

African-American and Hispanic applicants, in admission to the School of

Law. The complainant had a 3.5 grade point average in college, an LSAT

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

score that placed him in the 68th percentile, and had worked as an intern

in the district attorney’s office in Harris County, Texas. The complainant

filed his complaint after applying to the law school and being rejected for

admission twice.

OCR Region VI staff initiated an investigation in November 1992 and

obtained information from the complainant and the university during

January 1993. OCR was advised of a pending class action suit against the

university in February 1993. OCR determined that the class action suit

involved the same issues as those in the charge filed with OCR by this

complainant even though the complainant was not a party to the suit.

Therefore, in accordance with its Investigative Procedures Manual section

IV.B.2(b), OCR advised the complainant in May 1993 that its investigation

was being tolled until the litigation was resolved. That is, the case would

be kept open, but the time frames were suspended pending the outcome of

litigation.

In November 1993, OCR revised its investigative procedures. Under the new

procedures, complaints that involve issues in pending litigation cases are

now closed and the complainant is informed that he or she may refile the

complaint following termination of the court proceeding. In

mid-January 1994, OCR sent a letter to the complainant informing him of

the scheduled trial date and advising him that the case was being closed.

The complainant was also informed that he could refile his complaint

within 60 days following the termination of the court proceeding if there

was no decision on the merits or settlement of the complaint allegations.

This accords with the revised procedures found in the Case Resolution

Manual, section I.H.5. The complainant did not refile his complaint.

University of

California at Berkeley

School of Optometry

(Case No. 10-88-2201)

A Chinese-American woman filed a complaint in May 1988 against UC

Berkeley alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of

national origin because she had been denied admission to the School of

Optometry. OCR Region X (Seattle) worked on the case for about 10

months. In March 1989, it sent a letter to the complainant, advising her that

on the basis of the evidence gathered during the investigation, OCR did not

anticipate that it could substantiate the complainant’s allegations of

discrimination. This letter was not an LOF, and the complaint was not

closed at this time. Instead, because of questions raised regarding the

School of Optometry’s affirmative action program during the investigation,

headquarters directed Region X in July 1989 to investigate the affirmative

action plan in the School of Optometry. Headquarters indicated Region X

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

could either issue a partial LOF on the individual complainant’s facts or

address all issues in a single LOF. Region X chose the latter option.

OCR performed a statistical analysis of 1988 admissions data, but OCR

headquarters later decided to also review 1989 and 1990 admissions data.

The region conducted an additional site investigation and submitted a

draft investigative report and LOF to headquarters on October 9, 1991.

Headquarters conducted additional statistical analyses, held several

conference calls with the regional office, and reviewed applicant files that

it had obtained from the region. On January 6, 1994, headquarters returned

the case to the regional office with comments, and on February 17, 1994,

the final LOF was issued.

OCR exceeded its established time frames for this case. The OCR standard in

effect at the time the case was initiated was that an LOF be completed

within 105 calendar days; this investigation took about 69 months to

complete. OCR officials explained that much of the case-processing time

was associated with extensive statistical analyses of the affirmative action

issue and the issue of possible discrimination against Asian-Americans as a

class, with data covering a 3-year period.

University of Hawaii

at Manoa (Case No.

10-92-2066)

A white male veteran alleged in July 1992 that the University of Hawaii at

Manoa had discriminated against him on the basis of race by denying him

admission to its law school. The complainant alleged that places were set

aside for particular minorities and that the minorities admitted to the law

school had lower qualifications than the nonminorities rejected. The

complainant objected to the university’s preadmissions program, which

accepts 12 students from among disadvantaged applicants or ethnic

groups underrepresented in the Hawaii Bar for a 1-year program. The

complainant further claimed that his “unique veteran experiences” should

be considered in offsetting his relatively low academic standing and

application test scores.

In the course of initiating its investigation on August 13, 1992, OCR learned

that the complainant had filed suit in U.S. District Court in Hawaii on 

July 7, 1992. An OCR representative informed the complainant that OCR’s

procedure is to defer its investigation until litigation that concerns the

same allegations is resolved. OCR tolled the case from August 25, 1992,

until February 18, 1993.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

In January 1993, the court dismissed the case because the plaintiff (that is,

the complainant) failed to show that his rejection was the result of the

preadmissions program. The court found that the plaintiff simply did not

meet the university’s law school admissions criteria. His grade point

average and LSAT score were below the median, that is, far below those of

other accepted applicants. No one, including those admitted under the

preadmissions program, had an LSAT score as low as the plaintiff’s.

Furthermore, he was from a noncompetitive school.

Two months later, on March 11, 1993, OCR administratively closed the case.

Under OCR’s Investigative Procedures Manual, a case should be closed if

OCR (1) obtains information indicating that the issue raised has been

resolved in a manner consistent with title VI of the Civil Rights Act and

(2) determines that there are no remaining issues appropriate for

investigation. Section IV.A.2(d) of the manual states that cases in which

the same issues involving the same complainant have been subject to a

decision by a federal court may be closed.6 OCR actually closed the case

under section IV.A.(2)(g), which states that if OCR obtains information

indicating that the issues raised by the complaint have been resolved, OCR

should determine if there are current issues appropriate for investigation;

if not, the case should be closed. OCR determined that the issues raised in

the OCR complaint had been resolved in accordance with title VI standards

and that there were no outstanding issues in the complaint that had not

been addressed.

OCR officials indicated that the case was closed because (1) the judge

determined that the complainant lacked standing because of low LSAT

scores and a poor academic record to challenge the preadmissions

program and (2) this was an individual complaint.

Although OCR could have continued the class issue of whether the

preadmissions program violated title VI, it was not required to do so. The

complainant had not made any specific allegation on behalf of individuals

other than himself. OCR did not reach any conclusion regarding whether

any admissions program was legal or illegal. OCR officials stated that the

allegations the complainant presented were insufficient to raise a class

issue by themselves or to show that a practice existed that was

discriminatory. OCR officials stated there were no unresolved issues

appropriate for investigation.

6

Section I.A.8(e)(2) could also be applicable: It states that if there has been a prior judicial

determination covering substantially the same issues raised in the OCR investigation, it may be

appropriate for OCR to close the case.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

University of

California at Davis

School of Medicine

(Case No. 09-92-2015)

A Chinese-American woman applied to the University of California at

Davis’ medical school and was denied admission even though she had a

3.94 grade point average, had participated in many extracurricular

activities, and had received several awards. She alleged that the medical

school discriminated against her because she was Asian-American.

OCR’s regional office investigated the allegations from November 1991 to

April 1992, drafted an investigative report, and forwarded it to OCR

headquarters for review. From April 1992 through November 1992,

additional statistical data on admissions to the medical school were

requested and analyzed at OCR headquarters. From November 1992 until

May 1993, there was no apparent activity in the case. During summer 1993,

another draft investigative report was prepared. In November 1993, during

a telephone conference call between OCR regional staff and OCR

headquarters officials, the final issues of this case were worked out;

shortly afterward, a draft LOF was prepared and submitted to OCR

headquarters for review in January 1994. The LOF was issued on March 21,

1994.

Part of the delay in closing this case occurred because the Deputy

Assistant Secretary was concerned about the affirmative action plan at the

university; he wanted to make sure that the plan had not influenced the

university’s decision to reject the complainant, OCR headquarters officials

explained. The case file included complete documentation and

explanations of case activity from when the complaint was filed until

November 1992. However, the official case file, which is kept in the

regional office, included no other documents until the no-violation LOF was

issued in March 1994.

OCR exceeded the established time frames for this case. The standard in

effect at the time the case was initiated was that an LOF be completed

within 135 calendar days; this investigation took about 28 months to

complete. OCR officials noted that much of the length of this case is

attributable to the complexities and sensitivity of the affirmative action

issues and the extensive statistical analysis that was conducted.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

University of

California at Berkeley

Undergraduate

Schools (Case No.

09-89-2099)

A journalist filed complaints during 1989 with OCR about UC Berkeley,

Harvard, and UCLA; each was a separate OCR case. OCR was already

investigating admissions programs at Harvard and UCLA. In the Berkeley

case, the complainant charged that too many underrepresented minorities,

Asian-Indians, and Filipinos were being admitted to UC Berkeley and too

few qualified Asian-Americans and whites were being admitted. He

criticized the university’s affirmative action program. He also alleged that

underrepresented minority students were being segregated into the UCLA

and UC Berkeley campuses and away from the other UC campuses.

Originally, the investigation initiated in May 1989 was to cover the

academic years beginning in 1987, 1988, and 1989. As time went by,

however, additional years were added to the investigation because the

university changed its admissions policies and OCR’s preliminary findings

were no longer current. According to OCR, obtaining usable data from the

university was also a problem throughout the investigation. Over time, OCR

conducted 10 site visits.

In addition to the on-site work done by the OCR regional staff, the OCR

headquarters surveys and statistical support branch, beginning in August

1991, analyzed university data on several occasions and issued two reports

summarizing its work. The case file showed no activity on the case from

August 1993 until July 1994.

In July 1994, OCR requested more data from the university. In October 1994,

OCR wrote a follow-up letter to the university again requesting data. As of

September 1995, this case was still open. OCR officials told us that

substantive changes occurred in the admissions policy in 1990, 1991, 1992,

and 1994. OCR conducted additional on-site interviews to obtain

clarification of the admissions changes taking place.

University of

Wisconsin at Madison

(Case Nos. 05-91-2062

and 05-92-2155)

An Asian-Indian man filed two complaints with OCR after being denied

admission to the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s Law School in 1991

and 1992. He alleged that the university had discriminated against him and

other Asian-American applicants for its Legal Education Opportunity

Program (LEOP) because other minority groups were automatically eligible

whereas Asian-Americans were not. LEOP offered special admissions and

need-contingent, race-targeted financial aid.

The case file for the first complaint included data that were obtained

during OCR’s investigation from April 1991 to March 1992. This

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

investigation was still in progress when the second complaint was filed in

July 1992. The case file for the second complaint included data obtained

during OCR’s investigation from July 1992 to October 1992. No documents

appeared in the case file from October 1992 until August 1994.

On August 11, 1994, OCR issued a closeout letter to the complainant, which

broke down the two complaints into three issues: (1) complainant was

denied admission to law school in February 1991 because of race, national

origin, and retaliation; (2) complainant was denied admission to law

school in February 1992 because of race, national origin, and retaliation;

and (3) LEOP denied Asian-Americans automatic consideration for financial

aid and admission. In the letter, OCR stated that it had found insufficient

evidence to support the first two individual allegations but that it would

make a separate determination on the third allegation, which is a class

issue.

OCR officials said that these cases were delayed because they dealt with

race-targeted financial aid issues, which OCR was in the process of

reexamining. OCR headquarters officials explained that the OCR regional

office was directed to hold its LOF until the policy statement was issued.

This directive was later communicated orally, so no documents were

included in the case files, an official said. Although OCR conducted part of

the investigation in 1991 and 1992, OCR waited until the policy statement on

race-targeted financial aid became effective in May 1994 to finalize its

investigation.

The LOF on the first two allegations was issued less than 3 months after the

policy guidance took effect. The class issue has taken more time. OCR

decided that additional facts were needed to determine if LEOP complied

with title VI in light of the new guidance. In March 1995, OCR requested

more data from the university on the class issue, and in July and

August 1995, the university submitted additional data. As of

September 1995, the case was still open.

Massachusetts

Institute of

Technology (Case No.

01-92-8083)

An Asian-American man filed a complaint on behalf of his son, alleging

that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discriminated against

Asian-Americans by admitting less qualified applicants from other races

and nationalities. The complainant cited a newspaper article that reported

how five poor Hispanic students from Texas had been accepted by MIT and

provided details of their high school grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test

(SAT) scores. The complainant also contended that Asian-Americans as a

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix II 

Descriptions of 13 Specific Cases

class were treated differently in the admissions process and believed that

MIT had set a quota on the number of Asian-Americans that would be

accepted.

Beginning in June 1993, OCR investigated the complaint through reviewing

pertinent documents and records and interviewing various involved

parties. OCR found no violations and issued its LOF on April 22, 1994. OCR

exceeded the established time frames for this case. The standard in effect

at the time the case was initiated was that an LOF be completed within 135

calendar days of when a complete complaint was filed; this investigation

took about 18 months to complete.

The case file did not include information to explain (1) the delay between

when the complaint was filed and when the investigation began and

(2) the reasons it took so long to complete the investigation and issue the

LOF. OCR officials told us that some of the delay in initiating the

investigation was attributable to the region’s efforts to coordinate the

investigation of this case with other admissions cases that had been filed

in Region I (Boston) and Region II (New York). Officials also told us that

the investigation needed to be carefully planned to avoid the extraordinary

consumption of resources that a similar investigation at Harvard

University had entailed.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix III 

Complaint Investigations and Compliance

Reviews: Response Times, Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority Group

Table III.1: Average Time of Complaint

Investigations Resolved, by Minority

Group

Fiscal years 1988-94

AsianAmericansAfricanAmericans HispanicsMinority

whitesa Others Total

Complaint investigations resolved

Admissions 40 115 31 21 41 248

Non-admissions 74 816 134 85 154 1,263

Total 114 931 165 106 195 1,511

Average time (in days)

Admissions 297 129 276 162 108 174

Non-admissions 108 125 105 83 127 119

Total 175 125 137 98 122 128

aThose from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix III 

Complaint Investigations and Compliance

Reviews: Response Times, Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority Group

Table III.2: Complaint Investigations

Resulting in Benefits to the

Complainants or Changes, by Minority

Group

Fiscal years 1988-94

AsianAmericansAfricanAmericans HispanicsMinority

whitesa Others Total

In numbers

Admissions

cases resolved 40 115 31 21 41 248

Non-admissions

cases resolved 74 816 134 85 154 1,263

Total 114 931 165 106 195 1,511

Admissions

cases with

benefits to

complainant or

changes by

school 16 23 5 6 8 58

Non-admissions

cases with

benefits to

complainant or

changes by

school 6 111 17 9 13 156

Total cases with

benefits to

complainant or

changes by

school 22 134 22 15 21 214

In percent

Benefits and

changes of

admission cases

resolved 40 20 16 29 20 23

Benefits and

changes of

non-admissions

cases resolved 8 14 13 11 8 12

Total 19 14 13 14 11 14

aThose from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East.

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix III 

Complaint Investigations and Compliance

Reviews: Response Times, Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority Group

Table III.3: Title VI Complaint Investigations Resolved, by Minority Group

Admissions with

benefits

Admissions no

benefits

Non-admissions

with benefits

Non-admissions no

benefits Total

October 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995

Minority group No.

Average

time No.

Average

time No.

Average

time No.

Average

time No.

Average

time

Asian-Americans 3 667 0 0 0 0 10 192 13 302

Hispanics 1 84 1 38 6 199 29 62 37 84

American Indians 2 193 0 0 2 118 3 29 7 101

African-Americans 1 28 22 88 16 212 115 102 154 111

Class actions 0 0 1 70 0 0 2 66 3 67

Whites 0 0 13 125 1 587 5 61 19 132

Minority whitesa 0 0 4 157 3 93 11 91 18 106

Multiple title VIb 0 0 0 0 1 1,301 6 106 7 277

Total 7 357 41 105 29 241 181 97 258 121

aThose from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East.

bMultiple title VI cases are those that include more than one title VI issue, that is, one case may

include allegations about both race and national origin discrimination.

Table III.4: Average Time of

Compliance Reviews Completed, by

Minority Group

Fiscal years 1988-94

AsianAmericansAfricanAmericans HispanicsClass

actions

Multiple

title VI Total

Compliance reviews completed

Admissions cases 3 16 1 14 5 39

Non-admissions

cases 1 7 1 9 1 19

Total 4 23 2 23 6 58

Average time in days

Admissions cases 219 117 128 299 238 174

Non-admissions

cases 120 125 45 103 87 108

Total 195 120 87 223 213 174

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix III 

Complaint Investigations and Compliance

Reviews: Response Times, Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority Group

Table III.5: Compliance Reviews

Resulting in Benefits and Changes, by

Minority Group

Fiscal years 1988-94

AsianAmericansAfricanAmericans HispanicsClass

actions

Multiple

title VI Total

In numbers

Admissions 3 16 1 14 5 39

Non-admissions 1 7 1 9 1 19

Total 4 23 2 23 6 58

Admissions cases

resulting in remedy

or change 3 11 1 5 2 22

Non-admission

cases resulting in

remedy or change 0 3 1 2 0 6

Total 3 14 2 7 2 28

In percent

Remedy or change

to admissions 100 69 100 36 40 56

Remedy or change

to non-admissions 0 43 100 22 0 32

Total 75 61 100 30 33 48

Table III.6: Title VI Complaint

Investigations Over 180 Days Old

Days pending

As of May 21, 

1993

As of Sept. 30,

1994

As of June 30,

1995

2,000+ 1 1 2

1,600-1,999 1 6 3

1,200-1,599 15 3 6

1,000-1,199 7 7 3

800-999 12 5 1

600-799 17 6 10

500-599 24 6 1

400-499 15 20 12

300-399 24 23 15

181-299 51 45 47

Total 167 122 100

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix III 

Complaint Investigations and Compliance

Reviews: Response Times, Benefits, and

Changes, by Minority Group

Table III.7: Title VI Compliance

Reviews Over 180 Days Old

Days pending

As of May 21, 

1993

As of Sept. 30,

1994

As of June 30,

1995

2,000+ 0 0 2

1,600-1,999 0 2 0

1,200-1,599 4 1 0

1,000-1,199 0 1 0

800-999 0 0 2

600-799 3 0 1

500-599 0 5 0

400-499 0 2 3

300-399 2 1 2

181-299 1 6 4

Total 10 18 14

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 1.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 2.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 3.

See pp. 6-9.

See comment 4.

See p. 7.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 5.

See p. 8.

See comment 6.

See p. 9.

See comment 7.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 8.

See p. 2.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See p. 2.

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 11.

See p. 3.

See comment 12.

See p. 4.

See comment 13.

See p. 4.

See comment 14.

See p. 6.

See comment 15.

See p. 11.

See comment 16.

See p. 11.

See comment 17.

See p. 12.

See comment 18.

See p. 13.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 19.

See p. 13.

See comment 20.

See p. 14.

See comment 21.

See p. 24.

See comment 22.

See p. 24.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

See comment 23.

See p. 28.

See comment 24.

See p. 34.

See comment 25.

See p. 35.

See comment 26.

See p. 40.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Education’s letter

dated September 26, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. Our point in this section was that OCR did not have a complete official

file for every case that included documentation on all phases of a

complaint investigation or compliance review, including actions and

decisions by OCR headquarters officials. Education, in its comments, said

that records pertaining to OCR headquarters activity in the 13 cases were

maintained in a chronological filing system, rather than a case file system,

that suited the needs of headquarters staff. At headquarters, however,

activities involving these cases, like teleconferences and data analysis, are

not captured in the chronological files. Moreover, while documents on

individual cases may be filed chronologically, the documents did not

usually explain delays. As a result, we had to rely on oral statements by

OCR headquarters staff for much of the information on the chronology of

events while the cases were worked on in OCR headquarters.

2. We acknowledged that for some cases, documents prepared by OCR

headquarters were sometimes included in the regional office files. As we

reported, however, often the actions, decisions, and deliberations that

occurred in headquarters that led to the issuance of a letter of findings or

other documents reflecting OCR’s official position on an issue were not

included in the case files made available to us. Furthermore, reasons for

delays of investigations and reviews were seldom documented at OCR

headquarters; therefore, we had to rely largely on oral statements by

headquarters officials for this information.

3. We agree that individual cases that took a long time to resolve would

skew OCR’s average time for completing complaint investigations and

compliance reviews. We also acknowledge that in reporting information

and statistics on OCR’s timeliness in resolving its cases, we do not fully

discuss all the factors that may affect the resolution of each case; for

example, the legal complexities of a precedent-setting case or the great

amount of analysis necessary in an admissions case. (See pp. 6 and 9.)

4. A paragraph discussing these data was added. (See p. 7.)

5. The caption on page 8 was revised.

6. Two sentences were added on page 9 to include additional information.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of

Education and GAO’s Evaluation

7. Our review dealt only with complaint investigations and compliance

reviews in postsecondary schools that involved issues concerning title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was no need for revisions.

8. The report was revised. (See p. 2.)

9. No revision was needed.

10. The report was revised to include Education’s comment. (See p. 2.)

11. The report was revised to include updated information. (See p. 3.)

12. The report was revised to include correct percentages. (See p. 4.)

13. The report was revised to include updated information. (See p. 4.)

14. The report was revised to include the correct definition. (See p. 6.)

15. The report was revised to reflect Education’s comment. (See p. 11.)

16. The sentence was deleted because of updated information. (See p. 11.)

17. The report was revised because of updated information. (See p. 12.)

18. The report was revised to include additional information. (See p. 13.)

19. The report was revised to include updated information. (See p. 13.)

20. The report was revised. (See p. 14.)

21. The report was revised to include additional information. (See p. 24.)

22. The report was revised to include additional information. (See p. 24.)

23. The report was revised to include additional information. (See p. 28.)

24. No revision was needed.

25. No revision was needed.

26. The report was revised. (See p. 40.)

(104766) Page 56 GAO/HEHS-96-23 Asian-American Cases at Education’s OCR
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100