U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Office of Civil Rights Evaluation 

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies 

Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

Volume III: An Evaluation of the Departments of 

Agriculture and the Interior, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the Small Business Administration 

Statutory Report for Commissioners’ Review 

Staff Draft 

June 12, 2003 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 i

Contents 

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... vii 

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

 Department of Agriculture ..........................................................................................................2 

 Department of the Interior...........................................................................................................2 

 Environmental Protection Agency..............................................................................................3

 Small Business Administration...................................................................................................3 

 The Commission’s Review .........................................................................................................3 

 Scope....................................................................................................................................4 

 Methodology........................................................................................................................4 

 Summary .....................................................................................................................................5 

 

2. Department of Agriculture ......................................................................................................6 

 Office of Civil Rights..................................................................................................................6 

 Priority of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................9 

 Office of Civil Rights’ Line of Authority to the Departmental Secretary....................9 

 The Separation and Placement of Enforcement Functions.........................................10 

 Office of Civil Rights’ Authority with Respect to USDA Agencies..........................15 

 Civil Rights Responsibilities of USDA Agencies ......................................................15 

 Resources—Funding and Staffing .....................................................................................16 

 Planning .............................................................................................................................19 

 Policy Guidance.................................................................................................................20 

 Departmentwide Title VI Regulations........................................................................20 

 Guidance on Compliance Reviews.............................................................................21 

 Civil Rights Impact Analyses .....................................................................................23 

 Other Policy Guidance................................................................................................24 

 Technical Assistance..........................................................................................................24 

 Education and Outreach.....................................................................................................25

 Complaint Processing ........................................................................................................26 

 Compliance Reviews .........................................................................................................30

 Staff Training.....................................................................................................................31 

 Oversight and Quality Assurance ......................................................................................32 

 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................34 

 Farm Service Agency................................................................................................................35 

 Priority of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................36 

 Resources—Funding and Staffing .....................................................................................37 

 Planning .............................................................................................................................40 

 Policy Guidance.................................................................................................................41 

 Education and Outreach.....................................................................................................42

 Technical Assistance..........................................................................................................43 

 Complaint Processing ........................................................................................................44 

 Complaince Reviews .........................................................................................................45
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 ii

 Staff Training.....................................................................................................................47 

 Oversight and Quality Assurance ......................................................................................47 

 Minority Farmers........................................................................................................48 

 Coordination .....................................................................................................................51 

 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................52 

 Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ..................................................................................52 

 Priority of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................54 

 Resources—Funding and Staffing .....................................................................................56 

 Planning .............................................................................................................................60 

 Policy Guidance.................................................................................................................61 

 Education and Outreach.....................................................................................................63

 Complaint Processing ........................................................................................................64 

 Compliance Reviews .........................................................................................................65

 Pre-award Reviews .....................................................................................................65 

 Post-award Reviews....................................................................................................66 

 Staff Training.....................................................................................................................67 

 Oversight and Quality Assurance ......................................................................................68 

 Coordination ......................................................................................................................69 

 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................69 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service..................................................................................70 

Priority of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................71 

Resources—Funding and Staffing .....................................................................................75 

Planning .............................................................................................................................78 

Policy Guidance.................................................................................................................79 

Technical Assistance..........................................................................................................79 

Education and Outreach.....................................................................................................80 

Complaint Processing ........................................................................................................81 

Compliance Reviews .........................................................................................................82 

Staff Training.....................................................................................................................84 

Oversight and Quality Assurance ......................................................................................85 

Coordination ......................................................................................................................86 

Community Involvement ...................................................................................................86 

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................87 

3. Department of the Interior.....................................................................................................88 

 Overview...................................................................................................................................88 

Priority of Civil Rights..............................................................................................................89 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ............................................................................................93 

Planning ....................................................................................................................................96 

Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................................98 

Technical Assistance...............................................................................................................100 

Education and Outreach..........................................................................................................101 

Complaint Processing .............................................................................................................102 

Complaince Reviews...............................................................................................................104 

Staff Training ..........................................................................................................................107 

Delegation ...............................................................................................................................107 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 iii

Oversight and Quality Assurance ...........................................................................................108 

 Bureaus ............................................................................................................................108 

 Continuing State Programs ..............................................................................................109 

 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................110 

4. Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................................112

Overview.................................................................................................................................113 

Priority of Civil Rights............................................................................................................113 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ..........................................................................................116 

Planning ..................................................................................................................................119 

Policy Guidance ......................................................................................................................121 

Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance .....................................................................126 

Complaint Processing .............................................................................................................127 

Compliance Reviews...............................................................................................................128 

Staff Training ..........................................................................................................................130 

Oversight and Quality Assurance ...........................................................................................131 

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................132

5. Small Business Administration............................................................................................134

Overview.................................................................................................................................134 

Priority of Civil Rights............................................................................................................135 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ..........................................................................................137 

Planning ..................................................................................................................................140 

Policy Guidance ......................................................................................................................141 

Technical Assistance...............................................................................................................142 

Education and Outreach..........................................................................................................143 

Complaint Processing .............................................................................................................143 

Compliance Reviews...............................................................................................................144 

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions...................................................................................146 

Staff Training ..........................................................................................................................147 

Delegation ...............................................................................................................................147 

Oversight and Quality Assurance ...........................................................................................148 

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................150 

6. Findings and Recommendations..........................................................................................151 

 Introduction.............................................................................................................................151 

 Department of Agriculture ......................................................................................................152 

 Office of Civil Rights.......................................................................................................154 

 Farm Service Agency.......................................................................................................161

 Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.........................................................................164 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service.........................................................................167 

 Department of the Interior.......................................................................................................174 

 Environmental Protection Agency .........................................................................................179 

 Small Business Administration...............................................................................................184 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 iv

Figures 

2.1 Past Locations and Organizational Structures of USDA’s Headquarters 

 Civil Rights Functions ..........................................................................................................11 

2.2 Organizational Structure of USDA Components with Civil Rights Responsibilities, 2003....13 

2.3 USDA Office of Civil Rights Budget, 1997–2002 ...............................................................17 

2.4 USDA Office of Civil Rights Staffing, 1997–2002..............................................................18 

2.5 USDA Civil Rights Complaint Inventory for Program Delivery, All USDA Agencies, 

1996–2002.............................................................................................................................28 

2.6 USDA Civil Rights Complaint Inventory for Program Delivery, All USDA Agencies, 

1998–2002.............................................................................................................................29 

2.7 FSA/OCR Organizational Structure, 2002 ...........................................................................37 

2.8 FSA/OCR Budget, 1999–2002 .............................................................................................39 

2.9 FSA/OCR Staffing, 1995–2002............................................................................................40 

2.10 FNS and the Civil Rights Division Organizational Structure, 1996.....................................55 

2.11 FNCS Civil Rights Budget, 1998–2002 ...............................................................................58 

2.12 FNCS Civil Rights Staffing, 1998–2003 ..............................................................................59 

2.13 FNS and the Civil Rights Division Organizational Structure, 2002.....................................60 

2.14 Organizational Structure of the Soil Conservation Service’s Civil Rights Components, 

Including Regional and State Offices, Before the 1994 Departmental Reorganization .......73 

2.15 Organizational Structure of the NRCS’ Civil Rights Components, 

Including Regional and State Offices, 2000–2002 ...............................................................74 

2.16 NRCS Headquarters Civil Rights Staffing, 1995–2002 .......................................................77 

2.17 NRCS Title VI Complaints Received, 1996–2002...............................................................82 

3.1 Department of the Interior Organizational Structure, 2003..................................................90 

3.2 DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Organizational Structure, Effective 1991 to 

October 5, 1998.....................................................................................................................92 

3.3 DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Organizational Structure, Effective October 6, 1998....92 

3.4 DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Budget, 1996–2002 .......................................................94 

3.5 DOI Office for Equal Opportunity and Bureau Title VI Staffing, 1996–2002.....................96 

3.6 Department of the Interior Title VI Complaints, 1996–2001 .............................................103 

3.7 Department of the Interior Unresolved Civil Rights Complaints, 1996–2001...................104 

4.1 EPA Office of Civil Rights Organizational Structure, 1994 ..............................................114 

4.2 EPA Office of Civil Rights Organizational Structure, 2003 ..............................................116 

4.3 EPA Office of Civil Rights Budget, 1993–2003 ................................................................117 

4.4 EPA Office of Civil Rights Staffing, 1993–2003 ...............................................................119 

5.1 EEO&CRC Organizational Structure, 1994 .......................................................................136 

5.2 EEO&CRC Organizational Structure, 2003 .......................................................................136 

5.3 EEO&CRC Budget, 1996–2003 .........................................................................................138 

5.4 EEO&CRC Staffing, 1996–2003........................................................................................140 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 v

Tables 

1.1 USCCR Monitoring and Research Employees, 1984, 2002, and 2003 ..................................5 

2.1 Timeline for Events Affecting USDA Organization and Civil Rights Enforcement..............7 

2.2 FSA/OCR Workload, 1994–2001.........................................................................................45 

2.3 FNS Civil Rights Division Complaint Workload, 1997–2001 .............................................65 

2.4 FNS Civil Rights Division Pre-award Review Workload, 1997–2001 ................................66 

2.5 FNS Civil Rights Division Post-award Review Workload, 1997–2001...............................67 

2.6 Timeline for NRCS Reorganizations and Events Affecting Civil Rights Enforcement.......72 

5.1 Complaints Received by the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, 1996–2002...................144 

5.2 Compliance Reviews Conducted by the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, 1996–2002....145 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 vii

Executive Summary 

Throughout its history, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has focused on ensuring 

equal protection of the laws under the Constitution regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, 

disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice in all areas of life. As we move 

into the 21st century, with the nation’s population becoming increasingly diverse, the role and 

responsibility of federal agencies in enforcing civil rights take on added importance. The 

Commission is responsible for monitoring the civil rights activities at federal agencies. It is 

through monitoring that it can be assured that proper enforcement is taking place and the promise 

of civil rights is fulfilled. The Commission has strived to ensure equal rights by issuing reports 

that examine and suggest ways to improve the civil rights enforcement efforts of federal 

agencies. In its reports, the Commission has identified good practices as well as inadequacies and 

has made recommendations for improvement. In the past 10 years alone, more than a dozen 

reports have identified and described where federal agencies have succeeded or fell short of their 

civil rights obligations. The Commission has not only made recommendations, but also, based on 

its research and experience, identified elements that affect the quality of civil rights enforcement. 

This report, volume III in the series titled “Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies 

Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?” evaluates the extent to which the Departments of 

Agriculture and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business 

Administration have implemented the Commission’s 1996 recommendations made in Federal 

Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. Thousands 

of federal programs are under the jurisdiction of Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based 

on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs and activities, and it is the 

responsibility of 27 federal agencies to enforce the law. Federal financial assistance extends into 

every area of national life, covering a broad range of activities, including programs for schools 

and schoolchildren, women, highways, environmental health, hospital construction, farmers and 

farming, ship and airline subsidies, disaster relief, civilian defense, and public health. It is the 

responsibility of government agencies to provide equal access to federal programs and services 

and administer such programs to qualified beneficiaries and recipients without discrimination. 

• Department of Agriculture 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers billions of dollars in federally 

assisted programs that reach almost every citizen in the United States. Civil rights offices 

and staff are situated throughout the department. This report examines the civil rights 

efforts of three of its agencies and its departmental Office of Civil Rights. The 

department has one of the most complex and decentralized civil rights structures in the 

federal government. USDA has done little to coordinate all of its civil rights 

responsibilities effectively. The department’s agencies have undergone reorganizations, 

name changes, and realignments; however with inconsistent result. Overall, the 

department has not made significant strides to address the Commission’s 1996 

recommendations or improve civil rights enforcement. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 viii

• Department of the Interior

In 1996, the Commission concluded that the Department of the Interior (DOI) needed to 

restructure its civil rights office and functions for more effective enforcement. In this 

review, the Commission finds that the department’s commitment to civil rights is 

imperiled due to inaction since the Commission’s last review. The department does not 

dedicate specific resources for civil rights enforcement, thus initiatives such as education 

and outreach have gone unsupported. 

 

• Environmental Protection Agency

Since the Commission’s earlier report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

instituted three initiatives that not only meet the Commission’s recommendations, but 

also serve as models that can be emulated by other federal agencies in their civil rights 

efforts. The Commission is encouraged by and commends EPA’s efforts to improve its 

civil rights program. 

• Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has not significantly improved its civil rights 

program since the Commission’s 1996 study due in part to limited resources for 

enforcement and policy changes. However, the Commission finds that SBA issued 

revised civil rights compliance and enforcement procedures in 2003. On paper, the new 

procedures appear promising, but they have not been in place long enough to assess their 

effectiveness. 

Model Programs 

The Commission found model programs and practices that should be emulated by other 

enforcement agencies with Title VI responsibilities. For example, in December 1996, after it 

received the Commission’s report, EPA created an internal Title VI task force to, among other 

duties, evaluate and implement the Commission’s recommendations. EPA also established a 

Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee in March 1998 to review and evaluate Title VI 

compliant techniques that EPA funding recipients could use to administer environmentalpermitting programs. The agency sought and included for membership on the task force 

representatives from community groups, environmental justice groups, state and local 

governments, industry, and other interested stakeholders. Many of the committee’s 

recommendations were incorporated when improvements were made to EPA’s Title VI guidance 

documents. In May 2001, the administrator ordered the creation of another Title VI task force to 

resolve the backlog of complaints alleging violations of Title VI. The initiative became an 

agencywide priority. The Title VI task force consists of 13 full-time staff detailed from various 

EPA program offices, and two civil rights investigators who provide assistance on an as-needed 

basis. The task force has authority to draw on technical, legal, and policy expertise throughout 

EPA and is allotted funds for contract support. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 ix

EPA also prepared two crucial guidance documents, one investigative and one for 

recipients, to help grantees and the public better understand Title VI requirements. In developing 

the documents, EPA officials drew on their experiences and also listened to the suggestions and 

concerns of the agency’s many constituencies. The investigative guidance includes a 

comprehensive description of the process for reviewing disparate impact complaints involving 

issuance of permits that allegedly violate environmental guidelines. The guidance for grant 

recipients provides a framework to help them plan to avoid situations that could potentially result 

in complaints alleging Title VI violations, and to improve programs and activities. 

EPA’s education, outreach, and technical assistance efforts are commendable. Officials 

engage the public in numerous ways, including public hearings and local and regional meetings. 

Useful and informative internal and external civil rights information has been posted on EPA’s 

Web site. Title IV regulations and guidelines reach the public through distribution of press 

releases and information sent to mailing lists. The agency also holds regularly scheduled 

meetings at which it interacts with the public. EPA periodically publishes documents on Title VI, 

such as the Report of the Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee: Next Steps for EPA, 

State, and Local Environmental Justice Program issued in April 1999. 

 

The other departments (USDA, DOI, and SBA) show strengths in some areas and 

weaknesses in others, and there are signs that enforcement will improve in the future. For 

example, USDA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for conducting Civil Rights 

Impact Analyses (CRIAs) of proposed agency actions before implementation to assess their 

impact on civil rights at the department. To ensure that departmental actions and initiatives do 

not have a negative impact on civil rights, OCR has authority to change agency-imposed 

regulatory provisions that safeguard against barriers to eligibility of recipients. The tool, which is 

being developed and tested for effectiveness, may have the potential to become a new element 

for civil rights enforcement at federal agencies. With respect to the USDA and DOI, significant 

organizational changes and structured outreach and staff training are needed to strengthen 

enforcement. 

The Commission holds fast to the view that ensuring civil rights is compatible with other 

national priorities. The nation needs to remain focused on its obligation to enforce and protect 

civil rights. The commitment of EPA to civil rights enforcement through its Title VI task forces, 

adequate resources, and effective leadership demonstrates the success that can be achieved. 

Thus, the Commission will remain vigilant in its civil rights monitoring and fact-finding roles. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

“As public servants, we cannot be effective without being fair. We cannot be responsive without being 

respectful. We cannot deliver programs and services without being sensitive to the human issues that are 

so much a part of our work.”1

 

 Ann M. Veneman 

 Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Since the 1960s, numerous federal laws and policies have been passed to protect the civil 

rights of individuals denied equal protection because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, 

religion, sex, age, and disability. To protect civil rights in many areas, federal agencies were 

given authority and responsibility to enforce the laws. 

During the previous decade, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued 16 reports that 

evaluated 11 federal agencies and offered more than 1,100 recommendations for improving their 

civil rights operations. A series of reports addresses the question of whether or not the 

recommendations were implemented and, if so, with what results. 

The present study is the third in this series. In 2002, the Commission issued Ten-Year 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A 

Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement, which catalogs and discusses elements for effective civil 

rights enforcement, including priorities, resources (funding and staffing), planning and policy 

guidance, and compliance reviews. That year, it also issued Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal 

Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume II: An Evaluation of the 

Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation, which evaluated the named departments’ 

performance with respect to the foregoing elements to determine how effectively they 

implemented past recommendations. 

Have the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and the Small Business Administration responded to Commission recommendations 

and, if so, how effectively? These are the questions this study addresses. The study examines the 

agencies’ external and internal civil rights enforcement. 

External matters pertain to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically 

government requirements to ensure nondiscrimination in programs that offer federal assistance.2

Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs based on race, color, or national 

origin. Title VI protects against a broad range of discrimination, including denial of services; 

differences in the quality, quantity, or manner of services; different standards for participation; 

 

1

 Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Civil Rights Policy Statement,” n.d., 

<http://www.usda.gov/da/CRPolicy.htm>. 

2

 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1988). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 2

and discrimination in an activity conducted in a facility built with federal funds. Congress 

authorized government agencies to enforce Title VI to prevent recipients from using federal 

funds to support discrimination. The U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for coordinating 

federal Title VI enforcement.3

 Agencies in this study provide funding to recipients who provide 

an array of programs and services, including school lunches, business and farm loans, and safe 

environmental projects. The Commission last made recommendations to these agencies in 1996 

based on their Title VI responsibilities, and this review focuses on the degree to which they have 

responded. 

Internal matters pertain to employment discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.4

 The 

law protects against discriminatory employment practices of private and public sector employers. 

Furthermore, federal agencies’ equal employment programs, policies, and procedures must 

comply with Title VII. The lead federal agency in enforcing and coordinating the implementation 

of Title VII is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Department of Agriculture 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is one of the largest federal agencies with 

Title VI responsibilities. Its programs affect millions of people, from farmers, to pregnant 

women, to schoolchildren. It operates one of the most complex and decentralized civil rights 

structures in the federal government. The department has numerous offices and staff involved in 

civil rights enforcement, carrying out different responsibilities. Since the Commission’s 1996 

report, there is little evidence that the department has changed or improved what the Commission 

found to be a complicated civil rights enforcement program, nor has it addressed the 

Commission’s recommendations significantly. The Commission finds a lack of clarity 

concerning civil rights authority and accountability, too many short-term civil rights officials, 

and too many officials involved in enforcement. Congress, through the signing of the 2002 farm 

bill, created the position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights. In March 2003, 

the first Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights was confirmed by the Senate, and in 

April he was officially sworn into office. Among that individual’s many responsibilities will be 

focusing efforts on improving the coordination of civil rights activities throughout the 

department. 

Department of the Interior 

The Office for Equal Opportunity (OEO) administers the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s (DOI’s) Title VI programs. In this review, the Commission finds that DOI has not 

implemented any of the recommendations that were made in 1996. For example, in 1996, it was 

recommended that DOI restructure its civil rights office and functions for more effective 

enforcement, but in this review, the Commission finds that it has not. Further, DOI still needs a 

 

3

 Executive Order 12,250 delegates responsibility to the U.S. Department of Justice to provide leadership and 

coordinate the Title VI implementation, compliance, and enforcement responsibilities of the federal agencies. 

Executive Order 12,250 §§ 1-101, 1-201, 3 C.F.R. § 298 (1981), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (1988). 

4

 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964) (codified as amended at 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17 (1994)). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 3

dedicated budget for civil rights enforcement, which it lacks because OEO is situated in another 

unrelated office. Initiatives such as education and outreach are not supported sufficiently because 

of undesignated funds for such activities. However, the Commission is encouraged that OEO has 

maintained separate external and internal civil rights functions. Moreover, OEO received a 

steady increase in funding between 1998 and 2002, annually averaging $1.3 million. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 

In 1996, the Commission directed numerous recommendations for improving civil rights 

enforcement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this review, the 

Commission finds that the agency has addressed almost all the Commission’s earlier 

recommendations and shows significant improvement in its civil rights program. One reason for 

EPA’s progress may be its establishment of an internal Title VI task force, whose responsibilities 

included the implementation of the Commission’s 1996 recommendations. The agency has 

undertaken initiatives such as a structured staff training program and a comprehensive complaint 

process that are models worthy of emulating by other agencies. 

Small Business Administration

In 1996, the Commission concluded that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) 

needed to improve its civil rights enforcement. The Commission now finds improvements in 

some areas. For example, SBA published a listing of all SBA programs, implemented policies 

and guidelines clarifying the application of Title VI to its programs, and increased the number of 

compliance reviews conducted telephonically. However, the Commission still finds that there is 

a lack of resources for external civil rights enforcement and staff training. The agency also does 

not perform an adequate number of on-site compliance reviews. 

The Commission’s Review 

This review examines how all these agencies can build upon their efforts to address the 

Commission’s concerns and, in effect, improve civil rights enforcement. Except for EPA and 

SBA, where the civil rights offices report directly to the department’s administrator, the 

Commission finds serious flaws in the organizational structures at the departments. The 

Commission attributes, in significant measure, the weaknesses in civil rights authority and 

enforcement to the poor alignment of civil rights offices. In addition, all the agencies in this 

review have poor budgetary reporting practices. The Commission found a paucity of information 

on civil rights resources and expenditures and a lack of information on expenditures for different 

areas, such as training, travel, and technical assistance. 

Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) play major roles in the enforcement of 

civil rights with respect to appropriations and oversight. This study demonstrates a need for 

increased resources to carry out the departments’ civil rights mission, and a lack of 

communication and coordination with DOJ about the quality and adequacy of their federal Title 

VI programs. Congress should provide the necessary resources to enable federal agencies to 

carry out their civil rights responsibilities. Laws are of no value if agencies do not have the 

resources to enforce them. DOJ, as the oversight agency for federal Title VI enforcement, should 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 4

provide updated regulations and policies; and guidance and feedback to the agencies, especially 

in developing and implementing their Civil Rights Implementation Plans. 

Scope 

 The review covers the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Civil Rights, as well as the 

civil rights components in the Farm Service Agency; the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 

Services; and the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Department of the Interior’s 

Office for Equal Opportunity; the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Rights; 

and the Small Business Administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights 

Compliance Office. 

 

The study focuses on recommendations in the Commission’s 1996 report, Federal Title 

VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. The study 

analyzes the following elements that are relevant to each department: 

• priority of civil rights; 

• resources (funding and staffing) provided to carry out the work; 

• effective planning; 

• policy guidance prepared and issued; 

• technical assistance; 

• education and outreach; 

• effective complaint processing; 

• quality compliance reviews; 

• staff training; and 

• initiatives that maximize effectiveness in accomplishing civil rights enforcement. (Such 

initiatives include oversight and quality assurance of the civil rights program, effective 

coordination, and community involvement.) 

Methodology 

 In assessing whether the departments or their components have responded to the 

Commission’s recommendations made in 1996, and whether civil rights enforcement has 

improved, the Commission prepared seven interrogatories that included questions which focused 

on 55 recommendations made to the Department of Agriculture; 24 made to the Department of 

the Interior; 29 made to the Environmental Protection Agency; and 17 made to the Small 

Business Administration. Each interrogatory was tailored to that particular agency and solicited 

the most current information on civil rights initiatives and directions within that agency. 

In addition to reviewing interrogatory responses, the Commission reviewed relevant 

policy, planning, and budget documents, annual reports, and Civil Rights Implementation Plans; 

interviewed civil rights staff; and reviewed other relevant reports. Owing to the Commission’s 

lack of resources, the work was performed exclusively in Washington, D.C., thus the 

Commission could not examine field offices firsthand. The Commission received and is grateful 

for the cooperation of the agencies providing the requested information. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 5

Summary 

 The Commission concludes that very little has been done at USDA, DOI, and SBA to 

implement its previous recommendations. EPA has made strides to address the recommendations 

and has shown some improvement in civil rights enforcement. The purpose of this review is not 

to criticize, but through study, to help all agencies profit from reviewing their programs and the 

experiences of others. 

It is through systematic monitoring, an important component of the Commission’s work, 

that America can ensure proper enforcement and that the promise of civil rights is fulfilled. 

Because of limited resources, the Commission is no longer able to monitor federal civil rights 

programs on a routine basis. The Commission’s monitoring activities previously consisted of 

constant follow-up on recommendations, frequent meetings with agency employees to anticipate 

problems and assess progress, and the issuance of regular evaluations. In the 1980s, the 

Commission was forced to reduce its monitoring program, which was supported by a $1 million 

budget and a staff of 13 employees dedicated solely to that function. A separate Office of 

Research, with 26 employees, was responsible for report writing. Today, both functions are 

carried out by one office, which has only nine employees (see table 1.1). In 2002, the office had 

11 employees, only six of whom are analysts who work solely on agency evaluations and writing 

reports. Monitoring now consists of reviews of material disseminated by and about federal 

agencies, augmented by occasional first-person contact with agency staffs. 

Table 1.1 

USCCR Monitoring and Research Employees, 

1984, 2002, and 2003

Fiscal 

year 

Office of Research Office of Federal Civil 

Rights Evaluation* 

1984 26 13 

2002 11 

2003 9 

*The Office of Federal Civil Rights Evaluation was the former monitoring 

office, now the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation. 

Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1984, p. 109.

 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 6

CHAPTER 2 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), established in 1862 when 48 percent of the 

American people were farmers, was often referred to as the “people’s Department.” Its mission 

has since evolved beyond farming, and today USDA has eight mission areas that collectively 

affect the lives of all Americans, as well as millions abroad.1 As a result, it is imperative that 

USDA commit itself to a culture of fair treatment, equality, and respect. To determine whether 

USDA is working in compliance with civil rights laws, this report evaluates civil rights 

enforcement at three departmental agencies: (1) the Farm Service Agency, which administers 

services for the farmers, ranchers, and businesses that produce more than 15 percent of the 

nation’s gross national product; (2) the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, which provides 

nutrition assistance to make food available to people who need it; and (3) the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, which helps protect nearly 75 percent of the nation’s land areas. Because 

of its coordination role and obligation to provide guidance to the foregoing agencies, the 

departmental Office of Civil Rights is also evaluated. 

In its 1996 report, the Commission directed 55 recommendations to the Department of 

Agriculture, including 19 to the Office of Civil Rights,2

 13 to the Farm Service Agency,3 12 to 

the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services,4 and 11 to the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service.5

 Since the report, all have undergone reorganizations and name changes: the Office of 

Civil Rights (OCR) was previously the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE); the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) was the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA); the Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services (FNCS) was the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS); and the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The 

reorganization and name changes affected them differently. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

 The Department of Agriculture first established a civil rights office in 1971 and charged 

it with the responsibility to formulate policy and oversee and monitor the decentralized civil 

rights program. Today, the office continues to be charged with providing leadership, 

coordination, and direction to the department’s civil rights programs. Its broadly stated mission 

 

1

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture, One Year of Change, 

March 1998, p. 5 (hereafter cited as USDA, One Year of Change). 

2

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

Assisted Programs, June 1996, pp. 267–72 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). 

3

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 305–08. 4

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 288–91. 5

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 321–24. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 7

is “to facilitate the fair and equitable treatment of USDA customers and employees while 

ensuring the delivery and enforcement of civil rights programs and activities.”6

Since its formation in 1971, the civil rights office endured dismantling, reorganization, 

office name changes, and changed staff assignments and responsibilities in the early 1980s and 

the 1990s. In 1993, equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints (i.e., Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act) and program discrimination complaints (i.e., Title VI) became consolidated into one 

office, the Office of Advocacy and Enterprise. A year later, the agency reorganized and created 

the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE).7

 Since then, concerns about discrimination in 

the Department of Agriculture’s programs have led to many studies of the effectiveness of its 

civil rights enforcement and efforts to improve. As a result of these studies, USDA again 

reorganized its civil rights functions, replacing OCRE with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 

1997; and in 2003 appointed an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to head the office, thereby 

removing OCR from its previous placement within the Department of Administration (see table 

2.1 and figures 2.1 and 2.2). 

Table 2.1 

Timeline for Events Affecting USDA Organization and Civil Rights Enforcement

 Oct. 13, 1994 Congress passed the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994, authorizing the Secretary to reorganize the department to achieve 

greater efficiency, effectiveness, and economies in managing its programs and activities. The law 

called for the consolidation of headquarters offices and the combination of USDA agencies’ field 

offices to reduce personnel and duplicative overhead expenses.

Oct. 20, 1994 The USDA Secretary signed Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1010-1 abolishing previous positions, 

agencies, and offices, and establishing new ones. Among them, the Farmers Home 

Administration, the Food and Nutrition Service, and the Soil Conservation Service were abolished; 

the Farm Service Agency, the Food and Consumer Service, and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service were established. The position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for 

Administration was established and assigned the responsibility, among others, of supervising all 

activities of a newly created Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE).

Oct. 1995 Within the Department of Administration, civil rights responsibilities were divided between two new 

offices. The Office of Operations assumed responsibility for complaints about USDA employment 

and program delivery among other functions ranging from procurement to security. The Policy 

Analysis and Coordination Center had all other civil rights responsibilities.

Nov. 8, 1995 The Secretary of Agriculture delegated authority to the department’s general officers in response 

to the 1994 reorganization. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration delegated 

civil rights responsibilities to the director of the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement and ignored the 

structural change in civil rights that had occurred the previous month. OCRE director’s was to 

provide overall leadership, coordination, and direction for ensuring civil rights compliance in 

program delivery, coordinate Title VI matters with the Department of Justice, ensure the quality of 

program complaint investigations, and conduct investigations and compliance reviews.

Jan. 1997 USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) began issuing reports in response to concerns of 

minority farmers and other socially disadvantaged program participants that little was being done 

to resolve discrimination in the award of program benefits. The first report examined civil rights 

 

6 See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 256–57; Delegations of Authority by the Secretary of Agriculture 

and General Officers of the Department, 7 C.F.R. § 2 (2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA’s Office of 

Civil Rights–Mission Statement,” July 10, 2002, <www.usda.gov/da/cr/mission.htm>. 

7

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 256–57; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Rights Action Team, 

“Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture,” February 1997, p. 47 (hereafter cited as USDA, 

CRAT Report). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 8

issues in farm loan programs and the department’s civil rights complaint system. Over the next 

four years, seven other reports followed. They provided nationwide and state-by-state data on 

minority participation in the Farm Service Agency’s farm loan programs (Dec. 1997) and looked at 

efforts to reduce the backlog of program complaints (Sept. 1998) and implement civil rights 

settlements (March 1999). A March 2000 report found that the Office of Civil Rights had 

implemented only 13 of OIG’s 54 past recommendations. Although OIG had recommended a 

transformation of complaint processing, OCR had made no significant changes in how complaints 

were processed.

Feb. 28, 1997 The Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT), a workgroup the Secretary formed in December 1996 to 

study civil rights issues, issued 92 recommendations asking for improvements in management’s 

commitment to civil rights, program delivery and outreach, and the organizational structure of civil 

rights by March 2000. In 2003, OCR reports having addressed more than 145 OIG 

recommendations—all but four of them.

Mar. 1997 USDA consolidated civil rights functions (divided in 1995) under a new Office of Civil Rights 

(OCR). As before, OCR’s director reported to the Assistant Secretary for Administration. A May 16, 

1997, Secretary’s memorandum clarified that the director was to supervise the performance of all 

USDA civil rights functions; to investigate, adjudicate, and resolve all complaints of discrimination 

from USDA programs; and to provide civil rights guidance and oversight to USDA agencies. The 

new office had complaint units for employment and program delivery and an increased 

enforcement budget.

Aug. 1997 USDA established (1) an Office of Outreach under the Assistant Secretary for Administration to 

provide leadership, coordination, and expertise to promote equal access to USDA programs and 

services among all constituents, particularly the underserved; and (2) a Civil Rights Division within 

the Office of General Counsel.

Mar. 1998 The Civil Rights Implementation Team, formed in March 1997 to guide the implementation of the 

CRAT’s recommendations, issued a report stating that all but two of the 92 recommendations 

were being implemented. The remaining two recommendations involved settling the backlog of 

program discrimination complaints, including the class action black farmers had filed, and having 

Congress pass legislation to address problems of inequitable access to USDA programs and 

services. Because implementation of many recommendations was ongoing, an April 2000 USDA 

report indicated that approximately 60 percent of the recommendations were implemented; 

progress had been made on another approximately 30 percent; and 10 percent required 

congressional action.

Apr. 1999 USDA entered into a landmark class action settlement with African American farmers who were 

victims of racial discrimination through the department’s farm lending and benefit programs.

Jan. 2000 USDA’s Office of Civil Rights established an Intake Division for more timely and efficient 

processing of incoming program complaints. Newly developed operational procedures ensured 

that non-jurisdictional cases were not accepted or investigated. Additional staff was assigned to 

the unit and standardized letters were developed to expedite complaint processing. As a result, 

the backlog of cases in the intake stage was reduced.

Apr.–Oct. 2000 USDA’s Office of Civil Rights, with input from agency directors and employees, developed and 

issued a plan for long-term improvement. The report found that the Office of Civil Rights’ staff was 

insufficient in numbers and needed more civil rights training and increased knowledge of agency 

programs. It also found that systems and processes for handling complaints were inadequate and 

that the automated tracking system was inefficient. Although designed to improve all aspects of 

civil rights operations, the long-term improvement plan emphasized improvements that would 

ensure discrimination complaints were processed consistently, effectively, and in a timely manner.

Nov. 2001 USDA’s Office of Civil Rights created agency civil rights evaluations to enhance the agencies’ civil 

rights efforts and issued interim standard operating procedures, finalized in March 2003, for 

planning and conducting them. The evaluations focus on USDA agencies’ civil rights program 

organization, allocation of resources, and operations to carry out their civil rights responsibilities.

May 13, 2002 Congress passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 designating a position of 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 9

Sept. 2002 A General Accounting Office report found the Office of Civil Rights had made progress in reducing 

its untimely processing of discrimination complaints. To further improve timely processing, GAO 

found that OCR needed to (1) increase staff skills and reduce turnover; and (2) track complaint 

processing times though all phases of resolution, not just through the investigation phase. 

Apr. 1, 2003 The Secretary swore in Vernon Parker to fill the new position of Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights.

Because of numerous structural and name changes that OCRE underwent, in 1996 the 

Commission recommended that OCRE focus on (1) rebuilding its Title VI enforcement program, 

(2) implementing any further organizational changes dictated by the needs of the Title VI 

enforcement program, and (3) managing any further restructuring in ways that avoid 

interruptions to OCRE’s day-to-day Title VI enforcement activities.8 The events reflected in 

table 2.1 show that USDA continued to restructure its civil rights functions in order to address 

recognized problems. As a result, enforcement efforts often suffered as the department struggled 

to come to an enforcement position acceptable to executives and managers throughout its 

component agencies. This struggle is still evident today. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Office of Civil Rights’ Line of Authority to the Departmental Secretary 

 After USDA reorganizations during the mid-1990s, the director of OCRE reported to the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration. In 1996, the Commission expressed concern that this 

placement left several layers between the director and the Secretary and did not provide 

sufficient access to the Secretary to ensure that civil rights issues were integrated fully into 

USDA policy and resource decisions. The Commission concluded that based on the structure, 

civil rights enforcement was not a high priority and recommended that the OCRE’s director 

report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture and not through the Office of Administration.9

 

USDA officials did not heed the Commission’s recommendation; they disagreed that 

changing the reporting lines would result in improved civil rights enforcement.10 Instead, the 

passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, on May 13, 2002, established a 

position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights reporting to the Secretary (see figure 2.2).11 With 

the newly appointed Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the Office of Civil Rights now has 

direct access to the Secretary of Agriculture.12

 

8

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 268. 

9

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 254, 268. 10 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume III 

of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Department of Administration, Office of Civil Rights, Jan. 31, 

2003, tab 2 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR Interrogatory). 11 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134, § 10704 (to be codified at 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6918, 7014(b)). 

12 Frederick D. Isler, deputy director for programs, Office of Civil Rights, USDA, letter to Les Jin, staff director, 

USCCR, June 4, 2003, p. 1 (hereafter cited as Isler letter, 2003). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 10

The Separation and Placement of Enforcement Functions 

In 1996, the Commission expressed concerns about whether Title VI enforcement would 

receive attention because of competing civil rights responsibilities. First, the reorganization 

assigned to OCRE responsibilities for discrimination complaints involving employment within 

the department (Title VII enforcement) in addition to complaints lodged against USDA program 

delivery (Title VI enforcement).13 The Commission was concerned that USDA’s Title VI 

enforcement would suffer as OCRE worked on improving the previously ineffective Title VII 

enforcement. It recommended that USDA organize OCRE into two separate units having 

different supervisory staff devoted to civil rights enforcement of USDA employment and 

program delivery. The Commission said that in order to maximize effectiveness, each unit 

should have its own dedicated staff and that any functions related to USDA’s Title VII 

responsibilities should be transferred out of the program unit, i.e., the division handling matters 

concerning discrimination against USDA customers or program beneficiaries.14 

 Today, an OCR official reports that 80 percent of OCR’s activities are federally 

conducted programs. Federally assisted programs, covered by Title VI, are only 20 percent of the 

office’s activities. Title VI covers only 10 to 20 percent of OCR’s mission area. Thus, the 

Commission’s examination of USDA’s civil rights enforcement, as a follow-up to a 1996 study 

of Title VI enforcement at many federal agencies, is limited in scope. Nonetheless, the 

Commission is still concerned about whether Title VI receives the necessary attention, not 

because of the allocation of civil rights resources within the primary civil rights unit, but because 

other units that may not have civil rights expertise control aspects of program delivery that affect 

Title VI enforcement. The department struggles to maintain an organizational structure that 

consolidates all civil rights functions under civil rights leadership. For example, in October 1995, 

USDA divided civil rights responsibilities between two offices under the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration.15 The functions were consolidated again in a 1997 reorganization that created 

other offices with civil rights functions that were not part of the newly consolidated civil rights 

unit (see figure 2.1). For example, new offices, also under the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration were to perform outreach and handle small and disadvantaged business 

utilization. Furthermore, because OCR had difficulty obtaining legal assistance on civil rights 

matters from the department’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), the 1997 reorganization 

created a Civil Rights Division (OGC-CRD) within OGC.16 OGC and its Civil Rights Division 

are housed within the Office of the Secretary rather than the Departmental Administration (see 

 

13 Titles VI and VII enforcement are commonly distinguished as external and internal civil rights responsibilities, 

respectively. See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 253, 255, 311. However, because USDA agencies 

and their regional, state, and field offices administer program delivery in a decentralized structure, the Office of 

Civil Rights’ Title VI oversight responsibilities entail an examination of this internal program delivery as well as of 

recipient organizations that typically comprise “external” civil rights enforcement. Because of the possible 

confusion, use of the terms “external” and “internal” have been avoided with the Office of Civil Rights and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service in favor of distinguishing Title VI and VII enforcement as concerning 

program delivery vs. employment (or equal employment opportunity (EEO)). 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 255, 268. 15See USDA, CRAT Report, pp. 47–48; USDA, One Year of Change, p. 17, which describe consolidation efforts in 

1993, 1994, and 1997. 

16 USDA, One Year of Change, p. 17; Delegations of Authority by the Secretary of Agriculture and General Officers 

of the Department, 7 C.F.R. § 2 (2002). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 11

figure 2.2). Thus, USDA’s civil rights functions continue to be spread between multiple offices, 

some of which have supervisors for whom civil rights is not a primary function. Similarly, there 

is no line of authority between OCR and OGC’s Civil Rights Division other than the Secretary. 

Figure 2.1 

Past Locations and Organizational Structures of USDA’s Headquarters Civil Rights Functions

Source: USDA, Civil Rights Action Team, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights 

Action Team, February 1997, p. 47; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in 

Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, pp. 255–56. 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 254–56. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Civil Rights Action Team, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture: A 

Report by the Civil Rights Action Team, February 1997, pp. 48, 52. 

Organizational Structures Before and During 1993

Equal Opportunity 

(later Equal 

Opportunity 

Services) 

Employment and 

Program and 

Compliance Division 

(est. 1993)

Office of Advocacy and 

Enterprise

Compliance, Complaints and 

Adjudication Division (later 

Complaints and Adjudication 

Division)

Office of Personnel

Employee Appeals 

Staff (later EEO 

Complaints 

Management)

moved in 

1993->

Location and Organizational Structure in 1994

Program Complaints 

Adjudication

Evaluation and 

Investigation 

Division

Evaluation and 

Adjudication

Employment 

Complaints 

Adjudicaton Division

Policy and Planning

Disputes Resolution, 

Policy and Planning

Disputes Resolution

Assistant Secretary of 

Administration

Office of Civil Rights Evaluation

Location and Organizational Structure from 1995 to 1997

Office of 

Operations

Civil Rights 

Enforcement & 

Application 

Program Complaints 

and Adjudication 

Division

Employment 

Complaints and 

Adjudication Division

Policy Analysis and 

Coordination Center

Civil Rights [i.e., all other 

civil rights functions] 

Assistant Secretary of 

Administration
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 12

Figure 2.1 (continued)

Past Locations and Organizational Structures of USDA’s Headquarters Civil Rights Functions

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, “Restructuring of Departmental Administration,” Secretary’s 

Memorandum 1010-4, May 16, 1997; USDA, Civil Rights Implementation Team, Civil Rights at the United States Department of 

Agriculture: One Year of Change, March 1998. 

Location and Organizational Structure from 1997 to March 2003

Office of Outreach

Assistant Secretary of 

Administration

Programs Directorate 

(established 2002)

Employment 

Directorate 

(established 2002)

Office of Civil 

Rights
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 13

Figure 2.2 

Organizational Structure of USDA Components with Civil Rights Responsibilities, 2003 

(Showing the relationship between headquarters offices and the USDA agencies according to the 1994 

reorganization, except where offices are noted as established since then)

Source: USDA, “Headquarters Organization,” <www.usda.gov/agencies/agchart.htm> (updated April 2003); USDA, Civil Rights 

Implementation Team, Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture: One Year of Change, March 1998, pp. 19, 32.

OCR officials view both the Office of Outreach (discussed in a later section) and OGC-CRD as 

effective, even though they are not part of OCR. For example, OGC-CRD was established to 

overcome a perception that the Office of General Counsel was hostile to, and thus taking 

insensitive legal positions on, civil rights issues17 and to provide attorneys who were dedicated 

 

17 USDA, CRAT Report, p. 55. 

Secretary of Agriculture

Office of General 

Counsel

Civil Rights 

Division 

(est. 1997)

Under Secretary of 

Farm and Foreign 

Agriculture Services

Under Secretary of 

Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services

Under Secretary of Natural 

Resources and 

Environment

Farm 

Service 

Agency

Other 

Services

Food and 

Nutrition 

Service

Other 

Services

Assistant Secretary of 

Administration

 Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights 

(est. April 2003)

Office of 

Outreach 

(est. 1997)

Other Under 

Secretaries

Natural 

Resources and 

Conservation 

Service

Other 

Services

Other USDA 

Agencies
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 14

full-time to civil rights.18 Given that no office or staff members were dedicated to providing civil 

rights legal advice before the establishment of this unit, it is not surprising that OCR officials 

view the unit as greatly improving the service OGC provides OCR and USDA agencies on civil 

rights matters. With a staff of eight attorneys and two managers, OGC-CRD assists OCR in 

designing compliance reviews, provides advice on legal questions that arise in investigations, 

and reviews findings of discrimination and settlement agreements. It advises USDA agencies on 

program compliance and enforcement and trains managers, civil rights personnel, and OGC 

attorneys in regional offices on civil rights issues. Department officials do not expect any 

changes in the functions and organizational structure of OGC-CRD now that an Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights has been appointed.19 However, because USDA recognizes that the 

organizational structure could result in a negative perception, in 2003, the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights established a working group to develop standard operating procedures to address 

customers’ misperceptions concerning the reporting structure.20

Through the Farm Security and Investment Act of 2002, Congress established the 

position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to clean up USDA’s problems with 

discrimination. Prior to being appointed, a nominee served as a USDA contractor, and during 

that time became oriented to USDA and its civil rights program. The nominee was confirmed by 

the U.S. Senate on March 27, 2003, and sworn in by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 1, 

2003. As the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights, he is expected to take on the 

task of handling the deluge of complaints charging bias in the department’s loans practices and 

other farm programs that affect minorities and women.21 For the reasons discussed in this 

chapter, the new Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights has an extraordinary challenge in front of 

him. To be effective in eradicating discrimination within USDA, he would benefit from drawing 

upon the expertise of others, within and outside the agency, who have extensive civil rights 

experience. 

The 1997 reorganization addressed the Commission’s concern about segmenting civil 

rights to ensure that each element of statutory authority receives attention. The reorganization 

established deputy director positions, one for equal employment and one for program delivery, 

with staffing under each reported separately since then.22

The Commission also expressed concern in 1996 that civil rights responsibilities of 

USDA programs extended beyond Title VI to other laws but resources were not dedicated to 

Title VI and thus it was neglected. Resources specifically allocated to budget and staffing for 

Title VI implementation and enforcement would avoid this neglect.23 As of 2003, the 

Commission is still concerned that, because OCR establishes the amount set aside for Title VI 

enforcement, resources for Title VI can be readily transferred to Title VI or other civil rights 

enforcement. Furthermore, the department could not easily provide information on the agencies’ 

 

18 USDA, One Year of Change, p. 19. 

19 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 4–7. 

20 Isler letter, 2003, p. 7. 

21 Jet Magazine, “Vernon Parker Picked for Civil Rights Post at Agriculture Department, p. 32. 22 USDA, One Year of Change, p. 17; USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 8. 23 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 263, 268–69. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 15

civil rights budgets and staffing to ensure that it devotes sufficient resources to Title VI 

enforcement.24

Office of Civil Rights’ Authority with Respect to USDA Agencies 

 The arrangement of OCR within the Office of Administration rendered OCR’s 

relationship to USDA agencies, such as the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), unclear. The 1994 

reorganization created an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration (ASA) to 

supervise OCR’s activities, but the ASA delegated the authority for enforcing Title VI to OCR’s 

director.25 A 1997 Secretary’s memorandum stipulates that OCR’s director has the responsibility 

to provide oversight, guidance, and coordination for ensuring civil rights compliance of the 

department’s program delivery, including oversight of USDA agencies’ program delivery and 

civil rights enforcement activities.26 A concern that OCR’s assigned oversight of enforcement 

activities of the agencies lacked authority because the ASA did not participate in the 

performance appraisal process for agency heads was partly addressed in 1997,27 when the 

Secretary gave the ASA full authority for ratings on their civil rights performance.28 However, 

OCR’s director had to appeal to his or her supervisor, the ASA, to influence the civil rights 

performance rating of any poorly performing agency head. USDA officials state that this issue 

has been adequately addressed through the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights.29

Civil Rights Responsibilities of USDA Agencies 

 

The Commission finds that OCR delegates civil rights responsibilities to USDA agencies 

in a departmental regulation. Issued in January 1998, the directive assigns responsibility to 

agency heads to establish a full-time civil rights director, and to allocate sufficient resources and 

trained, qualified staff to support civil rights obligations with respect to program delivery.30

Other descriptions of agencies’ civil rights responsibilities are in USDA’s Title VI regulations, 

departmental regulations, and OCRE’s compliance review manual, discussed in more length later 

in this report. 

 

24 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 8; Isler letter, 2003, p. 7. 

25 Delegations of Authority by the Secretary of Agriculture and General Officers of the Department, 7 C.F.R. § 2 

(2002). 

26 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Secretary’s Memorandum 1010-4, “Restructuring of Departmental 

Administration,” May 16, 1997, pp. 2–3 (hereafter cited as USDA, SM 1010-4, 1997). 

27 USDA, CRAT Report, p. 11. 

28 USDA, SM 1010-4, 1997, p. 2. See also U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Departmental 

Regulation 4300-005, Agency Civil Rights Programs,” Jan. 14, 1998 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, DR 4300-005, 

1998). 

29 Isler letter, 2003, p. 8. 

30 USDA/OCR, DR 4300-005, 1998. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 16

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

 In its 1996 report, the Commission found that the departmental budget did not designate a 

specific amount for OCRE’s Title VI implementation. Furthermore, although external civil rights 

enforcement was primarily the function of the program agencies, USDA agencies did not have 

specific allocations for civil rights activities and were funding civil rights activities from their 

budgets for salaries and expenses. The Commission recommended that USDA’s budget include a 

separate allocation for civil rights activities and designate an amount for Title VI enforcement. 

Without a specific designation, resources had been diverted to other functions (including EEO or 

other non-Title VI activities) without a formal decision to do so.31

 The Commission found that OCRE’s budget increases had been granted to accommodate 

the additional responsibilities of internal EEO matters and that the budget for civil rights 

activities related to program delivery, including Title VI enforcement, had declined. The 

Commission implied that OCR should achieve past staffing levels of 56 to 63 full-timeequivalent employees (FTEs) devoted to program compliance and recommended that OCRE 

study its Title VI resources and responsibilities to determine whether they were sufficient to 

fulfill its responsibilities. It asked OCRE to make a formal request for additional resources for 

enforcement if it could demonstrate that the existing resources were inadequate for enforcing 

Title VI.32 

 The Commission now finds that the department still does not have a budget line item for 

civil rights enforcement. Civil rights enforcement funding is subsumed in the Departmental 

Administration budget. Upon receiving its annual allocation, OCR establishes a staffing plan and 

budget, allocating separate amounts for enforcement related to EEO and program delivery. The 

Commission furthermore finds that information about the civil rights funding and staffing at 

USDA agencies is not readily available, indicating the lack of appropriate allocations in the 

agencies’ budgets. USDA could not distinguish the budget for Title VI from that of other 

enforcement to achieve equitable program delivery (e.g., enforcement under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act).33 OCR officials state that tracking of Title VI resources will be improved in 

the future because efforts are underway to enhance the civil rights complaint tracking systems 

and financial management databases to allow additional resource information to be captured, 

secured, maintained, and retrieved. In addition, the newly created office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights will have its own budget beginning in FY 2004, and tracking for 

specific expenditures will improve. A specific budget is designated for Title VI and civil rights 

program enforcement.34

 

 From FY 1997 to 1999, OCR’s budget increased from $10.7 million to $13.3 million and 

gradually since then, reaching $13.8 million in FY 2002 (see figure 2.3). USDA asked Congress 

for additional funding in FY 2000 and OCR asked the department for increases in funding and 

staffing to support Title VI and EEO compliance in FY 2002, but these requests were not 

 

31 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 256–57, 268. 

32 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 257–58, 269. 33 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8, 10. 

34 USDA Interrogatory, tab 10; Isler letter, 2003, pp. 1, 8. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 17

honored. USDA’s FY 2003 request to Congress included $3.5 million additional funding and 17 

additional staff for OCR.35 Instead, OCR received funding similar to its FY 2002 level and a few 

more staff members than in FY 2002—$13.2 million and 152 full-time-equivalent staff.36 

OCR’s resources are distributed among five functions: employment enforcement; 

program enforcement; policy, analysis, research, and evaluation; record keeping; and resource 

management. Figure 2.3 shows the distribution for (1) employment enforcement (e.g., EEO 

complaints); (2) program enforcement (e.g., compliance reviews and complaints about program 

delivery); and (3) the remaining functions (e.g., policy analysis). Program enforcement is 

between a fifth and a third of OCR’s budget. It ranged from a low of $2.6 million in FY 1998 

(lower than in FY 1997) to $4.5 million in FY 2002. In each fiscal year, the amount was greater 

than the employment enforcement’s budget, except for FY 2002 when the employment 

division’s budget was slightly larger at $4.6 million.37 The full cost of Title VI enforcement, 

however, is not captured in the allotment for program enforcement. Enforcement of both Title VI 

and VII requires support in the form of policy, analysis, record keeping, and other functions that 

are labeled in figure 2.3 as “Other OCR activities.” Thus, the figure demonstrates OCR’s 

inability to fully track resources for Title VI separately from those for Title VII. 

Figure 2.3 

USDA Office of Civil Rights Budget, 1997–2002

$-

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

$14.0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Program Delivery Employment Other OCR Activities

Source: USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8, 10. 

 

35 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 1b, 8–10, 12. 

36 Iris Roseboro, budget analyst, USDA, Office of Civil Rights Resource Management Staff, e-mail to Eileen E. 

Rudert, social scientist, USCCR (hereafter cited as Roseboro e-mail). 37 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8–10. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 18

Figure 2.4 

USDA Office of Civil Rights Staffing, 1997–2002

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Number of staff

Program Delivery Employment Other OCR Activities

Source: USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8, 10. 

OCR had 146 full-time employees in FY 1997, which dropped to 121 and 125 in FY 

1998 and 1999, rose to 154 and 152 in FY 2000 and 2001, decreased slightly to 147 in FY 2002 

(see figure 2.4), and rose again to 152 in FY 2003.38 More than a third of the staff is assigned to 

the program division: 65 in FY 1997, 41 in FY 1998, 49 in FY 1999, and between 57 and 59 in 

FY 2000 to 2002.39 Thus, USDA has tried to maintain its program compliance staff nearer to the 

levels that resulted in more effective enforcement in the past. Furthermore, the Commission 

recognizes that since the 1997 reorganization, the total staff engaged in civil rights enforcement, 

including those from the Office of Outreach, the Office of General Counsel’s Civil Rights 

Division, and OCR, has been even higher. Nonetheless, the staff has been cut since 2001. 

In 2000, OCR conducted a study of the number of staff needed to carry out the office’s 

enforcement responsibilities. It compared its staffing levels with the U.S. Treasury, which has a 

similar-sized workforce and receives a similar number of employment complaints. The study 

concluded that USDA had insufficient staff levels for employment and program complaint 

processing.40 USDA’s FY 2003 budget request was based on the benchmarks of this report, 

proposing 17 additional OCR staff, the first of 49 additional positions that OCR planned to seek 

in FY 2003 and future budget requests. Nine of the 17 staff were designated for the program 

 

38 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8–10; Roseboro e-mail. 

39 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 8–10. 

40 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Long Term Improvement Plan for the Office of Civil 

rights, October 2000, pp. 1-3–1-4 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, LTIP for OCR). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 19

division.41 Congress did not honor the carefully justified FY 2003 request.42 Thus, the deputy 

director for OCR’s program division states that USDA continues to have insufficient staff levels 

for program civil rights functions.43

Planning 

In 1996, the Commission recommended that the Office of Civil Rights implement an 

information management system to track resources and expenditures separately for Title VI and 

each of its civil rights activities and that USDA use the tracking system to support and develop 

the annual civil rights enforcement plan.44 

The Commission now finds that OCR has two tracking systems—one that allows 

financial tracking (by outreach, policy, complaint processing, compliance reviews, and other 

civil rights activities) and the other which records actions of stages of complaint processing (e.g., 

intake, investigation, and adjudication). Even with dual tracking, the statutory authorities for 

complaints and other civil rights activities are not recorded. Thus, expenditures for Title VI still 

are not distinguished from enforcement conducted under other statutes. An effort is underway to 

enhance both systems to allow the maintenance and retrieval of additional information.45

According to OCR officials, the office has established concrete civil rights goals and uses 

the tracking systems to monitor progress toward them. Nonetheless, the office has continued to 

struggle both in planning reasonable goals and in reaching them. OCR’s strategic plan for FY 

1999–2003 includes goals to treat customers fairly and equitably and to provide timely and 

equitable resolution of complaints about program delivery.46 The office established goals of 

reviewing the major USDA agencies’ civil rights programs every five years (in essence three 

reviews each year), and of reducing the average processing time of complaints. However, the FY 

2000 performance report reveals that OCR had not reviewed any USDA agency’s civil rights 

programs.47 Furthermore, despite reductions in the department’s length of investigations in both 

FY 2000 and 2001, the program division’s average processing time for complaints still exceeded 

a target of 180 days.48 The October 2000 Long Term Improvement Plan established a benchmark 

 

41 See USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 9; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Long Term 

Improvement Plan, Overview and Accomplishments,” slide presentation, n.d., p. 23 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, 

LTIP slide presentation). 

42 Roseboro e-mail. 

43 Isler letter, 2003, p. 8. 

44 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 268–69. 

45 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 10, 13. 

46 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 14. 

47 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Departmental Administration, “FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report, 

Office of Civil Rights,” n.d. pp. 3,6 (hereafter cited as USDA/DA, FY 2000 APPR, OCR). OCR’s deputy director 

for programs explains that the goal for reviewing USDA agencies’ civil rights programs was for the agencies to 

review their own programs and was not the responsibility of OCR. Isler letter, 2003, p. 13. Regardless, none of these 

reviews were completed. Apparently, the agencies’ accountability for conducting the reviews was lacking. 48 USDA/DA, FY 2000 APPR, OCR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Fiscal Year 2001 

Annual Accomplishment Report,” n.d., p. 1 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, FY 2001 AAR); U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Accomplishment Report: Ensure Fair and Equitable 

Service to Customers and Uphold the Civil Rights of Employees,” n.d. (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, FY 2002 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 20

of accomplishments linked to resources, identified needs for additional staffing, and 

recommended reengineering the processes of intake, investigation, and adjudication of 

complaints. OCR streamlined its complaint-handling procedures in 2002 and announced more 

favorable accomplishments.49 Thus, with streamlined procedures now in place, and a guideline 

of work accomplishments linked to resource expenditures, OCR may be able to plan reasonable 

goals for the first time. 

Policy Guidance 

 A wide range of documents offer policy guidance concerning civil rights. In 1996, the 

Commission reviewed USDA’s major instruments for implementing Title VI enforcement. They 

were the departmentwide Title VI regulations that the Department of Justice requires all federal 

agencies with funding recipients to develop and tailor to their programs;50 a departmental 

regulation establishing compliance review procedures and providing USDA agencies with 

guidance on them;51 and a departmental regulation requiring USDA agencies to identify and 

address the civil rights implications of proposed agency actions before the agencies implement 

them.52 

Departmentwide Title VI Regulations

In 1996, all USDA agencies, including OCRE, had instructions and procedures based on 

the departmentwide Title VI regulations.53 The Title VI regulations identified each USDA 

agency’s assistance programs (e.g., FNS’ Food Stamp Program) and specified the statutory 

authority for administering the programs. However, the list of federally assisted programs and 

activities was not up to date as is required in the Department of Justice’s coordination 

 AAR); U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Agriculture: Improvements in the Operations of the Civil 

Rights Program Would Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers, GAO-02-942, Sept. 20, 2002, p. 3 (hereafter 

cited as GAO, USDA: Improvements). Note that Objective 2.2.1 of OCR’s strategic plan for FY 1999 to 2003 is to 

“Resolve all program discrimination complaints in a fair and equitable manner within 180 days.” USDA/OCR, 

“Office of Civil Rights Strategic Plan, FY 1999–2003,” June 16, 1999, p. 4. The deputy director for programs states, 

however, that 180 days “does not accurately reflect the goals set forth in the CR Strategic Plan, which called for a 

5% reduction each year.” Isler letter, 2003, p. 8. He further states that in FY 2002, the reduction was 27 percent. 

Isler letter, 2003, p. 13. 

49 USDA/OCR, LTIP for OCR, pp. 1-2–1-4; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Long Term 

Improvement Plan Initiative for the Office of Civil Rights: Re-engineered Program Complaints Intake Process, n.d.; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Long Term Improvement Plan Initiative for the Office of 

Civil Rights: Re-engineered Program Investigation’s Process, n.d.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil 

Rights, Long Term Improvement Plan Initiative for the Office of Civil Rights: Re-engineered Program Complaints 

Adjudication Process, n.d.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Functional Long Term 

Improvement Plan for Program Division,” Aug. 5, 2002, p. 3; USDA/OCR, LTIP slide presentation, p. 14. 

50 7 C.F.R. § 15 (1994). 

51 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Advocacy and Enterprise, Departmental Regulation 4330-1, 

“Departmental Policy for Program Compliance Reviews,” June 27, 1986. 

52 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights Enforcement, Departmental Regulation 4300-4,” Civil 

Rights Impact Analysis,” Sept. 22, 1993. 

53 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 251. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 21

regulations.54 USDA also had not updated its regulations to reflect the Civil Rights Restoration 

Act of 1987,55 which clarified the coverage provision of Title VI through its definition of 

“programs and activities.”56 The Commission recommended that USDA update and revise its 

Title VI regulations to reflect the definition of “programs and activities” presented in the Civil 

Rights Restoration Act and publish a revised list of its assistance programs in the Federal 

Register.

57

 The Commission now finds that USDA published an updated list of each agency’s 

assistance programs in the Federal Register in 1999. The list has been published annually in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and is available on the CFDA Web site. OCR 

plans to update the list of programs and activities again during FY 2003 and publish it in the 

Federal Register in FY 2004.58 The Department of Justice led an effort not only of USDA, but 

also 21 other federal departments or agencies, to jointly update regulations for consistency with 

the definition of “programs and activities” given in the Civil Rights Restoration Act, thereby 

clarifying the coverage of the nondiscrimination provisions of civil rights statutes. The proposed 

rules were published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2000, and, more than two years 

later at the time of this report, the Department of Justice anticipated that publication of the final 

rule was “imminent.”59 

Guidance on Compliance Reviews 

 In 1996, the Commission examined and found confusing USDA compliance review 

procedures and guidance (Departmental Regulation 4330-1), especially regarding when and how 

to conduct compliance reviews of recipients and OCR’s oversight responsibility for state and 

field offices. The Commission recommended that the regulation be revised to clarify the 

differences.60

On March 3, 1999, this regulation was replaced with two departmental regulations, 4330-

002 and 4330-003, addressing federally assisted and conducted programs, respectively.61 The 

guidance explains that the civil rights responsibilities of USDA-conducted programs and 

activities require reviews of USDA agencies and the responsibilities of federally assisted 

programs require reviews of the organizations (or their subcomponents) receiving USDA 

 

54 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 251, referencing the Department of Justice’s coordination regulations at 

28 C.F.R. § 42.403(d) (1993). 

55 Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (codified as amended in scattered sections 

of U.S.C.). 

56 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 252. 57 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 268. 

58 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 17. 

59 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 16. 

60 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 258–59, 269. 

61 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 18; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Departmental 

Regulation 4330-002, “Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from 

USDA,” Mar. 3, 1999 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, DR 4330-002, 1999); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of Civil Rights, Departmental Regulation 4330-003, “Nondiscrimination in USDA-Conducted Programs and 

Activities,” Mar. 3, 1999 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, DR 4330-003, 1999). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 22

funding. A compliance review is a routine evaluation of policies and procedures for compliance 

with civil rights statutes, regulations, and policies. The types of compliance reviews include a 

more focused examination of a particular program or activity of an agency, organization, or a 

subcomponent (i.e., a “program review”), or a broad investigation of an agency or organization, 

its subcomponents, and programs and activities (i.e., an “agency review”) in the case of federally 

conducted programs, and a “pre-” or “post-award recipient review” for federally assisted 

organizations or entities.62 An OCR official clarified that, except for the entity reviewed, the 

definition of a compliance review is essentially the same for both federally conducted and 

assisted programs.63

 

In response to a March 2000 internal audit report, OCR has begun conducting agency 

civil rights evaluations. Agency civil rights evaluations are the process through which OCR 

assesses and monitors USDA agencies’ efforts to meet their internal and external civil rights 

obligations in assisted and conducted programs. The evaluations are restricted to an assessment 

of the agency’s civil rights program, not its conducted or federally assisted programs. Three such 

evaluations were conducted in FY 2002.64

In 2001, OCR issued standard operating procedures for the agency civil rights 

evaluations it conducts, distinguishing “agency” and “headquarters” evaluations.65 Standard 

operating procedures issued for “program” compliance reviews in 2002 declared “headquarters” 

and “agency” reviews were functionally the same, but contrasted them to a program review, 

which is focused on a particular program or activity.66 Thus, OCR has not succeeded in 

clarifying the types of compliance reviews or agency civil rights evaluations, particularly in 

distinguishing the ambiguous meanings of the word “program” that may refer either to a 

particular program, such as the Food Stamp Program, or to program delivery generally. 

OCR has a proposed departmental manual that, according to the deputy director of 

programs, describes compliance reviews and clearly distinguishes OCR and USDA 

responsibilities.67 It redefines compliance reviews to conform to Department of Justice guidance 

issued in 1998. The manual was issued in draft form in June 2001 and was not yet through final 

clearance in June 2003.68

 

62 USDA/OCR, DR 4330-002, 1999; USDA/OCR, DR 4330-003, 1999. 

63 Isler letter, 2003, p. 9. 

64 Isler letter, 2003, p. 10. 

65 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights Programs, Program Compliance Division, Agency Civil 

Rights Evaluations, Interim, Nov. 2, 2001, p. 4. 

66 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Program Compliance Division, FY 2002 Standard 

Operating Procedures for Civil Rights Program Compliance Reviews, May 1, 2002, p. 4. 67 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Departmental Manual 4330-002, “Procedures for Processing Administrative 

Discrimination Complaints and Conducting Compliance Reviews in USDA Financially Assisted Programs and 

Activities,” June 22, 2001 (hereafter cited as USDA, DM 4330-002). 68 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 18; Isler letter, 2003, pp. 9–10. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 23

Civil Rights Impact Analyses 

When the Commission reviewed OCR in 1996, USDA had newly issued a departmental 

regulation requiring OCR to identify and address the civil rights implications of proposed policy 

actions before those actions are approved and implemented, a procedure known as a Civil Rights 

Impact Analysis (CRIA). The Commission asked USDA’s civil rights office to ensure that 

thorough CRIAs fulfill the promise of this regulation and that programs with harmful civil rights 

effects be abandoned or modified.69 

In 2003, the Commission finds that OCR reported the completion of 265 CRIAs during 

FY 1999 to 2001. Of these, six analyses represented proposed actions involving OCR (e.g., its 

civil rights training and training modules); 18 concerned the Departmental Administration of 

which OCR is a part; 20 the Food and Nutrition Service; 71 the Farm Service Agency; and eight 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service.70

Notably, an analysis of the civil rights implications of the 2002 farm bill was not yet 

available.71 OCR has assigned civil rights specialists to specific USDA agencies to assist in 

completing CRIAs on the effects of the 2002 farm bill. Thus, through this process, the specialists 

should have identified and alleviated any of the new legislation’s negative consequences for civil 

rights.72

 

OCR can exercise authority to change negative civil rights impacts in two ways. First, if 

agency-imposed regulatory provisions or eligibility criteria create barriers or restrict access to 

programs and activities for racial or ethnic groups without a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, 

OCR will withhold its approval of rules published in the Federal Register, effectively blocking 

issuance until agencies take actions to eliminate or alleviate the negative impacts. Second, if 

OCR’s program compliance division finds civil rights deficiencies in an agency’s programs and 

activities, it can require the agency and funding recipients to submit corrective action plans to 

achieve compliance and can monitor the implementation of such plans until compliance is 

achieved. Compliance reviews conducted from FY 1998 to 2000 resulted in 16 corrective action 

plans, half of which were closed and the other half of which were in various stages of 

implementation in December 2002.73 

OCR last provided technical training to agency civil rights professionals and program 

experts responsible for preparing CRIAs in FY 1999. More recently, OCR assigned civil rights 

specialists to assist USDA agencies in completing CRIAs related to the new farm bill as a form 

 

69 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 259. 70 Numbers compiled from USDA/OCR, “Semiannual Tracking Report of Agency Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

(CRIA) for FY 1999–2001,” Dec. 2, 2002. 

71 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Document Request for 

Volume III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Department of Administration, Office of Civil 

Rights, Jan. 31, 2003, tab 6. 

72 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 21. The deputy director for OCR’s program division states that the proactive 

approach of working directly with USDA agencies is a more constructive approach to reviewing the farm bill’s 

program regulations than conducting civil rights impact analyses. Isler letter, 2003, p. 11. 

73 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 22. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 24

of technical assistance and in an effort to increase the effectiveness of impact analyses. In 

addition, OCR is revising the departmental regulation on CRIAs to clarify the requirements, 

streamline the process, and more clearly define the roles of OCR, the agencies, and the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration for conducting them.74

Other Policy Guidance 

 In its 1996 report, the Commission also recommended that USDA’s civil rights office 

develop more policies and issue further guidelines to ensure consistent enforcement throughout 

the agency. Specifically, it asked for policy guidance on the implications of the Civil Rights 

Restoration Act for its Title VI enforcement, on how Title VI enforcement is affected by block 

grant programs, and on the USDA agencies’ obligations for continuing state programs. The 

Commission said that guidance on continuing state programs should spell out the roles of USDA 

agencies and states for ensuring Title VI compliance, indicate that agencies must require states to 

submit methods of administration and submit annual self-assessments on their Title VI 

compliance programs, and require the USDA agencies to conduct periodic reviews of states’ 

Title VI compliance programs. The Commission also asked OCR to add information to the 

compliance review manual on timeframes for completing tasks, the frequency and cyclical nature 

of compliance reviews, the legal standards for discrimination under Title VI, and the different 

kinds of compliance reviews. The Commission was concerned that the agencies had too much 

latitude in determining how often to conduct reviews of their state and field offices.75

 The Commission finds that as of 2003, OCR has not addressed the foregoing policy 

guidance recommendations. OCR officials stated that they have not yet secured approval of draft 

documents for implementing some of the recommendations. Other recommendations cannot be 

implemented without action from the Department of Justice. Title VI regulations have been 

revised in a joint common rule with other federal agencies, but the Department of Justice has not 

obtained clearances from all the involved agencies and therefore has not issued the final rule.76

USDA cannot issue guidance to USDA agencies without the joint rule. Therefore, OCR has 

disseminated DOJ’s policy guidance, rather than agency-specific guidance, for example, on 

enforcement of Title VI in block grant programs. In another instance, USDA’s departmental 

manual, with guidance on Title VI enforcement procedures, remains in draft form awaiting 

approval; the draft includes timeframes, legal standards, and other information that the 

Commission recommended.77

Technical Assistance 

 In 1996, the Commission reported that the civil rights office’s technical assistance had 

diminished considerably compared with earlier years. OCRE still provided technical assistance 

both to agency heads and to USDA program recipients; however, the desk officer positions, 

through which OCR offered much of the earlier technical assistance, were discontinued. 

 

74 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 21. 

75 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 259, 264–66, 269–70. 76 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 16. 

77 See USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 16, 23–25; USDA, DM 4330-002. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 25

Furthermore, technical assistance was not offered on a schedule, but primarily on request. The 

recent technical assistance that OCRE had offered focused on the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, not Title VI. The Commission recommended that the position of desk officer, one assigned 

to each USDA agency, be reinstated so that OCR could provide regular technical assistance to 

the USDA agencies.78 

 OCR now provides technical assistance during compliance reviews of agencies, 

complaint investigations, and civil rights training. However, the office still does not have the 

resources to fully address the role and responsibilities of desk officers as the Commission 

recommended. In a Long Term Improvement Plan, issued in 2000, OCR has requested a 

substantial increase in the number of positions allocated to its program compliance division. 

Some new positions were approved and filled in FY 2001; others are anticipated in FY 2003. In 

the meantime, OCR has assigned a compliance officer to serve as a liaison to each agency with 

Title VI enforcement responsibilities. For FY 2002, the six liaisons each served from one to five 

agencies. They were expected to participate in the agency’s civil rights and program training, 

spend at least two weeks at the agency soon after receiving their assignments, and interact with 

the agency’s civil rights staff in all matters pertaining to program compliance reviews, 

evaluations, and monitoring corrective action plans and settlement agreements.79

Education and Outreach 

 In 1996, OCRE’s outreach and education activities were limited mostly to the 

dissemination of a civil rights poster, which stated a nondiscrimination policy and explained 

where to file a complaint, and occasional contacts with civil rights and community groups. 

Otherwise, OCRE left Title VI outreach and education to USDA agencies. The Commission 

viewed this as inadequate and recommended that OCR spearhead a departmentwide campaign to 

educate USDA recipients, program participants, intended beneficiaries, and the general public 

about their rights and responsibilities under Title VI. The Commission said the effort should 

fashion a strategy with OCR and the USDA agencies having clearly delineated responsibilities.80

 

In 2003, the Commission finds that USDA’s Title VI outreach and education programs 

remain decentralized. USDA officials stated they had determined that the USDA agencies’ 

structures, with state and county offices throughout the nation, could best serve the range of 

different customer bases. Nevertheless, along with the agency outreach and education program 

offices, USDA created an Office of Outreach to develop a departmental strategy.81 

The Office of Outreach was established in August 1997 and is under the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration. It provides leadership, coordination, facilitation, and expertise to 

ensure that all USDA constituents, particularly the underserved, have equal access to USDA 

programs and services. The office has formed internal and external advisory committees to 

 

78 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 262, 271. 

79 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 29, 44; Frederick D. Isler, for David Winningham, acting director, Office of Civil 

Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture, memorandum to Agency Civil Rights Directors, re: Designation of Program 

Compliance Division Agency Liaisons, Aug. 31, 2001. 

80 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 261, 271. 81 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 43. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 26

further the intent of Title VI legislation. It sponsors conferences and forums, and holds meetings 

with stakeholders to brief them on new initiatives and funding sources and to learn their concerns 

about program delivery.82 USDA provided outreach and assistance to more than 107,000 socially 

disadvantaged farmers and ranchers over a five-year period.83

The Office of Civil Rights, not the Office of Outreach, however, has responsibility for 

USDA’s response to the recent Department of Justice guidance to reduce language barriers that 

preclude equal access of persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to programs and 

benefits. Thus, from August 2001 to January 2003, OCR had been implementing the LEP 

requirements set forth in Executive Order 13,166 and DOJ guidance.84 For example, OCR 

published guidance explaining the obligations of USDA recipients of funding and briefed agency 

civil rights directors on the subject.85

Complaint Processing 

 In 1996, the Commission found that OCRE was conducting all investigations of 

complaints of discrimination and issuing determination of violations or compliance. It only had a 

formal memorandum of understanding delegating certain complaint processing activities to the 

Food and Nutrition Service, although some other USDA agencies performed preliminary 

activities, too. The Commission recommended that the civil rights office enter into formal 

memoranda of understanding with all USDA agencies performing Title VI complaint 

processing.86

 The Commission now finds that a 1997 Secretary’s memorandum clarified that (1) the 

OCR director has full responsibility for investigation, adjudication, and resolution of complaints 

of discrimination arising out of USDA’s programs; and (2) OCR can delegate the conduct of 

preliminary investigations of program discrimination complaints to the heads of USDA agencies 

and offices, but OCR’s director will make final determinations as to whether discrimination 

occurred and how such cases will be adjudicated and resolved.87 As of 2003, two of the three 

agencies studied here—FNS and NRCS—had formal agreements about their and OCR’s roles in 

processing complaints. The memoranda assigned the two agencies the responsibility of logging 

in complaints, determining their jurisdiction, conducting investigations, maintaining records of 

complaint processing activities, and training all staff members who have been delegated 

complaint processing authority or responsibility. OCR retained the authority to initiate and 

complete investigations in certain cases. For example, for FNS, OCR retained this authority for 

class complaints; those raising systemic issues or concerning politically sensitive matters; 

instances of multiple complaints filed against a particular program or political subdivision; and 

 

82 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 43. 

83 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Assisting America’s Small Farmers and Ranchers in the 21st Century, n.d., p. 43. 84 Exec. Order No. 13,166, 3 C.F.R. § 289 (2001), reprinted in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d-1 (Law. Co-op. 2003). 

85 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 43. 

86 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 261, 271. 87 USDA, SM 1010-4, 1997, p. 2. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 27

challenges or appeals to the agency’s findings or decisions.88 In practice, however, FNS writes 

preliminary decisions on all complaints and submits them to OCR for review and approval. OCR 

either affirms the decisions or returns the cases to FNS for further investigation.89

 In the past, OCR delegated responsibility for conducting preliminary inquiries into 

complaints filed against the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA’s) program delivery. Because of 

concerns about discrimination in program delivery that arose in the Pigford v. Veneman consent 

decree,90 OCR terminated the FSA’s authority in such matters. Now, OCR’s program 

investigation division or outside contractors conduct all investigations of FSA’s civil rights 

complaints.91

 By retaining the authority to make determinations on program delivery complaints, OCR 

can ensure the USDA agencies’ quality and consistency of complaint handling. However, some 

reports have suggested that OCR’s processing of complaints is poor. A March 2000 report of 

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) raised concerns about the consistency with which 

cases were processed and the accuracy of information maintained on them.92 

Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show USDA’s program delivery complaint inventory and processing 

time from 1996 to 2002. (Recall that OCR cannot separate the Title VI complaints.) The number 

of new program delivery complaints filed each year was increasing until FY 1999, when it 

reached 1,224. This number decreased to 637 in FY 2000, but increased thereafter, returning to 

its former high level in FY 2002 (see figure 2.5).93 Figure 2.5 also shows a tremendous increase 

in the number of complaints processed—from 477 in FY 1998 to 1,500 in FY 1999. However, 

processing waned thereafter, ending at 1,126 complaints processed in FY 2002. OCR officials 

estimate that about 20 percent of its caseload concerns Title VI enforcement. This amounts to 

250 of the complaints received, or 300 of those processed in FY 1999.94 

OCR has reduced the backlog of open complaint cases in recent years. Although more 

than 1,500 cases were open at the end of FY 1998, the number has decreased to about 600 in FY 

2000 and 2001, and was just under 700 in FY 2002 (see figure 2.5).95 

 

88 USDA/OCR, FNS, “Memorandum of Understanding between the Food and Nutrition Service and the Office of 

Civil Rights, Apr. 3, 1998; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, “Memorandum of Understanding between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights,” Jan. 31, 2001. 

89 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 35. 

90 Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Pigford is a class action lawsuit brought by African 

American farmers alleging USDA racially discriminated in the administration of federally funded credit and benefit 

programs. The terms of the consent decree remain in litigation. 

91 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 34. 

92 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Office of Civil Rights Status of the Implementation 

of Recommendations Made in Prior Evaluations of Program Complaints, Audit Report No. 60801-4-Hq, March 

2000, pp. i–vii. See also GAO, USDA: Improvements.

93 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 39. 

94 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 36. 

95 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 37. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 28

OCR reports that staff reduced the average number of days for processing program 

delivery cases from 576 in FY 1998 to 195 in 2002 (see figure 2.6). It was 434 in FY 2000 and 

240 in FY 2001.96 However, at least in the past, OCR has only tracked the processing time for 

complaints through the investigation phase.97 A General Accounting Office report concluded that 

in FY 2000 and 2001, OCR took an average of 365 and 315 days to complete just the 

investigation phase. The average processing time when all stages of complaint resolution are 

accounted for were 772 and 676 days for FY 2000 and 2001.98 The deputy director of OCR’s 

program division clarified that the average processing times depicted in figure 2.6 include all 

stages of processing and noted his division’s continued improvement in reducing the length, 

regardless of how processing time is calculated.99

Figure 2.5 

USDA Civil Rights Complaint Inventory for Program Delivery, All USDA Agencies, 1996–2002

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Number of complaints

New Complaints Filed Cases Processed End of FY Open Cases

Source: USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 36. 

 

96 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 37. 

97 See USDA/OCR, FY 2001 AAR, p. 1, and USDA/OCR, FY 2002 AAR, p. 1, both of which state that processing 

times were recorded based on the dates of case filing and report of investigation; and GAO, USDA: Improvements, 

pp. 3–4. 

98 GAO, USDA: Improvements, pp. 3–4. 99 Isler letter, 2003, p. 11. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 29

Figure 2.6 

USDA Civil Rights Complaint Inventory for Program Delivery, All USDA Agencies, 1998–2002

Average Processing Time 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Average number of days

Source: USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 37; Isler letter, 2003, p. 11.

OCR officials reported trying to improve complaint processing and reduce the backlog in 

FY 2000. First, staff processed more complaints than were received. Second, the office 

streamlined the pre-investigation process. For example, staff no longer investigated nonjurisdictional complaints. Third, OCR implemented a new complaint tracking system and 

established an Intake Division and Customer Service Unit. OCR credits the intake unit with 

reducing the average number of days to determine jurisdiction on a complaint from 300 in FY 

2000 to 130 in FY 2001.100

OCR developed a proposal to further reduce the backlog of discrimination complaints in 

2003. The plan calls for obtaining additional staff and using a triage method for handling 

investigations.101 At the same time, OIG has continued to monitor OCR’s complaint-handling 

operations and urged OCR to implement further changes. For example, in November 2002, OIG 

asked OCR to survey all USDA programs to determine whether civil rights complaint processing 

and compliance review procedures adhere to OCR’s established standards and are consistently 

 

100 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 39, 42; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Programs 

Directorate, “Fiscal Year 2000 Program Accomplishments, October 1, 1999 through September 20, 2000,” Oct. 10, 

2000, pp. 1–2. OCR reports other measures of this accomplishment: (1) the number of claims to review in the 

program complaint tracking system was reduced from 800 in November 1999 to 137 in December 2002; (2) the 

intake backlog was reduced from 472 in FY 2001 to 124 in FY 2002; and (3) 1,192 claims were processed in FY 

2002 alone. USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 42; Isler letter, 2003, pp. 3–5. 

101 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Programs Directorate, “Proposal to Eliminate the 

Backlog of Statute of Limitations and Administrative Program Discrimination Complaints,” circa August 2002, p. 4. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 30

applied by staff trained and experienced in civil rights laws and regulations. In 2003, OCR was 

evaluating the agencies and revising standard operating procedures based on the results.102 

Compliance Reviews 

 Title VI and departmental regulations require USDA agencies to conduct compliance 

reviews to ensure that their programs and funding recipients comply with Title VI requirements 

of nondiscrimination. In turn, the department’s Office of Civil Rights conducts reviews of the 

USDA agencies to ascertain that, among other things, the agencies have appropriate data 

collection and reporting procedures in place to determine whether the programs comply with 

nondiscrimination requirements. 

 In 1996, the Commission found that OCRE’s reviews of USDA agencies evaluated the 

delivery of program benefits, eligibility criteria, and participation rates. These compliance 

reviews included an examination of the USDA agencies’ data collection and analysis system to 

ensure that data were collected and analyzed, and met regulations. However, OCRE did not 

require the USDA agencies to submit an annual data report. The Commission recommended that 

the departmental civil rights office require each USDA agency to submit an annual report on its 

Title VI enforcement to OCRE and suggested the content of the report and appropriate analyses 

of program participants.103 

 USDA has had a spotty history of conducting compliance reviews of USDA agencies 

since the Commission’s last study of the department. Officials reported conducting no 

compliance reviews in 1995 and 1996 and 2000 and 2001 because of budgetary constraints, 

limited travel funds, and organizational and staffing changes. In 1997 and 1998, OCR performed 

four reviews of USDA agencies in the Virgin Islands and 15 reviews of various agencies’ 

programs (including FSA, NRCS, and FNS) in eight states. In 1999, it conducted four focused 

compliance reviews addressing specific areas of concern in southern states (two involving FSA 

programs); and three special reviews of FSA civil rights compliance to respond to a 1997 Office 

of Inspector General report. In 2002, it conducted three evaluations of enforcement at 

headquarters offices of USDA agencies.104 

These compliance reviews resulted in some findings of noncompliance. For example, 

with regard to FSA, OCR found that virtually all states reviewed in 1998 and 1999 were lacking 

or had not implemented outreach plans, particularly ones targeted to Native Americans; were not 

collecting and maintaining program eligibility and participation data by race, ethnicity, and 

gender; and had staff in need of training on civil rights laws, program delivery, and procedures 

such as how complaints are filed.105

 

102 Richard D. Long, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, memorandum to David Winningham, director, Office of Civil Rights, re: Office of Civil Rights Status 

of the Implementation of Recommendations Made in Evaluations of Program Complaints, Nov. 14, 2002. 

103 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 263, 272. 104 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 27. 

105 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of the Farm 

Service Agency in Oklahoma,” 1998, pp. 1–2 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in 

Oklahoma); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, Civil rights Compliance Review Report of the 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 31

Many of OCR’s oversight reviews of FSA and other agencies examined systems of 

collecting program participation and eligibility statistics and found that field offices’ data were 

unreliable or not systematically collected.106 In 2001, OCR issued newly developed standard 

operating procedures for conducting civil rights evaluations of agencies. The procedures instruct 

staff to evaluate the collection and maintenance of civil rights statistical and demographic data, 

but do not ask the agencies to require annual reports of the information.107 The passage of the 

farm bill in May 2002 requires the Secretary to report on program participation rates of farmers 

and ranchers by race, ethnicity, and gender.108 Thus, USDA is drafting a new civil rights data 

collection policy to clarify roles and responsibilities of agencies and recipients. The draft 

guidance requires USDA agencies to analyze such data; however, officials still do not plan to 

require reports. The officials claimed that the Department of Justice’s annual Civil Rights 

Implementation Plan contains sufficient information about agencies’ data collections.109 The 

Commission disagrees. Civil Rights Implementation Plans do not contain any information on the 

race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or gender of program participants or beneficiaries. 

Staff Training 

 In 1996, the Commission reported that OCRE adequately trained employees in its civil 

rights units and regional offices on all civil rights statutes. Although OCRE was also responsible 

for providing training to USDA agencies and for overseeing the USDA agencies in providing 

training to recipients and subrecipients, the office did not have an active or systematic program 

 Farm Service Agency in Mississippi,” 1998, p. 1 (hereafter cited as USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in 

Mississippi); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of 

the Farm Service Agency in South Dakota,” 1998, p. 1; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, 

“Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of the Farm Service Agency in Arkansas,” 1999, pp. i–ii (hereafter cited 

as USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in Arkansas); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, 

“Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of the Farm Service Agency in Georgia,” 1999, pp. i–ii. In addition, the 

compliance reviews found incidents suggesting a pattern of actions denying services to the citizens of the Virgin 

Islands in 1997; a location in Georgia where there were concerns about sensitivity and diversity issues, customer 

service, and low rates of loans to minorities, and disparities in the processing time of minority loan applicants 

compared with nonminority applicants in 1999; and states needing to update compliance review procedures or 

develop a system for conducting periodic civil rights compliance reviews; and the FSA not conducting Civil Rights 

Impact Analyses of all programs in a state. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Executive Summary Civil Rights Compliance Review, U.S. 

Virgin Islands, October 19–29, 1997,” pp. 2–3; Rosalind D. Gray, director, Office of Civil Rights, memorandum to 

Keith Kelly, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, re: “Compliance Reviews, Phillips County[,]Arkansas, 

Dawson[,] Georgia, [and] North Carolina,” Dec. 9, 1999; USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in Oklahoma, pp. 

1–2; USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in Mississippi, p. 1; USDA/OCR, FSA Compliance Review in 

Arkansas, pp. i–ii. 

106 In addition to those cited above, see, e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Office of Civil 

Rights Compliance Review Report, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oklahoma,” 1998, p. 2; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service in Virginia,” 1998, p. 5; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, 

“Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Mississippi,” 1998, p. 2. 

107 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Standard Operating Procedures, Office of Civil Rights Programs, Program 

Compliance Division, Agency Civil Rights Evaluations, Interim, Nov. 2, 2001. 

108 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134, § 10708 (to be codified at 

7 U.S.C. § 2279). 

109 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 51. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 32

to do so. The Commission recommended that OCRE ensure that all USDA civil rights and 

program staff members have training on Title VI; develop a comprehensive Title VI training 

manual to assist USDA agencies in training their civil rights staff, and training materials to 

explain Title VI requirements to agencies’ program staff; monitor the agencies’ training 

programs; and provide annual Title VI training to agency compliance staff.110

 

In 2003, USDA’s departmental regulation requiring annual civil rights training continues 

to exist and was in the process of being updated. But, although all the training offered to fulfill 

this regulation is related to civil rights, none of it directly addresses Title VI rather than more 

general topics such as cultural diversity or program delivery. Title VI was not identified as the 

focus of any training offered or planned from 1997 to 2006.111 Furthermore, OCR’s and the 

USDA agencies’ training materials contained almost no content on Title VI enforcement. For 

example, FY 2001 training programs for FSA and FNS merely discussed programs targeted to 

Indian tribes or reservations and socially disadvantaged groups such as African Americans.112 

 OCR often writes the training modules and reviews any materials agencies use for 

training. Furthermore, the department delayed FY 2002 civil rights training of all employees to 

allow the Office of General Counsel to review its training modules. Once reviewed, the training 

modules will be posted on OCR’s Web site and will be available to agencies through that means. 

FY 2003 training based on the reviewed modules will begin in April 2003; all the modules will 

be available on the Web site by September 2003.113 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

In 1996 and still today, OCR has the responsibility for oversight, coordination, and 

monitoring of the USDA agencies’ Title VI enforcement programs. OCR should conduct regular, 

systematic inspections and evaluations of USDA agencies’ programs to ensure that the agencies 

are fulfilling their civil rights responsibilities. Oversight involves not only field assessment 

reviews of agencies, but also desk audits (i.e., reviews of documents) of civil rights activity at all 

levels of agency operations.114

In 1996, the Commission found that USDA lacked the resources to conduct reviews and 

had not conducted compliance reviews of most USDA agencies in the previous two years. The 

department’s enforcement office no longer had desk officers assigned to each USDA agency to 

conduct ongoing assessments of enforcement. The office staff was able to provide very little 

technical assistance to the agencies, had no regular contact with recipients of USDA assistance, 

and had limited knowledge of the USDA programs. The Commission urged USDA to request the 

 

110 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 262–63, 272. 111 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 45; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Note to Reviewers on Proposed Update of 

Department Regulation (DR) 4120-1,” June 26, 2002. 

112 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 41. Note that another USDA agency, Rural Development, had a training module 

on Title VI and one on compliance reviews, in addition to covering other civil rights statutes. Ibid. 

113 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 45, 49, 50. 

114 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 260–61, 270. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 33

necessary resources to have sufficient desk officers who could monitor and oversee the USDA 

agencies’ Title VI programs.115

In 2003, conducting compliance reviews and agency civil rights evaluations is a way to 

provide oversight and ensure quality in USDA’s civil rights program. The discussion of 

compliance reviews, above, indicates that OCR is completing only a small number of oversight 

reviews of its agencies and either federally conducted or assisted programs. OCR attributes the 

small number of reviews to the lack of staff, and following an FY 2002 increase in staff in its 

programs division, the office conducted one compliance review of a federally assisted program.116 

To further enhance the quality of agency civil rights efforts, OCR created agency civil 

rights evaluations and developed standard operating procedures for planning and conducting 

them. Interim procedures were issued in November 2001 and finalized in March 2003. Agency 

civil rights evaluations focus on the USDA agencies’ civil rights program organization, 

allocation of resources, and operations to carry out their civil rights responsibilities. During FY 

2002, OCR conducted three agency civil rights evaluations at the agencies’ headquarters.117

In addition, the department has completed a Long-Term Improvement Plan to obtain 

more staffing for program compliance functions. The resulting staff increases allowed OCR to 

assign seven compliance officers to serve as agency liaisons, who were instructed to attend the 

agency’s civil rights and program training to expand their knowledge of the program.118 

During its 2003 review, the Commission finds that contact between OCR and agency 

staff is much more frequent than it was in 1996. First, to carry out its oversight responsibilities, 

OCR has monthly meetings with each agency regarding its civil rights compliance, open 

complaints of discrimination, and pending complaint settlements. In addition, OCR hosts 

monthly discussion forums on civil rights topics for three coalitions of agency staff—the civil 

rights directors of the USDA agencies, the Civil Rights Leadership Council, and the 

Departmental Civil Rights Training Committee. OCR also attends agencies’ annual training 

conferences to update agency staff on new civil rights initiatives, reporting requirements, and 

legislative changes; and provides advice and technical assistance on resolving complaints of 

discrimination, conducting compliance reviews, and training and education. For example, OCR 

provides technical assistance to FSA an average of four times per month. OCR provides 

technical assistance on the resolution of complaints to FSA regional offices and meets with FSA 

staff to identify and resolve any problem areas in state and county offices.119 

 

115 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 260–61, 270. 

116 Isler letter, 2003, p. 12. 

117 Isler letter, 2003, p. 12. 

118 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tab 27; Isler letter, 2003, p. 12. 

119 USDA/OCR Interrogatory, tabs 30–32; see also U.S. Department of Agriculture, Standard Operating 

Procedures, Office of Civil Rights, Program Operations, Monthly Agency Reconciliation Meetings, Dec. 15, 1999. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 34

Conclusion 

 Since 1996, civil rights enforcement has undergone numerous changes at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. However, many aspects, ranging from the organizational structure to 

the staffing and resources, indicate that the priority placed on civil rights is not high. The Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, known as the 2002 farm bill, established a position 

of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. The new Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was only 

sworn into office on April 1, 2003. Some civil rights functions, such as outreach and legal 

guidance, are scattered in offices outside the Office of Civil Rights. At the same time, the Office 

of Civil Rights’ responsibilities and activities are not budgeted or tracked separately to ensure 

that each and every responsibility, including enforcement under Title VI, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and other statutes, is fulfilled. 

 USDA does not have a budget line item for civil rights enforcement for the Office of 

Civil Rights or USDA agencies, nor does it designate resources for Title VI enforcement. 

Furthermore, USDA could not distinguish its Title VI workload or expenditures from those of 

the activities that other civil rights statutes required. OCR could not plan reasonable goals for 

Title VI enforcement without knowing what resources would be available. Although shortages of 

staff for conducting compliance reviews and providing technical assistance were evident, OCR 

could not justify its request for additional Title VI resources without knowing how its workload 

was changing and how expenditures relate to accomplishments. 

 Although OCR has issued a wide range of recent policy documents, some key documents 

are not yet final. Notably, at the time of this report, USDA’s Title VI regulations were still in 

draft form in a joint common rule that the Department of Justice had coordinated with 22 federal 

agencies. In addition, OCR’s guidance is still confusing in its distinctions between the types of 

compliance reviews that OCR or USDA agencies conduct of USDA agency components (such as 

state and field offices) and funding recipients. Finally, OCR has an important new instrument for 

enforcing civil rights—a requirement that USDA agencies conduct analyses of the civil rights 

implications of any new agency actions and eliminate any adverse effects before the actions are 

implemented. The office was still clarifying the roles of OCR and the agencies in conducting 

these analyses and training staff to complete them. 

 Other aspects of USDA’s headquarters enforcement still need improvement or require 

monitoring to ensure effectiveness. First, the Office of Outreach would likely be more effective 

if it were located within the Office of Civil Rights. Second, while ensuring consistency in 

complaint processing, OCR must reduce the backlog and shorten and accurately track the 

average processing time. Third, OCR has had a spotty history of conducting compliance reviews 

of USDA agencies. It must establish a regular, systematic schedule of conducting such reviews. 

Furthermore, OCR should require agencies to report for OCR review (1) program participation 

rates by race, ethnicity, and gender, and (2) analyses of them. Fourth, USDA’s civil rights 

training must explain Title VI enforcement, including the agencies’ tools to monitor and elicit 

compliance, for example, policy guidance, outreach, complaint processing, compliance reviews, 

and adverse impact analyses. Fifth, OCR must continue regularly scheduled meetings and forums 

with agency staff to resolve enforcement issues, fulfill its oversight responsibility, and deepen 

knowledge and understanding of enforcement throughout the department and its agencies. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 35

FARM SERVICE AGENCY 

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) was established during USDA’s reorganization in 1994 

as the Consolidated Farm Service Agency and was later renamed the Farm Service Agency.120 It 

incorporated programs from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service (ASCS), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), and the Farmer’s 

Home Administration (FmHA). This reorganization, which was part of the Clinton 

administration’s reinvention of government initiative, was done to streamline and reduce the 

number of government offices and USDA employees.121 The intent was to centralize farm 

service government entities so that farm participants would be able to go to one location for farm 

commodities and farm credit services. This one-stop shopping theory was adopted to provide 

efficient and effective servicing to farmers, eliminating them having to travel to various locations 

to obtain increments of farm services. One-stop shopping would also assist government services 

with organized and collected control of files and other materials. Combining FmHA’s farm credit 

services, ASCS’ farm commodity subsidies, and FCIC’s mission allows for a system of checks 

and balances.122 

The agency’s relationship with farmers goes back to the 1930s. Today, FSA continues to 

provide assistance to eligible individuals and families through supervised credit, outreach, and 

technical assistance in becoming successful farmers and ranchers. The Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act, as amended, authorizes most farm loan programs administered by 

FSA.123 Subtitle A of this act authorizes farm ownership, recreation, and soil and water loans. 

Subtitle B authorizes direct and guaranteed operating loans.124 Farmers and ranchers who are 

temporarily unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere may obtain credit assistance through 

FSA to finance their needs at reasonable rates and terms. Some are beginning farmers or 

minority farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters, or who have 

limited resources with which to establish and maintain profitable farming operations. Thus, the 

farm loan program provides a safety net to family farmers and ranchers who otherwise would be 

unable to contribute to the farm sector.125 

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is the office within FSA responsible for the overall 

leadership and direction in the development and implementation of civil rights policies and 

programs. The FSA/OCR is responsible for developing, implementing, and coordinating agency 

 

120 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume 

III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Farm Service Agency, Office of Civil Rights, Dec. 13, 

2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as FSA Interrogatory). 

121 FSA Interrogatory, p. 2. 

122 FSA Interrogatory, p. 2. 

123 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Pub. L. No. 87-128, 75 Stat. 307 (codified as amended in 

scattered sections of U.S.C.). 

124 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, Pub. L. No. 87-128, 75 Stat. 307 (codified as amended in 

scattered sections of U.S.C.). 

125 Farm Service Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 Annual performance Plan, p. 4. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 36

policies and procedures to ensure compliance with nondiscrimination laws in program 

delivery.126 Its mission also includes processing informal and formal complaints expeditiously. 

 In 1996, the Commission found that many of the state civil rights directors were not fulltime equal opportunity specialists; there was insufficient funding to enforce Title VI and other 

civil rights statutes effectively; instructions, policies, and guidelines had critical deficiencies; 

FmHA funds were distributed without adequate safeguards to ensure that recipients were in 

compliance with Title VI; post-award desk-audit reviews of FmHA recipients were not 

conducted; and FmHA recipients were not required to conduct outreach and education beyond 

displaying a nondiscrimination poster. 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that FSA has even fewer state civil rights coordinators 

who are full-time equal opportunity specialists than in 1996; FSA does not have the ability to 

submit and control its own budget; the agency is not required to submit annual Civil Rights 

Implementation Plans, the agency has been slow to issue needed policy guidance; FSA does not 

process its own complaints without the approval or authority from USDA/OCR; and FSA is 

lacking in providing oversight to state and district offices. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Before FmHA was reorganized into FSA, the director of the Equal Opportunity Staff 

reported to the administrator who was the head of FmHA. Today, that reporting structure is still 

in place. 

In its 1996 report, the Commission found that the office of Equal Opportunity Staff 

(EOS) did not have adequate control over all FmHA staff performing Title VI enforcement 

activities. Although staff in FmHA state offices carried out enforcement activities on a daily 

basis, they did not report to the director of EOS.127 As a result, the Commission recommended 

that all staff engaged in Title VI enforcement activities, including those in FmHA state offices, 

report to the director of EOS. 

During its 2003 review, the Commission finds that staff who carry out Title VI 

enforcement activities in the Compliance Program and Analysis Branch and the Program 

Complaints Inquiry Branch of the FSA/OCR still do not report to the director, but report directly 

to their respective branch chiefs.128 The branch chiefs report to the director of FSA/OCR, who 

directs, coordinates, and implements Title VI enforcement activities (see figure 2.7). The director 

of the FSA/OCR reports to the administrator through the assistant administrator of operations 

management. 

 

126 Farm Service Agency, Civil Rights & Small Business Utilization Staff, Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic & 

Operational Plan, p. 3 (hereafter cited as FSA/OCR, FY 2002 Strategic & Operational Plan). 

127 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 305. 128 FSA Interrogatory, p. 5. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 37

Figure 2.7 

FSA/OCR Organizational Structure, 2002 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights Organizational Chart, Nov. 14, 2002.

In its 1996 report, the Commission recommended that FmHA require that each state 

office civil rights director be a full-time equal opportunity specialist because many of the FmHA 

state office staff conducting day-to-day Title VI enforcement functions for the agency performed 

these functions as a collateral duty.129

As of 2003, there still is no requirement that the state office civil rights coordinator be a 

full-time equal opportunity specialist. According to FSA, each state office civil rights 

coordinator is fully trained in the applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures relative 

to Title VI enforcement and each has comprehensive knowledge of agency programs.130 In 

addition, this combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities enables the state office civil rights 

coordinators to be highly effective in supporting the local, state and national office with Title VI 

enforcement activities. As of October 16, 2002, a state office civil rights coordinator spends, on 

average, 10 to 20 percent of his or her time performing civil rights functions. The remainder of 

the time is devoted to duties associated with the respective positions (e.g., farm loan specialists, 

district directors, farm program specialists, administrative officers).131Although the collateral 

civil rights assignments and accomplishments are made and evaluated by the state executive 

director, when performing their respective positions, state civil rights coordinators receive 

supervision from their immediate supervisors.132 As of October 16, 2002, Indiana was the only 

state office with a full-time civil rights director who devoted 100 percent to civil rights duties.133

However, it is only through full-time duty that civil rights coordinators develop knowledge and 

experience sufficient to carry out compliance duties. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

During the 1996 review of FmHA, the Commission found that it had the capability to 

track its Title VI expenditures separately from other civil rights expenditures, but it was not 

 

129 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 305–06. 130 FSA Interrogatory, p. 5. 

131 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

132 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

133 FSA Interrogatory, p. 6. 

Director

Deputy Director

Kansas City 

EEO/CR Branch

Compliance Program 

and Analysis Branch

Equal Employment 

Opportunity Branch

Counseling and 

Mediation Branch

Program Compliance 

Inquiry Branch
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 38

making use of this capability. The Commission recommended that FmHA track its Title VI 

expenditures separately to develop an annual Title VI enforcement plan.134

In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that FSA tracks its Title VI expenditures 

separately from its expenditures on other civil rights activities by working closely with the 

Financial Management Division, Human Resources, and the department’s Office of Civil 

Rights.135 According to FSA/OCR, it is able to monitor all Title VI expenditures, and a weekly 

report is provided to the director for review.136 The ability to examine all expenditures has 

enabled the Compliance Program and Analysis Branch to monitor its attainment of goals and 

objectives and to make modifications based on timely data, the results of which are provided as 

part of the annual program performance report’s management initiatives.137

When the Commission’s 1996 report was published, funding for the Equal Opportunity 

Staff (EOS) had fallen sharply in FY 1994, but its civil rights workload continued to grow. The 

Commission recommended that EOS use its information system to demonstrate that its budget 

was not sufficient for FmHA to enforce Title VI and other civil rights statutes effectively.138 

In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that FSA/OCR’s budget is monitored and 

tracked by the Financial Management/Budget and Human Resources Divisions.139 Data provided 

by FSA/OCR show that between FY 1999 and 2000, its budget increased 5 percent from $3.9 

million to $4.2 million (see figure 2.8). In FY 2001, the budget decreased slightly, but increased 

again FY 2002 to $4.5 million. During FY 1999 to 2002, the proportion of FSA/OCR’s budget 

consumed by travel has continuously increased from 6.7 percent in FY 1999 to 9.7 percent in FY 

2002. The proportion of the budget used for training has remained constant, at 1 percent, over the 

past four years. Although there has not been an increase in the training budget, all training 

requests have been approved. 

 

134 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 305. 

135 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

136 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

137 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

138 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 306. 139 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 39

Figure 2.8 

FSA/OCR Budget, 1999–2002 

3.9

4.2

4.0

4.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Source: FSA Interrogatory, p. 26. 

In 2003, the Commission finds that the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 

FSA/OCR continued to increase between FY 1996 and 1999 (see figure 2.9). The largest 

increases in civil rights staff occurred between FY 1996–1997 and 1997–1998. The 50 percent 

increase in staff between 1997 and 1998 was a result of implementation of recommendations 

made by the Civil Rights Action Team.140 The number of staff decreased slightly in FY 2000 and 

2002. 

 

According to FSA/OCR, it has a fully staffed Program Complaint Inquiry Branch (PCIB), 

and it along with the Compliance Program and Analysis Branch provide FSA with adequate 

staffing to ensure effective Title VI enforcement.141 The PCIB of the FSA/OCR, located in 

Montgomery, Alabama, was initially established to conduct fact-finding inquires on the backlog 

of discrimination cases in FSA.142 Since its expansion, the PCIB conducts investigations on 

current program complaints, personnel misconduct, OIG hot line complaints, and equal 

employment opportunity/civil rights management reviews. The Compliance Program and 

Analysis Branch staff provides direct assistance on the enforcement of Title VI by supporting 

PCIB with well-trained and knowledgeable investigators able to handle program complaints, 

management reviews, OIG complaints, and misconduct investigations.143 

 

140 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4; FSA/OCR Staffing Levels attachment; USDA, CRAT Report. 

141 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

142 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

143 FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 40

Figure 2.9 

FSA/OCR Staffing, 1995–2002 

55 53

34

16 19

51

52 53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

FTEs

Source: FSA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

Planning 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sets the requirements for Civil Rights Implementation 

Plans in its “Guideline for Agency Implementation Plans” as required by Executive Order 

12,250.144 In its 1996 review, the Commission found that FmHA’s Civil Rights Implementation 

Plans (CRIPs) did not meet DOJ’s requirements. The Commission recommended that FmHA 

develop implementation plans that describe its Title VI enforcement program, including its 

scope, organization, budget and staffing, and the extent to which it conducts civil rights 

activities.145 Because the Department of Justice mandates that the plans be used as a management 

tool, the Commission recommended that FmHA plans provide precise goals and objectives, have 

specific timeframes for accomplishing them, and be based on a realistic assessment of budget 

and staff resources available for civil rights enforcement.146 

In 2003, the Commission finds that FSA is exempt from USDA CRIP submissions. 

Because FSA provides little if any significant federal financial assistance to recipients, conducts 

few if any pre-award and post-award reviews, and has no record of legal and administrative 

enforcement activity, the Department of Justice recommended that FSA be excluded from USDA 

submissions unless new or special circumstances arose.147 

 

144 Exec. Order No. 12,250 §§ 1-101, 1-2-1, 3 C.F.R. § 298 (1981), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (1994). 

145 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 308. 146 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 308. 147 Merrily A. Friedlander, letter to Rosalind D. Gray, Nov. 15, 1999. p. 2. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 41

However, in FY 2002, FSA/OCR developed a strategic and operational plan that includes 

FSA/OCR goals, work requirements and objectives, and an operational plan.148 FSA/OCR 

reviews the plan quarterly to ensure that implementation and enforcement goals are met or 

surpassed.149 According to FSA, the plan conforms to the department’s guidelines and is an 

essential tool in the accomplishment of Title VI responsibilities.150 

Policy Guidance 

 

In 1996, the Commission found several deficiencies in FmHA’s Instruction 1901-E titled 

“Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.” The instruction did not require pre-award reviews of 

recipients, did not address standards for determining compliance with Title VI, and did not 

require recipients to collect and report data on the population eligible for their programs. At that 

time, draft Instruction 1940-D, intended to correct these deficiencies, was undergoing review by 

USDA. As a result, the Commission recommended that FmHA move expeditiously to adopt draft 

Instruction 1940-D and issue policy guidance clarifying standards for compliance with Title VI 

as it applies to FmHA-funded programs.151 

During its 2003 review, the Commission learned that draft Instruction 1940-D still has 

not been adopted, and is currently scheduled for public comment.152 The Notice of Proposed 

Ruling began in February 2003 and will end in April 2003. Instruction 1940-D, if adopted, will 

provide detailed guidelines to field offices for improved enforcement and compliance with civil 

rights laws. In addition, it will provide mechanisms for monitoring compliance by field offices 

and recipients of federal financial assistance at all levels. 

According to FSA, prior to the reorganization, Rural Development, Farmers Home 

Administration, and the Agricultural Soil Conservation Service all used the same civil rights 

compliance instructions. Once the reorganization occurred, the portion of the Farmers Home 

Administration and the Agricultural Soil Conservation Service that became FSA, developed and 

utilized 18-AO and 19PM as its guidance for conducting civil rights compliance reviews for Title 

VI and Title VII.153 Rural Development retained Instruction 1940-D. Therefore, FSA does not 

recognize Instruction 1940-D as a portion of its compliance regulatory policy.154

While FSA has not adopted Instruction 1940-D, it implemented the Departmental 

Regulation 4300-005, which requires that (1) a full-time civil rights director be established 

within each agency; (2) each agency have a single civil rights office in Washington, D.C.; and 

(3) agency heads allocate sufficient resources and assign trained qualified staff in sufficient 

numbers to support the agency’s obligation for developing and implementing a comprehensive 

 

148 Farm Service Agency, FSA/OCR, “Fiscal Year 2002 Strategic & Operational Plan.” 149 FSA Interrogatory, p. 8. 

150 FSA Interrogatory, p. 8. 

151 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 306. 152 FSA Interrogatory, p. 12. 

153 Sharon Lynn Holmes, director, Office of Civil Rights, FSA, letter to Margaret Butler, civil rights analyst, 

USCCR, June 3, 2003, p. 2 (hereafter cited as Holmes letter). 154 Holmes letter, p. 2. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 42

civil rights program.155 A full-time civil rights director was established and that person reports to 

the agency head. Resources and trained staff have been allocated to support the agency’s 

obligation for developing and implementing a comprehensive civil rights program. 

The Compliance Program and Analysis Branch and Program Complaints Inquiry Branch 

are responsible for statistical evaluation and reporting in order to measure program participation 

and determine the extent of participation and receipt of benefits by minorities, women, and 

persons with disabilities. According to FSA, the Compliance Program and Analysis Branch also 

has trained state civil rights coordinators to assist the branch in establishing and maintaining 

effective information, notification and public outreach policies, programs and procedures as well 

as establishing goals and objectives designed to increase participation of underrepresented 

groups in agency programs.156 

Education and Outreach 

In its 1996 review, the Commission found that FmHA did not require its recipients to 

conduct outreach and education beyond displaying the OCRE nondiscrimination poster, “And 

Justice for All,” at its facilities and/or office if it financed the facilities with an FmHA loan or 

grant and are subject to Title VI. Although FmHA staff engages in some outreach and education, 

such activities are not part of a systematic program. The Commission recommended that in 

addition to displaying a nondiscrimination poster, FmHA should require recipients to make 

available informational brochures on their programs and Title VI.157 

The Commission now finds that Instruction 1901 discusses the responsibilities of 

recipients to provide adequate outreach education on their programs and on Title VI as it relates 

to the program.158 According to FSA, after finalization, Instruction 1940-D will provide detailed 

guidelines to field offices for improved enforcement and compliance with civil rights laws, and 

provide mechanisms for monitoring compliance by field offices and recipients of federal 

financial assistance at all levels.159

 FSA indicated that recipients use several methods in addition to posters to provide 

information on their programs and Title VI. Methods used to inform underserved populations 

include use minority media to advertise employment opportunities, issuing publications, forming 

 

155 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Agency Civil Rights Programs,” DR 4300-005, Jan. 14, 

1999, p. 1. 

156 FSA Interrogatory, p. 13. 

157 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 307. 

158 Section 1901.202 specifies that the nondiscrimination poster be prominently displayed at the facilities and/or 

office of any borrower or grantee if the facilities have been financed by FSA and are subject to Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964; Section 1901.203(C)(2)(vi) states that recipients must undertake efforts to publicize the 

availability of housing opportunities to minority persons through the type of media customarily used by the 

applicant or participant, including minority publications and other minority outlets available in the housing area; and 

Section 1901.204 states that the compliance reviewer should be aware of the borrower’s method of advertising the 

facility to the public, including how well these methods reach the minority community. 159 FSA Interrogatory, p. 10. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 43

partnerships with organizations serving the underrepresented groups, and holding public 

meetings.160

 FSA provides posters in a variety of languages via the USDA Web site.161 Employees 

working out of Service Centers, which are centralized locations where FSA, NRCS, and the 

Rural Development services are available, can download posters in languages of their respective 

clientele, including, but not limited to, Spanish, French, German, and Vietnamese. In addition, 

forms and other publications, as well as translation services, are available to FSA as a result of 

the Limited English Proficiency Initiative.162 As a result of this initiative, FSA has trained staff 

members on LEP policies and procedures, encouraged the use of the LEP Web site, and provided 

interpretive services to persons with limited English proficiency.163

 Additionally, FSA uses the following types of organizations and groups to provide 

outreach, technical assistance, employment opportunities, and solicitations for bids to provide 

services: 

• minority groups on state and county committee boards; 

• minority members on FSA boards; 

• 1890 colleges and universities;164

• local and state minority groups; 

• ethnic newspaper and magazines; 

• local minority churches; and 

• local and state television and radio stations.165

Technical Assistance 

In its 1996 review, the Commission found that FmHA provided only limited technical 

assistance to its recipients. As a result, the Commission recommended that FmHA offer technical 

assistance proactively, whenever pre- or post-award desk-audit reviews reveal compliance 

problems, and during on-site compliance reviews, whether conducted by state program personnel 

or by state civil rights directors.166

 

160 FSA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

161 FSA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

162 FSA Interrogatory, p. 10. On August 11, 2000, then-President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13,166, which 

was aimed at improving access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities for persons 

who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency. See Exec. Order No. 13,166, 3 C.F.R. § 

289 (2001), reprinted in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d-1 (Law. Co-op. 2003). 163 FSA Interrogatory, pp. 10–11. 

164 1890 Colleges and Universities, established under the 1862 Morrill Act, were to teach agriculture, military 

tactics, mechanical arts, home economics, and other traditional studies to working-class citizens. Today, there are 18 

colleges and universities in the United States, including the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, all of which 

are historically black land grant institutions. 

165 FSA Interrogatory, p. 11. 

166 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 307. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 44

In 2003, FSA/OCR indicated that it strives to provide recipients with the tools and 

support needed to enable them to come into and maintain compliance.167 According to 

FSA/OCR, recipients are evaluated for compliance in several areas of program delivery. 

Evaluations of recipients’ public awareness efforts, data collection, accessibility, and federally 

assisted programs are completed to assess their adherence to civil rights laws, rules, and 

regulations. Assistance is given to recipients by linking them with minority media and 

organizations that can help them meet their public awareness needs. 

Complaint Processing 

In its 1996 review of FSA, the Commission found that EOS staff performed complaint 

investigations, although OCRE made the final determinations of compliance or 

noncompliance.168 In addition, the Commission found that although FSA used a computerized 

tracking system to monitor the status of discrimination complaints daily, the influx of new 

complaints made it difficult for the tracking system to remain current for any length of time.169 

 In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that USDA’s Office of Civil Rights 

(USDA/OCR) continues to make the final determination on all complaints. Whether a complaint 

is submitted orally or in writing, the director of FSA/OCR must forward it to USDA/OCR for 

review. If the complaint is accepted as complete at the departmental level, FSA/OCR is so 

informed and directed to conduct a limited investigation.170 After the investigation is completed 

by FSA/OCR, an agency position statement, along with the investigation findings, is forwarded 

to USDA/OCR within 24 days after receiving the assignment for final determination.171 

 The Commission also finds that as the number of complaints received in FSA/OCR 

increased, the office did not process its complaints within the 24-day period as required. Between 

FY 1996 and 1997, FSA/OCR’s complaint workload increased from 41 to 293, resulting in a 

backlog of 105 cases in FY 1997.172 Since FY 1997, FSA has continued to maintain a backlog, 

although the total has never exceeded the 1997 high of more than 100 cases. In FY 2001, FSA 

closed 71 percent of the complaints that it opened and ended the year with a backlog of 30 

complaints (see table 2.2). It is not clear whether FSA/OCR or USDA/OCR is responsible for the 

FSA backlog of complaints because FSA/OCR does not have the authority to close a complaint 

without consent from USDA/OCR.173 According to USDA/OCR, it holds monthly meetings with 

FSA to reconcile complaint information.174 The backlog of FSA/OCR complaints could 

ultimately result from USDA/OCR’s inability to complete its portion of the processing phase in a 

timely manner. USDA does not have a processing time requirement for all phases of complaint 

 

167 FSA Interrogatory, p. 8. 

168 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 302. 

169 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 302. 

170 FSA Interrogatory, pp. 20–21. 

171 FSA Interrogatory, p. 21. 

172 FSA Interrogatory, p. 21. 

173 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial 

Assistance From USDA,” DR 4330-002, Mar. 3, 1999. 

174 GAO, USDA: Improvements, p. 28. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 45

resolution.175 For FY 2001, when all stages of complaint resolution were accounted for, average 

processing time was 676 days.176

 

Table 2.2 

FSA/OCR Workload, 1994–2001 

Fiscal year Open cases Closed cases Backlog 

1994 42 40 2 

1995 38 37 1 

1996 22 19 3 

1997 199 94 105 

1998 191 102 89 

1999 119 46 73 

2000 113 86 27 

2001 71 41 30 

Source: FSA Interrogatory, p. 21.

Compliance Reviews 

The purpose of a pre-award review is to evaluate the compliance of an applicant for 

USDA assistance before the approval of a grant or assistance. In 1996, the Commission found 

that most FmHA funds were distributed without adequate safeguards to ensure that recipients 

were in compliance with Title VI. As a result, the Commission recommended that FmHA 

conduct pre-award desk-audit reviews of all its applicants, and on-site reviews for large or 

complex projects or where desk-audit reviews suggest that on-site investigation is warranted. In 

addition, the Commission recommended that state office civil rights directors conduct these 

reviews, and that EOS staff review and evaluate their pre-award review programs regularly.177

In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that state office civil rights coordinators still do 

not conduct pre-award compliance reviews. The Price Support Division, the Deputy 

Administrator for Commodity Operations, and the Tobacco and Peanut Division conduct preaward compliance reviews for all of FSA’s federally funded programs when associations, 

cooperatives, warehouses, and respective subcontractors provide program delivery.178 FSA 

conducts a written evaluation of the applicant’s compliance based on, but not limited to, the 

submission of an assurance of compliance. Pre-award reviews can be accomplished by reviewing 

information in the contract and by performing on-site visits. If the review determines that the 

organization is unable to comply with civil rights requirements, the contract will not be 

approved.179

Also in 1996, it was discovered that FmHA did not conduct post-award desk-audit 

reviews of its recipients. In response, the Commission recommended that FmHA institute postaward desk-audit reviews of all recipients, to be supplemented with on-site reviews. The 

 

175 GAO, USDA: Improvements, p. 12. 176 GAO, USDA: Improvements, p. 12. 

177 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 306. 178 FSA Interrogatory, p. 14. 

179 FSA Interrogatory, p. 14. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 46

Commission said that EOS should develop procedures for such reviews, and that state office 

civil rights personnel should conduct the reviews.180

In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that the Conservation and Environmental 

Program Division and the Production Emergencies and Compliance Division of FSA are 

responsible for performing post-award reviews on organizations providing program delivery.181

Post-award reviews, which are normally conducted on site to determine whether organizations 

are administering programs according to EEO and civil rights provisions in its contracts, are 

performed on all organizations at least every two years.182 Specific areas reviewed during postaward audits include whether there have been any complaints filed by employees and/or 

producers based on protected group status; whether the need for bilingual employees or 

translators has been assessed in areas where producers have no or limited-English-speaking 

proficiency; and whether policies for admitting producers to membership are administered in a 

nondiscriminatory manner.183 Additionally, methods for computing charges or collecting fees are 

reviewed to ensure that they are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner and loan contracts 

are reviewed to determine whether the EEO, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and civil rights 

nondiscrimination clauses are included.184 Corrective actions are submitted to the director of 

FSA/OCR within 30 calendar days after each civil rights review. 

In the past, FmHA conducted a large number of on-site compliance reviews each year, 

but the reviews were conducted by state office program personnel and not the state civil rights 

coordinators. As a result, in 1996, the Commission recommended that the state civil rights 

coordinators monitor the quality of the post-award reviews conducted by state program staff.185 It 

was also recommended that the state’s civil rights coordinator provide regular training to state 

program staff about what to look for in a Title VI compliance review. 

While performing its 2003 review, the Commission learned that state civil rights 

coordinators do monitor the quality of the post-award reviews. In addition, the coordinators also 

receive a copy of the corrective actions report, which is submitted to the director of FSA/OCR, 

within 30 calendar days after each civil rights review.186

One of the responsibilities of FSA/OCR is to provide training to the state civil rights 

coordinators to ensure that coordinators can in turn train the state program staff on conducting 

Title VI compliance reviews.187 The most recent training session was held July 23–25, 2002, in 

Atlanta, Georgia.188 In addition to this required 40 hours of FSA on-site training, the civil rights 

 

180 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 306. 

181 FSA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

182 FSA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

183 FSA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

184 FSA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

185 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 306. 

186 FSA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

187 FSA Interrogatory, pp. 15–16. 

188 FSA Interrogatory, pp. 15–16. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 47

coordinators complete 32 hours of self-study training, which, FSA states, allows them to become 

effective coordinators for the respective states.189 

Staff Training 

In the past, FmHA has provided regular civil rights training to its civil rights staff, 

including the state office civil rights coordinators. However, FmHA did not provide civil rights 

training to state office program staff performing post-award reviews of recipients. As a result, in 

1996 the Commission recommended that FmHA expand its existing civil rights training program 

to offer periodic civil rights training, including training on Title VI, to state office program 

personnel who perform post-award compliance reviews of FmHA recipients.190

In the 2003 review, FSA indicates that periodic civil rights training on Title VI to state 

offices is provided through the state civil rights coordinator.191 Coordinators also provide 

training to field staff with guidance and support from the Compliance Program and Analysis 

Branch of FSA/OCR. FSA indicated that annual training is provided to civil rights coordinators, 

district directors, and managers in the following areas: 

• the update of civil rights laws and regulations; 

• the state civil rights coordinator’s role and responsibilities; 

• communication skills; 

• department and agency policies on Title VI program delivery; and 

• evaluation and analysis techniques.192

According to FSA, training in civil rights compliance is required for all employees.193 In 

an effort to provide training to all employees, FSA has developed an updated handbook that 

provides compliance policies and procedures for civil rights, identifies those officials for 

achieving the objectives, and provides procedures for developing, implementing, and 

coordinating the civil rights program within FSA.194 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

 In 1996, the Commission found that FmHA lacked an adequate system for collecting and 

analyzing data from its recipients. The Commission recommended that when the draft Instruction 

1940-D became final, EOS should begin to implement its data collection requirements.195 

 

189 FSA Interrogatory, pp. 15–16; see also U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “State Civil 

Rights Coordinators Training Manual Fiscal Year 2002.” 

190 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 308. 191 FSA Interrogatory, p. 22. 

192 FSA Interrogatory, p. 22. 

193 FSA Interrogatory, p. 22. 

194 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “FSA Handbook–Civil Rights Compliance for FSA 

Programs,” Revision 2, Dec. 17, 2001. 

195 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 308. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 48

 FSA has implemented its data collection requirements, which will allow it to meet its 

goal of increasing manager and employee awareness of equal opportunity and civil rights and 

fulfill its responsibility for achieving equal opportunity and civil rights objectives to improve 

program delivery. The FSA/OCR has developed a data management and information system that 

enables the director to determine how well FSA programs are serving protected groups and 

whether members of protected groups face barriers that prevent them from accessing FSA 

programs.196 According to FSA, the multipronged system includes computerized data collection 

on complaints and complaint status, a streamlined Fact Finding Inquiry process to provide 

accelerated responses to the departmental civil rights office, tracking of the disposition of hot 

line OIG complaints, review of proposed interim and final regulations to determine civil rights 

impact, and regular reviews of states’ civil rights and outreach compliance posture.197

 In 2003, the computerized information component provides FSA/OCR with up-to-date 

status reports on complaints. Data on complaints include, but are not limited to, name, race, 

bases, issues, location, the number of days open, and disposition (if applicable). The data are 

entered into an Access database for easy manipulation and retrieval. Data queries enable the 

FSA/OCR to analyze complaints to identify systemic problems or trends in an effort to 

proactively manage civil rights responsibilities in program delivery around the country.198

 FSA/OCR carries out its responsibility for providing oversight to state and district offices 

by giving direction and assistance. FSA/OCR is also mandated to conduct a certain number of 

management/compliance reviews per year.199 Staff participates in 10 state management reviews 

per year and performs follow-up activities relative to the findings of these reviews. The 

Compliance Program and Analysis Branch of FSA/OCR develops and conducts civil rights 

compliance training; and then develops and recommends policies and procedures for a 

comprehensive nondiscrimination program in all aspects of program delivery. According to FSA, 

through its FY 2002 Strategic and Operational Plan, FSA/OCR is committed to providing the 

best customer service possible; and to developing, establishing, and recommending agency 

EEO/civil rights policies. FSA/OCR is also committed to monitoring, evaluating, and providing 

oversight of agency compliance with EEO/civil rights policies, rules, and regulations, processing 

informal and formal complaints in a timely manner, and providing leadership and assistance in 

enhancing diversity in order to facilitate full implementation of all laws, legislation, and 

regulations on equal employment opportunity and civil rights in FSA.200

Minority Farmers 

FSA provides funding to farmers who are unable to obtain loans from conventional 

institutions. To this end, many minority farmers use FSA as a source for obtaining loans. In 

1997, as a result of inadequate oversight of state offices and other factors, black farmers filed a 

 

196 FSA Interrogatory, p. 17. 

197 FSA Interrogatory, p. 17. 

198 FSA Interrogatory, p. 17. 

199 Holmes letter, p. 2. 

200 FSA Interrogatory, p. 18. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 49

class action lawsuit against USDA alleging that the agency discriminated against them by 

denying them loans in its farm credit and non-credit benefit programs, based on their race.201 

This plight of minority farmers is not a new one. The Commission has written several 

reports highlighting inequity problems surrounding black farmers and made recommendations to 

remedy those problems. In 1965, the Commission conducted a study of USDA’s efforts to help 

black farmers endure as landowners and to continue to participate in the business of 

agriculture.202 In this study, the Commission documented specific findings of discrimination in 

USDA’s Farmers Home Administration, Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation 

Service, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. For example, an analysis of 

FmHA data from 13 southern counties revealed that in terms of the size of loans, purposes for 

which loans were to be used, and technical assistance, FmHA did not provide services to black 

farmers comparable to those provided to similarly situated whites.203 In 1968, the Commission 

provided a series of detailed recommendations aimed at correcting extensive deficiencies found 

in USDA’s enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.204 Commission reports 

issued in 1971, 1973, and 1975 also revealed continued procrastination in this area.205 

In 1982, the Commission issued another report with numerous findings, including that 

USDA and FmHA had failed to integrate civil rights goals into program objectives and to use 

enforcement mechanisms to ensure that black farmers were provided equal opportunities in farm 

credit programs.206As in other reports, the Commission recommended (1) that Congress hold 

hearings to examine the administration of limited resource loans to determine if these loans were 

being made for the purposes for which and to whom they were intended; (2) that the Secretary of 

Agriculture provide for the development and implementation of a coordinated departmentwide 

program designed to assist minority farmers; (3) that FmHA ensure that county committees are 

representative of the population of the county which they serve; and (4) that the director of 

USDA’s Office of Equal Opportunity establish timeframes for initiation and completion of 

complaint investigations and compliance reviews and establish procedures for follow-up on 

findings of noncompliance in complaint investigations and compliance reviews. The 

Commission has continued to monitor whether USDA and its Office of Civil Rights have 

 

201 Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 D.D.C. (1999). On April 14, 1999, a consent decree resolving the Pigford

case was approved. Under the consent decree, a claimant could choose to proceed under one of two tracks—Track A 

or Track B. Track A is an expedited track under which claimants simply fill out a claim form under oath, with a 

lowered evidentiary standard applied, and certain relief is provided to those who prevail. Those claimants who 

believe that they have the evidence to prove a larger amount of relief can choose Track B, which has a higher 

evidentiary standard that entitles the claimant to a one-day arbitration hearing before an independent arbitrator who 

may award any proven relief. Independent adjudicators, mostly retired state and federal judges, make determinations 

on the claims. An independent monitor oversees implementation of the consent decree and reports to the Court. 

202 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs, 1965, p. 8 (hereafter cited as USCCR, 

Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs). 203 USCCR, Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs, pp. 57–82. 204 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Mechanism for Implementing and Enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1968, reprinted in 115 Cong. Rec. 13456–65 (1969). 205 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort: One Year Later, 1971, pp. 124–

31; The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort—A Reassessment, 1973, pp. 72–82; The Federal Civil Rights 

Enforcement Effort—1974, 1975, vol. VI, chap. 2. 206 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Decline of Black Farmers in America, February 1982, p. iv. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 50

improved its civil rights enforcement record. Recently, the Commission directed specific 

questions to OCR to determine whether past recommendations have been implemented and to 

ascertain the status of developments in the Pigford lawsuit. 

In 1996, to address USDA’s longstanding civil rights problems, then-Secretary Dan 

Glickman appointed a team of USDA leaders to examine the issues and make recommendations 

for change.207 The Civil Rights Action Team found several factors that contributed to the 

allegations of discrimination against black farmers, which included lack of management 

commitment to civil rights,208 inadequate resources and funding for civil rights,209 lack of 

accountability within the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and Rural Development 

mission areas,210 lack of diversity among county committees and county office employees, and a 

cumbersome complaint process.211 

 

 As a result of the Civil Rights Action Team report, plans of action have been developed 

and implemented to try to ensure that what happened to black and other minority farmers will not 

happen again. For example, FSA implemented Regulation 4300-005 as of January 14, 1998, 

which required that a full-time civil rights director be established within FSA. On paper, it shows 

promise to be an effective civil rights program with sufficient staff support. In addition, FSA has 

allocated resources and trained staff to support the agency’s obligation for developing and 

implementing a comprehensive civil rights program. State employees found to have 

discriminated against black farmers were provided sensitivity training and letters of reprimand, 

or terminated. According to a statement by the Assistant Secretary for Administration, between 

January 1, 1998, and June 30, 2002, USDA has taken 203 disciplinary actions based on findings 

of discrimination or settlements.212 Nineteen of the actions, including four removals, occurred 

within FSA.213 Thus, farmers still access USDA services through many of the same career 

USDA employees who were in place when the discrimination occurred.214 FSA states that 

actions taken were directly related to the nature and severity of the findings of disparate 

treatment.215 

 Action plans include the streamlining of complaints and field staff training on how to 

handle complaints. Data on complaints have been computerized to enable effective tracking and 

efficient handling of complaints and inquiries. Finally, FSA/OCR has conducted seven 

compliance reviews relative to the Pigford consent decree to evaluate the effectiveness of 

reforms put in place, as a result of the decree.216

 

207 USDA, CRAT Report, p. 3. 

208 USDA, CRAT Report, pp. 6–8. 

209 USDA, CRAT Report, p. 12. 

210 USDA, CRAT Report, pp. 16–20. 

211 FSA Interrogatory, p. 23. See also USDA, CRAT Report. 

212 Lou Gallegos, Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statement to the House 

Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, Sept. 25, 

2002, p. 23 (hereafter cited as Lou Gallegos statement). 

213 Lou Gallegos statement, p. 23. 

214 Allen G. Breed, “Black Farmers’ Hopes Remain Forlorn Dream,” Washington Times, Sept. 1, 2002, p. A5. 215 FSA Interrogatory, p. 23. 

216 FSA Interrogatory, p. 23. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 51

Other class actions pending against the Department of Agriculture, which involve Latino, 

Native American, and female farmers, include Keepseagle v. Veneman,

217 Garcia v. Veneman,218

and Love v. Veneman.

219 Like Pigford, each of these class actions alleges discrimination by 

USDA in regard to its farm loan and benefit programs, as well as alleging that USDA did not 

process the administrative complaints of class members. The Keepseagle class action was 

certified in September 2001. In December 2002, Garcia had class certification denied. As of 

May 2003, the Love case was pending class certification. 

 The Office of Minority and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Assistance Program 

(OMSDFAP), operating under FSA opened September 10, 2002. The office, created to help 

minority and socially disadvantaged farmers apply for federal farm loans will operate a toll-free 

help line to answer queries on USDA loans and programs (866-538-2610 or 202-720-1584 

locally). The functions of OMSDFAP and FSA/OCR are not the same. The OMSDFAP is 

designed to support Title VI programs only, while the FSA/OCR has both Title VI and Title VII 

responsibilities for FSA.220

Coordination

USDA/OCR is tasked with providing leadership, guidance, and oversight to USDA 

agencies and recipients.221 As a result, FSA indicated that constant contact is “required” between 

USDA/OCR and FSA/OCR in order for both entities to fulfill their mission goals and 

objectives.222 The need to communicate regarding the ongoing status of complaints, to coordinate 

compliance visits and the completion of corrective action plans, as well as the requests for, 

formation of, and delivery of agency position statements all necessitate constant contact and 

communication between USDA/OCR and FSA/OCR.223

The director of USDA/OCR holds monthly meetings that all civil rights directors attend. 

Meetings between USDA/OCR and FSA/OCR are held monthly to discuss the status of program 

complaints, to coordinate compliance visits, and to exchange information necessary to achieve 

both FSA and USDA/OCR mission goals and objectives.224 Aside from these monthly meetings, 

USDA/OCR requires FSA/OCR to provide an annual report of its Title VI enforcement 

programs. This report includes the number of closed cases, the number of open, ongoing cases, 

and the results of training provided to FSA field employees.225 During the Commission’s 2003 

review, FSA/OCR indicated that the interaction between the two entities is adequate.226 But, 

 

217 Keepseagle v. Veneman, 194 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2000). 

218 Garcia v. Veneman, 211 F.R.D. 15 (D.D.C. 2002). 

219 Love v. Veneman, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 19, 2000). 

220 FSA Interrogatory, p. 24. 

221 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights, “Nondiscrimination in USDA Conducted Programs and 

Activities,” DR 4330-3, Mar. 3, 1999, p. 6. 

222 FSA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

223 FSA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

224 FSA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

225 FSA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

226 FSA Interrogatory, p. 3. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 52

according to an EEOC report, lines of communication are badly mangled between USDA/OCR 

and the more than two dozen agencies that make up USDA.227 

Conclusion 

 

FSA has not made many improvements or changes since the Commission evaluated what 

was the FmHA in 1996. In 1996, the agency had several state civil rights directors who were 

full-time equal opportunity specialists, but today there is only one. FSA/OCR does not have the 

ability to submit and control its own budget, and for the 2003 study the office could not provide 

budget documents or figures depicting the tracking of Title VI funding. In 1996, the agency 

submitted Civil Rights Implementation Plans to DOJ, but today the agency is not required to 

submit plans because it conducts few if any pre-award and post-award reviews and has no record 

of legal and administrative enforcement activity. In addition, during its current review the 

Commission finds that FSA has not adopted Instruction 1940-D because the document is not 

recognized as part of FSA’s guidance. FSA/OCR does not process its own complaints without 

approval from USDA/OCR, and FSA/OCR was negligent in providing oversight to state and 

district offices. 

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES 

The Commission’s 1996 review assessed civil rights enforcement at the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency within USDA, headed by an administrator.228 In 1994, 

USDA underwent a reorganization and merged the Food and Nutrition Service with the Office of 

Consumer Advisor to create the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS).229 FNCS 

became an agency headed by an undersecretary, and FNS became a component of FNCS, still 

headed by an administrator who reports to the undersecretary. 

 

227 Christopher Lee, “Review Finds USDA Mishandles Complaints–Delays in Discrimination Cases Criticized,” 

Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2003, p. A9. 228 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs, June 1996, pp. 273–75 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). In 1996, the 

FNS’ Title VI programs included the food stamp program; the nutrition assistance program for Puerto Rico; the food 

distribution (food donation to soup kitchens and food banks) program; the food distribution program to American 

Indian reservations; the national school lunch program; the special milk program; the school breakfast program; the 

summer food service program for children; the child and adult care food program; the nutrition and education and 

training program; the special supplemental food program for women, infants and children (WIC); the commodity 

supplemental food program, the temporary emergency food assistance program, the state administrative expenses for 

child nutrition program, and the nutrition assistance program for the North Mariana Islands. 

229 The two major components within the FNCS are the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) which administers the 

domestic food and nutrition programs, and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) which develops 

and promotes nutrition research and science-based dietary guidance and economic information to consumers and 

professionals. See “Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services,’ <http://www.fins.usda.gov/fncs/> (Sept. 18, 2002); 

USDA, “Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) Mission Area,” <http://www.usda.gov/mission/fncs.htm> 

(Oct. 11, 2002); “FNS Welcomes New Administrator,” <http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/menu/avoutfns.htm> (Sept. 

26, 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for 

Volume III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, the Food 

and Nutrition Service, Civil Rights Division, Dec. 13, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as FNCS/FNS Interrogatory). For 

this study, the discussion focuses on the FNS and the Civil Rights Division. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 53

The mission of FNCS is to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all Americans. 

Through food assistance and nutrition education, FNCS encourages consumers to make healthful 

food choices. FNCS also works to empower consumers with knowledge about diet and health, 

providing guidance based on research.230 

FNS administers FNCS’ Title VI programs, which includes the Food Stamp Program, the 

National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).231 In FY 2002, FNS had a budget of $38 

billion and a staff of approximately 1,600 nationwide.232 The Civil Rights Division (CRD), 

located in FNS, has primary responsibility for enforcing Title VI and other relevant civil rights 

laws at the agency. 

Under the 1994 reorganization, USDA planned to transform CRD into an office of civil 

rights.233 How the reorganization would affect the agency’s ability to enforce Title VI was still 

uncertain in 1996 because the agency had yet to implement it. 

Despite the departmental reorganization, name changes (from civil rights division to civil 

rights office, back to a division), and realignments of civil rights authority since the 

Commission’s 1996 report, civil rights enforcement at FNCS has remained essentially the same. 

CRD maintains that the realignments and name changes have had no impact on the duties and 

responsibilities of the staff, nor on the enforcement of civil rights laws, rules, regulations, or 

policies. That assertion is verified with this study. 

Although the Commission’s 1996 report did not find major problems with the 

enforcement of Title VI, the agency has not made any significant efforts to address the concerns 

or recommendations it was given. One important reason for the lack of change or improvement 

in civil rights enforcement at the agency is CRD’s history of vacancies in the director position. 

Since the Commission’s study, the division has had three directors. For nearly a year, the 

director’s position has been vacant, and three staff rotate as the acting director every four weeks 

to cover the duties. 

 

230 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, “Welcome!” 

<http://www.fns.usda.gov/fncs/>. 

231 FNS’ largest program is the Food Stamp Program. It serves nearly 18 million low-income people. The Child 

Nutrition Program (lunch and breakfast programs) serves about 27 million children. WIC addresses the special 

needs of high risk, low income pregnant and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to five years of age, 

providing over 7 million participants annually with supplemental food packages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Strategic Plan 2000 to 2005, Sept. 30, 2000, p. 2 (hereafter cited as USDA/FNS 

2000–05 Strategic Plan). 

232 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “FNS Welcomes New Administrator,” 

<http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/menu/aboutfns.htm>. 

233 The rationale for establishing an Office of Civil Rights was threefold: (1) there would be a separation of 

responsibility whereby a deputy administrator would be responsible for resource allocation and administrative 

services to and accountability for a proactive civil rights program, and the director of the civil rights office would 

have the authority to deal with the agency administrators on all other civil rights matters; (2) civil rights oversight 

would remain a line management function rather than a staff function which would reinforce the responsibility of 

program managers to make civil rights oversight an “integral part” of program delivery; and (3) there would be a 

“team approach” in carrying out internal and external civil rights responsibilities. USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement, p. 277. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 54

Priority of Civil Rights 

 Before the reorganization, CRD was headed by a director who reported to the Deputy 

Administrator for Management who reported to the FNS administrator. In June 1994, three FTEs 

were assigned to CRD for Title VI enforcement, including a program manager and two equal 

opportunity specialists. In addition to headquarters civil rights staff, there were seven regional 

civil rights directors, one in each regional office, responsible for civil rights enforcement (see 

figure 2.10). The regional civil rights directors spent 75 to 80 percent of their time on external 

civil rights activities, and the remainder on internal civil rights matters. Although the regional 

civil rights directors’ policies, guidelines, and instructions came from CRD, they reported to the 

seven regional administrators.234 The regional civil rights directors were responsible for 

monitoring and evaluating the civil rights activities of the state agencies receiving funds, 

providing technical assistance and civil rights training to regional, state and local officials, and 

conducting pre-award, post-award, and on-site compliance reviews.235 CRD held the regional 

civil rights directors responsible for implementing its instructions and directives, but did not 

supervise them, set goals for them, or evaluate their performance. CRD had to track civil rights 

actions in the regions through the regional administrators to ensure compliance.236 

 In its 1996 study, the Commission found the organizational structure for civil rights 

enforcement at FNS inadequate and recommended the civil rights function be restructured.237

The Commission recommended that the civil rights director report directly to the agency’s 

administrator. In addition, the Commission recommended that CRD have separate staff assigned 

to internal and external civil rights functions, and that separate regional staff be assigned to 

external and internal civil rights responsibilities. It also recommended that regional civil rights 

staff report to the director of CRD and not to the regional administrators.238 In 2003, CRD is 

responsible for providing leadership and guidance to the regional civil rights staff, but still has no 

supervisory responsibility over them.239

 

234 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 277. 235 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 276. 

236 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 277. 237 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 288. The reorganization proposed to reassign 12 FNS positions to the 

USDA’s then Office of Civil Rights Evaluation in an attempt to “centralize” the civil rights program at the 

department. However, there was not strong support for the idea because of the diversity of programs and activities at 

the USDA, which would make it difficult for one office to enforce civil rights effectively. USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement, p. 278. 

238 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 288. 239 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 8. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 55

Figure 2.10 

FNS and the Civil Rights Division Organizational Structure, 1996 

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

Programs, June 1996, p. 278. 

 The Commission now finds that since its last report, CRD has changed from a division to 

an office, and back to a division.240 Although the 1994 departmental reorganization would 

transform CRD into an office, it was not until 1998 that CRD became the Office of Civil Rights. 

As an office, it was realigned directly under the FNS administrator to strengthen civil rights 

accountability.241 In 2002, the office was renamed the Civil Rights Division, and is currently 

assigned under the Deputy Administrator for Management. CRD contends that the realignments 

and name changes have not had any impact on the duties and responsibilities assigned to the 

office/division, nor on its enforcement of civil rights laws, rules, and regulations.242 According to 

CRD, the changes were in name only and did not affect any guidelines, policies, or staff 

responsibilities.243 Although FNS moved from an agency to a component within the agency, 

CRD has never been assigned to the undersecretary’s office or reported to an FNCS official. If 

CRD is placed in the undersecretary’s office, FNCS would provide a civil rights presence and 

elevate its authority. 

However, a civil rights director, not the undersecretary, should provide the civil rights 

leadership and authority at the agency. The director is required to provide direction and 

leadership in formulating and reviewing civil rights and EEO policies within FNCS; plan, 

organize, and evaluate the managerial advisory program to meet FNCS’ responsibilities;244

advise the administrator, Deputy Administrator for Management, and other agency managers 

about their civil rights responsibilities; conduct studies, reviews, and workforce analyses to 

identify and address systemic problems; negotiate resolution of complaints; and assign work to 

staff based on priorities.245 

 

240 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 19. 

241 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 5. 

242 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 3. 

243 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 19. 

244 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 7. 

245 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 7. 

Deputy Administrator Regional 

for Management Administrator

Director

Civil Rights Division

FNS Associate 

Administrator

FNS Administrator
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 56

Since 1996, CRD has had three directors.246 For eight months, CRD has been without 

one.247 During the vacancy, three senior staff members rotate as acting directors every four 

weeks.248 As acting directors, the staff cannot formulate or implement new ideas, policies, 

regulations, or programs in civil rights. Thus, under the acting directors, there has been very little 

continuity or consistency in the division’s leadership and direction, as well as a lack of new civil 

rights initiatives and policies. One of the acting directors states that the rotation process has only 

maintained the “status quo.”249 CRD reports that once the civil rights director’s position has been 

filled, it will determine the direction the division will take in the future with respect to civil rights 

goals, objectives, and policies.250 Although CRD maintains that the division is functioning as 

usual,251 the Commission finds that the short-term tenure of the directors and the current void in 

the director’s position have resulted in a long period of inaction with respect to new initiatives 

and as such affects civil rights authority and enforcement. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

For the Commission’s 1996 study, the agency did not provide sufficient budget 

information. In addition, FNS did not maintain separate budgets for internal and external civil 

rights activities. Thus, the Commission could not determine whether civil rights resources were 

adequate to enhance Title VI enforcement performance.252 One of the problems highlighted in 

the Commission’s 1996 report was the insufficiency of the agency’s information management 

system, which could not track expenditures on civil rights, including Title VI activities. 

Consequently, Title VI enforcement suffered because civil rights resources remained flat even 

though the workload increased.253 The Commission recommended that CRD have in place an 

information management system that would permit it to track its expenditures on civil rights 

activities. The Commission recommended that CRD use such a system to analyze its 

 

246 There was an acting director from February 1996 to December 1997, and at least one acting director served 

during periods in 2000 and 2002. During the latest vacancy, three senior staff serve as acting director. The reasons 

for the directors’ departures include the retirement of one (immediately after the Commission’s 1996 report was 

completed) and different job opportunities for the others. Gloria McColl, equal opportunity specialist, Civil Rights 

Division, telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 7–8 (hereafter cited as FNS/CRD, McColl telephone interview, 

Jan. 23, 2003). Ms. McColl is the FNCS liaison for this study. Since the Commission’s 1996 report, she has served 

as at least one or the acting directors during the periods of the vacancies. 247 The division has been without a director since September 2002. In April 2003, CRD informed the Commission 

that a director has been selected and is scheduled to report in May. Numerous candidates applied for the position. 

After interviews, a panel made recommendations for a director to FNS’ associate administrator for management who 

was the selection official. Gloria McColl, equal opportunity specialist, Civil Rights Division, telephone interview, 

Apr. 15, 2003. 

248 This study evaluates FNCS’ civil rights enforcement efforts during the rotation process. The rotation process will 

continue until the director is on board. 

249 McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 7–10, 51. Ms. McColl states that currently the three acting 

directors have different roles and responsibilities within CRD. For example, Ms. McColl’s focus, as a staff person, is 

on program-related matters, while another acting director is the ADR program manager. She considers the major 

drawback for her as an acting director is her inability to implement her ideas, or initiate new policies and initiatives. 250 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 15. 

251 See McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 8, 10–11. 252 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 278. 253 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 288. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 57

expenditures and resource assignments in relation to its workload, and furthermore should use 

the information in developing an annual civil rights enforcement plan.254 The Commission also 

recommended that the civil rights office use the information management system to analyze 

trends in its civil rights expenditures and workload across different civil rights activities and 

demonstrate the need for increased resources for Title VI enforcement.255 

One of the primary tasks in FNS’ FY 2001 strategic plan was that FNS program, 

regional, and staff offices with civil rights responsibilities assess and evaluate human and fiscal 

resources to determine if resources were sufficient to meet civil rights program objectives.256 It 

was planned that the components with civil rights functions would reach agreement with the 

FNS’ Office of the Administrator on recommendations made in reports during mid-year reviews. 

However, reporting was not made mandatory or enforced. The last reporting period disclosed 

that several components had not submitted reports. Several of the regional reports failed to 

include resource deficiencies and plans to address them. According to CRD, there was 

“reluctance and, in one instance, refusal to provide the information requested.”257 The reasons for 

failing to provide complete data and information varied.258 In 2003, CRD informed the 

Commission that in future plans this initiative would be deleted as a separate task.259 

In 2003, the Commission finds that the total civil rights budget increased from $977,525 

in FY 1998 to $1.5 million in FY 2000. In FY 2002, funding for civil rights activities totaled 

$1.8 million (see figure 2.11).260 Resources increased steadily during the period between 1998 

and 2002, when CRD was the Office of Civil Rights. Increases occurred at headquarters and in 

some regional offices under the administrator. 

 

254 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 288. 255 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 256 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 12. 

257 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 12. 

258 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 12. 

259 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 12 

260 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 10. The funding includes headquarters and regional civil rights offices. It excludes 

costs of Title VII (EEO) investigations. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 58

Figure 2.11 

FNCS Civil Rights Budget, 1998–2002

1.0 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Source: FNCS/FNS, Civil Rights Division Interrogatory, p. 10. 

 In 1994, the Commission stated that civil rights responsibilities at the agency would 

increase as a result of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other internal 

civil rights requirements. It concluded that the staffing would not be adequate to meet the new 

responsibilities, and that enforcement of Title VI would be affected.261 Since the Commission’s 

1996 review, there have been small increases of both headquarters and regional staff. Since 

1998, the number of CRD staff increased from six to nine. In the regions, the number of regional 

civil rights staff increased from the seven civil rights directors to 15 staff, with four of the 

regions adding equal opportunity specialists (see figure 2.12).262 

 

261 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 278. 

262 FNS, “Regional Civil Rights Offices,” <http://www.fns.usda.gov/cr/RO%20directors.htm>. The regional civil 

rights offices are located in Boston, MA, Robbinsville, NY, Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, Dallas, TX, Denver, CO and 

San Francisco, CA. The specialists are in the Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco regional offices. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 59

Figure 2.12 

FNCS Civil Rights Staffing, 1998–2003

10

15

7

8 6 6 6

5

10

13

15

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

FTEs

Headquarter FTEs Regional FTEs

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Civil Rights Staff, 1998–2002.

The funding and staffing increases had nothing to do with CRD’s status as an “office” 

during this period, but were based on headquarters and some of the regional offices 

demonstrating the need for increased civil rights resources.263 As in the Commission’s 1996 

study, it is difficult in this review to determine whether the civil rights resources are adequate to 

fulfill enforcement responsibilities. 

During the study, there were eight staff members in CRD, including five equal 

opportunity specialists,264 a management analyst, an equal opportunity assistant, and a 

secretary.265 Under the rotation process, three of the five equal opportunity specialists serve as 

acting directors at different intervals. When a new director is hired there will be nine positions in 

CRD (see figure 2.13). Since the Commission’s report, civil rights staff performed in specialized 

areas, with some staff members having responsibility for external civil rights and others having 

responsibility for internal civil rights enforcement. However, due to limited resources and small 

staff increases over the years, areas of expertise have become more generalized, and some staff 

members have responsibility for both internal and external civil rights.266 

 

263 McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 22–24. The Commission made numerous requests for specific 

budget and staffing information for the past five years. Information regarding CRD’s budget and how funds are 

allocated has not been made available. In January 2003, Ms. McColl acknowledged in a telephone interview that she 

is not the person with the budget information and she would try to secure the information for the study. McColl 

telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, p. 4. 

264 Not all the equal opportunity specialists are assigned to program statutes. For example, one of the equal 

opportunity specialists is the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or mediation program manager. FNS has used 

ADR as an alternative approach to resolving disputes in the workplace. However, the ADR process has not been 

used for resolving Title VI complaints. FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, pp. 23, 32. 

265 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, pp. 7, 10. These are long-term staff, with 22.7 staff years in 2002. 

266 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 8. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 60

Figure 2.13 

FNS and the Civil Rights Division Organizational Structure, 2002 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Civil Rights Staff, 1998–2002; FNCS/FNS, Civil Rights Division 

Interrogatory, p. 7; FNS Organizational Chart, Dec. 13, 2002.

Planning 

 In 1996, the Commission concluded that the FNS’ 1991, 1992, and 1993 Civil Rights 

Implementation Plans (CRIPs) did not conform to Department of Justice guidelines. The 

guidelines require agencies to provide details on their civil rights strategies. The CRIPs did not 

provide sufficient details on FNS’ approach to civil rights enforcement. In addition, the plans’ 

goals and objectives did not indicate ways of measuring accomplishments or establish 

timeframes for completion, as required by DOJ.267 The Commission recommended that future 

CRIPs provide a broad outline of the agency’s Title VI enforcement program, including its 

scope, organization, budget and staffing, and the extent to which it conducts specific civil rights 

activities. Furthermore, the Commission urged that the CRIPs include a goals and objectives 

section and a progress report section in accordance with DOJ’s requirements.268 

 In 2003, Commission finds that there have been no changes in how the CRIPs are 

prepared or in the information they include. The 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 CRIPs were 

reviewed for this study. Except for the 1998 plan, which did not include performance and 

workload data, all the CRIPs referenced general information on objectives, accountability, 

funding and staffing, workload and performance data, and complaint activities.269 CRD 

maintains that it prepares its CRIPs in accordance with the guidelines established by the 

 

267 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 288. 268 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 291. 269 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 42. 

Undersecretary

Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services

FNS Administrator

Associate Associate 

Administrator for Administrator for

Management Regional Operations 

Deputy Administrator 

for Management

Civil Rights Division
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 61

Department of Justice.270 CRD has not received any feedback from DOJ or the departmental 

OCR about the content of its CRIPs or its Title VI enforcement program.271

Policy Guidance 

 FNS issues a Civil Rights Policy document annually to all agency employees. The 

document prescribes the civil rights policy for the FNS and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion. It reinforces the implementation of the department’s civil rights and equal 

employment opportunity policy statement.272 The Civil Rights Policy document is available on 

the FNS Web site.273 

 Since the Commission’s 1996 study, CRD has developed new guidance, which has been 

issued to the regional programs staff.274 In 2002, FNCS issued three policy guidance documents: 

the “WIC Policy Memorandum for Fiscal Year 2002–06 on WIC Racial/Ethnic Data 

Collection”;275 the “Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)—101 Racial/Ethnic Data Collection” 

memorandum;276 and the “Updates to the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service Alternative 

Dispute Resolution Program, Standard Operating Procedures.”277 Recipients are notified of new 

guidelines and policies through policy memoranda, Web sites, and regional offices.278 

 

270 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 42. 

271 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 42. 

272 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Notice, FNS and CNPP Civil Rights Policy, April 

25–December 31, 2002. The department’s civil rights policy statement states USDA’s commitment to ensuring 

compliance with civil rights and equal employment opportunity for everyone regardless of race, color, national 

origin, gender, religion, age disability, sexual orientation, marital of family status, political beliefs, parental status or 

protected genetic orientation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Civil Rights Policy Statement, 

Jan. 29, 2003, <http://www.usda.gov/da/CRPolicy.htm>. 

273 See FNS and CNPP, “Civil Rights Policy,” <http:www.fns.usda.gov/cr/Policy/civil_rights_policy.htm>. 274 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 41. 

275 Final WIC Policy Memorandum Fiscal Year 2002–06, WIC Racial/Ethnic Data Collection to Regional Directors, 

Supplemental Food Programs, Sept. 19, 2002. The memorandum provides guidance to State and local agencies on 

the WIC racial/ethnic data collection. It addresses the new standards issued by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) developed in order to monitor enforcement of civil rights laws for populations that historically 

experienced discrimination and differential treatment in housing, education, employment and other areas because of 

their race or ethnicity. Under the new standards, OMB requires data collection on ethnicity as well as racial 

categories. The two ethnic categories required by OMB are “Hispanic or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino.” 

Only one category can be selected. No later than April 1, 2005, state agencies must begin collecting racial and ethnic 

data using the new OMB categories. 

276 Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 101 Racial Ethnic Data Collection memorandum to Regional Directors, Food 

Stamp Program, Oct. 11, 2002. The purpose of the guidance is to provide instruction regarding OMB’s new racial 

and ethnic data collection requirements. State agencies are using the current FNS-101 form to report racial and 

ethnic information. FNS has revised the FNS-101 to meet OMB’s data collection requirements. It plans to publish 

the proposed rule and Notice in the Federal Register. 277 “Updates to Food, Nutrition and Consumer Service Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, Standard Operating 

Procedures,” memorandum to Civil Rights Directors and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Coordinators, 

May 14, 2002. FNCS reports that some regions have been using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve 

some program disputes, but not for Title VI complaints. In addition, while it reports a significant number of ADR 

resolutions, FNCS states that it has not maintained any data on the number of program complaints resolved through 

ADR, nor evaluated the effectiveness of ADR in resolving discrimination complaints. FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 

32. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 62

 In the Commission’s 1996 report, CRD acknowledged that disseminating information to 

persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) was a problem. The Commission concurred and 

recommended that CRD improve its outreach strategies to members of this group.279 However, 

CRD has not since developed a plan to comply with DOJ’s guidance to implement Executive 

Order 13,166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.”280

CRD is waiting for the finalization of OCR’s implementing guidance to prepare its plan. In the 

meantime, recipients are still required to provide services to program beneficiaries in appropriate 

languages, in accordance with Title VI.281 The importance of CRD’s guidance for the 

implementation of the executive order cannot be overstated since the agency’s programs reach 

millions of persons nationwide who may be eligible and yet are not fully aware of the benefits 

and services available to them because of language barriers.282

 

 At the time of the Commission’s 1996 report, FNS operated under USDA Title VI 

regulations, the Departmental Regulation 4330-1, and its own instructions. The agency’s 

principal civil rights instruction is titled “Civil Rights Compliance and Enforcement” (Civil 

Rights Instruction 113). Civil Rights Instruction 113 outlines general civil rights enforcement 

procedures and the responsibilities of different FNS components. All federally assisted programs 

are covered by the instruction.283

In its 1996 report, the Commission commended the agency on Civil Rights Instruction 

113, concluding that the instruction clearly spelled out FNS’ enforcement procedures and the 

relative responsibilities of FNS components. Furthermore, the instruction satisfied DOJ’s 

requirement for separate Title VI guidelines for each federally assisted program.284 The 

Commission wrote in 1996 that Civil Rights Instruction 113 served as a “comprehensive and 

 278 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 19. 

279 See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 284. 280 Exec. Order No. 13,166, 3 C.F.R. § 289 (2001), reprinted in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d-1 (Law. Co-op. 2003). The 

purpose of the executive order is to eliminate limited English proficiency (LEP) as a barrier to full and meaningful 

participation in all federally assisted and federally conducted programs. The executive order requires federal 

agencies to examine the services that they provide, identify any need for services, and develop and implement a 

system to provide services to persons with limited English proficiency. The executive order requires agencies to 

develop and begin to implement plans to carry out the order within 120 days of the date of the order (Aug. 11, 

2000). As of January 2003, FNS’ plan to implement the order had not been completed. FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 

22. 

281 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 22. 

282 To illustrate the problem, in FY 2001, CRD reported a letter of finding that the Utah Department of Workforce 

Services failed to provide non-English services to the LEP population when they applied for participation in the food 

stamp program. LEP clients faced barriers to program services and benefits that English-proficient clients did not. 

FNCS/USDA, Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plan, FY 2002, p. 5. CRD found that the department instituted 

policies that did not conform to established regulations. CRD is still working with the Utah department to get it into 

compliance. The regional civil rights staff still provide ongoing technical assistance and guidance to the Utah 

department on how to provide information in various languages and use proper forms in order to resolve the 

problem. McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 46–47. 

283 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 279. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Civil Rights Compliance and Enforcement, Civil Rights Instruction 113 (1982) (hereafter cited as Instruction 113). 

Issued in May 1982, Civil Rights Instructions 113 established nondiscrimination policy and delegates specific 

responsibilities to ensure compliance with civil rights laws and regulations. FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 21. 284 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 63

sound basis” for its Title VI enforcement program, and recommended that other USDA agencies 

consider issuing similar instructions for federally assisted programs.285 

During the 2003 review, the Commission learned that CRD is updating Civil Rights 

Instruction 113 to reflect policy and procedural changes in enforcement.286 Headquarters and 

selected regional civil rights staff are responsible for revising the instruction.287 A draft is 

pending clearance by the Department of Justice, and no date is specified for its 

implementation.288 Since the draft is not finalized and cleared, for this review, the Commission 

cannot determine the quality of the document. 

CRD also reports that FNS is developing a compliance review manual. The project was 

initiated by one of the regional civil rights directors during FY 2000. However, the project is still 

in the “infancy stage” and no one is assigned full time to the project, nor have any tasks or 

milestones been established for its completion.289 

Education and Outreach 

When the Commission conducted its 1996 study, FNS publicized most of its programs 

and nondiscrimination information to its recipients through posters and brochures. Materials 

were provided in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. However, FNS 

acknowledged that it needed to perform more outreach and education on its programs and Title 

VI to communities with large non-English-speaking populations.290 The Commission concurred 

that the agency did not conduct sufficient outreach and education on Title VI, particularly to 

meet the needs of limited-English-proficient persons, and recommended that CRD provide 

leadership to regional offices and state recipients on outreach and education. The Commission 

recommended that CRD develop a strategic plan for informing the recipients, participants, 

beneficiaries, and the general public about Title VI and other civil rights statutes. In addition, it 

suggested that FNS develop other ways to provide information about Title VI, such as through 

conferences and other forums attended by program recipients, participants, and intended 

beneficiaries.291 

In 2003, program and public affairs staff carry out most FNCS outreach activities. 

Regional offices provide outreach and education about programs to recipients through meetings 

and conferences, and training and technical assistance sessions, as well as work with local 

community organizations during compliance reviews.292 With respect to Title VI, the 

nondiscrimination statement is required by law on all printed material disseminated to the public 

about FNCS’ federally assisted programs. Recipients are required to display in a prominent 

 

285 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 286 McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, p. 39. 

287 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 20. 

288 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 20. 

289 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 23. 

290 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 284. 291 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 290. 292 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 33. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 64

location the poster, “And Justice for All,” which lists Title VI rights and responsibilities. The 

posters and statements are available in English and Spanish at FNS and in other languages on 

USDA’s Web site.293 Evaluations of the public notification requirements are conducted during 

compliance reviews.294 No strategic plan or task force for education and outreach has been 

prepared. The Commission finds in this review that outreach and education to persons with 

limited English proficiency need to be improved and concludes that the matter has not been 

addressed sufficiently. 

Complaint Processing 

In 1996, although the Commission found no major problems with complaint processing 

at the agency, it made some recommendations for improvement. At the time of the 

Commission’s report, FNS integrated different components into the process, each responsible for 

separate tasks. The states conducted pre- and post-award reviews of the recipients, the regional 

civil rights directors reviewed the compliance activities of the states through reports, and CRD 

reviewed the regional civil rights directors’ evaluations.295 In 2003, CRD still implements the 

decentralized approach to complaint processing, and the duties and responsibilities of the 

different components have not changed.296

Even with the absence of a director, compliance activities have been carried out. The 

1998–2002 CRIPs show that compliance activities such as on-site visits and desk audits were 

performed, complaints were resolved, and the backlog of complaints was cleared. The CRIPs 

show that less than 15 percent of the complaints received fall under Title VI programs (see table 

2.3). One of the acting directors states that many of the complaints received are not really 

discrimination issues, but relate to program issues, usually the way regulations are applied or 

interpreted.297 

 

293 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 35. 

294 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 34. 

295 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 281. 296 The decentralized approach also applies to other activities. For example, different staff are also given technical 

assistance responsibilities. Usually, CRD will provide technical assistance to the regional staff, who in turn, provide 

technical assistance to the state agencies. In some cases, CRD will accompany regional staff to assist in providing 

assistance and guidance to recipients about laws and responsibilities. Technical assistance is usually given on 

request or during compliance reviews of state agencies. See McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 41–43. 

297 McColl telephone interview, Jan. 23, 2003, pp. 45–46. The “program-related complaints” are usually assigned to 

FNS’ program division staff. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 65

Table 2.3 

FNS Civil Rights Division Complaint Workload, 1997–2001 

Fiscal 

year 

Total complaints 

received 

Title VI 

complaints 

Unresolved 

complaints 

1997 671 0 68 

1998 n/a n/a n/a 

1999 262 61 79 

2000 376 55 141 

2001 503 0 153 

Note: CRD did not report workload data in the 1998 CRIP. 

Source: FNCS/USDA, Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plans, FY 1998–

2002, Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data. 

Compliance Reviews 

In 1996, because the regional civil rights directors did not have the resources to conduct 

pre- or post-award reviews, CRD relied primarily on states to conduct compliance reviews. In 

2003, states still conduct pre-award reviews and are required to conduct a pre-award review for 

each new entity that submits an application to participate in a FNS assisted program.298 However, 

the Commission’s 1996 recommendations to improve the process, particularly the reporting and 

monitoring of compliance reviews, have not been addressed.299 

Pre-award Reviews 

 In 1996, the Commission found that CRD did not require routine reporting of the states’ 

performance of their pre-award review obligations. For instance, states were not required to 

submit information on their pre-award reviews in quarterly reports.300 The Commission 

recommended that CRD extend its reporting requirements of states to ensure that the quarterly 

reports submitted to the FNS regional civil rights directors included: 

• whether the state conducted a pre-award review; 

• a summary of the information considered in the review; 

• a copy of the state’s letter of finding; and 

• information about any corrective actions required and whether the applicant agreed to 

implement them.301 

The Commission also recommended that, as part of their responsibilities, regional civil rights 

directors review the information on pre-award reviews included in the states’ quarterly reports to 

(1) determine whether the states were fulfilling their responsibility of conducting reviews of each 

 

298 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 25. 

299 In 2003, states are the leads in conducting pre-award reviews. The regional civil rights staff conducts post-award 

reviews at the state level, while the states conduct post-award reviews of their local offices. Michael G. Watts, 

director, Civil Rights Division, Food and Nutrition Service, memorandum to Frederick Isler, deputy director for 

programs, Office of Civil Rights, Response to U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Ten-Year Check-Up, June 3, 2003, p. 6 (hereafter cited as Watts, FNS/CRD Response). 

300 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 301 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 66

applicant before awarding funds; (2) assess the quality of the states’ pre-award reviews; and (3) 

provide the states with technical assistance where necessary. In addition, the Commission 

recommended that FNS assign additional civil rights staff to the regional offices to permit them 

to perform these duties effectively.302

 In this review, the Commission finds that the pre-award review process continues (see 

table 2.4), and has remained the same since 1996.303 There is no requirement that the states 

submit quarterly reports on the reviews. Pre-award information is verified during post-award 

reviews.304 There is no additional staff assigned to the task. 

Table 2.4 

FNS Civil Rights Division Pre-award Review Workload, 1997–2001 

Fiscal 

year 

Pre-award 

reviews 

On-site 

reviews 

Desk audits 

only 

Desk audits 

resulting in 

noncompliance 

1997 114 20 94 0 

1998 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1999 599 525 150 0 

2000 701 494 207 0 

2001 145 226 119 0 

Note: CRD did not report workload data in the FY 1998 CRIP. 

Source: FNCS/USDA, Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plans, FY 1998–2002. 

Post-award Reviews 

 In its 1996 report, the Commission found FNS had an active post-award review program 

and detailed procedures. However, the Commission found that virtually all the reviews were 

done by state agencies, and that CRD did not monitor how well the states performed these tasks. 

CRD did not ensure that the compliance reviews were of “sufficient quality to uncover and 

resolve instances of noncompliance with Title VI.”305 The Commission recommended that, as 

with the pre-award reviews, CRD extend its reporting requirements of states to incorporate 

additional information on their compliance reviews in their quarterly report, specifically: 

• whether the recipient underwent a post-award review; 

• whether the review was done on site or by desk audit; 

• a summary of the information considered in the review; 

• a copy of the letter of finding; and 

• information about any corrective action required or taken.306

In addition, the Commission recommended that the regional civil rights directors review the 

information in the states’ quarterly reports, assess the quality of the states’ post-award reviews, 

 

302 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 303 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 24. 

304 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, pp. 24–25. 

305 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 306 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 289. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 67

and offer technical assistance where necessary. The Commission also recommended that the 

directors conduct post-award reviews jointly with states to learn more about the process.307 

 

 In this review, the Commission finds that the post-award review process continues (see 

table 2.5), and has remained the same since 1996.308 In 2003, states conduct post-award reviews, 

and the regional civil rights, program, and field staff still conduct reviews of state agencies. The 

Commission’s recommendations have not been addressed. There is no requirement for quarterly 

reports, as regional staff assess the quality of the states’ post-award reviews “periodically.”309

Regional civil rights staff conduct these reviews with state staff, and no additional staff is 

assigned to this task. 

Table 2.5 

FNS Civil Rights Division Post-award Review Workload, 1997–2001 

Fiscal 

year 

Post-award 

reviews 

On-site 

reviews 

Desk audits 

only 

Desk audits 

resulting in 

noncompliance 

1997 819 808 11 37 

1998 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1999 3,361 559 2,801 17 

2000 3,466 815 2,651 91 

2001 814 814 0 71 

Note: CRD did not report workload data in the FY 1999 CRIP. 

Source: FNCS/USDA, Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plans, FY 1998–2002.

Staff Training 

In 1996, the Commission found that CRD did not provide formal Title VI training to the 

civil rights staff. CRD provided general civil rights training on statutes, and data collection and 

complaint processing requirements to new regional office staff. However, CRD indicated that 

there was a need for formal and “refresher” civil rights training for civil rights staff, particularly 

on Title VI.310 The Commission recommended that in addition to providing civil rights training 

to new regional civil rights staff, FNS should provide formal Title VI training to all its civil 

rights staff at regular intervals.311 

Now, all FNCS employees receive civil rights training. The headquarters civil rights staff 

conduct the training, which includes Title VI. FNS provides mandatory training and on 

request.312 If possible, training is provided annually, which indicates that FNS falls short of 

providing training at regular intervals or annually.313 Since many FNCS staff members have civil 

rights responsibilities, it is imperative that civil rights training is updated and provided at regular 

intervals within designated timeframes. 

 

307 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 290. 308 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 29. 

309 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 29. 

310 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 285. 311 USCCR. Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 290. 312 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 36. 

313 Civil rights training for all FNS employees has not occurred in 2003, and plans are not firm at this time to 

conduct such training. Watts, FNS/CRD Response, p. 7. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 68

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

As stated earlier, FNS delegates much of its complaint processing authority to the states. 

In 1996, although FNS prepared complaint processing instructions for the states, it did not have 

sufficient resources to monitor the quality of the states’ compliance activities.314 FNS conducted 

periodic reviews. The Commission recommended that FNS assign sufficient civil rights staff to 

the regional offices so they could monitor the quality of the states’ complaint investigation 

activities routinely.315 The Commission recommended that regional civil rights staff conduct 

periodic, in-depth monitoring reviews of the states’ Title VI compliance programs. It suggested 

that monitoring begin with a review of all quarterly and annual reports submitted by the states. 

The Commission also recommended that the monitoring include on-site visits during which 

regional civil rights staff would interview state civil rights staff, recipients, program participants, 

community groups, and civil rights groups.316 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that periodic reviews of states’ compliance activities are 

still conducted and are considered “monitoring.” The monitoring includes review of reports and 

complaint investigation files, on-site visits, and interviews with state officials and staff by 

regional staff.317 The Commission further finds that the agency is still using the same process 

that it used in 1996 to review states’ activities, and does not have a formal monitoring program. 

When the Commission’s 1996 report was prepared, FNS maintained a national database 

that allowed it to collect and analyze racial/ethnic data on participants in each FNS-assisted 

program, but not on eligible participants (or potential participants). The Commission noted that 

FNS’ data collection and analysis system had not improved since 1975, when DOJ criticized 

FNS’ failure to obtain and evaluate racial and ethnic participation and eligibility data in the Food 

Stamp Program.318 The Commission recommended that CRD develop and implement an 

adequate data collection and analysis system, specifying what information states should collect 

and analyze from their subrecipients by race and ethnicity. The Commission said the system 

should be able to run routine comparisons of the eligible population with program applicants and 

participants by race and ethnicity. The Commission recommended that FNS use the information 

to determine whether protected groups are underrepresented in FNS-funded programs, and, if so 

whether they face barriers to participation in the programs.319 

 CRD reports that FNCS has a data collection and analysis system in place that is used to 

(1) determine how effectively FNCS programs are reaching minorities, (2) assist staff in 

determining the locations for compliance reviews, and (3) prepare evaluation reports. The system 

provides data on program participants by state, project area, and number of households by race 

and national origin.320 However, CRD does not specify how the data affect the quality of 

 

314 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 290. 315 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 290. 

316 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 291. 317 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, pp. 37–38. 

318 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 286–87. 319 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 291. 320 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 39. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 69

enforcement. The Commission concludes that while there have been efforts to expand its racial 

and ethnic information since 1996, CRD has not evaluated its data collection and analysis system 

to maximize the effectiveness of enforcement or evaluate outcomes.

Coordination 

When the Commission studied the agency in 1996, there was a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) between FNS and the department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to share 

responsibilities for complaint activities.321 In 1996, the Commission did not make 

recommendations for changes in the MOU agreement. 

In the 2003 review, the Commission finds that FNCS continues to process Title VI 

complaint cases under the MOU with OCR.322 OCR authorizes FNCS to process complaints 

(intake, investigate, and make determinations) under the MOU. OCR retains oversight authority 

and responsibility for all complaints processed by CRD, which includes the authority to require 

additional processing or an independent investigation, if necessary.323 In accordance with the 

MOU, cases containing findings of noncompliance are referred to OCR for review and 

concurrence.324 The agency and OCR, which have operated under the MOU for more than 15 

years, are pleased with the results. They believe that the current coordination of complaint 

processing is effective.325 The Commission finds that the MOU has appropriate checks and 

balances, and that it protects the rights of beneficiaries. USDA/OCR has several MOUs with 

USDA agencies in the enforcement process. 

Conclusion 

In 1994, USDA planned a departmentwide reorganization that would affect the Food and 

Nutrition Service as an agency and, consequently, affect civil rights enforcement at the agency. 

The reorganization transformed the Food and Nutrition Service from an agency to a component 

within the new agency, the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. The reorganization, 

however, had no impact on civil rights enforcement. The Civil Rights Division remained in FNS, 

underwent name changes, and realigned under different FNS authorities. These actions did not 

influence the civil rights duties, responsibilities, or policies at the agency. 

 

321 Since FY 1985, the agency has had a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) with USDA’s Office of 

Civil Rights. The original purpose of the MOU was to establish parameters for a pilot project under which FNS 

would have responsibility for processing discrimination complaints under Title VI and other statutes. The MOU was 

the official beginning of the decentralization of civil rights activities at USDA. Before the memorandum, all USDA 

agencies’ complaints went to USDA/OCR for processing. In 1996, FNS processed civil rights complaints for its 

federally assisted programs. It received all complaints and determined whether or not they were civil rights 

complaints. If it could not achieve voluntary compliance, FNS referred the complaints to USDA/OCR, with a 

recommendation for corrective action. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 282–83. See FNCS/FNS 

Interrogatory, p. 44. 

322 The MOU was revised and signed on April 3, 1998.USDA, Memorandum of Understanding between the Food, 

Nutrition and Consumer Service and the (USDA) Office of Civil Rights (1998 revision) (hereafter cited as 

FNS/OCR Memorandum of Understanding); FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 45. 

323 FNCS/OCR Memorandum of Understanding, p. 1; FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 45. 

324 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, p. 45. 

325 FNCS/FNS Interrogatory, pp. 44–45. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 70

Since the 1996 study, many of the Commission’s 1996 recommendations have not been 

addressed, and enforcement activities have been stagnant at the agency. The foremost reason for 

the lack of change or improvement in CRD’s activities is leadership instability. The Civil Rights 

Division has had three directors since 1996 and the position has been vacant for nearly a year. 

During the vacancy, the position is covered by four-week rotations of three staff who have other 

responsibilities. Under the rotation process and during the vacancies, the acting directors have 

not implemented new initiatives or policies because their authority does not extend beyond 

meeting enforcement requirements. As a result, there has been a lack of authority, consistency, 

continuity, and growth in the division. New initiatives undertaken have not been completed. 

CRD has maintained the status quo with regard to complaint processing and compliance 

activities. For enforcement to improve, FNCS must reinforce its commitment to civil rights by 

realigning CRD in the undersecretary’s office, delegating it with more authority over all staff 

with civil rights responsibilities, and hiring a civil rights director who makes a long-term 

commitment to enforcement at the agency. These initiatives may require another reorganization 

at FNCS and a reevaluation of the director’s position. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

 When the Commission studied the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1996, it was 

administering seven major federally assisted programs concerned with national soil and water 

conservation amounting to $800 million in financial assistance given annually to approximately 

4,000 recipients.326 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which replaced the 

SCS after the 1994 reorganization, has a broader mission: to conserve, maintain, and improve the 

nation’s natural resources and environment.327 In 2002, the agency was administering 16 

programs related to conservation of water, soil, forests, plants, wildlife, and the environment,328

serving between 5 million and 6 million participants through more than 3,000 recipient groups 

(e.g., local soil and water conservation districts).329 Nine of the programs were providing direct 

payments for specified uses; one provided grants. The remaining programs provided advisory 

and counseling assistance, specialized services, or dissemination of technical assistance. 

Programs benefit mostly landowners, landlords, tenants, or operators, but also state and local 

governments and community or nonprofit organizations with control of land or watershed areas, 

planners, environmentalists, engineers, and tax assessors.330 Because so many of NRCS’ 

 

326 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 309. 327 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “Mission Statement,” 

<www.nrcs.usda.gov>. Additional programs the NRCS assumed responsibility for as a result of the 1994 

reorganization included the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the 

Water Bank Program, the Forestry Incentives Program, and the Farmers for the Future Program. See USDA/NRCS, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Reorganization/Reinvention, Nov. 9, 1994, p. 1. 

328 General Services Administration, The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, see <www.cfda.gov/public/browse_by_subagy.asp> (hereafter cited as 

GSA, CFDA, USDA/NRCS). 

329 NRCS, “FY 2001 Information and Reporting Requirements for Agencies Covered by Executive Order 12,250, 

October 1, 2000–September 30, 2001,” Mar. 30, 2001, p. 1 (hereafter cited as NRCS, CRIP 2001); and NRCS, “FY 

2001 Information and Reporting Requirements for Agencies Covered by Executive Order 12,250, October 1, 2001–

September 30, 2002,” Mar. 13, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as NRCS, CRIP 2002). 

330 GSA, CFDA, USDA/NRCS. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 71

programs provide direct payments, rather than block grants that a recipient redistributes to 

subrecipients, much of NRCS’ enforcement of Title VI involves analyses of its own programs. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

 In its 1996 study, the Commission raised a number of concerns about whether the SCS 

organizational structure gave civil rights, with respect to program delivery, sufficient priority. At 

that time, SCS’ primary civil rights office for Title VI enforcement was the Civil Rights and 

Program Compliance Division (CR&PCD). Prior to 1994, CR&PCD had responsibility for 

program compliance (Title VI) enforcement, but not equal employment opportunity (EEO or 

Title VII). The 1994 reorganization gave CR&PCD Title VII responsibility, but whether the final 

organizational structure would include separate entities devoted to EEO and program civil rights 

was uncertain. The Commission urged that the agency transfer EEO responsibilities to CR&PCD 

without having a negative effect on Title VI enforcement; that it retain at least the same number 

of staff working on program compliance; and that it structure CR&PCD with separate units and 

separate supervisors for EEO and program compliance.331 

In 2003, the Commission finds that NRCS has not achieved a stable, adequately staffed, 

separate environment for Title VI enforcement. Table 2.6 shows a timeline for events that have 

affected civil rights enforcement at NRCS. NRCS had separate units for Titles VI and VII civil 

rights activities only briefly in early 1997. Since then the civil rights unit has undergone several 

name, staffing, or organizational changes, most or all of which appeared to place greater 

emphasis on internal employment discrimination than on equitable program delivery—that is, 

ensuring that all races and ethnicities benefit from NRCS programs.332 NRCS underwent 

reorganization in FY 2000 to align its enforcement unit, now the Civil Rights Staff (CRS), under 

the office of the NRCS chief. CRS has a Special Emphasis Program, a Complaints Branch, a 

Policy Branch, and civil rights managers to oversee regional and state operations.333 The new 

branches did not separate Title VI and Title VII civil rights responsibilities, as will become 

evident when the staffing patterns are discussed below. 

 

331 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 310, 312–13, 322. 

332 NRCS Staffing Plans, Sept. 29, 1995, to July 3, 2002. 

333 NRCS, CRIP 2002, pp. 3–4; Andrew Johnson, Jr., director, Civil Rights Staff, NRCS, letter to Les Jin, staff 

director, USCCR, June 2, 2003, p. 4 (hereafter cited as Johnson letter). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 72

Table 2.6 

Timeline for NRCS Reorganizations and Events Affecting Civil Rights Enforcement

 Oct. 13, 1994 Congress passed the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 authorizing the 

Secretary of Agriculture to streamline and reorganize the department to achieve greater 

efficiency, effectiveness, and economies and calling for the consolidation of headquarters and 

field offices to reduce personnel and duplicative overhead expenses.

Oct. 20, 1994 The USDA Secretary’s implementing memorandum abolished the Soil Conservation Service and 

established the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Further, NRCS (1) assumed 

responsibility for all its previously administered programs and five addition ones; (2) consolidated 

administrative functions with the Forest Service; and (3) reduced personnel, particularly at 

headquarters, thereby increasing the proportion of staff at the field level.

Apr. 27 1995 In response to the Secretary’s implementing memorandum, NRCS issued its plan to establish six 

regional offices, headed by regional conservationists, and reduce state office staff.

Oct. 1996 Having appraised the effects of the 1994/1995 reorganizations over a six-month period, NRCS 

recommended establishing a Civil Rights Employment Division to provide leadership on Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act and achieve greater agencywide efficiency.

Jan. 1997 NRCS national headquarters briefly had separate units for Title VI and Title VII civil rights 

responsibilities.

Sept. 1997 The only headquarters unit with civil rights responsibilities was the Civil Rights Employment 

Division; the Title VI civil rights enforcement unit no longer existed.

Sept. 11, 1998 NRCS reorganized national headquarters and established a program outreach division under the 

Deputy Chief for Management.

Dec. 1998 NRCS renamed the headquarters civil rights unit more generally as the “Civil Rights Staff” and 

established vacancies for three to four civil rights compliance staff. However, at least two of these 

positions, including the director of compliance, remained vacant over the next year and a half.

FY 2000 NRCS restructured the Civil Rights Compliance and Employment Staff into a new Civil Rights 

Division aligned under the Office of the Chief. The new division had a Special Emphasis 

Program, a Complaints Branch, a Policy Branch, and five civil rights managers who were to 

oversee regional and state operations.

FY 2001 NRCS reduced the number of civil rights managers overseeing the six regional offices from six to 

five, and one or more positions have been vacant since then. 

May 2003 NRCS issued amended civil rights policy guidance (General Manual 230—”Part 405 Civil Rights 

Compliance in Program Delivery”) with a section addressing pre- and post-award reviews.
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 73

Figure 2.14 

Organizational Structure of the Soil Conservation Service’s Civil Rights Components, Including 

Regional and State Offices, Before the 1994 Departmental Reorganization 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 310–12. 

<<===

Assistant Chief for 

the Region

District 

Conservationists

Equal Opportunity 

Liaison Officers

State 

Conservationists

Deputy Chief for 

Management

Chief of the Soil 

Conservation Service

Deputy Chief for 

Programs

__EEO Counselors_ 

Civil Rights Advisory 

____Committee___ 

Special Emphasis 

Program Managers

Associate Chief Office of Human 

Resources

Civil Rights and 

Program 

Compliance Division

Equal Employment 

Opportunity Division
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 74

Figure 2.15 

Organizational Structure of the NRCS’ Civil Rights Components, Including Regional and State 

Offices, 2000–2002 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 310–12. 

 Until July 1994, the director of CR&PCD, who was responsible for developing and 

coordinating civil rights policy for SCS, reported to the Deputy Chief for Programs who reported 

to the chief of SCS, a line of authority that was effective depending upon the people filling the 

positions and the importance of civil rights to the chief (see figure 2.14). The 1994 

reorganization resulted in the director of CR&PCD reporting to the Deputy Chief for 

Management, rather than the Deputy Chief for Programs, but did not create a more direct line of 

authority to the chief of SCS. The Commission concluded that CR&PCD did not have 

sufficiently high status within SCS to ensure that its director could influence critical agency 

decisions about budgets.334 In accordance with the Commission’s recommendation,335 the 2000 

reorganization moved the Civil Rights Staff so that the division’s head reported directly to the 

chief of the now Natural Resources Conservation Service (see figure 2.15).336 Because the 

director of CRS now advises and counsels the NRCS chief and other senior staff on 

nondiscrimination in conservation program delivery,337 the Commission concludes that civil 

rights enforcement receives more attention. 

 

334 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 310–12. 335 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 321–22. 336 USDA, NRCS, “Organization Chart,” <www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/organization> (Sept. 19, 2002). 337 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume 

III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Civil Rights 

Staff, Dec. 10, 2002, Tab 3 (hereafter cited as NRCS Interrogatory). 

<<===

State 

Conservationists

Equal Opportunity 

Liaison Officers

Management 

Services 

Division

NRCS Outreach 

Division

Civil Rights 

Managers <<=====>>

Civil Rights Advisory 

____Committee___ 

Special Emphasis 

Program Managers

Undersecretary for 

Natural Resources 

and Environment

Chief of the Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service

Deputy Chief for 

Management

Director of Civil 

Rights Staff Associate Chief

Regional 

Conservationists
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 75

Other aspects of the organizational structure have changed, but not necessarily according 

to the Commission’s recommendations. State offices carry out most compliance activities. A 

state conservationist heads each state office and a collateral-duty equal opportunity liaison 

officer, who reports to the state conservationist, carries out the civil rights activities. In 1994, the 

Commission was concerned that the state conservationists did not report to CR&PCD. Under 

SCS, the state conservationists reported to the assistant chief of their respective regional offices, 

who in turn reported to an associate chief of SCS, with the associate chief reporting to the chief 

of SCS. The Commission was concerned that without supervisory authority over the state staff 

who conduct civil rights activities, the director of CR&PCD could not assure that civil rights 

enforcement was consistently conducted throughout the agency or that the civil rights office 

could make crucial enforcement decisions.338 

Much of the structure remains the same since the six NRCS regional offices were 

established in 1994. State conservationists report to regional conservationists, and the NRCS 

Civil Rights Staff still lacks supervisory authority over civil rights personnel in NRCS state 

offices (see figure 2.15).339 However, each regional office now has a civil rights manager to 

advise the regional conservationist and coordinate and implement civil rights policy. The civil 

rights managers are located in the regional offices but since October 2000 are supervised by the 

director of CRS. The director of CRS advises and provides guidance to all regional and state 

conservationists through the civil rights managers.340 Thus, direct civil rights supervisory 

authority is still lacking, although coordination of civil rights activities and responsibilities may 

have improved. 

 In 1996, the Commission was further concerned that the collateral-duty civil rights 

personnel in the state offices were not trained civil rights specialists and had other duties, and as 

such were unlikely to have the expertise necessary to enforce Title VI. The Commission asked 

that all state office personnel performing civil rights functions be full-time, trained civil rights 

specialists.341 In 2003, the Commission finds that state staff consists of 12 to 22 employees per 

state who are members of a Civil Rights Advisory Committee that meets two or three times a 

year to discuss civil rights activities and make recommendations on emerging issues to the state 

conservationist and special emphasis program managers who devote up to 20 percent of their 

time to both Title VI and Title VII activities.342 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

SCS’ overall civil rights funding was $377,000 in FY 1994.343 Between 1994 and 2001, 

even after the reorganization, the agency did not have a separate budget allotment for CR&PCD 

(or, later, CRS), or an amount designated for Title VI enforcement.344 During that time, the 

 

338 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 311, 321–22. 339 See USDA, NRCS, “Organization Chart”; NRCS Interrogatory, tab 4. 

340 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 4. 

341 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 322. 

342 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 12; Johnson letter, pp. 2–3. 

343 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 312. 344 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 312; NRCS Interrogatory, tab 8. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 76

agency’s civil rights functions were budgeted and maintained under the Deputy Chief for 

Management. The NRCS budget has had a line item for civil rights enforcement since FY 2001; 

however, it includes enforcement for both EEO and equitable program delivery. This amount 

was $1.27 million in FY 2001 and $1.86 million in FY 2002.345 These are enormous increases. 

Even accounting for inflation, the FY 2001 budget is nearly three times, and the FY 2002 more 

than four times, the FY 1994 amount.346 NRCS officials view the funding as sufficient to 

perform effective Title VI enforcement.347

From 1983 to 1994, CR&PCD never had more than six staff members. It had 10 staff 

members after the 1994 reorganization, but the increase accommodated the additional 

responsibilities of the Title VII/EEO program and did not augment the Title VI enforcement 

staff. CR&PCD staff found the heavy workload to be difficult and at times frustrating.348 

Staffing plans since the 1994 reorganization reveal that with the many office changes and 

reorganizations, NRCS headquarters staff has fluctuated in size and included few if any 

employees in a job series related to Title VI enforcement. Figure 2.16 shows both positions, 

some of which were never filled, and staff. In mid-1997, the priority of Title VI enforcement 

diminished, with NRCS headquarters often having no staff or only one person in civil rights 

program compliance until the beginning of FY 2002, at which point there were two.349 Program 

compliance staff increased to seven by December 2002. NRCS officials explain, however, that 

all CRS staff are cross-trained and can therefore be used to accomplish both Title VI and Title 

VII enforcement requirements. Further, CRS can draw upon EEO specialists detailed from 

elsewhere or on managers of special-emphasis programs (for African Americans, Hispanics, or 

persons with disabilities) to accomplish its workload.350 NRCS officials reported that staffing for 

civil rights was sufficient, partly because NRCS leadership granted CRS additional resources, 

that is, employees on detail. For example, in the past two years, the chief of NRCS detailed 10 

 

345 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 8. 

346 To make comparisons, the allotments for FY 2001 and 2002 were deflated to 1994 dollars, using values (0.8664 

and 0.8532) the Commission has applied elsewhere. See USCCR, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement 2000–

2003, April 2003. 

347 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 9. 

348 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 311–13. 349 NRCS Staffing Plans, Sept. 29, 1995, to July 3, 2002. The staffing plans reveal the erratic effects of 

organizational changes on the staff. The number of full-time-equivalent positions (FTEs) reported for civil rights 

each fiscal year shows a more stable increasing trend over time (from nine in 1994 to 26 in 2003) and appear to 

include five or six more staff (who may be field staff) during 1996–1999 than are shown in the staffing plans 

presented above. See NRCS Interrogatory, tab 8. However, the FTEs do not show the distribution of positions 

between Title VI and Title VII functions. Apart from support staff, the job titles appearing in the staffing plans fell 

in the GS-360, “Equal Opportunity Compliance,” GS-361, “Equal Opportunity Assistance,” GS-260, “Equal 

Employment Opportunity ,” and GS-343, “Management and Program Analysis,” series. Title VI enforcement falls 

within the GS-360 and GS-361 series, while GS-260 concerns Title VII and GS-343 involves budget analysis that is 

not necessarily related to civil rights. For the definitions of these positions, see U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, Position-Classification Standard for Equal Opportunity Compliance Series GS-360, PositionClassification Standards for Equal Opportunity Assistance Series GS-36, and Position-Classification Standards for 

Equal Employment Opportunity GS-260, TS-49, November 1980; and Position-Classification Standard for 

Management and Program Analysis Series GS-343, TS-98, August 1990. 350 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 7. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 77

field and headquarters staff to assist CRS in carrying out its mission. The detailed assignments 

ranged from two weeks to one year in duration.351

Figure 2.16 

NRCS Headquarters Civil Rights Staffing, 1995–2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oct-94 Oct-95 Oct-96 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03

Number of positions or staff

Total Positions Title VII Positions Title VI Positions Title VI Staff

Source: Compiled from NRCS, Civil Rights Staffing Plans, Sept. 29, 1995, to July 3, 2002. 

CR&PCD did not have regional civil rights offices or staff before the 1994 organization. 

Within each state, civil rights staffing consisted of the state conservationist, responsible for civil 

rights enforcement, and the collateral-duty equal opportunity liaison officer, assigned to civil 

rights compliance activities.352 From 1995 through 2003, staffing levels had improved only 

slightly. Regional offices now have civil rights managers to coordinate between the 

conservationists and CRS. There are six regional offices, but since FY 2001 only four have civil 

rights managers.353 There are still no full-time civil rights specialists assigned to state offices. All 

civil rights personnel in state and other administrative units have other duty assignments.354 

Three to five nationally trained Title VI CRS staff members, the civil rights managers, 

conduct all external civil rights compliance reviews.355 The compliance review schedule for FY 

2002 planned 11 weeklong compliance reviews, each in a different state. The FY 2003 schedule 

plans a similar number.356

 

351 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 10, 11. 

352 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 311–12. In 1993, there were 52 state conservationists and 56 liaison 

officers. Ibid. 

353 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 2, 5; NRCS, CRIP 2001, p. 4. 

354 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 12, 27. 

355 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 5, 11. 

356 NRCS, “Civil Rights Title VI and Title VII Compliance Review Schedule, Fiscal Year 2002,” n.d. (hereafter 

cited as NRCS, “Compliance Review Schedule, FY 2002”); NRCS, “Fiscal Year 2003 NRCS Civil Rights 

Compliance Review Schedule,” Dec. 10, 2002. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 78

In 2003, the Commission finds that NRCS staffing resources may not be sufficient to 

enforce Title VI. First, it questions whether the agency has staff with appropriate knowledge and 

skills in Title VI enforcement to ensure compliance under this title. From 1994 until late 2002, 

the headquarters civil rights unit has had almost no civil rights compliance staff. Second, if 

cross-trained staff jointly conduct Titles VI and VII compliance reviews, staff can be diverted 

away from focusing on Title VI enforcement. Third, it is doubtful that staff detailed to CRS from 

elsewhere in the agency would have the in-depth knowledge and skills to carry out civil rights 

enforcement, particularly because all field staff have collateral duties. 

 

Planning 

 SCS prepared annual Civil Rights Implementation Plans, which were submitted to the 

department’s Office of Civil Rights and then to the Department of Justice. In its review of these 

plans for FY 1990–1994, the Commission found that the 1990 plan contained long-range goals 

and objectives that addressed the elements of enforcement according to the Department of 

Justice’s requirements.357 The Commission has urged that all federal agencies develop planning 

documents, including strategic plans with civil rights objectives, comprehensive civil rights 

enforcement plans covering the full complement of responsibilities, Title VI implementation 

plans, and work plans for civil rights enforcement. The Title VI plans should include measurable 

goals and objectives with timeframes for accomplishing them and be based on realistic 

assessments of resources available for enforcement. They should serve as a management tool to 

acquire additional resources when the workload increases.358 

The NRCS strategic plan for FY 2000–2005 has an objective of delivering services fairly 

and equitably. In FY 1999, NRCS programs served 54,800 minority, underserved, and 

nontraditional customers. The NRCS target for 2005 is to serve 100,000 members of minority, 

underserved, and nontraditional groups. The means for achieving this target include, for 

example, strengthening ties with minority-serving academic institutions and community-based 

organizations; and working with tribal governments to establish offices and assistance in 

program delivery.359 In addition, NRCS compiles reports listing its civil rights accomplishments, 

including for example, the number of compliance reviews conducted, contacts or activities with 

minority-serving academic institutions and community-based organizations, and newly 

established offices serving Indian reservations.360 

In 1996, because of the lack of a budget allotment for civil rights, the Commission 

concluded that the agency was hampered in engaging in managing or planning its civil rights 

enforcement activities and should develop and implement an information management system to 

track its expenditures, use this system in developing an annual civil rights enforcement plan 

showing the activities it will conduct and the resources it needs for each activity, and track 

 

357 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 320–21. 358 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights 

Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement, September 2002, pp. 20–24. 359 USDA/NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan, 2000–2005, September 2000, p. 41. 

360 See, e.g., NRCS, Civil Rights Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001, n.d. (hereafter cited as NRCS, CR 

Performance Report, FY 2001); NRCS, Civil Rights Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2002, n.d. (hereafter cited as 

NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 79

expenditures, resources, and workload over time to demonstrate the need for additional resources 

to address a growing workload.361 

Since then, NRCS has implemented a tracking system that measures program results in 

terms of the equity of services and beneficiaries among racial or ethnic groups.362 It also has a 

system for recording civil rights accomplishments, for example, that states developed outreach 

plans to improve service delivery to underserved groups, or that the agency conducted 12 civil 

rights compliance reviews in FY 2002.363 However, this system does not enable NRCS to 

identify the resources expended on different civil rights activities, such as conducting outreach or 

performing compliance reviews, so that the information can be used to justify the need for and 

costs of further civil rights activities during program planning. Furthermore, accomplishments 

and expenditures related to Title VI and Title VII are not distinguished within the system. 

Because information on accomplishments is not organized according to statutory authority, one 

cannot easily determine whether NRCS allotted appropriate levels of resources to Title VI or 

other civil rights statutes, let alone justify any need for additional resources. 

Policy Guidance 

 SCS was supplementing USDA regulations and Departmental Regulation 4300-1 with its 

General Manual 230, Part 405, which had been issued and revised several times between 1987 

and 1996. The Commission in its 1996 review found that the manual addressed most aspects of 

SCS’ Title VI compliance and enforcement program, but asked that it include sections requiring 

pre-award reviews of recipients before funds are released to them, and provide procedures for 

conducting such reviews.364 A draft revision of the manual, dated May 2003, provides guidance 

on pre- and post-award reviews.365 In FY 2003, directors of CRS and the Management Services 

Division will be cooperating to ensure that NRCS staff and funding recipients adhere to this 

guideline.366 

Technical Assistance 

 In 1996, the Commission found that CR&PCD was providing technical assistance to state 

and local agency staff both on request and at its own initiative. But technical assistance was 

provided to recipients only on request, usually once or twice a year. In 1993, it had provided 

technical assistance and civil rights training in six states. The technical assistance included two 

training seminars for recipients on their role in ensuring equity in program delivery.367 From 

1995 through 2003, civil rights managers were providing technical assistance continually, 

 

361 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 322. 

362 See NRCS Interrogatory, Tab 14; and, for example, NRCS, PRMS [Performance & Results Measurement 

System] Reports, Parity Report, FY 2003 National, All Programs, n.d. (hereafter cited as NRCS, PRMS Parity 

Report, FY 2003). 

363 See, e.g., NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002. 

364 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 313, 322–23. 365 NRCS, General Manual 230—Part 405, “Civil Rights Compliance in Program Delivery,” amended May 2003, 

Sec. 405.9.

366 Johnson letter, p. 5. 

367 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 317. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 80

including training, interpreting policy, and responding to complaint inquiries and concerns about 

civil rights issues.368

Education and Outreach 

 In 1996, the SCS general manual had detailed instructions for notifying constituent 

groups of the agency’s and USDA’s policy of nondiscrimination and of the procedures for filing 

a complaint. SCS publicized the nondiscrimination policy in public service announcements, 

news releases, educational materials, publications, and slide presentations. CR&PCD 

disseminated information in non-English languages and responded to the state conservationists’ 

requests for publication in different languages. Despite the substantial steps to inform the public 

about civil rights under Title VI, the Commission was concerned that outreach and education 

activity was insufficient because SCS received almost no Title VI complaints. It recommended 

that CR&PCD conduct a study of outreach and education activities to identify areas of weakness 

and populations that are not being served adequately and develop and implement a strategic 

outreach and education plan to ensure that all recipients, participants, beneficiaries, and the 

public are aware of SCS’ programs and of their rights and responsibilities under Title VI.369

 Along with NRCS’ national headquarters reorganization in 1998 and as a response to a 

recommendation of USDA’s Civil Rights Action Team, an Outreach Division was established 

under the Deputy Chief for Management. Thus, the outreach function was removed from the 

responsibility of the Civil Rights Staff.370

Among the Outreach Division’s functions are providing national coordination of all 

agency outreach activities and initiatives and developing management strategies and plans for 

outreach and collaborative endeavors with various entities.371 It continues to inform actual and 

potential customers about NRCS programs and farm bill initiatives though videos, Web sites, 

regional brochures, local multiagency field days; and workshops, seminars, and conferences. The 

division organized special sessions about the farm bill for American Indian tribes and for 

limited-resource farmers. It published and disseminated all farm bill documents in Spanish and 

produced educational videos and other communications on the farm bill documents in Asian 

languages.372 Furthermore, NRCS has begun to review the effectiveness of its outreach in several 

states and has obtained input from tribal liaisons, state conservationists, and program 

coordinators, all of whom have met or worked with Native American tribes. Its FY 2003 budget 

requests resources for more outreach reviews and feasibility studies concerned with limited 

English proficiency and other issues.373

Even though the Outreach Division and the Civil Rights Staff are distinct units, 

considerable interaction occurs between them. The staffs of CRS and the Outreach Division meet 

 

368 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 39; Johnson letter, p. 5. 

369 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 315–16, 323. 370 NRCS, CRIP 2001, pp. 2, 4; NRCS, CRIP 2002, p. 1; NRCS Interrogatory, tab 34. 

371 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 34. 

372 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 35. 

373 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 35, 36. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 81

each month, and more often if needed. Furthermore, the Outreach Division’s regional outreach 

coordinators, the regional civil rights managers, and local outreach coordinators collaborate on 

field activities concerned with program delivery. Perhaps most important, the Outreach Division 

examines CRS’ compliance review reports to identify where outreach is most needed. NRCS 

officials are satisfied with the location and organizational structure of its Outreach Division, 

claiming that it is effective, efficient, and productive.374 

 With each state developing outreach plans, the agency’s outreach efforts take many 

forms, such as workshops to educate landowners and producers about NRCS programs. 

Approximately 360 minority landowners participated in workshops held in conjunction with 

annual farm and land development conferences in Arkansas.375

 

Complaint Processing 

 In its 1996 report, the Commission found that CR&PCD investigated all complaints 

pertaining to SCS-funded programs, but in 1993 had received only one Title VI complaint. The 

Commission concluded that the lack of Title VI complaints indicated that SCS’ outreach and 

education on Title VI were inadequate.376 In 2002, investigation of program complaints was the 

responsibility of the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Civil Rights, not of NRCS’ Civil 

Rights Staff, and responsibility for outreach was assigned to an Outreach Division under NRCS’ 

Deputy Chief for Management.377 The number of program complaints has increased. Between 

FY 1996 and 2002, the number of complaints was typically between 10 and 15 (see figure 

2.17).378 NRCS officials view this number of complaints as low relative to the number of 

program beneficiaries and attribute the increase to efforts toward educating program 

participants.379 In short, outreach is more successful now than in the past in making program 

recipients and beneficiaries aware of their civil rights, but the low number of complaints suggests 

that still more effort is needed. 

 

374 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 34. 

375 NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002, pp. 1, 16. 376 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 315, 323. 377 NRCS, CRIP 2001, pp. 2, 4; NRCS, CRIP 2002, pp. 1–2; NRCS Interrogatory, tab 32. A memorandum of 

understanding spells out the responsibilities of USDA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and NRCS, including OCR’s 

oversight authority and obligation to inform NRCS of the complaint, and NRCS’ responsibility to determine the 

jurisdiction, to forward appropriate complaints to OCR, and to maintain accurate and up-to-date records in a 

complaint tracking system accessible to OCR. USDA/OCR, NRCS, “Memorandum of Understanding between the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights,” Jan. 31, 

2001. 

378 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 30; Frederick D. Isler, deputy director for programs, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, memorandum to Andrew Johnson, Jr., director, Civil Rights Staff, NRCS, re: Response 

to “Ten-Year-Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?” Nov. 26, 2002. 

Note that elsewhere the number of Title VI complaints is given as 19 in FY 2001 and, in FY 2002, an additional 11 

complaints are indicated as concerned with Title VI and other program issues. See NRCS, CRIP 2001, p. 6; NRCS, 

CRIP 2002, p. 6. 

379 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 31. CRS staff further suggested that complaints are low because in the past most NRCS 

programs have provided technical assistance and not any monetary benefits. Johnson letter, pp. 5–6. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 82

Figure 2.17 

NRCS Title VI Complaints Received, 1996–2002

5

13 12

23

15

11 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Number

Source: NRCS Interrogatory, tab 30. 

According to the Commission’s 1996 report, if CR&PCD finds noncompliance while 

investigating a complaint, it will ask the recipient to develop a corrective action plan. However, 

such a case had not arisen because most problems are resolved before the complaint processing 

is completed.380 No complaints investigated in FY 2001 and 2002 resulted in findings of 

noncompliance.381 But again, the small number of complaints filed and processed may suggest 

that program beneficiaries are not aware of their civil rights rather than that NRCS programs are 

not discriminatory. 

Compliance Reviews 

Previously, the state conservationists and their equal opportunity liaison officers, in 

conjunction with district conservationists (who oversee state subdivisions), were responsible for 

all Title VI field activities, including pre- and post-award reviews. CR&PCD was charged with 

monitoring the state conservationists to ensure that they were carrying out these responsibilities. 

In the Commission’s 1996 study, district conservationists performed 3,000 pre-award reviews 

annually and reported the results to the state conservationists and CR&PCD. Because of the 

absence of pre-award instructions in the SCS general manual and the large number of pre-award 

reviews completed each year, the Commission was concerned that the reviews were cursory 

rather than comprehensive. It urged that the reviews go beyond ensuring that applicants have 

submitted an assurance of Title VI compliance and further include analyzing information the 

applicant submits on the funded programs or projects, the populations served or negatively 

affected, the applicant’s policies and procedures, any discrimination complaints lodged against 

the applicant, and any previous findings of compliance or noncompliance relating to the 

applicant.382

 

380 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 315. 381 NRCS, CRIP 2001, p. 7; NRCS, CRIP 2002, p. 7. 

382 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 314–15, 323. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 83

As mentioned above, NRCS expects departmental guidance on pre- and post-award 

reviews during FY 2003. In the absence of this guidance, NRCS officials did not explain what 

roles state conservationists, equal opportunity liaison officers, district conservationists, and CRS 

have had in conducting or monitoring pre- and post-award reviews, indicating that this 

information would be included in the revised general manual. Nor did the officials explain what 

a pre-award review has entailed in the past, what assurances of nondiscrimination were required, 

what types of analyses of policies, procedures, and program beneficiaries have been performed, 

or under what circumstances on-site reviews were conducted.383 Yet, NRCS continued to 

conduct a large number of pre-award reviews with very few staff through FY 2001. Workload 

data reported to the Department of Justice for FY 2001 show NRCS conducted 1,725 pre-award 

reviews, 1,150 of them on site, using three work years.384 In FY 2002, data show NRCS 

performed only 45 pre-award reviews, 21 of them on site, using three work years.385 NRCS 

officials did not explain what changes resulted in the much smaller number of pre-award reviews 

reported for FY 2002 or how the reviews might have changed.386

In 1996, the Commission found that the SCS had an active post-award review program, 

but was concerned that collateral-duty personnel conducted the reviews, not trained civil rights 

specialists. It recommended that each state have at least one full-time civil rights specialist to 

conduct civil rights reviews.387 As indicated earlier, this situation has improved somewhat. 

Although states still do not have full-time civil rights specialists to conduct reviews, four 

regional civil rights managers now conduct compliance reviews. 

In a report to the Department of Justice, NRCS reported devoting 15 work years to 

completing 594 post-award reviews and initiating another 1,311 reviews on covered recipients in 

FY 2001. In FY 2002, with the same number of resources, NRCS completed 338 reviews on an 

estimated 524 covered recipients. None of these reviews produced findings of noncompliance.388

Elsewhere, the agency indicates that it completed approximately 440 program compliance 

reviews in FY 2001 and 400 in FY 2002. It found deficiencies and inadequacies, including 

disparities in minority participation, and demanded corrective actions.389 NRCS also reported 

that it completed 12 “national compliance reviews” concerning Title VI. These were oversight 

reviews of states.390 The Commission now finds that NRCS must accurately count the number of 

completed compliance reviews and distinguish between different types of reviews. A thorough 

analysis of the effectiveness of a compliance review process requires clarity about whether 

headquarters, regional, state, or district staff conducted the reviews; whether state, district, field 

office or external operations were reviewed; and whether Title VI or other civil rights issues 

were covered. 

 

383 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 22, 24, 25. 

384 NRCS, CRIP 2001, p. 9. 

385 NRCS, CRIP 2002, p. 9. 

386 NRCS, CRIP 2002; NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 23–25. 

387 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 315, 323. 388 NRCS, CRIP 2001, p. 10; NRCS, CRIP 2002, p. 10. 

389 See NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002, pp. 26, 29–30; NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2001, p. 17. 

390 NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002, p. 26; see also NRCS, “Compliance Review Schedule, FY 2002,” 

which listed 11 states scheduled to receive compliance reviews. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 84

 The Commission noted that SCS’ general manual included a section on data collection 

and reporting requiring each SCS program office to collect and report racial, ethnic, and gender 

for program participants and eligible program beneficiaries. CR&PCD analyzes the data each 

year to determine disparities and identify areas for outreach efforts. The Commission 

recommended that SCS continue collecting and analyzing these data to support Title VI 

enforcement.391 

In 2002, NRCS was still expanding its data collection system to better represent program 

delivery activities for each of its programs based on race, gender, national origin, and disability. 

For example, information on disability was added to the information system in FY 2002. NRCS 

staff can monitor progress in customer service by race, gender, ethnicity, and now disability 

using standard reports compiled by such factors as location, conservation program, and customer 

type. Analyses typically compare the parity of NRCS service beneficiaries with population 

statistics (e.g., agricultural landowners or operators on the bases of race, gender, and ethnicity) 

from the National Census of Agriculture.392

Staff Training 

 The SCS general manual requires that all employees with program delivery 

responsibilities receive civil rights compliance training within six months of assuming such 

responsibilities and delineates topics that should be covered in the training. When the 

Commission reviewed SCS in 1996, all new employees with civil rights/EEO responsibilities 

were receiving civil rights training. CR&PCD had developed a training guide with six modules 

on Title VI and was conducting semiannual training seminars for state and local agency staff. 

The Commission asked that the agency continue to provide comprehensive civil rights training, 

including Title VI, to all staff engaged in Title VI enforcement.393 

In 2002, NRCS reported that new employees receive training within six months of their 

hire and that civil rights training is conducted annually for all employees. The orientation for 

new employees, however, does not have any Title VI content. The annual civil rights training 

had little obvious Title VI content on program delivery in the years from 1997 to 2002.394

NRCS’ training center, the National Employee Development Center, conducted 11 training 

sessions on civil rights compliance in program delivery during FY 2001, reaching only about 375 

 

391 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 319–20, 324. 

392 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 45, 46, 47. See, e.g., NRCS, PRMS Parity Report FY 2003. 393 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 319, 324. 

394 During this period, a 2000 program included training on civil rights program delivery. NRCS Interrogatory, tab 

44. See also NRCS, “Orientation for New Employees,” Washington, D.C., May 21–25, 2001, agenda. Elsewhere, a 

performance report notes that FY 2001 included training for all staff that addressed “aspects of Civil Rights issues 

pertaining to program delivery.” See NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2001, p. 22. A 2002 training conference 

for special emphasis program managers had sessions on the use of statistical data and census data on race and 

ethnicity and on outreach. See NRCS, “Special Emphasis Program Managers Training Conference, Special 

Emphasis Programs: [agenda], Saint Louis, Missouri, August 27–29, 2002.” Some improvement was occurring in 

2003 with a training session on compliance in program delivery conducted in Missouri in April, and others 

scheduled for South Carolina and North Dakota in June and September. See NRCS, National Employee 

Development Center, “NEDC Course Schedule for 2003,” <www.nedc.nrcs.gov/catalog/schedule.html> (May 30, 

2003).
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 85

NRCS managers and supervisors.395 Thus, in recent years NRCS’ civil rights training for 

employees has been less frequent and less focused on Title VI compliance than when the 

Commission last studied this USDA component. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

 CR&PCD did not have supervisory authority over the state conservationists, as indicated 

earlier. According to the Commission’s 1996 report, CR&PCD had contact with them through 

(1) telephone calls and letters initiated by the state conservationists, (2) the annual reports the 

state conservationists submitted on state activities and the resolution of any problems in them, 

and (3) post-award on-site compliance reviews. Through these contacts, the director of CR&PCD 

reported having personal contact with approximately 15 state conservationists a year.396

Although the director of the Civil Rights Staff still does not have supervisory authority over the 

state conservationists, the higher placement of the CRS director in the agency’s structure and the 

assignment of civil rights managers to regional offices increased the contact between CRS and 

the state conservationists. 

 Under CR&PCD, civil rights managers were conducting oversight reviews of states on a 

five-year cycle, and states were conducting reviews of field offices on a three- to five-year cycle, 

or roughly 10 reviews each year. CR&PCD staff reviewed extensive information and documents 

in preparing for a state compliance review and determining which field offices states would 

review. They spent approximately three to four months interviewing field staff and 

representatives of recipient groups to ensure that they knew their responsibilities in conducting 

compliance reviews.397 In 2002, the frequency of CRS reviews of states and of state reviews of 

field offices remained the same.398

In 1996, the Commission concluded that with the assistance of state conservationists to 

conduct day-to-day enforcement activities, CR&PCD had an effective system for monitoring 

Title VI enforcement throughout the agency’s programs. The Commission was concerned, 

however, that CR&PCD did not have much contact with state conservationists except during 

these reviews. It urged the division to expand its technical assistance activities so that state office 

civil rights personnel have frequent contact with CR&PCD.399 

In 2003, the Commission finds that the civil rights managers in the regional offices, who 

report to the director of CRS but provide assistance to the region and states, have, at least to 

some extent, filled the need for further coordination. These managers coordinate and conduct 

civil rights compliance reviews and discuss the findings of these reviews with the state 

conservationists.400

 

395 NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2001, p. 22. 

396 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 317. 397 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 317–18. 

398 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 40, 43. 

399 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 323–24. 400 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 5. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 86

Coordination 

 In its 1996 report, the Commission found minimal interaction between SCS and the 

Department of Agriculture’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcement (OCRE). The two offices 

reportedly interacted when an SCS complaint could not be resolved voluntarily. OCRE 

controlled the interaction, communicating its directives to CR&PCD, but was not responsive to 

CR&PCD’s requests, for example, for guidance or clarification on civil rights issues.401 

In 2003, the Commission finds that NRCS interacts much more frequently with 

departmental staff and offices. The agency reported coordination and interaction with the 

department’s Office of Civil Rights in reviewing information on policy development, the status 

of program complaints, compliance and noncompliance of settlement agreements, compliance 

reviews, reporting requirements, Civil Rights Impact Analyses, and other civil rights functions 

and activities.402 NRCS had communicated regularly with OCR to ensure that NRCS complaints 

were processed and reconciled. The NRCS Civil Rights Staff (CRS) were providing information 

and assistance to OCR to facilitate case processing.403 Furthermore, in FY 2002, CRS provided 

training to NRCS program staff on how to conduct Civil Rights Impact Analyses of the effects of 

program changes. Training on Civil Rights Impact Analyses had last been provided in 1999.404 

NRCS also has contact with other departmental headquarters offices such as the Office of 

Outreach and Office of General Counsel. The USDA Office of Outreach holds monthly meetings 

with USDA agencies’ staff, including the NRCS Outreach Division staff. Through these 

meetings the NRCS Outreach Division has conducted, assisted with, or participated in 

departmentwide forums and conferences, some of which concerned the 2002 farm bill. In 

addition, CRS consults with the department’s Office of General Counsel, Civil Rights Division, 

regarding any legal issues or concerns that involve civil rights matters.405 Thus, NRCS 

coordination and contact with USDA offices concerning civil rights issues have improved. 

Community Involvement 

In 1993, CR&PCD had identified grassroots organizations that could enable it to 

strengthen its program outreach and initiatives; however, the Commission concluded that its 

outreach and education activity was insufficient for ensuring nondiscrimination.406 Perhaps 

because of the establishment of the Office of Outreach and states’ development and 

implementation of outreach plans, NRCS has developed much stronger relationships with 

community-based organizations. NRCS has formed Employee Advisory Councils representing 

Asian American/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and American Indian and Alaskan Natives to 

advise the agency on how to target diverse groups and on the effects of the 2002 farm bill. In FY 

2000 and 2001, NRCS worked with local food and agriculture councils, and resource 

 

401 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 314. 

402 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 16. 

403 NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002. 

404 NRCS Interrogatory, tab 18. 

405 NRCS Interrogatory, tabs 16, 37. 

406 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 316–17, 323. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 87

conservation and development councils and associations, which sponsor many projects. NRCS 

has also worked with the National Black Mayors Incorporation, the National Organization of 

Black County Officials, and Native American tribes.407

Conclusion 

In the years since the Commission studied the Soil Conservation Service, the agency has 

been reorganized to become the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Organizational 

changes have resulted in some advances in civil rights enforcement to ensure nondiscriminatory 

program delivery, and some backward sliding. The Civil Rights Staff has risen to a more 

prominent location in the organizational structure, giving a higher priority to civil rights. NRCS 

established an Office of Outreach to give additional attention to this function, although the office 

is located under management removed from the Civil Rights Staff. Staff continues to be 

responsible for civil rights functions related to both equal employment and program delivery. 

Funding and staffing have been increased, the latter very recently, but planning mechanisms are 

still unable to determine the amount of resources devoted to Title VI enforcement rather than 

other civil rights functions. Thus, NRCS is impaired in linking the amount of additional 

resources it needs to the statutory authority for those needs in its funding requests. 

 The Civil Rights Staff of NRCS is still in the process of developing policy guidance to 

address concerns the Commission raised in 1996, for example, on conducting pre- and postaward reviews. At the same time, its civil rights training, offered annually, has far too little 

content on Title VI enforcement. Although a recently formed Office of Outreach has increased 

the number of program complaints, the low number of complaints suggests that more outreach is 

needed. Finally, wide variation in the numbers of compliance reviews conducted each year 

suggests some reviews are more in-depth than others and that NRCS needs more guidance on 

different types of reviews and how to conduct them. 

 

407 NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2001, pp. 2, 24–37, 43–44; NRCS, CR Performance Report, FY 2002, pp. 1–

3. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 88

CHAPTER 3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has 

responsibility for most of America’s public lands and natural resources. This responsibility 

entails fostering sound use of the nation’s land and water resources; protecting its fish, wildlife, 

and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of its national parks 

and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. DOI 

assesses the country’s energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development 

is in the best interests of all American people by encouraging stewardship and citizen 

participation in their care. DOI also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation 

communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.1

Overview 

The Commission last reviewed the Department of the Interior’s civil rights enforcement 

program in 1996. At that time, the only bureaus with active Title VI programs were the National 

Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(WBR). In 1991, the Office for Equal Opportunity (OEO) had assumed new responsibility for 

coordinating and developing civil rights policy at DOI.2

 OEO’s duties entailed the “overall 

direction, policy development, and oversight of bureaus’ Title VI enforcement efforts.”3 Its new 

role not only increased bureau accountability, but also allowed OEO to assign more personnel to 

civil rights enforcement work.4

A year before the Commission’s review, as OEO reorganized its federal financial 

assistance programs and federal employment staffs, DOI was participating in the National 

Performance Review Reinvention Laboratory. Both DOI and OEO sought to streamline and 

improve civil rights performance. OEO hoped to accomplish this by assembling the external civil 

rights Federal Financial Assistance Programs staff and internal equal employment opportunity 

Federal Employment Programs staff into a team structure.5 Staff supervisors, possessing no civil 

rights enforcement training, would also be replaced with process managers, who would receive 

 

1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, “20 Years of Service to America, MMS, Minerals 

Management Service, 1982–2002,” n.d. 

2

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

Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 388 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). When the 

Commission reviewed OEO in 1996, it established that OEO had decentralized its civil rights program in 1991. Prior 

to 1991, the civil rights program had been centralized. In 1996, OEO stated that decentralization had improved its 

civil rights performance efforts. Currently, OEO is planning to centralize its civil rights program. If centralization is 

approved, the scheduled effective date for full implementation is October 1, 2003. The director believes that 

centralization will dramatically improve OEO’s civil rights compliance and enforcement efforts. See E. Melodee 

Stith, interview in Washington, D.C., Jan. 15, 2003 (hereafter cited as Stith interview). 

3

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 388. 4

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 388. 5

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 388. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 89

civil rights enforcement training.6 Before the reorganization, personnel did not work as closely 

and were less familiar with the programs they administered and program recipients. Because of 

these factors, they were not held accountable for the administration of these programs. After 

reorganization, process managers and staff would be held directly accountable for the programs 

they administered.7 DOI focused on ensuring that existing regulations and operational procedures 

allowed efficient and effective enforcement of civil rights laws.8

Priority of Civil Rights 

In 1996, the OEO director reported to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human 

Resources, not the Secretary of the Interior, from whom the director was several levels 

removed.9

 The lack of immediate access to the Secretary likely hindered OEO’s efforts to 

enforce Title VI in all of DOI’s federally assisted programs and activities. This arrangement may 

have also hindered the enforcement of other civil rights laws at DOI and the department’s equal 

employment opportunity program, which OEO administered.10 The director stated that she had 

“ready access to both the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Budget, and Administration and the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources,” participated in weekly meetings with these 

officials, and met with all office directors bimonthly.11 The Commission noted that OEO’s 

enforcement efforts would benefit if the director reported to the Secretary, thus giving civil rights 

the same priority as other DOI responsibilities.12

The Commission’s 2003 review finds that the director is still several levels removed from 

the Secretary. According to OEO, the reporting hierarchy has not changed during the past 10 

years: the director still reports to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and 

Workforce Diversity (DASHRWD), who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

 

6

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 388–89. 7

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 388. In 1996, the Commission was unable to evaluate the likelihood that 

OEO would meet its goal because OEO did not provide the Commission with much information on its 

reorganization. 

8

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 388–89. 

9

 E. Melodee Stith has been director of the Office for Equal Opportunity during the Commission’s 1996 review and 

the present one. See Stith interview. 10 In addition to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, OEO is responsible for enforcing the following civil rights 

laws, executive orders, and DOI regulations: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, as amended; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 357 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 701 (1994)); Age Discrimination 

Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-175, 89 Stat. 728 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6101 (1994)); Exec. Order 

12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629 (1994); Exec. Order 13,160 66 Fed. Reg. 5,398 (2001); Exec. Order 13,166, 3 C.F.R. § 

289 (2001), reprinted in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d-1 (Law. Co-op. 2003); Nondiscrimination in Activities Conducted 

Under Permits, Rights-of-Way, Public Land Orders and other Federal Authorizations Granted or Issued Under Title 

II of Public Law 93-153, 43 C.F.R. § 27 (2002); Requirements for Equal Opportunity During Construction and 

Operation of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, 43 C.F.R. § 34 (2002). OEO provided this information. 

See U.S. Department of the Interior’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume 

III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Office for Equal Opportunity, Jan. 29, 2003, pp. 2–4 

(hereafter cited as DOI Interrogatory). 

11 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 387. 12 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 405. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 90

Management and Budget (ASPMB).13 Despite having direct access to the DASHRWD and 

ASPMB, the director’s comments reach the Secretary through one or two supervisors. OEO still 

maintains that this does not negatively affect the civil rights program because the Office of 

Policy, Management and Budget (PMB) makes administrative decisions for OEO. Furthermore, 

the director continues to “participate in all important executive meetings concerning budget, 

staffing, and policy issues affecting those programs for which she is responsible. . . .”14

Reporting to the DASHRWD in no way ensures that OEO’s concerns reach the Secretary 

because other concerns can overshadow these civil rights matters in PMB. The director is 

satisfied, however, that she has direct access to the Secretary when needed. Nevertheless, the 

director’s weekly report to the Secretary merely includes an account of Title VI activities, 

instead of detailed information on what OEO requires to prioritize Title VI enforcement at DOI 

(see figure 3.1).15

Figure 3.1 

Department of the Interior Organizational Structure, 2003

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Organization Chart, Mar. 24, 2003. 

 

13 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 1, 4. 

14 DOI Interrogatory, p. 1; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Organization Chart,” n.d., 

<http://www.doi.gov/org.htm> (hereafter cited as DOI Organization Chart). Examples of executive meetings 

provided by OEO on the interrogatory are Management Initiatives Team, Human Capital Management Team and 

Workforce Planning Work Group. 

15 Stith interview. 

 

 

 

 

 -External, Intergovernmental Affairs 

-Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs 

-Congressional and Legislative Affairs 

-Communications

Solicitor

Inspector General

Special Trustee for 

American Indians

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary

Assistant Secretary 

Land and Minerals 

Management

Assistant Secretary 

Water and Science

Chief Information Officer

Assistant Secretary 

Policy, Management and Budget and 

Chief Financial Officer

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs National Park Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Assistant Secretary 

Indian Affairs

Assistant Secreatary 

Fish and Wildlife and Parks

Bureau of Land 

Management

Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement

Minerals Management 

Service

U.S. Geological 

Survey

Bureau of 

Reclamation
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 91

In 1996, the Federal Financial Assistance Programs staff handled Title VI enforcement at 

OEO and reported directly to the director. The Federal Employment Programs staff addressed 

Title VII, or equal employment opportunity (internal civil rights), and also reported to the 

director.16 The separation of external and internal civil rights enforcement prevented Title VI 

resources from being redirected to internal civil rights obligations. Despite this, OEO was not 

sufficiently prioritizing Title VI enforcement because it did not have a legal structure to do so. 

The office relied instead on DOI’s Office of the Solicitor to keep Title VI regulations current and 

draft Title VI procedures and guidelines.17

As of 2003, Title VI civil rights compliance and enforcement at OEO are managed by the 

Civil Rights Program Staff (CRPS), with the Diversity and Program Evaluation Staff (DPES) 

and Complaints Processing and Adjudication Staff (CPA) addressing internal civil rights 

functions.18 Since OEO has maintained separate external and internal units, Title VI resources 

continue to be used solely for external efforts.19 OEO has no dedicated legal staff and continues 

to rely on DOI’s Office of the Solicitor to provide legal instruction on Title VI matters.20 OEO’s 

reliance on the Solicitor for these services emphasizes DOI’s failure to prioritize external 

enforcement (see figures 3.2 and 3.3). 

In 1996, the failure of DOI’s Title VI enforcement program prompted the Commission to 

recommend the separation of OEO from offices responsible for developing projects required to 

meet external or internal civil rights laws. To accomplish this, the Commission envisioned OEO 

serving as a watchdog for the other offices to ensure that every initiative, plan, program, and 

activity originating at DOI met agency civil rights enforcement goals.21 This is a critical issue 

because OEO is responsible for enforcing and ensuring compliance with all federal civil rights 

laws and executive orders for which the department has responsibility.22 OEO has authority to 

conduct these duties under Title VI and to ensure that they are fully enforced.23

 

16 In 2003, OEO maintains three staffs: Complaints Processing and Adjudication, Diversity and Program Evaluation, 

and Civil Rights Program. See DOI Interrogatory, p. 5. 

17 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 387–88. 18 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Departmental Manual,” Oct. 6, 1998, <http://elips.doi.gov/elips/release/ 

3225.htm>; DOI, Organization Chart. These units were previously called the Federal Financial Assistance Programs 

Staff and Federal Employment Programs Staff, respectively. (See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 387–

88; U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 1994 Civil Rights Implementation Plans and Supporting Workload and 

Performance Data, p. 3). Specifically, DPES develops policy and designs, manages, and directs enhancement 

programs to promote full diversity within the department, which include affirmative action planning and 

implementation. CPA is responsible for issuing final agency decisions on all complaints of discrimination filed 

against the department on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation. 

19 DOI Interrogatory, p. 11. 

20 U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 2002 Information and Reporting Requirements for Agencies Covered by 

Executive Order 12,250 (Oct. 1, 2001–Sept. 30, 2002), p. 3 (hereafter cited as DOI, FY 2002 Information and 

Reporting Requirements); Stith interview. 21 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 405. 

22 DOI Interrogatory, p. 4. 

23 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Departmental Manual,” Feb. 3, 1996, 

<http://elips.doi.gov/elips/release/3051.html> (hereafter cited as DOI, “Departmental Manual,” Feb. 3, 1996). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 92

Figure 3.2 

DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Organizational Structure, Effective 1991 to October 5, 1998 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 387–92. 

Figure 3.3 

DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Organizational Structure, Effective October 6, 1998

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity Organization chart, Jan. 31, 2003. 

In 2003, OEO’s Title VI compliance and enforcement efforts continue to be hindered by 

its placement with PMB.24 Specifically, OEO is included in PMB and, within that, subsumed 

under the DASHRWD. OEO’s subordinate position within PMB may negate its ability to ensure 

that PMB projects required to adhere to laws enforced by OEO do so.25 Included among the 

many duties of ASPMB, for example, are special-emphasis programs such as equal opportunity, 

small and minority business utilization, and minority educational institutions, programs subject 

 

24 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Policy, Management and Budget, “PMB Offices,” n.d., 

<http://www.doi.gov/policy-management-budget.html> (hereafter cited as DOI, “PMB Offices”); see USCCR, 

Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 387, 405. 25 DOI, FY 2002 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 1; DOI, “PMB Offices.” 

Director

National Park Service 

Federal Employment 

Programs 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

 Federal Financial Assistance 

Programs

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

National Park 

Service

Office of Surface 

Mining

U.S. Geological 

Survey

Complaints 

Processing and 

Adjudication 

Staff

Diversity and 

Program 

Evaluation Staff

Director

Civil Rights 

Program Staff
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 93

to civil rights compliance.26 This deficiency is especially stark because among OEO’s objectives 

is providing “department-wide oversight . . . for the various Interior . . . civil rights compliance 

programs.”27

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

The Commission’s 1996 evaluation found that DOI annually distributed approximately 

$900 million in federal financial assistance. Between 1964 and 1994, DOI provided 12,414 

recipients more than $22 billion in financial assistance through 62 programs. Although DOI’s 

bureaus operated all of its federally assisted programs, only NPS, FWS, and WBR had 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing Title VI in the federal financial assistance 

programs they administered.28 At that time, DOI’s other bureaus did not have active Title VI 

programs but operated federally assisted programs.29 Despite the responsibilities assigned to 

NPS, FWS, and WBR, OEO was ultimately responsible for enforcing Title VI in all DOI’s 

federally assisted programs and activities.30 Specifically, OEO oversees and offers policy 

direction, guidance, training, and support to bureaus in Title VI activities. Moreover, OEO is 

charged with reporting noncompliance and enforcement actions against recipients to other 

federal agencies, including termination of funding.31 In FY 1993, DOI’s total civil rights budget 

was $5.2 million.32 Of this amount, OEO was allocated $1.6 million, which also sustained its 

oversight of the equal employment opportunity program within the department.33

In 2003, the Commission finds that OEO received a steady increase in funding between 

FY 1998 and 2002. OEO’s average annual funding was $1.3 million from FY 1996 through the 

FY 2002 budget request.34 The only decrease during this period occurred in FY 1997, when 

funding was $150,000 below the previous year (see figure 3.4).35

 

26 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Office of Policy, Management and Budget,” n.d., <http://www.doi.gov/policymanagement-budget.htm>. 

27 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 2002 Budget Submission and Appropriation, 

Justification of Program and Performance, p. DM-95 (hereafter cited as OEO, FY 2002 Budget Submission and 

Appropriation). 28 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 385, 389. 

29 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 388, 390. In addition to the National Park Service, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, in 1996 the bureaus were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of 

Land Management, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minerals Management Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, and U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

30 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 387. 31 DOI, “Departmental Manual,” Feb. 3, 1996. 

32 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 385, 391. This amount also included expenditures; U.S. Department of 

the Interior, FY 1994 Civil Rights Implementation Plans and Supporting Workload and Performance Data, p. 4 

(hereafter cited as DOI, FY 1994 Information). 

33 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1994 Budget Submission and Appropriation, 

Justification of Program and Performance, p. SEC-26; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 387. 

34 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1997 Budget Submission and Appropriation, 

Justification of Program and Performance, p. DM-61 (hereafter cited as OEO, FY 1997 Budget Submission and 

Appropriation); U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1998 Budget Submission and 

Appropriation, Justification of Program and Performance, p. DM-54 (hereafter cited as OEO, FY 1998 Budget 

Submission and Appropriation); U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1999 Budget 

Submission and Appropriation, Justification of Program and Performance, p. DM-58; U.S. Department of the 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 94

In 1996, OEO had neglected to develop a mechanism for managing, allocating, or 

tracking Title VI funds and expenditures. In fact, no formal tracking system existed for any of its 

external civil rights activities. Because OEO did not know how its Title VI expenditures 

compared with its other program areas, its ability to systematically plan its Title VI activities was 

impeded.36 Moreover, failing to monitor external civil rights expenditures may have caused the 

reductions in OEO’s budget, staffing, and resources that occurred at that time.37 The Commission 

recommended that OEO develop an information management system that would permit it to 

isolate Title VI outlays from those for all other civil rights activities. The Commission said both 

OEO’s and the bureaus’ expenditures should be tracked in order to accurately account for 

costs.38 In 1996, the Commission also found that DOI’s budget did not designate funds for 

OEO.39

Figure 3.4 

DOI Office for Equal Opportunity Budget, 1996–2002

1.2

1.05

1.3 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1996–2002 Budget Submissions and Appropriations.

The forgoing has not changed in 2003. Funding for OEO is contained in the 

Departmental Management portion of DOI’s budget, thus, funds are still not being designated for 

OEO. Consequently, the director is responsible for obtaining funds from the department and 

 Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 2000 Budget Submission and Appropriation, Justification of Program 

and Performance, p. DM-99; U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 2001 Budget 

Submission and Appropriation, Justification of Program and Performance, p. DM-98; OEO, FY 2002 Budget 

Submission and Appropriation, p. DM-95. The FY 2002 figure is based on OEO’s budget request for that fiscal 

year. 

35 OEO, FY 1997 Budget Submission and Appropriation, p. DM-61; OEO, FY 1998 Budget Submission and 

Appropriation, p. DM-54. 36 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 408. 

37 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 391. 38 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 408. 39 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 391. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 95

distributing them to each civil rights functional area.40 Matters are further clouded by OEO’s 

continued failure to institute an information management system for tracking civil rights 

expenditures.41 The situation is especially troublesome since more than five years ago, DOI spent 

in excess of $1.5 million and expended staff to further develop the Accessibility Data 

Management System.42 The system would have allowed the review, reporting, monitoring, and 

tracking of DOI’s civil rights compliance and enforcement.43 Failing to implement such a system 

has likely prevented OEO from assessing the impact of funding on Title VI enforcement. Lack of 

funding also has negatively affected DOI’s systematic planning for Title VI activities. 

In 1996, the Commission found that OEO’s work was further compromised by the lack of 

a dedicated unit for policy development and programmatic guidance.44 At that time OEO devoted 

only five staff members to external civil rights activities. However, only one employee 

performed work for OEO because FWS used three staff while NPS used one.45 Still, increasing 

the number of staff was only half the battle, as OEO had to adequately train, monitor, and guide 

them.46

The 2003 study reveals that OEO staff is responsible for policy development and 

programmatic guidance, dissemination of guidance to bureaus, and monitoring and overseeing 

bureaus’ civil rights enforcement.47 Consequently, OEO is still lacking a unit dedicated to policy 

development and programmatic guidance. Furthermore, since OEO only dedicates five civil 

rights program staff to external activities, including the four assigned to individual bureaus, staff 

members are still greatly overburdened despite being periodically supplemented by personnel 

temporarily detailed to Title VI activities from other OEO sections (see figure 3.5).48

 

40 DOI Interrogatory, p. 11. 

41 DOI Interrogatory, p. 11. 

42 U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 8 (hereafter 

cited as DOI, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information). 43 DOI, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information, p. 8. 44 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 406. 

45 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 408. 46 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 

47 DOI Interrogatory, p. 5. 

48 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 12, 16; Stith interview, p. 5. The four CRPS not working directly for OEO are assigned to 

the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Surface Mining, and U.S. Geological Survey. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 96

Figure 3.5 

DOI Office for Equal Opportunity and Bureau Title VI Staffing, 1996–2002

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

FTEs

OEO FTE Bureau FTE

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1994–2002 Civil Rights Implementation Plans and 

Supporting Workload and Performance Data. 

Bureau civil rights staff work in dedicated internal and external enforcement units with 

the director overseeing staffing levels. But the director does not have authority to influence the 

number of staff members dedicated to external duties. Although all bureaus have an equal 

opportunity office, civil rights enforcement specialists are only in NPS, FWS, Office of Surface 

Mining (OSM), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Bureaus without civil rights 

enforcement specialists are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA); WBR; and the Minerals Management Service (MMS).49 Finally, bureaus with civil rights 

program management staff may or may not assign civil rights specialists to Title VI duties, and 

the director has no authority to instruct them to do so.50

Planning 

According to the Commission’s 1996 report, OEO’s Civil Rights Implementation Plans 

(CRIPs) failed to meet the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) requirements. OEO was not providing 

enough information to permit DOJ to assess the program’s quality. OEO’s CRIPs also failed to 

provide the public with an understanding of DOI’s federally funded programs. Moreover, since 

the goals and objectives of the plans were not specific and lacked timetables and standards for 

accomplishment, as prescribed by DOJ, the Commission found that they did not serve as a 

 

49 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Workforce Diversity,” May 30, 2002, 

<http://www.doi.gov/diversity/8doi_eeo.html>. 50 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 9–10, 16. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 97

management tool.51 Because the plans were not meeting DOJ’s standards, the Commission 

recommended that OEO develop plans that fulfilled DOJ’s specified objectives. It also 

recommended that the plans clearly explain DOI’s Title VI enforcement program and be readily 

available to the public. Because these plans needed to be used as a management tool, OEO had to 

present its “methods for selecting recipients for compliance reviews.”52 Furthermore, complainthandling procedures and the provisions for providing outreach and education, training, and 

technical assistance also had to be included in the plans. OEO’s Civil Rights Implementation 

Plans also had to include a description of DOI’s Title VI quality assurance programs and specific 

long-range and short-term goals and objectives, with timeframes for accomplishing them.53 To 

ensure that goals and objectives were met, OEO had to develop them by accounting for available 

staff and resources as well as directing enough of both to that end.54

During the Commission’s 2003 study, OEO indicated that the CRIP has always been 

developed with the Department of Justice’s guidance.55 According to OEO, it has been 

developing these plans since 1972. OEO further states that DOJ has never provided any feedback 

on the sufficiency of the implementation plans, and the DOI interpreted DOJ’s silence as 

approval.56

The lack of DOJ feedback may persist because OEO’s implementation plans continue to 

provide inadequate information and, thus, do not permit DOJ to evaluate their sufficiency.57

During the Commission’s 2003 review, the goals and objectives, for example, presented in 

implementation plans for FY 1998 through FY 2002 continue to be overly general and lack dates 

for completion and established standards.58 Moreover, the plans still fail to provide the public 

with a clear understanding of DOI’s Title VI enforcement program and, even then, are not 

readily available to the public.59 For individuals to obtain OEO’s CRIP, they must go through the 

process of requesting them from OEO. DOI does not use one of today’s most readily accessible 

 

51 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 414. In 1996, the Department of Justice included specific objectives for 

Civil Rights Implementation Plans in its “Guidelines for Agency Implementation Plans Required by Executive 

Order 12,250, Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws.” 

52 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 414. 

53 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 414. 54 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 414. 55 DOI Interrogatory, p. 6. 

56 DOI Interrogatory, p. 6. 

57 This analysis commences with the FY 1998 implementation plan because FY 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 

implementation plans are presented in one report with no distinction made between fiscal years. 

58 DOI, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information, pp. 1–5; U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 1998 Information and 

Reporting Requirements Covered by Executive Order 12,250, pp. 1–7 (hereafter cited as DOI, FY 1998 Information 

and Reporting Requirements); U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 1999 Civil Rights Information and Reporting 

Requirements for Federally Assisted Program Subject to Executive Order 12,250, pp. 1–8, 11–12 (hereafter cited as 

DOI, FY 1999 Civil Rights Information); U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 2000 Information and Reporting 

Requirements for Agencies Covered by Executive Order 12,250, pp. 1–5 (hereafter cited as DOI, FY 2000 

Information and Reporting Requirements); U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 2002 Information and Reporting 

Requirements, pp. 1–3. 

59 DOI, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information; DOI, FY 1998 Information and Reporting Requirements; DOI, FY 1999 

Civil Rights Information; DOI, FY 2000 Information and Reporting Requirements; DOI, FY 2002 Information and 

Reporting Requirements; DOI Interrogatory, pp. 17–18. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 98

formats, the Internet, to allow public access to OEO’s Annual Civil Rights Implementation and 

Accomplishment Report. As of May 2003, the link to the plan, although present, is not activated 

on OEO’s Web page.60 Simply stated, the implementation plans written since the Commission’s 

1996 review do not incorporate any of the Commission’s recommendations. 

Policy Guidance 

The Commission’s 1996 review revealed that DOI had neglected to revise, or even 

modify, the Title VI model regulations it had received from DOEd. That is, DOI was applying 

model Title VI regulations developed for educational funding recipients to its recipients. Hence, 

numerous references in the regulations were wholly inappropriate to DOI’s programs and 

activities since they applied to DOEd’s civil rights program. Adding to this crisis was DOI’s 

failure to keep the regulations current. In fact, DOI did not incorporate the clarifications to Title 

VI’s coverage and funding termination provisions included in the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 

1987, despite the passage of numerous years.61 As a result, the Commission recommended an 

immediate revision and update of DOI’s Title VI regulations. The Commission further asked 

DOI to publish annually an updated list of its federally assisted programs in the Federal 

Register.

62

In 2003, the Commission finds that DOI last modified its Title VI regulations in FY 

2002.63 Although the regulations were updated to include the Civil Rights Restoration Act’s 

definition of a covered “program” and “program or activity,” it neglected to incorporate the act’s 

clarifications to Title VI’s coverage and funding termination provisions.64 Furthermore, DOI 

failed to provide appropriate model regulations or examples, instead choosing to maintain those 

developed by DOEd.65 Finally, DOI has not published an annual list of its federally assisted 

programs in the Federal Register.

66

In 1996, the Commission also found that DOI’s Title VI guidelines were outdated. Once 

more, the Commission asked DOI to immediately remedy the situation since existing regulations 

did not accurately reflect the agency’s current Title VI enforcement structure and process. 

Perhaps more disturbing was DOI’s failure to issue guidelines for its other federally assisted 

programs.67

 

60 See U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, “U.S. Department of the Interior, Workforce 

Diversity,” Redress for People Outside DOI, Sept. 9, 2001, <http://www.doi.gov/diversity/5civil.htm>. It must be 

noted that the Internet is not equally “readily accessible” to all segments of society. See Dari Haddix, “Surge in 

Internet Use by Underserved Kids,” United Press International, Mar. 19, 2003. 61 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 

62 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 

63 DOI Interrogatory, p. 6. 

64 DOI, FY 2002 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 7; U.S. Department of Justice, “Joint NPRM 

Incorporating the CRRA,” Dec. 6, 2000, <http://www.usdoj.gov:80/crt/cor/byagency/crranprm.htm> (hereafter cited 

as DOJ, “Joint NPRM”). 

65 DOI, FY 2002 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 7; DOJ, “Joint NPRM.” 

66 An exhaustive search of the Federal Register at <http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html> on 

February 11, 2003, provided no such listing. 

67 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 99

The Commission recommended that DOI clearly outline the “relative responsibilities of 

OEO, the bureaus, civil rights offices, the bureaus’ program offices, and recipients [in] ensuring 

Title VI compliance in the areas of pre-award and post-award compliance reviews; complaint 

processing; data collection, reporting, and analysis; technical assistance; and outreach and 

education” in the guidelines.68 Guidelines also needed to clearly describe the specific types of 

data that recipients were required to collect and provide to OEO, and supply clear and relevant 

examples of the actions that violated Title VI.69

The Commission also recommended that guidelines provide state recipients receiving 

funding under continuing programs with an explicit understanding of Title VI compliance 

responsibilities. It was also recommended that guidelines require states to seek DOI approval for 

their methods of administration and to submit regular self-assessments and compliance plans to 

DOI.70

The 2003 study finds that OEO develops guidelines “on an as need basis” and when DOJ 

provides new Title VI standards.71 Although OEO proposed revising DOI civil rights guidelines 

in FY 1998, this was for Title IX (education) not Title VI (grants).72 The Title VI guidelines used 

by OEO in 2003 continue to be badly outdated as they do not even incorporate the Civil Rights 

Restoration Act. One set of guidelines is included as part of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Grants Manual and is very general. Although it incorporates some of the areas mentioned 

by the Commission, it neglects just as many. Moreover, it is only directed at the NPS and its 

recipients, and thus is of little if any use to other DOI bureaus.73 The other set of guidelines is 

developed by the FWS and is equally vague and covers the same general areas as the manual.74

The Commission found in its 1996 review that DOI’s Title VI enforcement procedures 

were also in need of immediate updating and revision. The Commission noted that the existing 

Title VI enforcement manual made no mention of OEO’s current Title VI enforcement 

procedures. Instead, the manual described an outdated Title VI enforcement structure.75 To 

correct the situation, the Commission recommended that the manual be updated and revised to 

explain (1) every civil rights implementation and enforcement procedure; (2) how to conduct 

pre-award and post-award compliance reviews; (3) how to process and investigate complaints 

correctly; (4) how to perform community outreach, public education, and technical assistance; 

and (5) how to negotiate and monitor compliance agreements.76

 

68 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 

69 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 

70 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 409. 71 DOI Interrogatory, p. 7. 

72 DOI, FY 1998 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 4. 

73 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, Land & Water Conservation Fund Grants Manual, 

n.d., pp. 1–11; DOI, FY 1997 Civil Rights Information, p. 12. 

74 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid Toolkit, 2002. 75 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 410. 76 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 410. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 100

To strengthen OEO’s reviews and investigations, the Commission also recommended that 

OEO provide staff with detailed instructions and elaborate on the types of information to be 

considered during reviews and investigations. In addition, the manual should provide examples 

of whom staff should contact for information throughout compliance reviews and complaint 

investigations.77 A final recommendation was the inclusion of a Title VI compliance analysis 

outline for the staff’s erudition.78

The Commission finds that in 2003, OEO has no Title VI enforcement manual. 

According to OEO, it issues equal opportunity memoranda to distribute enforcement 

procedures.79 However, the Commission received no documentation supporting the assertion that 

DOI was fulfilling this requirement.80

Technical Assistance 

DOI’s bureaus depended on technical assistance from OEO for effective Title VI 

enforcement. OEO’s mandate to coordinate and oversee the bureaus’ Title VI efforts also 

required it to provide bureaus with this assistance. OEO’s ability to provide technical assistance, 

however, was a function of staff.81 When the Commission reviewed OEO in 1996, external 

enforcement staff consisted of only six full-time-equivalent positions (FTEs).82 The Commission 

concluded that the number was insufficient to handle the workload. 

Because of insufficient staffing, the Commission recommended that OEO maximize its 

resources by providing technical assistance during its regular on-site monitoring reviews of 

bureaus’ programs. Delivery of technical assistance could also be improved by developing a 

regular and systematic program for those bureau staff performing Title VI enforcement 

procedures. In addition to assisting bureau staff, OEO needed to begin providing periodic 

assistance to all its recipients via the bureaus. To avoid taxing resources, bureaus could 

accomplish this over the telephone and through written communications or civil rights 

conferences and other appropriate forums. Before delegating this responsibility, however, OEO 

had to provide comprehensive training to bureau staff on external civil rights enforcement. The 

quality of this and other civil rights work had to be supervised by OEO to avoid the shortfalls of 

the previous effort.83

In 2003, the Commission finds that OEO and the bureaus provide recipients with 

technical assistance on request and during compliance reviews and complaint investigations.84

Recipients, as well as public entities, routinely receive expert technical assistance from DOI 

 

77 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 410. 

78 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 410. 79 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 6, 23. 

80 Because OEO did not provide any memorandums to the Commission, as many as could be found on the Internet 

were obtained. 

81 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 412–13. 

82 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 385. 83 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 413. 84 DOI Interrogatory, p. 19. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 101

bureaus and offices aimed at resolving noncompliance.85 However, FY 2000 was the last time 

OEO provided recipients with technical assistance.86 OEO, NPS, FWS, OSM, and USGS each 

have one full-time staff member to perform all Title VI enforcement duties, including technical 

assistance. The BIA provides technical assistance to Native American and Alaska Native 

communities concerning limited-English-proficiency (LEP) and race discrimination issues 

despite not having an established Title VI compliance review program.87

The Commission also finds that OEO annually reviews bureaus to assess their plans and 

accomplishments in enforcing the provisions of Title VI, including the effectiveness of the 

technical assistance they provide.88 However, OEO has not provided technical assistance to 

bureaus having compliance and enforcement responsibilities since FY 1999.89 Training for 

DOI’s equal opportunity personnel at the NPS, FWS, WBR, and OSM on providing effective 

technical assistance was last provided in FY 2000.90

OEO further states that when subrecipients receive federal funds, primary recipients are 

responsible for providing them with technical assistance. Although DOI requires primary 

recipients to have continuing technical assistance programs, the quality of these programs is not 

monitored nor are recipients required to submit self-evaluation reports on their program.91

However, the last time OEO acknowledges training primary recipients was in FY 1997. Even 

then, only primary recipients receiving funds through the NPS, FWS, and WBR received 

technical assistance.92

Education and Outreach 

The Commission’s 1996 evaluation revealed that education and outreach efforts were 

essentially limited to the development and distribution of a multilingual civil rights poster and 

several brochures. Apart from these publications, neither OEO nor the bureaus provided 

meaningful outreach and education. In fact, although three bureaus had active Title VI 

enforcement programs, only FWS did more than display the poster.93 The Commission 

recommended that DOI immediately develop a comprehensive Title VI community outreach and 

public education program under the direction of OEO.94

In 2003, the Commission finds that OEO continues to rely on civil rights posters as the 

primary means of informing the public of DOI’s Title VI civil rights obligations. Recipients are 

required to place a reasonable number of these posters in prominent locations throughout all 

 

85 DOI, FY 2000 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 5. 86 DOI, FY 2000 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 5. 

87 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 16, 19–20. 

88 DOI Interrogatory, p. 19. 

89 DOI, FY 1999 Civil Rights Information, p. 5. 

90 DOI, FY 2000 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 2. 91 DOI Interrogatory, p. 19. 

92 DOI, FY 1994 Information, p. 17. 93 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 94 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 102

areas of their operations. The posters explain the procedures for filing complaints with DOI, and 

are supplemented with pamphlets that describe DOI’s civil rights policies and procedures. These 

pamphlets are made available to all public entities.95 Recipients are further obligated to notify the 

public of their nondiscrimination policies in publications describing program availability.96

Additionally, bureau civil rights staff regularly participate in natural-resources-related 

conferences at both the state and local levels and hold training and discussion workshops that 

cover Title VI policies. DOI has five FTEs overseeing outreach and education, the same ones 

charged with all other civil rights duties.97

Complaint Processing 

In 1996, the failings of DOI’s Title VI enforcement program were also evident in OEO’s 

methods for conducting complaint investigations. Generally, OEO’s Title VI complaint 

investigations did not detect discrimination, leading the Commission to conclude that perhaps 

they were not sufficiently comprehensive. There was no question they were rudimentary because 

neither OEO nor the bureaus had developed or implemented procedures for conducting them. 

Moreover, investigations were not reviewed to verify their thoroughness.98

To remedy this lack of investigative vigor, in 1996 the Commission recommended that 

OEO and the bureaus develop and implement clear and comprehensive complaint investigation 

procedures. The Commission also recommended that a quality assurance review process be 

established to certify the thoroughness of investigations before providing complainants and 

recipients with decisions.99 

OEO’s internal Title VI complaint investigation procedures are currently found in DOI’s 

Equal Opportunity Directive No. 1998-13, “Internal Civil Rights Complaints Processing 

Procedures,” September 30, 1998.100 The procedures outlined in this directive are generally clear 

and detailed in explaining OEO’s and the bureaus’ responsibilities in investigating and 

processing Title VI complaints. Unfortunately, these procedures do not provide steps for 

verifying the thoroughness of a complaint investigation.101 Furthermore, external procedures are 

nonexistent except for requiring recipients to report any complaints or lawsuits against them that 

allege they discriminated because of race, color, or national origin.102 OEO, and specifically the 

director, is charged with overseeing and monitoring the entire complaint process, including 

 

95 DOI Interrogatory, p. 17. OEO did not provide pamphlets for the Commission to review. 

96 DOI Interrogatory, p. 17. 

97 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 16–18. 

98 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 

99 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 100 DOI Interrogatory, p. 15. 

101 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, “Equal Opportunity Directive No. 1998-13, 

Internal Civil Rights Complaints Processing Procedures,” Sept. 30 1998, 

<http://www.doi.gov/diversity/doc/eod98_13.htm> (hereafter cited as DOI, Directive No. 1998-13). 102 DOI Interrogatory, p. 15. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 103

resolution.103 Complaint investigations are still conducted by the five aforementioned civil rights 

FTEs.104

The Commission’s 2003 study further finds that DOI’s complaint process may also 

continue to be hindered by its relatively weak education and outreach efforts since, on average, it 

annually received a mere eight Title VI violation complaints from FY 1996 through FY 2001. 

Although OEO does not specify the annual number of Title VI complaints left unresolved, over 

this same period it had approximately 175 unresolved civil rights complaints (see figures 3.6 and 

3.7).105 DOI’s complaint investigation procedures are vague on bureau time limits for processing 

complaints. Specifically, the procedures state that the “most egregious complaints should be 

reported to the Departmental Office for Equal Opportunity within five (5) days [of] receipt.”106

Complaints other than the most egregious are to be reported to OEO at the established monthly 

intervals with the resolution of “all complaints of alleged discrimination [to be resolved] 

promptly and appropriately whenever possible.”107

Figure 3.6 

Department of the Interior Title VI Complaints, 1996–2001

5 4

14

8

10

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

Complaints received

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1996–2001 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data.

Unfortunately, the procedures rely on individual interpretations of what “most egregious” 

means. While a complaint may strike one equal opportunity officer as not egregious enough to 

 

103 DOI Interrogatory, p. 14; DOI, Directive No. 1998-13. 

104 DOI Interrogatory, p. 16; Stith interview. 

105 U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 1996 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 15; U.S. Department 

of the Interior, FY 1997 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 13; U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 

1998 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 15 (hereafter cited as DOI, 1998 Civil Rights Data); U.S. 

Department of the Interior, FY 1999 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 12; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, FY 2000 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 19; U.S. Department of the Interior, FY 2001 

Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data, p. 15 (hereafter cited as DOI, 2001Civil Rights Data). 

106 DOI, Directive No. 1998-13. 

107 DOI, Directive No. 1998-13. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 104

warrant immediate action, another staff member may view it as egregious and worthy of 

immediate processing. Moreover, procedures for resolving complaints promptly and 

appropriately whenever possible are imprecise and do not specify how and on what timeframe 

duties must be accomplished. 

Figure 3.7 

Department of the Interior Unresolved Civil Rights Complaints, 1996–2001

132

223

177 169

192

158

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

End of FY unresolved civil rights complaints

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office for Equal Opportunity, FY 1996–2001 Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data.

Compliance Reviews 

During the Commission’s 1996 review of OEO, it was discovered that no uniform policy 

existed requiring pre-award reviews of all applicants before deciding whether to approve federal 

funding. In fact, at that time only the NPS and FWS were conducting pre-award reviews. Even 

this, however, was questionable as these bureaus were merely administering a Title VI checklist, 

not conducting “comprehensive assessments” of Title VI compliance.108

OEO’s failings prompted the Commission to recommend that it implement pre-award 

reviews in “each of its major federally assisted programs” that carefully evaluate “program data 

and other information supplied by applicants” before authorizing federal funding.109 Only if 

applicants were in compliance with Title VI and DOI’s Title VI regulations would federal 

funding be furnished.110

The Commission’s 2003 study finds that OEO still only conducts cursory pre-award 

reviews of an applicant’s program and takes a passive posture, assuming compliance will prevail 

upon a recipient’s signature on a civil rights assurance form.111 Pre-award reviews are not guided 

 

108 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 109 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 

110 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 111 DOI Interrogatory, p. 13. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 105

by uniform policies and thus differ between bureaus with the result that some conduct less 

comprehensive ones. Responsibility for conducting reviews belongs to bureau program 

specialists and not civil rights personnel. DOI believes that limited pre-award reviews focusing 

on the applicant’s operations and requiring them to sign a civil rights assurance form are more 

efficient because grants are awarded more quickly and do not overburden the grant-making 

process with protracted and unnecessary delays. Consequently, DOI collects no additional 

program data during pre-award reviews and some bureaus may conduct more lenient reviews. 

DOI identifies and resolves civil rights problems through a fall-back process. If noncompliance 

is found during an applicant’s pre-award review, the director is notified and an investigation is 

initiated.112 DOI should be proactive and conduct expanded pre-award reviews, as resources 

permit, and thus address a problem before it becomes a violation. 

Despite the shortcomings of OEO’s pre-award reviews, both NPS and FWS had 

implemented them by 1996. Conversely, OEO had never implemented a system of post-award 

desk-audit reviews. Such a failure indicated a waste of resources, both staff and monetary, since 

desk audits permit agencies to evaluate more recipients with fewer staff members and resources 

than on-site reviews.113 To address this problem, in 1996 the Commission recommended that 

OEO develop and implement procedures that would allow it to make post-award desk-audit 

reviews an integral part of its enforcement process. The process was to include the regular 

collection of enough relevant information to perform adequate reviews of recipients. Relevant 

information included data on individuals participating in the program and those eligible to 

participate by race, color, national origin, and ethnic group membership.114

DOI now relies extensively on post-award desk-audit reviews because costs are low 

compared with on-site reviews. Furthermore, OEO has established procedures for conducting 

reviews at numerous DOI programs, including park and recreation programs and historic 

preservation activities.115 These procedures were established in FY 1998, according to 

documents.116 In FY 2001, OEO conducted 1,503 post-award reviews of a total 13,256 estimated 

covered recipients, slightly more than 11 percent of recipients. Of the 1,503, only three recipients 

were found to be in noncompliance, slightly less than 0.2 percent, and only two were reviewed 

with more than desk audits. All three cases of noncompliance were resolved through corrective 

action commitments by the recipients.117

Although DOI’s bureaus conducted on-site compliance reviews at the time of the 

Commission’s 1996 review, they fell far short of the comprehensive reviews required by DOJ. 

Their lack of investigative depth was rooted in OEO’s failure to assign civil rights staff to 

conduct them. Regrettably, program management staff, lacking understanding of Title VI 

requirements and the experience to uncover discrimination, was conducting on-site reviews. 

 

112 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 12–13. OEO states that pre-award reviews are part of the federal financial assistance 

process. 

113 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 114 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 

115 DOI Interrogatory, p. 14. 

116 DOI, 1998 Civil Rights Data, p. 1. 117 DOI, 2001 Civil Rights Data, p. 19. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 106

Reviews were further hindered by being limited to readily identifiable forms of discrimination, 

examples of which could be easily marked off on a civil rights checklist.118 OEO’s on-site 

reviews also focused on specific projects and not the entire system, thus not adhering to a Title 

VI requirement under the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.119

In its 1996 report, the Commission concluded that OEO needed to develop and 

implement specific procedures for reviewing the civil rights compliance status of DOI’s federal 

funding recipients. These external reviews needed to be comprehensive and geared toward both 

Title VI and other civil rights statutes. Furthermore, these reviews had to complement the 

monitoring performed during civil rights project reviews, not replace it.120

As a result, the Commission recommended that such reviews include a liberal 

examination of a recipient’s programs and practices and not be limited to those funded directly 

by DOI. Information was to be gathered from a “recipient’s staff, program participants, affected 

parties, and interested community groups” via extensive interviews.121 Data collected by the 

recipient and obtained by OEO were to be thoroughly analyzed. Reviews were to be performed 

by trained civil rights personnel from DOI’s bureaus or OEO, and not by program management 

staff lacking the training or knowledge for such work.122

In 2003, while on-site compliance reviews are comprehensive in nature, the majority still 

focus on isolated problems and practices due to limited civil rights staff. Both OEO and the 

bureaus now assign civil rights staff to conduct on-site compliance reviews.123 Documents and 

interviews, however, do not reveal an expanded review process. One document, the Federal Aid 

Toolkit, is limited to the FWS and simply lists a number of documents to be examined during an 

FWS on-site compliance review. No interviews of recipients or beneficiaries are mandated, and 

recipients may not even be required to submit all the documents.124 

The second document, Civil Rights Post-Award Review Checklist, continues to be limited 

to readily identifiable forms of discrimination and is predominantly aimed at recipients, thus 

addressing very few of the Commission’s 1996 recommendations. Although community 

representatives and program beneficiaries are to be interviewed, the instructions designate people 

with hearing impairments as the target group. Consequently, the document is limited to programs 

geared toward or in which hearing-impaired individuals participate. Yet, if it is a limited scope 

review, community representatives and program beneficiaries may not be interviewed.125 In sum, 

program participants, affected parties, and interested community groups may be excluded from 

participating in the review process even if involved in the program under review. 

 

118 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 411–12. 119 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 411–12. 120 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 

121 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 122 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 412. 

123 DOI Interrogatory, p. 14. 

124 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid Toolkit, 2002. 125 U.S. Department of the Interior, Civil Rights Post-Award Review Checklist, n.d. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 107

Staff Training 

The Commission’s 1996 evaluation found a lack of staff training. Perhaps the most 

prominent example was the bureaus’ administration staff, which was frequently assigned Title 

VI enforcement responsibilities despite having little if any training in this area. The intrinsic 

nature of this moribund condition led the Commission to declare that “OEO’s Title VI 

enforcement activities are generally performed by poorly trained staff at the expense of the 

quality of its Title VI enforcement program.”126

In 2003, the Commission finds that funding for staff training has not increased and 

remains inadequate.127 Despite the funding freeze, OEO states that all equal opportunity staff are 

provided adequate training and that no staff members have been “denied the opportunity for 

work-related training. . . .”128 Moreover, training is regularly provided across all program areas, 

with Title VI training periodically conducted during each fiscal year. OEO was in the process of 

planning Title VI training for mid-2003. Training is accomplished both at OEO and the bureaus, 

with bureau-level training directed at regional civil rights staff, federal grants personnel, and 

recipient officials.129

Despite OEO’s assertion that Title VI training is periodically conducted during each 

fiscal year, the Commission finds that the last time Title VI training was provided was in FY 

2000. No documentation for subsequent fiscal years reports Title VI training under activities 

accomplished for that year.130 Title VI training should be an ongoing process. Initial and followup training is crucial for external civil rights staff to grasp and effectively conduct their assigned 

duties. 

Delegation 

In 1996, the Commission found that OEO had failed to implement active Title VI 

programs at each of the bureaus providing federal financial assistance. Since bureau civil rights 

staff members dealt directly with concerned parties, enforcement would have been improved if 

they were entrusted with primary responsibility for complaint investigations, compliance 

reviews, technical assistance, and public outreach and education. The Commission noted that by 

judiciously delegating Title VI responsibilities to bureaus, OEO could enhance DOI’s civil rights 

enforcement work. The foundation for this was already laid as OEO had existing arrangements 

with the NPS, FWS, and WBR.131

The Commission’s 2003 study reveals that DOI currently has one equal opportunity 

office in each bureau in addition to the main OEO. According to OEO, bureau offices serve as 

 

126 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 413. 127 DOI Interrogatory, p. 26. 

128 DOI Interrogatory, p. 20. 

129 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 20–21. 

130 DOI, FY 2000 Information and Reporting Requirements, p. 2; DOI, FY 2002 Information and Reporting 

Requirements. 131 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 407–08. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 108

focal points for effectuating Title VI compliance among each bureau’s respective recipients.132

OEO further states that bureaus were authorized to perform Title VI functions starting in 

February 1996. Currently, however, only the NPS and FWS have active Title VI programs, with 

OSM, USGS, and WBR having marginal programs, according to OEO.133

OEO justifies DOI’s bureau enforcement system by stating that (1) creating an active 

program at the Bureau of Land Management would waste resources because it has the same 

types of programs and funds the same recipients as NPS; (2) those BLM programs not shared 

with NPS are covered by Title VI enforcement programs at other federal agencies; (3) the DOI 

views the BIA as dealing with sovereign entities, namely Native American nations and Native 

Alaska villages, who when federally recognized are not generally bound by the provisions of 

Title VI; and (4) the “abstract nature” of the programs and activities administered by the 

Minerals Management Service “do not sufficiently lend themselves to Title VI coverage.”134

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

In 1996, the Commission found that despite being ultimately responsible for ensuring 

DOI’s external civil rights enforcement, OEO had not implemented a “systematic oversight and 

monitoring program of Title VI enforcement work” the bureaus performed.135 The lack of such 

activity, the Commission noted, further eroded OEO’s ability to ensure DOI met its civil rights 

enforcement obligations. The Commission recommended the creation of a unit that would be 

responsible for the “operational planning and overall development of fiscal year goals and 

objectives for DOI’s civil rights enforcement efforts.”136 This unit would regularly and 

thoroughly evaluate bureau civil rights staff performance. The close monitoring of staff would 

reveal defects in Title VI implementation and enforcement procedures at the bureaus and provide 

the opportunity to assess how efficiently and effectively the bureaus were meeting the fiscal year 

goals and objectives.137

Bureaus 

Because of a decentralized civil rights enforcement structure, in 1996 the Commission 

recommended that OEO develop a system to oversee and monitor the bureaus’ Title VI 

enforcement activities.138 The Commission concluded that the effectiveness of OEO’s oversight 

and monitoring would be greatly enhanced if periodic on-site reviews of the bureaus’ efforts 

were undertaken. During these assessments it was suggested that OEO evaluate a bureau’s 

complaint and compliance review files along with appraising a bureau’s data collection efforts. It 

was also suggested that OEO take this opportunity to interview program staff and recipients 

 

132 DOI Interrogatory, p. 8. 

133 DOI Interrogatory, p. 9. 

134 DOI Interrogatory, p. 9. 

135 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 406. 

136 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 406. 137 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 406. 138 DOI decentralized OEO in 1991 and redirected its focus toward coordination and policy development. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 109

concerning pertinent issues and “issue a report with findings and recommendations for 

improvement.”139

In addition to these periodic reviews, the Commission further recommended that OEO 

“conduct annual reviews of Title VI self-assessments provided by the bureaus.”140 To remedy 

any deficiencies, it was requested that OEO provide bureaus with regular Title VI staff training 

and technical assistance.141

The Commission now finds that DOI’s program is decentralized, thus bureau EEO 

officers supervise Title VI work. OEO provides policy guidance to bureaus on Title VI 

enforcement, oversight and evaluation of bureaus’ programs, staff training, and programmatic 

direction to ensure uniform enforcement.142 However, OEO lacks any authority to determine the 

number of bureau personnel who perform Title VI duties.143

Clearly, this is not an effective way to ensure Title VI compliance among recipients. 

Simply stated, bureaus may not assign enough personnel to Title VI duties thus not permitting 

proactive monitoring of recipient’s programs or adequate pre-award review of an applicant’s 

program. Regardless of whether it is a pre- or post-award review, the director must be given the 

resources and authority to ascertain and ensure that bureaus assign sufficient personnel to Title 

VI duties. 

Continuing State Programs 

In 1996, DOI conducted very limited oversight of continuing state programs. Its efforts 

consisted of Title VI regulations requiring state recipients to submit their methods of 

administration for maintaining compliance with Title VI and DOI’s Title VI regulations. 

Guidelines for the Land and Water Conservation Fund provided somewhat more detailed state 

requirements.144 However, apart from this program, the guidelines included no Title VI 

responsibilities for state recipients. Furthermore, OEO had no active monitoring program of 

states’ Title VI compliance and thus did not know whether states were complying. This was a 

major lapse at DOI because most of its funds were distributed via continuing state programs.145

The Commission’s 1996 evaluation revealed that OEO and the bureaus could remedy this 

situation by reviewing and approving, or not, a state’s methods of administration. To accomplish 

this, states operating continuing state programs would be required to submit such data along with 

“annual Title VI self-assessments reporting on their compliance with Title VI.”146 The 

 

139 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 

140 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 141 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 411. 142 DOI Interrogatory, pp. 8–10. 

143 DOI Interrogatory, p. 9. 

144 The National Park Service administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund. See

<http://www.nps.gov/programs/lwcf>. 

145 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 413. 146 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 413. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 110

Commission also recommended that trained bureau staff review data, thus limiting the possibility 

that noncompliance would be overlooked. 

To further reduce noncompliance, the Commission asked OEO to monitor and evaluate 

the work of bureau staff. Conditions also warranted periodic on-site compliance reviews of 

continuing state programs by bureau civil rights staff. Noncompliance could be further reduced 

and resources maximized if technical assistance were provided during on-site reviews along with 

a report appraising Title VI compliance status and suggestions for eliminating any 

deficiencies.147

In 2003, the Commission finds that OEO continues to falter in its oversight of continuing 

state programs due to DOI’s organizational structure. OEO states that DOI is not structured to 

hold states accountable for their Title VI enforcement programs. As such, there are no adequate 

resources to require states to perform annual self-assessment reports.148

Conclusion 

Despite minor improvements to Title VI enforcement in DOI’s federal financial 

assistance programs, these efforts are negligible in the face of a Title VI program that has not 

met its obligations since the early 1980s, if ever.149 The department and OEO must make a 

determined effort to drastically improve their Title VI enforcement program by increasing 

funding, assigning more staff, and dedicating themselves to, generally, raising its stature within 

DOI. Simply put, Title VI must be prioritized at DOI if recipients and beneficiaries are ever to 

receive the commitment they deserve and, more importantly, is their right. 

The department and OEO can take a first step on this road by committing themselves to 

ensuring that the nine key elements and six strategies presented in the Commission’s Ten-Year 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A 

Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement report (September 2002) are promptly incorporated into 

DOI’s civil rights enforcement program. Specifically, the nine key elements are: 

• a high priority for civil rights enforcement, established through sufficient resources 

consisting of funding and staffing; 

• an organizational structure that expresses the priority of civil rights, for example, by 

having the top civil rights official reporting directly to the agency head; 

• planned civil rights goals and activities, such as a strategic plan for which and how many 

enforcement activities are needed to fulfill the agency’s civil rights obligations and what 

resources will be allocated to accomplish them; 

• clear and pertinent policy guidance, including internal procedures, external policy, and 

current regulations; 

• technical assistance, such as helping employers and service providers establish policies 

and procedures that comply with antidiscrimination laws; 

 

147 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 413. 148 DOI Interrogatory, p. 20. 

149 Stith interview. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 111

• education and outreach, such as helping victims of discrimination and the public 

understand their civil rights and how to obtain assistance if discrimination occurs; 

• effective complaint processing systems to ensure that those who believe they have been 

discriminated against have a means of resolution; 

• systems to review all federal funding recipients’ compliance with antidiscrimination laws 

both before and after awards are made and to correct deficiencies; and 

• regular staff training on civil rights statutes and enforcement policies and procedures.150

The six strategies are: 

• integrating civil rights enforcement throughout every part of the agency, including all its 

agency components, programs, and field offices, and in every program that receives 

federal funding; 

• delegating enforcement activities, such as responsibility for reviewing civil rights 

compliance, from agency headquarters to agency components, field offices, contracting 

organizations, and recipients with subrecipients; 

• implementing oversight and quality assurance procedures to ensure that delegated 

responsibilities are carried out properly and consistently; 

• coordinating civil rights enforcement activities with other federal agencies; 

• streamlining enforcement procedures to ensure that they are conducted effectively and 

efficiently with the fewest resources; and 

• involving advocacy groups and community organizations in designing civil rights 

enforcement activities.151

If DOI and OEO incorporate these elements and strategies into their Title VI enforcement 

program, they will have taken a critical step toward making civil rights an integral part of the 

department and meeting their Title VI enforcement obligations. 

 

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

Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement, September 2002, pp. x–xii. 151 Ibid., pp. xii–xiii. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 112

CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in the executive 

branch as an independent agency created to permit coordinated and effective governmental 

action on the environment.1

 There are 13 major offices in EPA: (1) the Administrator; (2) 

Administration and Resources Management; (3) Air and Radiation; (4) the Chief Financial 

Officer; (5) General Counsel; (6) Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; (7) Environmental 

Information; (8) Inspector General; (9) International Affairs; (10) Prevention, Pesticides, and 

Toxic Substances; (11) Research and Development; (12) Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 

and (13) Water. Additionally, 10 regional offices and 17 laboratories are located throughout the 

country.2

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, air, 

water, and land, upon which life depends. EPA provides leadership in the nation’s environmental 

science, research, education, and assessment efforts and works closely with other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes to develop and enforce regulations under 

existing environmental laws. EPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards 

for several environmental programs and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for 

issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not 

met, EPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to help states and tribes reach the desired 

levels of environmental quality. The agency also works with industries and all levels of 

government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy 

conservation efforts. 

The Commission reviewed EPA in 1996 and assessed the agency’s effectiveness in 

fulfilling its Title VI civil rights enforcement responsibilities. In its report, the Commission made 

29 recommendations to EPA aimed at improving Title VI enforcement.3

 The Office of Civil 

Rights (OCR), more specifically, its External Compliance program, has exclusive responsibility 

for enforcing Title VI at EPA, including investigating complaints.4

 

The statutes for which EPA has external civil rights responsibilities include (1) Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (3) Section 13 

 

1

 Pursuant to Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970, effective December 2, 1970. See U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, “Agency Overview,” 2002, <http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/overview.htm>. 

2

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Organizational Structure,” 2002, 

<http://www.epa.gov/epahome/organization.htm>; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Who We Are,” 2002, 

<http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm>. 

3

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

Assisted Programs, June 1996 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). 

4

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for 

Volume III of the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Office of Civil Rights, Nov. 27, 2002, p. 10 

(hereafter cited as EPA Interrogatory). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 113

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, (4) Title VIII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968, (5) Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972, and (6) Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975.5

 The Commission’s 2003 report focuses on OCR and its 

enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in federally assisted programs. 

Overview 

 In 1996, the Commission found that EPA had several deficiencies that impeded Title VI 

implementation and enforcement. OCR was not appropriately organized to advance external civil 

rights; the OCR director, for example, did not report directly to the administrator. The office was 

also lacking important planning information as a result of not having an electronic system for 

simultaneously tracking, by statute, external civil rights expenditures and staff assignments. 

Furthermore, OCR’s Civil Rights Implementation Plans (CRIPs) were too general, and preaward and complaint investigation procedures had not been updated since 1984. Moreover, 

education, outreach, and technical assistance were inadequate, as was staff training. In the midst 

of these inadequacies, the Commission was somewhat heartened to find that EPA was 

developing investigative plans for case investigation. 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that EPA shows considerable improvement in civil rights 

since the 1996 review. EPA established an internal Title VI task force in December 1996 to help 

implement the Commission’s 1996 recommendations. Organizationally, OCR is better set up for 

Title VI, now that the director reports exclusively to the administrator, and has weekly meetings 

with the deputy chief of staff to discuss routine civil rights matters.6

 EPA is developing and 

updating Title VI procedures. Its approach to education, outreach, and technical assistance has 

model aspects well worth adopting by other federal agencies. EPA has also developed a 

comprehensive complaint process that is now being field tested. 

The Commission’s study, however, reveals that OCR still does not track electronically 

and maintain external civil rights expenditures and staff assignments in the same database. 

Further, the External Compliance program is understaffed, and an adequate document for 

planning and management has to be developed. Moreover, EPA did not conduct any pre-award 

or post-award compliance reviews in FY 2002. Thus, there is room for improvement. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

 During the Commission’s 1996 review, EPA’s OCR director formally reported to the 

administrator, but on routine civil rights matters, to the deputy chief of staff. While this 

arrangement was sufficient for day-to-day concerns, the Commission advised that the OCR 

director should report to the administrator on policy, budget, and resource decisions affecting 

 

5

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “External Complaints and Compliance Program,” 2002 

<http://www.epa.gov/ocrpage1/extcom.htm>; <http://www.epa.gov.ocrpage1/othlawreg.html>; USCCR, Federal 

Title VI Enforcement, pp. 416, 419; Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 

86 Stat. 816 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (1994)); Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 

No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3639 (1994)). 

6

 Karen D. Higginbotham, director of civil rights, EPA, letter to Les Jin, staff director, USCCR, June 4, 2003, p. 1 

(hereafter cited as Higginbotham letter). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 114

civil rights programs.7 The Commission recommended that EPA hold area directors accountable 

for regional staff’s external civil rights efforts to ensure that civil rights concerns and directions 

of headquarters OCR were correctly communicated and followed.8

 Figures 4.1 and 4.2 

summarize OCR’s basic organizational structure in 1994 and 2003. 

Figure 4.1 

EPA Office of Civil Rights Organizational Structure, 1994 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 419–20. 

In 2003, the OCR director reports to the EPA administrator and also meets with the 

deputy chief of staff weekly on routine civil rights concerns.9 The Commission initially found 

that the director was serving in an acting capacity.10 The acting director was made a full director 

in December 2002.11 The director regularly participates in executive meetings where budget, 

staffing, and policy decisions are discussed and advocates for resources to implement EPA’s 

civil rights programs. Through resource allocations and statements, it is evident that the 

administrator strongly supports the director’s advocacy and has publicly and repeatedly 

expressed support for EPA’s civil rights programs.12 OCR no longer has Title VI area/regional 

directors or Title VI regional civil rights staff. The staff at headquarters administers the external 

nondiscrimination program and has direct responsibility for enforcement in the regions. Each 

 

7

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 419–420, 439. 8

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 439. 9

 EPA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

10 EPA/OCRE entrance meeting, Oct. 23, 2002. 

11 Yasmin Yorker, team leader Title VI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights, telephone 

interview, Jan. 27, 2003 (hereafter cited as Yorker telephone interview, Jan. 27, 2003). 

12 EPA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

Administrator

 

Regional Offices 

Internal & External 

Civil Rights

Area Directors Internal 

Civil Rights

Director 

Office of Civil Rights

Office of 

Environmental Justice

Affirmative Action and 

Special Emphases

Discrimination 

Complaints & 

External 

Compliance 

Program; Internal 

Civil Rights 

Complaints

Deputy Chief of Staff

 Operations and 

Evalluations
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 115

EPA program and regional office now has a Title VI contact whose main responsibility is to 

implement EPA’s national Title VI program.13 

In 1996, internal and external civil rights functions were consolidated at headquarters and 

in the regional offices. The Commission found that there had been an encroachment on external 

civil rights enforcement resources because of an increase in internal complaints. It recommended 

that EPA separate internal and external civil rights functions at headquarters and in the regional 

offices to safeguard resources for external enforcement.14 

 During its 2003 study, the Commission finds that EPA has restructured external and 

internal civil rights functions into two distinct units, the External Compliance and Equal 

Employment Opportunity Internal Compliance, respectively, although both still reside in OCR. 

Each concentrates on its assigned area of enforcement.15 The third area under OCR’s purview is 

Workforce Diversity and Analysis.16 

The Commission also finds that EPA established an internal Title VI task force in 

December 1996, whose responsibility among others was to implement the Commission’s 1996 

recommendations. The December 1996 task force was disbanded in 1997.17 This, along with the 

structural changes described above, indicates that EPA has made serious efforts to give priority 

to civil rights. 

 

13 EPA Interrogatory, p. 5. 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 439–40. 

15 EPA Interrogatory, p. 5; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “About the Office of Civil Rights,” August 2002, 

<http://www.epa.gov/ocrpage1.aboutocr.htm>. 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Workforce Diversity and Analysis (WDA) Team,” August 2002, 

<http://epa.gov/ocrpage1/summ.htm>. 

17 Higginbotham letter, p. 1. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 116

Figure 4.2 

EPA Office of Civil Rights Organizational Structure, 2003 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume III of

the Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Office of Civil Rights, Nov. 27, 2002, p. 6; Yasmin Yorker, Title VI team leader, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, e-mail to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, Mar. 25, 2003; Yasmin Yorker, 

Title VI team leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, e-mail to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, Mar. 26, 

2003; Karen D. Higginbotham, director of civil rights, EPA, letter to Les Jin, staff director, USCCR, June 4, 2003, p. 2. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

 The Commission noted in 1996 that OCR did not track expenditures for external civil 

rights activities by statute, an insufficiency that likely impeded OCR’s long-range planning and 

goals. The Commission recommended that OCR develop a database for tracking expenditures 

and staff assignments on all external compliance and enforcement activities, in particular those 

related to Title VI.18 

 The 2003 review finds that OCR still does not have an electronic database for tracking 

external civil rights expenditures and staffing assignments by statute. The Title VI team leader 

tracks staff assignments and conducts workload analyses manually on handwritten sheets. OCR, 

however, maintains information on expenditures in an electronic database. According to EPA, 

this approach to oversight of expenditures and staffing needs serves its purpose.19 In a 

subsequent communication with the Commission, EPA states that beginning in FY 2004, each 

OCR team will submit a budget request to the office director. Based on these requests, OCR’s 

budget will be divided among the teams. Each supervisory team leader will have overall 

responsibility for developing an operating plan against the budget. EPA believes this process will 

address the Commission’s recommendation to track expenditures for external civil rights 

activities.20 

 

18 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 440. 19 EPA Interrogatory, p. 6. 

20 Higginbotham letter, p. 2. 

 

Administrator

Director 

Office of Civil Rights

Reasonable 

Accommodations 

Coordinators

Deputy Director, OCR

EEO and Internal 

Compliance

Workforce Diversity 

& Analysis Area EEO Offices

Immediate Office 

Staff

External 

Compliance

Management 

Assistant
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 117

During the 2003 review, the Commission finds that OCR funding has been maintained 

even though EPA’s overall budget has undergone cuts. OCR maintains that it has adequate 

resources to address all Title VI issues, including new complaint and compliance reviews.21

However, programmatic needs dictate the dispersal of funds among OCR’s programs, and the 

External Compliance program does not have its own budget.22 The Commission is concerned 

that this setup does not necessarily safeguard funds for the External Compliance program. OCR’s 

budget grew annually between FY 1993 and 2003, from $1.8 million in FY 1993 to $6.5 million 

in FY 2003. Most notable is the large absolute and percentage increase in funding in FY 2001, 

95.2 percent, or $3.2 million higher than FY 2000 (see figure 4.3).23

Figure 4.3 

EPA Office of Civil Rights Budget, 1993–2003 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights, “EPA’s Office of Civil Rights Budget.” 

The 1996 study found that OCR had been assigned four attorneys and thus had the ability 

to conduct legal analyses and draft and develop EPA’s civil rights regulations and policies. As a 

result, the Commission recommended that OCR attorneys function as the primary legal experts 

on civil rights laws affecting EPA. In addition, the Commission said that the Office of General 

Counsel should remain the primary legal advisor to the administrator.24 Further, OCR should 

assess its external civil rights program and identify the areas that need more staff.25

 

21 EPA Interrogatory, p. 7. 

22 Yorker telephone interview, Jan. 27, 2003. 

23 EPA /OCR, “EPA’s Office of Civil Rights Budget, Fiscal Years 1993–2002.” EPA’s chief financial officer has 

not reprogrammed final FY 2003 funds for OCR. Yasmin Yorker, Title VI team leader, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, e-mail to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, Mar. 25, 2003 (hereafter citied as 

Yorker e-mail, Mar. 25, 2003). 

24 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 440. 25 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 441. 

2.7

3.1 3.4

6.6 6.8 6.5

2.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 118

 In 2003, the Commission finds that in 1998, EPA established and still maintains a Civil 

Rights Law Office within the Office of General Counsel (OGC). The Civil Rights Law Office 

performs legal functions previously assigned to OCR’s attorneys and advises OCR on other 

aspects of EPA’s External Compliance program, such as limited-English-proficiency (LEP) 

issues. OCR’s current staff includes persons with law degrees, but they do not serve as attorneys 

per se. The Title VI team leader, for example, is a lawyer by training, but works in an 

administrative capacity. EPA officials maintain that this structure best serves OCR and is 

consistent with the fact that OGC is the primary legal advisor to the administrator and agency.26 

The Commission also finds that full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff in OCR has grown over 

time, from 22.6 in FY 1993 to 42.5 in 2003 (see figure 4.4).27 However, between 1993 and 1999, 

the growth was uneven, although the year-to-year FTE change between 1995 and 1999 is 

generally small. The largest change occurred in FY 2000, an increase of eight FTEs over FY 

1999. 

OCR assesses resource and programmatic needs annually. According to OCR, the 

External Compliance program is adequately staffed, having five staff members, two of whom are 

detailed temporarily to a Title VI task force, which the administrator formed in May 2001, one 

full time and the other part time.28 The Commission finds, however, that EPA has recently given 

the External Compliance program a new full-time position, which will be filled during 2003.29

Still, the External Compliance program has been operating with 3.5 core staff since FY 2001. To 

improve staffing insufficiency, OCR augments the External Compliance program’s small staff by 

leveraging resources from other EPA program offices, and supporting detail opportunities for 

additional staff members with appropriate experience and knowledge. OCR plans to determine if 

additional compliance staff are necessary after EPA has finished developing its post-award 

compliance review program,30 which will be drafted by the end of calendar year 2003.31

Additional compliance staff may be realized through leveraging existing agency resources. 

Further, when the Title VI task force’s work is completed, OCR will evaluate staffing needs for 

complaint investigations, most likely in the fall. 

 

26 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 5–6. 

27 FTEs are rounded. 

28 EPA Interrogatory, p. 6. The Title VI task force was formed to assist in eliminating a backlog of Title VI 

complaints and is discussed in greater detail later. 

29 Yorker telephone interview, Jan. 27, 2003; Higginbotham letter, p. 3. 

30 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 6–7. 

31 Yorker e-mail, Mar. 25, 2003. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 119

Figure 4.4 

EPA Office of Civil Rights Staffing, 1993–2003 

30.5

38.5

42.5

42.5

38.5

27.5

28.7 30.5

29.9

24.1

22.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

FTEs

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights. 

 

 The Commission is heartened that beginning with FY 2004, funding for external civil 

rights will be protected from encroachment through separate civil rights budgets. The 

Commission maintains that an electronic database for tracking external civil rights expenditures 

and staffing assignments by statutes facilitates workload analysis and comparative assessment of 

the enforcement of the different external statutes. Meanwhile, the External Compliance program 

is understaffed, since in addition to Title VI, it is responsible for five other federal 

nondiscrimination statutes.32 Detailing staff from other EPA programs does not advance civil 

rights enforcement because detailed staff are not civil rights specialists. 

 

Planning 

 In the 1996 review, the Commission concluded that EPA’s Civil Rights Implementation 

Plans (CRIPs) were inadequate as informational, planning, or reporting tools. For example, the 

goals were too general and overly ambitious in light of OCR’s limited budget and staffing. The 

Commission said that EPA should (1) engage in a serious planning effort on its civil rights 

enforcement programs; (2) submit a Title VI implementation plan to DOJ to meet coordination 

regulations; (3) assess current Title VI activities; (4) ensure that enforcement programs provide a 

clear understanding of Title VI compliance and enforcement processes; (5) include in the Title 

VI enforcement programs strategies to meet the long-range goals of each type of civil rights 

activity; and (6) conduct an annual assessment of achievement of these goals and objectives, as 

well as a reevaluation of its Title VI enforcement programs.33

 

32 These are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX of the Education Act amendments of 

1972, and Age Discrimination Act of 1975. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “External Complaints and 

Compliance Program,” 2002, <http://www.epa.gov/ocrpage/extcom.htm>. 

33 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 451–52. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 120

In 2003, OCR’s most recent planning concentrated on the development of the Draft Title 

VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs 

(Draft Recipient Guidance), which was published for public comment in the Federal Register in 

June 2000 and will be finalized in FY 2003.34 Draft Recipient Guidance helps recipients address 

situations that may otherwise result in administrative complaints alleging violations of Title VI 

and EPA Title VI regulations. OCR is also developing and applying complaint investigative 

processes and techniques.35 

EPA annually submits Civil Rights Implementation Plans to DOJ.36 CRIPs inform DOJ 

of agency plans, activities, and accomplishments, or lack of, on all federally assisted programs 

subject to Executive Order 12,250, “Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws.” 

OCR also uses this report to assess progress made in civil rights implementation and 

enforcement in the previous year and to set internal goals and activities for the current year.37

The FY 2002 report, the most current, was submitted in April 2002 and DOJ approved it with 

comments in November 2002. The FY 2002 report consists of responses to DOJ questions on (1) 

EPA’s FY 2002 objectives and activities to enforce Title VI and other nondiscrimination 

statutes; (2) activities accomplished or not completed; (3) whether new regulations, policies, or 

procedures have been developed that are subject to DOJ review under Executive Order 12,250; 

and (4) EPA’s “Civil Rights Workload and Performance Data” for different external civil rights 

programs.38 

 The Commission further finds in its 2003 study that EPA reviewed its Title VI programs 

and responsibilities. As a result, OCR was given sole responsibility for Title VI implementation 

and enforcement, and Executive Order 12,898 compliance functions were transferred to the 

Office of Environmental Justice.39 EPA’s most recent assessment of Title VI activities took place 

early in 2001, when agency officials decided that the resolution of backlog complaints alleging 

violations of Title VI was an agencywide priority.40 The administrator ordered the establishment 

of a second Title VI task force, which is staffed by 13 full-time persons detailed from various 

EPA offices and two civil rights investigators who provide assistance on an as-needed basis. The 

task force has authority to draw on technical, legal, and policy expertise throughout EPA and is 

allotted funds for contract support. When the task force was formed, 66 complaints were 

pending, with 45 classified as “under review” and 21 accepted for investigation. The agency was 

 

34 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 2, 23; Yasmin Yorker, team leader Title VI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Civil Rights, telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003 (hereafter cited as Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 

2003). 

35 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 2, 23. 

36 EPA Interrogatory, p. 24. President Jimmy Carter, through Executive Order 12,250, directed the Attorney General 

to provide leadership and coordinate the implementation, compliance, and enforcement responsibilities of the federal 

agencies with respect to Title VI. See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 1. 37 Yasmin Yorker, team leader Title VI, Office of Civil Rights, Patrick Chang, attorney, Civil Rights Law Office, 

Seth Meinero, attorney, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, telephone interview, 

Feb. 3, 2003 (hereafter cited as Yorker, Chang, and Meinero telephone interview, Feb. 3, 2003). 38 Karen D. Higginbotham, director of civil rights, EPA, letter to U.S. Department of Justice, Feb. 26, 2002. 

39 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12,898, titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations,” in February 1994. See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 416. 40 EPA Interrogatory, p. 24.
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 121

limited in dealing with the complaints because of a 1998 congressional rider on EPA’s 

appropriation act. In place from 1999 through 2001, the rider forbid EPA to use appropriated 

funds to implement Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints 

Challenging Permits until the document was finalized. The rider affected about half of the 

“under review” complaints. By FY 2002, the rider was lifted.41 Half of the backlog has now been 

resolved and the remainder will be completed by summer 2003, at which time EPA plans to 

evaluate its Title VI activities again.42 Some investigations may continue because EPA is 

awaiting results of informal resolution and concurrent litigation. In addition, there are a few 

complaints with highly complex technical issues, which EPA continues to vigorously 

investigate.43

Policy Guidance 

 The Commission found in 1996 that EPA’s Title VI regulations were combined with 

other nondiscrimination regulations for federally assisted programs. The Commission said 

unified regulations may be adequate if they include all the necessary elements for an effective 

Title VI program. Thus, the Commission said, EPA should (1) review the regulations to ensure 

that they have the essential elements; (2) add the meaning of “program or activity” as clarified by 

the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987; (3) clarify which of the requirements for applicants and 

recipients, and for compliance procedures applied to Title VI; (4) include comprehensive 

guidelines and procedures to address Title VI requirements for applicants and recipients and 

compliance procedures; and (5) add specific prohibitions proscribing discrimination in activities 

conducted in facilities built with federal funds.44

 The Commission now finds that EPA reviews its unified nondiscrimination regulations, 

and that the regulations contain all the elements necessary for an effective Title VI program.45

Moreover, EPA regularly consults with DOJ and participates in all DOJ interagency meetings on 

Title VI and other regulations.46 Regulations clearly state the Title VI requirements for applicants 

and recipients and for compliance procedures. Applicants and recipients have access to trained 

staff in OCR and EPA grant programs should they have questions.47 The definition of “program 

or activity,” as clarified by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, is being added to the 

definitional section. As far as EPA knows, DOJ has drafted a joint final rule, and informed all 

federal agencies on August 27, 2002, that the result “was in the final stages of approval process 

 

41 EPA Interrogatory p. 3.

42 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 6–7, 24. 

43 Higginbotham letter, p. 3. 

44 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 441–42. 45 Nondiscrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, 40 

C.F.R. § 7 (2002). There are five subparts: (1) General; (2) Discrimination Prohibited on the Basis of Race, Color, 

National Origin or Sex; (3) Discrimination Prohibited on the Basis of Handicap; (4) Requirements for Applicants 

and Recipients; and (5) Agency Compliance Procedures. 

46 For example, EPA co-chairs an interagency committee on implementation of the executive order on limited 

English proficiency. See EPA Interrogatory, p. 7. 47 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 7–8. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 122

and is almost ready for publication.”48 OCR has not added specific prohibitions proscribing 

discrimination in activities conducted in a facility built with federal funds because the 

prohibition is covered in EPA’s nondiscrimination regulations.49 In addition, all applicants and 

recipients must complete Form 4700-4, “Pre-award Compliance Review Report for All 

Applicants Requesting Federal Financial Assistance” (Pre-Award Form 4700-4), which lists the 

nondiscrimination obligations of applicants and recipients.50

 

According to EPA, the comprehensive Draft Recipient Guidance and Draft Revised 

Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft 

Revised Investigative Guidance) address Title VI-specific requirements for applicants and 

recipients. The Draft Recipient Guidance shows applicants and recipients ways to improve their 

Title VI programs. The Draft Revised Investigation Guidance describes EPA’s approach to 

investigating Title VI complaints alleging discriminatory effects from the issuance of pollution 

control permits by recipients.51 The May 2001 Title VI task force is field testing Draft Revised 

Investigative Guidance. Once finalized, it will replace Interim Guidance for Investigating Title 

VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Interim Guidance).

52 At this point, however, 

EPA is unable to say when Draft Revised Investigation Guidance will be ready for release.53 

 The Commission’s 1996 report found that EPA regulations included an appendix listing 

the federally assisted programs to which the regulations apply. However, the appendix had not 

been updated since 1984. Further, the list did not distinguish state continuing programs from 

other programs.54 The Commission recommended that EPA update its appendix, or publish its 

list of programs in some other format—such as a catalog—that is regularly updated, and 

distinguish state continuing programs from others.55 

 The Commission now finds that EPA has not implemented any of the above 

recommendations because such information is available on the Internet as well as in the General 

Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), which EPA updates 

annually,56 but the CFDA Web site lists only continuing grants. Information for all of EPA’s 

federally assisted programs, continuing and one-time, can only be found in the Grants 

 

48 EPA Interrogatory, p. 8. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarifies that discrimination is prohibited 

throughout an entire agency or institution if any part of that agency or institution received federal financial 

assistance. See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 36–37. 

49 40 C.F. R. §§ 7.25, 7.30, 7.35 (2002); EPA’s nondiscrimination regulations extend to all grants and prohibit 

recipients and subrecipients of financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

See also EPA Interrogatory, p. 9. 50 EPA Interrogatory, p. 9. 

51 EPA Interrogatory, p. 8; 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (2000). 

52 EPA Interrogatory, p. 8; 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (2000). 

53 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

54 Distinguishing state continuing programs from other programs is helpful, for example, in identifying the state 

recipient or local agency responsible for enforcing Title VI with respect to recipients or subrecipients. See USCCR, 

Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 427. 

55 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 442. 

56 General Services Administration, “The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,” <http://www.cfda.gov>; EPA 

Interrogatory, p. 9. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 123

Information and Control System, a public database. EPA says that a user need only enter a key 

word, such as the name of a grant recipient, to obtain detailed information.57 The Commission 

finds that this method of obtaining information on federally assisted grant programs is only 

useful to persons already familiar with EPA grants recipients. It does not help members of the 

public who know little about EPA grants and are trying to obtain information on them. EPA 

maintains that since the database is searchable by the recipient’s name, any member of the public 

concerned about discrimination is likely to be familiar with the name of the recipient involved 

and therefore would be able to use the database.58

 The Commission’s 1996 study also found that EPA had not issued guidelines explaining 

the implications of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 on Title VI for each type of EPA 

financial assistance program. The Commission said that EPA should issue, for each type of 

federal financial program, guidelines that (1) show that Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination 

applies to the entire state or local agency or public or private institution; (2) offer examples of 

program-specific prohibited practices; and (3) include the nature of requirements with regard to 

data collection, complaints, and public information. Furthermore, EPA should (4) provide 

guidance on the types of remedial actions available in response to Title VI violations or findings 

of noncompliance; and (5) issue program-specific guidance on methods of enforcement.59 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that EPA has not issued guidelines for each of its financial 

assistance programs because the programs change from year to year.60 EPA’s Draft Recipient 

Guidance offers suggestions on the types of actions that recipients or subrecipients may take to 

reduce Title VI concerns in environmental-permitting programs. Draft Recipient Guidance

applies to all environmental-permitting programs regardless of the type of financial assistance 

program involved.61

 

Since an overwhelming majority of the Title VI complaints filed with EPA allege 

discrimination in the issuance of environmental permits and discriminatory effects rather than 

discriminatory intent, EPA’s Title VI guidances speak to discriminatory effects in all 

environmental-permitting programs regardless of the financial assistance programs. The agency 

plans to issue guidances on other activities as appropriate.62 The Commission believes a suitable 

time for EPA to decide if and when guidances on other EPA activities need to be issued would 

 

57 Yorker, Chang, and Meinero telephone interview, Feb. 3, 2003. 

58 Higginbotham letter, p. 4. 

59 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 443. DOJ’s coordination regulations require an agency to publish Title 

VI guidelines for each type of federal assistance programs under its jurisdiction. See USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement, p. 443. 

60 EPA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

61 EPA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

62 EPA Interrogatory, p. 10. See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA’s Program to Implement Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”: “The Supreme Court has ruled that Title VI authorizes federal agencies, 

including EPA, to adopt implementing regulations that prohibit discriminatory effects as well as intentional 

discrimination. Frequently, discrimination results from policies and practices that are neutral on their face, but have 

the effect of discriminating. Facially neutral policies or practices that result in discriminatory effects violate EPA’s 

Title VI regulations unless it is shown that they are justified and that there is no less discriminatory alternative,” 

August 2002, <http://www.epa.gov/ocrpage1/t6home.htm>. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 124

be after the May 2001 task force has completed its work, since the agency has already planned to 

revisit its Title VI activities at that time. 

 

 EPA has also prepared a draft LEP guidance, Draft Guidance to Federal Assistance 

Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting 

Limited English Proficient Persons, that DOJ recently approved.63 The LEP guidance will be 

published in the Federal Register for public comment in FY 2004.64 

 The Commission further finds that EPA has taken a number of steps to ensure that Title 

VI enforcement programs provide a clear understanding of the compliance and enforcement 

processes. For example, the agency met with stakeholders as it was developing Draft Revised 

Investigation Guidance and Draft Recipient Guidance. EPA clearly stated that these guidances 

were released to clarify for agencies and citizens the compliance requirements of Title VI.65 The 

two documents and public comments were also posted on OCR’s Web site in order to reach a 

wide audience. Enforcement programs are described in readily understandable English to 

facilitate public understanding.66 

 In 1996, EPA’s policies on Title VI were nonexistent or outdated. The Commission 

recommended that OCR and OGC identify areas in Title VI enforcement that needed 

clarification and issue policy statements for illumination.67

 The Commission now finds that, in an effort to identify weaknesses in policy, OCR has 

implemented a robust public participation process that includes dialogues with stakeholders,68

written comments from the public, and public hearings.69 As a result, it has created new policies 

and clarified existing ones. For example, groups and individuals who reviewed Interim Guidance

asked the agency to prepare guidance for recipients to facilitate compliance. Thus, EPA 

developed Draft Recipient Guidance and published it in the Federal Register in June 2000 for 

comments.70 This comprehensive draft document offers recipients ways to address potential Title 

VI problems. Suggestions include (1) developing new public participation procedures or 

modifying existing ones to better incorporate and address the public’s concerns; (2) creating an 

approach to identify areas in which adverse impacts disparately affect people on the basis of 

race, color, or national origin, and reducing those impacts over time; and (3) performing 

additional Title VI-related analyses and actions in some permitting decisions to address Title VI 

concerns.71

 

63 EPA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

64 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

65 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (2000). 

66 EPA Interrogatory, p. 24. 

67 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 444–45. 68 Stakeholders include environmental justice groups, communities, industry, and state and local governments. See

EPA Interrogatory, p. 1. 

69 EPA describes these public hearings as “listening sessions” since EPA officials literally listen to the views of the 

public and stakeholders. Yorker telephone interview, Jan. 27, 2003. 

70 EPA Interrogatory, p. 12; 65 Fed. Reg. 39,650 (2000). 

71 EPA Interrogatory, p. 12. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 125

 In its 1996 review, the Commission found that EPA’s pre-award review and complaint 

investigation procedures had not been updated since 1984 and may not reflect recent EPA 

programs. As a result, it was recommended that EPA develop a comprehensive procedures 

manual that provides step-by-step guidance in (1) performing compliance reviews, (2) 

conducting complaint investigations, (3) resolving complaints or noncompliance, (4) instituting 

administrative or judicial proceedings, (5) affording remedies, (6) collecting and analyzing data; 

and providing (7) staff training, (8) outreach and education, and (9) technical assistance.72

Furthermore, the procedures should make a distinction between OCR’s compliance and 

enforcement activities, and its oversight, monitoring, and performance efforts on state agencies 

with Title VI programs.73 The Commission also recommended that instructions on compliance 

reviews and complaint investigations specify the types of persons to contact and kinds of data to 

collect. Finally, the procedures manual should identify factors that should be considered in 

assessing noncompliance and discrimination under Title VI.74 

 

In 2003, the Commission finds that EPA is developing procedures to address most of the 

nine topics.75 EPA does not have a definitive procedures manual that provides step-by-step 

guidance for Title VI enforcement. Rather, procedures and guidances are located in several 

documents. For example, Draft Revised Investigative Guidance addresses conducting complaint 

investigations, resolving complaints or noncompliance, and collecting and analyzing data.76

Draft Recipient Guidance offers suggestions on technical assistance. In addition, EPA relies on 

DOJ’s Title VI Investigation Procedures Manual, Title VI Legal Manual, internal Title VI 

regulations, and other relevant materials for staff training. EPA is developing a post-award 

compliance review program and updating existing compliance review manuals and policies.77

The post-award compliance review program will include standard operating procedures for both 

internal and external stakeholders, desk audits, and on-site reviews.78 With regard to outreach 

and education, EPA’s efforts have included “consultation with recipient agencies, publishing 

documents in the Federal Register, and establishment of an advisory committee.”79 

 According to EPA, procedures manuals that exist do not distinguish between OCR’s 

compliance and enforcement activities and its oversight, monitoring, and performance efforts on 

 

72 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 445. 73 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 445. 74 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 445. 

75 EPA Interrogatory, p. 13. 

76 EPA Interrogatory, p. 13. The relevant sections are II, “Framework for Processing Complaints”; III, “Accepting or 

Rejecting Complaints”; IV, “Resolving Complaints”; V, “Investigative Procedures”; VI, “Adverse Disparate 

Analysis”; and VII, “Determining Whether a Finding of Noncompliance is Warranted.” 65 Fed. Reg. 39,670–84 

(2000). It is noted that collection and analysis of data are not addressed per se in Draft Revised Investigative 

Guidance, but implied in EPA’s framework for complaint processing. To illustrate, “[i]n response to allegations or 

during the course of an investigation, recipients as well as complaints may submit evidence such as data and 

analyses to support their position that an adverse disparate impact does or does not exist.” See 65 Fed. Reg. 39,675 

(2000). 

77 EPA officials say this endeavor is informed by the best practices of offices of civil rights in other federal agencies 

and will be led by an experienced individual who developed similar programs at the state level. See EPA 

Interrogatory, p. 17. 

78 EPA Interrogatory, p. 17. 

79 EPA Interrogatory, p. 13. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 126

state agencies that have Title VI enforcement programs. EPA’s post-award compliance review 

program, to be drafted in calendar year 2003, will encompass both activities.80

 

EPA also states that it relies on DOJ’s Title VI Investigation Procedures Manual to 

identify interviewees and types of information to be collected. Specifically, persons to be 

interviewed should include the complainant and the recipient’s staff with first- and secondhand 

knowledge of the situation, while information should include what happened and why.81 Title VI 

Investigation Procedures Manual also specifies that in determining noncompliance and 

discrimination under Title VI, the factors to be considered include appropriate legal theories, 

types of evidence, and the elements of a prima facie case.82 Finally, EPA’s Draft Revised 

Investigation Guidance details the process for determining if discriminatory effects exist in a 

recipient’s environmental-permitting programs.83

 

Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance 

 Civil rights education, outreach, and technical assistance efforts are essential to keeping 

individuals informed of their rights and responsibilities under Title VI. The 1996 report found 

that EPA’s efforts in these areas were minimal. The Commission said that EPA should (1) 

strengthen education, outreach, and technical assistance using the environmental justice program 

as a model; (2) make available Title VI regulations and guidelines to the public; (3) require 

display of posters publicizing recipients’ nondiscrimination policy and compliance with Title VI; 

(4) disseminate information in Spanish or other languages, as appropriate; and (5) require OCR 

to interact actively with recipients, state and local agency staff, community groups, businesses, 

and the public to facilitate outreach, education, and technical assistance.84 

 EPA now augments its Title VI outreach, education, and technical assistance by making 

agency documents available for public review. For example, the agency published Draft Revised 

Investigation Guidance and Draft Recipient Guidance in the Federal Register in June 2000 for 

public comment. EPA also held five public meetings at which EPA and OCR staff met with 

stakeholders.85 Additionally, the agency makes use of its excellent Web site to strengthen 

outreach, education, and technical assistance with useful links and information on civil rights and 

responsibilities.86 A recipient may, for example, readily access DOJ’s Title VI Legal Manual and 

Investigation Procedures for the Investigation of and Resolution of Complaints Alleging 

Violations of Title VI and Other Nondiscrimination Statutes. To enhance its usefulness, OCR 

plans to present the materials on its Web site in Spanish.87 

 

80 EPA Interrogatory, p. 14. 

81 Staff with firsthand knowledge include persons who are directly involved in the situation, while staff with 

secondhand knowledge include persons who make decisions that are relevant to the issues under investigation. See 

EPA Interrogatory, p. 14. 

82 The applicable theories may include intentional discrimination/disparate treatment, disparate impact/effects, and 

retaliation while evidence may be direct, circumstantial, comparative, and statistical. See EPA Interrogatory, p. 14. 

83 EPA Interrogatory, p. 14. See Draft Revised Investigation Guidance, sections II–VII. 84 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 443, 449. 

85 EPA Interrogatory, p. 19. 

86 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 3, 19. 

87 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 3, 19. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 127

 EPA also publicizes Title VI regulations and guidelines through press releases and by 

distributing them to mailing lists and during agency meetings with the public and stakeholders. 

The agency also periodically publishes documents on Title VI, such as the Report of the Title VI 

Implementation Advisory Committee: Next Steps for EPA, State, and Local Environmental 

Justice Programs, which was released in April 1999.88 

Nondiscrimination regulations require recipients to provide ongoing notice that their 

programs do not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin. Further, the methods of 

notice must meet the needs of visually and hearing-impaired populations, and may include 

publication in newspapers and magazines and placement of notices in recipients’ internal 

publications or letterheads. The notices have to be available in a language other than English as 

appropriate, have to be posted in prominent places, and must identify the individuals responsible 

for coordinating the recipients’ Title VI compliance and enforcement.89 

 OCR staff members interact with external stakeholders through public meetings and 

meetings with EPA’s Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee, and submission of written 

comments from the public. In the context of complaint investigations, interaction involves OCR 

carrying out telephone interviews, generating written correspondence, and conducting on-site 

visits.90 This chapter’s section on Complaint Processing below discusses complaint investigation 

in detail. 

Complaint Processing 

 In 1996, OCR staff was developing investigative plans for use in conciliation conferences 

and case investigations. The Commission supported this effort and, with reference to state 

continuing programs, recommended that EPA require state agencies to submit a written report on 

each complaint and its investigation. This would facilitate OCR’s oversight and monitoring of 

states’ compliance and enforcement.91 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that EPA has developed a comprehensive complaint 

process. Draft Revised Investigation Guidance proposes processes for reviewing disparate 

impact complaints involving issuance of permits that allegedly violates specified environmental 

guidelines. The 12 parts of the complaint investigation process are (1) acknowledging the 

complaint; (2) accepting, rejecting, or referring the complaint; (3) resolving complaints 

informally; (4) determining if an adverse disparate impact analysis is applicable; (5) defining the 

scope of the investigation; (6) conducting an impact assessment; (7) making an adverse impact 

decision; (8) characterizing populations and conducting comparisons; (9) making an adverse 

 

88 The Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee was established in March 1998 to “review and evaluate 

techniques that EPA funding recipients could use to administer environmental permitting programs in compliance 

with Title VI.” The Committee members include representatives from communities, environmental justice groups, 

state and local governments, industry, and other interested stakeholders. Many of the recommendations that the 

Committee made had been incorporated into Title VI guidance documents. See EPA Interrogatory, p. 1. 89 EPA Interrogatory, p. 20; 40 C.F.R. § 7.95 (2002). 

90 EPA Interrogatory, p. 20. 

91 In state continuing programs, state agencies receive and investigate complaints about subrecipients. See USCCR, 

Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 447; 40 C.F.R. § 7.85(a)(3) (2002). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 128

disparate impact decision; (10) determining whether a finding of noncompliance is warranted; 

(11) evaluating the recipient’s justification for the disparate impact; and (12) determining 

whether there are any less discriminatory alternatives. OCR plans to develop processes for 

reviewing non-permitting complaints after Draft Revised Investigation Guidance is finalized.92

EPA says its nondiscrimination regulations require each state and non-state recipient to collect, 

maintain, and on request of OCR, provide a detailed log of discrimination complaints.93

 The Commission also finds that EPA’s Web link, “Title VI Complaints,” gives the public 

access to information on filing a Title VI complaint, EPA’s Title VI investigative approaches, 

recent EPA Title VI decisions, and summary information on Title VI complaints filed with the 

agency.94 

 In 1996, EPA usually resolved the few instances of noncompliance with Title VI through 

voluntary compliance efforts. The Commission recommended that OCR consider administrative 

avenues such as temporary withholding of a permit in the case of recalcitrant recipients and, if 

necessary, refer the cases to the administrator for suspension, denial, deferral, or termination of 

federal funding.95

 

 During the 2003 review, the Commission finds that all administrative complaints filed 

with EPA are investigated according to Title VI regulations.96 EPA Title VI regulations provide 

that the administrator is involved in the complaint process when a recipient appeals a finding of 

violation to the administrator.97 This circumstance has not arisen.98 

Compliance Reviews 

 In its 1996 review, the Commission found that OCR conducted pre-award desk-audit 

reviews for the state revolving fund program only, with the number of reviews decreasing 

substantially over time. As a result, the Commission recommended that OCR ensure that all EPA 

applicants and recipients of federal funds provide assurances of Title VI compliance before 

receiving any funds and that they be subjected to pre-award desk-audit reviews.99 

 

In addition, the Commission recommended that EPA’s Pre-award Form 4700-4 be 

revised to collect information necessary for assessing each type of EPA-funded program. The 

information should be used to target applicants and recipients for technical assistance or 

compliance reviews.100 

 

92 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 17–18. 

93 EPA Interrogatory, p. 18; Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

94 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Title VI Complaints,” August 2002, 

<http://www.epa.gov/ocrpage1/t6complnt.htm>. 

95 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 447–48. 

96 Title VI at 40 C.F.R. § 7 (2002). 

97 EPA Interrogatory, p. 18. 

98 Higginbotham letter, p. 4. 

99 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 446. 100 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 446. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 129

In 2003, the Commission finds that pre-award desk-audit compliance reviews are 

required of all EPA applicants. To ensure Title VI compliance before receiving any funds, Preaward Form 4700-4 spells out applicant obligations and subsequently becomes part of a 

recipient’s grant agreement. Grant applicants must also certify in EPA Standard Form 424B that 

they will comply with all nondiscrimination federal statutes, including Title VI. EPA’s future 

post-award compliance program will ensure post-award enforcement of these statutes.101

However, OCR did not conduct any pre-award on-site compliance reviews in FY 2002.102 EPA 

had 2,925 recipients in FY 2002.103

 The Commission also finds that EPA collects the same type of pre-award information for 

each EPA-funded program. But OCR has not used the information to target applicants and 

recipients for technical assistance or on-site compliance reviews,104 primarily because Pre-award 

Form 4700-4 currently does not collect suitable information for this purpose.105 Pre-award Form 

4700-4 is being updated and will include information to address the Title VI issues that EPA now 

faces, thereby making it a more effective enforcement and compliance instrument.106 A draft of 

the revised Pre-award Form 4700-4 expects to be ready at the end of calendar year 2003.107

In 1996, OCR had not performed any post-award desk-audit reviews or post-award onsite compliance reviews for several years. As a result, the Commission recommended that OCR 

require recipients to submit compliance reports and, where appropriate, periodically conduct onsite compliance reviews of a representative number of major recipients. Further, the Commission 

said on-site compliance reviews should serve as a means of delivering education and technical 

assistance to recipients. OCR should consider collaborating with other program offices to finance 

post-award reviews in the event of budget constraints.108 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that recipients are required by EPA regulations to submit 

program data and information when OCR suspects that discrimination may exist in a recipient’s 

program or activity, or when OCR is investigating a complaint alleging discrimination. 

Moreover, recipients must collect and maintain, and on request of OCR, provide requisite 

information to show compliance. Such information must include (1) a brief description of any 

lawsuits pending against the recipient that allege discrimination; (2) racial/ethnic, national origin, 

 

101 EPA Interrogatory, p. 15. The Commission was cognizant that pre-award reviews of all applicants and recipients 

in light of OCR’s budget and staffing limitations would delay program benefits to beneficiaries. Thus it suggested 

that OCR develop some alternative strategies that would promote a meaningful and efficient pre-award review 

process of as many applicants and recipients as possible. The Commission’s 2003 report found that OCR does not 

anticipate any reduction in current staff and budget and thus has not developed alternative strategies. See USCCR, 

Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 446–47; EPA Interrogatory, p. 15. 

102 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

103 Karen D. Higginbotham, acting director of civil rights, EPA, letter to U.S. Department of Justice, Feb. 26, 2002, 

p. 9. 

104 EPA Interrogatory, p. 16. 

105 Yorker, Chang, and Meinero telephone interview, Feb. 3, 2003. 

106 EPA Interrogatory, p. 16. 

107 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

108 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 447. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 130

sex, and disability data; (3) a log of discrimination complaints; and (4) reports of any compliance 

reviews conducted by any other agency.109 

 The Commission also finds that OCR did not conduct any post-award compliance 

reviews in FY 2002.110 EPA expects to regularly conduct post-award on-site compliance reviews 

with a representative number of major recipients once the post-award compliance review 

program has been developed. Since the draft post-award compliance review program is being 

developed this calendar year, it is probable that post-award compliance reviews could take place, 

at the earliest, in calendar year 2004. The Commission finds this status worrisome. The agency 

acknowledges that post-award on-site compliance reviews are an integral part of a 

comprehensive Title VI program.111 

Staff Training 

 Comprehensive staff training contributes to an effective civil rights enforcement 

program. The Commission’s 1996 report found that OCR did not have an adequate staff training 

program for Title VI compliance and enforcement and that regional training had not been 

conducted since 1991. The Commission recommended that EPA institute a comprehensive staff 

training program for Title VI enforcement.112

 The Commission now finds that EPA periodically asks DOJ to provide legal, 

investigative, and update training for OCR personnel. In February 2003, the Civil Rights Law 

Office offered formal Title VI training to its attorneys involved in Title VI and OCR’s Title VI 

team.113 Additionally, experienced OCR and Civil Rights Law Office staff offer additional 

instruction and guidance to new employees informally.114 Staff members in these two offices are 

required to be familiar with DOJ’s Investigation Procedures Manual and Title VI Legal 

Manual.115 In addition, EPA’s adverse impact analysis model in Draft Revised Investigation 

Guidance provides comprehensive and detailed instructions to EPA staff, recipients, and affected 

communities on how to conduct adverse disparate impact analyses. EPA has made an important 

advance in Title VI enforcement with the development of this model.116 

 

109 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 16–7; 40 C.F.R. § 7.85(a) (2002). 

110 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

111 EPA Interrogatory, p. 17. 

112 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 450. 113 Yorker telephone interview, Mar. 25, 2003. 

114 EPA Interrogatory, p. 21; Yorker telephone interview, Jan. 27, 2003. Ms. Yorker stated that most federal 

agencies rely on DOJ for Title VI training. 

115 Job requirements for the positions these staff members occupy include a general knowledge of Title VI 

regulations. 

116 EPA Interrogatory, pp. 21–22; Draft Revised Investigation Guidance, VI, “Adverse Disparate Impact Analyses,” 

pp. 39676–82. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 131

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

 According to the Commission’s 1996 study, OCR only used Pre-award Form 4700-4 to 

collect data on Title VI. As a result, the Commission recommended that OCR also collect 

information on applicants’ prior compliance records, pending discrimination complaints, and 

compliance reviews performed on them by other federal agencies.117 The Commission also 

recommended that data collection for post-award reviews include information on and assessment 

of the racial, ethnic, or national origin of planning or advisory board members that supervise the 

construction process, contractors’ workforces that build the facilities, and workforces that run the 

facilities. Further, there should be an assessment of the affected communities, and of whether 

literature on the programs was made available to all demographic groups in appropriate 

languages. 

In addition, the Commission recommended that all pre-award and post-award information 

be maintained in a database to allow easy access to recipients’ past and present compliance 

records.In fact, OCR should develop a sound civil rights enforcement data collection and 

analysis program modeled after that of EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice.118 

 In 2003, the Commission finds that OCR’s Pre-award Form 4700-4 collects from all 

applicants information on (1) any civil rights lawsuits or complaints pending against the 

applicant or recipient, including the deposition of each complaint; (2) civil rights compliance 

reviews conducted of the applicant or recipient by any federal agency for the two years 

immediately before the application for EPA assistance (including the status of each review); (3) 

other federal financial assistance being applied for, including a description of the associated 

work and the dollar amount of the assistance; and (4) whether an entire community under the 

applicant’s jurisdiction is not served under the existing facilities or services, or will not be served 

under the proposed plan, including the reason for this. EPA’s regulations require this information 

of all applicants and recipients. The information is maintained in the agency’s grant files and 

reviewed during pre-award reviews.119 

 The Commission also finds that EPA does not routinely require recipients to provide 

information on the demographic composition of planning/advisory groups, workforces involved 

in building facilities, or employees working in the built facilities. Similarly, the agency does not 

require information on affected persons and communities; whether program literature is available 

to all racial, ethnic, and national origin groups; and if this literature is available in languages 

other than English. Such information would be collected in the event of a complaint, and the 

compliance program now being developed may incorporate these elements if deemed 

necessary.120 

 OCR has not developed a civil rights enforcement data collection and analysis system 

because it has ready access to all EPA databases and systems. EPA has retained contractor 

 

117 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 450. 

118 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 450–51. 119 EPA Interrogatory, p. 22. 

120 EPA Interrogatory, p. 23. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 132

support in the use of these and other databases and systems for carrying out disparate impact 

analyses.121 

 According to the 1996 report, EPA was considering a national assessment of the overall 

aggregate effects posed by environmental pollution. EPA indicated that this assessment might 

enable determination of whether there are disparate effects of pollution loadings on different 

populations. As a result, the Commission recommended that EPA proceed with this study.122 

 In its 2003 review, the Commission finds that OCR did not have any involvement in the 

national assessment project.123 The Office of Policy initiated the Cumulative Exposure Project in 

1994 to (1) examine how much toxic contamination Americans are exposed to cumulatively 

through air, food, and drinking water; (2) estimate exposure levels for different communities and 

demographic groups nationwide; (3) help identify important pollutant sources; and (4) identify 

the types of communities and demographic groups that appear to have the highest exposure 

levels. OCR states that this study has been completed and summary findings are posted on EPA’s 

Web site.124 

Conclusion 

The Commission identified some room for improvement in EPA’s Title VI program. The 

Commission is concerned that the External Compliance program is understaffed. The absence of 

an electronic system for tracking external civil rights expenditures and staffing assignments by 

statute hinders planning and assessment. The External Compliance program also needs a wellstructured plan to serve as a management and informational tool. Further, Title VI enforcement 

will be better served with the creation of a database dedicated to civil rights and a comprehensive 

procedures manual. Moreover, the Commission has concerns that EPA did not conduct any onsite pre-award or post-award compliance reviews in FY 2002. 

On the whole, EPA has shown considerable improvement in Title VI enforcement since 

the issuance of the 1996 report. The agency adopted a number of the Commission’s 1996 

recommendations, for example, internal and external civil rights are now two distinct units. EPA 

has developed comprehensive draft guidances for administering environmental-permitting 

programs and investigating Title VI administrative complaints challenging permits. A draft post-

 

121 EPA Interrogatory, p. 23. 

122 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement,, p. 446. 

123 Yorker, Chang, and Meinero telephone interview, Feb. 3, 2003. 

124 EPA Interrogatory, p. 25. The Internet link is <http://www.epa.gov/cumulativeexposure>. CEP is also conducting 

a community-specific study in the Greenpoint/Williamsberg area of Brooklyn in New York. See EPA Interrogatory, 

p. 25. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 133

award compliance review program and a revised draft of the pre-award review form are expected 

to will be ready at the end of this calendar year. The Commission agrees that the elimination of a 

backlog of complaints is an agencywide priority and views favorably the creation of a wellresourced task force that has strong administrator backing. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 134

CHAPTER 5 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

In 1953, Congress established the Small Business Administration (SBA) to “aid, counsel, 

assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns,” and to ensure 

that small businesses obtain a “fair proportion” of government contracts and sales of surplus 

property.1 Five decades after its founding, SBA’s mission has evolved to maintaining and 

strengthening the nation’s economy by aiding, counseling, assisting, and protecting the interests 

of small businesses and by helping families and businesses recover from natural disasters.2

 

One of the ways SBA accomplishes its mission is by providing loans to small businesses. 

In 2001, SBA’s business loan portfolio had approximately 219,000 loans worth more than $45 

billion, making SBA the largest single financial backer of U.S. businesses. During FY 1991–

2001, SBA provided almost 435,000 small businesses with more than $94.6 billion in loans. 

SBA services include financial and federal contract procurement assistance, management 

assistance, and specialized outreach to women, minorities, and armed forces veterans. The 

agency also provides loans to victims of natural disasters and specialized advice and assistance in 

international trade.3

Overview 

The SBA office responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is the Equal 

Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Compliance Office (EEO&CRC). It is the only unit 

within SBA that has civil rights enforcement authority over financial assistance programs. It is 

the responsibility of EEO&CRC to ensure that its recipients comply with all federal laws, 

regulations, and executive orders requiring equal opportunity. EEO&CRC also processes SBA 

employee complaints and issues corrective actions. The office also provides leadership for 

internal efforts to achieve diversity in the agency’s workforce by directing SBA’s affirmative 

employment program, which ensures equal opportunity for employees.4

 

In 1996, the Commission found that EEO&CRC needed improvement in these areas: 

organizational structure, resources and staffing, training of staff, updating of policies and 

regulations, procedures for compliance reviews, outreach and education to the public and 

businesses, implementation of delegation plans with other agencies, and quality assurance 

 

1

 U.S. Small Business Administration, 47 Years of Service to America’s Small Business: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 1953–2000, Mar. 5, 2001, <http://www.sba.gov>. 

2

 U.S. Small Business Administration, FY 2001–2006 Small Business Administration Strategic Plan, p. 3, 

<http://www.sba.gov>. 

3

 U.S. Small Business Administration, 47 Years of Service to America’s Small Business.

4

 U.S. Small Business Administration, “Learn About SBA—Profile,” p. 25, 

<http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/indexprofile.html>; Small Business Administration, “Equal Employment 

Opportunity Program,” SOP 37 13 2, July 25, 2001, p. 10. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 135

practices. For example, the Commission found that SBA did not conduct pre-award reviews and 

only performed post-reward reviews for loan recipients with 15 or more employees. 

The Commission now finds that SBA has improved in some areas but is still weak in 

others. Most recommendations made in 1996 were not implemented for various reasons, 

including lack of funding and staff, and inadequate communication between offices. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Prior to 1994, the EEO&CRC director reported to the Associate Deputy Administrator 

for Management and Administration (see figure 5.1). That structure did not ensure integration 

and emphasis of civil rights enforcement throughout SBA program operations or administrative 

matters.5

 SBA reorganized in 1994, at which time the director of EEO&CRC’s title changed to 

assistant administrator, reporting directly to the SBA administrator (see figure 5.2). The internal 

structure of EEO&CRC remained the same, with the office divided into two units, the Office of 

Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) and the Office of Civil Rights Compliance (OCRC). 

The OEEO is responsible for internal Title VII enforcement and the OCRC for enforcing 

external SBA nondiscrimination rules and regulations, including Title VI.6

 

5

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

Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 453 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). 

6

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 453–54. SBA nondiscrimination laws cover Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, effectuation of policies of federal government and SBA 

administrators, and Title IX in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 136

Figure 5.1 

EEO&CRC Organizational Structure, 1994

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

Programs, June 1996, p. 453. 

Figure 5.2 

EEO&CRC Organizational Structure, 2003

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, EEO&CRC Organizational Chart, 2003. 

In 1996, the organizational structure of the EEO&CRC was conducive to effective Title 

VI enforcement, but OCRC lacked crucial elements such as the ability to develop and maintain 

policies, regulations, and guidelines, procedures for Title VI enforcement, and sufficient program 

Small Business 

Administration 

Administrator

Associate Deputy 

Administrator for 

Management and 

Administration

Director, Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity & Civil 

Rights Compliance

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

Office of Civil Rights 

Compliance

Area Director 

Regions IV, VI, VII, 

IX and X

Area Director 

Regions I, II, III, V 

and VIII

Director 

Equal employment 

Opportunity

Small Business 

Administration 

Administrator

Assistant 

Administrator 

EEO&C

Director 

Civil Rights 

Compliance
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 137

planning. The Commission recommended that SBA create within OCRC a section specifically 

expert in policy and legal support to work on Title VI and program planning. The legal support 

and policy section would review enforcement cases, develop guidance materials, serve as a 

liaison to the Office of General Law, and work with program staff in developing policies.7

In 2003, the Commission finds that the assistant administrator of EEO&CRC continues to 

report directly to the SBA administrator. This office continues to be structured in two sections, 

OEEO and OCRC, with responsibilities divided as before. OCRC still has responsibility for SBA 

external civil rights enforcement of SBA nondiscrimination regulations, including Title VI.8

SBA nondiscrimination regulations cover the vast majority of SBA recipients whose federal 

assistance from SBA is in the form of a loan guaranty. 

The Commission also finds that SBA has not created a position or unit within EEO&CRC 

to provide legal support on Title VI. EEO&CRC relies on the Office of General Counsel to 

provide legal support, such as representing the agency in any legal action filed against SBA and 

reviewing regulations, operating procedures, guidelines, and policy statements for legal 

sufficiency.9

 In addition, the agency has not assigned a liaison from the Office of General 

Counsel to work specifically with OCRC in developing or revising operating procedures, 

guidelines, and policies in a timely manner. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In its 1996 study, the Commission found that SBA’s civil rights budget and staff had 

decreased while its workload had increased. Furthermore, SBA congressional appropriation did 

not include a separate designation for external civil rights enforcement. The Commission 

recommended that EEO&CRC develop an information management system that would allow it 

to track expenditures to help guide its resource allocation among civil rights activities. The 

information would be used to demonstrate to the agency’s offices of budget and planning the 

importance of increased resources for Title VI enforcement.10

OCRC now has a system that tracks expenditures and time devoted to external civil rights 

activities. The system tracks the cost of on-site compliance reviews and includes a variety of data 

elements relative to on-site and telephonic compliance reviews conducted nationwide.11 The 

system is used internally by the EEO&CRC assistant administrator as a basis for requesting 

future funding and resources for Title VI and external civil rights enforcement.12 

 

7

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 470. 8

 U.S. Small Business Administration’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Interrogatory for Volume 

III of the Ten-Year Review of the Civil Rights Enforcement, Office of Civil Rights, Dec. 23, 2002, pp. 1–2 

(hereafter cited as SBA Interrogatory), p. 1; SBA Nondiscrimination Regulations are located in 13 C.F.R. §§ 112, 

113, 117, 136 (2002). 

9

 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 1–2. 

10 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 470. 11 SBA Interrogatory, p. 2. The tracking system does not track support costs for office equipment, telephone service, 

or rent because they are centrally funded and not specific items in the EEO&CRC operating budget. Ibid. 

12 Carol Walker, director, Office of Civil Rights Compliance, SBA, letter to Les Jin, staff director, USCCR, June 2, 

2003, p. 1 (hereafter cited as Walker letter). 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 138

EEO&CRC’s budget has averaged approximately $1.7 million over the past eight years. 

Calculating appropriations in 1996 constant dollars reveals that EEO&CRC has not experienced 

any significant increases since FY 1996, and in fact the FY 2003 appropriation is lower than the 

FY 1996 appropriation (see figure 5.3). 

Figure 5.3 

EEO&CRC Budget, 1996–2003

1.7 1.9 1.8

1.5

1.6

1.8 1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.6

1.7 1.9

1.6 1.6 1.6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

Millions of dollars

Congressional Appropriation 1996 Constant Dollars

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Civil Rights Compliance, FY 1996–2002 Congressional Budget Submissions. 

The budget allocation is divided between internal and external enforcement with the 

majority allocated for internal enforcement. Most of the EEO&CRC budget is used to cover the 

expenses of internal OEEO investigations, hearings, any final agency decisions that are 

contracted out, and other OEEO-related activities. The assistant administrator for EEO&CRC 

makes the budget determination for the amount allocated to external civil rights enforcement. 

Although the office’s productivity is budget driven, it still must complete a set number of 

compliance reviews each year. OCRC is assigned a specific number of reviews based on staff 

performance expectations. The director of OCRC is held responsible by the assistant 

administrator of EEO&CRC and a higher level reviewing official for meeting that goal during 

the rating period.13 

In 1996, OCRC had staff at headquarters and in six Central Office Duty Stations in New 

York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco. OCRC did not, however, assign 

any staff solely to Title VI enforcement; rather, each staff member implemented, monitored, and 

enforced all external civil rights policies and laws, including Title VI.14 The Commission 

 

13 Carol Walker, director, Office of Civil Rights Compliance, Grant Hornston, area civil rights director, Chicago, IL, 

and Burt Greenspan, area civil rights director, San Francisco, CA, telephone interview, Mar. 3, 2003 (hereafter cited 

as Walker, Hornston, and Greenspan telephone interview, Mar. 3, 2003). 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 454. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 139

recommended that EEO&CRC reassign existing staff to OCRC headquarters to work on Title VI 

and external civil rights enforcement.15 

As of 2003, OCRC has staff in five regional cities: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, 

Dallas, and San Francisco. The Philadelphia office has only one civil rights employee and in the 

Chicago and San Francisco offices one of the EEO&CRC employees has other duties as area 

director. The regional employee in Philadelphia reports to the Chicago area director, and the 

employees in the Atlanta and Dallas offices report to the San Francisco area director.16 

In 1994, OCRC had 25 full-time employees, six of whom were support staff and 19 were 

professionals.17 Since FY 1996, EEO&CRC staffing levels have decreased further due to budget 

constraints and attrition (see figure 5.4). FY 2003 staff consists of 10 full-time permanent 

employees, two of whom continue to be stationed at headquarters, and nine in the field. The staff 

levels do not include the assistant administrator (FY 1996–2003) and deputy assistant 

administrator (FY 1997–2002) positions since the incumbents have officewide responsibilities; 

however, their salaries are included in the EEO&CRC budget.18 

OCRC is responsible for using its staff and resources to ensure all agency recipients 

comply with nondiscrimination requirements in providing employment opportunities and 

customer service. Currently, OCRC has 295,000 recipients but only 10 staff members, compared 

with 18 in FY 1996, to carryout its mission. 

 

15 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 471. 16 SBA Interrogatory, p. 2; EEO&CRC staff stationed at Central Office Duty Stations only work on internal or 

external civil rights enforcement, they do not share duties with other SBA program offices. Carol Walker, director, 

Office of Civil Rights Compliance, Grant Hornston, area civil rights director, Chicago, IL, and Burt Greenspan, area 

civil rights director, San Francisco, CA, telephone interview, Mar. 27, 2003 (hereafter cited as Walker, Hornston, 

and Greenspan telephone interview, Mar. 27, 2003). 

17 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 471. 18 Walker, Hornston, and Greenspan telephone interview, Mar. 3, 2003. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 140

Figure 5.4 

EEO&CRC Staffing, 1996–2003 

26

18 18

19

20 22 22 22 22

10

15 15 15 14 13 12

8 7 7 7 8 7 7 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

FTEs

Total OCRC EEO 

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, “Employee Roster for Fiscal Years 1996–2003.” 

Planning 

In its 1996 review, the Commission concluded that SBA’s Civil Rights Implementation 

Plans (CRIPs) did not conform to the objectives specified by the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

guidelines. Although SBA’s CRIPs provided a detailed description of the agency’s Title VI 

enforcement program, the plans did not function as DOJ requires, as a planning tool. Progress 

reports claimed that SBA achieved its goals, but provided little substantiation for this claim. The 

Commission recommended that SBA use the CRIP as a management tool as required by DOJ’s 

CRIP guidance. SBA needed to develop goals and objectives with timetables and specific 

standards for achievement, and use the plan’s progress report to indicate the agency’s success, or 

lack thereof, toward achieving goals.19

Currently, SBA submits its CRIP to DOJ annually and in accordance with DOJ 

guidelines.20 However, OCRC does not use the CRIP as a management tool but as a reporting 

document to list its accomplishments for the previous fiscal year.21 Further, OCRC does not 

indicate whether it met established goals for recipient reviews. Since OCRC is budget driven it is 

difficult to set goals in the CRIP; instead OCRC developed goals and objectives that have 

timetables and standards for achievement in the performance plans of its staff. In addition, the 

standard operating procedures and other guidelines impose timeframe requirements on other 

work OCRC is responsible for performing.22

 

19 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 476–77. 20 SBA Interrogatory, p. 13. 

21 SBA Interrogatory, p. 13; DOJ has not raised as a deficiency any issue concerning OCRC’s or SBA’s use of the 

CRIP as a “planning tool.” See Walker letter, p. 2. 22 SBA Interrogatory, p. 13. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 141

Policy Guidance 

In its 1996 review, the Commission found that SBA’s Title VI enforcement guidelines, 

regulations, policies, and procedures were deficient. The Commission also found that SBA’s 

Title VI regulations had not been updated to reflect the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, 

which clarified Title VI coverage and fund termination provisions, and that the appendix listing 

SBA federally funded programs covered by Title VI had not been updated for at least a decade. 

The Commission recommended that SBA update and revise its Title VI regulations to 

incorporate the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, while retaining its language for 

employment discrimination.23

The Commission now finds that SBA incorporated the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 

1987 into its regulations after adopting a final joint rule with DOJ.24 The final joint rule, which is 

in clearance at DOJ, incorporated the act by expanding the definition of a covered program or 

activity into the civil rights regulations.25 In January 2001, SBA revised its regulations to 

implement the expanded definition of a “program or activity.”26 

In 1996, the Commission also recommended that SBA publish a revised appendix of its 

federally assisted programs in the Federal Register each year, or in the alternative, publish a 

catalog or brochure listing all federally assisted programs covered under Title VI and reference 

the catalog or brochure in its regulations.27

Today, SBA still does not publish an annual list of its federally assisted programs in the 

Federal Register; however, the agency includes an appendix of SBA programs in the Code of 

Federal Regulations.

28 Additionally, SBA provides a publication titled “Profile: Who We Are 

and What We Do,” which describes SBA programs and services, including those subject to Title 

VI, as alternatively recommended by the Commission. The agency distributes this publication to 

the public in order to foster economic development and promote agency programs and services. 

The publication is also available on the Internet.29 The 2003 Commission review finds that the 

brochure sufficiently describes SBA programs and recommends that SBA continue circulating it. 

In 1996, the Commission found that SBA had failed to issue policy statements clarifying 

the meaning and implications of Title VI for its federally assisted programs and that this failure 

prevented EEO&CRC from fulfilling its role of providing leadership on Title VI. The 

Commission recommended that SBA develop Title VI guidelines and policies clarifying how to 

apply Title VI to its programs.30

 

23 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 471. 24 Department of Justice’s Proposed Joint Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 76,460 (2000). 

25 SBA Interrogatory, p. 4. 

26 SBA Interrogatory, p. 4; 13 C.F.R. § 112.2. 

27 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 471–73. 

28 SBA Interrogatory, p. 3; 13 C.F.R. § 112 (2002). 

29 SBA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

30 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 472. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 142

The Commission now finds that SBA has issued policies and guidelines that clarify the 

application of Title VI to its programs through subsection 112.9 of SBA’s nondiscrimination 

regulations and Form 793, “Notice to New SBA Borrowers.” The guidelines make it clear that 

SBA has the authority to take actions when finding recipients in noncompliance with 

nondiscrimination regulations. In addition, nondiscriminatory guidelines exist in SBA’s standard 

operating procedures. OCRC staff is made aware of how Title VI applies to SBA programs and 

recipients, as well as how other civil rights requirements apply, through informal staff training.31

OCRC continuously communicates to its staff how Title VI and other civil rights requirements 

apply to programs and recipients through notices, staff guidance, and ongoing revisions to 

OCRC operating procedures. Overall, the Commission finds that the policies and guidelines 

sufficiently clarify the application of Title VI to SBA programs, but that the lack of formal 

training hampers OCRC staff in its enforcement of the regulations. 

In its earlier review, the Commission found that SBA had attempted to draft and issue 

revised procedures, but that the process had been hampered by poor communication between the 

Office of General Counsel and EEO&CRC. The draft revised procedures expanded data 

collection requirements, which would have permitted SBA to conduct pre-award and post-award 

desk-audit reviews. The Commission recommended that SBA finalize its revised civil rights 

compliance and enforcement procedures.32

SBA has issued revised civil rights compliance and enforcement procedures.33 The new 

civil rights and compliance standard operating procedures became effective on February 24, 

2003.34 

Technical Assistance 

In 1996, SBA’s technical assistance program was active, but the bulk of it focused on 

issues unrelated to Title VI. The Commission recommended that SBA provide its recipients the 

same level of technical assistance on Title VI that it offered on other civil rights issues, and that 

technical assistance on Title VI be provided during compliance reviews and meetings, and over 

the telephone.35 

The Commission now finds that SBA provides technical assistance during all compliance 

reviews, meetings, and telephone conversations, and via its Web site.36 Furthermore, technical 

assistance now includes Title VI to the same extent as other civil rights compliance issues. SBA 

provides recipients extensive technical assistance during telephonic and on-site compliance 

reviews through recommendations made during and at the conclusion of the meetings and 

through brochures and pamphlets provided during reviews. 

 

31 SBA Interrogatory, p. 3. 

32 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 472–73. 33 SBA Interrogatory, p. 3; SBA, Standards of Operating Procedures 90 30. 

34 SBA, Follow-up Interview, Mar. 3, 2003. 

35 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 475. 36 SBA Interrogatory, p. 9. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 143

In addition, OCRC has taken some cost-effective approaches to providing civil rights 

technical assistance to recipients. One approach involves conducting civil rights seminars for 

recipients and for the small-business community at large. This includes participating in 

Technical Assistance Programs Seminars (TAPS) sponsored by the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission.37 Staff members in the regional area where EEOC is sponsoring a 

TAPS program attend and participate in the seminar. OCRC participation in TAPS is a costeffective approach to outreach because it reaches a captive audience of 50 to 100 employers. 

Within a one-week period, one OCRC staff member can generally conduct no more than 10 to 15 

on-site reviews. 

Education and Outreach 

In 1996, SBA provided insufficient outreach and education on Title VI and other civil 

rights statutes. SBA had not made it a priority to develop comprehensive Title VI outreach and 

education programs that included other means of communicating with the public such as 

workshops and conferences. The Commission recommended that SBA emphasize outreach and 

education by developing an action plan for informing persons affected by its programs of their 

rights and responsibilities under Title VI and other civil rights statutes by using the media, 

sponsoring workshops at conferences, and developing brochures or pamphlets for distribution.38

SBA now provides information to its recipients and persons affected by its programs 

about their rights and responsibilities via the SBA Form 793, “Notice to New SBA Borrowers,” 

and SBA Form 722, “Equal Opportunity Poster.” Recipients are required to maintain these items 

in an area visible to employees, customers, and the general public. These forms are also available 

to view on the SBA Web site. The public may also download “An Equal Opportunity Guide for 

Small Business Employers,” which includes information on Title VI compliance requirements.39

SBA’s outreach and education, however, do not reach the public through workshops and use of 

the media. 

Complaint Processing 

In its 1996 review, the Commission found that although SBA’s complaint processing 

procedures were comprehensive, the agency received only a few Title VI complaints each year. 

The Commission concluded that SBA did not conduct sufficient outreach and education on Title 

VI such that individuals understood their rights. Therefore, the Commission recommended that 

SBA concentrate its efforts on improving outreach and education on Title VI to ensure that 

individuals affected by federally assisted programs understand their rights and know how to file 

claims of discrimination.40 

 

37 SBA Interrogatory, p. 8. 

38 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 475. 39 SBA Interrogatory, p. 8. 

40 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 474. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 144

As of 2003, SBA has not modified its complaint processing procedures. Since FY 1996, 

the number of complaints received by OCRC has been minimal (see table 5.1).41 Fewer 

complaints were received in FY 2000 and 2001 than in previous years, which may indicate a lack 

of communication between the public and SBA and a need for SBA to conduct more outreach 

and education to ensure individuals know their rights and know whom to contact to file 

complaints against SBA recipients to prevent discriminatory practices. 

Table 5.1 

Complaints received by the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, 

1996–2002

Fiscal 

year 

Complaints 

received 

Complaints 

unresolved 

1996 13 2 

1997 20 3 

1998 14 0 

1999 17 0 

2000 9 4 

2001 9 2 

2002 10 0 

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Civil Rights Implementation Plans FY 

1996–2003. 

Compliance Reviews 

Pre-award reviews, post-award reviews, and on-site compliance reviews are essential to 

an effective Title VI enforcement program. In 1996, SBA did not conduct pre-award reviews to 

ensure that recipients were in compliance with Title VI before granting financial assistance. 

SBA’s Title VI program relied solely on on-site, post-award reviews of recipients with 15 or 

more employees. SBA compliance reviews focused primarily on recipients’ employment 

practices rather than other forms of discrimination under Title VI. Furthermore, SBA did not 

conduct pre-award or post-award desk-audit reviews because of a lack of resources, and the 

mistaken perception that conducting desk-audit reviews violated the Paper Work Reduction 

Act.42

In its earlier report, the Commission recommended that SBA focus on conducting postaward reviews, but advised SBA to consult its files, the EEOC, and the Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to determine whether applicants had undergone 

previous compliance reviews or had pending civil rights complaints. If recipients were in 

noncompliance or if investigations were still pending, the Commission recommended that SBA 

conduct pre-award reviews before releasing funds. In addition, the Commission said that SBA 

should ensure all new recipients were fully informed about their Title VI responsibilities and 

other civil rights laws through Title VI assurance forms, brochures, and/or examples of 

compliance and noncompliance.43

 

41 SBA Interrogatory, p. 6. The unresolved complaints pending at the end of each fiscal year were subsequently 

resolved. See Walker letter, p. 2. 

42 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 473–74. 43 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 473–74. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 145

In 2003, OCRC still does not perform pre-award reviews. Before granting assistance, 

OCRC does not review grantee files or consult with EEOC or OFCCP to determine the 

applicant’s record of civil rights complaints. However, if the potential grantee refuses to execute 

a mandatory assurance of civil rights compliance, SBA does not continue to process an 

application or award a grant.44 SBA provides recipients with Form 793, “Notice to New SBA 

Borrowers,” which provides a checklist of Title VI and other nondiscriminatory regulation 

requirements. Also prior to compliance reviews, recipients receive SBA nondiscriminatory 

regulations for their review to help them to better understand Title VI requirements. 

 

While all recipients are subject to SBA nondiscrimination laws and review by OCRC, it 

is impossible for OCRC to review all its recipients because OCRC staff is too small to handle the 

large number of recipients (see table 5.2). Consequently, OCRC uses two methods for 

compliance reviews, on-site and telephonic. Prior to these reviews, OCRC sends a letter of 

appointment that includes a document request, and a copy of the SBA nondiscrimination 

regulations (including Title VI) and SBA Form 793, “SBA Notice to New Borrowers.” 

Compliance review covers all aspects of the recipient’s employment practices. Each compliance 

review is customized to the company being reviewed. OCRC staff reviews the same information 

from its recipients for telephonic and on-site reviews.45 

OCRC has performed telephonic reviews since 1997 as a way to increase reviews, even 

without travel funds.46 Although telephonic reviews are intended to be as thorough as on-site 

compliance reviews, OCRC does not believe that telephonic reviews should completely displace 

on-site reviews.47 Some of the advantages of telephonic reviews are they allow more objective 

selection and prioritization of reviews since geography is not a factor; they allow OCRC’s 

productivity, in terms of the number of recipients reviewed, to increase because of time not spent 

traveling; and they reserve travel funds for cases with potential noncompliance problems.48

Table 5.2 

Compliance Reviews Conducted by the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, 1996–2002 

Fiscal 

 year 

Estimated # of 

recipients 

Total reviews 

conducted 

On-site 

reviews 

Telephone 

reviews 

1996 185,000 243 220 23 

1997 200,000 282 146 136 

1998 295,000 413 165 248 

1999 295,000 433 351 82 

2000 295,000 424 302 122 

2001 295,000 420 309 111 

2002 295,000 378 272 106 

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Civil Rights Implementation Plans FY 1996–2003. 

 

44 SBA Interrogatory, p. 5. 

45 Walker, Hornston, and Greenspan telephone interview, Mar. 27, 2003. 

46 In FY 1996, SBA conducted a telephonic compliance review pilot program before implementing the program in 

FY 1997. 

47 SBA Interrogatory, p. 5; SBA, Civil Rights Implementation Plan, FY 1997–2002. 

48 SBA, Civil Rights Implementation Plan, FY 1997–2002. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 146

In FY 1998, OCRC placed an emphasis on the number of telephone reviews conducted, 

and doubled that number the previous year. During FY 1999, however, OCRC increased the 

number of on-site investigations, to conduct more in-depth evaluations of recipients’ policies, 

procedures, and records. On-site reviews represented 81 percent of all reviews conducted during 

FY 1999, but only 40 percent in FY 1998. In 2000, OCRC conducted slightly fewer overall 

reviews, 49 fewer on-sites and 40 more telephonic reviews, than in FY 1999. During FY 2002, 

272 on-site compliance reviews and 106 telephonic reviews were conducted (see table 5.2).49

Staff currently reviews less than half of a percent of recipients each year. Many recipients will 

not be reviewed for several years due to the lack of staff.

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions 

Since SBA was created it has been authorized to guarantee loans and to make direct loans 

available to targeted programs that SBA and Congress deem appropriate. Direct loans are limited 

to businesses owned by an individual with veterans, minority, or disability status. Currently, 

there is no funding for these types of loans. The only funding available under direct loans is for 

the Disaster Loan Program, which is a separate entity under direct loans. Disaster loans are used 

to help individuals’ recover from economic losses in a designated federal disaster area. SBAguaranteed loans are not federal loans but loans in which the federal government guarantees a 

certain percentage of the loan for repayment.50

In 1996, the Commission concluded that SBA’s power to accelerate loan repayment 

schedules of recipients found in noncompliance with Title VI was an effective inducement to 

encourage swift corrective action. The Commission recommended that SBA continue this 

practice.51

 Today, SBA federal financial assistance can be terminated at the discretion of the SBA 

administrator if it is determined after a due process procedure that voluntary compliance with 

civil rights requirements cannot be achieved. The SBA rules and regulations under 13 C.F.R. 

Part 112, “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs,” explain remedies and sanctions. 

 In most cases, the recipients reviewed have private loans through banks and financial 

institutions guaranteed by SBA. The potential sanction most often available to obtain voluntary 

compliance is the withdrawal of SBA’s guaranty on a loan. The loss of a government guaranty 

threatens the recipient because a lender could call for immediate payment of the loan upon its 

loss of the SBA guaranty.52 The Commission finds this sanction continues to serve as an 

effective deterrent to Title VI violations and as a tool to achieve voluntary compliance.53 With 

the exception of a few recipients who repaid loans to avoid SBA enforcement actions and the 

 

49 SBA, Civil Rights Implementation Plan, FY 1997–2002. 

50 Walker, Hornston, and Greenspan telephone interview, Mar. 27, 2003. The loan amount guaranteed is established 

by Congress. 

51 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 474. 52 SBA Interrogatory, p. 7. 

53 SBA Interrogatory, p. 7. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 147

potential withdrawal of SBA assistance, OCRC has succeeded in ensuring most recipients 

voluntarily comply.54 

Staff Training 

In 1996, OCRC’s staff was poorly trained on Title VI because there was a lack of funds 

for formal civil rights training. The lack of training impaired the quality of SBA’s Title VI 

enforcement program. The Commission recommended that SBA allocate resources to train its 

civil rights staff on Title VI and other civil rights statutes. It was also recommended that the 

training include information on SBA’s procedures for enforcing Title VI and provide OCRC 

staff with a thorough understanding of SBA’s responsibilities relative to federally assisted 

programs.55

 The Commission in 2003 finds that because of budget constraints OCRC still does not 

routinely hold training for its staff or recipients on civil rights statutes, Title VI enforcement, or 

compliance.56 New staff members mainly receive informal, on-the-job training because public 

sector training entities seldom offer civil rights compliance training. OCRC staff participate in 

Title VI and Title IX DOJ-sponsored training when slots are available. In 1998, three of OCRC’s 

staff members attended DOJ Title VI training. Those employees later disseminated training 

materials and information to the entire OCRC staff. OCRC staff also viewed DOJ’s training 

video, “Understanding and Abiding by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 

In addition to training offered by DOJ, EEO&CRC has sponsored its employees in 

several training courses offered by the Department of Agriculture’s Graduate School and private 

trainers.57 In 2000, the entire staff attended a training conference on SBA’s alternative dispute 

resolution process.58 Despite these activities, training for SBA remains insufficient. Additional 

resources are necessary to provide civil rights training at least annually. 

Delegation 

In 1996, the Commission found that although SBA proposed delegation agreements with 

the Departments of Education (DOEd) and Health and Human Services (HHS) that would give 

these departments the responsibility for monitoring SBA-funded colleges, universities, and 

nursing homes, SBA had not yet implemented these agreements. The Commission concluded 

that until the delegation plans were implemented, SBA was not monitoring the compliance status 

of recipients covered under these agreements adequately. As a result, the Commission 

recommended that SBA consult with the Department of Justice to determine the adequacy of the 

DOEd and HHS Title VI programs and whether the programs met the requirements of the 

Department of Justice’s coordination regulations that contain key elements to ensure compliance 

with Title VI. The Commission recommended that after establishing the adequacy of the DOEd 

 

54 SBA Interrogatory, p. 7. 

55 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 475–76. 

56 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 8–9. 

57 SBA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

58 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 9–10. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 148

and HHS Title VI programs, SBA should finalize and implement the delegation agreements with 

the agencies.59

Currently, SBA does not plan to initiate further actions to implement the delegation 

agreements, nor has SBA implemented new enforcement delegation agreements with DOEd and 

HHS. However, SBA works cooperatively and offers any requested support to other federal 

agencies taking a Title VI enforcement action against an entity that is also an SBA recipient. 

Similarly, if SBA were to initiate Title VI enforcement action against an entity that SBA knew 

also had financial assistance from another federal agency, it would request and expect 

cooperation from that agency in order to ensure voluntary Title VI compliance.60 In the past, this 

form of cooperation between agencies has been useful when taking an enforcement action 

against recipients found in noncompliance. SBA has worked with EEOC, the Department of 

Labor, and the Maryland Commission on Human Relations in taking corrective actions against 

recipients who were found in noncompliance. In January 2003, SBA representatives met with the 

Department of Justice’s Coordination and Review Section to discuss an interagency delegation 

project and discussed the development of a new interagency delegation agreement for Title VI 

and Title IX complaint investigations.61

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

In 1996, SBA did not have an information management system to track expenditures on 

civil rights enforcement programs or facilitate management planning. The Commission 

recommended that EEO&CRC develop an information management system that tracked 

expenditures for various civil rights activities and use the system as a guide when developing 

program planning.62 In addition, the Commission found that SBA had neglected its responsibility 

to collect and analyze data as part of its Title VI compliance program. SBA’s failure to require 

recipients to report information needed to conduct civil rights analyses weakened its Title VI 

enforcement. The Commission recommended that SBA collect data from its recipients in order to 

conduct analyses of the recipients’ compliance with Title VI and SBA federally funded 

programs. It was also recommended that SBA’s direct loan program use the data to ascertain 

whether SBA funding decisions had an adverse impact on minority communities.63 SBA was to 

use the data collected for post-award desk-audit reviews, as well as for pre-award reviews, 

specifically to assess whether the recipients provided loans on an equal opportunity basis and to 

businesses operating in all segments of the community. 

At that time, the Commission also recommended that SBA’s direct loan program use the 

data to ascertain whether SBA funding decisions had an adverse impact on minority 

communities. 

 

59 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 474–75. 

60 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 7–8. 

61 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 7–8; Carol Walker, director, Office of Civil Rights Compliance, fax to Monique DennisElmore, civil rights analyst, USCCR, Jan. 27, 2003. 

62 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 470–71. 63 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 476. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 149

In 2003, the Commission finds that SBA still has not required program offices to collect 

and analyze data to enforce nondiscrimination requirements.64 In many instances, however, 

demographic information on race, gender, national origin, and disability has been obtained from 

standardized forms completed by applicants or recipients of SBA services, lending partners, or 

other SBA service provider partners. Occasionally, program offices use and evaluate these data 

for their own purposes (e.g., determining whether agency programs and services are reaching 

targeted populations, and whether economic development goals are being met in disadvantaged 

communities). However, neither program offices nor SBA partners analyze these data to make 

any determinations regarding Title VI compliance, and EEO&CRC is not directly involved in the 

data collection or analysis. The program offices provide EEO&CRC this information when it is 

needed for official purposes.65 

OCRC utilizes SBA regulation 13 C.F.R. Part 112, which requires recipients to provide 

necessary data for OCRC to make a determination of whether a recipient is complying with Title 

VI requirements. Recipients’ failure to provide data to SBA is handled as a violation of the 

recipients’ civil rights requirements under Title VI and the SBA regulations.66 With the 

exception of companies that undergo compliance reviews by OCRC, SBA does not require direct 

loan recipients to provide data on their business ownership and workforce by race, color, or 

national origin, or by demographic composition of surrounding neighborhoods. Nor does SBA 

routinely require small-business investment companies to provide data on ownership, race, color, 

or national origin, or demographic composition of the neighborhood of the business to which 

they make business loans. However, when a compliance review of covered investment 

companies is conducted, this information must be provided to make a compliance determination. 

During compliance reviews, SBA requires small-business investment companies to submit data 

on the demographic composition of their decision-making boards and committees, on their 

employment practices, and on their loan application procedures and policies.67 SBA uses the data 

to ascertain the compliance status of recipients through post-award desk-audit reviews. 

In addition, EEO&CRC does not use data collected from the agency’s direct loan 

program to ascertain whether SBA’s funding decisions have an adverse impact on minority 

communities.68 However, SBA has established “minority” target goals in many of its lending 

programs in an effort to have a positive impact on minority communities through job creation 

and economic development. EEO&CRC has not undertaken a “programwide” approach to 

conducting reviews of SBA federally assisted Title VI covered programs. Instead, OCRC 

conducts compliance reviews of individual federally assisted entities to ensure the programs and 

services they provide are available on a nondiscriminatory basis.69 SBA also administers specific 

financial assistance programs designed to benefit economically depressed areas regardless of 

whether the recipient operating a business in that designated area is a minority.70 Overall, the 

 

64 SBA Interrogatory, p. 10. 

65 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 10–11. 

66 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 10–11. 

67 SBA Interrogatory, p. 11. 

68 SBA no longer makes direct loans except in the Disaster Assistance Loan Program. 69 SBA Interrogatory, pp. 11–12. 

70 SBA Interrogatory, p. 12. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 150

lack of data reduces the effectiveness of SBA’s Title VI enforcement process by preventing SBA 

from using two effective Title VI enforcement mechanisms, pre-award and post-award desk 

audits. 

Conclusion 

 OCRC has made vast improvements in areas pertaining to compliance reviews, 

publications, and technical assistance based on previous recommendations. However, 

EEO&CRC still lacks in areas of staff training, outreach and education, delegation agreements, 

planning and quality assurance, and resources. OCRC strives to enforce Title VI and SBA 

nondiscrimination regulations, but the office is hampered by the lack of resources and staff. 

Currently, OCRC conducts compliance reviews for less than 1 percent of its recipients covered 

by Title VI and other nondiscrimination regulations. Staff needs to receive more formalized 

training in civil rights. OCRC needs to perform more outreach and education to inform more 

citizens about their rights, which may increase the number of complaints OCRC receives. For 

OCRC to accomplish its mission it needs more resources and staff to allow it to increase the 

number of compliance reviews, and improve its outreach and education, training, planning, and 

quality assurance activities. In order to establish goals and objectives to effectively enforce Title 

VI and other nondiscrimination regulations, OCR needs it own budget allocation. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 151

CHAPTER 6 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Department of Justice 

Finding 1.1: In 1996, many agencies’ Title VI regulations were outdated because the 

definition of “programs and activities” predated the implementation of the Civil Rights 

Restoration Act of 1987. The Department of Justice had, along with 21 other federal 

departments, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the 

Interior (DOI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), begun to amend its regulations with the broader Title VI coverage of 

programs and activities. Proposed rules were published in December 2000, and final rules, 

although “imminent,” were still not in effect more than two years later. 

Recommendation 1.1: The Department of Justice (DOJ) should obtain the necessary 

approval of federal agencies for the joint rule on Title VI regulations and publish the document 

as final. The Commission recommends that DOJ accomplish this by March 2004. 

Finding 1.2: DOJ is responsible for coordinating and monitoring federal Title VI 

enforcement. DOJ issued guidelines to help affected federal agencies formulate plans for 

implementing their Title VI responsibilities, and by 1996, the Civil Rights Implementation Plans 

(CRIPs) emerged as the principal DOJ document used for evaluating the performance of affected 

agencies. Many agencies are required to submit a CRIP every fiscal year. In this review, the 

Commission finds that some of the agencies with Title VI programs, including the 

Environmental Protection Agency and USDA’s Farm Service Agency, are not required to 

prepare and submit CRIPs. 

Recommendation 1.2: DOJ should require all agencies with Title VI programs and 

enforcement responsibility to submit a CRIP every fiscal year, following DOJ guidelines and 

requirements for information. 

Finding 1.3: In 1996, 2002, and 2003, the Commission concluded that some of the 

agencies’ CRIPs did not meet DOJ’s requirements and are in need of improvement. DOJ is 

supposed to review CRIPs and provide feedback on the content of the plans. If deficiencies are 

found, DOJ must communicate its concerns to the agency and make recommendations for 

improvement. The findings are to be reported approximately three to six months after the CRIP 

is received. The Commission finds that DOJ is not providing feedback to the agencies about the 

content of their plans, and this is being interpreted to mean that the CRIPs are adequate or 

meeting DOJ’s requirements. 

Recommendation 1.3: In 1996, the Commission recommended that DOJ develop 

guidelines for improving CRIPs, and that the documents become planning and management tools 

that can be used to measure compliance activities. The Commission renews this 

recommendation, thus, DOJ should give agencies written feedback on the quality of their CRIPs, 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 152

even if they meet DOJ guidelines. DOJ should provide written comments and guidance on how 

to improve and better use plans for Title VI enforcement. 

 

Congress

Finding 1.4: Prior to 1986, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had a separate office 

with a $1 million budget and more than 20 staff members who monitored and evaluated the 

federal civil rights enforcement effort. Because of budget reductions, the monitoring office was 

abolished and the Commission’s monitoring efforts declined significantly. During some years, 

the function was eliminated completely because of competition for scarce resources. 

Recommendation 1.4: Congress should appropriate sufficient resources to enable the 

Commission to regularly and adequately monitor federal agencies and carry out this important 

component of its work. 

Federal Title VI Agencies 

 Finding 1.5: EPA established an internal Title VI task force in December 1996 whose 

responsibility, among others, was to implement the Commission’s 1996 recommendations. 

Establishing the task force suggests that EPA has made serious efforts to give a higher priority to 

civil rights. 

Recommendation 1.5: The Commission commends EPA for establishing an internal 

Title VI task force to implement its recommendations. The Commission recommends that the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Small Business Administration create

internal Title VI task forces to implement the Commission’s recommendations. This task force 

initiative should be considered by all federal agencies that administer Title VI programs. 

2. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Finding 2.1: The Commission finds that USDA has one of the most complex and 

decentralized civil rights programs in the federal government. There are numerous civil rights 

components and staff throughout the department, each with different responsibilities. The result 

has been delegation of roles, duties, and responsibilities of civil rights enforcement, but not 

effective coordination of these tasks. Reorganizations and staff turnover have also contributed 

instability to the roles, duties, and responsibilities of enforcement. In April 2003, an Assistant 

Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights was sworn into office to oversee and coordinate 

activities. 

Recommendation 2.1: The Commission commends its 1996 report, as well as Ten-Year 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A 

Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement and Volume II: An Evaluation of the Departments of 

Justice, Labor, and Transportation, to new enforcement officials and staff. These reports provide 

an in-depth discussion of and suggestions for effective civil rights enforcement along with 

guidance in coordinating activities and fulfilling responsibilities. The officials should establish 

ongoing liaisons and foster open dialog with the Commission concerning its findings and 

recommendations for improvement. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 153

Finding 2.2: In numerous reorganizations since 1994, the Department of Agriculture has 

struggled to consolidate civil rights functions into one office. In 1997, the department established 

offices for outreach and small and disadvantaged business utilization under the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration, and created a Civil Rights Division (OGC-CRD) in the 

department’s Office of General Counsel to provide legal assistance on civil rights issues. Office 

of Civil Rights (OCR) officials view the Office of Outreach and OGC-CRD as effective, despite 

their remote locations. Yet, with this structure, USDA’s responsibility for civil rights functions 

continues to be spread between multiple offices, sometimes without civil rights leadership, and 

as such raises concerns about the arrangement’s effectiveness. 

Recommendation 2.2: As the organization of civil rights is rearranged to accommodate 

the new position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, USDA should determine which other 

offices or divisions would function more effectively under the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights. To accomplish this, the department should study over the next four months the function 

and responsibilities of the Office of Outreach, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization, and the Civil Rights Division of the Office of General Counsel to determine how 

functions can be enhanced. USDA should develop a concrete plan with dates and milestones to 

implement any resulting changes within a six-month period. 

Finding 2.3: With each reorganization, the department needed to clarify the relationship 

of the Office of Civil Rights to USDA agencies, such as the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), 

the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since 

1994, the Secretary delegated authority for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to the 

director of the Office of Civil Rights. The director has had responsibility to provide leadership, 

coordination, and direction, which include giving civil rights guidance and oversight to USDA 

agencies. Yet, until 1997 OCR’s oversight for civil rights enforcement lacked authority because 

the office was not involved in the performance appraisal process for agency heads. In 1997, the 

Secretary gave the Assistant Secretary for Administration full authority for rating the heads of 

USDA agencies and offices on their performance of civil rights functions, but now there is an 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

Recommendation 2.3: As the functions of the Office of Civil Rights are aligned under 

an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the department should reissue delegations of authority 

clarifying OCR’s oversight role with respect to the civil rights activities and responsibilities of 

USDA agencies. The Secretary should transfer authority to rate the heads of USDA agencies and 

offices on their performance of civil rights functions to the newly appointed Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights. 

Finding 2.4: In 1996, the Commission found that the USDA budget did not designate a 

specific amount for OCR’s Title VI implementation and recommended that USDA’s budget 

include a separate allocation for civil rights activities and designate an amount for Title VI 

enforcement so that resources could not be diverted to other functions without a formal decision 

to do so. Furthermore, the USDA agencies did not have allotments for civil rights activities and 

were allocating funding from salaries and expenses allotments. USDA officials now report that 

the department still does not have a budget line item for civil rights enforcement. Funds for civil 

rights enforcement are subsumed in the Departmental Administration budget, although the 

department designates separate amounts for equal employment opportunity (EEO) and equitable 

program delivery. The budget for Title VI is not distinguishable from that for enforcement of 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 154

other civil rights statutes. Beginning in 2004, the newly created Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights will have its own budget. 

Recommendation 2.4: USDA should establish budget line items and account separately 

for headquarters and agency resources for civil rights enforcement. Furthermore, the department 

should implement a new or improved system that tracks resources, activities, and expenditures 

separately for Title VI and other civil rights statutes. The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

should use these mechanisms to ensure that enforcement of Title VI is ongoing and that Title VI 

resources are not redirected to Title VII or other civil rights statutes. 

Finding 2.5: USDA’s civil rights agencies have a deluge of problems ranging from 

leadership instability, stagnant enforcement activities, poor lines of communication, and the lack 

of coordination between the departmental Office of Civil Rights and other USDA civil rights 

components, and the inability to follow through to ensure that draft policy becomes final. 

Recommendation 2.5: USDA should request an independent auditor, whether from the 

private sector or another government entity, to conduct a full review of all its agencies that have 

civil rights offices. Once the audit has been completed, the department should take necessary 

steps to ensure that all findings of deficiencies are addressed. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 

Resources—Funding and Staffing

 

Finding 2.6: In accordance with the Commission’s 1996 recommendation, OCR studied 

the number of staff it needed. The study compared staffing levels with those in another similarsized and situated department and concluded that USDA had insufficient staff levels for 

employment and program complaint processing. OCR used the study to justify requests, both 

internal and to Congress, for additional staff and funding, including in FY 2003 and thereafter. 

Recommendation 2.6: The Commission commends OCR’s documentation of staff and 

other resources it needs. It recommends that OCR conduct such studies annually and use the 

results to monitor and make others aware of its resource needs. 

Finding 2.7: OCR’s budget gradually increased from FY 1997 to 2002, reaching $13.8 

million. Except in FY 1998 and 1999, the number of program compliance staff has approximated 

the levels that resulted in more effective enforcement. In addition, the formation of the Office of 

Outreach and the Office of General Counsel’s Civil Rights Division have further augmented the 

staffing levels for enforcing Title VI. OCR’s requests for even larger funding and staffing 

increases for FY 2000 to 2003 were not met. 

Recommendation 2.7: USDA should meet OCR’s requests for additional budget and 

staffing resources when OCR demonstrates the inadequacy of resources for its workload. 

Similarly, Congress should meet USDA requests for additional civil rights resources when 

inadequacies are demonstrated. 

Planning 

Finding 2.8: The Commission asked OCR to undertake more planning using annual Civil 

Rights Implementation Plans with resources and expenditures separated for Title VI and other 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 155

activities. In 2002, OCR had a system to record civil rights expenditures by type of activity and 

another one to track the stages of complaint processing. However, Title VI activities could not be 

distinguished from those for other program delivery activities. OCR plans to upgrade the 

complaint tracking and financial management databases. 

Recommendation 2.8: OCR should upgrade its management information system to 

enable it to track expenditures for Title VI enforcement separately from other program delivery 

activities. To ensure that OCR’s Title VI planning is improved as soon as possible, the 

Commission recommends that OCR commit to accomplishing this management information 

upgrade before March 2004. 

Finding 2.9: OCR has concrete civil rights goals and uses tracking systems to monitor 

progress, such as reducing complaint processing time. However, the office struggles in planning 

and reaching goals. In 2000, OCR linked expenditures to accomplishments and identified needs 

for additional staffing. In 2002, it streamlined complaint-handling procedures and reported more 

productivity. With streamlined procedures now in place, and a guideline of work 

accomplishments linked to resource expenditures, OCR is better positioned to plan reasonable 

goals. 

Recommendation 2.9: OCR should establish realistic goals and timelines for 

accomplishing Title VI enforcement activities, such as issuing policy guidance, conducting 

oversight compliance reviews, processing complaints, reducing the complaint backlog, and 

reducing the complaint processing time. It should use its tracking system to strengthen the 

relationship between expenditures and accomplishments under the new streamlined procedures 

for complaint handling. It should continue to review enforcement procedures, including those for 

conducting oversight compliance reviews, to further streamline work so that goals can be 

achieved with maximum efficiency. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 2.10: In 1996, USDA’s compliance review procedures and guidance were 

confusing regarding the types of reviews it conducted. A 1999 revision distinguished compliance 

reviews of federally assisted programs (those that provide grants that are then redistributed to 

subrecipients) from federally conducted programs (those that involve direct payments to 

beneficiaries). However, standard operating procedures issued in 2001 and 2002 for agency civil 

rights evaluations and compliance reviews offered definitions that furthered the confusion. Thus, 

OCR’s struggle to clarify the different types of reviews and evaluations continues. 

Recommendation 2.10: OCR needs to establish a workgroup with representatives from 

all USDA agencies with civil rights responsibilities. The workgroup’s objective would be to 

clearly define the agency’s compliance reviews and agency civil rights evaluations and 

distinguish reviews that are required for oversight of the agency (e.g., regional, state, district, and 

field offices) from those conducted of external organizations or funding recipients. Tracking the 

types of reviews would help OCR ensure that oversight covers Title VI program delivery 

comprehensively and aid in estimating the relative costs of different types of reviews or 

evaluations to improve comprehensive coverage and efficiency. The workgroup should develop 

language to: 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 156

• clarify the purpose and nature of civil rights enforcement for federally conducted and 

federally assisted programs; 

• establish the purpose, standards, and parameters for the following types of compliance 

reviews: 

o oversight reviews that OCR conducts of USDA agencies, 

o oversight reviews that USDA agencies conduct of their own organizational units 

at various levels within the agency (e.g., regional, state, district, or field offices), 

and 

o oversight reviews that USDA agencies conduct of program recipients; and 

• clarify the meaning of “program” reviews, specifically the difference between general 

reviews of program delivery and reviews that have a narrow focus on a single program. 

The workgroup should establish and develop guidance that specifies the requirements of 

each type of review. For example, federally assisted program guidelines should specify minimum 

requirements for completed compliance reviews such as (a) a desk audit or a site visit; (b) a 

review of the recipient’s written civil rights policies, analyses of program participation data or 

rejection rates by race and ethnicity; and history of being the subject of civil rights complaints; 

and/or (c) interviews of recipients, beneficiaries, and affected community groups. Furthermore, 

when OCR conducts an oversight review of an USDA agency, it should specify whether it 

reviews or analyzes the agency’s compliance review files. The workgroup should consult the 

Commission’s report Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights 

Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement, and the Department of 

Justice’s Title VI regulations to identify essential elements of compliance reviews. 

The workgroup should establish which type of compliance review is appropriately 

reported to the Department of Justice in the required annual Civil Rights Implementation Plan 

(CRIP) and issue this guidance to all affected offices. When annually submitting the CRIP, 

agencies should indicate the type and depth of the reviews in the plan. 

USDA’s management information system should be upgraded to capture the distinctions 

in reviews, the component that was reviewed (i.e., whether a regional, state, or field office, or a 

recipient), and the responsible office. In compiling its annual accomplishments, OCR should 

tally the number of reviews that have been conducted of its regional, state, and field offices. 

Finding 2.11: In 1993, USDA developed a promising new tool for civil rights 

enforcement, Civil Rights Impact Analyses (CRIAs). A departmental regulation required OCR to 

conduct such analyses of proposed agency actions before implementation, so that programs with 

harmful effects could be abandoned or modified. OCR reported completing 265 CRIAs from FY 

1999 to 2001, including 71 involving the Farm Service Agency, and has staff assigned to USDA 

agencies to conduct analyses of the civil rights implications of the 2002 farm bill. OCR is still 

refining and streamlining the requirements and roles of OCR and the USDA agencies in 

conducting CRIAs. OCR has developed an understanding of mechanisms it can employ to make 

USDA agencies change any negative civil rights impacts, for example, the rule-making process 

or corrective action plans. 

Recommendation 2.11: USDA should continue to use Civil Rights Impact Analyses to 

identify program impacts. OCR should revise the departmental regulation to reflect current roles 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, OCR, and the USDA agencies in conducting such 

analyses. OCR should conduct training for USDA agencies’ and headquarters’ civil rights staff 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 157

on when and how to perform CRIAs once guidance on the procedure is complete. Although 

USDA only requires CRIAs for program changes, OCR should consider expanding the 

regulation to ongoing, cyclical impact analyses that would identify discriminatory aspects of 

program design that only would be evident after a program has been implemented. 

Finding 2.12: In the 1996 report, the Commission recommended that USDA’s civil 

rights office develop Title VI policy guidance on the implications of the Civil Rights Restoration 

Act and on block grant and continuing state programs. It also asked OCR to revise the 

compliance review manual, adding timeframes for completing tasks, legal standards for 

discrimination under Title VI, and the types of compliance reviews. As of 2003, these changes 

were not yet implemented. Some of the changes are in draft form, such as the joint Title VI 

regulations that DOJ is reviewing but has not approved. In some instances, OCR did not have its 

own specific guidance and disseminated DOJ’s policy guidance. In other cases, draft guidance 

has been stalled while undergoing the USDA clearance process. 

Recommendation 2.12: During FY 2004, OCR should secure approval of its 

departmental manual, which would provide guidance on Title VI procedures, including 

timeframes, legal standards, and other information the Commission requested in 1996. Within 

the first 30 days of FY 2004, OCR should actively work with the clearance offices to resolve 

problems associated with approving draft guidance that has been stalled. 

 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.13: In 1996, the department’s civil rights office provided considerably less 

technical assistance than in earlier years when each agency was assigned a desk officer. In 2003, 

OCR still does not have the resources to reinstate desk officers to carry out technical assistance 

as the Commission recommended. OCR anticipated that it would receive its requested FY 2003 

increases in positions allocated to the Program Compliance Division, but its staff was only 

increased by a few members. In the meantime, OCR assigned compliance officers to agencies 

with Title VI responsibilities, although some officers serve as many as five agencies. 

Recommendation 2.13: USDA should allocate additional staff such that each USDA 

agency has a full-time desk officer providing technical assistance. Title VI technical assistance 

should be provided regularly, not just when the agencies request it. 

Education and Outreach 

Finding 2.14: In 1996, the Commission viewed USDA’s outreach effort as inadequate 

and asked that OCR spearhead a departmentwide campaign to educate recipients, beneficiaries, 

and the public about civil rights and responsibilities under Title VI. It said that OCR’s outreach 

plan should delineate responsibilities for OCR and the USDA agencies. An Office of Outreach, 

established in 1997, not the Office of Civil Rights, develops the department’s strategy for 

education and outreach and sponsors numerous outreach and education activities. Under this 

structure, OCR is still responsible for some initiatives, such as overcoming language barriers that 

preclude equal access of persons with limited English proficiency to USDA programs and 

benefits. 

Recommendation 2.14: Establishing an Office of Outreach has resulted in more public 

education. The Office of Outreach should further develop its role. In addition to education and 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 158

outreach, it should develop a strategy to identify programs, geographic areas, or populations 

where outreach and education are inadequate and assist USDA agencies and their state and 

county offices in reaching them. Low program participation rates of minorities and women often 

indicate inadequate outreach. OCR should coordinate with the Office of Outreach to identify 

opportunities and routinely monitor information for possible collaborative initiatives. The Office 

of Outreach should also ensure that information on where and how to file a discrimination 

complaint is currently provided through its activities, and available at USDA offices serving 

recipients or beneficiaries. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 2.15: The Commission identified numerous problems with OCR’s complaint 

processing. First, OCR cannot determine the number of Title VI complaints it receives or 

processes. Officials can only estimate that about 20 percent (or 250 to 300) of program 

complaints concerned Title VI enforcement in FY 1999. Second, complaint processing 

procedures have been poor. In 2000, a report of USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

raised concerns about the consistency with which cases are processed and the accuracy of 

information OCR maintains on them. Third, OCR has a backlog of open complaint cases and 

takes too long to process them. Furthermore, a 2002 General Accounting Office study reported 

that OCR’s average processing times do not include the full length of processing complaints, but 

only the investigation phase. 

OCR has tried to improve complaint processing. In FY 2000, it streamlined the preinvestigation process, implemented a new complaint tracking system, and established an Intake 

Division and a Customer Service Unit. In 2002, OCR was evaluating agencies and revising 

standard operating procedures to ensure that complaint processing followed OCR’s regulations. 

In 2003, OCR proposed obtaining additional staff, who were not allocated, and using a 

prioritization method for handling investigations to reduce its backlog. 

Recommendation 2.15: OCR should first improve its complaint tracking system to 

identify Title VI complaints. The adequacy of Title VI enforcement cannot be assessed without 

the ability to track the status and outcomes of Title VI complaints. 

Second, OCR should establish complaint procedures that ensure quick, consistent, and 

appropriate processing, and that backlogs do not reach unacceptable levels. OCR should put 

appropriate procedures and standards in place, staff adequately, train, and have personnel who 

have civil rights enforcement experience. OCR should track the average processing time from 

the initial contact with the complainant to the time the matter is resolved. A tracking system 

should accurately capture and report the full complaint processing time. Finally, OIG should 

continue to monitor OCR’s processing of complaints to ensure that they are resolved timely, 

completely, and consistently. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 2.16: USDA has had a spotty history of conducting compliance reviews of its 

agencies since the Commission’s last study. Several years passed without OCR conducting any 

compliance reviews. 

Recommendation 2.16: OCR should conduct regular and systematic oversight reviews 

of USDA agencies and their civil rights compliance programs. OCR should select the agencies, 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 159

programs, or locations it reviews both strategically through analyses that suggest potential 

discrimination, and systematically to ensure comprehensive, periodic coverage of all agencies 

and programs. 

Finding 2.17: In 1996, the Commission was concerned that USDA agencies were not 

reporting information on their Title VI enforcement programs, including program participation 

rates by race and ethnicity. Since then, compliance reviews of USDA agencies revealed that 

participation and eligibility statistics were neither systematically collected nor reliable. OCR 

issued newly developed standard operating procedures for evaluating agencies, including their 

collection and maintenance of civil rights data, in 2001. Finally, although the 2002 farm bill 

requires the Secretary to report program participation rates by race, ethnicity, and gender, USDA 

officials will require agencies to analyze the data rather than to provide them to OCR. 

Recommendation 2.17: Analyses of program participation rates are a key element to 

determining equal access to programs. The Department of Justice’s Title VI regulations require 

that all federal agencies perform such analyses when conducting compliance reviews. USDA 

should first ensure that its agencies reliably and systematically collect program participation rates 

by race, color, and national origin. Next, it should ensure that the agencies perform analyses on 

these data to compare program participants with the relevant applicant pools and eligible 

populations, as well as any populations the federal programs adversely affect, by race, color, and 

national origin. The Commission restates its recommendation that USDA require the agencies to 

report the data and analyses, and other information on their civil rights organization and 

structure, budget and staffing, complaints received, compliance reviews conducted, staff training, 

and outreach, education, and technical assistance activities to OCR in an annual report. 

Furthermore, to fulfill its oversight responsibilities, OCR should analyze and act on the 

information. 

Staff Training 

Finding 2.18: In 2003, USDA continues to offer annual civil rights training as its 

departmental regulations require. However, the training USDA offered or plans from 1997 to 

2006 is limited to general topics such as cultural diversity or program accessibility more than 

Title VI. Furthermore, OCR’s and the USDA agencies’ training materials, which OCR either 

writes or reviews, had almost no content on Title VI enforcement. 

Recommendation 2.18: Title VI staff training should go beyond cultural sensitivity and 

diversity and should teach staff to recognize barriers that prevent equal access to programs and 

identify solutions that may help overcome these barriers. It should also teach them about civil 

rights enforcement, including all the implementation tools available. Training should cover, for 

example, the enforcement roles of outreach, policy guidance, complaint processing, compliance 

reviews, data collection and analyses of program recipients and beneficiaries, and the 

involvement of affected communities in planning programs and outreach. USDA’s unique tool—

Civil Rights Impact Analyses—should also be presented, studied, and discussed in enforcement 

training. OCR may find the Commission’s recent report—Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal 

Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights 

Enforcement—helpful in identifying goals, objectives, and modules for training. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 160

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 2.19: OCR has the responsibility for oversight, coordination, and monitoring of 

the USDA agencies’ Title VI enforcement programs. In 1996, USDA lacked resources and had 

not conducted oversight reviews of most USDA agencies. OCR staff provided very little 

technical assistance to the agencies, had no regular contact with recipients of USDA assistance, 

and had limited knowledge of the USDA programs. 

 The Commission finds that OCR is still completing only a small number of oversight 

reviews or evaluations of USDA agencies. However, compliance officers are assigned to each 

agency to serve as civil rights liaisons and expand OCR’s knowledge of USDA programs. 

Furthermore, the department completed a study to justify a full-time desk officer assigned to 

each agency and requested more staff based on its results. In addition, contact between OCR and 

agency staff is more frequent in 2003 than in 1996, through regular meetings and participation in 

annual training conferences. 

Recommendation 2.19: Because of its oversight role, OCR should review USDA 

agencies to ensure that they are fulfilling their civil rights responsibilities by making regular, 

systematic inspections and evaluating their civil rights programs. Although the Commission 

commends OCR for its increased contact with and knowledge of the agencies and their 

programs, oversight requires much more. OCR should require USDA agencies to report 

information annually on their civil rights organization and structure, budget and staffing, 

complaints received, compliance reviews conducted, staff training, outreach, education, and 

technical assistance activities, and data and analyses on program participation rates by race, 

color, and national origin. To fulfill its oversight responsibilities, OCR should, at a minimum, 

analyze this information and take action where deficiencies are found. 

Coordination

Finding 2.20: In 1996, OCR was conducting all complaint investigations and issuing 

determinations of violations or compliance. It had a formal memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with only one USDA agency, delegating it certain complaint processing activities. The 

Commission recommended that the civil rights office enter into MOUs with all USDA agencies 

performing Title VI complaint functions. Since then, a 1997 Secretary’s memorandum clarified 

the roles and responsibilities of the OCR director and the USDA agencies in handling 

discrimination complaints. As of 2003, OCR had formal agreements specifying roles and 

responsibilities with two USDA agencies—FNS and NRCS. For example, under the MOU with 

FNS, the agency investigates complaints, writes preliminary decisions on them, and submits 

them to OCR for review and approval. (Because of concerns about discrimination in program 

delivery that arose with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the Pigford v. Veneman consent 

decree, OCR terminated the authority FSA once had to conduct preliminary inquiries into civil 

rights complaints about program delivery.) 

Recommendation 2.20: The Commission recommends that OCR continue to use 

relationships established through memoranda of understanding to expand its complaint 

processing capability. All agencies that handle complaints should have a formal agreement 

stating the agencies’ responsibilities. The Commission commends OCR for retaining the 

authority to make determinations on program complaints, thus ensuring the quality and 

consistency of complaint handling among USDA agencies, and for terminating the authority of 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 161

an agency to conduct preliminary inquiries into complaints when that agency’s civil rights 

compliance needed improvement. In the same way, OCR should consider reinstating an MOU 

with an agency once concerns about noncompliance are resolved, in order to maximize its 

complaint processing resources. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY 

 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 2.21: In 1996, the Commission recommended that each state civil rights director 

be devoted 100 percent to civil rights duties. At that time, 12 states had full-time civil rights 

mangers. In 2003, the Commission finds that there is still no requirement that state civil rights 

directors serve as full-time equal opportunity specialists. As of 2002, out of 51 directors, only 

one had full-time civil rights duties. 

Recommendation 2.21: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) should require that each of the 

51 state civil rights directors be a full-time equal opportunity specialist. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.22: FSA tracks its Title VI expenditures separately from its expenditures on 

other civil rights activities by working closely with the Financial Management Division, Human 

Resources, and the department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). According to FSA, the Office of 

Civil Rights (OCR) has the ability to monitor all Title VI expenditures, and a weekly report is 

provided to the director for review. 

Recommendation 2.22: FSA/OCR should use its capability to track Title VI 

expenditures without relying on other FSA offices and the department’s Office of Civil Rights. 

Finding 2.23: FSA/OCR’s budget is monitored and tracked by the Financial 

Management/Budget and Human Resources Divisions. FSA/OCR could only provide the 

Commission with four years of funding data, which did not include information on statutory 

expenditure. Funding amounts consisted of salaries, travel, training, and miscellaneous. 

Recommendation 2.23: FSA/OCR should have the authority to submit its own budget 

and receive funding earmarked for its enforcement programs. At any point upon request, 

FSA/OCR should be able to provide sufficient budget information to determine Title VI and 

other statutory expenditures and not just those expenditures related to salaries, travel, and 

training. 

Planning 

Finding 2.24: FSA is exempt from USDA Civil Rights Implementation Plan (CRIP) 

submissions. Because FSA provides little if any significant federal financial assistance to 

recipients, conducts few if any pre-award and post-award reviews, and has no record of legal and 

administrative enforcement activity, the Department of Justice recommended that FSA be 

excluded from USDA submissions unless new or special circumstances arose. 

Recommendation 2.24: FSA should submit CRIPs along with other USDA agencies to 

DOJ. The submission of the CRIPs would allow FSA to be evaluated on its Title VI enforcement 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 162

program, including its scope, its organization, its budget and staffing, and the extent to which it 

conducts various civil rights activities. In addition, FSA needs to be held accountable for 

providing precise goals and objectives and having specific timeframes for completing them. 

FSA’s progress also needs to be documented. 

Policy Guidance 

 

Finding 2.25: In 1996, USDA began reviewing FSA’s draft Instruction 1940-D. If 

adopted, Instruction 1940-D will provide detailed guidelines to field offices for improved 

enforcement and compliance with civil rights laws. In addition, it will provide mechanisms for 

monitoring compliance by field offices and recipients of federal financial assistance at all levels. 

As of 2003, it still has not been adopted, but the Notice of Proposed Ruling began in February 

2003 and will end in April 2003. FSA has replaced draft Instruction 1940-D with Handbook 18-

AO (revision 2). 

Recommendation 2.25: In the future, FSA should finalize and adopt instructions, 

policies, procedures, and guidelines within nine months. As a general rule, the process from draft 

to implementation should be completed in six to nine months, depending on complexity. FSA 

should in each instance develop schedules, tables, and timelines to keep such actions on track. In 

addition, FSA should provide technical assistance in the interim, between times when guidance 

is actually being worked on and when it is approved, to assist field offices in improving 

enforcement and compliance with civil rights laws. 

Finding 2.26: FSA has not adopted Instruction 1940-D because it does not recognize the 

document as a portion of its compliance regulatory policy. FSA has implemented Departmental 

Regulation 4300-005, which requires that it establish a full-time civil rights director, have a 

single civil rights office located in Washington, D.C., and that agency heads allocate sufficient 

resources and assign trained qualified staff to support the agency’s obligation and for developing 

and implementing a comprehensive civil rights program. 

Recommendation 2.26: The Commission commends FSA for implementing the 

departmental regulation, but the agency administrator should seek approval for and be granted 

the authority to develop and control its own budget. 

Complaint Processing 

 Finding 2.27: In 1996 when OCR received a complaint involving FSA, OCR forwarded 

the complaint to FSA for investigation. Upon completion, however, OCR made the final 

determination of compliance or noncompliance. Today, OCR continues to make the final 

determination on all complaints and FSA can only perform a limited scope investigation when 

asked to do so by OCR. FSA does not have the authority to close a complaint without consent 

from OCR. Further, FSA often does not receive information on the status of complaints. 

Recommendation 2.27: To increase the timeliness of complaint investigation and 

resolution, FSA/OCR should have the responsibility of investigating and addressing its own 

complaints. USDA/OCR’s role with respect to FSA/OCR complaints should be to provide 

monitoring and guidance. FSA/OC and USDA/OCR should reconcile their complaint database so 

that one entity does not consider a complaint closed while the other considers it backlogged. In 

addition, USDA/OCR should establish firm processing time requirements for all phases of 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 163

complaint resolution. These requirements should be reflected in performance standards for all 

staff who handle complaints. 

Staff Training 

Finding 2.28: Periodic civil rights training on Title VI to state offices is provided 

through the state civil rights coordinator. Coordinators also provide training to field staff with 

guidance and support from the Compliance Program and Analysis Branch of FSA/OCR. Annual 

training is provided to civil rights coordinators, district directors, and managers to keep them 

abreast of updates on civil rights laws and regulations; the state civil rights coordinator’s role and 

responsibilities; acceptable communication skills; department and agency policies on Title VI 

program delivery; and evaluation and analysis techniques. 

Recommendation 2.28: FSA should continue its practice of requiring that all employees 

receive training at least annually in civil rights compliance. FSA should update and redistribute 

its handbook annually to ensure that it is an accurate reference source. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 2.29: FSA/OCR has developed a data management and information system that 

enables the director to determine how well FSA programs are serving protected groups and 

whether such groups face barriers that prevent them from having equal access to FSA programs. 

The multipronged system includes computerized data collection on complaints and complaint 

status, a streamlined Fact Finding Inquiry process to provide accelerated responses to the 

departmental civil rights office, tracking of the disposition of hot line OIG complaints, reviews 

of proposed interim and final regulations to determine civil rights impact, and regular reviews of 

states’ civil rights and outreach compliance posture. 

Recommendation 2.29: FSA should develop and offer training to state civil rights 

coordinators and state program personnel on the nature of the data requirements from recipients 

and on how to make use of the data to determine recipients’ Title VI compliance status during 

pre-award and post-award reviews of recipients. 

Minority Farmers 

Finding 2.30: As a result of inadequate oversight of state offices, lack of management 

commitment to civil rights, inadequate resources and funding for civil rights, lack of 

accountability within the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and Rural Development 

mission areas, lack of diversity among county committees and county office employees, and a 

cumbersome complaint process, black and other minority farmers alleged that FSA discriminated 

against them in its loan program. USDA has taken 203 disciplinary actions based on findings of 

discrimination or settlements. Nineteen of the actions, including four removals, occurred within 

FSA. Thus, farmers still access USDA services through many of the same career USDA 

employees who were in place when the discrimination occurred. FSA states that actions taken 

were directly related to the nature and severity of the findings of disparate treatment. 

Recommendation 2.30: All FSA employees in field offices who have responsibilities for 

grantees should have a performance element based on Title VI activities that will hold them 

accountable for their actions. They should be evaluated on this element and should receive a 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 164

predetermined level of acceptance in order to retain their position. If FSA employees do not meet 

the level of acceptance they should be reassigned to another position, demoted, or removed. 

Coordination

Finding 2.31: USDA/OCR is tasked with providing leadership, guidance, and oversight 

to USDA agencies and recipients. FSA indicated that the interaction it has with USDA/OCR is 

adequate. USDA/OCR requires FSA to provide an annual report of its Title VI enforcement 

programs, including the number of closed cases, the number of pending and ongoing cases, and 

the results of training provided to FSA field employees. According to a 2003 report by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), lines of communication are badly mangled 

between USDA/OCR and the more than two dozen agencies that make up USDA. 

Recommendation 2.31: FSA/OCR and USDA/OCR need to develop an MOU modeled 

after the one that USDA/OCR has with the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. The MOU 

should clearly delegate authority and responsibility in complaint processing. Under the MOU, 

FSA/OCR should have the authority to process its own complaints from beginning to end, except 

for when complaints involve FSA employees. Only then should USDA/OCR have the authority 

to process FSA/OCR complaints. 

FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES 

Priority of Civil Rights 

 Finding 2.32: Prior to 1994, the Civil Rights Division (CRD) reported to the Office of 

Management in the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The USDA reorganization created the 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) and FNS became a component within the 

agency. However, CRD remained in FNS, and currently reports to an associate administrator to 

the FNS administrator. CRD has never reported to FNCS. 

Recommendation 2.32: In its 1996 report, the Commission recommended that the Civil 

Rights Division report directly to the agency’s administrator, who is now an undersecretary. 

CRD should be realigned in the undersecretary’s office to reflect the high priority of civil rights 

at FNCS. If CRD is placed in the undersecretary’s office, FNCS would provide a civil rights 

presence and elevate its authority. 

Finding 2.33: Under the 1994 reorganization, USDA planned to transform CRD into an 

office of civil rights. From 1998 until 2002, the division was designated as an office, which 

should have given it more authority. However, changing from a division to an office was, in 

effect, a name change only and thus did not have the desired impact of elevating the office. 

Recommendation 2.33: CRD should be designated as an office, with the power and 

authority necessary to elevate civil rights as was intended in the 1994 reorganization plan. 

 Finding 2.34: Although the Commission’s 1996 review did not find major problems with 

civil rights enforcement, the agency has not made any significant efforts to address the 

Commission’s recommendations for improvement. In addition, there is little evidence that the 

enforcement process has changed since the Commission’s earlier report. The foremost reason for 

the lack of improvement is CRD’s leadership instability. Since the Commission’s 1996 study, 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 165

CRD has had three directors and the position has been vacant for nearly a year. During the 

vacancy, the position is covered by four-week rotations of three staff. The acting directors cannot 

formulate or implement new ideas, policies, regulations, or programs because their authority 

does not extend beyond meeting enforcement requirements. As a result, there has been a lack of 

consistency, continuity, and growth in the division. The rotation process has only maintained the 

status quo. 

 Recommendation 2.34: The Commission commends its 1996 report, as well as Ten-Year 

Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A 

Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement and Volume II: An Evaluation of the Departments of 

Justice, Labor, and Transportation, to the new director. These reports provide guidance and 

information in carrying out civil rights roles and responsibilities. The director should foster 

dialog with the Commission concerning its findings and recommendations for improvement. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.35: Neither in 1996 nor now could CRD provide sufficient budget information 

on how civil rights funds are allocated or how resources are determined. Beginning in FY 2001, 

program, regional, and civil rights staff were directed to assess and evaluate human and fiscal 

resources supporting civil rights functions to determine whether resources were sufficient to 

support civil rights objectives. They were directed to make reports during mid-year reviews. 

However, the Commission finds that these initiatives have not been carried out and that reporting 

has not been made mandatory. The Commission finds that funding and staffing are adequate for 

maintaining the status quo, but since the office has been stagnant, the Commission cannot 

determine whether resources are adequate to take enforcement to a higher level. 

Recommendation 2.35: During FY 2004, FNCS should make reporting and assessment 

of civil rights resources mandatory and tied to performance plans and reviews for all civil rights 

staff. FNCS should continue to require that relevant staff report and evaluate their resources as a 

part of strategic planning. All FNCS staff with civil rights responsibilities should be required to 

submit detailed reports on their current and projected expenditures. More importantly, the 

undersecretary should enforce the requirement. The reports should include how funds were 

allocated in the previous year, justification for requests, and what resources are necessary to 

implement changed initiatives and meet workload levels that result from revised laws and 

regulations. In addition, CRD should have in place an information management system that 

would permit it to track civil rights expenditures. 

Policy Guidance 

 Finding 2.36: Since the Commission’s 1996 study, CRD has issued new policy guidance 

in some areas. However, it has not finalized the revision of its Civil Rights Instruction 113, 

which outlines general civil rights enforcement procedures and responsibilities of different 

FNCS staff, its compliance review manual, or its guidance to implement Executive Order 

13,166, which covers benefits and services for persons with limited English Proficiency (LEP). 

Recommendation 2.36: CRD should complete revising the above policy guidance. 

Timetables and milestones should be set for the completion of these activities, during the 

beginning of FY 2004 and information should be disseminated throughout FNCS and state 

agencies. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 166

Education and Outreach 

Finding 2.37: When the Commission conducted its 1996 study, the agency publicized 

many of its programs through posters and brochures. CRD acknowledged that it needed to 

perform more outreach and education on its programs to communities with large non-Englishspeaking populations and that reaching the many persons with limited English proficiency was a 

problem. The Commission recommended that CRD develop strategies for informing all 

recipients, participants, beneficiaries, and the general public about the programs, Title VI 

requirements, as well as other civil rights protections. The Commission now finds that program 

staff conduct most outreach activities at FNCS and that most posters and statements are only 

available at FNCS in Spanish and English, and not in other languages, such as Chinese and 

Arabic, which are becoming prominent in society. 

Recommendation 2.37: By 2004, FNCS should have available information on its 

programs in Chinese and other languages appropriate to recipients. 

Staff Training 

 Finding 2.38: In 1996, the Commission found that FNS did not have a structured, formal 

civil rights training program. In 2003, all FNCS employees receive civil rights training, but not at 

regular intervals. If possible, training is provided annually. 

Recommendation 2.38: Many staff at FNCS have civil rights responsibilities. Therefore, 

there should be formal, structured civil rights training that is conducted at least annually for all 

employees. Basic training should be given to new employees, and refresher training for veterans. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 2.39: In 1996, FNS did not have sufficient resources to monitor the quality of 

the states’ complaint investigations or their pre-award and post-award reviews. The Commission 

now finds that FNS considers periodic reviews of states’ compliance reports as “monitoring.”

Recommendation 2.39: FNCS should establish a formal monitoring program to evaluate 

states’ compliance activities, including investigations and reviews. Headquarters and regional 

civil rights staff should conduct in-depth reviews of the states’ Title VI compliance programs. 

Monitoring should begin with a review of all quarterly and annual state reports and go further to 

include on-site visits, and interviews with state civil rights staff, recipients, participants, and civil 

rights groups. The results of the reviews should be analyzed and acted on within 30–60 days. 

Technical assistance and guidance should be factored into the monitoring process, particularly 

when problems are found, and should be provided within 10 days after the analysis of the results. 

Coordination 

 Finding 2.40: The departmental OCR has MOUs with several USDA agencies for 

complaint processing. For more than 15 years, FNS/FNCS and the departmental OCR have 

operated under an MOU that delegates authority and responsibility for FNCS complaint 

activities. In 1996, the Commission did not make recommendations to modify the MOU. The 

MOU is adequate and has improved complaint processing at FNCS. The Commission finds that 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 167

the MOU has made complaint processing more effective for both entities, has appropriate checks 

and balances, and is useful in protecting the rights of beneficiaries. 

Recommendation 2.40: In 2003, the Commission recommends that OCR consider 

FNCS’ MOU as a “model” document and adapt it to OCR and other USDA agencies that process 

complaints. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 2.41: In its 1996 study, the Commission was concerned about whether civil 

rights received sufficient priority within the Soil Conservation Service’s (SCS’) organizational 

structure. The 1994 reorganization gave the Civil Rights and Program Compliance Division 

(CR&PCD) the responsibility for enforcing equal employment opportunities (EEO or Title VII) 

in addition to equitable program delivery (e.g., Title VI). The Commission recommended that the 

division create separate units and supervisors for EEO and program delivery and retain at least 

the same number of staff working on program delivery. However, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) had separate units for Titles VI and VII civil rights activities only 

fleetingly in early 1997. Since then the civil rights unit has undergone several name, staffing, or 

organizational changes, most or all of which appeared to place greater emphasis on equal 

employment opportunity than on equitable program and service delivery. An NRCS 

reorganization in FY 2000 restructured civil rights as the Civil Rights Staff (CRS), but did not 

separate Title VI and Title VII civil rights responsibilities. 

Recommendation 2.41: The Commission recommends that NRCS establish separate 

units with separate supervisors for civil rights enforcement related to employment and program 

delivery. The separate units will enable staff to specialize and ensure that resources are not 

diverted away from enforcing equitable program delivery without a decision to do so. 

Finding 2.42: In 1994, state conservationists (and the collateral-duty equal opportunity 

liaison officers under them), who reported to the assistant chiefs of their respective regional 

offices, carried out compliance activities. The Commission was concerned that the director of 

CR&PCD did not have supervisory authority over these state staff and could not guarantee the 

consistency of enforcement throughout the agency. With the 1994 reorganization, the NRCS 

civil rights staff still lacks supervisory authority over civil rights personnel in NRCS state and 

field offices. However, now there are regional offices, each with a civil rights manager to consult 

with the regional conservationist and coordinate and implement civil rights policy. The civil 

rights managers are located in the regional offices but report to the director of CRS. Supervisory 

authority of state staff is still lacking, although coordination of civil rights activities and 

responsibilities has improved. 

Recommendation 2.42: NRCS should conduct a study of the effectiveness of civil rights 

managers in ensuring the consistency of enforcement throughout the agency. The study should 

examine the extent to which state and field office staff conduct Title VI enforcement activities, 

the roles of regional conservationists and civil rights managers in supervising them, and the 

cooperation between regional conservationists and civil rights managers. It should research the 

feasibility and effectiveness of other approaches to improving the supervision of Title VI 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 168

enforcement in state and field offices. It could compare, for example, the current system and any 

alternative structures by which civil rights personnel in state offices would report to CRS. 

 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.43: In 1994, SCS did not have a separate budget allotment for CR&PCD, nor a 

separate amount designated for Title VI enforcement. This situation continued for many years 

even with the reorganization that established NRCS. Beginning in FY 2001, NRCS provided 

CRS a budget line item for civil rights enforcement, but the amount covered both EEO and 

program compliance. 

Recommendation 2.43: The Commission recommends that NRCS’ budget allot funds 

for Title VI enforcement separate from the allocations for Title VII and other statutory 

authorities. 

Finding 2.44: Since the 1994 reorganization, NRCS’ many office changes and 

reorganizations have resulted in the headquarters’ staff fluctuating in size and including few if 

any employees in a job series related to Title VI enforcement. CRS staff are cross-trained and 

enforce both Titles VI and VII. Further, CRS can draw on EEO specialists who are detailed from 

elsewhere to accomplish its workload. With program compliance staff increased to seven in 

December 2002 and additional employees on detail, NRCS officials view staffing for civil rights 

as sufficient. 

The Commission is less confident that NRCS staffing resources are sufficient to enforce 

Title VI. First, it questions whether the agency has staff with appropriate knowledge and skills in 

Title VI to ensure compliance. Second, if cross-trained staff jointly conduct Titles VI and VII 

compliance reviews, staff can be diverted away from focusing on Title VI. Third, it seems 

doubtful that staff detailed to CRS from elsewhere in the agency would have the in-depth 

knowledge and skills to engage in Title VI enforcement, particularly because all field staff have 

collateral duties. 

Recommendation 2.44: Although NRCS has developed staff expertise in Title VII 

enforcement, it has done so to the exclusion of Title VI expertise. NRCS should collect data to 

demonstrate the number of staff members it needs to carry out Title VI enforcement, and use it to 

justify requests for staff with Title VI experience. NRCS should not rely on EEO specialists to 

conduct Title VI enforcement without providing such staff comprehensive training. 

Finding 2.45: CR&PCD did not have regional civil rights offices or staff before the 1994 

reorganization. Within each state, the conservationist (who, as the state’s head of all USDA 

operations, is accountable for civil rights enforcement) and the collateral-duty equal opportunity 

liaison officer were the only staff involved in civil rights. The Commission characterizes this as 

only marginal improvement because the number of full-time civil rights staff is far fewer than 

one per state and even fewer than one per region. There are six regional offices, but only four 

civil rights managers. There are still no full-time civil rights specialists assigned to state offices. 

All civil rights personnel in state and other administrative units continue to have other duty 

assignments. Furthermore, NRCS officials report that the civil rights managers conduct all 

compliance reviews. Eleven such reviews were conducted in FY 2002, each in a different state, 

and a similar number are planned in FY 2003. Too few reviews are being conducted annually. At 

the rate of 11 per year, it would take five years to cycle through all the states. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 169

Recommendation 2.45: NRCS should increase the number of civil rights managers so 

that one is in each region. The civil rights managers should ensure that enforcement is consistent 

across the country; they should continue to conduct oversight reviews toward this end. State 

conservationists and their collateral-duty equal opportunity liaison officers should also continue 

enforcement, with guidance from the civil rights managers. NRCS should continue efforts to 

expand civil rights staff to include a full-time civil rights specialist assigned to each state. 

Planning 

Finding 2.46: NRCS develops planning documents for civil rights enforcement, 

including Civil Rights Implementation Plans and strategic plans. In 1996, the Commission 

concluded that NRCS was hampered in managing or planning its enforcement activities because 

it lacked an information management system to track expenditures on various activities. Since 

then, NRCS has implemented two tracking systems that (1) record civil rights accomplishments, 

such as conducting compliance reviews; and (2) measure the equity of program participation and 

beneficiaries among racial or ethnic groups. Neither system, however, enables NRCS to identify 

the resources expended on different civil rights activities so that the information can be used to 

justify the need for and costs of further civil rights activities during program planning. 

Furthermore, accomplishments and expenditures related to Titles VI and VII are not 

distinguished within the system. Because information on accomplishments is not organized 

according to statutory authority, one cannot determine whether Title VI (or other statutes) 

receives appropriate resources, or justify a need for additional resources for enforcing a 

particular statute. 

Recommendation 2.46: NRCS should refine its tracking systems to identify resources 

expended on different civil rights activities such as issuing policy guidance, conducting 

compliance reviews, and processing complaints. The information management system should 

also distinguish enforcement activities performed under different statutory authorities, such as 

Title VI. Once such a system is in place, NRCS should use the information to track expenditures, 

resources, and workload, and the relationships among them. The agency should use this 

information to develop annual enforcement plans. Title VI enforcement plans should then 

include measurable goals and objectives with timeframes for accomplishing them based on 

realistic assessments of resources. This information can also be used to demonstrate the need for 

additional resources to address a growing workload. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 2.47: In 1996, the Commission recommended that NRCS’ general manual for 

civil rights enforcement include sections requiring pre-award reviews of recipients before funds 

are released to them, and provide procedures for conducting such reviews. A coordinated effort 

of CRS and other NRCS staff to develop a section on pre- and post-award reviews was underway 

during FY 2003. 

Recommendation 2.47: NRCS should finalize and disseminate guidance on conducting 

pre-award reviews of recipients within the next six months. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 170

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.48: In 1996, the Commission found that CR&PCD was providing technical 

assistance to state and local agency staff both on request and at its own initiative. It was 

providing it to funding recipients only on request, usually once or twice a year. CRS is now 

providing technical assistance continually, including conducting training, interpreting policy, and 

responding to complaint inquiries and concerns about civil rights issues. 

Recommendation 2.48: CRS should formalize its technical assistance to state and local 

agency staff and recipients. It should track its technical assistance activities to ensure 

comprehensive, nationwide coverage and target activities toward areas or programs that have not 

requested or recently received technical assistance. 

Education and Outreach 

Finding 2.49: In 1996, the Commission was concerned that the agency’s outreach and 

education were insufficient because SCS received almost no Title VI complaints. It 

recommended that CR&PCD conduct a study of outreach and education activities to identify 

populations that were not adequately served and develop and implement a strategic outreach and 

education plan to reach them. The Commission now finds that NRCS’ 1998 reorganization 

created an Outreach Division under the Deputy Chief for Management. Thus, the outreach 

function is no longer the responsibility of the Civil Rights Staff. The Outreach Division is 

conducting extensive programs in different formats and languages. It is requiring each state to 

develop an outreach plan and is beginning to conduct reviews of the effectiveness of states’ 

outreach. Furthermore, despite the organizational separation between the Outreach Division and 

the NRCS Civil Rights Staff, considerable interaction and communication are occurring between 

the two agency components, including, for example, CRS’ sharing of compliance reviews to 

inform outreach efforts. 

Recommendation 2.49: NRCS should study whether the agency should place the 

Outreach Division under the Deputy Chief for Management or the director of the Civil Rights 

Staff and make any appropriate changes. Regardless of the placement, however, the Outreach 

Division should continue requiring states to develop outreach plans and conducting reviews of 

the effectiveness of states’ outreach. If the Outreach Division remains separate from CRS, it 

should further strengthen coordination with CRS to share information (e.g., complaints filed and 

program participation rates) indicating whether minority groups know their rights with respect 

to, and are served by, NRCS programs. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 2.50: In 1996, CR&PCD was investigating all complaints pertaining to SCSfunded programs, but received almost none. In 2003, investigation of complaints is the 

responsibility of the departmental Office of Civil Rights, not of NRCS’ Civil Rights Staff. The 

number of complaints increased slightly to about 10 to 15 each fiscal year. NRCS officials 

attributed the increase in complaints to the Outreach Division’s efforts toward educating program 

participants about their civil rights. However, CRS staff still viewed the number of complaints as 

low relative to the number of program beneficiaries. There were no complaints investigated in 

recent years that resulted in findings of noncompliance. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 171

Recommendation 2.50: On an ongoing basis, CRS should coordinate with the Outreach 

Division to identify areas or programs where low numbers of complaints or program 

participation rates for minority groups suggest that more outreach is needed. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 2.51: In 1996, district conservationists (who oversee state subdivisions) were 

reported to perform 3,000 pre-award reviews annually, but the Commission was concerned that 

the reviews were cursory rather than comprehensive because SCS did not have any pre-award 

instructions in its civil rights procedures manual. Guidance on pre- and post-award reviews was 

issued in FY 2003. In the absence of this guidance, NRCS continued to conduct a large number 

of pre-award reviews with very few staff until FY 2002, when only 45 pre-award reviews were 

completed, compared with 1,725 in FY 2001. NRCS reports did not explain any changes that 

resulted in many fewer pre-award reviews reported for FY 2002 than in past years. 

Recommendation 2.51: The Commission recommends that pre-award reviews extend 

beyond ensuring that applicants have submitted an assurance of Title VI compliance. These 

reviews should consist of analyzing information the applicant submits on the proposed programs 

or projects, the populations served, populations the projects adversely affect, the applicant’s 

policies and procedures, any discrimination complaints lodged against the applicant, and any 

previous findings of compliance or noncompliance relating to the applicant. NRCS should 

indicate the nature and content of the pre-award reviews that are reported in the annual Civil 

Rights Implementation Plan submitted to the Department of Justice. It should accompany any 

large year-to-year changes in the number of reviews completed with an explanation of the cause 

for the differences (i.e., whether there are changes in the programs, recipients, and beneficiaries; 

the resources devoted to conducting compliance reviews; or the definitions, procedures for, or 

content of compliance reviews). 

Finding 2.52: In 1996, the Commission found that the SCS had collateral-duty personnel 

conducting post-award reviews, not trained civil rights specialists. It recommended that each 

state have at least one full-time civil rights specialist to conduct reviews. In 2003, this situation is 

changed. Although states still do not have full-time civil rights specialists to conduct reviews, 

four regional civil rights managers now conduct compliance reviews. Yet, four regional civil 

rights managers are far less than the 50 state civil rights specialists that the Commission 

recommended in 1996. Furthermore, the numbers and depth of compliance reviews the civil 

rights managers perform differ from those the collateral-duty personnel conducted previously. 

Recommendation 2.52: NRCS is to be commended for having full-time civil rights 

specialists conduct compliance reviews. However, NRCS should document the differences in the 

numbers, depth, and geographical coverage of compliance reviews performed by civil rights 

managers and collateral-duty personnel. This information should be used to justify the need, if 

found, for additional full-time civil rights specialists, whether assigned to regional or state 

offices, and to plan future compliance reviews that result in systematic coverage of NRCS 

programs. 

Finding 2.53: NRCS produces documents, including the Civil Rights Implementation 

Plan submitted to the Department of Justice, that show different types of compliance reviews. 

NRCS does not accurately count or distinguish types of completed reviews, such as post-award, 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 172

program, or national reviews. A thorough analysis of the effectiveness of a compliance review 

process requires clarity about whether headquarters, regional, state, or district staff conducted the 

reviews; whether staff reviewed state, district, field office, or external operations; whether the 

reviews covered Title VI or other civil rights issues; and what elements of enforcement the 

reviews examined (e.g., policy guidance, data collection and reporting, complaint processing, 

and compliance reviews). 

Recommendation 2.53: NRCS should develop a thorough understanding of the different 

types of civil rights reviews that the agency and USDA/OCR conduct as oversight of agency 

components (e.g., regional, state, district, and field offices) and external organizations or funding 

recipients. This clarification could help ensure that compliance reviews meet Title VI 

requirements, that all recipients are systematically reviewed, and that scarce resources are spent 

on the most effective and efficient types of reviews. NRCS staff should work with OCR and 

other USDA agencies to develop common language to: 

(a) clarify the differences in the purpose and nature of civil rights enforcement activities when an 

agency has programs that are direct payments to end recipients or beneficiaries (i.e., federally 

conducted programs) and programs that provide grants to recipients that are then redistributed to 

subrecipients (i.e., federally assisted programs); 

(b) distinguish the following: 

• reviews that OCR conducts of NRCS and other USDA agencies; 

• reviews that NRCS and other USDA agencies conduct of their own organizational units 

at various levels within the agency (e.g., regional, state, district, or field offices); 

• reviews that NRCS and other USDA agencies conduct of recipients; 

• reviews of the discriminatory effects of program delivery generally, and those with a 

narrow focus on a single program; and 

• reviews that comprehensively examine all the elements of civil rights enforcement from 

those that focus on only a select few such as outreach and data collection. 

Any reports that NRCS generates on compliance reviews, including the Civil Rights 

Implementation Plan submitted to the Department of Justice, should define the type of 

compliance review that is reported, identifying the reviewers in terms of their position within the 

agency or department and the entities reviewed. The agency’s list of accomplishments should 

include a summary of all types of compliance reviews that have been completed indicating the 

differences among the types of reviews, the reviewers, and the entities reviewed. 

Finding 2.54: NRCS is still expanding its data collection system to better represent 

program delivery activities for each of its programs based on race, gender, national origin, and 

disability. Standard reports that permit authorized persons to monitor progress in NRCS 

customer service by race, gender, ethnicity, and disability are available and can be compiled by 

factors such as location, conservation program, and customer type. Analyses typically compare 

NRCS beneficiary data with census data to determine parity. 

Recommendation 2.54: The Commission commends NRCS for its efforts to collect 

comprehensive civil rights data on recipients and beneficiaries. As in 1996, the Commission 

recommends that NRCS continue to collect and analyze data in support of its Title VI 

compliance and enforcement program. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 173

Staff Training 

Finding 2.55: In 2003, NRCS reports that new employees receive training within six 

months of their hire and that civil rights training is conducted annually for all employees. 

However, the new-employee orientation and the annual civil rights training have little Title VI 

content. 

Recommendation 2.55: As the Commission indicated in its recommendation to the 

department’s Office of Civil Rights, Title VI staff training should cover more than just cultural 

sensitivity and diversity. It should assist staff in recognizing barriers to program access and 

identifying ways to overcome them. It should teach civil rights enforcement, including all the 

tools available to implement it. For example, training should cover the enforcement roles of 

outreach, policy guidance, complaint processing, compliance reviews, data collection and 

analyses of program beneficiaries, and the involvement of affected communities in planning 

programs and outreach. It should also discuss USDA’s unique enforcement tool—the Civil 

Rights Impact Analyses. The Commission’s recent report—Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal 

Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights 

Enforcement—may be helpful in identifying training goals, objectives, and materials. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 2.56: In 1996, CR&PCD had no supervisory authority over state 

conservationists and only minimal contact with them through annual reports and compliance 

reviews conducted on a five-year cycle. In 2003, the director of the Civil Rights Staff still does 

not have supervisory authority over the state conservationists. The infrequency of NRCS/CRS’ 

compliance reviews of states remains the same, too. However, the higher placement of the CRS 

director in the agency’s structure and the assignment of civil rights managers to regional offices 

have increased the contact between CRS and the state conservationists. 

Recommendation 2.56: NRCS should monitor whether quality assurance of civil rights 

enforcement is achieved through the civil rights managers serving in an advisory capacity to 

regional conservationists. It should examine the amount of contact between state office’s civil 

rights personnel and CRS and, in particular, whether the current number of civil rights 

managers—four—spread between six regional offices is sufficient. NRCS should justify and 

seek additional staff needed for quality assurance. 

Coordination 

Finding 2.57: In its 1996 report, the Commission found minimal interaction between 

SCS and the department’s civil rights office. In 2003, NRCS reports much more interaction with 

departmental staff and offices. The agency reports coordination and interaction with the 

department’s Office of Civil Rights related to policy development, complaint processing, 

compliance reviews, Civil Rights Impact Analyses, civil rights training, and other civil rights 

functions and activities. NRCS also has contact with the departmental Office of Outreach and 

Office of General Counsel. Thus, coordination and contact with USDA offices concerning civil 

rights issues are improved. 

Recommendation 2.57: OCR and NRCS should continue routine contacts to broaden 

both headquarters’ and the agency’s staff knowledge of Title VI enforcement as it applies to 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 174

USDA programs, to increase the consistency of enforcement throughout the department, and to 

reduce or combine efforts in developing policy guidance and enforcement strategies. 

Community Involvement 

Finding 2.58: In 1993, CR&PCD had identified grassroots organizations to strengthen its 

outreach, however, the Commission concluded that its outreach and education activity was 

insufficient for ensuring nondiscrimination. Perhaps because of the establishment of NRCS’ 

Outreach Division and states’ development and implementation of outreach plans, by 2003, 

NRCS is developing much stronger relationships with community-based organizations. 

Recommendation 2.58: NRCS should continue its efforts to develop strong relationships 

with community-based organizations. It should use these relationships to disseminate 

information on potential sources of program discrimination and to plan and design conservation 

programs and outreach and education that include members of minority groups. 

3. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 3.1: Because the director is still several levels removed from the Secretary the 

Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) civil rights compliance and enforcement program is not on 

an equal footing with other priority programs. Despite maintaining separate internal and external 

civil rights programs, the lack of a dedicated legal staff hinders the Office for Equal 

Opportunity’s (OEO’s) compliance and enforcement efforts and is one example of the secondary 

status DOI places on its civil rights program and, by extension, OEO. A second example of this 

status is OEO’s inclusion in the Office of Policy, Management and Budget (PMB), an office that 

should be under OEO’s oversight because of the several civil rights programs administered by 

the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (ASPMB). 

Recommendation 3.1: The Secretary should strive to elevate OEO’s status in DOI to a 

point that civil rights compliance and enforcement are a foremost component of DOI’s mission. 

Raising OEO’s status to a level equal with all other DOI offices, while simultaneously providing 

the director direct access to the Secretary, is paramount in this effort. Because priority has never 

been given to Title VI enforcement and compliance at DOI, the Secretary should ensure that a 

culture where Title VI is among the paramount duties of DOI is established, reflected in a 

substantial increase of OEO’s budget and staffing level, rapidly propagated throughout the 

department, and clearly and fully supported by the Secretary. DOI can commence this new and 

productive era in its civil rights compliance and enforcement program by providing OEO with 

the legal staff it has never had. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 3.2: Failing to allocate separate funds for OEO has encumbered the director with 

constantly justifying the office’s needs. OEO has weakened its position by its continual failure to 

develop an information management system for tracking civil rights funds and expenditures. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 175

OEO has failed to collect data assessing the impact of changes in funding and cost levels on its 

Title VI program; therefore, the agency does not designate funds to it. 

Recommendation 3.2: OEO should immediately develop and implement an information 

management system for separately tracking Title VI and other civil rights funds and 

expenditures. Although DOI should use these data to allocate funding amounts for its civil rights 

program, DOI should immediately allocate funds for civil rights even without data but adjust 

them based on the data. 

Finding 3.3: OEO and bureau external civil rights units continue to be understaffed and 

overburdened. DOI has a total of five external civil rights specialists located at OEO, National 

Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which are occasionally supplemented by temporary personnel. 

OEO’s one full-time external civil rights specialist performs all related duties, including 

monitoring and overseeing bureau civil rights enforcement. Although the director oversees 

bureau civil rights staffing levels, she lacks authority to influence the number assigned to Title 

VI. 

Recommendation 3.3: OEO and all bureaus responsible for Title VI compliance and 

enforcement should supplement external civil rights units with properly trained staff within six 

months. The director should have the authority to assign the necessary number of external civil 

rights staff at bureaus. 

Planning 

 Finding 3.4: Since it first developed Civil Rights Implementation Plans (CRIPs) in 1972, 

OEO has always developed them according to DOJ guidelines. However, since their inception, 

DOJ has never commented on OEO’s CRIP. A review of the implementation plans for FY 1998 

through FY 2002 reveals that this may be due to DOI’s lack of specificity and failure to include 

critical project completion dates and established standards, both required by DOJ. The CRIPs 

also neglect to provide the public with a clear understanding of DOI’s Title VI program. 

Recommendation 3.4: OEO should begin immediately developing CRIPs that strictly 

adhere to all DOJ guidelines and clearly detail and explain DOI’s Title VI program for all 

interested parties. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 3.5: Despite last modifying its Title VI regulations in FY 2002 to include the 

Civil Rights Restoration Act’s definition of a covered “program” and “program and activity,” 

OEO again failed to incorporate the act’s clarifications to Title VI’s coverage and funding 

termination provisions. DOI has neglected to develop suitable model regulations or examples for 

its programs. Instead, DOI has adopted regulations of the Department of Education without 

tailoring them to its own requirements. It has further failed to annually publish a list of its 

federally assisted programs in the Federal Register. OEO has similarly failed to incorporate the 

Civil Rights Restoration Act into its Title VI guidelines, which it develops “on an as needed 

basis” and when DOJ provides new Title VI standards, thus currently applying badly outdated 

ones. The situation is made more dire because available guidelines are ambiguous and only 

developed by NPS and FWS. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 176

 This entire situation is made worse by the lack of a comprehensive Title VI enforcement 

manual, since OEO prefers to distribute civil rights enforcement procedures via equal 

opportunity memoranda. However, no memorandum obtained by the Commission relates to Title 

VI enforcement procedures. 

Recommendation 3.5: OEO should modify Title VI regulations to incorporate the Civil 

Rights Restoration Act’s revisions and model regulations pertinent to DOI’s civil rights 

programs within the first three months of FY 2004. OEO and the bureaus should finalize and 

develop clear and specific Title VI guidelines on the responsibilities of all concerned parties and 

the Civil Rights Restoration Act. OEO should further ensure that within the next six months it 

begins to issue equal opportunity memoranda on Title VI enforcement procedures and develops 

and issues a comprehensive Title VI enforcement manual that it updates at least annually. Lastly, 

DOI should annually publish a list of its federally assisted programs in the Federal Register. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 3.6: DOI’s recipients receive technical assistance on request and during 

compliance reviews and complaint investigations. OEO records indicate that recipients last 

received technical assistance in FY 2000. Primary recipients are charged with providing 

subrecipients technical assistance. FY 1997 was the last time OEO trained primary recipients of 

the NPS, FWS, and Bureau of Reclamation (WBR) to offer technical assistance to subrecipients. 

Technical assistance to bureaus having compliance and enforcement activities was last provided 

in FY 1999. 

Recommendation 3.6: OEO should ensure that primary recipients receive biannual 

notification of the availability of technical assistance on request. Furthermore, OEO should 

provide recipients technical assistance once a year, thus avoiding long intervals during which no 

technical assistance is provided. Bureau external civil rights staff should be provided technical 

assistance at least once a year, similarly avoiding substantial periods with no technical assistance 

for bureaus. Lastly, OEO should ensure that primary recipients meet their obligation to provide 

technical assistance to subrecipients. A maximum interval for subrecipients to receive technical 

assistance should be once every two years. 

Education and Outreach 

Finding 3.7: OEO continues to provide less than satisfactory education and outreach, 

simply making informative pamphlets available to public entities and relying on recipients to 

prominently post sufficient numbers of civil rights posters in all areas of their operations. OEO 

believes these pamphlets, posters, and attendance by limited bureau Title VI enforcement staff at 

natural resources conferences are sufficient to inform the public of DOI’s civil rights policies and 

procedures. 

Recommendation 3.7: DOI and OEO should ensure that a comprehensive and proactive 

Title VI community outreach and public education program is finally developed and instituted at 

DOI. Posters and pamphlets should be complimentary to concerted education and outreach 

efforts, not the primary means of providing these services. Initiating contact with local 

organizations and providing them with information and resources on DOI’s civil rights policies 

and procedures should enhance pamphlets, posters, and presentations at natural resources 

conferences. Furthermore, in addition to natural resources conferences, OEO and bureau civil 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 177

rights staff should attend other conferences and gatherings relevant to DOI’s civil rights 

programs. For example, education and outreach efforts should include participation in civic 

events and presentations for community groups, areas where existing and future beneficiaries are 

present. Finally, OEO should be proactive in its efforts, initiating contact with targeted groups 

and not relying on chance to alert these groups to DOI’s Title VI programs and obligations. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 3.8: Although OEO’s Title VI complaint investigation procedures are generally 

clear and detailed in explaining OEO’s and the bureaus’ responsibilities in investigating and 

processing Title VI complaints, it fails to require verification of the thoroughness of a complaint 

investigation. Moreover, OEO requires recipients to do no more than report any complaints or 

lawsuits against them that claim they discriminated because of race, color, or national origin. 

These failures may allow valid complaints to be dismissed and violators to remain concealed. 

From FY 1996 through FY 2001, DOI annually averaged a mere eight Title VI violation 

complaints despite providing federal funds through 62 programs. Over this same period, it 

annually averaged 175 unresolved civil rights complaints. This latter instance may be due to 

vague bureau time limits for resolving complaints, with all complaints of alleged discrimination 

to be resolved promptly and appropriately whenever possible. 

Recommendation 3.8: During the first three months of FY 2004, OEO should modify its 

Title VI complaint investigation procedures to require review of the thoroughness of a complaint 

investigation and annual civil rights self-assessment reports by recipients. Procedures should also 

be modified to include strict time limits for the completion of the various phases of an 

investigation or, when circumstances warrant, legitimate reasons for delaying the investigative 

process. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 3.9: OEO persists in conducting cursory pre-award reviews of an applicant’s 

program, assuming that compliance will prevail owing to a recipient’s signature on a civil rights 

assurance form. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of uniform policies for pre-award 

reviews, leading some bureaus to conduct rudimentary reviews. DOI’s failure to assign civil 

rights personnel to conduct reviews, opting instead for bureau program specialists, further 

detracts from the process because bureau program specialists do not have the proper training for 

this duty. These factors impede DOI’s pre-award review process despite its good efforts in 

requiring all applicants for federal financial assistance to undergo pre-award reviews and when 

noncompliance is found, initiating an investigation. 

Recommendation 3.9: OEO should immediately begin conducting in-depth pre-award 

reviews that include interviews with applicants and benefactors if an applicant is receiving 

federal funding via another DOI program or federal agency. Uniform policies with the flexibility 

to account for bureau and recipient differences should also be developed promptly. DOI should 

begin assigning civil rights personnel to conduct pre-award reviews or provide the proper 

training to bureau program specialists. 

Finding 3.10: DOI is optimizing fiscal resources by relying heavily on post-award deskaudit civil rights reviews. Efficiency has been enhanced further because OEO provided 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 178

procedures for conducting post-award desk-audit reviews in numerous DOI programs in FY 

1998. Yet, the latest information available from OEO reveals that annually recipients have very 

little chance of being reviewed because reviews are conducted on roughly 11 percent of 

recipients. 

Recommendation 3.10: DOI should ensure that every recipient undergoes a post-award 

review at least every two fiscal years, thus raising the number of recipients annually reviewed to 

50 percent. It should institute this process by initially reviewing recipients either never reviewed 

or reviewed at the earlier stages of its current process. OEO should contribute to this effort by 

providing all DOI programs with written procedures for conducting post-award desk-audit civil 

rights reviews within a three-month period. 

Finding 3.11: Because of a limited civil rights staff, OEO continues to conduct on-site 

compliance reviews that are not comprehensive in nature. The process is limited to a review of 

documents and a checklist focusing on readily identifiable forms of discrimination. DOI’s on-site 

compliance reviews also neglect to solicit information from program participants, affected 

parties, and interested community groups, rendering the entire process less than inclusive. 

Recommendation 3.11: OEO should promptly institute on-site compliance reviews that 

examine a recipient’s entire operation and apply clear and detailed procedures during the entire 

review process. Procedures should establish that along with a documents review, civil rights staff 

are to conduct comprehensive interviews with the recipient’s staff, program participants, affected 

parties, and interested community groups and thoroughly analyze data provided by the recipient 

on its program. 

Staff Training 

Finding 3.12: DOI continues to provide insufficient funds for staff training, with Title VI 

training last taking place in FY 2000. Still, OEO informed the Commission that all equal 

opportunity staff received adequate training and that work-related training has never been denied 

to staff. 

Recommendation 3.12: OEO should immediately designate sufficient funds to provide 

Title VI compliance and enforcement training to its civil rights staff at least annually. 

Delegation 

Finding 3.13: DOI’s current civil rights structure consists of one equal opportunity office 

in each bureau in addition to the main OEO. Although bureau offices are designated as the focal 

point for ensuring compliance among DOI’s recipients, active Title VI programs are limited to 

NPS and FWS, with marginal programs found at the Office of Surface Mining (OSM), the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Reclamation (WBR). OEO states that the current 

structure is appropriate because (1) resources are not wasted since compliance and enforcement 

overlap between bureaus is avoided; (2) Title VI does not generally bind Native American 

nations and Native Alaska villages, thus the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has no need for a 

Title VI program; and (3) the Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers programs and 

activities not conducive to Title VI coverage. 

Recommendation 3.13: DOI should implement fully active Title VI programs at OSM, 

USGS, and WBR immediately because these bureaus provide substantial federal funding subject 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 179

to the requirements of Title VI. OEO should undertake a study, if it has never done so or not 

done so recently, of the MMS federal financial assistance programs to determine if any structural 

changes demand implementation of Title VI compliance and enforcement procedures. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Bureaus 

Finding 3.14: DOI currently has a decentralized Title VI enforcement program that 

requires each respective bureau’s equal opportunity officer to direct Title VI efforts. DOI, 

specifically OEO, provides policy guidance and oversight of bureaus’ Title VI activities to 

ensure adequate performance. OEO also evaluates bureaus’ programs, provides staff training, 

and issues programmatic directives to ensure that bureaus adhere to established civil rights 

policies and procedures. OEO has no authority to determine how many employees bureaus 

dedicate to Title VI duties. 

Recommendation 3.14: DOI should promptly provide OEO with the authority to 

determine the number of civil rights staff bureaus dedicate to Title VI duties to ensure that 

bureaus are able to adequately perform Title VI compliance and enforcement activities. This 

action will enhance the ability of OSM, USGS, and WBR to implement fully active Title VI 

programs immediately. 

Continuing State Programs 

Finding 3.15: OEO states that DOI’s existing organizational structure is not conducive to 

the oversight of continuing state programs and, subsequently, does not provide funds for OEO to 

require states to provide annual self-assessment reports on their Title VI activities. 

Recommendation 3.15: DOI should immediately provide OEO with sufficient funds to 

require states to perform and submit annual self-assessment reports on their Title VI activities. 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Priority of Civil Rights 

 Finding 4.1: In 1996, the Commission found that the director of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) reported to the deputy chief of staff. 

Although the reporting line for routine civil rights enforcement concerns was found conducive to 

efficient management and operation, there was concern that this reporting structure could prevent 

participation of the director in important executive meetings that discuss budget, staffing, and 

policy decisions. Today, EPA’s director of OCR appropriately reports the administrator. External 

and internal functions have been appropriately separated. 

Recommendation 4.1: The Commission commends EPA for elevating the stature and 

accountability of its civil rights office to an appropriate position in the agency. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 180

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 4.2: In addition to Title VI, the External Compliance program has 

responsibilities for five other federal nondiscrimination statutes, although most its work is with 

the former. The External Compliance program has been operating with 3.5 staff since 2001, 

because one and a half full-time-equivalent staff have been temporarily detailed to a Title VI task 

force. OCR augments the small External Compliance program staff by detailing employees from 

other EPA offices. Recently, EPA assigned the External Compliance program a new full-time 

position, and OCR had begun the process of filling it. OCR plans to determine in calendar year 

2003 if the External Compliance program needs additional compliance and complaint 

investigation staff. 

 Recommendation 4.2: The use of detailed staff should be a temporary measure because 

Title VI enforcement is better served when staff are trained civil rights specialists. OCR should 

ensure that detailed staff are given appropriate training in external civil rights laws and issues. 

EPA should also find ways to give OCR the staff it needs should the office determine that 

additional persons are needed for compliance reviews and complaint investigations. 

 

Finding 4.3: OCR still does not have an electronic database for tracking external civil 

rights expenditures and staffing assignments by statute. The Title VI team leader tracks staff 

assignments and conducts workload analyses manually on handwritten sheets, although 

expenditure information is maintained in an electronic database. Further, OCR’s programmatic 

needs dictate the dispersal of funds among its programs, and the External Compliance program 

does not have its own budget. This set up does not necessarily safeguard funds for the External 

Compliance program. However, beginning in FY 2004 the OCR budget will be divided among 

the OCR teams. 

Recommendation 4.3: The Commission reiterates its recommendation made in 1996, 

that OCR develop a database system for tracking expenditures and staff assignments by statute 

for all external compliance and enforcement activities. Such a database is essential for 

maintaining an accurate accounting of civil rights enforcement with respect to each civil rights 

law, workload analysis, and budget and staff estimation. EPA should ensure that the separate 

OCR budgets are adequate for civil rights enforcement. 

Finding 4.4: EPA created the Civil Rights Law Office in 1998. Located in the Office of 

General Counsel (OGC), this office performs legal functions previously carried out by OCR’s 

attorneys. 

Recommendation 4.4: EPA should ensure that the Civil Rights Law Office works 

closely with OCR, in particular with the External Compliance program when developing external 

civil rights regulations and policies, and conducting legal analysis on external civil rights issues. 

Further, since the External Compliance program is not the Civil Rights Law Office’s exclusive 

client, EPA should ensure that the former receives appropriate attention. 

Planning 

Finding 4.5: EPA has begun to engage in Title VI planning and assessment. The agency 

decided that clearing a large backlog of complaints is an agencywide priority, and the 

administrator ordered the creation of a well-resourced Title VI Task force for this purpose. The 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 181

agency also has developed several key draft guidances. The External Compliance program’s 

main planning document is the CRIP, which consists of OCR’s annual responses to Department 

of Justice (DOJ) questions on different aspects of the external civil rights, including objectives 

and activities to enforce Title VI and other statutes, and accomplishments of the past year. OCR 

uses this report to set goals for the coming year. 

Recommendation 4.5: The CRIP is an important report. To maximize its value as a 

planning and management tool, OCR should establish measurable criteria for evaluating 

accomplishments, as well as timelines for meeting the key objectives of external civil rights 

statutes, including Title VI. Measurable criteria for judging accomplishment and timelines would 

show whether objectives were met at the set level, and if they were met in a timely manner. An 

opportune time to develop the measurable criteria and timelines would be during the beginning 

of FY 2004, after the backlog of complaints has been cleared, since EPA has already planned to 

reevaluate its Title VI activities then. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 4.6: EPA states that the appendix listing EPA’s federally assisted programs has 

not been updated because such information is readily available on the Internet, as well as in the 

General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), which the 

agency says it updates annually. But the Commission finds that the CFDA Web site lists only 

continuing grants. EPA also does not distinguish state continuing programs from other programs. 

Recommendation 4.6: EPA should list continuing and non-continuing grants in the 

General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and update them 

annually. The Commission reiterates its 1996 recommendation, that EPA distinguish state 

continuing programs from other programs. 

Finding 4.7: An overwhelming majority of Title VI complaints filed with EPA allege 

discrimination in the issuance of environmental permits and discriminatory effects rather than 

discriminatory intent. As a result, EPA’s two major Title VI guidances, Draft Title VI Guidance 

for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft 

Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative 

Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigative Guidance), speak to discriminatory 

effects in all environmental-permitting programs, regardless of the financial assistance programs. 

EPA states that it will issue guidance on other activities as appropriate, in the future. 

Recommendation 4.7: EPA should evaluate complaints pertaining to activities or areas 

other than environmental permitting. It should examine such complaints over several years to 

gain a more accurate picture of their nature. EPA should be guided by the findings of the 

examination in deciding whether or not to issue guidance on nonenvironmental-permitting 

activities. 

 

Finding 4.8: EPA has taken steps to ensure that Title VI enforcement programs provide a 

clear understanding of the compliance and enforcement processes. The agency meets with 

stakeholders and holds public hearings when it is developing guidances, which are then 

published in the Federal Register for public comment. The guidances and public comments are 

also posted on OCR’s Web site in order to reach a wide audience. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 182

Recommendation 4.8: EPA’s approach to providing a clear understanding of the 

compliance and enforcement processes is exemplary. Other federal agencies should consider 

adopting its approach. 

Finding 4.9: EPA identifies Title VI issues, and areas in need of clarification through a 

public participation process, such as dialogues with stakeholders, written comments from the 

public, and public meetings. Policies are then created to address the issues and areas. 

Recommendation 4.9: EPA’s approach to identifying Title VI issues and areas in need 

of clarification is exemplary. Other federal agencies should consider adopting the approach. 

 

Finding 4.10: EPA does not have a comprehensive procedures manual that provides 

step-by-step guidance in implementing and enforcing Title VI. It uses procedures and guidances 

located in several internal and external documents. Draft Revised Investigative Guidance

provides help in conducting complaint investigations, resolving complaints or noncompliance, 

and collecting and analyzing data. DOJ’s Title VI Investigation Procedures Manual, Title VI 

Legal Manual, internal Title VI regulations, and other relevant materials are used for staff 

training. EPA is currently developing internal procedures for performing compliance reviews and 

administrative or judicial proceedings in findings of noncompliance. 

Recommendation 4.10: The Commission reiterates its 1996 recommendation, that EPA 

develop a comprehensive and detailed procedures manual that provides step-by-step guidance in 

all areas of Title VI. The post-award compliance review program that EPA proposes to develop 

should be incorporated into this manual. Further, EPA should provide OCR with resources 

targeted for this purpose, and require the office to establish concrete plans to develop the 

comprehensive manual. OCR should establish goals and timetables to support completion of the 

document in calendar year 2003. 

Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance 

Finding 4.11: EPA has strengthened Title VI outreach, education, and technical 

assistance. It makes available agency documents for public review, meets with stakeholders, 

periodically publishes documents on Title VI, publicizes Title VI regulations and guidelines 

through press releases and other means, and requires recipients’ methods of notice of 

nondiscrimination to meet the needs of the visually and hearing-impaired populations. 

Additionally, the agency’s excellent Web site provides a substantial amount of internal and 

external civil rights information and is linked to useful sites, such as DOJ’s. OCR also plans to 

translate the materials on its Web site into Spanish. 

Recommendation 4.11: The Commission commends EPA on its approach to outreach, 

education, and technical assistance, which are exemplary. Other federal agencies should consider 

adopting its approach. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 4.12: EPA has developed a comprehensive complaint process involving Title VI 

complaints alleging discriminatory effects as a result of recipients’ issuance of pollution control 

permits. Titled Draft Revised Investigation Guidance, the document proposes processes for 

reviewing disparate impact complaints. This guidance is being refined and field tested. EPA’s 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 183

Web link, “Title VI Complaints,” provides useful information on different facets of complaints 

and complaint processing. EPA says it does not require state agencies to submit a written report 

on each complaint and its investigation because agency nondiscrimination regulations require 

state and non-state recipients to collect, maintain, and on request of OCR, provide a detailed log 

of discrimination complaints. 

Recommendation 4.12: EPA’s Web link is outstanding and well worth adopting by 

other federal agencies. Also, the Commission reiterates its 1996 recommendation, that EPA 

require state agencies to submit a written report on each complaint and its investigation. In 2003, 

the Commission additionally recommends that EPA require non-state recipients to do the same. 

This would facilitate OCR’s oversight and monitoring of state and non-state recipients’ 

compliance and enforcement efforts. 

Compliance Reviews 

 

Finding 4.13: EPA collects the same type of pre-award information for each EPA-funded 

program. But OCR has not used the information to target applicants and recipients for technical 

assistance or on-site compliance reviews primarily because Form 4700-4, “Pre-award 

Compliance Review Report for All Applicants Requesting Federal Financial Assistance,” 

currently does not collect the kind of information that is suitable for this purpose. Revised Preaward Form 4700-4 will be drafted in calendar year 2003. 

 Recommendation 4.13: OCR should make plans and establish deadlines such that it will 

have a final version of a revised Pre-award Form 4700-4 in calendar year 2003. EPA should then 

use the information collected on the revised the form to regularly target applicants and recipients 

for technical assistance or on-site compliance reviews. 

Finding 4.14: OCR still does not require recipients to submit compliance reports. 

Instead, recipients are required by EPA regulations to submit program data and information only 

when OCR suspects that discrimination may exist in a recipient’s program or activity, or when 

OCR is investigating a complaint alleging discrimination. Recipients must collect and maintain, 

and on request of OCR, provide requisite information to show compliance. 

Recommendation 4.14: The Commission reiterates its 1996 recommendation, that OCR 

require recipients to submit compliance reports. Further, where appropriate OCR should provide 

feedback to recipients. 

Finding 4.15: As soon as the EPA post-award compliance program’s operating 

procedures are developed, the agency expects to regularly conduct post-award on-site 

compliance reviews on a representative number of major recipients, a 1996 recommendation. 

Recommendation 4.15: Post-award compliance review is a central component of Title 

VI enforcement. EPA is strongly urged to ensure that post-award compliance reviews are carried 

out routinely as soon as feasible. Further, the Commission reiterates two other 1996 

recommendations, that OCR consider collaborating with other program offices to finance postaward reviews in the event of budget constraints; and that EPA officials take advantage of onsite compliance reviews to provide outreach, education, and technical assistance to recipients. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 184

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

 

Finding 4.16: EPA does not routinely require recipients to provide information on the 

demographic composition of planning/advisory groups and workforces involved in building the 

facilities or working in the built facilities. Similarly, the agency does not require information on 

affected persons and communities, whether program literature is available to all racial, ethnic, or 

national origin groups, and if this literature is available in languages other than English. OCR 

indicates that such information would be collected in the event of a complaint. 

Recommendation 4.16: OCR should require such information of all recipients and 

regularly analyze the collected data. From the demographic data, OCR will know if minority 

groups are adequately represented in the different workgroups. Data on affected persons and 

communities will indicate to OCR if minority communities are more likely than nonminority 

communities to be adversely affected by recipient programs and activities. Information on 

program literature availability to different groups, and the languages and formats in which they 

are presented, allow OCR to evaluate recipients’ outreach and education programs, including 

sensitivity to persons with limited English proficiency. The information, along with other 

appropriate materials, should be used in post-award compliance reviews. 

Finding 4.17: OCR’s Pre-award Form 4700-4 currently collects from all applicants 

information on (1) any civil rights lawsuits or complaints pending against the applicant or 

recipient, including the deposition of each complaint; (2) civil rights compliance reviews 

conducted of the applicant or recipient by any federal agency for the two years immediately 

before the application for EPA assistance (including the status of each review); (3) other federal 

financial assistance being applied for, including a description of the associated work and the 

dollar amount of the assistance; and (4) whether an entire community under the applicant’s 

jurisdiction is not served under the existing facilities or services, or will not be served under the 

proposed plan, including the reason for this. The information is maintained in the agency’s grant 

files and reviewed during pre-award reviews. 

Recommendation 4.17: The Commission reiterates its 1996 recommendation that EPA 

develop a civil rights enforcement data collection program to store all pre-award and post-award 

information that the agency collects. This civil rights database would give EPA the ability to 

readily access information on recipients’ past and present compliance records. This tool would 

help EPA decision making, such as whether to award a grant, sanction, or to target recipients for 

on-site compliance review. 

5. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 5.1: Within the Small Business Administration (SBA) budget, the administrator 

does not designate an allotment for external civil rights enforcement. Internally, SBA has a 

system for tracking its expenditures on Title VI enforcement, and is able to provide estimates of 

enforcement expenditures. The system is used by the assistant administrator/OEEO&CRC to 

determine if the Office of Civil Rights Compliance (OCRC) has adequate resources for Title VI 

enforcement. However, the agency does not use the tracking system for management planning, 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 185

such as workload analysis. This is a serious shortcoming because, in 1996 constant dollars, the 

Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Compliance Office (EEO&CRC)—within 

which OCRC is located—has not experienced any significant funding increases since FY 1996. 

In fact, in 1996 constant dollars, the FY 2003 appropriation is lower than that of FY 1996. 

Recommendation 5.1: The assistant administrator for EEO&CRC should analyze 

expenditures on external civil rights activities and submit justification documents to support a 

Title VI budget increase. Staffing and resource levels should be evaluated to determine the extent 

to which additional staff and resources are needed to implement a comprehensive Title VI 

enforcement program. In developing its budget request, the assistant administrator should require 

OCRC to provide documents supporting additional funding. The documents should outline the 

full range of civil rights enforcement activities OCRC is obligated to perform, including 

conducting pre- and post-award reviews of all funding recipients and providing technical 

assistance, outreach, and education. 

Finding 5.2: Although the EEO&CRC budget allocation for Titles VI and VII is 

combined, duties are not split evenly between the two offices. The assistant administrator for 

EEO&CRC allocates the monies between the two offices with a greater emphasis on internal 

enforcement. Currently, there is only a limited focus on external civil rights responsibilities. As a 

result, the number of external civil rights compliance reviews and complaints investigated is 

proportionate to the amount of funding allocated to the external program. 

Recommendation 5.2: SBA should separate budget allocations for internal and external 

civil rights functions to ensure appropriate funding to SBA’s external civil rights enforcement 

responsibilities. The assistant administrator for civil rights should make external civil rights 

enforcement a priority for OCRC and allocate sufficient funding to it. External civil rights 

responsibilities should not be budget driven but goal oriented. OCRC should use the funds to 

conduct more investigations and compliance reviews. 

Planning 

Finding 5.3: OCRC does not use the Civil Rights Implementation Plan (CRIP) as a 

management tool. Although SBA follows the outline prescribed by Department of Justice, there 

is no evidence that SBA uses the CRIP in its planning. The plan’s goals and objectives sections 

and the corresponding progress reports are particularly inadequate. Most goals and objectives are 

extremely vague and do not have timetables or standards against which to measure staff 

accomplishments. The plan’s progress reports are thorough and often claim that SBA has 

achieved its goals, although little substantiation is offered. However, EEO&CRC establishes 

development goals and objectives with timetables in the performance plans of its staff. 

Recommendation 5.3: OCRC’s CRIP should be updated every six months and allow for 

changes due to fluctuations in actual compliance activities and responsibilities and new or 

developing civil rights enforcement issues. The implementation plan should be used as a 

management tool for civil rights activities. As such, the CRIP should establish goals and 

objectives that have timetables and specific standards of achievement for the staff and regional 

offices. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 186

Policy Guidance 

Finding 5.4: As recommended by the Commission in 1996, SBA now provides a 

brochure that lists and describes SBA programs and services called “Profile: Who We Are and 

What We Do.” It is intended to assist customers and constituencies. Additionally, the agency 

also publishes an abridged version as part of its outreach to small businesses. 

Recommendation 5.4: SBA should continue to publish “Profile: Who We Are and What 

We Do” as part of its outreach to small businesses. The Commission recommends that SBA 

additionally publish a revised list of its federally assisted programs in the Federal Register each 

year and post this information on its Web site. 

Finding 5.5: Consistent with the Commission’s 1996 recommendation, SBA has 

finalized its draft revised procedures. The new civil rights and compliance standard operating 

procedures became effective on February 24, 2003. SBA now has procedures to conduct preaward and post-award desk-audit reviews. 

Recommendation 5.5: SBA should ensure that updated civil rights compliance and 

enforcement procedures are circulated and put in use immediately. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 5.6: OCRC provides technical assistance on Title VI during compliance reviews 

and meetings, and over the telephone. OCRC also participates in Technical Assistance Programs 

Seminars sponsored by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Recommendation 5.6: OCRC should continue with its present technical assistance 

efforts. Additionally, it should include resources expended for technical assistance in its budget 

request to enhance the technical assistance program and to provide a more accurate account of 

Title VI expenditures. 

Education and Outreach 

Finding 5.7: Through various forms on its Web site, SBA provides information to its 

recipients and persons affected by its programs about their rights and responsibilities. The Web 

site includes a pamphlet titled “Notice to New SBA Borrowers,” which includes information on 

Title VI compliance requirements. However, SBA does not use other formats to provide 

outreach, such as via media or by sponsoring workshops at conferences. 

Recommendation 5.7: SBA should expand outreach and education on Title VI for 

individuals enabling them to understand their rights by sponsoring public workshops and by 

using media outlets. The agency should advertise its public workshops via its Web site. 

Brochures should be updated to reflect changes in regulations or policies pertaining to recipients. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 5.8: OCRC has the authority to handle only those complaints pertaining to 

discrimination on the basis of disability in SBA conducted programs or activities. 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 187

Recommendation 5.8: SBA should clarify and expand OCRC’s role and enforcement 

authority relating to Title VI. OCRC should work with program offices to ensure that Title VI 

and SBA’s other nondiscrimination laws are properly enforced and monitored. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 5.9: OCRC still does not perform pre-award reviews, nor does it consult with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP) to determine an applicant’s record of civil rights complaints. However, SBA 

requires recipients to execute a mandatory assurance of civil rights compliance. Refusal results in 

discontinuation of the application process. 

Recommendation 5.9: Before approving applicants, SBA should consult its own files 

and also with the EEOC and OFCCP to determine whether applicants have undergone previous 

compliance reviews. To effect the latter, SBA should meet with EEOC, and OFCCP to jointly 

develop a process to facilitate review of applicants’ prior civil rights compliance history by FY 

2004. 

Findings 5.10: Because of budgetary constraints OCRC does not conduct post-award 

desk audits. However, OCRC conducts telephone and on-site post-award compliance reviews. 

Recommendation 5.10: SBA should reallocate its resources to increase its travel budget 

and the number of post-award on-site reviews. 

Finding 5.11: Compliance reviews embrace the totality of the practices of the recipients, 

as covered under Title VI and other nondiscrimination laws. After the review, OCRC provides 

written results with findings and recommendations for achieving compliance for the entity that 

was reviewed. Because of limited resources since FY 2001, OCRC established telephone 

compliance reviews as an alternative to on-site reviews. Telephone reviews allow OCRC to 

select recipients for review regardless of their geographic location, increase the number 

reviewed, and reserve funding for on-site reviews of recipients suspected to be in violation of 

Title VI. Although the telephone reviews are a cost effective way of performing compliance 

reviews, they cannot substitute for on-site reviews. 

Recommendation 5.11: OCRC should continue to perform telephone reviews but only 

because they allow staff to evaluate a higher number of recipients regardless of geographic 

location. The results of the telephone reviews should be analyzed and serve as a basis for 

conducting on-site reviews when recipients seem not to be in compliance. 

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions 

Finding 5.12: Other than in the Disaster Program, SBA has discontinued its use of loan 

acceleration as a sanction for noncompliance with Title VI. In all other programs, the SBA 

administrator has the discretion to terminate federal financial assistance if it is determined that 

voluntary compliance with civil rights cannot be achieved. 

Recommendation 5.12: SBA should immediately renew its use of terminating federal 

financial assistance as a sanction for noncompliance with Title VI and other nondiscrimination 

policies. This was a powerful tool because the loss of a government guaranty forces the recipient 
10-Year Review–Volume III Staff Draft: 6/12/2003 188

to voluntary comply with Title VI since the lender may ask for full repayment of the loan upon 

loss of government guaranty. 

Staff Training 

Finding 5.13: OCRC does not routinely provide its staff or recipients with formal 

training. 

Recommendation 5.13: SBA should devote resources to training for civil rights staff on 

Title VI. Basic and refresher training should be conducted for all employees at least annually. 

Delegation 

 

Finding 5.14: SBA proposed agreements that would delegate the responsibility for 

monitoring SBA-funded colleges, universities, and nursing homes to the Department of Health 

and Human Services and the Department of Education were not implemented. Instead, SBA has 

participated in discussions with the Department of Justice in its initiative to create an interagency 

delegation agreement for Title VI and Title IX complaint investigations. 

Recommendation 5.14: SBA should continue to participate in the Department of 

Justice’s interagency delegation agreement efforts for Title VI and Title IX complaint 

investigations and work toward solutions that would effectively monitor federally assisted 

colleges, universities, and nursing homes. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 5.15: SBA still has not required program offices to collect appropriate data and 

conduct the necessary analyses to enforce nondiscrimination requirements, thus neglecting an 

important oversight and quality assurance responsibility. Program offices retrieve demographic 

and disability information from standardized forms that applicants and recipients complete, and 

collect programmatic information, such as whether agency programs and services are reaching 

targeted communities. However, such information is used for programmatic purposes, and has 

not been analyzed from the standpoint of enforcing Title VI compliance. SBA’s failure to require 

its recipients to report the information needed to conduct meaningful civil rights analyses has 

reduced the effectiveness of the SBA’s Title VI enforcement process. For instance, the lack of 

data prevents SBA from making use of two effective Title VI enforcement mechanisms, preaward and post-award desk-audit reviews. 

Recommendation 5.15: SBA should establish procedures within the next six months to 

better use the data it collects, especially in support of compliance determinations. Further, OCRC 

should immediately identify the additional data necessary for a thorough compliance review. 

SBA should require program offices to routinely collect the data from recipients. SBA should 

maintain all civil-rights-related information in a database to facilitate easy retrieval for analysis. 

OCRC staff should be given the necessary training on analyzing data for compliance.