Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies

Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

September 2002
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by

Congress in 1957. It is directed to: 

 Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by

reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of 

fraudulent practices. 

 Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of 

the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or 

national origin, or in the administration of justice. 

 Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national 

origin, or in the administration of justice. 

 Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of 

equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national 

origin. 

 Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. 

 Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal 

protection of the laws.

Members of the Commission

Mary Frances Berry, Chairperson

Cruz Reynoso, Vice Chairperson

Jennifer C. Braceras 

Christopher Edley, Jr. 

Peter N. Kirsanow 

Elsie M. Meeks 

Abigail Thernstrom

Les Jin, Staff Director

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

624 Ninth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20425 

(202) 376-8128 voice 

(202) 376-8116 TTY 

www.usccr.gov 

This document is available on disk in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 for persons with visual 

impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110.
Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies 

Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

Volume I: A Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement 
 iii 

Letter of Transmittal 

The President 

The President of the Senate 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Sirs: 

Pursuant to Public Law 103-419, the United States Commission on Civil Rights transmits this report, 

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

Blueprint for Civil Rights Enforcement. This report examines the civil rights implementation, compliance, 

and enforcement programs of federal agencies from the 1990s to the present. Volume I catalogs and 

summarizes Commission recommendations to federal agencies on a wide range of civil rights issues, including nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity in employment, education, housing, health care, 

and transportation in federally assisted programs. This volume presents the strategies and elements the 

Commission believes are necessary for an effective civil rights program. Succeeding volumes will use the 

criteria established here to evaluate the performance of specific agencies. 

This study reveals that in the last decade most agencies were failing to meet their civil rights obligations. Only a handful of agencies were adequately meeting their full civil rights duties, while a few more 

were only partially satisfying obligations. Inadequate funding for civil rights at all levels, insufficient 

staff, and increased workloads were the primary reasons for the poor performance of agencies. 

The Commission recommends that federal agencies be provided adequate funding for their civil rights 

duties. Increases in the statutory authority of agencies, in the number of complaints they receive and process, and in the number of federal funding recipients that they oversee, without commensurate budget increases, have essentially ensured that agencies fail to meet their civil rights obligations. Increased funding 

and adoption of the strategies and elements for a successful civil rights program cited in this study, will 

pave the way for improvement in the area of federal civil rights enforcement. 

For the Commissioners, 

Mary Frances Berry 

Chairperson 
iv

Acknowledgments 

This report was prepared by the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation under the direction of Terri A. 

Dickerson, assistant staff director for civil rights evaluation. Eileen Rudert, social scientist, served as team 

leader, and along with Manuel Alba, social scientist, Mireille Zieseniss, civil rights analyst, and Michael 

Wolf, an intern from Columbia University, New York, New York, wrote the report. Other staff who assisted with the report include civil rights analysts Margaret Butler, Monique Dennis-Elmore, Wanda 

Johnson, Kirk Perry, and secretary Teresa Brooks. The following interns also contributed to the report: 

Tammy Chu, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Danielle Head, Taylor University, Upland, 

Indiana; and Victoria Tung, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

The report was reviewed for legal sufficiency by Joyce A. Smith, attorney-advisor, Office of General 

Counsel. Bernard A. Quarterman, Jr., attorney-advisor, Office of General Counsel, assisted with the legal 

review. Editorial review was performed by David Aronson, editor, Public Affairs Unit; Ivy Davis, chief, 

Regional Programs Coordination Unit; and Melvin Jenkins, director, Central Regional Office. Dawn 

Sweet, editor, prepared this report for final publication. 
v 

Contents 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................ix

 

Chapter 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

 Purpose and Methodology........................................................................................................................1 

 Scope........................................................................................................................................................2 

 Essentials for Civil Rights Enforcement ..................................................................................................3 

 Agency Performance According to the Commission’s Past Reports.......................................................4 

Chapter 2. Themes of Recommendations From a Decade of Enforcement Reports ..................10

 Priority Given to Civil Rights Enforcement...........................................................................................11 

 Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................11 

 Organizational Structure to Meet Civil Rights Goals .......................................................................13 

 Placement.....................................................................................................................................13 

 Authority......................................................................................................................................15 

 Functions .....................................................................................................................................15 

 Coordination With Other Offices ................................................................................................15 

 Designated Offices for Enforcement Activities...........................................................................16 

 Oversight and Accountability of Civil Rights Enforcement.............................................................16 

 Department of Justice’s Title VI Oversight.................................................................................17 

 Oversight of Civil Rights Enforcement Within Agencies ...........................................................17 

 Oversight of Contracting Organizations......................................................................................19 

 Oversight of Title VI Enforcement Among Subrecipients, Particularly by States ......................19 

 Strategic Planning With Civil Rights Objectives..............................................................................20 

 Agencies’ Strategic Plans ............................................................................................................21 

 Agencies’ Civil Rights Enforcement Plans .................................................................................21 

 Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plans ................................................................................23

 Work Plans for Civil Rights Enforcement...................................................................................23

 Management of Enforcement Through Tracking of Civil Rights Activities ....................................24 

Dissemination of Policy Through Guidance, Regulations, Technical Assistance, Education, 

 Outreach, and Publicity ...............................................................................................................24 

 Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................25 

 The Need for a Policy Unit..........................................................................................................25 

Developing Internal Policy Guidance..........................................................................................25

Developing External Policy Guidance.........................................................................................26 

Involving Community Organizations and Advocacy Groups in Policy Development................28 

Policies for Special Issues ...........................................................................................................28 

 Diversity and Cultural Competency .......................................................................................28 

 Limited English Proficiency...................................................................................................29 

 Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment...........................................................................30 

 Outreach to Underserved Populations ....................................................................................31 

 Disability Access....................................................................................................................31 
vi 

 Updating Regulations .......................................................................................................................31 

 Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................32 

 Education and Outreach to Potential Victims, Violators, and the Public .........................................33 

 Complaint Processing and Litigation.....................................................................................................34 

 Charge Intake....................................................................................................................................34 

 Charge Prioritization/Case Selection ................................................................................................35 

 Prioritization of Complaints Received.........................................................................................35 

 Agency-Initiated Charges ............................................................................................................35 

 Investigation......................................................................................................................................36 

 Improving Efficiency and Reducing Complaint Backlogs ...............................................................37 

 Complaint Resolution .......................................................................................................................37 

 Determinations and Dismissals....................................................................................................37 

 Settlement Agreements and Conciliation ....................................................................................38

 Litigation .....................................................................................................................................38 

 Monitoring Compliance...............................................................................................................39 

 Compliance for Funding Recipients.......................................................................................................39 

 Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................39 

 Implementing Thorough Pre- and Post-award Compliance Reviews..........................................39 

 Streamlining the Review Process ................................................................................................40 

 Requiring Recipients to Submit Data on Compliance and Analyzing the Data ..........................41 

 Targeting Recipients for On-site Compliance Reviews ..............................................................41 

 Monitoring Civil Rights Enforcement .........................................................................................42

 Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions ............................................................................................42 

 Other Aspects of Management...............................................................................................................42 

 Training.............................................................................................................................................42 

 Coordination Between Civil Rights Entities.....................................................................................43 

 Internal Agency Offices and Components...................................................................................44 

 Professional Organizations ..........................................................................................................44 

 Other Federal Agencies ...............................................................................................................44 

 Affected Community Organizations and Advocacy Groups .......................................................45 

 State and Local Agencies.............................................................................................................45 

 Additional Data and Research on Civil Rights Enforcement............................................................45 

Chapter 3. Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................46

 Priority Given to Civil Rights Enforcement...........................................................................................46 

Dissemination of Policy Through Guidance, Regulations, Technical Assistance, Education, 

 Outreach, and Publicity......................................................................................................................48 

 Complaint Processing and Litigation.....................................................................................................50 

 Compliance for Funding Recipients.......................................................................................................53 

 Staff Training .........................................................................................................................................55 

 Maximizing Enforcement Effectiveness ................................................................................................55 
vii 

Statement 

Dissenting Statement of Commissioners Jennifer C. Braceras, Peter N. Kirsanow, 

 and Abigail Thernstrom .........................................................................................................................59 

Appendices 

A. Descriptions of the Enforcement Reports..............................................................................................61 

B. Key Civil Rights Statutes and Regulations............................................................................................68 

C. Checklist for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ Civil Rights Enforcement.................................................73 

Figure 

1. Organizational Structure for Civil Rights Enforcement.........................................................................14 

Tables 

1. List of Enforcement Reports, 1992–2000 ................................................................................................7 

2. A Decade of Enforcement Reports: What Agencies Were the Recommendations Directed Toward?......8 

3. Federal Agencies and the Major Civil Rights Statutes They Enforce......................................................9 
 ix 

Executive Summary 

During the 1990s, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued numerous statutorily required reports 

evaluating the operations of major federal civil rights enforcement agencies. The reports are represented 

in 16 volumes, which have examined federal agencies’ efforts to address a wide range of civil rights issues, including nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity in employment, education, housing, health 

care, and transportation in federally assisted programs; among state and local government agencies; and 

in the private sector. 

The Commission’s reports focused on the enforcement process—how federal agencies promote a national understanding of discrimination, how they ensure that recipients of federal funds do not discriminate, 

and how they handle complaints and initiate litigation or mediate when discrimination occurs. They fulfill 

their mandate through policy dissemination, education and outreach, compliance reviews of federal funding 

recipients, technical assistance to entities that may not be complying with civil rights laws, complaint processing and litigation, and holding accountable other entities responsible for enforcing civil rights laws. 

As the nation’s consciousness on civil rights, the Commission must issue annual reports evaluating the 

effectiveness of civil rights enforcement agencies. Over the past decade, the Commission has examined 

11 such agencies in reports that yielded more than 1,100 recommendations. Have agencies implemented 

those recommendations? If not, why not? If so, what has been the result? These are questions to which 

this report addresses itself. 

A series of reports will grow out of these questions. This, the first report, catalogs and summarizes 

recommendations made between 1992 and 2000 to the 11 federal agencies that were subjects of the original 

examinations (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Departments of Justice, Education, 

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, and the 

Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration). No new information was obtained from agencies in the completion of this first report, volume I. To the extent that findings 

and recommendations are offered here, they are based on information contained in the earlier reports. 

Subsequent volumes will probe further, attempting to determine whether or not specific agencies have 

implemented recommendations, and with what results. New information will be obtained from agencies 

in order to make those determinations. Findings and recommendations will further direct the agencies in 

the effective enforcement of civil rights laws. 

In preparing this study, the Commission reviewed relevant policy, procedures, planning and budget 

documents; prepared interrogatories to solicit current information on civil rights initiatives within the 

agencies; interviewed civil rights staff; and reviewed other relevant reports and sources. This effort is reflected in later volumes that show where specific federal agencies are strong or weak in civil rights enforcement, how the Commission’s recommendations were addressed, and where civil rights programs 

have been strengthened or changed since the Commission’s earlier assessment. 

In addition to federal agencies, the Commission’s recommendations over the past decade were directed to Congress, the President, state and local agencies, and other entities such as advocacy groups and 

professional and community organizations. This report, however, focuses on recommendations directed to 

the federal agencies and, when funding and resources are involved, to Congress. 

Most agencies the Commission reviewed have responsibilities to ensure nondiscrimination in federally 

assisted programs as required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1

 Some agencies have key 

civil rights responsibilities related to enforcement under other statutes, for example, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA).2

 But despite the different enforcement responsibilities the various statutes impose 

 

1

 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. (2002). Note that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not have civil rights responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because it does not have funding recipients. Its enforcement efforts fall under 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

2

 42 U.S.C. §§ 12141 et seq. (2002). 
x 

on federal agencies, broadly applicable themes are evident in the Commission’s recommendations for 

improved enforcement throughout the decade. 

What the Commission Found in Past Reports 

Some agencies had more effective civil rights enforcement systems than others. For example, the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education had laudable implementation programs. In two instances, agencies had implemented good civil rights enforcement systems in 

some areas but not throughout the agency. Among these were the Department of Labor, which was excellent when considering regulations and reporting requirements for recipients, and its job training program 

of that era; and the Department of Transportation, which had several good elements, including staff training, a state monitoring program, a technical assistance program, and a data collection and analysis system. 

Other agencies had, at best, minor meritorious elements or lacked consistency. Those with rudimentary 

systems still struggling to create effective enforcement programs were the Departments of Agriculture, 

Justice, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. Finally, agencies that had yet 

to establish a solid basis for effective civil rights enforcement were the Environmental Protection Agency, 

the Department of the Interior, and the Small Business Administration. 

Key Elements for Civil Rights Enforcement 

In evaluating federal agencies’ civil rights enforcement programs in the 1990s, the Commission identified required elements for effective civil rights enforcement. A program must have established authority 

and resources for carrying out civil rights enforcement. Without these, other necessary elements are difficult to establish. Secondary elements are planning, policy guidance, technical assistance, education and 

outreach, complaint processing, a compliance review system, oversight and quality assurance procedures, 

and staff training. Effective civil rights enforcement must have: 

1. A high priority for civil rights enforcement. Twenty to 25 percent of the Commission’s recommendations over the study period concerned the priority an agency gave to civil rights enforcement. At the 

heart of placing high priority on civil rights enforcement is providing adequate staff and funding for 

meeting civil rights obligations. Over the decade, the Commission asked Congress to provide more 

funds to federal agencies for civil rights enforcement. Agency officials were asked to request more 

funds from Congress and to allocate more of the agency’s resources to civil rights enforcement. 

2. An organizational structure that expresses the priority of civil rights. The effectiveness of civil rights 

enforcement, indeed the ability to obtain sufficient civil rights funding and staffing, is impaired when 

an agency does not have a civil rights enforcement unit with a direct line of authority to the agency 

head. Furthermore, if the civil rights unit is not devoted solely to external civil rights enforcement, resources may be drawn off for internal civil rights, or non-civil rights functions, causing some civil 

rights obligations to go unmet. 

3. Planned civil rights goals and activities. The failure of agencies to include civil rights goals and objectives in their strategic planning shows a low priority for civil rights. In addition, many federal agencies 

are required to submit a civil rights implementation plan to the Department of Justice describing enforcement activities to ensure federal funding recipients’ compliance with Title VI. The Commission 

urged that these plans conform to the Department of Justice’s guidelines for enforcement, describe 

civil rights implementation and enforcement fully, and specify short-term civil rights goals and longterm objectives and timeframes for achieving them, specify priority civil rights issues, and realistically 

assess the available staff and resources to accomplish the goals and objectives. Agencies should implement management information systems that track expenditures and workload for different civil 
 xi 

rights statutes and enforcement activities and use this information to support the planning and budgeting processes. 

4. Clear and pertinent policy guidance, current regulations, technical assistance, education, and outreach. A third of the Commission’s recommendations over the past decade emphasized the need for 

attention to this aspect of civil rights enforcement. First, federal agencies must regularly develop and 

disseminate internal procedures and external policies for civil rights enforcement. The Commission 

further called for federal agencies to establish policy units so that some staff and resources were committed to develop and disseminate civil rights policy and guidance, and not encumbered with enforcement responsibilities. Agencies must involve community organizations and advocacy groups when 

developing policy. 

The Commission found that federal agencies’ regulations for civil rights enforcement were out of date. 

They needed to be regularly updated in the light of recent legislation. Notably in 1996, many agencies 

had yet to revise regulations to reflect the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which extended Title 

VI coverage to prohibit discrimination in an entire institution even if only part of the institution receives federal assistance. 

The Commission asked many agencies to provide or improve technical assistance to funding recipients. Many such entities are employers and service providers who need assistance in meeting their 

civil rights obligations. Agencies were asked to provide or improve technical assistance to their own 

civil rights enforcement components, including field offices and contracting agencies. 

To ensure that perpetrators and victims of civil rights violations and the public are informed about 

civil rights, federal agencies must provide adequate education and outreach programs. Education and 

outreach materials must reach all populations and be disseminated in non-English languages in addition to English. The Commission asked that agencies be creative in targeting education and outreach to 

special audiences such as attorneys or small businesses; in using innovative venues, including the 

Internet; and in coordinating intra-agency education and outreach. 

5. Effective complaint processing systems. The Commission urged that agencies improve customer service for handling complaints by creating systems that are easy to navigate for potential charging parties and adequately publicizing policies and procedures. Complaint processing systems must resolve 

complaints efficiently and expeditiously to achieve maximum results. They must be based upon complaint processing and investigation procedures that ensure consistency of handling nationwide. When 

charges are resolved with settlement agreements and court rulings, agencies must systematically monitor compliance. 

6. Systems to ensure review of all funding recipients’ compliance before and after the awards are made 

and to correct deficiencies. Agencies must conduct thorough and in-depth compliance reviews of all 

funding recipients; impose reporting requirements on recipients and analyze recipients’ reported information for possible discrimination; identify recipients to receive on-site reviews; and monitor the 

quality of enforcement efforts. In particular, agencies should conduct desk audits to identify potential 

noncompliance and select recipients to receive on-site compliance reviews. The quality of pre- and 

post-award reviews, whether conducted by field office staff, contractual organizations, or state recipients, should be monitored. 

Many federal agencies provide funding to state recipients. State recipients must be required to describe 

the methods used to ensure civil rights compliance among their subrecipients and to report data on the 

race, ethnicity, and gender of program participants and beneficiaries. States, in turn, must subject their 

funding recipients to reporting requirements and compliance reviews. 
xii 

When reviews reveal noncompliance, agencies must provide technical assistance to assist funding recipients in voluntarily complying or apply sanctions if a voluntary agreement is not forthcoming. The 

agency should continue to monitor such recipients for compliance and seek fund termination or temporary suspension for noncomplying recipients. The Department of Justice should consider whether 

sanctions for noncompliance should be strengthened. 

7. Regular staff training on civil rights statutes and emerging issues.

Strategies for Effective Civil Rights Enforcement 

Although the Commission recognized that many agencies had limited resources for performing civil 

rights enforcement activities, it continually recognized the importance of all the above elements. Yet, exemplary civil rights enforcement systems were found in agencies that had taken further actions to meld 

these elements together into an effective, efficient whole. The strategies that produce exemplary enforcement are: 

1. Integrating civil rights enforcement throughout the agency, including in every program that receives 

federal funding. 

2. Delegating enforcement activities. Whenever possible, agencies should delegate compliance reviews 

from their headquarters offices to agency divisions and to regional or district offices, and to state recipients to perform on subrecipients. Funding recipients should be required to report data and other information and perform self-analyses that federal staff can use to determine compliance. Similarly, 

federal agencies may refer complainants to private attorneys, reserving cases with the largest impact 

for the federal agency to pursue. 

3. Implementing oversight mechanisms. Commission recommendations named four levels where oversight for civil rights enforcement was essential. These are (1) the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) oversight responsibilities for the Title VI enforcement of all other federal agencies; (2) intradepartmental 

delegation of civil rights responsibilities from headquarters to operating divisions or administrations 

and to field offices; (3) agency or departmental responsibilities with respect to contracting organizations; and (4) agencies’ promulgation of Title VI enforcement among federal funding recipients with 

subrecipients, particularly states. 

DOJ’s Coordination and Review Section (CORS) of the Civil Rights Division needs to strengthen its 

oversight process and enforce its regulations requiring federal agencies to submit annual Title VI enforcement plans conforming to DOJ’s guidelines. CORS should conduct on-site reviews of agencies’ 

enforcement programs to identify deficiencies and provide training or technical assistance to correct 

any deficiencies, as well as monitor all federal agencies’ delegation agreements. 

Headquarters units with oversight responsibilities for civil rights enforcement should develop comprehensive procedures to delegate enforcement authority to the agencies’ subdivisions. They should establish an oversight and monitoring system to review, evaluate, and direct these units’ civil rights 

activities and conduct regular reviews and evaluations of the subdivisions’ enforcement efforts. They 

should require the units with delegated authority to regularly report information that can be reviewed, 

including their enforcement activities and an annual self-assessment of their enforcement. Similarly, 

agencies or their operating divisions must charge their state recipients with the responsibility for overseeing the civil rights compliance of their subrecipients and must develop similar oversight systems 

for monitoring the state recipients. Agencies that use contracting organizations to carry out civil rights 

enforcement activities should monitor the contractors, conduct on-site visits, and ensure consistency of 

enforcement activities across contractors. 
 xiii 

4. Coordinating civil rights enforcement efforts. Coordination is particularly important because recipients 

may be funded by more than one agency. For example, both the Departments of Education and Health 

and Human Services fund teaching hospitals. Thus, agencies sharing jurisdiction could share responsibilities for conducting compliance reviews, technical assistance, and education and outreach. The Department of Justice should study the extent to which agencies would benefit from such coordination 

and request funds from Congress to develop a database of federal funding recipients that would enable 

agencies to determine when multiple agencies are funding the same recipient. 

5. Streamlining civil rights enforcement procedures. The agencies should review complaint processing 

and compliance review systems for efficiency and effectiveness. They should, for example, ensure that 

charge intake staff collects appropriate information from complainants and that this task does not fall 

to investigators. Charges of discrimination should be prioritized and, if not meritorious for handling in 

the federal system, resolved quickly through dismissal, referral to private attorneys, mediation, or conciliation. Compliance reviews should be balanced between desk audits and on-site reviews, and funding recipients should be required to provide information for desk audits. 

6. Involving advocacy groups and community organizations in civil rights enforcement activities. The 

affected communities must participate in policy development to ensure that policy addresses their concerns. They must also assist in designing education and outreach to appeal to the affected communities; and in developing litigation strategies that address the issues that concern these communities and 

provide the remedies they desire. 

In short, the Commission asked that agencies integrate civil rights enforcement throughout their offices and programs, delegate responsibility for conducting enforcement activities, implement oversight 

and quality assurance procedures to ensure that the delegated activities are carried out properly, coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure that civil rights enforcement efforts are not duplicative, streamline procedures, and involve affected communities in designing enforcement. 

Thus, this report evaluates federal activities based on the foregoing essential elements for an enforcement program. This report suggests ways to maximize the effectiveness of an enforcement system and 

assesses which federal agencies were, or are, doing well or poorly at enforcing civil rights. It documents 

the Commission’s recommendations to enforcement offices over the past decade. The recommendations 

provide an enforcement guide for federal agencies charged with promoting equality for all individuals and 

groups disenfranchised in the United States because of differences of skin color, national origin, gender, 

age, disability, or religion. 
1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

“The vitality and effectiveness of our nation’s civil 

rights laws depends upon the commitment and 

strength of the federal agencies charged with their 

enforcement. The various federal civil rights agencies investigate and redress instances of discrimination, and provide guidance to individuals and 

businesses about their rights and responsibilities 

under the law. Because the degree of faith that 

Americans have in the value of these laws is in large 

part a reflection of how well these agencies do their 

jobs, ensuring their adequate funding is essential.”1

 —Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

During the 1990s, the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights issued numerous reports evaluating 

the operations of most major federal civil rights 

enforcement agencies. Those reports examined 

agencies’ efforts to address a wide range of civil 

rights issues, including nondiscrimination and 

equality of opportunity in employment, education, 

housing, health care, and transportation in federally assisted programs; among state and local government agencies; and in the private sector. All of 

these reports contained careful analysis, thoughtful 

observations, and advice to federal civil rights enforcement agencies on developing more effective 

enforcement operations. 

The Commission’s reports focused on the enforcement process—how federal agencies promote 

a national understanding of discrimination, how 

they ensure that recipients of federal funds do not 

discriminate, and how they handle complaints and 

initiate litigation or other enforcement activities 

when discrimination occurs. The Commission recommended ways for agencies to provide more effective civil rights enforcement. 

 

1

 Civilrights.org, “Civil Rights Enforcement: Overview,” n.d., 

<http://www.civilrights.org/issues/enforcement/overview>. 

The Commission’s Office for Civil Rights 

Evaluation (OCRE) is responsible for evaluating 

federal efforts to combat discrimination through 

enforcement activities. In the past, the Commission 

has had sufficient staff and resources to continuously evaluate each of the federal agencies with 

civil rights responsibilities and ensure that recommendations were implemented. However, because 

of resource reductions beginning in the 1980s, the 

Commission’s monitoring program has been reduced to periodic reviews of agencies with major 

civil rights responsibilities. Follow-up on whether 

the agencies have responded to the Commission’s 

recommendations has not been possible because of 

resource constraints. Thus, with this report, the 

Commission monitors whether and how the evaluated agencies have addressed the recommendations 

issued over the past 10 years. 

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

This study began with a review of the more 

than 1,100 recommendations contained in 16 volumes of Commission enforcement reports issued 

between 1992 and 2000. The recommendations 

were summarized and sorted by topic. This first 

volume only catalogs those earlier recommendations and gives an overview of the themes that 

emerged from the earlier reports. No new interviews were conducted or documents obtained from 

agencies to produce this initial report, volume I. To 

the extent that findings and recommendations are 

offered in this volume, they are based on information contained in the earlier studies. This initial 

report is a reminder to the agencies studied of what 

the Commission found needed improvement and a 

blueprint for effective enforcement for others. 
2 

Between 1992 and 2000, the Commission 

evaluated the enforcement programs of 11 federal 

agencies. The first volume is a preface to a series 

that cumulatively will reexamine the recommendations made during those years. The Commission 

will do so by conducting interviews and evaluating 

responses to written interrogatories to the agencies, 

and reviewing documents (regulations, budgets, 

annual reports, strategic plans, civil rights implementation plans, training manuals, technical assistance guides, etc.). These activities will help to 

measure the agencies’ progress in implementing 

the Commission’s previous recommendations and 

in planning civil rights programs relevant to present-day needs. This first volume provides a general overview of all recommendations made in the 

earlier enforcement reports. Later volumes will 

concentrate on individual agencies and their civil 

rights enforcement efforts since that time. 

SCOPE

In total, 16 volumes, published between 1992 

and 2000, were reviewed.2

 (See table 1, page 7. 

Appendix A contains brief descriptions of the reports.) The reports directed their recommendations 

to Congress, the President, federal, state, and local 

agencies, and other entities such as advocacy 

groups and professional and community organizations. However, the scope of this project covers 

only recommendations directed to the federal 

agencies and, when funding and resources are involved, to Congress. 

The 11 federal agencies that were the subject of 

the reports are the Equal Employment Opportunity 

 

2

 A 17th enforcement volume, published in 2001, was not 

included in this study. It was still in the progress when this 

study was undertaken, making a judgment of the agency’s 

implementation of the recommendations of that report premature. This particular report examined the enforcement activities of the Employment Litigation Section, a section within 

the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division that has 

responsibility to ensure that public workers have a workplace 

free from harassment and discrimination. Its findings and 

recommendations contain many of the same themes laid out in 

the study herein. (See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination in State 

and Local Governments: An Assessment of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Employment Litigation Section, September 

2001.) The review of the Commission’s reports herein does 

cover the Department of Justice and its Civil Rights Division, 

within which the Employment Litigation Section is housed. 

Commission (EEOC); the Departments of Justice 

(DOJ), Education (DOEd), Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), Agriculture (USDA), and the Interior (DOI); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). Table 2 (page 8) 

shows the agencies reviewed in each of the reports 

and the number of recommendations that were directed to them. 

11 Federal Agencies Studied:

 Department of Justice 

 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

 Department of Agriculture 

 Department of Education 

 Department of Health and Human Services 

 Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 Department of Labor 

 Department of the Interior 

 Environmental Protection Agency 

 Small Business Administration 

 Department of Transportation 

The present study is comprehensive in its coverage with respect to civil rights statutes. Except 

for EEOC, each of the agencies reviewed has responsibilities to ensure nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, as required under Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 19643

 and Executive Order 12,250. However, several agencies have key 

civil rights responsibilities related to enforcement 

under other statutes: (1) HUD must ensure equal 

housing opportunity through enforcement of the 

Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (also called Title 

VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) and the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act of 1988;4

 (2) DOEd 

must ensure equal educational opportunity through 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,5

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 

1972,6

 and other statutes; (3) EEOC must ensure 

 

3

 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. (2002). 

4 Id. §§ 3601–3619, 3631. 

5

 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2002). 

6

 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (2002). 
3 

nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity on the bases of race, color, national origin, 

sex, and religion as required under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964,7

 and on the basis of disability under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);8

 (4) DOJ must ensure that 

state and local government agencies practice nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in their programs for people with disabilities, as required 

under Title II of the ADA;9

 and (5) HHS must enforce civil rights under Titles VI and XVI of the 

Public Health Service Act, known as the HillBurton Act,10 and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act 

of 1981,11 among other statutes where the agency 

does not have sole responsibility for enforcement. 

(See appendix B for brief descriptions of the key 

civil rights statutes.) Table 3 (page 9) shows the 

civil rights statutes enforced by the agencies the 

Commission has examined in the past decade. 

Key Finding: 

The Commission’s recommendations revealed the 

need for widespread improvement in establishing key 

elements for effective civil rights enforcement. These 

elements are important for all agencies with civil 

rights responsibilities.

Many of the agencies are subject to the same 

civil rights statutes and, although some statutes 

impose different enforcement responsibilities on 

some agencies, broadly applicable themes become 

evident in the Commission’s recommendations for 

improved enforcement. Chapter 2 presents the 

themes of the Commission’s recommendations 

regarding federal agencies’ civil rights enforcement activities and sets the stage for later reviews 

of each agency’s implementation of the recom-

 

7

 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17 (2002). 

8 Id. §§ 12111 et seq. 

9 Id. §§ 12141 et seq. 

10 Title VI of the Public Service Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-

443, § 3(a), 78 Stat. 447 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 

291 et seq. (2002)). Title XVI of the Pubic Service Act of 

1979, Pub. L. No. 96-79, Title II, § 202(b), 93 Stat. 632 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300q et seq. (2002)). 

11 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 97-35, 95 

Stat. 357–933 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 

various titles of the United States Code). 

mendations and the issuance of further recommendations where necessary. The Commission’s recommendations are organized around several 

elements that are necessary for effective civil rights 

enforcement. These elements are given in the next 

section along with approaches that the Commission 

has repeatedly recommended for maximizing the 

efficiency of civil rights enforcement programs. 

This chapter ends with a brief overview of which 

agencies were doing well or poorly when the 

Commission last reviewed them, in most cases in 

1996. 

ESSENTIALS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

To be successful, the civil rights enforcement 

programs of agencies must incorporate all of the 

elements the Commission identified. These 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; 

 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; 
4 

 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. 

Of these elements, the first two—having a high 

priority for, and an organizational structure to support, civil rights—are key and determine whether 

the resources can be allocated to institute an enforcement program with the remaining elements. 

Most, if not all, of the federal agencies the Commission reviewed were faced with inadequate civil 

rights budgets due to the limited funds Congress 

and the federal agencies directed to civil rights enforcement. 

Key Finding:

Many agencies have shortages of resources—both 

budget and staffing—devoted to civil rights enforcement. However, some agencies have found ways to 

achieve efficient enforcement despite such limitations. 

Limited monetary and staff resources may lead 

an agency to assess which elements of its civil 

rights enforcement program are the most critical, 

and perhaps discard or reduce those considered 

less important. The Commission does not view any 

part of an enforcement program as more critical 

than another, but it does believe that limited budgets and staff can be combated by: 

 integrating civil rights enforcement throughout 

every part of the agency, including all of 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. 

Federal agencies could enhance civil rights enforcement by integrating such efforts agencywide, 

thus distributing the workload of what are typically 

vastly understaffed and overworked civil rights 

offices. Civil rights enforcement can also be improved by delegating civil rights responsibilities. 

For example, regional offices and state recipients 

can be assigned the task of conducting compliance 

reviews of their respective recipients. Overseeing 

data-reporting requirements can stretch limited 

civil rights enforcement budgets by ensuring that 

all necessary data for conducting post-award desk 

audits, for example, are provided by all parties 

when first requested. Simultaneously, quality assurance is provided through oversight of the work 

performed by these parties and prevents wasted human and monetary resources by ensuring that all 

requirements are met each and every time. Coordination between federal agencies will permit agencies 

funding the same recipient to designate which 

agency will conduct pre-award reviews, for example, thus eliminating duplicative efforts. Alternating 

between desk audits and on-site reviews for recipients, thus not conducting both in the same review 

cycle, allows federal agencies to streamline their 

enforcement efforts and stretch limited monetary 

and human resources. Involving the target community in developing an education and outreach program, for example, increases the likelihood the 

program will be effective in that community. 

Comprehensively incorporating these six features 

into a civil rights enforcement program will help 

an agency meet its civil rights obligations. 

AGENCY PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO THE 

COMMISSION’S PAST REPORTS

The civil rights enforcement performance of the 

agencies reviewed in this report varied substantially. Two agencies—DOEd and EEOC—were 

found to be performing at high levels with many of 

the essential elements for civil rights enforcement 

in place. DOEd was the only agency having an 
5 

organizational structure with all the necessary criteria for an effective Title VI enforcement program.12

It also had an excellent information management 

system to track resources and expenditures by enforcement activity; good planning, policy development and dissemination, outreach, education, and 

technical assistance; an effective compliance review 

system supported by data collection and analysis 

and resulting in on-site reviews targeted to priority 

issues; and good coordination with professional organizations, including state and local education 

agencies.13 EEOC, for its part, was praised by the 

Commission for establishing policies and procedures that allowed it to improve civil rights enforcement despite limited resources.14 Still, both 

agencies did have areas that could be improved. 

EEOC, for example, needed to expand and 

strengthen its coordination with federal, state, and 

local agencies and organizations concerning such 

crucial factors as education and outreach.15

DOL and DOT had civil rights enforcement that 

was exemplary in certain programs, but needed to 

be spread throughout the agency. Although DOL 

had Title VI guidelines, policies, and procedures 

superior to those of many other agencies and laid a 

solid foundation for a Title VI enforcement pro-

 

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

Programs, June 1996, pp. 6, 187, 209–10 (hereafter cited as 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement). 

13 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 187–88, 198, 

201, 204, 207–08, 210, 212–14, 216–17; U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols, Equal 

Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. III, November 

1997, pp. 83–84, 92, 105–07, 213, 215–16; U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in Advanced Mathematics, Science, and 

Technology Education: Federal Enforcement of Title IX, 

Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. V, July 

2000, pp. 75–76, 94, 138, 143; U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of 

Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, 

Vol. II, pp. 157, 263–66, 371, 380, 382. 

14 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Overcoming the Past, 

Focusing on the Future: An Assessment of the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Efforts, 

September 2000, p. 263 (hereafter cited as USCCR, EEOC 

Report). 

15 USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 264. 

gram,16 the enforcement effort was limited to its 

main training program, the Job Training Partnership Act,17 which has since been replaced. Similarly, DOT had good staff training provided by the 

Office of the Secretary, fine state monitoring and 

technical assistance programs in one operating administration, and a good data collection and analysis program in another operating administration, 

but civil rights enforcement was not well implemented in any one program or across the agency.18

Key Finding: 

Agencies varied in their success in implementing 

effective and efficient civil rights enforcement. 

A third group of agencies includes those that 

had established civil rights enforcement programs 

but were still striving for effectiveness. Among 

those agencies performing unsatisfactory civil 

rights enforcement were USDA, HHS, HUD, and 

DOJ. For example, despite having Title VI regulations meeting all the necessary requirements,19

USDA did not ensure that its agencies adhered to 

them. Consequently, its Food and Nutrition Service was not conducting pre-award reviews of all 

applicants nor was it providing formal Title VI 

training to its civil rights staff, relying instead on 

“on-the-job” training.20 HHS, for its part, had a 

direct line of authority between its Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR) director and the Secretary.21 Although this clearly shows the prioritization of civil 

rights, the Commission found its efforts to develop 

policy and conduct civil rights enforcement activities to be halfhearted.22 HUD was struggling to 

overcome a huge backlog in complaints and reconfigure its system of using state and local agencies 

 

16 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 359. 

17 Ibid. 

18 Ibid., pp. 518–19. 

19 Ibid., p. 251. 

20 Ibid., pp. 280–85. 

21 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Health Care Challenge: Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, 

and Ensuring Equality, Vol. II, The Role of Federal Civil 

Rights Enforcement Efforts, September 1999, pp. 19–20 

(hereafter cited as USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II). 

22 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 274–75, 296, 321. 
6 

to investigate complaints to align with expanded 

fair housing jurisdiction.23 The external civil rights 

unit had reorganized in 1994 and was revising policy and procedural guidance but had far to go to 

accomplish this and rebuild an effective compliance 

review system.24 Finally, although DOJ issued 

guidelines for agency civil rights implementation 

plans, the Coordination and Review Section did not 

ensure that agencies’ plans conformed to them. Few, 

if any, agencies actually complied with the guidelines.25 In the light of DOJ’s civil rights oversight 

and coordination responsibilities, this was a grave 

failure. 

The final group of agencies had not yet established a solid basis for an effective civil rights enforcement program. Among this group were DOI, 

EPA, and SBA. EPA ensured its OCR of conducting 

inadequate civil rights enforcement by assigning it 

both external and internal civil rights duties.26 Also 

hindering the effectiveness of the civil rights enforcement program was EPA’s limited pre-award 

review system and virtually nonexistent post-award 

review system.27 Similarly, when reviewed by the 

Commission, SBA was not conducting pre-award 

reviews and doing only limited post-award reviews 

of recipients with 15 or more employees.28 Of the 

agencies reviewed, DOI had by far the weakest 

Title VI civil rights enforcement program. It 

 

23 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Prospects and Impact of 

Losing State and Local Agencies from the Federal Fair Housing System, September 1992; U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report, September 1994, pp. 221, 225–26. 

24 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 327–28, 331, 

343, 347–52. 

25 Ibid., p. 151. 

26 Ibid., p. 419. 

27 Ibid., pp. 429–30. 

28 Ibid., pp. 473–74. 

lacked adequate leadership, coordination, oversight, and direction. Moreover, Title VI enforcement was absent from DOI’s stated mission, goals, 

and objectives.29

Agency Performance According to the Commission’s 

Past Reports: 

 Agencies performing civil rights enforcement at high levels: 

Department of Education 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

 Agencies with exemplary performance in certain programs that needed to be replicated with other programs: 

Department of Labor 

Department of Transportation 

 Agencies with established civil rights programs that were 

still striving for effectiveness: 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of Justice 

 Agencies that had not yet established a solid basis for an 

effective civil rights enforcement program: 

Department of the Interior 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Small Business Administration 

 

29 Ibid., p. 405. 
7 

TABLE 1—List of Enforcement Reports, 1992–2000 

No. Short Name Report Title Published 

1 Asian Report Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s Feb-92 

2 Fair Housing I Prospects and Impact of Losing State and Local Agencies from the 

Federal Fair Housing System 

Sept-92 

3 Fair Housing II The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report Sept-94 

4 Federal Employee Report Equal Employment Rights for Federal Employees Aug-93 

5 Transportation Report Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity 

Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation 

Projects 

Jan-93 

6 Title VI Report Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs June-96 

7 Education I Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. I Dec-96 

8 Students with Disabilities 

Report 

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students 

with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. II 

Sept-97 

9 LEP Report Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students 

with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Enforcement of Title VI 

and Lau v. Nichols, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, 

Vol. III 

Nov-97 

10 Ability Grouping Report Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Minority 

Students: Federal Enforcement of Title VI in Ability Grouping Practices, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. IV 

Sept-99 

11 Title IX Education Report Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in 

Advanced Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education: Federal Enforcement of Title IX, Equal Educational Opportunity Project 

Series, Vol. V 

July-00 

12 ADA I Helping Employers Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Enforcing 

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Sept-98 

13 ADA II Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA: An 

Assessment of How the U.S. Department of Justice Is Enforcing 

Title II, Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Sept-98 

14 Health Care I The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting 

Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. I: The Role of Governmental and Private Health Care Programs and Initiatives 

Sept-99 

15 Health Care II The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting 

Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. II: The Role of Federal 

Civil Rights Enforcement Efforts 

Sept-99 

16 EEOC Report Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future: An Assessment of 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Efforts 

Sept-00 
8 

TABLE 2—A Decade of Reports: What Agencies Were the Recommendations Directed Toward? 

 Number of Recommendations by Accountable Agency or Organization 

Report Total EEO

C 

DOJ DOE

d 

DOL HUD HHS DOT SBA DOI USDA EPA General Other

Title VI Report 406 60 18 26 22 24 88 17 24 55 29 43 

Asian Report 44 11 12 8 5 5 3 

Fair Housing I 11 11 

Fair Housing II 33 33 

Federal Employee 

Report 

8 8 

Transportation Report 13 8 8 1 

Education I 23 23 

Students with 

Disabilities Report 

56 56 

LEP Report 40 40 

Ability Grouping Report 33 33 

Title IX Education Report 46 46 

ADA I 68 68 

ADA II 30 30 

Health Care I 52 52 

Health Care II 155 153 

EEOC Report 112 112 

TOTAL 1,130 199 102 224 34 66 234 96 17 24 55 29 48 4 
9 

TABLE 3—Federal Agencies and the Major Civil Rights Statutes They Enforce 

Statutes1

Agencies 

Civil Rights Acts of

1964 and 1991

Education

Statutes2

Disability

Statutes3

Housing

Statutes4 Other

USDA Title VI (1964) Title II of the 

ADA 

Section 504 

Title VIII of 1968 

DOEd Title VI (1964) Title IX of 1972 

IDEA of 1975 

Title II of the 

ADA 

Section 504 

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

DOI Title VI (1964) Title IX of 1972 Title II of the 

ADA 

DOJ Title VI (1964) 

Title VII (1964)

Civil Rights Act of 1991

Title IX of 1972 ADA (Title II) Title VIII of 

1968 

Hate Crimes Statistics Act 

of 1990 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 

DOL Title VI (1964) 

Title VII (1964) 

Title IX of 1972 ADA 

Sections 504 

and 508 

Equal Pay Act of 1963

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

DOT Title VI (1964) ADA 

Sections 504 

and 508 

Equal Pay Act of 1963 

ADEA of 1967

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

EEOC Title VII (1964) 

Civil Rights Act of 1991 

Titles I and V of 

the ADA 

Sections 501 

and 505 

Equal Pay Act of 1963 

ADEA of 1967 

EPA Title VI (1964) Title IX of 1972 Section 504 Title VIII of 1968 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

HHS Title VI (1964) Title IX of 1972 Title II of the 

ADA 

Section 504 

Hill-Burton Act of 1946 

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

HUD Title VI (1964) Section 504 

Title II of the 

ADA 

Title VIII of 1968 

Fair Housing 

Act of 1988

Section 109 of 

19745

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Section 3 of 19686

SBA Title VI (1964) Title IX of 1972 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

1

 The enforcement of statutes presented in bold face has been reviewed by the Commission for that agency while enforcement of those 

presented in italics has not been reviewed. 

2

 Education acts include Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Women’s Educational Equity Act (WEEA) of 1965, and the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975. This last act also addresses the issue of disability. 

3

 Disability acts include Sections 501, 504, 505, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 

1990. 

4

 Housing acts include Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act 

of 1988. 

5

 Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act (HCD) of 1974. 

6 Section 3 of the HUD Act of 1968.
10 

CHAPTER 2 

Themes of Recommendations From a Decade 

of Enforcement Reports 

A review of the Commission’s 16 volumes of 

enforcement reports written over the past decade 

revealed that the Commission had set broad civil 

rights goals as well as others more narrowly focused on achieving a more effective federal system 

of civil rights enforcement. Establishing equal 

treatment of all parties was among broad civil 

rights goals the Commission asked federal agencies to pursue in their civil rights enforcement efforts.1

 Still other Commission recommendations 

encouraged federal agencies to interpret how civil 

rights laws apply to their specialized programs. 

This chapter addresses the themes embodied in the 

Commission’s recommendations to all agencies, 

despite any unique aspects of the programs they 

operate. 

The subject matter of recommendations fell in 

several categories: the priority given to civil rights 

enforcement; the dissemination of policy through 

guidance, regulations, technical assistance, outreach, 

education, and publicity; the complaint processing 

and litigation system; the compliance review system for funding recipients; and certain managerial 

aspects such as staff training and coordination with 

other agencies. 

One-third of the Commission’s more than 1,100 

recommendations pertained to policy dissemination. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of the recommendations related to the priority of civil rights 

 

1 See, e.g., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. I, December 1996, pp. 

10–16, 20–27, 42, 247–48 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The 

Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. I, September 

1999, pp. 64–69, 198–99 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. I). 

enforcement.2 About 12 percent of the recommendations dealt with the system of ensuring compliance among funding recipients. Recommendations 

about complaint processing made up 7 percent. 

Recommendations about substantive issues such as 

limited English proficiency or diversity accounted 

for 4 to 6 percent. Together, recommendations about 

Subjects of the 1,130 Recommendations: 

Policy dissemination 33% 

Priority of civil rights enforcement 20–25% 

staff training, coordination, and interaction with 

other federal agencies, advocacy groups, and 

community organizations, and the need for additional research on substantive areas of enforcement 

were 12 percent of the whole. Finally, 8 percent of 

the recommendations were directed at organizations other than federal agencies (e.g., professional 

associations and advocacy groups) or dealt with 

unique matters not readily categorized here and 

are not included in the summary that follows. 

 

2

 Note that the 16 volumes of reports had 1,130 headers labeled “Recommendation.” However, many recommendations 

were broad, covering a range of issues, or directed to more 

than one agency or entity. The percentage of recommendations of each type varies depending on whether each recommendation is counted once based on the primary subject 

matter or whether each is counted multiple times to reflect all 

the different issues addressed by the recommendation. 
11 

PRIORITY GIVEN TO CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

In prior studies of federal agencies, the Commission often found a lack of commitment to civil 

rights enforcement, which was evident in the failure to issue policy guidance and to conduct compliance reviews.3

 It repeatedly recommended 

renewing commitment to, or revitalizing, civil 

rights compliance and enforcement programs, 

whether they were concerned with Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or another civil rights law. In numerous instances, the Commission indicated that any 

revitalization of one aspect of enforcement should 

not occur at the expense of other civil rights programs. Agencies should seek ways to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of civil rights enforcement, possibly even by consolidating efforts 

with other federal agencies.4

 The Commission also 

asked that civil rights enforcement activities be 

integrated into the activities of all other agency 

offices to ensure that civil rights goals and objectives would be met.5

Apart from this general complacency about 

civil rights enforcement, the priority given to it is 

expressed in the lack of vigor with which agencies 

seek funds and how they allocate them to enforce-

 

 

3

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, pp. 223, 252, 258, 268, 356–58, 387, 421, 

455, 592, 612–13 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights 

Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, February, 1992, 

pp. 130–56, 201 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans); U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic 

Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects, January 1993, pp. 1–3, 6–8, 

13, 14 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Transportation Report); 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in Advanced Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education: Federal 

Enforcement of Title IX, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. V, July 2000, pp. 121–22 (hereafter cited as 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V); U.S. Commission Civil 

Rights, The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, 

Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. II, 

September 1999, pp. 1–15, 275–77, 279–80, and chaps. 3 and 4 

(hereafter cited as USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II). 

4

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186, 219, 405, 

617; USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1–3, 6–8, 13, 14. 

5

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 220–22, 296–97, 

311, 389–90, 395–96, 540–41, 599, 626. 

ment functions; the organization and line of authority for civil rights staff within agencies; the 

formal establishment of procedures for accountability and oversight of civil rights enforcement; 

agencies’ strategic planning to accomplish civil 

rights goals and objectives; and the management of 

enforcement through tracking of civil rights activities. All of these are important; however, the need 

for additional funding and resources devoted to civil 

rights enforcement is the most prevalent recommendation with respect to the priority of civil rights. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Nearly 10 percent of the Commission’s recommendations to agencies between 1992 and 2000 

sought to increase funding and resources.6

 In some 

6

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Prospects and Impact of 

Losing State and Local Agencies from the Federal Fair Housing System, September 1992, p. 32 (hereafter cited as USCCR, 

Federal Fair Housing System); U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report, pp. 221–22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, 

Fair Housing Enforcement Report); U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, Equal Employment Rights for Federal Employees, August 1993, pp. 21–22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Employee Report); USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement, pp. 178–79, 189–90, 204–05, 222–23, 232, 257–

58, 260, 278, 285–86, 297, 303, 312, 316–18, 330, 356, 359, 

366–68, 391–92, 424–25, 435, 455–56, 466, 480, 488, 513, 

525, 540, 542–43, 549–50, 556–57, 560, 569–70, 572–74, 

582–83, 585, 593, 603, 631, 633, 665–66; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 183–84, 252–53; U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of 

Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, 

Vol. II, pp. 192–94, 381 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. II); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal 

Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students 

with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Enforcement of 

Title VI and Lau v. Nichols, Equal Educational Opportunity 

Project Series, Vol. III, November 1997, pp. 138–44, 221–22 

(hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III); 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 83–84, 92–94, 141–

43; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of 

How the U.S. Department of Justice Is Enforcing Title II, 

Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, September 

1998, pp. 11–13, 19–22, 134–35 (hereafter cited as USCCR, 

ADA Report, Vol. I); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping Employers Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Enforcing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, September 1998, pp. 62–65, 202–07, 211–13, 247, 265–66 (hereafter 

cited as USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II); USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 60–63, 196; USCCR, Health Care Report, 
12 

instances, the need for more funding arose because 

new statutes had expanded agencies’ civil rights 

jurisdictions.7

 In other instances, the Commission 

recommended that Congress provide more funds 

for specific enforcement functions (e.g., for litigation or mediation,8

 outreach,9 and improved computer technology to support civil rights 

enforcement10) or for social programs designed to 

address particular civil rights issues.11

Similarly, many recommendations suggested 

that agency officials request more funds from 

Congress or allocate more of the agency resources, 

either funding or staff, to civil rights enforcement.12 Recommendations encouraged agency officials, including the U.S. attorney general and 

departmental secretaries, to request or allocate 

more resources for or to specific civil rights enforcement activities.13 

 

 

Vol. II, pp. 44, 280–81, 294; U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future: An 

Assessment of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Efforts, September 2000, pp. 66–69, 

121–39, 178–79, 210, 221–23, 229–30, 241–45, 251, 259, 

263–64, 270, 277, 283–84, 288–89, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298–

99 (hereafter cited as USCCR, EEOC Report). 

7 See, e.g., USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 

221–22; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 32. 

8

 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 121–39, 178–79, 210, 277, 283–

84, 288–89; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 202–07, 265; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 11–13, 134. 

9

 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 221–23, 229–30, 241–45, 251, 

259, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298–99. 

10 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 211–13, 266. 

11 Special programs for which the Commission recommended 

funding included, for example, special language instruction 

programs for students with limited English proficiency (see

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 138–44, 221–22) and 

financial assistance to health care professionals providing 

services to underserved populations (see USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60–63, 196). 

12 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 213–14, 261–62; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 49, 130; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 73, 135–38, 202, 217–18; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41–44, 229, 239–56, 

292–93, 356–58; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 

55–57, 61, 66–68, 70–71, 75, 98, 100, 131–32, 138–40, 151–

52, 190, 388–89, 405–07, 418–19, 439, 509, 511–12, 518–19, 

558–59, 564, 616–17. 

13 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 11–13, 134, 136; USCCR, 

ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 211, 265–66; USCCR, Federal Title 

VI Enforcement, pp. 466–67, 475–76, 560–62, 565–66; 

USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 201, 214–17, 201, 208–09, 287, 

286–90; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 215–16, 263–

64; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 197–200, 230–31; 

The Commission also found need for additional 

staff. Some departments had only implemented 

effective Title VI enforcement within some administrations or programs and needed more civil 

rights staff to expand these efforts throughout the 

entire agency.14 Additional staff was recommended 

for many activities related to civil rights enforcement. Among these were developing civil rights 

enforcement plans and Title VI regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures;15 conducting preand post-award compliance reviews and complaint 

investigations; coordinating regional and states’ 

civil rights enforcement activities;16 collecting and 

analyzing data on program participants or beneficiaries;17 providing community outreach, public education, and Title VI staff training;18 and conducting 

social science research on issues concerning 

women and minorities.19 

Agencies were asked to develop an inventory of 

the functions and activities needed to sustain civil 

rights enforcement and to focus on the deficiencies 

in the overall enforcement program when identifying areas that need staff increases.20 However, because assigning additional staff to civil rights 

enforcement is often unfeasible, the Commission 

often recommended that staff be reallocated for 

greater effectiveness of civil rights enforcement 

activities or that more efficient methods of enforcUSCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 192–94, 381; USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 52, 131–32; U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Minority Students: Federal Enforcement of 

Title VI in Ability Grouping Practices, Equal Educational 

Opportunity Project Series, Vol. IV, September 1999, pp. 84, 

127 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV); 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42–43, 46, 48–49, 

218–19, 294–96, 352. 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 355–58, 375, 

525–26, 537, 572–73, 581, 585–86, 590–92, 595, 598. 

15 Ibid., pp. 238, 585–86, 590–92, 595, 598; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 27–29, 287–88. 

16 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 18–19, 27–29, 

282–83, 287–88; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 

282–83, 290, 592. 

17 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 592. 

18 Ibid., pp. 354–55, 373, 525–26, 537, 592; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 27–29, 287–88. 

19 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 141, 155–56, 

161–62, 213, 220–22. 

20 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 424–25, 441; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–33, 290–91. 
13 

ing civil rights be found.21 For example, among the 

Title VI enforcement activities the Commission 

viewed as more efficient were the following: conducting pre-award desk audits of funding recipients’ civil rights compliance, which might prevent 

an agency from awarding funds to a discriminating 

organization; providing technical assistance to aid 

recipients in complying; requiring recipients to 

conduct self-evaluations as part of their grant or 

contract obligations; and delegating implementation and enforcement activities to states for stateadministered assistance programs, so that the federal agency was responsible only for oversight and 

monitoring.22 In some instances, the Commission 

recommended that a study be done to identify the 

enforcement activities that most needed additional 

resources or that proved most effective for achieving civil rights goals.23

Organizational Structure to Meet 

Civil Rights Goals

The Commission has been concerned about 

whether federal agencies have organizational structures that foster effective civil rights enforcement.24 It recommended that civil rights 

enforcement be integrated into all parts of an 

agency.25 Yet how federal agencies achieved this 

integration differed. The Commission’s studies of 

federal enforcement revealed three distinct structures, which will be referred to as the “centralized,” “oversight,” and “decentralized” models (see 

figure 1). In the centralized model, agencies have 

headquarters civil rights offices that conduct all 

civil rights enforcement activities.26 In the oversight model, agencies have a headquarters office 

directing civil rights enforcement, while regional 

 21 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 190, 

211, 572–73, 581. 

22 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 491; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41–42, 293. 

23 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 68, 

70–71, 139–40, 256–58, 269; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. 

I, pp. 183–84, 252–53. 

24 See, e.g., the Commission’s recommendation that DOEd’s 

OCR, which reorganized in 1996, should monitor the efficiency of the structure. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 

188, 253. 

25 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 278, and chaps. 1–4. 

26 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6. 

or local offices conduct most of the day-to-day 

enforcement activities.27 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) fit 

this model. In the decentralized model, federal 

agencies have delegated most of the responsibility 

for civil rights enforcement to operating administrations.28 The Department of Agriculture has decentralized civil rights enforcement. 

Civil rights responsibilities are carried out under each of the models with varying degrees of 

success. The Commission identified several key 

elements that must be achieved with each model in 

order for Title VI implementation, compliance, and 

enforcement to be effective. These are discussed 

below. Notably, only one of the federal agencies 

reviewed in the Commission’s Title VI report—the 

Department of Education (DOEd)—had an organizational structure meeting all of the elements the 

Commission identified.29 The Commission commended EEOC for its organizational structure, 

too.30

Placement 

The first element to foster civil rights enforcement is a primary civil rights office organizationally placed to ensure primacy within the 

agency.31 One way to achieve this primacy is for 

the civil rights unit to have a direct line of authority 

to the departmental Secretary or the agency head.32

The Commission recommended organizational 

changes to have the head of the Department’s Office for Civil Rights report directly to the Secretary 

in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of the 

27 Ibid. 

28 Ibid. 

29 Ibid. 

30 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 38–51. Note that the 

EEOC was not reviewed in the Title VI report because it does 

not have any responsibilities under Title VI. Its civil rights 

enforcement authority falls under Title VII and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

31 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6. 

32 Ibid., pp. 14–20, 186, 219, 253, 256–58, 278, 312, 326, 

355–59, 391–92, 418, 453–54, 479–82, 507, 523–24, 539–40, 

549, 562, 582, 591, 622. 
14 

 FIGURE 1—Organizational Structure for Civil Rights Enforcement 

 Headquarters 

 Civil Rights Office 

(a) "Centralized" Model. Example: SBA 

 Headquarters 

 Civil Rights Office 

 l 

l l l

Division Division Division 

Civil Rights Office Civil Rights Office Civil Rights Office 

(b) "Oversight" Model. Examples: HUD, EEOC 

 Headquarters 

 l 

l l l

Division Division Division 

Civil Rights Office Civil Rights Office Civil Rights Office 

(c) "Decentralized" Model. Example: USDA 
15 

Interior (DOI).1 Within various administrations of 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) and 

USDA, the Commission recommended that organizational charts be revised so that the directors of 

the offices of civil rights report directly to their 

respective administrators.2

 Further, all staff engaged in civil rights enforcement, including those 

in regional and local offices, should report to a director of an office for civil rights who, in turn, reports directly to the agency head (i.e., the Secretary 

or administrator).3

 

Authority 

The civil rights office must have sufficient authority to enforce civil rights within the agency 

programs.4

 Here, HUD and the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) had faults. At 

HUD, the Commission found that responsibility 

for administering a civil rights statute was divided 

among executive staff, with no one below the secretarial level having sole responsibility for implementing the law. The Commission recommended 

that a single independent administrative agency be 

formed at an appropriate level to carry out the enforcement responsibilities.5

 At HHS, some operating divisions had minority and women’s health 

coordinators in an advisory role, but without a 

budget or status to implement civil rights policies.6

Functions 

Internal civil rights functions should be separated from external civil rights functions and nonTitle VI enforcement responsibilities.7

 Several 

agencies had offices for civil rights with responsibility for the agency’s internal equal employment 

 

 

1

 Ibid., pp. 253–56, 268, 355, 373, 387–88, 405–06. 

2

 Ibid., pp. 275–78, 288, 310–11, 322, 558, 564, 584, 590, 

601–02, 607. 

3

 Ibid., pp. 186–88, 219–20, 276, 295–97, 305, 311, 419–21, 

525, 536, 599, 623; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224. In the fair housing study, the Commission recommended that regional attorneys be required to report both 

to the general counsel and the assistant secretary. USCCR, 

Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224. 

4

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6. 

5

 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224. 

6

 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 155–58, 221. 

7

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6. 

opportunity programs along with external civil 

rights functions. The external civil rights responsibilities of some offices included other responsibilities along with the Title VI requirements to ensure 

that funding recipients comply with civil rights 

laws. Agencies in which the Commission recommended that separate offices be established for Title VI enforcement included USDA, HUD, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOT, 

and HHS operating divisions.8

 Similarly, the 

Commission recommended that staff assigned to 

external civil rights functions be full time and specialized in that area.9

 

Coordination With Other Offices 

Other elements for fostering civil rights enforcement stressed the importance of coordination 

between the primary civil rights office and program offices and the organizational and managerial 

links that primary civil rights offices must have 

with regional and field offices.10 For example, recommendations stated that for administrations or 

operating divisions to carry out external civil rights 

responsibilities, the regional staff and structure 

must be in place, with channels of regular communication and interaction with headquarters staff.11

HHS needed improvement in the communication 

between its headquarters and regional staff.12 

8

 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 234–54, 359–60; 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186–87, 219–22, 

239–40, 253, 255–56, 268, 295, 311, 328, 336, 344, 355–58, 

387, 420–01, 424–25, 439–41, 454, 481, 501–02, 505, 518, 

523–25, 536, 539–46, 555–57, 567–71, 580, 591–92, 599, 

625–26. USDA’s Soil Conservation Service was reorganizing 

when the Commission reviewed the agency and was directed 

to guard against ill effects on Title VI enforcement in the 

process of transferring internal civil rights responsibilities to 

another office (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 

312–13, 322). Similarly, DOT/OCR was asked to ensure that 

DOT reorganization did not impede civil rights enforcement 

activities (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 502–05, 

517). DOEd and DOJ/OJP, which had separate internal and 

external civil rights offices, were directed to maintain the 

separateness (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 187, 

209–10, 478–80, 491). 

9

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 311, 322. 

10 Ibid., p. 6. 

11 Ibid., pp. 329, 343, 389–90, 398–99, 407, 627; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24–25, 231–54, 286, 359–60, 

364–65. 

12 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24–25, 49, 285. 
16 

The Commission’s recommendations about the 

link between offices that carry out civil rights enforcement activities revealed a preference for the 

“oversight” and “centralized” models over a decentralized enforcement system. Some agencies had 

decentralized civil rights efforts by assigning enforcement responsibilities to programmatic staff in 

an effort to fully integrate civil rights enforcement 

into all parts of the agency. Although the Commission often commended such strategies as an effective means of overcoming limited resources, it 

recommended that an office of civil rights be 

established, independent of, and in a “watchdog” 

capacity over, other offices. This office should 

oversee, monitor, and coordinate civil rights enforcement and should have a separate unit to develop and disseminate policy and provide 

programmatic guidance.13 The Commission further 

recommended that “watchdog” offices delegate 

civil rights responsibilities and hold others accountable for performing the delegated civil rights 

activities. 

In a number of instances, the Commission recommended that an agency consider centralizing its 

external civil rights activities, particularly where 

the links among offices were ineffective.14 For example, the Commission suggested that HUD consider centralizing field and regional staff to 

establish more direct reporting to headquarters and 

better oversight and monitoring of the field and 

regional staff responsible for Title VI enforcement.15 DOT needed funding to consolidate its external civil rights activities into a headquarters 

office that would coordinate and oversee regional 

offices’ activities.16 Perhaps most important of all, 

the Commission asked agencies to evaluate 

 

 

13 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 219, 253–55, 

296, 300–01, 311, 387–90, 405–06, 501–05, 537–40, 624; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 155–56, 221; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 229, 239–56, 356–

58. Within agency operating administrations, the Commission 

recommended creating an office concerned with minority or 

women’s issues to more effectively address, evaluate, and 

resolve civil rights issues, and to provide leadership and coordination for programs throughout the agency. USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 163, 222. 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 219–20, 260–

63, 387–96, 401, 501–02, 509, 511, 513–14, 664. 

15 Ibid., pp. 329, 344. 

16 Ibid., pp. 505, 518. 

whether their organizational structures were hampering their ability to enforce civil rights.17

Designated Offices for Enforcement Activities 

The primary civil rights office should have 

units devoted exclusively to certain enforcement 

activities. Policy development was the activity 

most often named as deserving exclusive staff. 

Other activities named included enforcement planning; quality assurance; compliance; litigation; 

public education and outreach; federal, state, and 

local government coordination; analysis; and systems services.18 

The Commission recommended a number of actions that might flow from having established the 

authority and lines of communication for civil 

rights offices, such as receiving a priority response 

to the need for resources. For example, in one instance the Commission recommended that the director of the office of civil rights be actively 

involved in the budget process in order to secure 

more funds for civil rights enforcement.19

Oversight and Accountability of Civil Rights 

Enforcement 

The Commission’s recommendations addressed 

concerns about oversight and accountability of the 

civil rights enforcement programs at many levels. 

These were (1) the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 

oversight responsibilities for the Title VI enforcement of all other federal agencies; (2) intradepartmental allocation of civil rights responsibilities 

from headquarters to operating divisions or administrations and to regional or field offices; (3) 

departmental responsibilities with respect to contracting organizations such as agencies under the 

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAPs), Federal Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs), and 

Tribal Employment Rights Organizations 

(TEROs); and (4) agencies’ promulgation of Title 

VI enforcement among federal funding recipients 

with subrecipients, particularly states. 

17 Ibid., pp. 326–30, 343, 345. 

18 Ibid., pp. 6, 186–88, 219, 254, 326–27, 503, 624–25, 628; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 376–77.

19 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 479–80, 490. 
17 

Department of Justice’s Title VI Oversight 

DOJ’s Coordination and Review Section 

(CORS) of the Department’s Civil Rights Division 

oversees the Title VI enforcement of all federal 

agencies. To strengthen oversight, the Commission 

recommended that CORS, first, must enforce coordination regulations requiring that federal agencies 

prepare annual Title VI enforcement plans. The 

unit should define procedures for developing enforcement plans.20 Second, CORS must ensure that 

all agencies submit the required civil rights implementation plans and that the plans conform to 

DOJ’s “Guidelines on Agency Implementation 

Plans.” Any plans that do not meet minimum standards should be returned to the agencies for revision.21 Third, DOJ/CORS should hold agencies 

accountable for the activities promised in their 

civil rights implementation plans.22 To ensure that 

agencies set realistic goals for conducting enforcement activities, CORS should require a demonstration of the relationship between the program 

expenditures and resources and the enforcement 

activities accomplished in order to support budget 

requests for additional resources.23 CORS should 

also require justifications or explanations for shortfalls in the completed work relative to that which 

was planned, and should provide assistance to 

remedy any agency’s repeated deficiencies.24 

In addition, DOJ/CORS should reinstate regularly administered agency surveys to oversee Title 

VI enforcement programs,25 use on-site reviews of 

the programs to identify deficiencies, and correct 

any deficiencies through training and technical 

assistance.26 DOJ/CORS should monitor all federal 

agencies’ delegation agreements and require that 

the agencies, organizations, or contractors with 

delegated authority provide information on their 

civil rights activities to the delegating agency and 

CORS.27

 20 Ibid., pp. 90, 150–51. 

21 Ibid., pp. 90–91, 95, 98, 151. 

22 Ibid., pp. 151–52. 

23 Ibid., pp. 90, 150–51. 

24 Ibid., pp. 151–52. 

25 Ibid., pp. 101–03, 152. 

26 Ibid., pp. 104, 152. 

27 Ibid., pp. 106–07, 109, 153. 

Oversight of Civil Rights Enforcement 

Within Agencies 

Federal agencies may distribute the responsibilities for civil rights enforcement among various 

divisions, administrations, or bureaus and among 

regional, district, or field offices. The agency divisions and regional or field offices may appear at 

different levels in an agency’s organizational structure. Nonetheless, the Commission directed similar 

recommendations toward all levels. 

The Commission strongly supported the delegation of civil rights enforcement responsibilities to 

both operational and regional staff.28 HHS, DOJ’s 

Office of Justice Programs, DOI, and EPA were 

agencies to which the Commission recommended 

delegation of responsibility or improvement in the 

existing method of delegation. 

The Commission made many recommendations 

for how the responsibilities for civil rights enforcement should be delegated. First, departments 

that delegate civil rights responsibilities must 

clearly define the roles of the civil rights office and 

the units to which responsibilities are delegated.29

Furthermore, the delegation should occur in a formal agreement, regulation, or internal order supported by the Department’s Secretary or other 

agency head.30 Second, an agency should institute 

an oversight mechanism to ensure that the divisions with delegated authority fulfill their civil 

rights enforcement responsibilities.31 For example, 

to ensure close supervision and implementation of 

direction from headquarters’ civil rights offices, 

staff, including area or regional directors, should 

be held accountable for the civil rights compliance 

and enforcement activities that are performed.32 

28 Ibid., pp. 218–23, 238–40, 389–90, 407. 

29 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 26, 35–36, 240–

43, 250, 287, 291, 358–59, 367. 

30 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 238–39; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 240–42, 367. 

31 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 238–39, 388, 

395–96, 406, 410–11, 478–80, 491. 

32 Ibid., pp. 419–20, 439, 478–80, 491. 
18 

The Commission also specified what role the 

headquarters unit with oversight responsibilities 

should have. The overseeing office should: 

 provide leadership in the creation, implementation, and evolution of departmentwide civil 

rights programs, initiatives, and policies, and be 

a major force in recommending civil right 

legislation;33

 develop comprehensive procedures to delegate 

the enforcement authority to operating divisions, administrations, or other appropriate 

units; 

 establish an oversight and monitoring system to 

review, evaluate, and direct these units’ civil 

rights activities; 

 conduct regular reviews and evaluations of the 

subdivisions’ enforcement efforts and assess 

their efficiency and effectiveness seeking more 

efficient use of limited resources; 

 take responsibility for the operational planning 

and development of fiscal year goals for the 

agency’s civil rights enforcement efforts; 

 provide agency policy, legal, and regulatory 

guidance as necessary; 

 require the units with delegated authority to 

regularly report information that can be reviewed by the oversight office, including their 

enforcement activities and an annual selfassessment of their enforcement; 

 coordinate outreach, education, technical assistance, and staff training; 

 regularly assist and train operational staff; and 

 function as the central databank for the 

agency’s information on alleged civil rights 

violations.34 

The Commission further recommended that the 

headquarters office with oversight responsibilities 

have units charged with carrying out these functions. Thus, the office should have units for planning, evaluation, policy development, and data 

 

 

33 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 135–38, 213, 

217–18; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 35–36, 291. 

34 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 239, 

388, 406, 510, 519–20; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 24–25, 218–19, 235–55, 286, 352, 363–64; USCCR, 

EEOC Report, p. 265, and see chaps. 4–7. 

collection.35 In one instance, the Commission suggested forming a review team to examine the 

agency’s civil rights enforcement activities, examine and determine appropriate staffing levels in 

each enforcement component, and monitor the 

quality of compliance activities.36

The Commission also provided the model 

specifications for nature and content of the evaluations any office with oversight responsibilities 

should conduct. Offices with oversight responsibilities should conduct both document reviews (for 

example, of any self-assessments of civil rights 

enforcement) and site visits. During site visits, 

staff should examine complaint intake procedures 

and files of complaints and compliance reviews, 

evaluate data collection, and interview staff, program beneficiaries, and people from affected 

communities.37 For complaint processing, headquarters civil rights offices should conduct systematic quality assurance reviews of letters of finding 

and other case closure documents to ensure sound 

investigations and findings.38 Evaluations of complaint processing or compliance review systems 

should result in written reports with findings and 

recommendations for improving the programs.39 

Site visits were a key part of monitoring programs. The Commission noted that the functions of 

district offices must be monitored and evaluated 

through routine visits.40 Furthermore, such visits 

should ensure that regional, field, or district offices 

have consistency in their available resources and 

procedures for civil rights enforcement.41

35 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 254, 503, 624–

25. 

36 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 29–31, 288–89. 

37 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 395–96, 410–

11, 510, 519–20; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 106, 274. 

38 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 22, 284–85. 

39 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 395–96, 410–

11, 510, 519–20. 

40 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 273–74, and see chap. 5; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24–25, 49, 285. 

41 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 223–24; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 191–93, 262–63; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24–25, 49, 285, 377; USCCR, 

EEOC Report, pp. 125–26, 205–06, 288. 
19 

Oversight of Contracting Organizations 

Some federal agencies carry out part of their 

civil rights enforcement activities through contractual arrangements with other organizations. These 

include EEOC and HUD, which use state or local 

human rights organizations to investigate complaints of discrimination. Some of these organizations are known as Federal Employment Practice 

Agencies (FEPAs), substantially equivalent agencies under the Fair Housing Assistance Program 

(FHAPs), and Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs). In addition, DOT’s Federal 

Transit Authority (FTA) was in the early stages of 

acquiring a contractor to perform Title VI compliance reviews of funding recipients. 

In 1996, with DOT/FTA poised to establish a 

contractual arrangement for carrying out civil 

rights enforcement, the Commission recommended that the operating administration select 

its contractor with care, closely review and evaluate any procedural manuals the contractor prepares, closely monitor the contractor’s 

performance of on-site compliance reviews, and 

have federal staff accompany the contractor on 

several reviews.42 This recommendation partly reflects DOT/FTA’s early stage of implementing the 

contractual arrangement. 

EEOC and HUD had well-established contractual arrangements for civil rights enforcement with 

existing procedural guidance.43 Thus, the Commission recommended more monitoring of the 

contractors. For EEOC, the Commission suggested 

conducting more frequent on-site visits to promote 

a greater exchange of information with the FEPAs, 

and providing larger travel budgets to district offices that have broad geographical oversight responsibilities to facilitate more frequent visits to 

the FEPAs.44 For HUD, the Commission suggested 

a cost analysis of state and local agencies’ complaint processing in order to identify ways to save 

funds.45 In general, procedures must be established 

to ensure that different contractors handle cases or 

charges consistently.46

 

 

42 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 575, 581. 

43 See, e.g., EEOC, “EEOC’s FY 1995 Contracting Principles 

for State and Local FEP Agencies,” Aug. 4, 1994. 

44 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 214, 288.

45 USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34. 

46 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 205–06, 288. 

Oversight of Title VI Enforcement Among 

Subrecipients, Particularly by States 

In studies over the past decade, the Commission 

concluded that civil rights enforcement was weak 

in oversight of state recipients. States often receive 

block grants that are then disbursed to subrecipients. DOEd and DOT and many of its operating 

administrations were remiss in the oversight of 

state recipients. The Federal Highway Administration (DOT/FHWA) was an exception and had an 

enforcement program that could serve as a model 

for other parts of DOT.47

To ensure that states operating block grant programs comply with Title VI, the Commission’s 

recommendations asked the agency or operational 

division to: 

 devote the necessary resources to oversee the 

states’ programs effectively;48

 implement an effective system for monitoring 

their compliance policies and activities;49

 develop procedures or guidelines clearly indicating states’ responsibilities for compliance;50 

 require states to submit, for federal staff to review and evaluate, annual civil rights enforcement plans and self-assessments, including their 

methods of administration demonstrating how 

they intend to ensure their own and subrecipient 

compliance with civil rights statutes;51

 provide guidance to states on the information 

they should include in their self-assessments 

and on the elements of acceptable methods of 

administration;52

47 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 204, 215, 551–

52, 557. 

48 Ibid., pp. 576–77, 582. 

49 Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 338–39, 350, 587–88, 591, pp. 665–66, 

668–69; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 179–84, 

199–203, 228–29, 231–32; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. 

I, pp. 64–69, 198–99; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 205–15, 242–43, 346–49, 368–69. 

50 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 534, 539, 587–

88, 591, 636, 665–66, 668–69. 

51 Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 364, 366–68, 380–82, 401–04, 413, 488, 

497–98, 534, 539, 587–88, 591, 665–66, 668–69; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 198–99; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 205–15, 242–43, 346–49, 

368–69. 

52 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 204, 215. 
20 

 ensure that on-site reviews of states and their 

subrecipients are conducted periodically53 to 

review their compliance policies and activities, 

evaluate how their methods of administration 

are applied, and oversee their data collection 

and analysis programs;54 

 provide technical assistance and civil rights 

training to state staff to assist them in maintaining or coming into compliance;55 and 

 maintain a database on the compliance history of 

recipients, including states and local agencies.56

Commission recommendations directed the departments as well as their operating divisions and 

regional offices to take responsibility for ensuring

that periodic on-site reviews are conducted and to 

provide technical assistance to states so that civil 

rights provisions are implemented in recipients’ 

programs. However, the task of performing on-site 

reviews was to be delegated. The Commission 

suggested to one agency that it delegate on-site 

investigations of subrecipients to states and 

strengthen requirements for states’ methods of administration and technical assistance so that they 

can be monitored.57 Elsewhere, the Commission 

directed the Department or headquarters office to 

require its operating divisions (e.g., DOT’s operating administrations) to perform on-site reviews of 

states and other recipients.58 At the same time, in 

conducting oversight and monitoring reviews of its 

operating divisions, a federal agency should monitor the Title VI activities of state recipients, visit 

and evaluate state recipients’ Title VI programs, 

provide any necessary technical assistance, and 

ensure that the operating units take steps to correct 

any deficiencies in states’ compliance.59 Thus, all 

recipients and subrecipients should receive peri-

 

 

53 Ibid., pp. 59, 204, 215, 285–86, 291, 364, 366–68, 380–82, 

534, 539, 576–77, 582, 587–88. 

54 Ibid., pp. 488, 497–98. 

55 Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 364, 366–68, 380–82, 488, 497–98, 

587–88, 591, 665–66, 668–69. 

56 Ibid., pp. 323, 499; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 155–71, 283–84, 333–34. 

57 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 364, 366–68, 

380–82. 

58 Ibid., pp. 534, 539, 576–77, 582; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 106–09, 210. 

59 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 514, 511. 

odic on-site reviews, but not necessarily by headquarters staff. 

The Commission, thus, charges states with responsibility for overseeing the civil rights compliance of their subrecipients. It suggested, first, that 

the federal government, states, and state subrecipients work together to ensure that civil rights are 

protected. Second, states, in turn, must establish 

quality assurance measures to ensure that minorities and women benefit equally from state recipients’ programs.60 

The Commission gave examples of ways states 

could meet their responsibilities. First, better coordination among federal agencies, states, and state 

recipients may occur if, as a requirement of receiving funds, the federal agency required all recipients 

to designate a civil rights coordinator. The federal 

agency could train, certify, and periodically recertify the recipients’ coordinators. The Commission 

suggested that the federal agency could designate 

the civil rights responsibilities for the coordinators, 

which would include ensuring that the recipients’ 

employees are knowledgeable of applicable civil 

rights laws.61 

Strategic Planning With Civil Rights Objectives 

Two general themes on planning permeate the 

Commission’s Title VI report, among other reports. The first establishes that planning documents 

must be developed and specifies appropriate civil 

rights content to be contained in them. The second 

sets forth that a management information system 

must be developed or used to support budget requests and other planning. 

These themes were expressed in Commission 

recommendations referencing various types of 

planning documents. They included (1) strategic 

plans that all agencies are required to develop in 

response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA);62 (2) civil rights enforcement plans that every agency should have; (3) 

the civil rights implementation plans that DOJ requires when overseeing Title VI enforcement; and 

(4) work plans that the Commission suggested 

60 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 198–99. 

61 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 245–48, 365. 

62 Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 

1101 (Supp. V 2002)). 
21 

should be used to link the workload to staff and 

budget resources. 

The Commission specified qualities that all 

planning documents should have, whether they are 

strategic plans, civil rights implementation plans, 

or work plans. The qualities include (1) specific 

short-term goals and long-term objectives, (2) 

timeframes for meeting goals and objectives, and 

(3) consideration of both available and projected 

resources and budget constraints. In addition, 

planning documents should be regularly reevaluated and updated to reflect changes in responsibilities. The Commission suggested this updating 

should occur every three or six months.63 

Agencies’ Strategic Plans 

Commission recommendations for strategic 

plans emerged in reports published later in the decade, following the implementation of GPRA. Notably, GPRA requires that federal agencies develop 

strategic plans defining goals and objectives. The 

need for each agency to have civil rights goals and 

objectives was not articulated in the law. Thus, the 

Commission recommended that agencies include 

civil rights goals and objectives in their strategic 

planning. This recommendation was directed to 

DOEd and HHS.64 

The Commission also asked that agencies integrate civil rights planning with other planning 

procedures. The agency’s overall management and 

strategic planning processes should be related to 

the civil rights enforcement plan, the DOJ-required 

civil rights implementation plan, and the work plan 

for civil rights enforcement.65

Finally, because GPRA requires agencies to establish performance measures to track progress in 

reaching the plan’s goals, the Commission asked 

that agencies determine the best measures of civil 

rights outcomes. For example, the Commission 

suggested that indicators of completed work, such 

 

 

63 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 372, 384; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 34, 290. See also 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251. 

64 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–33, 290–91; USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 48–49, 129. 

65 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 208, 217, 340–

42, 352, 372, 384; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 56–59, 

246. 

as the number of Title VI compliance reviews, 

might not be the best measures of progress in 

eliminating discrimination. A better measure 

would be the diversity of a recipient’s program 

beneficiaries, which the recipient should be required to report.66

Agencies’ Civil Rights Enforcement Plans 

The Commission advocated that agencies develop comprehensive civil rights enforcement 

plans.67 The civil rights implementation plans that 

the Department of Justice requires, discussed in 

more detail below, concern Title VI and therefore 

cover only a part of the civil rights responsibilities 

that many agencies have. The Commission identified numerous desirable qualities for such plans. 

Comprehensive civil rights enforcement plans 

should: 

 set measurable goals and objectives;68

 establish priority civil rights issues and have 

flexibility to add emerging issues;69

 reference the civil rights statutes that authorize 

or mandate the planned activities;70

 specify the types of civil rights enforcement 

activities to be carried out;71

66 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 35–36, 291; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 56–59, 246. 

67 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53–56, 246; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 1–15, 275–77. 

68 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 297, 306; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53–56, 246. 

69 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 43, 245; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–36, 257, 289–90, 362; USCCR, 

EEOC Report, pp. 79–80, 270. 

70 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 16–17, 135. 

71 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223–24, 258–

59, 331–32, 358–61, 636. 
22 

 identify the individuals responsible for carrying 

out activities within the plan;72

 integrate civil rights goals and objectives in all 

agency programs;73

 involve all agency components, including operating divisions and regional and local offices, in 

the planning process and establish goals for 

each unit and appropriate interactions between 

them;74

 be developed through consultations with stakeholders and advocacy groups to ensure responsiveness to their needs and priorities;75

 provide for outreach to victims of discrimination;76 and 

 incorporate regular self-assessment of the enforcement program in the planning process.77

The Commission directed recommendations for 

developing civil rights enforcement plans generally 

to all federal agencies. Among those singled out for 

such recommendations were USDA’s Farmers 

Home Administration (FmHA), DOEd, and DOJ. In 

some instances, the Commission recommended that 

agencies establish specific priority civil rights issues. For example, it asked DOJ to plan strategies 

and goals to protect the civil rights of people with 

disabilities78 and DOEd to create a plan to address 

the unique challenges of children with disabilities 

and with limited English proficiency.79

 

 

72 Ibid., pp. 297, 306; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 1–15, 275–77. 

73 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 213. 

74 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65–67, 210–11; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 213; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–36, 257, 289–90, 362. For 

example, the Commission suggested that DOEd’s OCR should 

include its interaction with the Office of Bilingual Education 

and Minority Languages Affairs in its strategic plans and establish goals and timetables for interaction between the two offices. 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65–67, 210–11. 

75 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53–56, 246; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–36, 257, 289–90, 362. 

76 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 257, 362. 

77 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 181–82, 207–

09, 235–36, 238, 287–88, 304–05, 320–21, 340–41, 371–72, 

404–05, 437–38, 468–69, 514, 533–34, 551–52, 561–62, 576–

78, 586–87, 603–04, 670–71. 

78 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 16–17, 135. 

79 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 255–57, 390; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 85–88, 214. 

Two agencies—EEOC and HHS—had regional 

or local civil rights enforcement plans that needed 

improvement. The Commission recommended that 

these plans be developed from a comprehensive 

headquarters plan. Furthermore, a headquarters 

office should assist regional and local offices in 

developing their enforcement plans to ensure uniform format and effectiveness of those plans. The 

district and regional office plans should contain 

measurable goals and objectives that headquarters 

can use to evaluate success in achieving the goals 

and objectives.80 

Commission recommendations for planning 

civil rights enforcement urged the following: the 

budget and resources must be tied to the strategic 

plan;81 monies must be earmarked separately for 

different statutory authorities (i.e., external vs. internal, or Title VI vs. Title IX enforcement) or enforcement activities (e.g., technical assistance and 

outreach);82 the funds and staff needed for civil 

rights enforcement must be realistically assessed;83

and requests for additional resources must be justified with anticipated increases in enforcement activities or workload.84 The Commission further 

suggested a need for studies of effective allocation 

of budget and staff resources.85

Strategic planning and budget studies should 

also be used to find ways to streamline the civil 

rights enforcement program.86 As ways of making 

civil rights enforcement more effective the Commission suggested that agencies consider (1) increasing education and outreach to secure 

voluntary compliance with civil rights laws and en80 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53–56, 246; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36–39, 291–92. 

81 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, p. 130; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42, 293–94. 

82 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 330, 345, 355, 

374; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, p. 130. 

83 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 514–15, 520–21. 

84 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 59–62, 247; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42, 293–94. 

85 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 256–58, 269; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 51–53, 59–62, 245, 247. 

86 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186–88, 219–

20, 276, 295–96, 311, 419–21, 599, 623; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 30, 346. Although many agencies 

were asked to initiate such studies, HHS was asked to reconvene a review team to follow-up on recommendations that had 

not been implemented from a 1993 study. USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 30, 346. 
23 

hance the public’s knowledge of how to safeguard 

its rights,87 (2) organizing offices on programmatic 

lines with specialized staff who serve as subjectmatter experts or issue coordinators,88 and (3) promoting information-sharing projects among agency 

components and state and local recipients.89

Title VI Civil Rights Implementation Plans 

For the required Title VI civil rights implementation plans, the Commission recommended that 

federal agencies develop these plans in conformance with Department of Justice guidelines. The 

agencies should describe more fully the structure 

of civil rights enforcement in their plans, specifying the scope, organization, budget, staffing, and 

the extent they conduct various civil rights activities. The implementation plan should include the 

qualities mentioned earlier—precise civil rights 

goals and objectives and timeframes for accomplishing them. The goals and objectives should be 

based on realistic assessment of resources—budget 

and staff—available for civil rights enforcement. 

Finally, the implementation plan should be used as 

a management tool. It should be updated quarterly 

and include a report of program accomplishments 

and progress made toward each of the goals and 

objectives.90 And, in addition to these qualities, the 

Commission suggested that, with respect to Title VI 

civil rights enforcement, planning documents should 

(1) consider increases in workload, such as the expected numbers of civil rights complaints; and (2) 

apply civil rights priorities and plans to (a) each type 

of funding program administered and (b) the particular enforcement mechanism for block grant and 

continuing state programs.91

As suggested by the recommendation to “apply 

civil rights priorities and plans to each type of 

 

 

87 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 217–18, 350–51. 

88 Ibid., pp. 24, 285–86; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, 

pp. 188–89, 253–54. 

89 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24, 285–86. 

90 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 89–93, 208, 

217, 235–37, 249, 287–88, 291, 304–05, 308, 340–42, 352, 

404–05, 414, 437, 451, 468–69, 476–77, 489–90, 499, 514–

15, 520–21, 540, 553–54, 557, 563–64, 567, 579–80, 582–83, 

588–89, 592, 598, 600, 606–07, 610; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–36, 289–90. 

91 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 372, 384; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 34, 290. See also 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251. 

funding program administered,” the Commission 

asked that planning documents fully integrate civil 

rights enforcement into all aspects of the agency.92

The Commission explained that priority civil rights 

issues should be identified through input from staff 

in operating divisions and civil rights advocacy 

groups and community organizations.93 The Commission further stipulated that with some agencies, 

such as HHS with its numerous operating divisions, the Secretary must promote cohesiveness 

among its many and varied offices and components, and require them to work together with an 

office of civil rights to show the relationship between the agency’s civil rights enforcement and its 

initiatives and strategic goals, and to ensure that 

civil rights concerns are comprehensively and uniformly integrated among all agency initiatives and 

strategic objectives.94 Because of the need for such 

coordination and integration, the Commission recommended that all departments and agencies form 

a division within the primary civil rights office that 

is exclusively dedicated to strategic planning of the 

agency’s enforcement efforts.95 

Work Plans for Civil Rights Enforcement 

The Commission directed recommendations to 

develop work plans to a number of agencies. Resources are often shifted between competing civil 

rights responsibilities without formal accountability to statutory obligations. This concern arose 

with DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD) and its 

Coordination and Review Section (CORS), which 

has oversight for federal agencies with civil rights 

enforcement responsibilities, for example. The 

Commission asked CRD to create a formal planning process detailing the activities of each section 

and their relationship to the mission and goals of 

the Division; to require each section to prepare a 

section work plan; to review the section work 

plans; and to submit a management plan to DOJ for 

review.96

92 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31–33, 290–91. 

93 Ibid., pp. 31–36, 289–90. 

94 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 119–22, 215. 

95 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 187, 628–29. 

96 Ibid., pp. 71–72, 140–41. 
24 

Management of Enforcement Through 

Tracking of Civil Rights Activities 

Federal agencies should develop and implement 

management information systems (MIS) to support 

strategic planning. The Commission suggested 

such systems should track expenditures and workload for various civil rights statutes and activities, 

such as compliance reviews, complaint processing, 

and technical assistance and outreach. The MIS 

should be used to prepare annual civil rights enforcement plans that have goals and objectives in 

each program area and that assign specific resources to accomplish them. Staff should use the 

MIS to analyze and/or change the allocation of 

resources, to prepare budget submissions, and to 

justify requests for additional resources.97 

At the time of these reports, all but DOEd were 

in the early stages of developing or implementing 

such systems. DOEd had an information management system in place that the Commission recommended be expanded to track resources devoted to 

civil rights activities such as pre-award reviews, 

post-award reviews, and data collection and analysis.98 The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), 

a USDA component that provides supervised credit 

assistance through loan and grant programs to rural 

residents, had a separate budget allotment for Title 

VI enforcement, and thus was able to track Title VI 

expenditures separately from expenditures on other 

civil rights activities. Still, the annual Title VI enforcement plan did not contain goals and objectives based on the work to be accomplished and the 

resources available for Title VI activities, and the 

Commission recommended that it should. Furthermore, the FmHA plan should have specified 

which offices and which staff were responsible for 

meeting civil rights goals and objectives.99 In short, 

FmHA should use its information system to demonstrate that its budget is not sufficient to enforce 

Title VI and other civil rights statutes effectively, 

the Commission said.100

 

 

97 Ibid., pp. 187–90, 207–08, 216–17, 222–23, 240, 256–58, 

269, 275, 278, 288–89, 297, 312, 322, 330–31, 335, 345, 391, 

408, 424, 440, 455–56, 470–71, 479–80, 509, 518, 523–26, 

537, 542–46, 551, 555–58, 565, 567–72, 580–83, 592–93, 

600, 602, 608, 629–30; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 42, 293. 

98 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 188, 210–11. 

99 Ibid., pp. 292, 297, 306. 

100 Ibid., pp. 297, 306. 

Justifying requests for additional resources for 

civil rights enforcement activities was a key reason, but not the only one, for having a welldeveloped information database. Other recommendations directed agencies to develop features of 

their databases to monitor the quality of their enforcement efforts and to aid in identifying civil 

rights noncompliance. Recommendations addressed the databases’ ability to track and analyze 

trends with complaints,101 to identify investigations 

of complaints ended through alternative dispute 

resolution,102 to measure the amounts and types of 

outreach and technical assistance,103 and to better 

identify the sources of funding for recipients and 

subrecipients of block grants.104 The Commission 

was also concerned about the quality of the database system. Agencies must have a quality control 

system to ensure that data entered are complete and 

accurate.105 

DISSEMINATION OF POLICY THROUGH GUIDANCE, 

REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, 

EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLICITY

The Commission issued numerous recommendations throughout the past decade concerning the 

dissemination or publicity of information about 

civil rights, to agencies enforcing civil rights, potential violators of civil rights laws, and victims of 

discrimination. Depending on the audience, dissemination can be accomplished through policy 

guidance and regulations; technical assistance intended to bring about compliance; education and 

outreach to potential victims, violators, and the 

public; and general publicity of successful enforcement efforts. 

101 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30–31, 137. 

102 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 195–96, 342–43. 

103 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 234–35, 240–41, 293–94. 

104 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 209–15, 349. 

105 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30–31, 137. 
25 

Policy Guidance 

In its recommendations on policy guidance, the 

Commission called for federal agencies to establish 

policy units dedicated to developing and disseminating such guidance; to develop new internal and 

external procedural guidance and policy, and regulations and interpretations of laws; to seek the involvement of community and advocacy groups 

when developing policy guidance; and to develop 

or issue policy guidance on specific substantive 

issues such as state recipients, block grants, disabilities, and limited English proficiency. 

The Need for a Policy Unit 

The Commission called for federal agencies to 

establish policy units so that staff and resources 

were committed to developing and disseminating 

civil rights policy guidance, and not encumbered 

with civil rights compliance and enforcement 

responsibilities.106 The Commission also explained 

the role of the policy unit. The policy unit should: 

 

 have the authority and responsibility for modifying and maintaining the agency’s regulations, 

guidelines, policies, and procedures; 

 oversee all aspects of the agency’s policy development and dissemination for civil rights enforcement; 

 provide policy, programmatic, and legal guidance to agency subdivisions (i.e., operating divisions, administrations, or bureaus) and other 

civil rights staff members; and 

 have the necessary legal staff to perform the 

legal work for successful civil rights enforcement.107

Developing Internal Policy Guidance 

The lack of updated and clear policy guidance, 

and the inadequate resources devoted to it, are 

among the primary reasons for poor civil rights 

enforcement. In its report on Title VI enforcement, 

the Commission recommended that federal agencies, including DOJ with its oversight responsibilities, keep civil rights enforcement staff abreast of 

 

 

106 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 354–56, 373–

74, 388, 406, 453–55, 459–60, 470, 472, 512, 519. 

107 Ibid., pp. 406, 472. 

Title VI policy development. The Commission 

recommended that DOJ’s Coordination and Review Section issue guidance clarifying DOJ authority and explaining its responsibilities to 

monitor federal funding agencies’ Title VI enforcement activities.108 DOJ was also counseled to 

adopt new pre-award requirements and provide 

guidelines to federal agencies for enforcing Title 

VI.109 At the same time, the Commission issued a 

blanket recommendation to all federal agencies 

calling for them to regularly distribute comprehensive Title VI policy guidance to all of their civil 

rights staff.110 Some recommendations directed 

agencies to provide policy and legal guidance to 

staff involved in Title VI implementation and enforcement activities and to clarify the application 

of Title VI generally.111

The Commission advised federal funding agencies with decentralized enforcement programs to 

begin issuing detailed procedural manuals on Title 

VI and to maintain an active and comprehensive 

policy program, keeping subagencies informed of 

new developments regarding Title VI.112 Parts of 

USDA were asked to revise, clarify, or implement 

departmental regulations and procedural manuals 

and instructions for the benefit of their civil rights 

enforcement staff.113 HHS and HUD’s FHEO were 

asked to develop policies for staff and funding recipients to use in assessing civil rights compliance.114 Another general recommendation called 

for federal agencies to regularly update and issue 

procedural manuals tailored to their specific programs.115 For example, DOEd’s Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR) was asked to develop formal investigative guidance, compliance standards, and 

108 Ibid., pp. 55–57, 74, 131–32, 141–42. 

109 Ibid., p. 146. 

110 Ibid., pp. 72–75, 165, 193–96, 224–26, 241–42, 259, 269–

70, 332–34, 346, 360–61, 377–78, 393–95, 409–10, 428, 445–

46, 538, 573, 581, 602–03, 608, 643–44. 

111 Ibid., pp. 218–23, 238, 240, 243, 333, 347, 377, 427, 442, 

455, 459–60, 461–62, 472–73, 483, 492–93, 511–12, 518–19. 

112 Ibid., pp. 258–59, 278–79, 378–79, 298–300, 313–14, 510–

11, 528, 545–46, 601, 646–47. 

113 Ibid., pp. 258–59, 269, 299–300, 306, 313–15, 323. 

114 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 67–68, 75–76, 

78–79, 298, 303–04; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, 

pp. 332–34, 347. 

115 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 196, 225–26, 

258–59, 279, 332–33, 394, 428, 460–61, 484, 645. 
26 

manuals addressing specific educational concepts 

such as “the least restrictive environment.”116 EPA 

was asked to develop procedures on how to evaluate environmental justice risks in recipient compliance activities and complaint investigations.117

DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration was asked 

to develop Title VI compliance standards guidelines 

for its staff on each of its programs’ recipients.118

Despite numerous concerns about the oversight, 

implementation, and enforcement of Title VI, the 

Commission’s review revealed satisfactory Title 

VI efforts. USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service 

and DOT’s Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) had internal Title VI policy guidance that 

could be models for other agencies.119 Although 

needing improvement, HUD’s FHEO was asked to 

maintain its practice of issuing technical guidance 

memorandum, manuals, and handbooks on program-specific procedures as new programs were 

developed.120

Other issue areas in which the Commission examined the development of policy and internal 

procedural guidance concerned people with disabilities, employment, health care, education, 

housing, and transportation. In studying these areas, the Commission made numerous recommendations for improvements in the internal civil rights 

processes of federal funding agencies. Regarding 

health care, for example, HHS was asked to develop civil rights policy on proper negotiating 

methods for HHS civil rights staff to use;121 collection and use of data in compliance reviews and 

investigations; the provision of training for operating division staff on civil rights matters; investigating provisions to ensure equal access to, and 

quality health care for, all individuals;122 how to 

integrate women’s perspectives and minority concerns in the agency’s agenda;123 and nondiscrimi-

 

 

116 Ibid., pp. 60–64, 133, 187–89, 383. 

117 Ibid., pp. 428, 445–46. 

118 Ibid., pp. 72–75, 538. 

119 Ibid., pp. 278–79, 289; 546–48, 555–56. 

120 Ibid., pp. 333, 347. 

121 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 155–78, 326–27, 

329. 

122 Ibid., pp. 68–75, 80–83, 92–100, 137–38, 160, 196–97, 

261–62, 299, 300, 304–05, 307, 311, 320–21, 327, 343–44, 

364. 

123 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84–91, 119–26, 

205, 216. 

nation in medical school admissions, managed 

care, and clinical trials.124 

Similarly, EEOC was asked to review and revise compliance manuals and investigative resource guidance; develop mandatory review 

procedures and monitoring and program evaluation 

policy for district offices; use subject-matter experts in ADA case handling and policy development; and review and revise Indian preference 

policy guidance.125 DOEd’s OCR was asked to use 

the Section 504 policy development effort as a 

model for Title VI and Title IX programs126 and to 

include guidelines and a checklist in its finalized 

investigative guidance.127 HUD was asked to develop written guidelines and instructions on agencies with interim referral agreements for staff that 

monitors their activities and progress.128

Recommendations to the EEOC requested that 

the agency update and expand its guidance on employer retaliation against employees and the Equal 

Pay Act, and reinstitute a practice of issuing brief 

policy statements on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).129 In 2000, the Commission commended EEOC for its exemplary regulatory 

guidance.130

Developing External Policy Guidance 

The regular development and dissemination of 

external policy guidance and interpretation of laws 

are critical for civil rights enforcement.131 Federal 

agencies’ sophistication in policy development 

varied, yet the Commission found that all needed 

to develop further policy, whether to address particular civil rights statutes or provisions, or to tailor 

policies to specific programs. 

124 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 280. 

125 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 4, 75, 117–18, 128–31, 196, 

250, 259, 277–79, 286, 298. 

126 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200–04, 257–59. 

127 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 69–70, 125. 

128 USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34. 

129 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 85–86, 92, 271–72. 

130 Ibid., pp. 84–92, 271. 

131 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 193, 331–32, 

359–60, 426–28, 457–59, 526–28, 636. 
27 

Agencies were sometimes asked to provide external policy on particular civil rights statutes, for 

example, DOEd on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972; HHS’ OCR on Title IX and 

the Hill-Burton Act; and EEOC on the Equal Pay 

Act.132 Many agencies were asked to develop policy concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Requests for policy development on Title VI 

were directed to DOJ in its oversight capacity as 

well as the agencies that DOJ oversees. The Commission asked DOJ to develop external policy for 

other agencies on state-administered and block 

grant programs and other Title VI areas.133 Because 

of changes the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 

1987 made in the definition of “program or activity” covered by Title VI, the Commission urged 

DOJ to clarify the scope of Title VI and require 

federal agencies to revise their regulations and 

provide guidelines on Title VI coverage and fund 

termination.134 The Commission also asked 

DOJ/CORS to adopt new Title VI pre-award requirements and provide such guidelines to state 

and local government recipients.135 The federal 

agencies that DOJ oversees were asked in many 

different recommendations to develop or revise 

external policy guidance on recent changes in Title 

VI, such as from the Civil Rights Restoration 

Act;136 the responsibilities of state programs in 

civil rights compliance and enforcement;137 block 

grant programs;138 and compliance and enforcement generally.139 

 

 

132 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 85–88, 109–15, 

195–96, 298–99, 320–22, 343–47, 360–62, 376, 384, 396, 

398, 403, 406; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 64–65, 

132–33; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 199; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 105–11, 127–33, 

312–14, 318–19; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 81–82, 85–86, 

92, 270–72. 

133 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 80–81, 88, 143, 

145, 149, 483–84, 493–94. 

134 Ibid., pp. 76, 143–44. 

135 Ibid., pp. 146, 159–84. 

136 Ibid., pp. 269, 482–83, 492, 602–03, 608; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 101–05, 311–12. 

137 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 211, 348; 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 393, 409–10. 

138 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 55–57, 74, 

131–32, 141–42, 146, 159–84, 269, 393, 409–10; USCCR, 

In numerous recommendations, the Commission requested that DOJ’s Disability Rights Section, EEOC, DOEd, and HUD develop further 

policy on disability issues related to employment, 

education, and housing.140 DOJ was asked to assist 

states and local government officials in complying 

with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act.141 As the Commission recommended generally, 

it found that the EEOC should involve the public in 

developing policy guidance on the ADA.142

The Commission issued recommendations to 

develop external policy guidance concerned with 

discrimination, cultural competency, limited English proficiency, and other issues common to many 

agencies. For example, HHS was asked to develop 

policy to address the effect of culture and language 

on access to and quality of health care received.143

The Commission issued 18 recommendations for 

policy on limited English proficiency to DOEd.144

Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 199; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 65–66, 75–76, 206–15, 301, 347–48. 

139 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223–24, 240–

41, 360–61, 377–78, 426, 428, 443–44. 

140 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 22, 45, 53–54, 65–73, 

77–78, 109–12, 127, 137–38, 140–42, 144–48, 162–72, 257–

58, 260; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 72–76, 79–80, 85, 

87–91, 108–15, 128–36, 140–44, 148–57, 249, 250–52, 255, 

257–58, 259–60; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 126–

27, 192–94, 211–12, 214–16, 221–23, 333–35, 378, 383, 387–

88, 402; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 227–

28. For example, EEOC needed to clarify standards for identifying and diagnosing mental disorders and the definition of a 

“substantial limitation.” USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 

119–21, 124–27, 256–57. 

141 For example, DOJ and its Disability Rights Section were 

asked to promote uniform policies and procedures among state 

supreme courts and to produce and disseminate a guide for 

local government officials on their responsibilities under Title 

II of the ADA. See USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 22, 40–

43, 109–15, 137–38, 142. 

142 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 83, 271. 

143 More than a half dozen recommendations asked HHS to 

issue policy addressing discrimination in the health care system generally as well as in the health care received by individuals with limited English proficiency or with less formal 

education. See USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–

55, 77–78, 195; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77–

78, 92–98, 111–15, 137–38, 252–53, 302, 309–10, 314–15, 

320–21, 366–67, 465, 555; USCCR Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 224–26, 241–42, 264–70, 371–72. 

144 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 39–42, 69–71, 73–

77, 84, 92–96, 98–99, 113–17, 124–27, 135–36, 144–54, 154–

61, 168–72, 206, 209–20, 222–28; USCCR, Education Report, 

Vol. II, pp. 214–15, 386. 
28 

EEOC received recommendations concerning religion and racial harassment.145 At the same time, 

some agencies were asked to develop policy guidance on civil rights compliance tailored to their 

specific programs, most often to clarify definitions 

used in their programs.146

Involving Community Organizations and 

Advocacy Groups in Policy Development 

The Commission asked federal agencies to seek 

public involvement in developing external policy 

guidance.147 For example, the EEOC was asked to 

involve the public and community groups and 

other organizations in the planning and prerelease 

stages of policy development.148 Similarly, HHS 

was asked to include local researchers, and media, 

advocacy, and community groups in external policy development.149 DOEd’s OCR was advised to 

survey advocacy groups, customers, and affected 

groups to identify areas of concern that may require policy guidance from OCR.150

Policies for Special Issues 

The Commission’s reports during the past decade have included numerous recommendations 

about civil rights policies pertaining to specific 

programs. Although many policy issues are unique 

to particular programs or statutes, others echo 

across agencies and programs and represent ap-

 

 

145 On religion, see USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 41, 267; on 

racial harassment, see pp. 87–88, 271. 

146 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

104–29, 197; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 21–24, 

26–27, 32, 79–82, 108–12, 121, 125, 127, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 60–65, pp. 102–04, 109–14, 132, 

147, 149; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 21–22, 103–

04, 130, 146–47, 155–57, 196–98, 204, 211–14, 291–92, 366–

67, 374, 379, 382, 384–85, 395, 408; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 77–78, 195; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 68–76, 88–92, 101–05, 115–27, 299, 301, 

303–04, 308, 311–12, 315–16; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 224–26, 241–42; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 

81–82, 85–86, 92, 270–72; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing 

System, pp. 32, 34. 

147 See, e.g., USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, p. 251, and 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 121–22. 

148 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 83, 271. 

149 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60–69, 78–91, 

196–97, 199, 203–04. 

150 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200–04, 257–59. 

proaches to ensuring equal opportunity. Recommendations for promoting diversity and cultural 

competency, overcoming limited English proficiency, combating sex discrimination and sexual 

harassment, and other substantive issues are found 

in many of the Commission’s reports. 

Diversity and Cultural Competency 

The Commission has promoted diversity and 

cultural competency throughout its reports. It 

broadly asked DOEd and other federal agencies to 

“defuse racial and ethnic tensions in public schools 

and promote mutual tolerance and understanding 

among racial and ethnic groups.”151 At the same 

time, a concern about cultural competency was at 

the heart of many of the Commission’s recommendations for diversity. 

The issue of the cultural competency of those 

rendering services, specifically their ability to provide equal opportunities to program participants 

and beneficiaries from diverse cultures, arose in 

Commission reviews of civil rights enforcement, 

particularly in the health care industry. The Commission said cultural differences should not hinder 

the delivery of social services, such as quality 

health care, to people of color.152 The Commission 

advised federal funding agencies to: 

 involve people of color in planning and developing programs, initiatives, and outreach,153 and 

in monitoring and enforcement aimed at curtailing discriminatory practices;154

 begin or increase funding for cultural sensitivity 

programs and social service programs that meet 

the specific cultural needs of low-income and 

immigrant communities, for example, programs 

for Asian Pacific American women experiencing domestic violence;155

 increase the number of qualified professionals 

with the necessary multilingual and multicultural understanding to effectively work in eth151 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

68–103, 195. 

152 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 53–55, 194. 

153 Ibid., pp. 47–50, 170, 177, 192–93, 223, 225. 

154 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

130–56, 198. 

155 Ibid., pp. 163–68, 174–80, 202, 204; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 193–94. 
29 

nic or immigrant communities, whether they be 

health care providers or complaint investigators;156 and 

 collect data and conduct research on cultural 

and other differences between and among racial 

and national origin populations and use the information to serve everyone’s needs.157 

The broad application of these recommendations 

is obvious from the Commission’s recommendations 

regarding health care. To increase the number of 

culturally aware health care professionals, for example, the Commission made many suggestions. It directed DOEd’s OCR to ensure that medical school 

administrators and other decision-making personnel 

understand the objectives in encouraging efforts to 

include minorities and women among medical student populations.158 It also directed HHS to develop 

guidelines requiring an adequate number of minority-serving providers in health care plans;159 and to 

begin requiring medical training programs, especially those in racially and ethnically diverse areas, 

to recruit minority students.160 

To increase research and data collection on 

women and differences among minority populations, the Commission urged HHS’ operating divisions to provide technical assistance on the 

available grants and research funds and the grant 

application and review process, so as to increase 

the number of people of color and female applicants applying for and successfully receiving federal funds.161 Other Commission recommendations 

directed HHS to do more to identify resources and 

strategies to help ethnic Americans remain healthy, 

to combat health care providers’ myths and stereotypes about the health of racial and ethnic minorities, and to address the issue of culturally 

competent care in technical assistance to health 

care facilities.162

 

 

156 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

163–68, 203, 208; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 253–54, 296. 

157 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 23–28, 29–55, 77–

78, 193, 195; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 249–50. 

158 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 118–19, 317–18. 

159 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 199. 

160 Ibid., pp. 60–63, 197. 

161 Ibid., pp. 62, 197. 

162 Ibid., pp. 52–55, 193–94. 

Limited English Proficiency 

Achieving equal opportunity by overcoming the 

barrier of limited English proficiency was the subject of many Commission recommendations. Most 

were directed toward improving educational opportunities and health care for national origin minorities, particularly Asian Pacific Americans.163

They urged that federal agencies require that service providers take all appropriate steps to ensure 

equal access to quality services for language minority individuals.164

The Commission’s suggestions for limited English proficiency were often similar to those for cultural competency. The Commission asked federal 

agencies to fund social service programs that meet 

the specific language needs of language minority 

individuals;165 increase the number of qualified 

professionals who work within ethnic and immigrant communities; and to collect data and conduct 

research on the needs of those with limited English 

proficiency. 

Recommendations asked federal agencies to increase the number of qualified professionals who 

have appropriate language skills to provide services 

to these communities;166 bilingual and English-as-asecond-language instructors for underserved languages, such as Southeast Asian languages;167 programs to recruit and train bilingual and English-as-a 

second-language teachers for underserved languages;168 and multilingual investigators and program analysts to facilitate interaction with limitedEnglish-proficient individuals seeking civil rights 

enforcement.169 Recommendations on data collection and research concerned education and asked 

for information on the numbers, national origins, 

and achievement of limited-English-proficient stu163 See, e.g., USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 83–84, 

213; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

68–103, 194. 

164 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 179–84, 199–203, 

228–29, 231–32; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 

264–70, 371–72. 

165 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

174–80, 204. 

166 Ibid., pp. 163–68, 203. 

167 Ibid., pp. 68–103, 194. 

168 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 167–68, 172–73, 

225–28. 

169 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 253–54, 296. 
30 

dents in the nation’s schools;170 the distinction between language minority students who speak English “very well” and those who speak it “with 

difficulty” and how this relates to reading, writing, 

speaking, and understanding English;171 how these 

students’ needs have been met;172 and how DOEd 

can best serve them while allowing state and local 

education agencies latitude in suiting programs to 

the needs of their students.173

The Commission’s recommendations regarding 

limited English proficiency also asked federal 

agencies to conduct more compliance reviews174

and to provide regulations,175 guidance, and training. Recommendations asked agencies to issue 

guidance on the objectives and methods of monitoring compliance with respect to limited English 

proficiency;176 the definition of terms and examples of variations in recipients’ noncompliance that 

might assist investigative staff in compliance activities;177 how to reach people with language barriers;178 and various education issues.179 

Recommendations on training largely concerned the use of interpreters to overcome lan-

 

 

170 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 18–19, 27–30, 

207–09, 250. 

171 Ibid., pp. 15–17, 158–61, 208, 225. 

172 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

68–103, 194. 

173 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 39–42, 69–71, 73–

75, 83–84, 92–96, 117–21, 148–57, 179–84, 192, 206, 208–

13, 219, 222–24, 228–30. 

174 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

63–103, 194. 

175 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92–98, 310–11. 

176 Ibid., pp. 92–98, 310. 

177 Ibid., pp. 92–98, 309. 

178 Ibid., pp. 252–53, 366–67. 

179 Schools need guidance on their legal obligations toward 

national origin minorities and students with disabilities who 

are limited English proficient; teacher training and certification for teaching limited-English-proficient (LEP) students; 

and on developing strategies that all school districts can use, 

regardless of the size of their LEP student population. 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200–04, 257–59; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 211–12, 214–16, 387; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 85–88, 169–72, 214, 

226–27. The Commission further asked DOEd to work with 

state and local education agencies to rely on educational approaches that benefit LEP students and incorporate program 

evaluations to periodically reassess and appropriately reassign 

students who are in alternative language programs. USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 131–37, 220–21. 

guage barriers. The Commission asked federal 

agencies to give service providers the necessary 

training, such as training in how to certify and 

work with interpreters.180 The quality assurance 

standards for interpreter services, the need for interpreters to have technical expertise, for example 

in interpreting medical terminology, and acceptable alternatives to interpreter services were other 

areas in which federal agencies needed to provide 

training to ensure recipient compliance with civil 

rights laws.181

Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 

Concerns about sex discrimination and sexual 

harassment arose in the areas of employment, education, and health care. The Commission urged 

that EEOC, DOEd, and HHS conduct more compliance reviews on these issues. It asked HHS to 

provide resources for compliance reviews on 

whether sex discrimination was occurring in health 

programs and to develop comprehensive policy 

guidance for investigative staff and funding recipients on the topic.182

The Commission asked DOEd to combat hindrances to women’s and girls’ educational opportunities. The agency should develop programs to 

eliminate the gender stereotypes attached to certain 

careers. Compliance reviews and investigations of 

Title IX issues should examine (1) the context of 

specific sexual harassment incidents and whether 

the harassment dampens the academic performance 

of female students; (2) girls’ access to advanced 

math and science courses; (3) whether tests contain 

gender bias; and (4) the usefulness of single-sex 

programs, whether they serve their intended purpose, and if comparable programs are available for 

the other sex.183

EEOC was not handling sex discrimination as 

well as it was sexual harassment. The Commission 

said EEOC must address the sex discrimination 

issues that the Glass Ceiling Commission raised 

during investigations and when initiating commis180 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 193–94; 

USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

168–74, 203. 

181 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92–98, 310. 

182 Ibid., pp. 137–38, 166, 320–21, 332. 

183 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–26, 25–26, 65–

68, 70–74, 109–10, 121–25, 134, 137–38, 148–49. 
31 

sioner charges.184 But, because the Commission 

regarded the agency’s enforcement of sexual harassment as a model program other agencies might 

follow, it merely asked EEOC to continue its efforts to identify sexual harassment in the workplace and litigate such cases and to continue 

widely disseminating its technical assistance materials on the subject.185

Outreach to Underserved Populations 

In other recommendations, the Commission 

raised concerns about reaching people in underserved areas and communities. The Commission 

asked federal agencies to ensure that their programs reached participants and beneficiaries in 

rural and inner-city areas as well as underserved 

populations, such as African Americans, Asian 

Pacific Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native 

Americans, migrant and seasonal farm workers and 

their children, and women. It asked federal agencies to find alternate or innovative methods of 

reaching such areas and groups.186 Federal agencies should also initiate or increase technical assistance, outreach, and education in small or minority 

communities and regions with large migrant populations to inform these individuals about the available services.187 Other recommendations asked 

federal agencies to better serve these underserved 

populations by replicating local initiatives more 

widely188 and reviewing or reporting the available 

services and their effectiveness.189 

Disability Access 

The Commission raised the issue of disability 

access with the Department of Education. To improve Section 504 enforcement, the Commission 

asked DOEd to continue encouraging school dis-

 

 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 242–43, 368–69; 

USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 206. 

 

184 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 42, 267. 

185 Ibid., pp. 41–42, 46–47, 266–67, 286. 

186 Ibid., pp. 32–38, 250–54, 266, 296; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 60–63, 175–76, 182–84, 196, 224, 226. 

187 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60–69, 175–76, 

182–84, 196, 199, 224–26; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 32–38, 

250–54, 266, 296. 

188 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64–69, 175–76, 

182, 199, 224–26. 

189

tricts to focus on student needs rather than disability definitions in providing appropriate services to 

students with disabilities.190 The Commission also 

requested that DOEd, through OCR, its Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and 

state and local education agencies, ensure that students with learning and behavioral disabilities, 

emotional disturbance, and mental retardation can 

participate in strategies such as counseling for successful transitions to regular classrooms191 and partake of extracurricular services and activities.192

The Commission also recommended that DOEd 

ask local school districts to allow regular education 

teachers to receive special education in-service 

training.193

Updating Regulations 

The Commission asked some federal funding 

agencies to develop new regulations and others to 

update existing ones. It often said that federal 

agencies must keep their civil rights regulations 

current to reflect legislative developments. 

The Commission asked DOJ/CRD/CORS to assume a leadership role in reviewing and, where 

needed, providing updated Title VI regulations to 

all federal funding agencies.194 DOJ’s CORS was 

also invoked to improve its process of reviewing 

proposed legislation involving civil rights or federal financial assistance programs to inform Congress of any civil rights consequences.195 In some 

instances, the Commission asked CORS to develop 

additional regulations that would apply to the federal agencies enforcing Title VI.196 

190 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 187–89, 347–54, 

362–66, 381, 404–05, 407. 

191 Ibid., pp. 347–52, 404. 

192 Ibid., pp. 335–42, 402–03. 

193 Ibid., pp. 187–89, 347–54, 362–66, 381 404–05, 407. 

194 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 75, 87, 142, 

149, 223, 251–53, 331, 356–61, 392, 457–59, 482, 633. 

195 Ibid., pp. 112–13, 155. 

196 For example, the Commission asked that regulations require federal agencies with funding assistance programs to 

provide a program of technical assistance to their recipients. 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 75, 87, 142, 149. 
32 

The Commission was particularly concerned 

that DOJ/CRD/CORS ensure that regulations were 

updated to reflect legislation, such as the Civil 

Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which extended 

Title VI coverage to prohibit discrimination in an 

entire institution even if only part of that institution 

receives funds. It asked that DOJ and federal funding agencies update all Title VI regulations based on 

this act.197 DOEd, DOL, DOI, EPA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and HHS were agencies 

specifically asked to consider the impact of this act 

on civil rights.198 Agencies asked to review the effects of other legislative changes were HHS and 

DOT and one of its operating administrations, the 

Federal Aviation Administration.199 

The Commission also requested that agencies 

consider adopting nondiscrimination regulations 

similar to those for DOL’s main job-training program (then the Job Training Partnership Act) to 

ensure that states are enforcing Title VI in state 

and locally administered programs.200 The Commission further encouraged federal funding agencies to develop model regulations that prohibit 

discrimination not just in employment but also 

when employment practices result in discrimination against program beneficiaries or others.201 It 

directed agencies with decentralized enforcement 

programs to ensure that their subagencies have 

regulatory guidance in addition to Title VI regulations.202 Finally, the Commission asked federal 

agencies to update Title VI regulations to incorporate a comprehensive list of specifically prohibited 

discriminatory practices.203 

 

 

197 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 36–40, 635. 

198 Ibid., pp. 192, 211–12, 359–60, 376, 392–93, 409, 442, 

457–59, 471; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77–78, 

302, 377 465, 555. 

199 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77–78, 302, 377 

465, 555; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 505–07, 

517, 527–28, 537. 

200 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 198, 258–59, 

359–60, 383, 639, 665–67. 

201 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 163–64, 191, 

223–24, 258–59, 331, 359–60, 393, 426–27, 457–58, 482–83, 

510, 638. 

202 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 164–65, 220, 

258–59, 278–79, 298–99, 313–18, 508, 526–28, 544–46, 557–

58, 571, 584, 593, 600–01, 640–41. 

203 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 162, 191, 223–

24, 259, 267, 331, 359, 392–94, 427, 459, 482, 507, 510–11, 

637. 

DOT’s National Highway Traffic and Safety 

Administration had yet to develop Title VI regulations.204 Other agencies needed to revise existing 

ones, for example, to clarify terms or the application of civil rights statutes to the assisted programs, 

or to modify the enforcement process. These agencies included DOEd,205 EEOC,206 HUD,207 SBA,208

DOL,209 EPA,210 and HHS.211 

Technical Assistance 

Technical assistance consists of educational forums, advice, or written policy documents offered 

to agencies responsible for enforcing civil rights 

laws or potential violators to improve their ability 

to meet civil rights obligations.212 Many agencies 

were asked to provide or improve technical assistance to funding recipients.213 The Commission 

204 Ibid., pp. 586, 590–91. 

205 For example, the Commission called upon DOEd to update 

Section 504 regulations to, among other things, allow parents 

to be used in interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions concerning students with disabilities. USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 234–36, 254–55, 389. It also 

asked the agency to address affirmative action provisions “in 

the context of State run institutions and medical schools receiving federal funding.” USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. 

II, pp. 122–25, 316–17. See also USCCR, Education Report, 

Vol. I, pp. 190–97, 254–57. 

206 For example, a recommendation asked EEOC for stronger 

guidance on the issue of “mitigating measures” as related to 

the ADA. USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 91–99, 253. Another asked the agency to extend the time period for filing a 

civil rights complaint. USCCR, Federal Employees Report, p. 

21. See also USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 84–92, 271. 

207 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 225; 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 331–32, 346. 

208 The SBA was asked to retain the language currently used 

in Title VI regulations addressing employment discrimination. 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 459, 472. 

209 The Commission requested that existing regulations for the 

job-training program be extended to all DOL programs. 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 366–69, 376, 382–

83. 

210 One of several recommendations asked EPA to clarify that 

discrimination is not permissible at a facility built with federal 

funds. USCCR, pp. 425–27, 435, 441–41, 449. 

211 HHS was asked to draft regulations concerning LEP. 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92–98, 310–11. 

212 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 116–

17. 

213 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 53–61, 71–82, 90, 

94–104, 112–15, 119, 126–27, 130, 132; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. III, pp. 83–84, 92, 105–07, 117–21, 135–36, 144–
33 

asked all federal agencies to implement active Title 

VI technical assistance programs because it found 

most lacking in this area.214

The Commission also asked some federal funding agencies to provide or improve technical assistance to their own civil rights enforcement 

components, including field offices and contracting 

agencies, and to parallel agencies and offices sharing civil rights jurisdiction with them.215 The 

Commission’s recommendations for technical assistance sometimes emphasized principles such as 

ensuring that uniform enforcement procedures are 

used throughout the agency.216 Another principle 

the Commission supported was assigning full-time 

education and outreach coordinators to headquarters to monitor and coordinate technical assistance, 

education, and outreach activities in regional offices throughout the agency.217 Other recommenda-

 

 

48, 158–61, 169–73, 197–200, 206, 213, 215–16, 219, 222, 

225–28, 230–31; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–

32, 64–65, 70–74, 78–79, 92–99, 102–04, 123–26, 134–35, 

137–39, 142–47; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 192–

94, 221–23, 318–22, 263–66, 333–35, 354–59, 366–67, 383, 

388, 391, 397–98, 402, 405–06, 408; USCCR, ADA Report, 

Vol. II, pp. 128–30, 133–35, 148–57, 230–31, 239–41, 257–

58, 260, 268–69; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13, 45–46, 

77–83, 108, 119, 123–27, 134, 138–42, 143, 160–61; USCCR, 

EEOC Report, pp. 2, 32–38, 224–27, 231–33, 245–46, 250, 

255–56, 265–66, 291–92, 295–97; USCCR, Federal Fair 

Housing System, pp. 33, 223; USCCR, Health Care Report, 

Vol. I, pp. 28–36, 53–55, 62–63, 159–60, 170, 194, 197–98, 

222–23; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 88, 146–50, 

216–26, 235–39, 249–55, 307, 324–25, 350, 352–53, 361, 

363–64, 376–77; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 

228–30, 243–45, 303, 307, 317–18, 324, 401, 412–13, 427, 

433, 442, 448–49, 466, 475, 497, 533–34, 539, 561–62, 566, 

576, 582, 586–87, 591, 597, 599, 605, 609. 

214 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 177–78, 204, 

231–32, 262, 285, 303, 313, 317, 337–38, 366, 401, 433–35, 

466, 487, 512–13, 531–32, 549, 559–60, 573–74, 594, 602–

03, 661. 

215 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 117–19, 123–31, 139, 

143, 160–61; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24–25, 

49, 186–87, 219–21, 231–55, 242–43, 249–62, 280, 285–86, 

340, 351–53, 361–65, 368–69. USCCR, Education Report, 

Vol. IV, pp. 69, 125; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 

197–200, 230–31; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–

26, 94, 124, 143. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 220–26, 229, 

234–35, 290–93; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 236–41, 

268–69; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34; 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 259, 269, 401, 

412–13, 513, 519, 592. 

216 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 249–55, 361. 

217 Ibid., pp. 218–19, 352. 

tions were specific to particular agencies or issues.218

Education and Outreach to Potential Victims, 

Violators, and the Public 

The Commission concluded that federal agencies had to implement or improve education and 

outreach programs and make clear the agency 

components’ responsibilities for conducting education and outreach.219 The improvements requested 

varied. Several recommendations asked for regular 

education and outreach,220 while others asked that 

education and outreach be targeted to special audiences such as attorneys221 or small businesses.222

The Commission also recommended new or innovative venues for education and outreach such as 

the Internet223 or publicity of an agency’s successes 

in defending the public’s civil rights.224

A number of recommendations requested that 

federal agencies mount inter-agency coordinated 

outreach.225 In particular, the Commission suggested campaigns aimed at educating all U.S. residents on Title VI226 and workplace violence,227 and 

at informing recent Asian American immigrants 

218 For example, the Commission asked DOEd’s OCR to cite 

the sources for the propositions it was advancing pertaining to 

ability grouping practices when developing resource guidance 

materials. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 69, 125. 

219 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–26, 80–82, 123–

24, 140; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 112–15, 132; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 191–95, 223–27, 384, 

388; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 59–61, 139; USCCR,

ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 133–35, 236–39, 258, 268; USCCR, 

EEOC Report, pp. 137–38, 224–26, 235–36, 279, 291, 293; 

USCCR, Health Care Report Vol. I, pp. 165–67, 223; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 19–25, 216–26, 284, 

286, 350; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 87, 114–

16, 149, 156–58, 218–23, 231–32, 240, 245–46, pp. 252, 268, 

284, 290, 400–01, 412, 513, 519, 533, 538–39, 576, 582, 586–

87, 590–92. 

220 See USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 63, 198. 

221 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 238–39, 293. 

222 Ibid., p. 295. 

223 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 259. 

224 See USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 229–30. 

225 See, e.g., USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1–12, 13, 

15; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 94, 130. 

226 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 659–60. 

227 The Commission asked DOL, DOJ, and EEOC to coordinate 

this effort. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 40–41, 52–53, 266–67, 

269. 
34 

about their civil rights.228 Similarly, the Commission recognized EEOC and its Office of Field Programs for acknowledging the importance of 

sharing information with other agencies about the 

innovative approaches to education and outreach 

that its field offices were developing.229 

Another frequent recommendation was that information concerning civil rights issues be readily 

available to recipients and subrecipients, potential 

and actual victims of civil rights violations, violators, and the public.230 In ensuring that education 

and outreach materials reach all populations, the 

Commission stressed that they must be disseminated 

in languages other than English. Agencies were 

asked to disseminate information in other languages 

to accommodate the populations they served.231 

 

 

228 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 

205. 

229 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 236–39, 268. 

230 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 26–28, 40–42, 53–54, 

59–61, 119, 123–31, 136–39, 143; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. 

II, pp. 148–57, 195, 215, 239–41, 260, 264, 266, 269; 

USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 31–32, 113, 220–27, 238–39, 

241–46, 255–59, 265–66, 276, 290–91, 293, 294–95, 297–99; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 28–36, 52–55, 63, 

77–78, 102–03, 120, 134, 138, 140–41, 170–86, 192, 195, 

198, 209, 216, 220, 224; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 13, 19–23, 175, 216–26, 242–43, 249–55, 261–62, 264–

70, 278–79, 284, 337, 350–52, 361, 368–69, 364, 371–74; 

USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223; USCCR, 

Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 114–15, 144, 156–57, 192–

93, 212, 218–23, 231–32, 240, 245–46, 261–62, 271, 284, 

290, 302–03, 307, 315–17, 323, 336–38, 349–50, 364–65, 

380–81, 400–01, 412, 463–66, 474–75, 487, 497, 550–51, 

556, 561, 566, 596–97, 599, 604, 609; USCCR, Civil Rights 

Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 22–48, 192, 205; USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 53–61, 71–78, 94–102, 112–

15, 119, 126, 130–32; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 

67–68, 80–82, 86–88, 102–04, 134–35, 140–41, 147–46; 

USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 83–84, 92–96, 117–

21, 126–27, 135–36, 144–48, 158–61 169–73, 206, 213, 219–

20, 222, 225–28; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 211–

16, 221–23, 255–57, 263–66, 285–87, 333–35, 347–52, 354–

58, 386–88, 390–91, 394, 402, 404–05; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 205, 209–14, 251–52, 259, 261–62. 

231 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 77–78, 

138, 195, 220; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 19–

23, 261–62, 284, 364; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, 

pp. 433, 448–49, 513, 519, 586, 590–91; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 213–14, 261–62; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 92–96, 206; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 

257, 259–60, 297–99; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 239–

41, 269. 

COMPLAINT PROCESSING AND LITIGATION

The Commission reviewed the complaint processing procedures of several agencies over the past 

10 years. Out of these reviews emerged several 

common findings, including areas that have continued to present challenges to these enforcement 

agencies and in which efforts have been insufficient. The Commission has thus made many recommendations for charge processing and 

complaint resolution. Generally, the recommendations have focused on ensuring that agencies have 

a comprehensive process to resolve complaints 

efficiently and expeditiously to achieve maximum 

results. Another key theme has been improving 

customer service by creating systems that are easy 

to navigate for potential charging parties and publicizing policies and procedures. 

Charge Intake 

The intake process is an agency’s first communication with potential complainants and provides 

valuable information on the enforcement process. 

It must be organized to promote efficiency yet easy 

for complainants to navigate. The Commission’s 

recommendations for the intake process have generally concerned streamlining the intake process 

and formalizing intake procedures to ensure 

consistency across offices. Several Commission 

reports emphasized that internal procedures must 

ensure that every part of an agency (such as a district office) has the same standards for charge intake.232

Improving customer service goes hand in hand 

with the intake process, but also extends beyond 

that to include better communication with complainants throughout the investigation and resolution stages of charge handling. Recommendations 

for improving customer service include: 

232 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 154–56, 274; USCCR, ADA 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 191–92, 262. 
35 

 expanding office hours to include evenings and 

weekends;233

 establishing intake booths in convenient locations (e.g., community centers and malls);234 

 reassessing intake functions on a continual basis and using customer satisfaction surveys;235

 extending deadlines for submission of information requested of charging parties to allow ample time to respond;236

 expanding accessibility of enforcement staff;237

 improving interaction with the complainant to 

gather necessary information instead of placing 

the burden entirely on the charging party;238

 assessing why many inquiries from complainants never become formal charges;

239 and 

 training intake staff on interaction and communication skills.240

Expediting the intake process while conducting 

a thorough first assessment of an individual complaint is often a difficult balance to achieve. Intake 

staff should be provided with questionnaires to be 

used when caseloads are large. This will not only 

ensure that the correct information is collected, but 

will also promote uniformity within and across 

offices.241 In addition, intake staff should begin the 

initial stages of investigation to ensure that charges 

are fully developed before being referred to other 

enforcement or legal staff.242 

Charge Prioritization/Case Selection 

Prioritization of Complaints Received 

Because civil rights enforcement agencies have 

limited resources, agencies should have procedures 

to prioritize charges and select cases that identify a 

high percentage of actionable complaints and cases 

able to affect the most people. Agencies must have 

clearly defined prioritization methods, use them 

 

 

233 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 105, 275–76. 

234 Ibid., pp. 105, 275–76. 

235 Ibid., pp. 105, 154–56, 274–76. 

236 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 173–74, 337. 

237 Ibid. 

238 Ibid., pp. 172–74, 328. 

239 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 154–56, 274. 

240 Ibid. 

241 Ibid., pp. 109–10, 276. 

242 Ibid., pp. 105, 275. 

systematically in determining which cases to pursue, and be able to justify the resources expended 

on any one complaint. The prioritization process 

extends to many levels of charge development, 

including determinations as to which complaints to 

investigate, which to resolve through mediation or 

other settlement procedures, and which warrant 

litigation. 

Even with prioritization procedures, enforcement agencies often lack resources to give adequate attention to all meritorious complaints. 

Under such circumstances, the Commission has 

often recommended that agencies emphasize systemic cases, which can provide relief for a large 

number of victims, although these cases are also 

the most resource intensive.243 

Agency-Initiated Charges 

Case selection also includes the proactive identification of discrimination absent the filing of a 

specific complaint. Most enforcement agencies 

have the authority to investigate self-initiated 

charges, as is the case with commissioner charges 

filed by the EEOC and secretary-initiated charges 

filed by HUD. Although such agencies have the 

discretion to choose which charges to file, they do 

not always exercise such discretion to its fullest, so 

the Commission has made recommendations for 

ensuring that they take full advantage of this option. 

 The Commission has found agency-initiated 

charges useful for identifying systemic discrimination. It has recommended that agencies use statistical and research tools to identify instances of 

potential systemic discrimination. With respect to 

EEOC, the agency’s Office of Research and Information Planning should provide EEOC commissioners with regular reports identifying areas 

with discriminatory trends in the employment data 

the agency collects to determine if a charge or systematic investigation should be initiated.244 District 

office enforcement and legal staff should also 

regularly analyze employment data to determine 

areas of potential charges.245

243 Ibid., pp. 178–79, 283–84. 

244 Employers with more than 100 employees are required to 

submit annual reports to the EEOC on the racial, ethnic, and 

gender makeup of their employees. These are referred to as 

EEO-1 reports. 

245 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 164–65, 282. 
36 

The Commission also recommended that HUD 

intensify efforts to develop secretary-initiated 

complaints, specifically that the agency should target cases not easily corrected through individual 

complaints, issue guidance or regulations on the 

subjects that might be pursued through this 

method, and increase resources for agency-initiated 

complaints.246

Some agencies identify discrimination through 

testing, and the Commission has occasionally 

recommended that efforts in this area be 

heightened. For example, the Commission recommended that HUD fund testing for law 

enforcement purposes whenever there are grounds 

to believe discrimination may be occurring.247

Areas to proceed with testing can also be identified 

through statistical disparities, media reports, or 

substantive anecdotal evidence. 

 

Investigation 

Over the years, the Commission has found 

many deficiencies in the way enforcement agencies 

conduct investigations. The Commission found 

inconsistencies across offices, inadequate probing 

of facts, and failure to conduct thorough investigations such as through on-site visits. The Commission’s recommendations asked agencies to provide 

guidance to investigative staff during and after an 

investigation. Agencies need to develop complaint 

processing and investigation procedures that delineate the process of handling complaints and indicate the types of information needed to support a 

finding.248 Following are specific recommendations made to various agencies: 

 

 Model investigative plans should be developed 

and issued for each priority issue as a guideline 

to ensure uniformity across regional enforcement offices.249 Experts and task forces should 

have input into their development.250 

 Investigative plans should be encouraged for all 

charges, and enforcement managers or supervi-

 

246 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 229. 

247 Ibid., p. 227. 

248 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 561, 565–66. 

249 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 184, 339. 

250 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 212, 260–61. 

sory investigators should review them for consistency.251

 Quality assurance reviews—to review case files 

for quality and to ensure that investigators used 

the proper analyses—should be done regularly, 

either by agency management252 or by independent outside auditors hired on a contractual 

basis.253 If the reviews uncover evidence that 

some investigations have been done superficially or improperly, these cases should be reopened and reinvestigated. 

 Headquarters should develop guidelines for 

mandatory review procedures across district offices. The guidelines should require charge review at various stages of development—after 

initial assessment, during investigation, and 

upon issuance of determination.254 

 Investigative staff should confer with the written guidance for investigative procedures determining the scope and parameters of an 

investigation.255 Further, investigative staff 

should be encouraged to tailor requests for information so that respondents submit only relevant information.256

 Agencies should recognize the usefulness of 

on-site investigations and perform them as 

necessary.257

 State agencies (and other external entities that 

conduct investigations) should be required to 

submit a written report on each complaint and 

its investigation.258

 Witness contact should be tracked uniformly 

across district offices so that investigators are 

held accountable for the thoroughness of their 

work.259

The Commission suggested ways to improve 

the efficiency of enforcement staff and streamline 

the investigative process. For example, district of251 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 144, 280. 

252 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 399, 412. 

253 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62–63, 247. 

254 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 117–18, 277. 

255 Ibid., pp. 143, 279–80. 

256 Ibid., pp. 145–46, 280. 

257 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 222; 

USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 28, 148–49. 

258 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 430–31, 447. 

259 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 151, 281. 
37 

fice management staff should regularly evaluate 

the caseloads of investigators to determine whether 

any investigator has a disproportionate number of 

difficult charges on his or her docket. The distribution of charges should be based on investigative 

experience and difficulty of the charge.260 

Improving Efficiency and Reducing 

Complaint Backlogs 

Enforcement agencies have been criticized for 

taking too long to process discrimination charges. 

Increases in responsibilities, and hence in the number of charges filed, and decreases in resources 

have exacerbated the problem.261 As a result, agencies have needed to develop ways to reduce their 

growing backlogs and process charges more efficiently.262 Some agencies have done so by prioritizing the charges they would spend time 

investigating and resolving, as has been discussed.

 

Complaint Resolution 

Complaints can be resolved in several ways—

through dismissal, voluntary agreement between 

the parties involved, adjudication, or litigation. The 

Commission has made many recommendations 

specific to the vehicles commonly used by each 

agency. 

Determinations and Dismissals 

The Commission’s evaluations of enforcement 

agencies suggest that a large percentage of complaints are dismissed for administrative reasons or 

closed with a no cause determination. This fact is 

disturbing to many charging parties who may not 

understand the charge processing procedures and 

requirements or the legal provisions that validate a 

complaint. EEOC is one agency in which the num-

 

 

260 Ibid., pp. 143, 279–80. 

261 See, e.g., USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 66. See also USCCR, 

Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, 

February 2001. 

262 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 153–54, 156–57, 174, 283, 

281–82; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 217–20, 267; 

USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 32; USCCR, Fair 

Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 178–80, 189, 336, 341; USCCR, Federal 

Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229–30, 245–32, 657. 

ber of no cause findings and administrative closures continues to be large. The Commission has 

recommended that the agency study the reason for 

this trend. EEOC should try to improve education 

and outreach efforts so that the public is better informed about what types of charges have merit 

under EEOC jurisdiction.263 

Upon closure of a complaint, enforcement 

agencies must notify the parties involved of the 

outcome of the complaint in a letter of determination or letter of finding. The Commission found 

that many such letters lack sufficient information 

to inform the parties of the reasons for the finding. 

For example, the Commission recommended that 

EEOC require that enforcement staff conduct predetermination interviews with charging parties, 

giving them a chance to provide any additional 

information before having their cases dismissed.264

In addition, staff should ensure that the determination letters sent to charging parties clearly explain 

why no cause was found, or why a charge was 

dismissed.265 

Similar recommendations were made to benefit 

the respondent to a complaint. For instance, the 

Commission recommended that HHS/OCR fully 

inform every recipient that has been the subject of 

a complaint investigation of OCR’s investigative 

activities. OCR’s Office of Program Operations 

should conduct a large-scale quality assurance review of all letters of finding and case closure 

documents, and should prepare a report with recommendations to upgrade the overall quality of 

these documents.266 OCR should develop a compendium of model letters of finding and corrective 

action agreements for each of the statutes it enforces. This will enable investigative staff to develop thorough case closure documents.267

263 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 215, 266. 

264 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 172, 283. 

265 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 201–02, 265. 

266 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 187–88, 340–41. 

267 Ibid., pp. 184, 338–39. 
38 

Settlement Agreements and Conciliation 

To conserve resources, there has been a move 

toward settling complaints early in the charge handling process. While the Commission has generally 

supported methods such as mediation and conciliation, some concerns about the implementation of 

these methods have prompted a series of recommendations.268 For example, the Commission recognizes that for effective enforcement, remedies 

must address the root of discrimination. Mediation 

or other settlement negotiations, if not performed 

carefully, may ignore the larger picture in the interest of resolving the complaint at hand. To avoid 

this, the Commission recommended that mediation 

only be used when it is appropriate to the nature of 

the complaint, and mediation staff should ensure 

that settlements include provisions for changes in 

employer practices or policies that might have a 

discriminatory effect.269

A recurring theme in recommendations regarding settlement of complaints is improving communication of rights and procedures to the parties 

involved. For instance, the Commission recommended to HUD that complainants be informed 

about the consequences of resolving complaints 

outside conciliation.270 In addition, HUD should 

establish standards for conciliation to ensure that 

parties’ rights are respected271 and should notify 

parties of their right to object to administrative law 

judges’ decisions before the Secretary’s review.272

Litigation 

Many agencies consider litigation a last resort 

to resolve complaints of discrimination. While the 

Commission recognizes the resource demands involved in litigating cases, it also recognizes the 

importance of doing so to develop case law, to obtain appropriate relief and to send a message to 

potential violators about the strength of an 

agency’s enforcement program. Thus, many of the 

 268 The Commission also warns that mediation is not a solution for all charges or a substitute for investigation and litigation. It should only be seen and used as one of the strategies to 

eliminate unfair employment practices. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 121–39, 277. 

269 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 135–36, 277–78. 

270 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223. 

271 Ibid. 

272 Ibid., p. 229. 

Commission’s recommendations in this area have 

centered on stepping up litigation in areas of law 

that are relatively undeveloped.273

Because few complaints result in litigation, enforcement agencies must have strong litigation 

strategies. The Commission recommended that 

litigation be central to an enforcement strategy, but 

advised agencies to seek and litigate cases that set 

legal precedent and to mediate other cases.274 It 

also advised agencies to seek input from stakeholders in developing the litigation strategy. Agencies should obtain the affected community’s views 

on which issues need to be litigated.275

One example of an efficient litigation strategy is 

EEOC’s delegation of litigation authority to regional 

attorneys, allowing them to identify and pursue 

cases for litigation within the constraints of clearly 

established local and national priorities. The Commission supported this practice of delegating constrained authority as long as district offices select the 

most appropriate and diverse cases, and headquarters monitors district office dockets and rescinds 

authority when regional attorney discretion fails to 

maintain a successful litigation program.276

Further recognizing the limitations of enforcement agencies’ litigation programs, the Commission has made recommendations for using external 

resources. For instance, some EEOC district offices 

have developed attorney-referral programs for cases 

exceeding the agency’s budget or not defined as 

priorities. The Commission recommended that this 

practice continue and that EEOC’s legal staff be 

available to offer guidance to private attorneys and 

to collaborate with organizations such as the 

American Bar Association. However, not all individual cases should be referred to the private bar, 

including class cases and those that might further 

define the law, that have potential for broader impact, or that will aid an individual the private bar 

cannot or will not assist.277

As was mentioned earlier, not all agencies have 

the authority to litigate the charges that fall within 

273 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30, 56, 77–78, 136, 139–

40; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 231. 

274 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 204–05, 346; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 202, 265; USCCR, ADA 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 29, 136. 

275 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 29, 136. 

276 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 177, 284. 

277 Ibid., pp. 180–81, 284–85. 
39 

their enforcement jurisdiction. HUD is one such 

agency. The Commission views this as a detriment 

to full enforcement of fair housing laws and therefore has recommended that DOJ authorize HUD 

attorneys to pursue charges when DOJ disagrees 

with the substantive issue of the HUD charge. 

HUD attorneys should be authorized to handle litigation of elected charges, where appropriate.278 

Monitoring Compliance 

Monitoring compliance with settlement agreements and court rulings is critical to ensure enforcement. In its more recent reports, the 

Commission emphasized the need for systematic 

monitoring. It recommended that HHS’ OCR require monitoring for every complaint case resolved 

through early complaint resolution or predetermination settlement.279 OCR should conduct on-site 

monitoring of all cases resulting in findings of 

noncompliance and all cases ending in a resolution 

in which a recipient agrees to undertake corrective 

action. OCR should use testers in monitoring voluntary compliance agreements to ensure recipients 

are implementing the terms of these agreements.280

HHS should provide enforcement staff specific 

examples of monitoring activities appropriate for 

different kinds of compliance agreements.281 Similar recommendations were made to the Office for 

Civil Rights at DOEd.282 

COMPLIANCE FOR FUNDING RECIPIENTS

Compliance Reviews 

The Commission often found agencies lacking 

in their processes for conducting compliance reviews. Recommendations were issued that addressed pre-award reviews, post-award reviews, 

and sometimes both. Recommendations also addressed desk audits and on-site reviews. Note that 

either desk audits or site visits, or both, can be part 

of a pre-award or a post-award review. 

Major themes in the recommendations called 

for (1) implementing systems for thorough pre- 

 

 

278 USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 231–32. 

279 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 176–77, 337–38. 

280 Ibid., pp. 191–93, 342. 

281 Ibid., pp. 175–78, 327–28. 

282 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 206–07, 259–60. 

and post-award reviews; (2) establishing strategies 

to streamline the review process; (3) imposing reporting requirements on recipients and analyzing 

recipients’ reported information for possible discrimination; (4) identifying recipients to receive 

on-site reviews; and (5) monitoring the quality of 

enforcement efforts. 

Implementing Thorough Pre- and Post-award 

Compliance Reviews 

Commission studies have asked federal agencies to initiate compliance review systems for their 

funding recipients. In its review of Title VI enforcement, the Commission invoked all federal 

agencies to do so.283 Agencies must conduct thorough, in-depth pre-award284 and post-award285 reviews for all programs and recipients receiving 

federal funds.286

Pre- and post-award reviews must determine 

whether funding applicants and recipients are in 

compliance with Title VI.287 The Commission indicated that pre-award reviews must encompass 

more than merely checking to see that the recipient 

has submitted a signed assurance of nondiscrimination.288 Furthermore, post-award reviews must be a 

broad investigation of the recipient’s programs and 

practices.289 Desk audits should be capable of identifying for on-site reviews any recipients with 

questionable compliance.290 The information collected and reviewed in desk audits should include: 

283 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 650–56. 

284 Ibid., pp. 301, 306, 323, 362, 378–79, 396–97, 411, 429–

30, 446, 529–30, 531–32, 538; Health Care Report, Vol. II, 

pp. 41–42, 159, 239–45, 293, 329–30, 360. 

285 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 301, 307, 335, 

348, 363, 379, 397–98, 411, 495–97, 603–04, 608. The Commission advised certain agencies to establish a joint postaward compliance review process. USCCR, Transportation 

Report, pp. 1–12, 13, 15. 

286 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 362, 378–79, 

429–30, 446. 

287 Ibid., pp. 396–97, 411, 603, 608. 

288 Ibid., pp. 226–28, 242–43, 362, 378–79, 396–97, 411, 450, 

484–85, 494–95. 

289 Ibid., pp. 398–99, 411–12. 

290 Ibid., pp. 198, 214, 228, 281–82, 301–02, 315, 335, 363, 

379, 397, 430, 462, 485, 530–31, 535, 538–40, 547, 558, 572, 

584, 588, 591, 594, 601–02, 654–55. 
40 

 the recipient’s civil rights implementation and 

enforcement policies and activities;

 statistical evidence by racial and ethnic minorities on (a) the recipient’s staffing patterns, (b) 

program participation rates or beneficiaries, and 

(c) rejection rates; 

 applications or interview materials related to 

program participation or selection; 

 the demographic makeup of the program’s affected community or potential participants; 

 materials demonstrating efforts to educate the 

public and affected communities, particularly 

those with limited English proficiency;

 

 any discrimination complaints lodged against 

the applicant; and 

 any previous findings of compliance or noncompliance relating to the applicant.291 

For state recipients, the Commission recommended that, before granting funds, federal agencies assess states’ methods of administration as 

well as their annual reports or self-assessments of 

their recent Title VI enforcement.292 Agencies 

should assess whether the state conducted a preaward review of all subrecipients, the information 

considered in the reviews, the state’s letter of finding for any reviews, and any required corrective 

actions and whether the funding applicant or recipient agreed to implement them.293

In contrast to a desk audit, an on-site compliance 

review should involve interviews of funding recipient officials, the communities affected by the recipient’s programs or activities, and program 

participants or beneficiaries;294 review recipients’, 

particularly states’, data collection and analysis programs used to assess civil rights compliance;295 and 

provide written results with findings and recommendations for achieving compliance for the entity 

that was reviewed.296 It should identify deficiencies 

in recipients’ delivery of program services, inves291 Ibid., pp. 226–29, 233–34, 242–45, 248, 281–82, 289, 323, 

436–37, 450, 473, 499, 562–63, 567; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 62, 64–69, 78–91, 197–99, 203. 

292 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 362, 378–79. 

293 Ibid., pp. 280–82, 289. 

294 Ibid., pp. 229, 244–45, 336, 349, 398–99, 411–12, 430, 

432, 447–48, 495–96, 532, 538, 560–61, 565. 

295 Ibid., pp. 232, 246–47, 488, 497–98. 

296 Ibid., pp. 363, 379–80, 485, 495–96; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 269–70, 374–75. 

tigate allegations of discriminatory barriers to participation, evaluate recipients’ public education 

about program accessibility, and identify recipients 

needing technical assistance or further on-site investigation.297 The Commission did not regard a 

compliance review system as fully implemented if it 

did not have established procedures for conducting 

pre-award, post-award, and on-site compliance reviews or if the procedures were not applied.298 

Streamlining the Review Process 

While the Commission was urging agencies to 

review all recipients, it recognized the tension between the need to complete compliance reviews for 

all recipients and the additional resources that 

these reviews would require to have more depth 

and meaning. The Commission proposed that 

agencies find “strategies that will promote a meaningful and efficient pre-award process on as many 

applicants and recipients as possible....”299

Suggestions included increased (but not exclusive) 

reliance on desk audits rather than on-site reviews,300 delegating pre-award review responsibilities to more local agency components such as 

operating divisions,301 ensuring that at least recipients of major amounts of funding were reviewed,302

or reviewing every recipient periodically, say, once 

every three years.303

297 Ibid., pp. 485, 495–96. 

298 Ibid., pp. 196, 213, 301, 307, 397–98, 411, pp. 531, 538, 

595, 598, 603, 608; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 

41–42, 159, 293, 329–30; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, 

pp. 65–68, 134. 

299 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 485, 495. See 

also USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 162, 330–31. 

300 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 363, 379. 

301 Ibid., pp. 218–23, 240. 

302 Ibid., pp. 529–30, 538. 

303 Ibid., pp. 336, 349, 532, 538; USCCR, Health Care Report, 

Vol. I, pp. 78–91, 203. 
41 

Requiring Recipients to Submit Data on 

Compliance and Analyzing the Data 

Federal agencies should acquire a large portion 

of the information for their reviews of funding recipients by imposing annual (or even quarterly) 

reporting requirements that allow an evaluation of 

the equality among the recipients’ program participants and beneficiaries.304 These requirements 

should be imposed as a precondition to receiving 

grants305 and as support for post-award compliance 

reviews.306 The agencies must then analyze and use 

this information to improve enforcement or select 

recipients for on-site reviews.307 Better still, federal 

agencies should require recipients to submit annual 

self-assessments of their civil rights compliance 

that the federal agency can evaluate.308 The Commission said that state recipients should be required to submit details of how they will ensure 

compliance with Title VI and that federal agencies 

should collect data that allow them to assess the 

administration of state programs and implement an 

active state monitoring system.309

Targeting Recipients for On-site 

Compliance Reviews 

Because federal agencies have limited resources 

for conducting on-site compliance reviews of funding recipients, the Commission urged that they have 

methods of selecting recipients with potential civil 

 

ct them.316 

 304 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 280–

82, 289, 450, 484–85, 494–95, 588, 591, 595, 598; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 159, 162, 239–45, 329–31, 

360. 

305 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 484–85, 494–

95. 

306 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 531, 

538. 

307 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 

104–29, 197; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 198, 

213, 233–34, 247–48, 308, 398–99, 411–12, 467–68, 476, 

499, 514, 520, 531–32, 538, 588, 591, 605–06, 609. 

308 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 603–04, 608. 

309 Ibid., pp. 25, 87, 148, 178–81, 202–07, 215–16, 218–23, 

230–34, 240, 246–48, 260, 263, 272, 280–81, 283–87, 289, 291, 

303–05, 308, 315–22, 324, 336–37 339–40, 351, 364–68, 380, 

400–04, 413–14, 432, 435–37, 450, 464–65, 467–68, 476, 484–

85, 487–89, 494–95, 497–99, 513, 531, 535, 538–40, 549–50, 

560–63, 567, 572–76, 577–78, 582, 585, 588, 591, 595, 597–98, 

600, 603, 605–06, 609, 658, 665–66, 668–69. 

rights violations to receive the on-site reviews.310

Thus, recipients should be selected for on-site reviews using desk audits,311 input from advocacy 

groups and community organizations, and results 

from ongoing research.312 Other criteria the Commission suggested using were amount of funding or 

the size or complexity of the project.313 Recipients 

for on-site reviews could also be identified using 

priority civil rights issues,314 but the review should 

assess the recipient’s entire operation, not just 

compliance with respect to the priority issue.315

In at least some agencies, the Commission 

called for regional offices to conduct on-site 

compliance reviews because of their greater 

knowledge of, and proximity to, recipients in their 

areas. These agencies should annually plan the 

number of on-site reviews for regional offices to 

perform and ensure that they condu

The Commission found that some agencies 

were devoting insufficient resources to on-site reviews. It stressed that agencies should ensure sufficient resources for on-site reviews of funding 

recipients and states that perform civil rights enforcement activities. In some agencies, more funds, 

staff, or both should be provided to regional offices, to ensure that a lack of travel or other resources do not inhibit the completion of on-site 

reviews.317 However, where on-site reviews were 

conducted with insufficient detail, the Commission 

asked that resources be reallocated to conduct more 

desk audits so that all recipients would receive 

some review.318

310 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 65–68, 134; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 334; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229, 244–45, 301, 306, 430, 

447, 531–32, 538, 588, 591. 

311 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 603–04, 608. 

312 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 155–71, 283–84, 

333–34. 

313 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229, 244–45, 

301, 306, 430, 447, 495–96, 532, 538. See also USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 159, 162, 329–31. 

314 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 33–41, 127. 

315 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 201, 214. 

316 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36–39, 155–71, 

190–91, 283–84, 291–92, 341; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 531–32, 538. 

317 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 354–56, 374, 

549, 556; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 165, 332. 

318 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 463, 473–74. 
42 

Monitoring Civil Rights Enforcement 

The Commission issued recommendations concerned with monitoring the quality of the civil 

rights enforcement system. Agencies were advised 

to monitor the quality of their pre-award reviews in 

order to ensure recipient compliance,319 to evaluate 

the post-award compliance review process,320 and 

to periodically evaluate the quality of on-site reviews conducted by regional offices and states and 

to offer them any needed assistance.321 Recommendations charged agency headquarters offices 

with the responsibility of assessing the enforcement activities of their operating divisions and administrations.322

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions 

When deficiencies have been found, federal 

agencies are required to offer technical assistance 

to recipients to correct their deficiencies and obtain 

recipients’ agreement to voluntarily comply. The 

Commission asked that agencies monitor these 

agreements and urged the use of on-site investigations to do so. Thus, agencies were called upon to 

establish systems of regularly and uniformly monitoring all recipients’ commitments to corrective 

action to ensure that compliance is fully 

achieved.323 At the same time, the Commission 

asked the Department of Justice to require that federal agencies develop mechanisms to monitor voluntary compliance agreements; and to ensure that 

these follow-up mechanisms are in place and that 

the agencies offer recipients the needed technical 

assistance.324

Should voluntary compliance not be achieved, 

the Commission recommended that federal agencies 

make use of all enforcement options, such as fund 

termination and suspension, and notify 

DOJ/CRD/CORS of all such decisions so that 

CORS can assist the federal agencies with voluntary 

 

 

319 Ibid., pp. 334–35, 347, 450, 529–30, 538; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41–42, 162, 293, 330–31. 

320 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 336–37, 349. 

321 Ibid., pp. 281–82, 289–90, 531–32, 538. USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36–39, 155–71, 190–91, 283–84, 

291–92, 341. 

322 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 324, 514, 520. 

323 Ibid., pp. 230–31, 245, 364–65, 380, 487, 496. 

324 Ibid., pp. 87, 148. 

compliance efforts and prevent a termination action.325 Furthermore, it asked CORS to provide 

guidelines and examples for when an agency should 

seek fund termination or temporary suspension for 

noncomplying recipients.326 It also asked federal 

agencies to request additional resources to augment 

administrative sanctions in Title VI enforcement.327

OTHER ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT 

Training 

The Commission made several recommendations for improving staff training. It asked federal 

agencies to train new staff, and periodically retrain 

old staff, to establish, update, and deepen their 

knowledge of civil rights statutes and emerging 

issues. Every federal funding agency the Commission reviewed received a recommendation to regularly train staff on Title VI issues.328 

The Commission also called for training, particularly advanced training, on other civil rights 

statutes, including the ADA and Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972. EEOC,329 DOJ,330

and DOEd331 were asked to provide advanced 

training on the statutes they enforce. Commenting 

on Title IX enforcement, the Commission found 

that DOEd could improve its civil rights staff training by instructing staff on what constitutes a Title 

325 Ibid., pp. 87, 114, 148, 156, 202–03, 215, 432, 448. 

326 Ibid., pp. 87, 114, 148, 156. 

327 Ibid., pp. 550, 556. 

328 Ibid., pp. 119, 120–22, 157–58, 185–86, 193, 198, 203–06, 

213, 215–16, 218, 220–22, 224, 232–33, 239–40, 247, 262–

63, 272–75, 278–79, 285, 290, 292–94, 303–04, 308, 319, 

324, 325, 337–39, 350–51, 353, 359–61, 366, 368–69, 371–

72, 381, 383, 383, 385–86, 389–91, 393, 402–03, 407–09, 

413–14, 436–37, 450, 453, 466–67, 475–76, 478–80, 487–88, 

491, 497–98, 509–10, 513, 550, 586, 595–96, 597, 599, 614, 

627, 662; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 82–84, 127; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32–33, 44–47, 50–

51, 81–83, 167, 236–37, 255–62, 291, 294–95, 305, 333, 362–

64, 367–68. 

329 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 7–8, 52–53, 76, 81–83, 

91–99, 125–26, 246, 191–92, 262. Despite asking for more 

training, the Commission found that EEOC had an excellent 

ADA training manual. Ibid., pp. 62–65, 187–88, 217–20, 247, 

261, 267. 

330 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13–14, 134. 

331 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–26, 124. See 

also USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 133–37, 320. 
43 

IX violation and how compliance may be effected 

in specific circumstances.332

Some recommendations asked that regular and 

appropriate training be directed to certain types of 

staff or functions, such as training for investigative 

staff on investigative procedures and legal issues. 

EEOC, HHS, and HUD received such recommendations.333 For the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

the Commission suggested EEOC provide training 

for investigators,334 charge intake personnel,335

staff of state and local contractors that conduct enforcement activities (i.e., the Fair Employment 

Practices Agencies),336 and federal judges.337 The 

Commission asked DOJ to provide more advanced 

ADA training to trial attorneys to enhance their 

litigation skills.338

The Commission recommended that agencies 

develop training on civil rights enforcement generally339 and on specific topics, such as how to establish or carry out a memorandum of understanding 

with another agency for shared or delegated enforcement responsibilities, develop a voluntary 

compliance agreement,340 prioritize charges of discrimination for processing,341 apply principles of 

case resolution,342 perform analyses to identify discrimination,343 provide technical assistance to recipients,344 and coordinate outreach.345 

Finally, some recommendations directed agencies, particularly DOJ/CRD/CORS, to assume a 

leadership role in offering training and providing 

training resources. Because of DOJ’s oversight 

 

 

332 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 133–37, 320. 

333 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 159, 282; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32–33, 44–47, 175–78, 184, 236–37, 

249–55, 291, 295, 327–28, 339, 361, 367–68, 378. USCCR, 

Federal Fair Housing System, p. 33. 

334 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62–63, 247. 

335 Ibid., pp. 191–92, 217–20, 262, 267. 

336 Ibid., pp. 52–53, 246. 

337 Ibid., pp. 7–8, 76, 81–83, 91–99, 125–26. 

338 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13–14, 134. 

339 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 220–22, 239–

40; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 44–47, 295. 

340 Ibid., pp. 236–37, 239–55, 363, 367–68. 

341 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 117, 276. 

342 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 206–07, 259–60. 

343 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 187–88, 340–41. 

344 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 401, 412–13. 

345 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 229–30, 292. 

responsibilities of other federal agencies’ civil 

rights programs, the Commission asked CORS to 

establish (1) a civil rights training center at which a 

governmentwide approach to Title VI civil rights 

training could be developed346 and (2) a civil rights 

reference library where federal agencies could obtain information for developing their own civil 

rights training programs.347 Similarly, the federal 

agencies were asked to assume leadership of civil 

rights staff instruction for their own staff as well as 

those of their administrations or operating divisions.348 In turn, the administrations or operating 

divisions were asked to schedule more frequent 

training on civil rights activities with their headquarters agencies349 and to seek headquarters’ assistance in developing formal training modules to 

use in training civil rights staff.350 

Coordination Between Civil Rights Entities 

Commission recommendations asked federal 

agencies to start or enhance working relationships 

with their own internal offices and components, 

professional organizations involved in the enforcement process, other federal agencies, affected 

communities and advocacy groups, and state and 

local organizations and contractual organizations 

performing enforcement responsibilities on their 

behalf.351

346 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 119, 157–58. 

347 Ibid., pp. 120–22, 158. 

348 HHS’ Indian Health Service and the Administration on 

Aging were particularly in need of training. USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32–33, 235–39, 291, 363–64, 367–

68. See also ibid., pp. 44–47, 50–51, 167, 255–62, 294–95, 

333, 362–63; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 232–

33, 247. 

349 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 231–35, 364–65. 

350 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 534, 539. 

351 USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 264; see chaps. 4–7. 
44 

Internal Agency Offices and Components 

The Commission asked for better coordination 

and communication within agencies among units 

charged with different enforcement activities and 

between headquarters offices and administrations, 

operating divisions, and regional and field offices.352 For example, the Commission urged 

agency components to share or consolidate their 

efforts in developing training programs353 and 

technical assistance,354 and to coordinate in the 

development of policy and guidance355 and data 

collection and analysis systems356 that identify discrimination or determine inequalities in service. 

Coordination with other internal offices was particularly important for developing memoranda of 

understanding with operating divisions or administrations detailing the roles and responsibilities for 

enforcement activities.357 

Professional Organizations 

Federal agencies also need strong relationships 

with professional organizations and research 

groups.358 For example, through a relationship with 

 

 

352 See, e.g., USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84–91, 

205; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 81–83, 242–43, 

306, 368–69.

353 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 206, 232–33, 

262–63, 285, 303, 319, 339, 368–69, 402, 466–67, 488, 513, 

550, 552, 557, 586, 595–96, 662; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. 

II, pp. 7–8, 76, 81–83, 91–99, 125–26; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. III, pp. 65–67, 210–11. 

354 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65–67, 210–11. 

355 This included policy and guidance for compliance procedures as well as interpretations of discrimination in the context of specific programs. For the former, see, e.g., USCCR, 

ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53–56, 246; USCCR, Health Care 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 105–07, 312–13; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 165–68, 248–49; USCCR, Education Report, 

Vol. V, pp. 50–54, 130–31. For the latter, see USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65–67, 210–11; USCCR, Civil Rights 

Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 206; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. IV, pp. 72–74; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. 

II, pp. 324–31, 400–01. 

356 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 451. 

357 See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 261, 

271. 

358 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 48–49 81–83, 

305; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84–91, 170, 

206–07, 224; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14–26, 

60–65, 124, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 255–

57, 390. Note that DOEd had established a good working 

relationship with the National Academy of Sciences, Board on 

the American Bar Association, EEOC staff was 

able to offer guidance to private attorneys handling 

employment litigation and enhance its training on 

emerging civil rights issues.359 The Commission 

suggested relationships could be improved through 

staff exchange programs.360 

Other Federal Agencies 

The Commission noted that civil rights enforcement could be enhanced through better communication among federal agencies, perhaps 

through an interagency coordinating council.361

Federal agencies should coordinate with one another, first because of overlapping jurisdictions for 

civil rights enforcement. When jurisdictions overlap, federal agencies need to coordinate with each 

other on all types of compliance activities, such as 

by developing policy and performing compliance 

reviews362 and on education and outreach and developing litigation strategies.363 To facilitate coordination among federal agencies, the Commission 

invoked agencies to maintain a centralized database on their Title VI enforcement efforts and responsibilities concerning recipients, thus allowing 

them to know when overlap exists—that is, when 

recipients were receiving funds from more than 

one federal agency.364 A second reason the Commission asked federal agencies to establish better 

communication was so that they could take advanTesting and Assessment concerned with the validation of tests, 

and with other professional groups regarding standard definitions for disabilities. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 

157, 380, 382. 

359 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 180–81, 284–85; USCCR, 

ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62–65, 247. 

360 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 249. 

361 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223, 251–53, 

331, 356–61, 392, 457–59, 482, 633; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. I, pp. 154, 250. 

362 USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1–12, 13, 15; USCCR, 

Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 17–18, 48–49, 60–62, 115–

27, 133–37, 279–80, 283, 317–20; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 77–78, 194–95. 

363 The named agencies included DOEd, DOL, DOJ, EEOC, 

HHS, HUD, and SBA. See USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, 

pp. 94, 143, USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 32–38, 40–41, 52–53, 

267, 269; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 6–7, 121, 202–07, 

243, 265; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 231; 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 465, 474–75. 

364 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 465, 575, 617–

18. 
45 

tage of the exemplary aspects of one another’s enforcement programs in improving their own efforts.365 

Affected Community Organizations and 

Advocacy Groups 

The Commission asked for increased involvement of community organizations and advocacy 

groups in enforcement programs.366 As part of this 

effort, it asked federal agencies to regularly solicit 

comments and suggestions on Title VI enforcement efforts from the affected communities and 

recipients.367 Underserved populations,368 including rural and immigrant communities369 and Native 

Americans and Alaskan Natives,370 were groups 

that should be consulted. 

State and Local Agencies 

State and local organizations were other groups 

with which federal agencies should form partnerships to obtain information and enhance data collection on programs, program modifications, and 

services that are needed as well as on state and local initiatives that may prove effective in providing 

more equitable opportunities and benefits to minority groups and women.371 

EEOC and HUD contract with state and local 

organizations to perform enforcement activities 

such as complaint investigations. The Commission 

asked both agencies to coordinate more with those 

that perform complaint investigations under contract. Training needs, the prioritization of charges, 

 

 

365 Ibid., pp. 198, 203–04, 215, 258–59, 359–60, 383, 639, 

665–67. 

366 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 38–40, 239–40, 266, 293–94; 

USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, p. 268, and chap. 7; USCCR, 

Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 208–09, 260; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 169–70, 335–36; USCCR, Health 

Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52–55, 77–78, 194–95. 

367 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 231–32, 245–46; 

USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 269–70, 374–75. 

368 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 250–52, 296. 

369 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 102–03, 209. 

370 USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 242–43, 368–69. 

371 Ibid., pp. 153–55, 325–26; USCCR, Health Care Report, 

Vol. I, pp. 170, 181–84, 224, 225–26; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. II, pp. 122–23, 134, 255–57, 269–83, 285–87, 

320–22, 377, 380, 390, 392–94, 398; USCCR, Education 

Report, Vol. III, pp. 192, 229–30. 

and the quality of investigations were areas in 

which EEOC needed more communication.372

HUD needed greater involvement with state and 

local organizations to ensure that they were certified to perform enforcement functions.373 At the 

same time, HUD was asked to expand its outreach 

by having state and local agencies that are not under contract to the agency inform tenants of their 

civil rights and remedies under federal law, including the option of filing a complaint to HUD.374 

Additional Data and Research on Civil Rights 

Enforcement 

The collection of additional data and further research on enforcement, such as disparities in educational opportunities, in job patterns, and in health 

services, was a concern of the Commission expressed throughout its reports. In education, additional data collection and research were needed on 

the disparate participation of different groups in 

various education programs,375 achieving a genderneutral education system,376 gender differences in 

course selection377 and the use of technology,378

students with disabilities and their needs,379 and 

children with limited English proficiency.380

372 USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 201–02, 286–87; USCCR, 

ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 52–53, 246. 

373 USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34. 

374 Ibid., p. 33. 

375 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 34–44, 128. 

376 Ibid., pp. 33–41, 52, 70–74, 127, 131–32, 137. 

377 Ibid., pp. 23–26, 123, 128. 

378 Ibid., pp. 96–99, 144. 

379 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 67–91, 370–72. 

380 USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 250; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 27–30, 209, USCCR, Civil Rights 

Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 68–103, 194. 
46 

CHAPTER 3 

Findings and Recommendations

This volume described the civil rights enforcement of federal agencies the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights has studied in the past decade as a first 

step in determining the progress those agencies 

have made in furthering their enforcement efforts. 

No information was analyzed beyond that contained in the 16 volumes of enforcement reports 

the Commission issued in the 1990s. Later reports 

in the series will review individual agencies and 

give recommendations based on their enforcement 

achievements. Nonetheless, the review of past reports has revealed areas in which the need for improvement was often widespread. Thus, a number 

of general recommendations are offered here. The 

recommendations that follow emphasize key aspects of civil rights enforcement that agencies 

should follow. Agencies that have not responded to 

recommendations the Commission has issued to 

them, agencies that the Commission has not reviewed, and agencies that are tasked with new civil 

rights responsibilities requiring the design and implementation of enforcement systems will benefit 

from using these recommendations to direct or 

evaluate their efforts. 

Past Commission reports have continuously 

stressed important elements of civil rights enforcement. Without establishing priority of civil 

rights and gaining sufficient funding and staffing, 

federal agencies will struggle to even implement a 

civil rights enforcement system. However, once the 

priority of civil rights is recognized and resources 

are provided, the agency must implement civil 

rights planning, policy guidance and regulations, 

technical assistance, education and outreach, a 

complaint processing system, a compliance review 

system for federal funding recipients, and staff 

training. The Commission finds that enforcement 

efforts are fragmented without each of these elements. The preceding chapter provided detailed 

recommendations regarding the elements, highlights of which follow. 

Over the decade the Commission’s recommendations regarding civil rights enforcement matured, 

partly as enforcement systems themselves developed. This review reveals that apart from the basic 

components of civil rights enforcement, superior 

enforcement systems were maximizing effectiveness and efficiency of civil rights enforcement by 

integrating it throughout the agency, delegating 

responsibility, establishing oversight for others 

performing civil rights responsibilities, coordinating civil rights enforcement activities with other 

federal agencies, streamlining them, and involving 

the affected community in their development. 

Thus, the recommendations that follow raise the 

standard for effective civil rights enforcement beyond that asked of many federal agencies in the 

Commission’s past reports. 

1. PRIORITY GIVEN TO CIVIL RIGHTS 

ENFORCEMENT

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 1.1: Commission reviews of civil 

rights implementation, compliance, and enforcement programs at several federal agencies over the 

past decade revealed a system that was often unequal to the task. The greatest hindrances to fulfilling the civil rights obligations were insufficient 

funding and inefficient, thus ineffective, use of 

available funds. 

Recommendation 1.1: Congress should allocate more funding and resources to agencies for 

civil rights enforcement activities. Several federal 

agencies have increased civil rights enforcement 

responsibilities owing to jurisdiction over new 

civil rights statutes but are expected to enhance 

their civil rights efforts with insufficient funding. 
47 

Civil rights enforcement requires funding sufficient to the tasks at hand and maintenance at a 

level that is not eroded by inflation or increased 

enforcement responsibilities. The Commission established in its evaluations of civil rights enforcement funding that after adjusting for inflation, none 

of the civil rights offices had received continuous 

increases in funding during the past nine years.1

 

Organizational Structure to Meet 

Civil Rights Goals

Finding 1.2: Civil rights programs at federal 

agencies were often void of clear authority, responsibility, and accountability. Whether authority 

for civil rights activities was centralized in one 

office or distributed throughout several, civil rights 

personnel often had no direct line of authority to 

the Department Secretary or agency head. The organizational placement of the office and staff in 

charge of civil rights often impaired the staff’s 

ability to gain the funding and resources needed to 

carry out the office mission and failed to provide 

the office the authority to ensure that civil rights 

concerns were fully integrated into all departmental or agency programs. Civil rights staff was frequently encumbered with both internal (EEO) and 

external civil rights responsibilities, with resources 

moved between them and no protection to ensure 

that any particular civil rights statute was enforced. 

Recommendation 1.2: Federal agencies should 

ensure that civil rights enforcement is given priority through the organizational structure for civil 

rights, allocation of resources and staffing, and 

efforts to integrate civil rights into every component of the agency. At the same time, the implementation, compliance, and enforcement of 

external civil rights programs should be directed 

by an office and staff that are separate from the 

office and staff responsible for internal (EEO) civil 

rights functions. Accordingly, these offices and 

staff should be provided with separate budgets so 

that each and every civil rights statute is properly 

enforced without resources being taken from one 

to enforce another. 

 

1 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal 

Civil Rights Enforcement, June 1995; Funding Federal Civil 

Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001; and 

Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000–2003, April 

2002. 

Strategic Planning With Civil Rights 

Objectives 

Finding 1.3: Federal agencies’ strategic planning to accomplish civil rights goals and objectives 

needed improvement. The Department of Justice 

requires all agencies with financial assistance programs to submit civil rights implementation plans 

(CRIPs) for review; however, the plans were often 

vague in detailing the civil rights activities, such as 

technical assistance and education and outreach, 

that were to be conducted and in specifying timeframes for their accomplishment. Although the 

implementation of the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) required all federal agencies to begin preparing strategic plans 

with goals, performance measures, and timeframes 

in which to address them, civil rights goals and 

objectives were not required in the strategic plans 

developed under GPRA. Many of the Commission’s past recommendations asked that CRIPs be 

improved to include goals, measures of performance, and timeframes for accomplishing various 

civil rights activities. Federal agencies also had to 

proactively assist and oversee the development of 

strategic plans by those units performing civil 

rights activities, including the development of civil 

rights implementation plans adhering to Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines. Finally, federal 

agencies had to realistically assess the budget and 

staff resources needed for civil rights implementation, compliance, and enforcement. 

Recommendation 1.3: First, all federal agencies should include civil rights objectives and goals 

in their strategic plans. These objectives should 

specify the agency’s responsibilities for enforcing 

all applicable civil rights statutes and specify goals, 

performance measures, and timeframes for fulfilling the responsibilities of each statute as well as 

the resources necessary to do so. 

Second, federal agencies with Title VI responsibilities should enhance civil rights implementation plans and ensure that they conform to DOJ 

guidelines. Plans should clearly and fully describe 

implementation, compliance, and enforcement 

programs; specify goals and objectives and the period for achieving them; and realistically detail all 

available resources, such as staff and funding, for 

meeting civil rights obligations, so that they may 

be used as an effective management tool. Plans 

should also specify the extent to which civil rights 
48 

activities, such as technical assistance, education 

and outreach, policy guidance, and the enforcement of statutes, are conducted. 

Third, federal agencies should proactively assist 

and oversee the development of strategic plans or 

CRIPs by those units having civil rights responsibilities. Finally, federal agencies should consult 

with stakeholders, advocacy groups, and other pertinent parties in developing strategic plans so that 

the concerns of affected communities are addressed through civil rights enforcement. 

Management of Enforcement Through 

Tracking of Civil Rights Activities 

Finding 1.4: Although some federal agencies 

were able to report the number of complaints processed or compliance reviews completed during the 

fiscal year, many were unable to provide detailed 

information on the full range of civil rights enforcement activities that were accomplished each 

year, particularly technical assistance and education and outreach. Furthermore, the agencies were 

unable to relate the various types of enforcement 

activities or the statutes these activities were designed to enforce to the amount of resources expended for or needed to complete these tasks. 

Budget submissions requesting more resources for 

civil rights enforcement from departmental appropriations or from Congress would be strengthened 

with justifications that tied additional funds and 

staff to expected increases in the number and types 

of civil rights activities that could be accomplished 

and to the need to provide civil rights enforcement 

across all civil rights statutes. 

Recommendation 1.4: Federal agencies must 

implement or enhance their systems of tracking 

their workload, accomplishments of civil rights 

enforcement activities, and expenditures. They 

must use a management information system to prepare annual civil rights enforcement plans with 

goals and objectives in each program area, assign 

specific resources to accomplish them, conduct 

ongoing analyses of resource allocation to support 

increasingly accurate budget submissions, and justify requests for additional resources according to 

the number and types of civil rights enforcement 

activities that will be accomplished and the need 

for broader coverage of civil rights statutes to fulfill the agency’s civil rights obligations. 

2. DISSEMINATION OF POLICY THROUGH GUIDANCE,

REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, 

EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLICITY

Policy Guidance 

Finding 2.1: Federal agencies’ civil rights staff 

were encumbered with far too many civil rights 

responsibilities. Not only were staff members expected to perform compliance and enforcement 

duties but they were also required to develop civil 

rights policy. The end result of this overtasking 

was that very little time and energy were left for 

successful work in any area. The slow development of Title VI regulations, guidelines, policies, 

and procedures was cited as an example of the 

overburdensome multitasking required of civil 

rights staff at most federal agencies. Similarly, 

both internal and external procedural and policy 

guidance development and distribution were found 

inadequate at most federal funding agencies. Federal agencies had failed to develop policy guidance 

interpreting civil rights obligations as they apply to 

each and every federally assisted program. Moreover, many federal agencies were not addressing 

substantive issues, such as limited English proficiency or disability issues, when developing policy. Finally, policy development efforts at nearly 

all federal agencies neglected to seek the input of 

community and advocacy groups, resulting in civil 

rights policies poorly geared to assisting the individuals for whom they were developed. 

Recommendation 2.1: Federal agencies should 

establish policy development units with staff 

members who are free of civil rights compliance 

and enforcement responsibilities and thus able to 

direct their full attention to developing and issuing 

civil rights standards and policies. Policy development units should have the authority and responsibility to modify and maintain regulations, 

guidelines, policies, and procedures. The policy 

unit should (1) regularly develop or update both 

internal guidance on enforcement procedures and 

external policies, including policy related to issues 

such as state recipients’ obligations under Title VI, 

the application of Title VI to block grants, and disabilities and limited English proficiency; (2) oversee and assist with all aspects of the agency’s 

policy development and dissemination for civil 

rights enforcement among divisions and field offices and ensure that policy is interpreted specific 
49 

to every federally assisted program; (3) ensure 

policies and procedures are consistently interpreted 

in agency components; (4) involve community and 

advocacy groups in the development of policy 

guidance, guidelines, and regulations; and (5) ensure the regular and timely dissemination of all 

policy to appropriate audiences. Policy units 

should be provided the necessary legal staff to perform the legal work required for developing policy 

related to civil rights enforcement. 

Finding 2.2: The Commission identified a 

number of civil rights issues that federal agencies 

needed to address. They included such issues as 

promoting diversity and cultural competency and 

overcoming the barrier of limited English proficiency. In short, federal agencies were not promoting an atmosphere of understanding among ethnic 

and racial groups nor were they ensuring that federally funded programs were equally available to 

all groups, including minorities and women, by 

overcoming cultural and language barriers. Federal 

agencies were also failing to verify whether work 

and educational environments were free of sexual 

discrimination and harassment. Lastly, federal 

agencies needed to collect additional data and expand research on substantive areas of enforcement, 

such as job patterns and health needs. 

Recommendations 2.2: Federal agencies 

should promote an atmosphere of understanding 

among ethnic and racial groups throughout society. 

They should design programs to overcome cultural 

and language barriers as well as harassment. To do 

so, agencies should consult with advocacy groups 

and community organizations and include them in 

the process of developing policy and planning civil 

rights enforcement activities such as education and 

outreach. Finally, federal agencies should regularly 

collect and analyze additional data from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 

other sources. They must expand research on substantive areas of enforcement, such as disparities in 

educational opportunities, job patterns, and health 

needs, to identify areas of discrimination that can 

be subjected to civil rights enforcement. 

Updating Regulations 

Finding 2.3: Federal agencies had been negligent in updating regulations in order to stay abreast 

of pertinent new legislation. In particular, the Departments of Labor and Transportation had not updated them in light of the Civil Rights Restoration 

Act of 1987 that extended the applicability of Title 

VI to all parts of an institution or program, not just 

the part receiving the federal assistance. Furthermore, DOJ, through CRD and CORS, was lax in 

reviewing and assisting federal agencies in updating their regulations to be in accord with new civil 

rights legislation and in informing Congress when 

new regulations had negative consequences for 

civil rights. Similarly, federal agencies were not 

assisting their subagencies in issuing and updating 

regulatory guidelines to enforce civil rights. 

Recommendation 2.3: Federal agencies should 

regularly update regulations to reflect changes in 

pertinent legislation. In particular, all regulations 

should be updated to reflect the broader coverage 

of Title VI since the Civil Rights Restoration Act 

was passed. Federal agencies should ensure that 

their subagencies have regulatory guidelines in 

conformance with current civil rights statutes. 

DOJ, through CRD and CORS, should periodically review the regulations of all agencies with 

Title VI responsibilities and ensure that these regulations are updated when changes in legislation or 

its interpretation occur. DOJ should also enhance 

its process of reviewing proposed legislation concerning civil rights or federal financial assistance 

programs and inform Congress of any civil rights 

consequences. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.4: Several federal agencies did not 

have programs to provide either internal or external technical assistance. Furthermore, many agencies that did provide technical assistance had not 

formalized their efforts, thus hindering their effectiveness and the number of individuals reached. In 

addition, federal agencies were not taking full advantage of on-site compliance reviews by offering 

funding recipients technical assistance during these 

face-to-face meetings. External technical assistance 

to parallel agencies and offices sharing jurisdiction 

was similarly lacking and, with improvement, may 

have eliminated overlapping efforts that resulted in 

wasted human and monetary resources. Finally, 

federal agencies were not tracking, or even able to 

track, the resources expended for technical assistance. 

Recommendation 2.4: Federal agencies should 

establish formal technical assistance programs. They 
50 

should provide regular, perhaps annual or semiannual, events providing technical assistance for both 

internal units, such as field offices and contracting 

agencies, and external audiences. Technical assistance should also be provided as needed to address 

unique individual situations or noncompliance of 

funding recipients. In particular, technical assistance 

should be provided to funding recipients when 

conducting on-site compliance reviews. 

Federal agencies should attempt to involve representatives of other federal agencies, particularly 

those with parallel jurisdiction that may be funding 

the same recipients, in their technical assistance 

events so that federal staff as well as those compelled to comply with civil rights laws and the 

public become aware of overlapping jurisdictions 

and so that federal staff can plan coordinated enforcement efforts that conserve resources. 

Agencies should formalize their technical assistance programs so that they can track the types of 

technical assistance provided, the number of persons 

reached through technical assistance, and resources 

expended on it. The agencies should also consider 

assigning full-time coordinators to headquarters staff 

to monitor and coordinate technical assistance, education, and outreach activities in regional offices that 

perform civil rights enforcement. 

Education and Outreach to Potential Victims, 

Violators, and the Public 

Finding 2.5: Federal agencies had weak or 

nonexistent education and outreach programs that 

failed to clearly designate the responsibilities of 

agency components. They were not ensuring that 

education and outreach programs were available to 

all affected communities. Existing education and 

outreach programs sometimes neglected to address 

specific audiences and their specialized needs, and 

frequently provided information only in English, 

thus excluding individuals not fully proficient in 

English or non-English speakers. Lastly, federal 

agencies were not carefully crafting education and 

outreach to reach their intended program beneficiaries or making use of new technological innovations such as the Internet. 

Recommendation 2.5: Federal agencies should 

implement or improve education and outreach programs that designate the specific responsibilities of 

individual agency components, establish clear and 

realistic goals and objectives, and hold components 

accountable for reaching them. They should ensure 

that civil rights information is readily available to 

all parties, including funding recipients, program 

participants, intended beneficiaries, potential victims of discrimination and violators, the public 

and, where appropriate, specific audiences such as 

attorneys, small businesses, and persons with limited English proficiency. Hence, federal agencies 

should develop and disseminate civil rights information in English and other languages. Lastly, federal agencies should creatively design education 

and outreach to best reach intended program beneficiaries using innovative resources, including but 

not limited to, the Internet. 

3. COMPLAINT PROCESSING AND LITIGATION

Complaint Handling and Intake 

Finding 3.1: Reviewing complaints of discrimination is an important aspect of any civil 

rights enforcement program. In examining federal 

agencies’ complaint processing, particularly that of 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

the Commission found that both charging parties 

and the recipients of their complaints considered 

the charge intake and investigative processes bewildering. Charging parties did not always find 

complaint policies and procedures to be accessible 

to them. They received limited information about 

the merits of their complaints and the probability 

that their charges would be investigated. Finally, 

complaint processing, investigation, and/or resolution of charges required a very long time. 

Recommendation 3.1: Federal agencies need 

to dramatically improve their customer service in 

handling complaints. They must improve the 

charge intake process and promulgate its policies 

and procedures in order to increase its accessibility 

to charging parties. Federal agencies must provide 

charging parties more information on the status of 

their charges, the merits of the case, and information on the probability that their charge will be investigated. The time for charge processing must be 

reduced. Agencies must establish standards for 

dismissing complaints, provide written communication of their decisions regarding complaints, 

provide for an appeals process for charges that are 

dismissed without investigation, and assist in directing complainants to external organizations that 

can assist them. 
51 

To make filing a complaint more accessible, 

federal agencies should consider such customer 

service techniques as expanding office hours to 

include evenings and weekends and establishing 

intake booths at convenient locations such as malls 

and community centers. They should consider extending the time allotted to charging parties for 

submission of required information; making enforcement staff more accessible to charging parties; increasing the quality and quantity of 

interaction with charging parties and respondents 

in order to more readily gather necessary information and provide information on the status of the 

charge; assessing why many complaints never become formal charges; and enhancing the interaction and communication skills of complaint intake 

staff. They should reassess intake functions on a 

continual basis and use customer satisfaction surveys to obtain feedback from complainants. 

Federal agencies should ensure that their complaint intake process will direct individuals with 

civil rights complaints outside their jurisdiction to 

the agencies or nongovernmental organizations 

that may be able to assist them. Agencies should 

buttress this effort by maintaining referral lists of 

organizations and advocacy groups for individuals 

they cannot help. All agency civil rights components should implement this program consistently 

and ensure that it remains consistent. 

Finding 3.2: Complaints took a long time to resolve, and complaint backlogs and large caseloads 

contributed to the lengthy time agencies took to 

resolve them. 

Recommendation 3.2: Federal agencies must 

reduce and avoid complaint backlogs and process 

complaints in a timely fashion. To do so, they 

should develop management plans that will permit 

them to eliminate backlogs by efficiently, thoroughly, and properly processing complaints. These 

plans should implement procedures to streamline 

processing and yet ensure that complaints with the 

largest impact are pursued. Thus, agencies should 

develop charge-prioritization procedures, similar to 

those EEOC uses, with clearly defined methods of 

prioritizing charges for further processing. Highpriority charges should include those with the most 

grievous discrimination, those affecting the most 

people (such as systemic and class cases), those 

that will result in the largest monetary relief, or 

those that will clarify the interpretation of law. The 

charge-prioritizing methods must be clearly defined and systematically applied so that the resources expended on every investigation can be 

justified. 

Complaint processing may also be streamlined 

by training complaint intake staff to begin the initial stages of an investigation and fully develop 

charges before referring cases to other enforcement 

staff. If charge processing time cannot be reduced, 

the agency should conduct an internal audit to determine why charges are not processed more rapidly. 

Finding 3.3: Federal agencies were not clearly 

delineating the duties, such as goals and responsibilities, of every office and individual processing 

complaints. Furthermore, federal agencies were not 

properly training individuals responsible for processing complaints nor were they systematically 

developing and issuing procedures for this activity. 

Recommendation 3.3: Federal agencies should 

clearly delineate the duties, such as goals and responsibilities, of every office and individual responsible for complaint processing. They should 

ensure that the civil rights personnel processing 

complaints are properly trained for such activity. 

Complaint Investigation 

Finding 3.4: Federal agencies also failed to develop and promulgate procedures for conducting 

complaint investigations and to provide model investigative plans for priority issues, with the result 

that regional offices lacked uniformity in complaint investigations. Furthermore, staff members 

were not issuing investigative plans for all charges, 

if at all, so that enforcement managers or supervisory investigators were not able to review the investigative process for accuracy, thoroughness, and 

consistency. In many instances, when investigative 

plans were issued they needed to be improved. The 

quality of investigations was further compromised 

by the infrequency of on-site investigations and the 

lack of guidance offered to investigative staff during the investigation. Finally, there was no standard guideline for the timeframe within which the 

investigative process should be completed. 

Recommendation 3.4: Federal agencies should 

systematically develop and issue complaint processing and investigation procedures that clearly 

establish the process of handling complaints and 

indicate the types of information needed to support 
52 

a finding. Model investigative plans should be developed and issued for each priority issue as a 

method of ensuring uniformity across regional enforcement offices. Investigative staff must consult 

and follow the written guidance for investigative 

procedures. Those procedures must establish a standard timeframe for initiating and concluding the 

stages of an investigation. Finally, federal agencies 

should initiate more on-site investigations. 

Finding 3.5: Quality assurance reviews of the 

complaint or charge handling process were rarely 

initiated to ensure accountability or consistency 

across field offices and contractual organizations. 

In complaint investigations, contacts with witnesses were not uniformly tracked and written reports on complaints and investigations were not 

always provided. 

Recommendation 3.5: Agency head offices 

should develop guidelines for mandatory quality 

assurance review procedures of charge handling, 

including investigations, across field offices, to 

increase enforcement staff accountability. They 

should authorize trained staff to regularly conduct 

quality assurance reviews of case files to assess 

whether an investigator used the proper analyses in 

reaching a conclusion. When reviews reveal that a 

case was conducted superficially or improperly, it 

should be reopened and reinvestigated. If a federal 

agency prefers, it can hire independent external 

auditors to review case files and make a determination as to the accuracy of the investigation. 

The guidelines agencies develop should require 

charge review at various stages of development, 

such as after initial assessment, during investigation, and upon issuance of a determination. They 

should require that regional and district offices uniformly track witness contact so that investigators 

are held accountable for the thoroughness of their 

work. 

All organizations, such as state agencies, conducting investigations must be required to submit a 

written report on each complaint and investigation. 

Agency-Initiated Charges 

Finding 3.6: Federal agencies did not have 

strategies for proactive enforcement and needed to 

intensify efforts to target cases not easily reached 

via individual complaints. 

Recommendation 3.6: Federal agencies should 

improve or develop strategies for proactive enforcement and intensify efforts to target cases not 

easily reached through individual complaints. First, 

they should ensure that they have the legislated 

authority to pursue cases in the absence of a complaint. Second, they should use tools such as 

analyses of statistical data, testing, and contact 

with community organizations to identify discrimination, including systemic discrimination. 

Complaint Resolution: Dismissals, 

Conciliation, and Litigation 

Finding 3.7: Federal agencies were not always 

notifying involved parties regarding the outcome 

of complaints via comprehensive and lucid letters 

of determination or finding. 

Recommendation 3.7: Federal agencies should 

notify all concerned parties—including both complainant and respondent—of the outcome of a 

complaint via a comprehensive and clear letter of 

determination or letter of finding. 

Finding 3.8: Federal agencies were not always 

making the most or best use of alternate dispute 

resolution techniques, such as mediation or conciliation. Concerned parties were not always informed about alternative dispute resolution or 

about the consequences involved with these and 

other types of resolution. 

Recommendation 3.8: Federal agencies should 

begin or increase use of mediation, conciliation, or 

other alternative dispute resolution techniques. At 

the same time, these types of resolution should 

only be used when appropriate and when the respondent agrees to change the policies or procedures that might have a discriminatory effect. 

Finding 3.9: Federal agencies did not have litigation strategies. They did not view litigation as a 

central enforcement strategy and were not developing litigation strategies to address important or 

emergent issues. They often were not delegating 

litigation authority to field office staff, or if they did, 

were not monitoring the appropriateness and diversity of cases on district office dockets. Further, they 

were not making appropriate use of an attorneyreferral system to assist complainants in pursuing 

charges that, because they were more routine or of 

lesser import, could not be handled by the federal 

enforcement system. Finally, federal agencies were 

not always pursuing benefits on behalf of charging 

parties and were not involving the affected communities in developing their litigation strategies. 
53 

Recommendation 3.9: Federal agencies should 

make litigation central to an enforcement strategy 

and develop a litigation strategy that addresses important or emerging issues. Affected communities 

and advocacy groups should have input into the 

litigation strategy. 

To make the most of their budget constraints, 

agencies’ litigation strategies should consider (1) 

delegating litigation authority to field office staff 

or to agencies or offices with parallel jurisdiction 

and (2) developing an attorney-referral system and 

criteria for identifying cases to be referred to the 

private bar. If litigation authority is delegated, federal agencies should monitor the dockets of units 

that handle delegated litigation to ensure that the 

cases being litigated are the most appropriate as 

well as diverse. Similarly, if an attorney-referral 

system is used, the charges to be referred should 

include those that do not concern the priority issues established in the litigation strategy and those 

that are less important because the discrimination 

is less grievous or the outcome will not have broad 

impact in terms of the number of people or the 

monetary relief it entails. Finally, the litigation 

strategy should include obtaining benefits for 

complainants as an important outcome. 

Monitoring Compliance 

Finding 3.10: In many instances, federal agencies were not actively monitoring the current status 

of respondents to complaints that were resolved 

with settlements agreements and court rulings. Furthermore, litigation was not being used as a 

method of ensuring compliance or addressing conciliation breaches. 

Recommendation 3.10: Federal agencies 

should strengthen compliance monitoring of existing decrees and agreements and use litigation as a 

method of ensuring compliance or addressing conciliation breaches. They should provide enforcement staff with specific examples of monitoring 

activities appropriate for the various kinds of compliance agreements. For example, they may wish to 

use testers to ensure that recipients are meeting the 

terms of their compliance agreement. 

4. COMPLIANCE FOR FUNDING RECIPIENTS

Compliance Reviews 

Pre-award Reviews 

Finding 4.1: In ensuring that recipients of federal funding were complying with civil rights statutes requiring nondiscrimination, several federal 

agencies were relying on the good-faith effort of 

funding applicants, who submit certificates of assurance of their compliance. The agencies were not 

conducting pre-award reviews of all applicants for 

funding assistance. They were not requiring applicants to submit data that could be used to analyze 

their compliance, or self-assessments of such data 

concerning civil rights compliance. 

Recommendation 4.1: Federal agencies should 

require all recipients to acknowledge, sign, and 

adhere to a certificate of assurance. However, a 

signed assurance of discrimination by a recipient is 

merely a first step in ensuring the equal participation of all groups in publicly funded programs. 

Federal agencies must supplement this with a preaward review system. 

Federal agencies must implement pre-award review systems that perform at least desk audits on 

all applicants for federal funding. These systems 

must impose requirements on funding applicants to 

report statistical evidence and to provide a selfassessment of civil rights compliance, which the 

federal agencies must then analyze. The reported 

information must include data by race, ethnicity, 

and gender on the applicant’s staffing patterns; 

program participation rates or beneficiaries, and 

rejection rates; the demographic makeup of the 

program’s affected community or pool of potential 

participants; and the outcomes of all federal agencies’ previous findings of civil rights compliance 

or noncompliance concerning the applicant; and 

other information. Federal agencies must analyze 

this information and either not fund any applicants 

with deficiencies or provide technical assistance to 

the applicant to achieve compliance before providing funding. 

Post-award Reviews 

Finding 4.2: Similar to the situation with preaward reviews, federal agencies were conducting 

very few, if any, post-award reviews of funding 

recipients. They did not have effective post-award 
54 

systems or procedures in place or the reviews were 

not sufficiently thorough to identify recipients with 

questionable compliance. Many of the agencies 

had failed to require recipients to submit annual 

reports containing statistical evidence and selfassessments that could be analyzed in a desk audit 

to determine their civil rights compliance. Nor did 

the agencies have effective means of selecting 

funding recipients with questionable compliance to 

receive on-site reviews. Post-award reviews that 

were completed often did not have written findings 

and recommendations. 

Recommendation 4.2: Federal agencies should 

implement post-award desk-audit programs to review recipients annually for Title VI compliance. 

They should impose reporting requirements on 

recipients and analyze recipients’ information and 

self-assessments in the desk audits. The systems 

should use the information in the desk audits to 

select recipients with existing or potential civil 

rights violations for on-site compliance reviews. 

Criteria for selecting recipients for on-site reviews 

should be uniformly applied and include analyses 

performed in the desk audits, complaints of discrimination filed with the agency, statistical data 

on a funding recipient’s beneficiaries, input from 

advocacy groups and community organizations, and 

results from an ongoing program of research projects. Recipients with existing violations should be 

selected first for on-site compliance reviews. Finally, when post-award reviews are completed, federal agencies should produce written results of the 

findings and recommendations for achieving recipient compliance and provide them to the recipient. 

Requiring Recipients to Submit Data on 

Compliance and Analyzing the Data 

Finding 4.3: Federal agencies were not requiring recipients to submit annual data on program 

participants and beneficiaries or self-evaluations of 

their civil rights compliance. What data recipients 

did submit were not being comprehensively analyzed, if at all, by funding agencies. Furthermore, 

in their on-site compliance reviews, federal agencies were not reviewing and assessing the quality 

of recipients’ data collection and reporting systems 

to ensure that the information they submitted accurately reflected their compliance status. 

Recommendation 4.3: Federal agencies should 

require recipients to annually submit data on program participants and beneficiaries that can be 

used to determine the compliance status of the recipient. The data submission should be required 

both as a precondition of receiving grants and as 

support for post-award compliance reviews and 

should be accompanied with the recipients’ selfassessments of their compliance with civil rights 

obligations. 

Moreover, the federal agencies should analyze 

data the recipients submit to determine whether 

federally assisted programs ensure that all demographic groups have equal opportunity to participate in the programs. Analyses should compare 

participants in the federally funded programs with 

relevant applicant pools, eligible populations, and 

the populations adversely affected by federally 

funded programs. 

When conducting on-site compliance reviews, 

federal agencies should review and assess the data 

collection and reporting systems to ensure that the 

information reported is reflective of the recipient’s 

civil rights compliance status. 

Monitoring Civil Rights Enforcement 

Finding 4.4: Federal agencies were not monitoring the quality of their civil rights enforcement 

activities, such as compliance reviews, conducted 

by headquarters staff, their agency components, 

regional offices, or contractors. 

Recommendation 4.4: Federal agencies should 

monitor the quality and consistency of civil rights 

enforcement activities, whether pre- or post-award 

reviews or desk audits or site visits, and whether 

conducted by headquarters staff, agency administrations or divisions, regional or district offices, or 

contractors. Any required technical assistance 

should be provided to ensure that future activities 

are carried out according to standard procedures. 

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions 

Finding 4.5: When deficiencies in compliance 

were found, federal agencies were to offer technical assistance to recipients to correct the deficiencies 

and obtain recipients’ agreements to voluntarily 

comply. But recipients’ commitments to corrective 

action were not being monitored to ensure that compliance was fully achieved. Furthermore, the Department of Justice was not assisting agencies with 

guidelines and examples for when they should seek 
55 

fund termination or temporary suspension for noncomplying recipients. Federal agencies needed 

more resources to develop methods to better apply 

administrative sanctions to Title VI enforcement 

and to determine whether the existing sanctions 

needed to be strengthened, for example, through 

the addition of a monetary penalty. 

Recommendation 4.5: Federal agencies must 

establish systems of regularly and uniformly monitoring recipients’ voluntary agreements to address 

civil rights deficiencies in their programs and 

should request the resources they need to develop 

and use administrative sanctions effectively. The 

Department of Justice must require federal agencies to develop mechanisms to monitor voluntary 

compliance agreements. It must establish guidelines and provide examples for the federal agencies 

on when and how to apply administrative sanctions 

and assist them in using the sanctions. Finally, the 

Department of Justice should conduct a study to 

determine whether existing administrative sanctions are sufficient to enforce civil rights and make 

recommendations as to any further sanctions that 

are needed. 

5. STAFF TRAINING

Finding 5.1: Federal agencies were not providing the appropriate training or retraining for enforcement staff in numerous areas critical to 

effective job performance. Title VI training, especially as concerned agency-specific guidance, was 

also being ignored, as was advanced training on 

other civil rights statutes. Finally, DOJ was not 

taking the lead role in coordinating training or providing training resources for federal agencies with 

civil rights responsibilities under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act. 

Recommendation 5.1: DOJ should assume the 

lead in offering training and providing training 

resources for federal agencies. It should assist federal agencies in coordinating joint training efforts, 

particularly when agencies are funding the same 

recipients or have overlapping jurisdictions. 

Federal agencies should provide training and 

retraining for enforcement staff on appropriate 

civil rights statutes and activities, including (1) 

complaint processing and investigative techniques; 

(2) Title VI compliance reviews, whether pre- or 

post-award reviews, desk audits, or on-site reviews; and (3) advanced knowledge of federal civil 

rights statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, that would allow trained individuals 

to serve as specialists or resources for other staff. 

6. MAXIMIZING ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Finding 6.1: Constrained by limited civil rights 

enforcement budgets for the reasons discussed 

throughout this report, most federal agencies have 

been unable to meet their civil rights obligations. 

Limited resources demand that creative and effective methods be used to enhance civil rights enforcement. The Commission has identified six 

strategies for maximizing enforcement: 

 integrating civil rights enforcement throughout 

every part of the agency, including all of its 

agency components, programs, and field offices; 

 delegating responsibility for reviewing civil 

rights compliance from agency headquarters to 

agency components, field offices, contracting organizations, and recipients with subrecipients; 

 establishing oversight and quality assurance 

procedures to ensure that delegated responsibilities are carried out properly and consistently 

across the nation; 

 coordinating civil rights enforcement activities 

with other federal agencies; 

 streamlining enforcement activities to ensure 

that they are conducted effectively and efficiently with the fewest resources; and 

 involving the affected communities in designing civil rights enforcement activities. 

Recommendation 6.1: Federal agencies should 

create task forces to examine and recommend how 

best to employ these six strategies in their respective agency. Assessments should discuss how to 

rapidly and successfully incorporate these strategies without disrupting the work of any agency 

office. For those agencies that have already developed one or more of these strategies, the goal is to 

incorporate all of them and thus establish or further 

an effective civil rights program. 

Integration 

Finding 6.2: The Commission found that few 

agencies had integrated civil rights enforcement 

throughout the agency, including in every program 
56 

that receives federal funding. The Department of 

Labor, for example, had concentrated its civil rights 

efforts on its main job-training program and 

achieved superior results, but had not expanded enforcement efforts to other programs. The Department of Transportation had a few good elements 

for civil rights enforcement but in only a couple of 

operating administrations. Furthermore, agencies 

had not made a concerted effort to develop policy 

guidance to interpret how civil rights enforcement 

applies to each and every assisted program. 

Recommendation 6.2: Federal agencies must 

integrate civil rights enforcement throughout the 

agency in order to most effectively and efficiently 

use all available human and monetary civil rights 

resources. This integration must first develop policy guidance with specific programmatic examples 

of civil rights policies and enforcement in the context of every program. It must draw upon any current exemplary enforcement efforts to expand 

efforts to other programs. Agencies should explore 

ways programmatic staff can be properly trained 

in, or involved in, civil rights efforts. Large programmatic units should support a full-time trained 

civil rights analyst to monitor the civil rights implications of program developments and policies 

and to provide civil rights training and expertise to 

program staff and to act as liaison between the 

program and the civil rights offices. A civil rights 

specialist assigned to a program office should also 

develop mechanisms by which program staff, particularly any who make site visits, can provide 

feedback that could be used for a desk audit or as a 

selection criterion for choosing recipients for onsite compliance reviews. 

Delegation 

Finding 6.3: Agencies’ success in handling a 

workload of thousands of complaints needing to be 

processed or funding recipients and subrecipients 

requiring compliance reviews rested on whether 

the work was delegated. Delegation of the civil 

rights enforcement workload could occur at various levels within departments or agencies, as well 

as with contracting organizations and recipients 

(such as states) that have subrecipients. Thus, the 

responsibilities for civil rights enforcement could 

be distributed among the agencies’ various divisions, administrations, or bureaus and among district or other field offices. Some agencies, such as 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, contracted with state or local human 

rights organizations to handle their civil rights 

workload, which was investigating complaints. 

The EEOC also offloaded time-intensive complaint 

investigations by referring complainants with cases 

that did not have broad civil rights impact to private attorneys. 

Federal agencies can also reduce their workload 

by having the recipient collect the appropriate information to determine compliance and conduct a 

self-assessment. Thus, the Commission stressed the 

need to impose requirements for reporting and selfassessments on recipients. Furthermore, many recipients of funding assistance are states that disburse block grants to subrecipients. States must 

pass the reporting and self-analysis requirements 

on to their subrecipients. 

Recommendation 6.3: Every federal agency 

should develop a civil rights enforcement system 

that appropriately delegates enforcement activities. 

Agencies unable to meet their civil rights obligations should convene a task force to determine appropriate means to distribute the work either 

internally or externally to achieve an efficient and 

effective civil rights enforcement system. 

Oversight and Accountability of Civil Rights 

Enforcement Programs

Finding 6.4: Several federal agencies were 

running Title VI civil rights implementation, compliance, and enforcement programs that were not 

adhering to DOJ guidelines. DOJ, through CORS, 

was lax in its oversight of federal agencies’ civil 

rights programs and had thus allowed deficient 

agencies to continue running ineffective and inefficient, some worse than others, programs. Furthermore, federal agencies had not sufficiently stressed 

the compliance and enforcement responsibilities of 

agency components, such as operating administrations and operating divisions, nor had they sufficiently seen to the oversight, accountability, and 

coordination of the civil rights programs directed 

by their components. Regular monitoring and 

evaluation of agency components, such as field 

offices, had also been dismal in numerous instances. The oversight and monitoring of contracting organizations, such as Tribal Employment 

Rights Organizations (TEROs), had not been as 
57 

stringent as conditions demanded. Finally, federal 

agencies had been remiss in their oversight and 

monitoring of state recipients that distribute their 

block grants to subrecipients. 

Recommendation 6.4: DOJ, through CORS, 

should ensure that federal agencies are strictly adhering to the regulations established for the implementation and enforcement of civil rights 

programs. Oversight of all agencies and technical 

assistance to those agencies whose Title VI programs are found lacking should be proactive and 

exhaustive. Accountability should extend to the 

effective and efficient use of all resources, including funds and staff. 

All federal agencies with funding recipients 

should implement civil rights enforcement programs in accordance with DOJ’s guidelines for 

Title VI enforcement. Furthermore, they should 

clarify the civil rights implementation, compliance, 

and enforcement responsibilities of all agency 

components, such as operating administrations and 

operating divisions. To improve their oversight, 

accountability, and coordination of the civil rights 

programs that agency components direct, federal 

agencies should (1) establish regular channels of 

communication with the components having civil 

rights responsibilities; (2) require them to submit 

annual self-evaluations that will be reviewed and 

evaluated by knowledgeable agency personnel free 

of any conflicting interests with said agency components and who will be authorized to direct deficient programs, based on DOJ guidelines, to 

improve their performance; (3) conduct regular onsite monitoring and evaluation reviews of agency 

components with civil rights obligations and provide them with comprehensive reports evaluating 

and recommending improvements in implementation, compliance, and enforcement programs; and 

(4) monitor and evaluate field offices to ensure the 

consistency of procedures and resource materials 

across these offices and provide them with comprehensive reports citing where improvements 

must be made. 

Furthermore, federal agencies should carefully 

select any contracting organizations that perform 

civil rights functions, and closely oversee and 

monitor the contractor’s performance through onsite visits that include accompanying contractors 

when performing enforcement activities such as 

conducting complaint investigations or on-site compliance reviews of recipients. Finally, federal agencies should improve their oversight and monitoring 

of state recipients that distribute their block grants to 

subrecipients. One method of accomplishing this is 

through improved coordination between these entities, including the training, certification, and periodic recertification of pertinent recipient staff by 

the concerned federal agency. 

Coordination Between Federal Agencies 

Finding 6.5: Despite its oversight responsibility to ensure that federal agencies ensure compliance with Title VI, DOJ was not promoting interagency coordination. Nor were federal agencies 

with overlapping jurisdiction for ensuring compliance among the same recipients sharing information or coordinating compliance reviews. Indeed, 

agencies had no way of knowing which of their 

recipients were being funded by another federal 

agency subject to Title VI enforcement responsibilities. 

Recommendation 6.5: DOJ should direct interagency coordination as part of its oversight responsibilities. It should hold conferences for federal 

agencies with Title VI responsibilities so that they 

may communicate with each other and take advantage of the exemplary aspects of one another’s enforcement programs in improving their own 

efforts. 

As part of enhancing inter-agency coordination, 

DOJ should conduct a study of how much overlap 

exists among agencies concerning recipient funding. DOJ should develop and require federal agencies to help maintain a centralized database of Title 

VI funding recipients and the enforcement activities to which they have been subjected to permit 

the federal agencies to know when recipients are 

receiving funds from more than one agency and to 

facilitate inter-agency coordination on compliance 

activities such as on-site reviews. Congress should 

allocate funding to support the development and 

maintenance of this database. 

The study should also develop guidance for 

procedures by which agencies can share responsibility for enforcement activities or eliminate the 

need to perform a particular activity on one recipient since another agency has or will perform it. 

The use of a memorandum of understanding or 

other formal agreements for sharing responsibilities should be explored. 
58 

Streamlining 

Finding 6.6: A number of agencies had huge 

backlogs in unprocessed complaints and large 

numbers of funding recipients that had not been 

reviewed for compliance. Nonetheless, little attention had been paid to trying to find ways for more 

efficient and effective processes. 

Recommendation 6.6: Federal agencies should 

regularly evaluate their enforcement activities for 

efficiency and effectiveness. They should, for example, ensure that charge intake staff collects appropriate information from complainants and that 

this task does not fall to investigators. Charges of 

discrimination should be appropriately prioritized 

and, if not meritorious for handling in the federal 

system, resolved quickly through dismissal, referral to private attorneys, mediation, or conciliation. 

Efforts to conduct compliance reviews should be 

appropriately balanced between desk audits and 

on-site reviews, and funding recipients should be 

required to provide the information reviewed in the 

desk audits. Agencies should explore whether and 

how program staff who monitor recipients’ general 

compliance might provide civil rights feedback 

that could be included in civil rights desk audits or 

among selection criteria for an on-site civil rights 

compliance review. 

Involving the Affected Community 

Finding 6.7: Federal agencies were not actively 

involving the affected communities in developing 

their civil rights programs. Federal agencies should 

have been at least contacting community organizations and advocacy groups when conducting education and outreach; however, many agencies had 

weak or nonexistent education and outreach programs. Furthermore, for civil rights enforcement to 

be most effective, the affected communities must 

be involved in developing policy to ensure that it 

addresses their needs, in designing education and 

outreach to make the best appeal to the communities that are victimized, and in developing litigation 

strategies that address the issues that concern these 

communities and provide the remedies they desire. 

Recommendation 6.7: Federal agencies must 

involve advocacy groups and community organizations in their civil rights enforcement programs. 

These groups must be involved in developing policy and litigation strategies, in identifying priority 

civil rights issues, and in designing education and 

outreach programs and strategies that will be most 

effective in reaching the victims of discrimination. 
59 

Dissent Statement 

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? 

We, the undersigned, voted against the approval of this report on July 19, 2002, for the following reasons. 

Development of Federal Civil Rights Policy and Litigation 

The report develops a Checklist for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ Civil Rights Enforcement that calls for 

involvement of special interest advocacy groups in the development of federal civil rights policy and litigation. Recommendations 1.3, 2.1, and 6.7 specifically call for the extensive engagement of advocacy 

groups in the development and enforcement of federal policy. Recommendation 3.9 calls for the inclusion 

of advocacy groups in the litigation process. Although it is important for civil rights agencies to understand and interact with affected communities, it is inappropriate for the federal government to defer to special interest groups in crafting federal policy or planning litigation strategy. Accordingly, we oppose any and 

all of the recommendations contained herein that advocate such an approach. 

Burden on Federal Recipients 

Recommendation 4.3 suggests that agencies require recipients to submit data annually on program participants and beneficiaries. This recommendation is based upon the flawed premise that progress can be 

demonstrated by raw numerical data. In fact, requiring recipients of federal funds to report on the number of 

“affected peoples” present in a particular program does little to end discriminatory practices and, indeed, 

might even encourage unlawful behavior. This recommendation also creates another layer of red tape that 

has the potential of discouraging applications to the federal government. To encourage a broad and diverse 

population of recipients of federal funds, we should not add to their burden with useless demands. 

This dissenting statement respectfully submitted by, 

Jennifer C. Braceras, Commissioner 

Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner 

Abigail Thernstrom, Commissioner 

July 29, 2002 
61

APPENDIX A 

Descriptions of the Enforcement Reports 

During the 1990s, the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights issued numerous enforcement reports 

evaluating the operations of most major federal 

civil rights enforcement agencies. The Commission’s reports examined these agencies’ efforts to 

address a wide range of civil rights issues, including nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity 

in employment, education, housing, health care, 

and transportation in federally assisted programs; 

among state and local government agencies; and in 

the private sector. Each report is described below. 

Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 

1990s (February 1992) 

From the perspective of Asian Pacific Americans, the issues this study examined included hate 

crimes, police-community relations, educational 

opportunity from the primary through the university level, employment discrimination as exemplified by the glass ceiling, accessibility to health 

care, and religious accommodation. Recommendations called for the Department of Justice to promote understanding for Asian Pacific Americans, 

for police departments to hire interpreters to assist 

individuals in the communities with limited English skills, and for federal and state agencies to aggressively enforce antidiscrimination concerning 

noncredible job requirements that result in a dearth 

of promotions for Asian Pacific Americans. 

Prospects and Impact of Losing State and Local 

Agencies from the Federal Fair Housing System 

(September 1992) 

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 

(FHAA) provided a much-needed stronger enforcement mechanism for combating housing discrimination (which is studied in a later 

Commission report) and preserved an existing state 

and local government partnership in enforcement 

efforts. Under this partnership, state and local 

agencies process complaints of discrimination filed 

with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when the state or local law has 

been established to provide rights and remedies 

substantially equivalent to those of the federal 

housing laws. Because the 1988 amendments also 

expanded coverage to people with disabilities and 

to families with children, state and local agencies 

had to become recertified as substantially equivalent under this broader coverage to continue handling complaints. This report focused on the 

progress of state and local agencies in gaining certification under the new law, and the consequences 

if many agencies failed to be certified. When the 

1988 law was enacted, 122 agencies were participating in the federal fair housing system. 

The report found that by 1992, only 14 agencies 

had substantially equivalent status and no agencies 

had been fully certified. Many agencies simply 

would not be able to meet the substantial equivalency requirements by the statutory deadline and 

would drop out of the federal system. As a result, 

HUD would not be able to enforce the FHAA effectively. 

 In its recommendations, the Commission asked 

HUD to (1) develop a management plan ensuring 

that adequate resources and staff were available to 

process fair housing complaints if a large number 

of state and local agencies were not certified by the 

deadline; (2) clearly define “substantially equivalent,” and provide uniform written guidelines on 

the certification process, to assist agencies in attaining substantial equivalency; and (3) negotiate 

memoranda of understanding concerning civil 

rights enforcement activities with state and local 

agencies not in the federal fair housing system. 
62 

Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic 

Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects (January 1993) 

This report monitored civil rights enforcement 

at the Department of Transportation (DOT) and 

Department of Labor (DOL) relative to federally 

assisted funds for a national intermodal transportation system. It evaluated the effectiveness of DOT 

and its operating administration, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and DOL’s Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) 

in conducting compliance reviews and investigations pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 and DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. 

The report cited critical failings by the Department of Transportation in enforcing civil rights 

programs under Title VI, the DBE program, and 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990. It concluded that DOT’s Title VI enforcement lacked leadership and direction. Civil rights 

enforcement was neither a top priority nor an integral part of the Department’s primary mission 

planning. In addition, DOT’s Office of Civil 

Rights did not have procedures to ensure that the 

operating administrations were implementing effective DBE programs. The Commission recommended that (1) DOT immediately and vigorously 

enforce Title VI and other civil rights laws; (2) the 

Secretary of Transportation assist its modal administrations in establishing effective civil rights 

enforcement programs; (3) DOL/OFCCP seek 

greater community involvement in selecting companies for civil rights reviews; and (4) DOT and 

DOL coordinate compliance reviews. 

Equal Employment Rights for Federal Employees 

(August 1993) 

In response to complaints from federal employees that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations for filing claims of 

discrimination were too complex and bureaucratic, 

the Commission examined the Federal Employees 

Fairness Act and the Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity regulations.1

 Significant 

deficiencies were found within the established procedures. 

 

1

 29 C.F.R. §§ 1613–1614. 

The report cited four concerns about EEOC’s 

methods of handling federal employees’ complaints: complexity in the system, serious delays in 

resolving complaints, inherent conflicts of interest 

between adjudicating complaints and having the 

respondent agencies largely control the investigation, and inadequate sanctions for violators. In addition, the Commission concluded that the 45-day 

period in which federal employees were required 

to report acts of discrimination was too short. 

The Commission asked EEOC to increase the 

filing period for claims and establish better communication between the appropriate agencies and 

the EEOC. Other recommendations asked Congress to increase EEOC funding, increase sanctions 

for agencies in noncompliance with EEOC requirements, and authorize the EEOC to file a 

commissioner’s charge if an agency was found to 

discriminate. The Commission asked the President 

to issue an executive order to hold heads of federal 

agencies accountable for enforcing the equal employment opportunity laws. 

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report (September 1994) 

The passage of the Fair Housing Amendments 

Act of 1988 (FHAA) required the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development to change its 

enforcement procedures from resolving complaints 

through conciliation and voluntary resolution to 

emphasizing administrative enforcement. It also 

granted HUD the power to file complaints at the 

Secretary’s determination and gave the Department 

legal tools, such as subpoena power, that it had 

been lacking. In response, HUD staff had to develop cases that could now withstand judicial scrutiny; overhaul the complaint processing system; 

develop policy for the newly covered bases of disability and family status; and expand coordination 

with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the enforcement of the new law. 

The Commission’s report evaluated (1) the levels of funding needed for proper enforcement of 

this statute; (2) HUD’s guidelines for the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act and fair housing programs; (3) HUD’s policies for remediating discrimination in public housing; (4) coordination 

between HUD, DOJ, and private fair housing organizations and civil rights advocacy groups in 

enforcing the law; and (5) DOJ’s policies with re-
63

spect to disparate impact theory, certification for 

state and local housing agencies as “substantially 

equivalent,” race-conscious methods of fostering 

housing integration, land-use cases, and settlements. 

The report found that HUD had failed to aggressively enforce the new law, partly due to insufficient 

resources provided by Congress and the President 

and partly due to internal shortcomings. In particular, HUD lacked a systemic approach to processing 

complaints that would ensure timely, consistent 

management of complaints across regions. 

Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs (June 1996) 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes nondiscrimination requirements on all recipients of federal funding. This report assessed the 

Department of Justice’s oversight and coordination 

of Title VI implementation and examined the efforts of 10 of the then roughly 27 federal agencies 

responsible for enforcing the law. 

The report’s findings included (1) DOJ had neglected its responsibility to ensure nondiscrimination in all federally funded programs and activities; 

(2) federal agencies’ Title VI enforcement programs generally were understaffed and poorly coordinated, and deficiencies had persisted for 20 

years; (3) federal agencies had made no effort to 

formally codify Congress’ conclusive definition of 

covered programs and activities in the Civil Rights 

Restoration Act of 1987; (4) federal agencies had 

failed to oversee and monitor state agencies to determine whether state enforcement activities ensured compliance among their subrecipients; and 

(5) DOJ and federal agencies generally failed to 

develop regulations, guidelines, and policies for 

civil rights implementation and enforcement procedures. However, the Commission found areas in 

which Title VI obligations were satisfactorily addressed by, among others the Department of Education. 

The Commission recommended that (1) federal 

agencies, Congress, and the President reinvigorate 

Title VI enforcement programs; (2) DOJ show leadership in assisting federal agencies in civil rights 

enforcement; and (3) federal agencies adopt proactive Title VI enforcement methods, including developing oversight mechanisms for state recipients. 

Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume I (December 1996) 

The Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume I, describes the history of the federal 

presence in education and provides a brief overview of the Department of Education’s (DOEd) 

organizational structure. The report evaluated the 

Office of Civil Rights’ history, performance, regulations, policies, and activities and set the stage for 

four other education reports examining specific 

issues. 

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil 

Rights (OCR) enforces statutes that prohibit discrimination, including on the bases of gender and 

disability, in federally funded education programs, 

such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

OCR’s implementation and enforcement activities 

for these statutes include developing and disseminating civil rights policy, investigating complaints 

alleging discrimination by recipients of the Department of Education’s financial assistance, and 

initiating enforcement actions against recipients 

who refuse to voluntarily comply with civil rights 

requirements. 

The Commission’s report gave DOEd a good 

overall rating. OCR’s civil rights enforcement program is well developed and can serve as a model to 

other civil rights agencies. At the same time, the 

report made recommendations to enhance enforcement in the areas of planning; regulations; 

guidance, particularly to regional staff; data reported on national origin; coordinating and integrating civil rights enforcement into DOEd program 

offices; requiring funding recipients to conduct 

self-evaluations of their civil rights compliance; 

and involving program beneficiaries and advocacy 

groups in enforcement. The report also recommended increases in the budget, staffing, and training for OCR to fulfill its duties and 

responsibilities. 

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity 

Project Series, Volume II (September 1997) 

In this report the Commission examined the efforts of the Department of Education and its Office 
64 

of Civil Rights (OCR) in enforcing Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandates 

that equal educational opportunities be provided to 

students with disabilities. Issues related to the development of individualized education programs 

and the placement of students with disabilities 

were the focus. 

In analyzing OCR’s efforts to implement, ensure compliance with, and enforce Section 504 in 

public elementary and secondary education, the 

Commission found that the agency’s performance 

was exemplary overall. However, the agency could 

improve enforcement, for example, by (1) updating 

its Section 504 regulations to use contemporary 

disability language; (2) issuing policy guidance on 

discrimination with regard to issues such as the denial of “free appropriate public education,” the use 

of technological devices in the special education 

classroom, and extracurricular activities for students 

with disabilities; and (3) collecting and disseminating more data on students with disabilities. 

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Limited English Proficiency: 

Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols, 

Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume III (November 1997) 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 

U.S. Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in Lau v. 

Nichols provide for nondiscrimination and equal 

educational opportunity for national origin minority 

students with limited English proficiency. The third 

report in the education series examined the efforts of 

the Department of Education and its Office of Civil 

Rights (OCR) to implement, ensure compliance 

with, and enforce Title VI and Lau v. Nichols in 

public elementary and secondary education. 

The Commission found that OCR generally operated a highly developed Title VI/Lau civil rights 

enforcement program but that some improvements 

were needed. OCR must develop more mechanisms to (1) determine the number of limitedEnglish-proficient minority students; (2) prevent 

limited-English-proficient students from being 

placed in special education programs based only 

on their English skills; and (3) ensure that language barriers do not prevent them from participating in gifted and talented programs, advanced 

courses, or other opportunities for education and 

advancement. 

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Minority Students: Federal Enforcement of 

Title VI in Ability Grouping Practices, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume IV (September 1999) 

This report evaluated the efforts of the Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights 

(OCR) to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 in public elementary and secondary education programs with respect to ability grouping and 

tracking as well as participation in advanced 

courses and gifted and talented programs. The 

Commission identified five major principles that 

affect equal access to a quality education. Education programs should (1) be structured to serve a 

diverse student population with periodic reevaluations and regroupings of students to reflect differential ability in various subjects and changes in 

achievement and performance; (2) use neutral and 

nondiscriminatory screening and diagnostic procedures when placing students in programs; (3) facilitate and encourage the involvement of parents 

and communities in their children’s education; (4) 

allocate good teachers, counselors, facilities, and 

other resources equitably among classes of students with high and low ability; and (5) use innovative approaches to eliminate barriers to 

educational opportunities and to maximize each 

student’s potential. 

The Commission found that DOEd’s OCR had 

made ensuring nondiscrimination in ability grouping and tracking a priority issue in its strategic 

plan. However, OCR’s enforcement program had 

deficiencies, particularly in the issuance of policy 

guidance. It failed to issue formal or final policy 

guidance on Title VI enforcement with respect to 

ability grouping and tracking. The Commission 

recommended that OCR (1) investigate and vigorously monitor how schools implement ability 

grouping; (2) strengthen and improve its technical 

assistance, outreach, and education programs to 

provide guidance on ways to implement the Commission’s five principles; (3) require state and local 

education agencies to develop accountability systems to monitor and ensure that all school personnel understand and apply these principles; (4) work 

with school administrators and public universities 

to develop partnerships in their communities supporting efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to all students; and (5) incorporate the five 
65

principles in and update and formalize Title VI 

policy guidance, procedures, and technical assistance documents. 

Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in Advanced Mathematics, Science, 

and Technology Education: Federal Enforcement of 

Title IX, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Volume V (July 2000) 

The Commission examined the Department of 

Education’s enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits exclusion from, denial of the benefits of, or 

discrimination under federally assisted education 

programs based on an individual’s sex. It looked at 

Title IX from a policy perspective to determine 

what measures ensure that women and girls have 

educational opportunities in math, science, and 

technology programs, providing equal access to 

fields that have been traditionally dominated by 

men. 

The Commission’s evaluation found that Title 

IX has increased women’s access to mathematics, 

science, and technology education over the last 30 

years. However, disparities persist, and DOEd’s 

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has had a mixed 

record in Title IX compliance and enforcement 

activities. OCR has tried to ensure that schools do 

not discriminate against girls in math and science 

classes, but could strengthen its program by coordinating activities with other program offices 

within and outside the Department, and with educators, parents, and community groups; by conducting comprehensive research on the 

representation of girls in all levels of math and science courses and other issues; and by improving its 

Title IX enforcement activities, including collecting data to target schools for compliance reviews 

and technical assistance, increasing compliance 

reviews and investigations, and issuing more policy guidance. Finally, the report called for a greater 

commitment from the Department and OCR to address gender equality in education. 

Helping Employers Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Enforcing Title I of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (September 1998) 

In this report on the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), the Commission focused on the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission’s efforts to 

enforce Title I, which prohibits discrimination 

based on disability in employment. The report 

evaluates EEOC’s regulations and policies clarifying the language of the statute; the processing of 

charges of discrimination based on disability; Title 

I-related litigation activities; and outreach, education, and technical assistance efforts. 

The Commission found that EEOC had developed a credible enforcement program to implement 

the act but that its efforts could be more effective 

in some areas. The Commission recommended that 

EEOC (1) involve affected communities in developing policy and in its decision-making processes; 

(2) provide technical assistance, education and outreach to ensure that employers understand their 

obligations under the law and that individuals with 

disabilities understand and are able to exercise 

their rights under the act; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of its ADA charge processing and enforcement activities; and (4) form partnerships 

with other federal agencies, community organizations and advocacy groups, and employers, to 

promote understanding of and support for the 

ADA. 

Helping State and Local Governments Comply with 

the ADA: An Assessment of How the United States 

Department of Justice is Enforcing Title II, Subpart 

A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act (September 

1998) 

This study focused on the efforts of the Department of Justice to enforce Title II, Subpart A, 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by public 

entities such as state and local governments. The 

report evaluates DOJ’s regulations and policies 

clarifying the language of the statute; the processing of complaints based on disability; litigation; 

and outreach, education, and technical assistance 

efforts relating to the act. It examines the development, resources, and enforcement efforts of the 

Disability Rights Section (DRS), the DOJ office 
66 

with coordination and oversight responsibility over 

the seven other agencies that enforce Title II. The 

Commission commended DRS, as a newly created 

office, for its implementation of the act, particularly in the areas of education and outreach. 

The Commission urged DOJ to provide adequate resources to DRS to increase its staff, particularly the number of investigators and litigators; 

to support and improve monitoring of designated 

ADA federal agencies, and to develop and publish 

policy guidance to explain the law and help state 

and local entities carry out their responsibilities 

under the law. The Commission reiterated its support for the full implementation of the ADA, urged 

that DOJ vigorously enforce the law, and stressed 

the importance of its coverage and implementation 

in the public sector. 

The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Volume I: The Role of Governmental and Private 

Health Care Programs and Initiatives (September 

1999) 

In 1999, the Commission published a twovolume report on health care disparities. Volume I, 

The Role of Governmental and Private Health 

Care Programs and Initiatives, examines racial, 

ethnic, and gender disparities in health status, 

health research, access to health services, and 

health care financing. The Commission found 

many health care initiatives implemented at the 

federal, state, and local levels aimed toward eliminating disparities and improving the health status 

of traditionally underserved groups. Nonetheless, 

discrimination in the health care system continues 

to manifest itself in many ways, including: differential delivery of health care services based on 

race, ethnicity, and gender; inability to access 

health care because of lack of financial resources, 

culturally incompetent providers, language barriers, and the unavailability of services; and exclusion of women and people of color from healthrelated research. 

The Commission’s recommendations were directed throughout the government. Congress and 

the President must allocate funds to close the 

health care financing gap—the gap between qualifying for existing public assistance programs and 

being able to afford private health insurance. The 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

must include the perspectives of women and people of color in developing the health care agenda 

and ensure that civil rights objectives are integrated into all health care initiatives. The HHS Office for Civil Rights and offices of women’s and 

minority health should ensure that the agency and 

its funding recipients consider socio-cultural contexts of individuals’ lives when designing and reviewing health programs. HHS must also enforce 

the mandated inclusion of females and people of 

color in health-related research, both as funding 

recipients for, and participants in, research. Finally, 

health care programs must be implemented at the 

community level in conjunction with communitybased organizations that serve women and people 

of color. 

The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Volume II: The Role of Federal Civil Rights 

Enforcement Efforts (September 1999) 

Volume II of the health care report, The Role of 

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Efforts, looked 

at the civil rights enforcement activities of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for 

Civil Rights (OCR) and their impact in ensuring 

equal quality health care. It examined how OCR 

meets its mandates to implement and enforce Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972; the Hill-Burton 

Act of 1946, which provided federal grants for the 

constructions of hospitals and other health care 

facilities; and the nondiscrimination provisions of 

the community block grant programs. 

The report found that OCR needed to improve 

its enforcement activities in all areas. The Commission recommended an overall restructuring of 

OCR, staff training to fulfill civil rights enforcement responsibilities, and more effective civil 

rights enforcement activities. It also recommended 

that the President, Congress, and the Secretary of 

HHS allocate more funding for civil rights enforcement because inadequate funding contributed 

to deficiencies. 
67

Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future: An 

Assessment of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Enforcement Efforts (September 2000) 

In September 2000, the Commission released a 

report on civil rights enforcement of nondiscrimination in employment. It discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement 

efforts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 and other civil rights statutes in the private 

sector and evaluates the agency’s progress in reducing its complaint backlog, processing charges 

of discrimination more efficiently and selectively, 

and improving customer service between 1995 and 

2000. 

The report determined that EEOC should conduct an internal reassessment of expenditures to 

identify program areas where funds should be focused. Areas needing improvement were (1) the 

involvement of advocacy groups and community 

organizations in policy development; (2) attention 

to recent developments in regulatory guidelines; 

(3) customer service, particularly assistance for 

charging parties and outreach to both charging parties and complaint respondents; and (4) EEOC’s 

relationship with state, local, and tribal employment rights agencies. EEOC was lauded and encouraged to continue expeditiously resolving as 

many charges as possible. Likewise, EEOC’s internal enforcement activities review program was 

cited as an effort worthy of continuation. The 

Commission recommended that EEOC (1) expand 

working relationships with other federal as well as 

state and local agencies; (2) continue its efforts to 

reach out to people of color to ensure that they understand their rights under fair employment laws; 

(3) increase the development of regulatory guidelines; and (4) contact and interact with the public 

more.
68 

APPENDIX B 

Key Civil Rights Statutes and Regulations 

The federal government has sought to uphold 

individual and group civil rights by establishing 

laws guaranteeing and protecting these rights. A 

brief overview of statutes relevant to this study is 

given below. 

GENERAL CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS— 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 

On July 2, 1964, Congress enacted the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964,1

 characterized as the most 

comprehensive civil rights legislation since the 

post-Civil War era.2

 The Civil Rights Act represented Congress’ response to growing public demand for equality for Americans of all races and 

embodied significant civil rights provisions aimed 

at eradicating racial discrimination. Title II of the 

Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in public 

accommodations;3

 Title III forbids segregation in 

public facilities;4

 Title IV proscribes segregation in 

public schools;5

 Title VI prohibits discrimination 

in all federally funded programs and activities;6

Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment 

based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;7

 and Title VIII prohibits discrimination in 

housing.8

 Together, these provisions promote 

equality of opportunity in virtually all areas of our 

national life. 

 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended in 

scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). 

2 See John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1994), pp. 220–46. 

3

 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2002). 

4 Id. § 2000b. 

5 Id. § 2000c. 

6 Id. § 2000d. 

7 Id. § 2000e. 

8 Id. § 3604. 

NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 

PROGRAMS—TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ensures that 

public funds are not used to further racial discrimination in federal programs or activities but is designed to eradicate racial and ethnic discrimination 

in such programs and activities, not to penalize the 

recipients of federal funds who administer the programs.9

 It provides that: 

No person in the United States shall, on the ground 

of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving Federal financial assistance.10

Congress intended Title VI to cover a broad 

range of activities, including “programs for 

schools, highways, hospital construction, farm 

price supports, depressed areas, housing, urban 

renewal, vocational education, ship and airline 

subsidies, disaster relief, civilian defense, school 

lunches, and public health.”11 It is the broadest instrument available for the nationwide elimination 

of invidious discrimination and the effects of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.12 In 2001, Title VI applied to approximately 

63 federal agencies that administer nearly 1,500 

programs and annually distribute more than $1.8 

trillion in federal financial assistance.13

9

 110 CONG. REC. 6544 (1964) (statement of Senator Humphrey). 

10 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2002). 

11 Bureau of National Affairs, Operational Manual: The Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (1964), p. 93. 

12 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Federal Civil Rights 

Enforcement Effort—1974: To Extend Federal Financial Assistance, vol. 6, November 1975, p. 3. 

13 See U.S. General Services Administration and Office of 
69

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 198714 was 

passed to reaffirm and clarify the definition of 

“programs or activities” covered by the nondiscrimination provisions of civil rights statutes after 

a Supreme Court decision limited their coverage. 

The act ensures the broad, institutionwide application of Title VI and other civil rights statutes by 

stating that discrimination is prohibited throughout 

an entire agency or institution, if any part of that 

agency or institution received federal financial assistance.15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces equal employment laws. Its responsibilities arise from Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964,16 as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972;17 the Equal Pay Act 

of 1963;18 the Age Discrimination in Employment 

Act of 1967;19 the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990;20 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973;21 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.22 

 

 

Management and Budget, 2001 Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance, 2001, p. 6-01, and U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, Federal, State, and Local Governments, Federal Assistance Award Data System, “2001 1st Quarter—

Summary Table,” “2001 2nd Quarter—Summary Table,” 

“2001 3rd Quarter—Summary Table,” and “2001 4th Quarter—Summary Table,” <www.census.gov/govs/faads>. Note 

that federal assistance has grown considerably. The Commission’s 1996 report stated that Title VI applied to 27 federal 

agencies and more than 1,000 assisted programs, with the 

agencies distributing approximately $900 billion in assistance. 

USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, p. 12. 

14 Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (codified as amended at 

20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 note, 1687, 1687 note, 1688, 1688 note 

(2002); 29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 794 (2002); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-4a, 

6107 (2002)). 

15 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a (2002). See also U.S. Congress Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Civil Rights 

Restoration Act of 1987, 100th Cong., 2d sess. S. REP. NO. 64, 

pp. 1, 4, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 6. 

16 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17 (2002). 

17 Id. § 2000e-16. 

18 29 U.S.C. § 206 (2002). 

19 Id. §§ 621–634. 

20 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (2002). 

21 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–796i (2002). 

22 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17 (2002). 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

The Civil Rights Act includes Title VII, which 

protects people from discrimination in employment. It says: 

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer— 

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of 

such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or 

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or 

applicants for employment in any way which would 

deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect 

his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.23

The Equal Pay Act 

Historically, men have earned more than 

women, even when performing the same jobs. The 

Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 193824 to 

provide equal pay for men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment.25

Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not cover 

older Americans. In fact, little could be done to 

combat age discrimination before the enactment of 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

(ADEA).26 The ADEA prohibits discrimination 

against employees or job applicants 40 years of age 

or older. It applies to employers with 20 or more 

employees, labor organizations affecting commerce with 25 or more members, employment 

23 Id. § 2000e-2. 

24 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, chap. 676, 52 Stat. 1060 

(1963) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 206 (2002)). 

25 Equal Pay Act of 1963, H.R. REP. NO. 88-309 (1963), reprinted in 1963 U.S.C.C.A.N. 687. 

26 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (2002). 
70 

agencies serving at least one covered employer, 

and federal, state, and local governments.27

FAIR HOUSING 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development enforces fair housing under many laws, 

including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964;28 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 

(also known as the Fair Housing Act);29 Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;30 the Age 

Discrimination Act of 1975;31 Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;32 the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act of 1988;33 and others.34

The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 are discussed below. 

 

 

27 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance 

Manual, p. 0:2301. 

28 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d–2000d-7 (2002). 

29 Id. §§ 3601–3619, 3631. 

30 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2002). 

31 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6107 (2002). 

32 Id. §§ 12131–12165. 

33 Id. §§ 3601–3619, 3631. 

34 Other statutes with civil rights provisions related to housing 

include the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (see

Section 3; Pub. L. No. 90-448, 92 Stat. 476 (codified as 

amended at 12 U.S.C. § 5309 (2002)); the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 (see Section 109 of Title I; 

Pub. L. No. 93-383, 88 Stat. 633 (codified as amended at 42 

U.S.C. § 5309 (2002)); 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-242, 101 Stat. 

1815 (1994)); and 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-550, § 905(b), 106 

Stat. 3672, 3869–3872 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 

3616a (2002)); and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 

U.S.C.A. §§ 1691–1691(e) (2002); 24 C.F.R. § 25.9 (2002)). 

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 added 

“sex” to the protected groups covered under the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It also created new housing assistance programs for 

lower income families, commonly known as section 8, and the 

Community Development Block Grant program, authorizing 

public works funds for local communities to use if they are 

willing to undertake certain fair housing responsibilities. The 

1987 act created the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which 

provides grants for public agencies and private organizations 

to conduct fair housing activities that prevent or eliminate 

housing discrimination. The 1992 act added funds for private 

fair housing enforcement groups in underserved areas to conduct a national fair housing awareness media campaign. 

The Fair Housing Act—Title VIII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1968 

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned discrimination in most housing transactions. Title VIII prohibits discrimination, on the basis of race, color, 

religion, or national origin, and by amendment in 

1974, on the basis of sex,35 in the sale or rental of a 

dwelling,36 including the negotiation of terms, 

conditions, or privileges, and in the provision of 

services or facilities.37 It enables HUD to investigate and conciliate complaints of housing discrimination. It also allows state and local agencies 

to process individual complaints filed with HUD 

where the Secretary determines that the state or 

local law provides rights and remedies substantially equivalent to those provided by Title VIII. 

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 

To eliminate housing discrimination, Title VIII 

relied heavily on conciliation and voluntary compliance and lacked an effective enforcement 

mechanism. In response to concerns raised by fair 

housing advocacy groups and HUD itself, Congress rewrote the Fair Housing Act and, in 1988, 

passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act 

(FHAA).38 The FHAA established an administrative mechanism for enforcing the law, which could 

result in the award of damages and civil penalties 

for complaints filed with HUD and tried by an administrative judge. The FHAA also extends the 

provisions of the Fair Housing Act to individuals 

with disabilities and families with children. 

35 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (2002); Housing and Community Development Act Amendments to the Fair Housing Act of 1974, 

Pub. L. No. 93-383, § 808(b)(1), 88 Stat. 633, 729 (1974). 

36 The statutory definition of a dwelling is: “[A]ny building, 

structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed 

or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more 

families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease 

for the construction or location thereon of any such building, 

structure or portion thereof.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(VIb) (1988). 

37 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (2002). See also Smith v. Town of 

Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1982); McDonald v. Verble, 

622 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1980); United States v. Housing Authority of City of Chickasaw, 504 F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Ala. 

1980). 

38 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, 3631 (2002). 
71

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Equal educational opportunity is brought about 

through the Department of Education’s enforcement of various statutes, including Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964,39 the Equal Educational 

Opportunities Act,40 Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972,41 the Women’s Educational 

Equity Act of 1974,42 the Age Discrimination Act 

of 1975,43 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973,44 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990,45 and the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA).46 

Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 

The Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 

(also known as the Equal Educational Opportunities Act) prohibits the segregation of students 

based on race, color, or national origin. The act 

also prohibits discrimination against faculty and 

staff and requires school districts to provide students with limited English proficiency an equal 

opportunity to participate in education programs.47

Under Section 1703(f) of the act, school districts 

are required to take “appropriate action” to rectify 

language barriers that impede students’ ability to 

participate effectively in the schools’ education 

programs.48 

 

 

39 Id. §§ 2000d–2000d-7. 

40 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f) (2002). 

41 Pub. L. No. 92-318, Title IX, 86 Stat. 373 (codified as 

amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (2002)). 

42 Pub. L. No. 93-380 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 

3041–3047 (2002)). 

43 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6107 (2002). 

44 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2002). 

45 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165 (2002). 

46 Pub. L. No. 105-17, §§ 601–687 (1997). 

47 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, “Frequently Asked Questions,” 

n.d., <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/edo/faq.htm>.The act prohibits discrimination expressed through the deliberate segregation 

of students, and the employment, employment conditions, or 

assignment to schools of faculty or staff. See 20 U.S.C. § 

1703(a), (d), (f) (2002); and Cornell Law School, US Code 

Collection, “Sec. 1703.—Denial of equal educational opportunity prohibited,” n.d., <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 

20/1703.html>. 

48 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f) (2002). 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 

197249 prohibits exclusion from, denial of the 

benefits of, or discrimination under federally assisted education programs because of a person’s 

sex.50 Title IX and its implementing regulations 

have offered a means for women to gain equal access to classes, activities, and education services. 

The regulations implementing Title IX outline criteria for what constitutes compliance with Title IX 

and, thus, nondiscrimination under the law.51

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA)52 guarantees a “free, appropriate public 

education to each child with a disability in every 

state and locality across the country.”53 IDEA’s 

other goals are to improve the identification and 

education of children with disabilities, evaluate the 

success of these efforts, and provide “due process 

protections for children [with disabilities] and their 

families.”54 IDEA also mandates that students be 

provided culturally relevant instruction within 

mainstream environments. At the heart of IDEA 

are two programs. One aims to “identify and meet 

the unique needs of each infant and toddler with a 

disability and his or her family.”55 The other ensures that education programs are geared to students’ individual needs56 and requires funding 

recipients to develop procedures to assist students 

in transitioning into independent adult living. 

Financial incentives encourage states and localities 

49 Id. §§ 1681–1688. 

50 Id. § 1681(a). 

51 34 C.F.R. pt. 106 (2002). 

52 Pub. L. No. 105-17, §§ 601–687 (1997). 

53 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education, IDEA, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Lessons for All! “Lesson 1: History & 

Impact, History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating 

Children with Disabilities Through IDEA,” 2001, <http:// 

www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA25th/Lesson1_History. html> (hereafter cited as OSEP/DOEd, “Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA”). 

54 OSEP/DOEd, “Educating Children with Disabilities 

Through IDEA.” 

55 Ibid. 

56 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Making a Good IDEA 

Better: The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, briefing paper, 2002, p. 2. 
72 

nancial incentives encourage states and localities to 

meet these objectives and comply with IDEA.57

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Protections for people with disabilities are provided through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act. The last of these was described above. 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

In addition to IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 197358 has had profound impact 

on the education of children with disabilities. Section 504 prohibits exclusion from participation in, 

denial of the benefits of, or discrimination under 

any federally assisted program or activity because 

of a person’s disability.59

The Americans with Disabilities Act 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

helped establish protections for individuals with 

physical and/or mental limitations.60 Its most powerful clauses, Titles I, II, and III, ensure that people 

with disabilities are not discriminated against in employment, public services, or public accommodations, respectively. The Commission’s Office of 

Civil Rights Evaluation has only studied enforcement of Titles I and II. 

The ban on discrimination in Title I applies to 

“job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, 

conditions, and privileges of employment.”61 It 

protects “qualified” individuals with a disability, 

where “qualified” is defined as “an individual with 

a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions 

of the employment position. . . .”62 Title I places a 

responsibility on employers to make reasonable 

 

 57 OSEP/DOEd, “Educating Children with Disabilities 

Through IDEA.” 

58 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2002). 

59 Id. § 794(a). 

60 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (2002). 

61 Id. § 12112(a). 

62 Id. §§ 12111(8), 12112(b). 

accommodations necessary for a qualified individual 

with a disability to perform the job. 

Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

a person’s disability in all services, programs, and 

activities provided or made available by state and 

local governments or any of their instrumentalities 

or agencies.63

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Protection against age discrimination is provided through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,64 which was discussed above, 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.65 The 

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on account of age in any program or 

activity receiving federal funds. However, exclusions are permissible when a specific age requirement is established by law or differentiation is made 

“based upon reasonable factors other than age.”66

63 Id. §§ 12131–12165. 

64 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (2002). 

65 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6107 (2002). 

66 Cornell Law School, US Code Collection, “Sec. 6102.—

Prohibition of discrimination,” n.d., <http://www4.law.cornell. 

edu/uscode/42/6102.html>. 
73

APPENDIX C 

Checklist for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ 

Civil Rights Enforcement 

THE PRIORITY OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Authority for Civil Rights Enforcement 

 Has the authority for the agency’s or office’s 

civil rights responsibilities changed? (If so, 

how?) 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

 Has Congress allocated sufficient funding and 

resources to the agency’s civil rights enforcement? 

– In particular, if Congress has expanded the 

civil rights jurisdiction and responsibilities 

of an agency, has an increase in funding 

and resources been allocated to cover the 

expansion? 

 Have funding and resources been designated for 

specific programmatic areas (e.g., enforcement 

of particular statutes or types of enforcement activities such as mediation, training, and outreach)? 

 Has the department/agency provided sufficient 

funding and resources to civil rights enforcement either by allocating them from existing 

departmental or agency provisions or by requesting them from Congress? 

 Have appropriate numbers and types of staff 

been assigned to carry out civil rights enforcement responsibilities? 

 In the absence of sufficient staff, have personnel been reallocated for greater effectiveness in 

civil rights enforcement activities? 

Organization and Structure 

 Has civil rights enforcement been integrated 

into all sections of the department/agency? 

 Does the civil rights enforcement unit have a 

direct line of authority to the departmental Secretary or the agency head to ensure the primacy of civil rights responsibilities? 

 Does the civil rights office have sufficient authority to enforce civil rights within the agency 

programs? 

 Does the agency or office have a unit and staff 

devoted solely to external civil rights enforcement, without internal civil rights (i.e., EEO) 

responsibilities or collateral non-civil rights 

duties? 

 Do the agency’s regional offices have separate 

units devoted solely to external civil rights 

compliance and enforcement activities (e.g., 

complaint processing)? 

 In departments or agencies with decentralized 

civil rights activities, is there a headquarters 

office to coordinate and oversee civil rights enforcement responsibilities? 

 Does the primary civil rights office have units 

exclusively devoted to specific enforcement 

activities, including policy development, enforcement planning, quality assurance, compliance, litigation, and public education and 

outreach? 
74 

Accountability and Oversight of the 

Enforcement Program Throughout the Agency 

Department or Agency Oversight of Components 

 Have the civil rights enforcement responsibilities of various agency components (administrations, operating divisions, or regional and field 

offices) been made clear? 

 Has the agency delegated civil rights enforcement responsibilities to both operational and 

regional staff? 

 Has the agency established effective oversight 

of, accountability within, and active coordination of, its various civil rights enforcement 

components (e.g., operating divisions, administrations, and regional and field offices)? 

 Does the agency require its various components (e.g., administrations or operating divisions) to submit annual civil rights selfassessments, and does it review and evaluate 

these submissions? 

 Does the agency conduct regular on-site monitoring and evaluation reviews of the civil rights 

enforcement activities of its agency components (e.g., administrations or operating divisions), resulting in thorough evaluative reports 

with recommendations for improving the compliance and enforcement programs? 

 Does the agency monitor regional and field 

offices to ensure the consistency of procedures 

and resource materials across offices? 

Department or Agency Oversight of 

Contracting Organizations 

 Does the agency monitor contracting organizations (e.g., FEPAs, FHAPs, and TEROs) to ensure that their civil rights enforcement 

activities adhere to all agency regulations, 

guidelines, and procedures? 

Department or Agency Oversight of 

State Recipients 

 Has the agency established a systematic oversight and monitoring program to evaluate Title 

VI compliance policies and activities connected with programs administered at state and 

local levels? 

 Has the agency required states to submit methods of administration demonstrating how they 

intend to ensure recipient compliance with Title VI? 

 Has the agency regularly conducted reviews of 

Title VI compliance policies and activities of 

states to evaluate how states apply their methods of administration? 

 Has the agency systematically monitored 

states’ data collection and analysis of program 

participants and beneficiaries? 

 Has the agency provided comprehensive guidance to states on their responsibilities for performing Title VI activities, including technical 

assistance in developing procedures and staff 

training manuals and communications? 

 Has the agency ensured that recipients are required to submit annual data on program participants and beneficiaries that can be used to 

determine the compliance status of the recipient? 

 Does the agency analyze the data the recipients 

submit to determine whether federally assisted 

programs ensure that all demographic groups 

have equal opportunity to participate? 

 Does the agency review and assess datareporting systems during its on-site compliance 

reviews of federal funding recipients? 

Strategic Planning With Civil Rights Objectives 

 Has the agency developed a strategic plan to 

accomplish civil rights activities with measures 

of performance, performance goals, and assessments of the accomplishments? 

 Has the agency specified the extent to which 

various civil rights activities are conducted (e.g., 

technical assistance, education and outreach, 

policy guidance, and enforcement with respect 

to different statutes) in its strategic plan? 

 Has the agency realistically assessed the 

budget and staff resources needed for civil 

rights enforcement? 

 Has the agency consulted with stakeholders, 

advocacy groups, and community organizations in developing its strategic plan? 
75

 Has the agency developed any strategic 

streamlining of the civil rights enforcement 

program? 

 For agencies with Title VI responsibilities, has 

the agency developed a civil rights implementation plan that: 

– Conforms to the Department of Justice’s 

guidelines? 

– Fully describes civil rights implementation 

and enforcement? 

– Specifies civil rights goals and objectives 

with timeframes for achieving them? 

– Is used as a management tool to realistically 

assess the available staff and resources to 

accomplish the civil rights enforcement 

goals and objectives? 

– Specifies priority civil rights issues? 

 Has the agency, possibly through the aid of the 

Department of Justice, worked with other federal agencies to consolidate efforts when possible for more efficient use of civil rights 

enforcement resources? 

 Has civil rights enforcement been integrated 

into the activities of all agency components 

(e.g., administrations, operating divisions, and 

program offices) to ensure that civil rights 

goals and objectives are met? 

 Has the agency provided aid or oversight to 

units of the agency that are developing strategic plans? 

Tracking Expenditures and Staffing Needed 

for Civil Rights Activities 

 Does the agency or office track the resources 

required for various types of enforcement activities in order to demonstrate to the Department or Congress a realistic number of 

resources needed to perform more civil rights 

enforcement? 

POLICY DISSEMINATION AND PUBLICITY

Technical Assistance 

 Does the agency have a regular and effective 

program to provide internal technical assistance (e.g., procedural manuals and training) to 

the agency’s civil rights enforcement components (e.g., field offices and contracting agencies)? 

 Does the agency have a regular and effective 

program to provide external technical assistance to entities striving for compliance (e.g., 

employers, federal funding recipients, and 

health care providers)? 

Policy Guidance and Regulations 

 Does the agency have a civil rights policy development unit, without civil rights compliance and enforcement responsibilities, to 

actively develop and issue civil rights standards and policies? 

 Does the agency develop new internal procedural guidance and policy or provide regular 

and up-to-date issuance and promulgation of 

internal policy guidance, guidelines (including 

procedural guidelines and manuals), and interpretations of laws? 

 Does the agency develop new external policy 

guidance, guidelines, regulations and interpretations of laws, or provide regular and up-todate promulgation of external policy guidance, 

guidelines, regulations, and interpretations of 

laws? 

 Does the agency involve community and advocacy groups when developing policy guidance, guidelines, etc.? 

 Has the agency developed or issued policy 

guidance on recent civil rights issues such as 

those concerning changes in statutes or interpretations of civil rights laws? 

 Has the agency undertaken any initiatives or 

issued policy on the following civil rights issues: 

– Cultural competency? 

– Diversity (cultural, racial, and gender)? 

– Limited English proficiency? 

– National origin? 

– Sex discrimination/sexual harassment? 

– Reaching underserved areas and communities? 

– Disability access? 

– Religion? 

– Racial profiling? 
76 

 Has the agency developed or issued policy 

guidance that interprets civil rights enforcement responsibilities by giving examples 

within the context of the agency’s specific 

programs? 

 Has the agency updated regulations on civil 

rights enforcement to reflect recent changes in 

legislation or interpretations of laws? 

Education and Outreach to Potential Victims, 

Violators, and the Public 

 Has the agency developed and effectively disseminated information in English and in other 

languages on civil rights and how to protect or 

enforce them? 

 Are all agency components (headquarters, administrations, operating divisions, and regional 

and field offices) actively engaged in an effective education and outreach program? 

 Does the agency ensure that information on 

civil rights enforcement is readily available to 

potential victims of discrimination, violators, 

and the public, including, with respect to Title 

VI, funding recipients, program participants, 

and intended beneficiaries? 

 Has the agency actively involved advocacy 

and community groups in strategically planning and designing outreach activities? 

COMPLIANCE FOR FUNDING RECIPIENTS

Pre-award Reviews 

 Has the agency implemented a pre-award review system or conducted in-depth pre-award 

reviews of all applicants for major amounts of 

federal funding? 

– Has the agency developed procedures for a 

pre-award review system? 

 Does the agency monitor the quality of preaward reviews to ensure applicants for federal 

funding comply with Title VI? 

Post-award Reviews 

 Has the agency implemented a post-award 

desk-audit program to review each recipient 

annually for compliance with Title VI and to 

identify which recipients will receive on-site 

compliance reviews? 

 Has the agency developed appropriate procedures for selecting which funding recipients 

will receive on-site compliance reviews? 

 Does the agency allocate sufficient resources 

(e.g., travel costs) for on-site reviews of funding recipients, particularly for evaluations of 

states that perform civil rights enforcement activities? 

 Does the agency establish a goal for the number of on-site reviews to conduct in its annual 

planning (e.g., the number of reviews each regional or field office will complete)? 

 Do the post-award reviews include reviews of 

the following types of information: 

– Staffing patterns of the recipient’s facility 

that could identify potential discrimination? 

– Statistics on group participation rates and 

rejected applications? 

– Applications and interview materials that 

could reveal possible barriers to participation? 

– Interview responses of funding recipient officials, affected communities, program participants or beneficiaries, and service 

providers who assist participants and beneficiaries? 

– Compliance policies and practices? 

– Materials demonstrating efforts to increase 

program accessibility, including, for example, education about the program for the 

public and affected communities, and information provided in languages other than 

English? 

 Do the post-award reviews produce written 

results with findings and recommendations for 

achieving compliance? 

 Does the agency periodically evaluate the 

quality of on-site compliance reviews and provide technical assistance to the staff conducting them (e.g., to ensure consistent quality 

across regional or field offices)? 

Deficiencies, Remedies, and Sanctions 

 Has the agency requested additional resources 

to enhance the use of administrative sanctions 

in Title VI enforcement? 
77

 Has the agency developed ways of using administrative sanctions to ensure compliance 

with Title VI? 

 Has the agency engaged in any activities to 

inform Congress or the Department of Justice 

of the complexities of civil rights enforcement 

in block grant programs? 

COMPLAINT PROCESSING, AGENCY-INITIATED 

CHARGES, AND LITIGATION

Complaint Processing and Investigation 

 Has the agency established an effective intake 

process whereby charging parties can easily 

file a complaint? 

 Does the agency have an adequate complaint 

database system to support complaint processing, including complaint intake and resolution? 

 Has the agency established an effective process 

for complaints that minimizes backlogs and 

provides rapid dismissal for complaints the 

agency will not pursue? 

 Does the agency make effective use of contracting agencies or offices with parallel jurisdiction (such as FHIPs, FEPAs, TEROs, and 

U.S. attorneys’ offices) in handling complaint 

overflow? 

 Does the agency have procedures that clearly 

delineate the roles and responsibilities of the 

various offices and/or individuals responsible 

for complaint processing? 

 Has the agency developed and implemented a 

system for reviewing the quality of the charge 

handling process, including investigations, to 

ensure the accountability of enforcement staff? 

 Has the agency developed and implemented 

standard guidelines for conducting investigations, including timelines for various stages of 

an investigation? 

 Does the agency develop written investigation 

plans for complaints? 

 Does the agency initiate sufficient numbers of 

on-site investigations? 

 Has the agency developed standards for the 

dismissal of complaints and for letters of finding? 

 Has the agency established a reasonable appeals process for complainants who challenge 

the agency’s handling of their charges? 

 Does the agency have a customer service system to keep charging parties updated on the 

status of a complaint? 

Agency-Initiated Charges 

 Has the agency developed a strategy for proactive enforcement to identify and pursue cases 

not easily reached through individual complaints (such as systemic discrimination)? 

 Does the agency seek to identify discrimination (e.g., through the use of testers or analyses 

of statistical data)? 

 Does the agency initiate enforcement activities 

that are not in response to a filed complaint? 

Litigation 

 Has the agency developed a litigation strategy 

to address important or emerging substantive 

issues within resource limitations? 

 Does the agency manage its limited resources 

for litigation with strategies such as: 

– Using an attorney-referral program? 

– Using mediation, conciliation, or other alternative dispute resolution techniques to 

avoid costly court cases? 

– Using litigation when it is most needed, for 

example, in systemic cases, or to ensure 

compliance or address conciliation 

breaches? 

– Appropriately delegating litigation authority to other staff? 

 Has the agency developed a litigation strategy 

to address important or emerging substantive 

issues within resource limitations? 

 Does the agency pursue broad resolution and 

relief in its cases? 

 Does the agency conduct regular compliance 

monitoring of existing consent decrees, agreements, etc.? 

STAFF TRAINING

 Has the agency provided appropriate training 

for enforcement staff on: 
78 

– Internal procedures for civil rights enforcement activities? 

– The applicable civil rights statutes and 

policies? 

INTERACTION AND COORDINATION WITH 

EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

 Has the agency established the appropriate relationship between internal agency offices and 

components? 

 Has the agency established the appropriate relationships with the following external agencies and organizations to carry out its 

enforcement responsibilities: 

– Other federal agencies that share or have 

similar civil rights enforcement responsibilities? 

– Professional organizations? 

– Contracting agencies or offices with parallel jurisdiction that assist in carrying out 

civil rights enforcement responsibilities 

(e.g., U.S. attorneys’ offices, FHAPs, 

FEPAs, TEROs)? 

– Advocacy groups and community organizations? 

– Federal funding recipients that have subrecipients (e.g., states)? 

 Are the roles and responsibilities of any agencies and organizations that assist in the civil 

rights enforcement clearly articulated (e.g., 

through the use of memoranda of understanding or states’ methods of administration)? 

RESEARCH

 Has the agency collected and analyzed additional data and research showing or dispelling 

concerns about discrimination or disparities 

among groups in pertinent program areas (e.g., 

job patterns, educational opportunities, and 

health needs)?