Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies

Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

Volume II: An Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, 

and Transportation

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 II: An Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation 
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 II: 

An Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation. This volume, the second in a 

series, evaluates the extent to which the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation have responded to Commission recommendations directed to them during the 1990s. The volume focuses on 

whether civil rights enforcement at the three departments has improved or changed as a result of previous 

findings and recommendations made by the Commission. 

This study finds that the three departments implemented many of the Commission’s recommendations 

and that improvements occurred in the areas of data collection and analysis, policy guidance, complaint 

processing, technical assistance, education and outreach, staff training, and community involvement. 

However, a paucity of resources significantly affected each department’s ability to completely and thoroughly implement many of the recommendations. As a result, the Commission urges the executive and 

legislative branches of government to provide each department with the necessary resources to execute 

and strengthen their civil rights enforcement programs. 

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. Margaret Butler, civil rights analyst, Wanda 

Johnson, civil rights analyst, and Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, researched and wrote the report. Eileen Rudert, social scientist, served as team leader. Others who contributed to the report include 

Manuel Alba, social scientist, Monique Dennis-Elmore, civil rights analyst, Latrice Foshee, civil rights 

analyst, and Teresa Brooks, secretary. Brian Taylor, clerk, and two interns, Caroline Kate Fallon, University of California, Davis, California, and Michael Wolf, Columbia University, New York, New York, also 

worked on the project. 

The report was reviewed for legal sufficiency by Barbara de La Viez, attorney-advisor, and Kirk 

Perry, civil rights analyst, both of whom are in the Office of General Counsel. Editorial review was performed by Barbara Fontana, librarian; Angus St. Hilaire, social scientist, Eastern Regional Office; and 

Arthur Palacios, civil rights analyst, Western Regional Office. Dawn Sweet, editor, prepared this report 

for final publication. 

The Commission is also grateful to Kevin Malone, special assistant to the director, Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor; J. Griffin Crump, internal liaison, Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, U.S. Department of Labor; Loretta King, deputy assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; and Marc Brenman, senior policy advisor, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. 

Department of Transportation; for serving as liaisons between the Commission and their agencies. Their 

assistance greatly contributed to the completion of this report. 
v 

Contents 

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

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

 Scope........................................................................................................................................................1 

 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................2 

 Overview..................................................................................................................................................2 

 Department of Justice .........................................................................................................................2 

 Department of Labor...........................................................................................................................3 

 Department of Transportation.............................................................................................................3 

 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................3 

Chapter 2. Department of Justice ...........................................................................................................5

 Overview..................................................................................................................................................6 

Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Coordination and Review Section ..............................6 

 Priority of Civil Rights .......................................................................................................................6 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ......................................................................................................7 

Policy Guidance..................................................................................................................................7 

Technical Assistance...........................................................................................................................7 

Coordination .......................................................................................................................................7 

Community Involvement ....................................................................................................................8 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Office of Justice Programs..........................................8 

Priority of Civil Rights .......................................................................................................................8 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ......................................................................................................8 

Policy Guidance..................................................................................................................................9 

Technical Assistance...........................................................................................................................9 

Compliance Reviews ..........................................................................................................................9 

Staff Training......................................................................................................................................9 

Coordination .......................................................................................................................................9 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Disability Rights Section ............................................9 

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

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................10 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................10 

Complaint Processing .......................................................................................................................10 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................10 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................10 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation................................10 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................10 

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

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................11 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................11 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................12 
vi 

 Department of Justice’s Response to the Recommendations.................................................................12 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................12 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................12 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................13 

 Coordination and Review Section’s Response to the Recommendations..............................................14 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................14 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................15 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................15 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................15 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................16 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................16 

 Office of Justice Programs’ Response to the Recommendations...........................................................16 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................16 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................18 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................18 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................19 

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................19 

Pre-award Reviews ......................................................................................................................20 

Post-award Reviews ....................................................................................................................21 

Staff Training....................................................................................................................................21 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................21 

 Disability Rights Section’s Response to the Recommendations............................................................22 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................22 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................22 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................22 

Complaint Processing .......................................................................................................................22 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................23 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................23 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Response to the Recommendations .................................................23 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................23 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................23 

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

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

 Underreporting of Hate Crimes ...................................................................................................25 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................26 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................26 

New Initiatives..................................................................................................................................26 

 Oversight and Quality Assurance ................................................................................................26 
vii 

Chapter 3. Department of Labor............................................................................................................28

 Overview................................................................................................................................................28 

 The Civil Rights Center .........................................................................................................................29 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Civil Rights Center ...................................................29 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................30 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................30 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................30 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................30 

Technical Assistance and Education and Outreach ..........................................................................31 

Complaint Processing .......................................................................................................................31 

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................31 

Staff Training....................................................................................................................................32 

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

 Civil Rights Center’s Response to the Recommendations.....................................................................32 

Establishing Priorities .......................................................................................................................32 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................33 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................34 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................34 

Technical Assistance and Education and Outreach ..........................................................................35 

Complaint Processing .......................................................................................................................35 

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................36 

Staff Training....................................................................................................................................37 

Oversight and Quality Assurance .....................................................................................................37 

 Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)................................................................38 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to OFCCP............................................................................39 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................39 

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

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................39 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................40 

 OFCCP’s Response to the Recommendations .......................................................................................40 

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

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................40 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................41 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................42 

Chapter 4. Department of Transportation ...........................................................................................43

 Overview................................................................................................................................................44 

 Previous Findings and Recommendations to the Department of Transportation...................................45 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................45 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................45 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................46 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................46 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................47 

Education and Outreach....................................................................................................................47 
viii

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................47 

Staff Training....................................................................................................................................49 

Oversight and Quality Assurance .....................................................................................................50 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................50 

 Department of Transportation’s Response to the Recommendations ....................................................50 

Priority of Civil Rights .....................................................................................................................50 

Resources—Funding and Staffing ....................................................................................................51 

Planning ............................................................................................................................................52 

Policy Guidance................................................................................................................................53 

Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................................53 

Education and Outreach....................................................................................................................54 

Compliance Reviews ........................................................................................................................55 

Staff Training....................................................................................................................................57 

Oversight and Quality Assurance .....................................................................................................57 

Coordination .....................................................................................................................................57 

Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................58 

Chapter 5. Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................59 

 Introduction............................................................................................................................................59 

 Department of Justice.............................................................................................................................59 

 Department of Labor..............................................................................................................................65 

 Department of Transportation................................................................................................................69 

Figure 

1. Budget History of the Civil Rights Center.............................................................................................33 

Tables 

1. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Monitoring and Research Employees, 1984 and 2002 ......................4 

2. Civil Rights Center Staffing History......................................................................................................33 

3. Civil Rights Center Workload................................................................................................................36 
 ix

Executive Summary 

In the 1950s, landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education convinced the nation that the government indeed had a responsibility to ensure that equal protection of the law was afforded to all citizens. 

The turbulent decade of the 1960s brought the realization that segments of our society needed the support 

of the federal government in ensuring their civil rights. During this decade, the sweeping Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 was passed, covering equal opportunity in many areas. Presidential executive orders and congressional actions in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in an array of government programs designed to enforce 

civil rights laws. For examples, the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 were enacted. In the 1990s, despite calls proclaiming that equality had been achieved on 

all fronts, the nation continued to struggle to ensure equal participation for all its citizens. However, legislative action was necessary to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities. Thus, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed into law. 

Over the years, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights strived to ensure equal rights by issuing reports 

examining and suggesting ways to improve the civil rights enforcement efforts of federal agencies. The 

Commission has seen the civil rights focus shift from passing laws to enforcing them and has documented 

the development of civil rights enforcement of various departments and agencies. It has identified good 

practices as well as inadequacies and made recommendations for improvement. Commission reports established where federal agencies succeeded or failed at their civil rights obligations. The Commission found 

that some improvements have been tenuous and limited in scope. Many federal agencies continue to fail, 

leaving citizens to seek recourse where none should be needed and, often, where it is difficult to attain. 

This report is part of a series that reviews recommendations the Commission made to federal agencies 

between 1992 and 2000. Volume I of this series of reports establishes elements fundamental to effective 

civil rights enforcement, without which the federal government’s duty cannot be fulfilled. This, the second volume, evaluates the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation (DOJ, DOL, and DOT) specifically against those elements to determine how effectively they have implemented the Commission’s 

recommendations. Major findings of this report include: 

 Department of Justice 

The Department has improved in civil rights enforcement, particularly in coordination, planning, and 

technical assistance. However, this report concludes that civil rights enforcement at the Office of Justice Programs is inadequate, primarily because of uncertainty about the future role of the office. The 

Commission was concerned about the lack of civil rights authority and priority at the Office of Justice 

Programs in 1996, and that concern remains. The Commission is alarmed that the FBI’s implementation of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act has not changed since a 1992 review. There is serious underreporting of such crimes due to numerous factors, including that the reporting is voluntary and that FBI 

guidance to law enforcement officials minimizes the importance of the civil rights function. 

 Department of Labor 

The Commission finds that many of the recommendations it made to the Civil Rights Center in 1996 

have not been addressed. For example, the Center has conducted very few pre- or post-award reviews 

and also lacks an appropriate annual compliance review schedule. The lack of resources is the primary 

reason the Commission’s recommendations were not implemented. In 1993 OFCCP needed improvements in planning, compliance reviews, and community development. Although the Commission finds 

that many of its recommendations have not been implemented, OFCCP is now able to enforce civil 

rights compliance better since it no longer uses localized affirmative action agreements to determine 

compliance. 
x 

 Department of Transportation 

The Department of Transportation’s record of implementing Commission recommendations is mixed. 

While the Commission is heartened by progress, much work remains to improve civil rights enforcement in some operating administrations. Staff and resource limitations remain a bane for several operating administrations. An example is the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Civil Rights 

(FHWA/OCR). Because of inadequate resources, FHWA has not sufficiently increased the number of 

civil rights staff members. On the other hand, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Civil Rights’ budget increased 52 percent over the previous year. 

 Model Programs 

The Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation have made some improvements in response to 

previous Commission recommendations. In fact, each department has practices worthy of being emulated by other agencies. The exemplary elements include data collection and analysis, policy guidance, 

complaint processing, technical assistance, education and outreach, coordination, staff civil rights 

training, and community involvement. For example, the Department of Labor’s data collection and 

analysis system for its job-training program (previously the Job Training Partnership Act, which was 

replaced with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) was an excellent model of a recipient compliance evaluation system that facilitated Title VI enforcement. Today, DOL’s grant office has management information systems for all of its programs. In 1998, the Department of Justice’s Disability 

Rights Section (DRS) showed strengths in providing technical assistance to its stakeholders and using 

mediation (or alternative dispute resolution) in its civil rights enforcement program. Today, DRS’ 

technical assistance program and the use of mediation for the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act serve as models for other components in the Department. Finally, the Department of 

Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a particularly strong education 

and outreach program. The agency’s commitment to reach persons with limited English proficiency 

extends to its state recipients. This is an improvement since the Commission previously found that 

education and outreach were not available. 

Overall, recommendations made to the three federal agencies were implemented. Model programs as 

well as deficiencies are identifiable across the departments. It is not the purpose of this report to measure 

the vigor with which the departments have advanced civil rights. Other reports of the Commission have 

done that. Its purpose is to review the effectiveness of the three agencies in implementing recommendations made earlier. It is only through constant review and monitoring by the Commission and careful consideration of the recommendations by the current administration, Congress, and agency staffs that the full 

promise of the civil rights laws will be realized. 

Conclusion: 

 Most Commission recommendations were implemented. 

 The Department of Justice has improved in civil rights enforcement; however (1) the Office of Justice Programs’ civil rights enforcement continues to be inadequate and (2) the FBI’s weak implementation of the 

Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which causes serious underreporting of such crimes, has not changed. 

 The Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center still has not addressed many of the Commission’s 1996 recommendations, primarily because of a lack of resources. 

 The Department of Transportation has a mixed record of implementing Commission recommendations. 

Much work remains to improve civil rights enforcement in some operating administrations. Staff and resource limitations remain a bane for several operating administrations.
 1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

“A weakening economy and compelling national security interests should not provide an excuse to fail 

to support either the congressional appropriations 

or the high-quality executive branch leadership 

needed to carry out the various federal agencies’ 

civil rights enforcement obligations.”1

 

 —The Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights 

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

Civil Rights issued numerous civil rights enforcement reports evaluating the operations of many 

federal agencies. These reports contain recommendations to improve federal civil rights enforcement. 

This report, volume II in a series, discusses the 

Commission’s recommendations directed to the 

Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation 

between 1992 and 2000. This report sets out to 

discover answers to important questions: Have the 

departments implemented recommendations directed to them by the Commission? If not, why 

not? If so, have their civil rights programs improved? 

The Department of Justice is the largest and, 

considered by some, the major federal civil rights 

enforcement agency. It is responsible for enforcing 

every major civil rights statute, covering such areas 

as the administration of justice, education, employment, housing, disability, and voting. In addition to its enforcement role, the Department is also 

responsible for the coordination and oversight of 

other federal agencies’ civil rights enforcement 

activities. By examining the Department of Justice, 

the study sets the stage for evaluating the civil 

rights efforts of the other agencies. Many of the 

other agencies seek guidance and assistance in 

their civil rights program from the Department. 

 

1

 Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, Rights at Risk: 

Equality in an Age of Terrorism, 2002, p. 8. 

In past Commission reports, the Departments of 

Labor and Transportation emerged as having exemplary elements of civil rights enforcement in 

segments of the agency but not widespread across 

the Departments’ programs. The Department of 

Labor, for example, had superior Title VI guidelines, policies, and procedures and a solid Title VI 

enforcement program that was narrowly applied to 

only its main job-training program, the Job Training Partnership Act, which has since been replaced. The Department of Transportation and its 

operating administrations had good enforcement 

elements—staff training, a state monitoring program, a technical assistance program, and a data 

collection and analysis program—in isolated operating administrations or in the Office of the Secretary. This review examines whether these agencies 

could build upon these efforts to implement more 

comprehensive enforcement programs. 

SCOPE

The review covers the Department of Justice, 

including the Civil Rights Division and two of its 

sections, the Coordination and Review Section and 

the Disability Rights Section, the Office of Justice 

Programs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics 

Act; the Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs; and the Department of Transportation 

and its Office of Civil Rights and seven operating 

administrations. 
2 

The study assesses the extent to which the departments implemented the Commission’s recommendations contained in four earlier reports: 

 Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in 

the 1990s (1992); 

 Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects (1993); 

 Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs 

(1996); and 

 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 (1998). 

The Commission’s previous reports and analyses support that there are essential elements for 

effective civil rights enforcement. They include: 

 the priority of civil rights at the federal agency; 

 the resources (funding and staffing) that are 

provided to carry out the work; 

 effective planning; 

 the policy guidance prepared and issued; 

 technical assistance; 

 education and outreach; 

 effective complaint processing; 

 quality compliance reviews; 

 staff training; and 

 initiatives that maximize effectiveness in accomplishing civil rights enforcement. Such initiatives include oversight and quality assurance 

of the civil rights program, effective coordination, and community involvement throughout 

the program. 

All the programs evaluated in this report are 

done so in the context of the foregoing elements. 

METHODOLOGY

In assessing whether the three departments or 

their components under review have responded to 

the Commission’s recommendations, and whether 

enforcement has improved, the Commission reviewed relevant policy, planning and budget 

documents, annual reports, and civil rights implementation plans; prepared interrogatories that solicited the most current information on civil rights 

initiatives and directions within the three departments and reviewed responses; interviewed civil 

rights staff; and reviewed other relevant reports 

and sources. 

OVERVIEW

Department of Justice 

During the past decade, the Commission directed more than 100 recommendations to the Department of Justice and five of its components. 

Overall, the Commission’s studies found the Department weak in the following elements: coordination, guidance, and technical assistance and outreach to its stakeholders; planning and evaluation 

of civil rights activities; and adequate funding and 

resources for its civil rights components. The 

weaknesses found within the Department were 

mirrored in the Commission’s review of the Civil 

Rights Division, particularly the Coordination and 

Review Section, as well as in the Office of Justice 

Programs’ Office for Civil Rights. Two of the 

components, the Disability Rights Section and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s specific authority over the data collection and reporting of hate 

crimes, were just beginning to undertake their responsibilities at the time of the Commission’s review in the 1990s. Both showed strength in some 

areas. For example, the Disability Rights Section 

already had a strong technical assistance program 

and had incorporated mediation successfully in its 

enforcement program. In its fulfillment of the Hate 

Crimes Statistics Act, the FBI prepared and issued 

guidelines and a training manual for law enforcement agencies, and offered technical assistance to 

police departments almost immediately. 

In this report, the Commission finds that the 

Department, the Civil Rights Division, and the two 

sections reviewed have shown improvement in the 

elements where they were weak. In particular, the 

Commission finds a significant improvement in the 

Title VI work performed by the Division’s Coordination and Review Section. The Section attributes 

its guidance and technical assistance initiatives to 

the recommendations made in the Commission’s 

1996 report. The Office of Justice Programs’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) shows improvement in 

planning and technical assistance initiatives, which 
 3 

it attributes to the 1996 recommendations made by 

the Commission. However, OCR still shows serious deficiencies in civil rights enforcement, particularly in its compliance activities. With respect 

to the FBI’s enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the Commission’s 2002 review finds 

serious underreporting of such crimes. While several factors contribute to the problem, generally, 

there has been little change in the implementation 

of the law since 1992. The FBI acknowledges 

flaws in the program and indicates that there will 

be new initiatives to maximize the effectiveness of 

reporting hate crime data in the future. These future initiatives warrant attention from the Commission through monitoring. 

Department of Labor 

In 1996, the Commission found that the Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center was not 

effectively fulfilling its civil rights responsibilities. 

For example, its civil rights implementation plans, 

which are a required civil rights planning and reporting document, did not meet the Department of 

Justice’s requirements. In addition, the Center was 

not effectively addressing the other key elements 

in civil rights enforcement effectively. For example, it was performing very few pre- and postaward compliance reviews. 

In this review, the Commission finds that although the Civil Rights Center has not implemented many of the Commission’s 1996 recommendations, the Center did attempt to improve its 

civil rights enforcement by reorganizing into three 

new offices; placing high priority on technical assistance and training to DOL funding recipients; 

establishing a reminder system to follow-up on 

corrective action plans or conciliation agreements; 

and collaborating with the Department of Justice in 

revising its Title VI regulations to reflect the Civil 

Rights Restoration Act of 1987.2

 

In its 1993 study, the Commission found that 

overlapping jurisdiction caused inconsistency and 

duplication of efforts between the Department of 

Labor and the Department of Transportation; that 

the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program’s (OFCCP’s) contacts with community groups 

during compliance reviews were inadequate; and 

 

2

 Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988). 

that OFCCP needed to reassess its approach to determine compliance under localized affirmative 

action agreements. 

In its 2002 review, the Commission finds that 

DOL’s December 1979 memorandum of understanding with the Department of Transportation 

has not been updated to reflect the interim agreement to exchange information. In addition, OFCCP 

still does not solicit involvement from the community in selecting companies for compliance reviews. However, after reassessing its approach to 

determine compliance, OFCCP no longer uses localized affirmative action agreements. 

Department of Transportation 

Within the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), the Office of the Secretary (OST) has 

delegated the responsibility for enforcement of 

external civil rights to the operating administrations. The Commission’s 1993 and 1996 studies 

examined several factors affecting the enforcement 

of civil rights in DOT’s federally assisted programs. Among the most important are OST/Office 

of Civil Rights’ (DOCR’s) effectiveness in its 

oversight of the operating administrations (OA), 

adequacy of staffing and funding, location of the 

OAs’ offices of civil rights in the organizational 

hierarchy, a comprehensive Title VI program, and 

detailed civil rights implementation plans. The 

Commission’s 2002 study finds that DOT’s progress is uneven. In 1993 and 1996 the Commission 

found that DOCR’s oversight process was inadequate, but that by 2002 it had improved. Inadequate staffing and funding for civil rights enforcement, on the other hand, remains a major problem 

for several OAs. At the same time, directors of the 

offices of civil rights of two OAs now report to 

their respective administrators, a recommendation 

the Commission made in 1996. Even so, three of 

the OAs still do not have civil rights implementation plans. 

SUMMARY

Overall, this report concludes that most Commission recommendations were implemented by 

federal agencies, either fully or in part. The report 

shows that despite shortages in funding and other 

resources, all three agencies have implemented 

civil rights enforcement effectively at least in cer-
4 

tain programs but not comprehensively. Where 

recommendations were not implemented, agencies 

cited: 

 deficient resources; 

 turnover that resulted in lack of continuity between staff; 

 redefined responsibilities and priorities brought 

about by changes in law; 

 new advancements in technology that rendered 

some recommendations obsolete; 

 the establishment of new offices; 

 the absence of coordination with other agencies; or 

 changes in priorities of administrations. 

The Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation must expand civil rights efforts to involve all agency programs and to include all the 

necessary elements of an enforcement program. 

New findings and recommendations in this report 

offer guidance as to how these agencies can accomplish this expansion. 

This study was necessitated by the fact that resource reductions over a period beginning in the 

1980s forced the Commission to reduce its monitoring program. The monitoring program was then 

supported by a $1 million budget, with a staff 

dedicated solely to that function. In fiscal year 

1984, the monitoring office had 13 employees, and 

a separate research and report-writing office had 

26 employees. Today, both functions are carried 

out by one office, which has only 11 employees 

(see table 1). 

TABLE 1—U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Monitoring and Research Employees, 

1984 and 2002

Fiscal Year 

Office of 

Research 

Office of Federal Civil 

Rights Evaluation* 

1984 26 13 

2002 11 

*The Office of Federal Civil Rights Evaluation, now the Office of 

Civil Rights Evaluation, is the former monitoring office. 

SOURCE: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

1984, p. 109.

The Commission’s monitoring activities previously consisted of constant follow-up on recommendations, frequent meetings with agency staffs to 

anticipate problems and assess progress, and the 

issuance of regular evaluations. Monitoring activities have been cut back and now consist of reviews 

of material disseminated by and about federal agencies, augmented by occasional first-person contact 

with agency staffs. Thus, in this study the Commission thoroughly evaluates agencies’ responsiveness 

to recommendations of the past decade since it has 

not been able to do so on an ongoing basis. 

Monitoring federal agencies is one of the 

Commission’s most important responsibilities and 

makes possible for all Americans an external review of civil rights offices. Since civil rights enforcement is a multimillion dollar public investment, the government, as steward of that 

investment, must devote resources sufficient to 

support the original intent of Congress that the 

Commission ensure the public is receiving protections promised by civil rights laws. 
 5 

CHAPTER 2 

Department of Justice 

 

The Department of Justice (the Department or 

DOJ) is the federal agency with predominant 

responsibility for protecting the constitutional, 

civil, and statutory rights for all Americans. In 

2001, it had 38 component organizations, offices, 

and divisions, and employed approximately 120,000 

people throughout the country. Its employees 

include attorneys, investigators, law enforcement 

personnel, civil rights analysts, policy analysts, 

coordinators, paralegals, statisticians, and others.1

 

It is mainly through its Civil Rights Division 

(Division) that DOJ protects the civil rights of all 

citizens in areas such as housing, education, employment, immigration, disabilities, law enforcement, and voting. The Division also carries out the 

Department’s coordination and oversight responsibilities with respect to other federal agencies’ civil 

rights enforcement activities, including the implementation of Title VI. The Division, established in 

1957, has 10 program sections that carry out civil 

rights enforcement and coordination.2

 Other comess Administration. 

1 See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 

Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 

Performance Plan, April 2001, pp. iii, 7 (hereafter cited as DOJ, 

Performance Report and Plan); U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination 

in State and Local Governments, September 2001, p. 79 (hereafter 

cited as USCCR, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination). 

2

 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Financial 

Operations Staff, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission, p. 

G-2 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Congressional Budget 

Submission). The 10 program sections are the Employment 

Litigation Section, the Appellate Section, the Coordination and 

Review Section, the Criminal Section, the Disability Rights Section, 

the Educational Opportunities Section, the Housing and Civil 

Enforcement Section, the Office of Special Counsel for 

Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, the Special 

Litigation Section, and the Voting Rights Section. In addition to the 

program sections, the Division also includes the Administrative 

Management Section and the Office of Redr

ponents in the Department, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Community Relations 

Service, and the U.S. attorneys, also bear civil 

rights responsibilities. Additionally, civil rights 

offices within components have internal and external civil rights responsibilities. Ultimate responsibility for the Department’s civil rights policies and 

programs rests with the U.S. attorney general. 

This chapter discusses and assesses the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations 

to the Department of Justice and five of its components over the past decade. In reports written during 

this period, the Commission made more than 100 

recommendations to the Department of Justice, including recommendations to its Office of the Attorney General, the Civil Rights Division, two sections 

in the Division—the Coordination and Review Section (CORS) and the Disability Rights Section 

(DRS)—and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

Department of Justice Components Reviewed: 

 Civil Rights Division 

Coordination and Review Section 

Disability Rights Section 

 Office of Justice Programs 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation 

During the period, the Commission also reported 

on hate crimes against Asian Pacific Americans and 

made recommendations to strengthen the Department’s enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics 

Act with respect to collecting data on acts of bigotry 

and violence, particularly against the Asian Pacific 

American community. The Department’s component responsible for collecting and reporting hate 

crime data is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
6 

This chapter summarizes the nature of the 

Commission’s recommendations made to the Department and certain components with emphasis on 

where they were strong or weak in civil rights enforcement. It also assesses how the recommendations have been addressed. For this assessment, the 

Commission relied heavily on the Department’s 

information through interrogatories, interviews, 

and available documents. 

OVERVIEW

Overall, the Commission’s studies in the 1990s 

found the Department weak in the following areas: 

coordination, guidance, and technical assistance 

and outreach to its stakeholders; planning and 

evaluation of civil rights activities; and funding 

and resources for civil rights enforcement. The 

weaknesses found within the Department were 

mirrored in the Commission’s review of the Civil 

Rights Division, particularly the Coordination and 

Review Section, as well as in the Office of Justice 

Programs. Two of the components, the Disability 

Rights Section with its responsibility for enforcing 

the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with authority over the 

data collection and reporting of hate crimes, were 

just beginning to undertake their civil rights responsibilities at the time of the Commission’s reviews in 1998 and 1992, respectively. Both entities 

showed strengths in some areas. For example, at 

the time of the review, the Disability Rights Section was strong in technical assistance and in the 

use of mediation (alternative dispute resolution) as 

an enforcement strategy. Similarly, in the fulfillment of its new responsibility, after the passage of 

the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, the FBI 

prepared and distributed guidelines and a training 

manual, and offered technical assistance to law 

enforcement agencies almost immediately. 

In the 2002 review, the Commission finds that 

the Department, the Civil Rights Division, and the 

two sections reviewed have shown improvement in 

the following areas: coordination, guidance, technical assistance and outreach to its stakeholders; 

planning and evaluation of civil rights activities; 

and funding and resources for civil rights enforcement. The Office of Justice Programs’ Office for 

Civil Rights shows improvement in planning and 

technical assistance, but deficiencies in civil rights 

enforcement. The Department’s improvement in 

most of these areas began in the 1990s, with new 

civil rights initiatives that promulgated departmental actions to address flaws. With respect to the 

FBI’s enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics 

Act, the Commission’s 2002 review finds little 

significant change in the implementation of the law 

since 1992. 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO THE COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION

Priority of Civil Rights 

Authority for coordinating and monitoring Title 

VI enforcement at the federal level is held by the 

Civil Rights Division’s Coordination and Review 

Section (CORS). Established in 1979, CORS has 

responsibility to make certain that designated federal agencies meet their responsibilities for ensuring nondiscrimination under Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964.3

 In 1996, the Commission is-

 

3

 CORS enforces Executive Order 12,250, which gives the 

U.S. attorney general authority and leadership responsibility 

for coordinating Title VI enforcement efforts. See Exec. Order 

No. 12,250, 3 C.F.R. 298 (1981), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. § 

2000d-1 (1988). Pursuant to Executive Order 12,250, the Department of Justice is responsible for coordinating the implementation of Section 504 by the various federal agencies. 28 

C.F.R. § 41.1 (1999). In addition to monitoring and coordinating federal Title VI activities, CORS also enforces Title IX of 

the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally assisted education 

programs, and coordinates the enforcement of the nondiscrimination provisions of more than 60 program-specific statutes and three executive orders. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 

(1994). DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission, p. G-42; Department of Justice’s Interrogatory Response 

to the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year 

Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Coordination and Review Section, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as 

DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response). Since the Commission’s 

1996 report, CORS became responsible for the enforcement 

and governmentwide coordination of two additional executive 

orders. Executive Order 13,166, which was issued in August 

2000, is titled “Improving Access to Services for Persons with 

Limited Proficiency.” Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 

50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000). The purpose of the executive order is 

to eliminate limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and 

meaningful participation in all federally assisted and federally 

conducted programs. Executive Order 13,160, which was 

issued in June 2000, prohibits discrimination in federal education and training programs on the basis of race, color, sex, 

national origin, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, or 

status as a parent. Exec. Order No. 13,160, 65 Fed. Reg. 

39,775 (June 27, 2000). U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, “Purpose of Coordination and Review Section,” n.d., <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/purpose.htm>. 
 7 

sued its Title VI report,4 which assessed the enforcement of Title VI by CORS and DOJ’s Office 

of Justice Programs. In the Title VI report, the 

Commission found that the Department lacked 

commitment to the enforcement of Title VI.5

DOJ’s civil rights priorities shifted from Title VI to 

other civil rights statutes, a change that was reflected in the budget and resources available for 

the coordination and enforcement of Title VI.6

 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Despite plans to strengthen Title VI enforcement, DOJ transferred CORS staff to other sections 

and reduced drastically the resources available for 

Title VI enforcement activities.7

 The Commission 

noted that CORS lacked adequate resources and 

funding to support Title VI enforcement and because of the Department’s poor planning could not 

carry out the enforcement of Title VI effectively. 

As a result, the Commission found CORS’ Title VI 

work inadequate and recommended changes in the 

organizational structure of the section.8

Policy Guidance 

The Commission also concluded that DOJ 

failed to provide leadership necessary to fulfill its 

Title VI responsibilities. The Department had not 

updated regulations, and relied on policies and 

procedures more consistent with programs in the 

1960s and 1970s.9

 The Commission urged the Department to issue a policy statement or guidance 

about its Title VI authority or any future changes 

in its authority that could have resulted from an 

amended Title VI statute or revised or new executive order.10 

 

 

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

Programs, June 1996 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal 

Title VI Enforcement). 

5

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 129. 

6

 Ibid. 

7

 Ibid.

8

 Ibid., pp. 132–33.

9

 Ibid., pp. 141–42. 

10 Ibid., p. 131. 

Technical Assistance 

The Commission found that CORS did not have 

a formal Title VI technical assistance program. The 

Commission recommended that CORS establish a 

formal technical assistance program for agencies 

and other outside organizations, and produce and 

disseminate information on Title VI for the public 

and those affected by the law. 

Coordination 

The Commission recommended that CORS 

strengthen its Title VI monitoring and coordinating 

role and provide regular technical assistance 

through policy guidance and training to federal 

agencies on their implementation of the law. The 

Commission suggested that CORS reassess its priorities, resources, and workload for its Title VI 

coordinating functions.11 

Executive Order 12,250 requires the U.S. attorney general to evaluate the Title VI agencies’ implementation of the law, advise agency heads of 

the results of the evaluations, and provide recommendations for improving the implementation or 

enforcement of Title VI.12 In 1981, DOJ issued 

guidelines to help agencies formulate plans for implementing their responsibilities under the executive order. By 1996, the civil rights implementation 

plan (CRIP) emerged as the principal DOJ document for evaluating federal Title VI enforcement. 

CORS relied “exclusively” on agencies’ CRIPs to 

evaluate the implementation of the law.13 CORS 

coordinators reviewed the CRIPs and recommended plans for approval or disapproval.14 

The Commission found the CRIPs to be insufficient in addressing the elements necessary for civil 

rights planning, enforcement, and evaluation.15 The 

Commission recommended that CORS issue 

guidelines and requirements so that CRIPs would 

include compliance information that could be 

evaluated. The Commission also found that the 

evaluation of the plans was a “cursory review” of 

the CRIPs Title VI agencies submitted.16 The 

11 Ibid., pp. 133–39. 

12 Ibid., p. 89. 

13 For the history and purpose of the civil rights implementation 

plan, see USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 89–92. 

14 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 93. 

15 Ibid., pp. 150–51. 

16 Ibid., pp. 93–98, 150. 
8 

Commission urged that CORS conduct a formal 

annual review of the agencies’ goals and accomplishments, to be included in a more comprehensive document.17 

Community Involvement 

In 1996, CORS offered very little education and 

outreach to community and advocacy groups representing funding recipients about Title VI responsibilities or beneficiaries about their civil rights. 

The Commission recommended that CORS provide information to the public on Title VI and consult with stakeholders regularly. 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Priority of Civil Rights 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) administers funds to support criminal justice initiatives at 

the state and local levels. Funds have been used to 

prevent and control crime, improve the criminal 

and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge 

about crime and related issues, assist crime victims, and help state and local jurisdictions to better 

ensure public safety.18 OJP partners with federal, 

state, and local agencies and national and community-based organizations, to develop, operate, and 

evaluate a wide range of criminal and juvenile justice programs.19 In 1996, OJP was the largest fundgranting agency within DOJ, distributing $790 million through 20 different programs to 601 recipients.20 In 1996, OJP described itself as a programfocused agency. Civil rights at OJP was not a 

priority in 1996.21 

At the time of the Title VI report, OJP was 

headed by the assistant attorney general for the 

 

17 Ibid., p. 150. 

18 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Report, p. 1, <http://www.ojp.usdoj. 

gov/annualreport/chapter1.htm> (hereafter cited as DOJ/OJP, 

FY 2000 Annual Report). 

19 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 

on the Reorganization of the Department of Justice’s Office of 

Justice Programs (n.d., circa 2002), p. 4 (hereafter cited as 

DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the 

Reorganization).

20 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 478. 

21 Ibid., pp. 478–80.

Office of Justice Programs and consisted of five 

bureaus and an Office for Civil Rights (OCR).22

OJP’s OCR was headed by a director who reported 

directly to the deputy assistant attorney general. 

OCR was responsible for ensuring that recipients 

of its financial assistance programs did not discriminate under various regulations and statutes, 

including Title VI. OCR also was responsible for 

monitoring compliance by recipients of financial 

assistance and enforcing civil rights compliance 

laws at OJP. 

In 1996, the Commission found a lack of support from OJP management for civil rights enforcement, as well as flaws in the organizational 

structure of OJP.23 As a result, the Commission 

concluded that OCR was unable to carry out its 

civil rights coordination and enforcement role effectively, and provide technical assistance to its 

many federally assisted program recipients. In the 

Title VI report, the Commission recommended an 

organizational structure that would strengthen 

OCR’s coordination and oversight of its funding 

recipients’ activities.

 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In 1996, the Commission found that OJP did 

not provide OCR with the resources to enforce its 

civil rights responsibilities effectively.24 Instead, 

the Department explored the possibility of other 

components assisting the small staff of three with 

its work.25 

22 The five bureaus included the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office for Victims and Crimes, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. USCCR, Federal 

Title VI Enforcement, p. 478. OJP is still headed by an assistant attorney general, who is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP, and has the same five bureaus, as 

well as five program offices and an Office for Civil Rights. 

See DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, p. 1; OJP, Organizational Chart, updated Oct. 1, 2001, <http://www.ojp.usdoj. 

gov/or.htm>. On the Web site, this document is also called the 

OJP “FY 2000 Program Plan.” 

23 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 490–500. 

24 Ibid., pp. 479–81, 490–500. In fiscal year 1994, OCR had 

four full-time employees who divided their time between internal and external civil responsibilities. By 1996, it had increased its staff to eight, but only three performed external 

civil rights work. Ibid., p. 484. 

25 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 481. 
 9 

Policy Guidance 

Addressing OJP’s Title VI administrative efforts, the Commission found that OJP/OCR had 

not (1) updated its regulations and list of federal 

financial programs since 1981; (2) issued Title VI 

guidelines or policy statements for recipients; (3) 

prepared detailed procedures for OCR staff on 

compliance reviews, complaint investigations, performance evaluations, and the collection and 

analysis of data; and (4) provided the staff with 

Title VI instruction.26 In 1996, OJP’s pre-award 

review process for large contracts only ensured 

that recipients submitted assurances of nondiscrimination and did not include desk-audit preaward or post-award reviews.27 

Technical Assistance 

In the 1996 review, the Commission found 

OCR’s technical assistance for funding recipients 

to be almost nonexistent and recommended that 

OCR establish a regular technical assistance program about civil rights responsibilities for recipients. The Commission recommended that OJP improve by regularly offering technical assistance, by 

preparing and disseminating civil rights information describing its grant program, and by soliciting 

comments and suggestions from affected communities and funding recipients.28 The Commission 

found that OJP/OCR’s outreach and public education activities were limited to publishing program 

announcements and responding to inquiries.29 

Compliance Reviews 

In 1996, OJP had not conducted a post-award 

review and had only proposed limited strategies for 

conducting pre-award reviews and investigating 

complaints. CORS and OJP staff later developed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) whereby 

CORS would be responsible for some of OCR’s 

Title VI work.30 In the Title VI report, the Commission criticized the use of the MOU between 

OJP and CORS, finding that such an agreement 

 

 

26 Ibid., pp. 491–94. 

27 Ibid., pp. 484–85. 

28 Ibid., p. 497. 

29 Ibid., p. 487.

30 Ibid., p. 481. 

might pose a conflict of interest with CORS’ Title 

VI oversight responsibility. The Commission concluded that to ensure that OJP carried out its Title 

VI responsibilities and that CORS did not oversee 

itself, the MOU between the two Department components should not be approved.31 

Staff Training 

In 1996, OCR staff received civil rights training, but it did not address Title VI.32 Staff members 

indicated that they would plan for additional staff 

training so they could perform pre-award and postaward reviews.33

Coordination 

In the 1996 report, the Commission found that 

OCR did not ensure that states fulfilled their regulatory obligations with respect to Title VI. At the 

time, OCR did not require recipients to develop 

equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs); 

however, OCR conducted post-award reviews primarily of those plans submitted. The Commission 

concluded that although OCR planned to review 

more than 200 reviews of the EEOPs, the reviews 

were limited to equal employment opportunity issues and insufficient to ensure compliance with 

Title VI.34 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

THE DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION

Priority of Civil Rights 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

became law on July 26, 1990.35 In 1998, the Commission released two companion reports on the 

ADA, one of which assessed DOJ’s enforcement 

of Title II of the statute.36 

31 Ibid., pp. 490–91. 

32 Ibid., p. 488. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid. 

35 Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (1994)). 

36 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local 

Governments Comply with the ADA, September 1998, pp. 1, 5 

(hereafter cited as USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I ). Note that 

before the ADA state and local government programs and 

activities that received federal financial assistance were prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on dis-
10 

Along with its other responsibilities, DOJ’s 

Civil Rights Division is charged with monitoring 

and revising ADA regulations, investigating and 

resolving complaints of discrimination, enforcing 

state and local governments’ compliance with the 

law, and coordinating Title II enforcement with 

other designated federal agencies.37 In 1995, the 

Disability Rights Section (DRS) was established 

within the Division to implement these responsibilities.38 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In the 1998 report, the Commission found 

DRS’ Title II enforcement efforts to be “highly 

effective.”39 The Commission recommended a significant increase in DRS’ staff and budget to expand and improve its enforcement of the ADA.40 

Technical Assistance 

The Commission also commended DRS on its 

technical assistance and education and outreach 

programs explaining ADA requirements to its 

stakeholders. At the time of the Commission’s report, DRS assigned staff to such activities, had a 

toll-free information telephone line, a Web site, 

and numerous technical assistance documents addressing questions about the new law.41 

Complaint Processing 

The Commission commended DRS for using 

mediation or alternative dispute resolution to re-

 

 

ability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Pub. L. No. 93-112 § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (1973) (codified 

as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994)). Title II of the ADA 

provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, 

by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in, 

or shall be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or 

activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination 

by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165 (1994). See 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134 (1994); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.101–.35.190 

(1997). 

37 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, p. 5.

38 Ibid., pp. 5–6, 9–10. 

39 Ibid., p. 133. 

40 Ibid., p. 134. At the time of the report, DRS had a staff of 15 

investigators, 23 staff attorneys, and six architects. The Commission found this to be insufficient considering the thousands 

of ADA complaints it had received each year. 

41 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, p. 132.

solve Title II complaints. However, the Commission found an overreliance on mediation to settle 

ADA disputes and recommended that DRS develop a more balanced enforcement strategy to ensure that more cases, especially those important for 

developing legal precedent, were litigated. The 

Commission recommended that DRS more actively initiate litigation against public entities, especially in cases involving accessibility to public 

buildings.42 

Coordination 

The Commission faulted DRS for not adequately monitoring and coordinating the ADA Title II implementation, compliance, and enforcement efforts of the other Title II federal agencies. 

Because of limited resources, DRS had not assigned staff to those important functions.43 

Community Involvement 

The Commission recommended that DRS regularly consult with and seek input from disability 

and minority advocacy groups about ADA issues, 

particularly, in developing guidance, training, and 

education and outreach programs. 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Priority of Civil Rights 

In April 1990, Congress enacted the Hate 

Crimes Statistics Act, which calls for the U.S. attorney general to collect nationwide data on the 

“incidence of criminal acts that manifest prejudice 

based on race, religion, homosexuality or heterosexuality, ethnicity, or such other characteristics as 

the Attorney General considers appropriate” and to 

publish reports analyzing the data.44 The responsibility for collecting and disseminating hate crime 

42 Ibid., p. 136. 

43 Ibid., p. 133. 

44 Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 534 (1994). 

This act requires the Department of Justice to collect data on 

hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined as “manifest prejudice 

based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” These 

statistics are compiled by the FBI using the Uniform Crime 

Reporting system. In 1994, Congress expanded coverage of 

the act to require FBI reporting on crimes based on “disability.” 
 11 

data was given to DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

In 1992, the Commission released the report, 

Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 

1990s. It noted numerous acts of bigotry and violence perpetuated against members of the Asian 

Pacific American community, particularly against 

recent immigrants.45 The Commission criticized 

the paucity of hate crime information and commended Congress for passing the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. However, the Commission recognized 

that for the act to be meaningful, there had to be 

action in addition to collecting and reporting statistics. In its 1992 assessment, the Commission said 

that the act should provide an opportunity to learn 

more about hate crimes and document the extent of 

hate-motivated violence against Asian Pacific 

Americans and other groups nationally, and that 

such information should assist in the prosecution 

of such offenses.46 The report recommended that 

hate crime data collection be coordinated with an 

enforcement component in order to address the 

problem effectively. Currently, the collection of 

hate crime information, and the investigation and 

prosecution of such offenses are performed by different components within the Department.47 

 

 

45 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, 1992, pp. 22–45 (hereafter 

cited as USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans). 

46 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 

192. 

47 Since the Commission’s 1992 report, there have been numerous hate crimes-related acts, amendments, and provisions. 

For example, in 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The act provides for 

the prosecution of hate crimes and expands the definition of a 

hate crime as an offense in “which the defendant intentionally 

selects the victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, 

disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-

322, 108 Stat. 1796, § 280003 (1994) (codified in part at 28 

U.S.C. § 994 (1994)). The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing all of the hate crimes legislation. However, 

the implementation of the laws is the responsibility of different components. The prosecution of hate crimes is primarily 

the responsibility of the Civil Rights Division’s Civil Prosecution Section. In recent years, the prosecution of hate crime 

offenses has been a priority civil rights area that is provided 

enhanced enforcement resources. See DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 

Budget Request to Congress, p. G-9 (hereafter cited as 

DOJ/CRD, 2003 Budget Request); DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget 

Submission, pp. G-18, G-20–21; DOJ/CRD, FY 2000 Budget 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In the 1992 report, the Commission recommended that DOJ be provided with adequate resources to implement the act, particularly to provide training for police personnel in identifying 

and investigating such offenses. 

Policy Guidance 

Almost immediately after the passage of the 

Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reporting Section prepared guidelines and a 

training manual for police departments, which 

have become the major conduits for providing hate 

crime information. The guidelines, which have 

been revised, define hate crimes and give examples 

of such acts, require that all crimes be reviewed at 

two levels to determine whether they are motivated 

by bias, and specify the information police departments must provide about each hate crime.48 

Coordination 

The FBI sponsored regional training conferences with police departments that were to be completed by October 1991.49 In the 1992 report, the 

Commission recommended steps for successful 

implementation of the act, including outreach to 

victims, resources for police training on hate 

crimes, and formation of police units that specialize in identifying, investigating, and reporting hate 

Submission, pp. G-19–20. The collection of hate crime data 

and the investigation of such crimes are the responsibility of 

the FBI. The FBI states that in 2002, the national priority 

within its civil rights program is the investigation of hate 

crimes. However, the Bureau does not indicate in its budget 

report how it uses the information collected from the hate 

crime data in its investigations, even though it is responsible 

for gathering and reporting the information. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 2003

Authorization and Budget Request for the Congress, pp. 1-24–

25 (hereafter cited as FBI, 2003 Authorization and Budget 

Request). 

48 The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Section prepared a 

pamphlet titled “Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines” and 

developed the “Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection.” The guidelines included the type of offense, location, 

type of bias (race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.), type of victim or establishment, the number of offenders, and the race of 

the offenders. See USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian 

Americans, pp. 47–48. 

49 USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 48.
12 

crimes.50 The Commission also recommended that 

in addition to hate crimes guidelines, the Department of Justice develop and disseminate a civil 

rights handbook to inform all groups, particularly 

recent immigrants, of their civil rights.51 

Community Involvement 

The Commission urged the Department, in addition to law enforcement agencies, to encourage 

and include schools, organizations, churches, and 

state and local governments in identifying, reporting, and providing information on hate crimes in 

their jurisdictions.52

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S RESPONSE TO 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority of Civil Rights 

The Department remains the largest federal 

civil rights agency with additional responsibilities 

in civil rights enforcement and coordination since 

the 1996 report. Civil rights is a priority as evidenced by the placement of the Civil Rights Division within the Department; however, with so 

many statutes to enforce and ever-evolving civil 

rights issues, effectively carrying out all its responsibilities remains a serious challenge for the Department. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In the Department, planning and performance 

are incorporated into the budget process. All departmental components prepare resource allocation 

and annual performance plans that accompany 

their budget requests to the Department.53 Budget 

submissions and appropriations are based on outside priorities and initiatives of the Department, the 

administration, and courts, and not solely on the 

components’ assessment of their needs.54 During 

 

 

50 Ibid., p. 192. 

51 Ibid., p. 205. 

52 Ibid., p. 192. 

53 DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, p. iv. Each DOJ component submits a performance plan that is reviewed at the 

departmental level. This plan influences budget allocations 

and priorities for the component. 

54 USCCR, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination, p. 80. 

the 1990s, the Commission recommended increased funding and staff for the Civil Rights Division and its sections to carry out their numerous 

civil rights responsibilities.55 Since fiscal year 

1994, the Division’s appropriations have increased. 

Over the past 10 years, the Civil Rights Division’s 

budget has increased from a 1992 level of $47.6 

million to its current fiscal year 2002 level of 

$100.6 million, which reflects a $53 million (or 

112 percent) net increase.56 However, the Commission has consistently found the Division’s resources not commensurate with its expanding 

workload.57 To illustrate, although $71.9 million 

was requested for the Division in fiscal year 1995, 

Congress approved only $62.2 million. Further, the 

fiscal year 1998 budget appropriation equaled the 

1994 appropriation in real dollars.58 With evolving 

civil rights issues, it is likely the Division’s responsibilities will increase in the future. For example, in its reorganization, which has not been finalized, the Office of Justice Programs is considering 

a proposal to make its Office for Civil Rights a part 

of the Civil Rights Division.59 If the proposal is 

55 See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal 

Civil Rights Enforcement, June 1995, pp. 23–35; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001, pp. 27–39; 

USCCR, Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination, pp. 

10, 63.

56 Department of Justice’s Interrogatory Response to the 

United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review 

of Civil Rights Enforcement, Civil Rights Division, Mar. 15, 

2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response). 

57 For example, between fiscal years 1994 and 2000, the Division’s budget increased by 22 percent, and in real terms the 

fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Division was 24 percent higher than the fiscal year 1994 request. However, over 

the same period, while appropriations increased, the Division 

experienced enormous growth in its workload and responsibilities. In addition, although the Division’s budget increased 

during this period, congressional appropriations for the Division declined in real spending power. USCCR, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, pp. xi–xii, 

30. 

58 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Civil Rights 

Enforcement: 2002–2003, April 2002, p. 10.

59 Tracy Henke, principal deputy assistant attorney general, 

and Michael Alston, acting director, Office for Civil Rights, 

Office of Justice Programs, DOJ, interview in Washington, 

D.C., May 6, 2002, p. 13 (hereafter cited as Henke and Alston 

interview). Also present was Loretta King, deputy assistant 

attorney general, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. 

Ms. King is the DOJ liaison and coordinator for this study. 
 13 

implemented, the Division will need more resources. 

The Commission finds it difficult to evaluate 

the adequacy of civil rights resources at the Department. Except for the Civil Rights Division, the 

components discussed in this review lack a formal 

document that provides detailed information about 

civil rights resources.60 In addition, civil rights 

funding, staffing, and workload are not itemized in 

the Department’s 2002–2003 budget reports.61 In 

the Department’s budget summaries, civil rights 

expenditures and resources are included under litigating divisions or management operations, and 

administration categories. 

Planning 

One of the major findings in the Commission’s 

Title VI report was DOJ’s lack of planning to develop goals, objectives, and strategies at the Department.62 The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)63 was enacted in 1993. The act 

requires federal agencies to set goals and prepare 

performance plans noting the expected progress 

toward achieving those goals. Partly in response to 

GPRA, DOJ has developed two strategic plans64

and other planning documents.65 All of these 

 

 

60 Each fiscal year, the Civil Rights Division prepares a budget 

submission that includes funding, staffing, and workload information. The Commission requested civil rights budget and 

staffing information from OJP and the FBI from 1995 to 2002. 

The Commission received some of the information from OJP 

in a separate information request. 

61 See DOJ, 2003 Budget Summary, pp. 3–4, 7, 83–95, 128–

47; U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, 

FY 2002 Budget Summary, pp. 76–86, 126–47. See also FBI, 

2003 Authorization and Budget Request, pp. 11-4–11-19; U.S. 

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 

2002 Authorization and Budget Request for the Congress.

62 See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 140. 

63 Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. 

No. 103-62, 197 Stat. 285 (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1101 

(Supp. V 2002)). 

64 U.S. Department of Justice, Strategic Plan, 1997–2002,

September 1997 (Revision 1—Oct. 20, 1997), updated Oct. 

14, 1997, <http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/mps/cover.htm>; 

U.S. Department of Justice, Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 

2000–2005. 

65 See U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, FY 2000 Summary Performance Plan, March 1999; U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, FY 

2000 Summary Performance Plan, Government Performance 

and Results Act, Report No. 00-11, March 2000, Executive 

Summary; DOJ, Performance Report and Plan. 

documents include civil rights goals and objectives. 

Each fiscal year, the Civil Rights Division prepares a budget submission document that includes 

the previous and current funding, staffing, workload, activities, and performance measures for the 

Division and each section.66 In the budget submissions, 214 indicators address the Division’s 10 

program areas, including measures of the workload, outcomes, and productivity and efficiency. 

The deputy assistant attorney general assigned to 

the sections determines whether objectives have 

been met. Four factors are used to justify objectives that are not met: whether unique cases or investigations consumed a disproportionate amount 

of time and resources; whether new requirements 

were put into place during the evaluation period; 

whether staff and funding allocations increased or 

decreased from originally planned levels; and 

whether workload changed from originally projected levels.67

The Civil Rights Division claims the performance measurement indicators for the sections, the 

communication from the Office of the Assistant 

Attorney General to the section chiefs, and the 

oversight and accountability of the civil rights 

work of the Division’s sections are sufficient for 

effective civil rights enforcement.68 The Division 

does not require sections to submit annual civil 

rights assessments as the Commission recommended.69 The Division notes that it has also established a case management system into which all 

professional staff report the time they have worked 

on each case. The Division states it has had success 

in ensuring that the sections are aware of their responsibilities, their resource needs, and their accomplishments.70 

In addition to the Department’s and the Civil 

Rights Division’s planning documents, several 

components, including the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), produce strategic plans. OJP has a fiscal 

66 See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Financial Operations Staff, FY 1993–2003 Budget Submissions; 

DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 

67 DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4–5. 

68 Ibid., pp. 3–5. 

69 Ibid. 

70 Ibid., p. 4. 
14 

year 1999 strategic plan, which is being revised.71

The plan’s civil rights focus areas include providing technical assistance to grantees on the preparation of plans, conducting on-site complaint investigations, and conducting negotiations to secure 

voluntary compliance with civil rights laws.72 The 

plan lists goals to integrate civil rights awareness 

into OJP programs through technical assistance.73

OJP acknowledges in the plan that it has “worked 

hard to incorporate the observations and recommendations of the Commission [in its 1996 report] 

into its planning efforts.”74 

The FBI has a 1998–2003 strategic plan,75 with 

a civil rights component that addresses hate crimes 

and hate crime statistics. One civil rights strategic 

goal, “Deter Civil Rights Violations through Aggressive Investigative and Proactive Measures,” 

notes the importance of hate crime statistics in reducing acts of bigotry and violence.76 The strategic 

 

 

71 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office for Civil Rights, Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 1999, Apr. 

30, 1999 (hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic 

Plan). In a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees on OJP’s reorganization, the Department stated 

that OJP will prepare an “overall” strategic plan that reflects 

statutory requirements, as well as the mission and goals of the 

present administration. DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, p. 8. An OJP official 

said OJP hopes to have the new strategic plan by the 2004 

budget submission. Some goals and principles that will be 

included will address OJP’s need to be more responsive to its 

customers, more streamlined, and more cost efficient. She 

indicates that OJP’s strategic plan will fit into the Department’s strategic plan and goals, and will include “stuff for 

civil rights.” However, to date, it is unknown whether the 

revised strategic plan will have specific civil rights goals, 

objectives, or performance measures. See Henke and Alston 

interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 6, 8–9. 

72 OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 1. 

73 Ibid., pp. 2, 4, 6. 

74 Ibid., p. 2. 

75 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Draft FBI Strategic Plan: 1998–2003, Keeping Tomorrow 

Safe, May 8, 1998 (hereafter cited as FBI, 1998–2003 Strategic Plan). Although the document is titled “Draft,” the DOJ 

liaison for information for this report indicated that it is the 

FBI’s final strategic plan. See Loretta King, deputy attorney 

general for civil rights, Civil Rights Division, DOJ, letter to 

Terri A. Dickerson, assistant staff director for civil rights 

evaluation, USCCR, Apr. 5, 2002. 

76 FBI, 1998–2003 Strategic Plan, p. 26; Department of Justice’s Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission 

on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 10, 2002, p. 4 

(hereafter cited as DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response). 

plan calls for community entities to report such 

incidents and says the FBI “will develop a comprehensive outreach program” to identify targeted 

populations, issues, and possible solutions. The 

plan lists critical factors to improve the reporting 

of hate crimes, which mirror the Commission’s 

1992 recommendations: the enlistment of all components in the community, including the police, in 

reporting such offenses, and resources for the training of police officers in identifying hate crime offenses.77 

COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION’S RESPONSE 

TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority of Civil Rights 

Since the Title VI report, CORS’ governmentwide coordinating responsibilities have increased with the enforcement of two additional 

executive orders.78 The Commission finds that 

CORS’ increased responsibilities have not adversely 

affected its enforcement of Title VI. Overall, the 

Commission finds that Title VI enforcement has 

improved at the Department since 1996. 

In 2002, CORS reports that it has not had any 

major reorganizations despite the Commission’s 

recommendation that one be performed. Thus, it 

has not created the six units, including a Title VI 

unit, that the Commission recommended.79 CORS 

states that to maximize its resources, all staff must 

be familiar with most of the Section’s responsibilities. According to CORS, all 18 professional staff 

spend a substantial amount of time on Title VIrelated responsibilities. There is a section chief and 

two deputy section chiefs. The seven coordinators 

and investigators report to one of the deputy section chiefs; and eight attorneys report to the other 

deputy. CORS regards its present organizational 

77 FBI, 1998–2003 Strategic Plan, pp. 20, 25–27. The strategic 

plan does not contain specific performance measures for the 

civil rights program. The FBI reports that the hate crime data 

collection efforts to improve training, data quality, participation, and implement procedures to trend hate crime data are 

ongoing. DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 5. 

78 See Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 

2000); Exec. Order No. 13,160, 65 Fed. Reg. 39,775 (June 17, 

2000). 

79 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 3; see Civil Rights 

Division, Coordination and Review Section, Organizational 

Chart, n.d. 
 15 

structure as adequate for its civil rights responsibilities.80

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Since the 1996 report, CORS’ resources have 

increased each fiscal year.81 For 2002, it requested 

three additional staff, including two attorneys and 

one program specialist, and it received an increase 

in appropriations of $3,725,000.82 The Section was 

allocated three additional attorneys and sufficient 

travel funds to provide training on Title VI.83

CORS officials state that its current resources are 

sufficient for the Section to carry out its responsibilities.84 

Policy Guidance 

Since the Commission’s 1996 report, CORS has 

issued a policy guidance titled “The Enforcement of 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Related Statutes 

in Block-Grant Type Programs.” CORS attributes 

its development to recommendations made by the 

Commission and other advisory groups.85 

Technical Assistance 

Perhaps the strongest improvement of CORS’ 

work since the 1996 study has been the technical 

assistance and information now provided on Title 

VI. CORS has established a formal technical assistance program that includes informational training 

documents and other materials,86 all available on 

 

 

80 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2–3; Coordination 

and Review, Organizational Chart, n.d. 

81 See DOJ/CRD, FY 1995–2003 Budget Submissions.

82 DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 Budget Submission, p. G-3. 

83 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

84 Ibid. 

85 See Bill Lann Lee, former assistant attorney general for civil 

rights, DOJ, memorandum to executive agency civil rights 

directors, “Policy Guidance Document: Enforcement of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes in 

Block Grant-Type Programs,” Jan. 28, 1999, pp. 1–2, <http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs/blkgrnt.htm>. 

86 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6–8, 10–11. 

Documents include an investigation procedures manual, a 

Title VI legal manual, Title VI guidance documents, and other 

legal memoranda. See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, “Publications Related to Activities of the Coordination and Review 

Section, <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs.htm>; U.S. Deits Web site.87 For example, CORS has the Title VI 

Legal Manual, which includes an overview of Title 

VI and relevant definitions and interpretations of 

programs and activities. It addresses legal principles and issues regarding Title VI enforcement 

from a federal agency perspective.88 The manual is 

used in the Section’s Title VI technical assistance 

and training programs.89

The Section has also developed a training 

course that provides participants with information 

about Title VI and delivers shorter presentations 

that provide an overview of Title VI and the regulations.90 In the 2002 budget submission, CORS 

requested additional funds to conduct “technical 

assistance reviews” of federal agencies’ civil rights 

programs.91 CORS conducts Title VI Technical 

Assistance Reviews (TARs), which are assessments of selected aspects, functions, or issues concerning an agency’s compliance with and enforcement of Title VI.92 It uses a team of CORS’ 

attorneys and coordinators to review documents 

and make site visits to federal agency offices and 

funding recipients. The agencies or recipients that 

are visited are chosen using such criteria as substantial assistance and numbers of beneficiaries, 

the number of Title VI complaints filed, information obtained from CRIPs, and information obtained from organizations or agencies that indicate 

civil rights problems in the program.93 TARs are 

partment of Justice, Coordination and Review Section, “Index 

of Training Materials,” Nov. 13, 2001, <http://www.usdoj. 

gov/crt/cor/coord/train.htm>. The index includes available 

Title VI training materials, including the Title VI Statute, Title 

VI Regulations, and Procedures for Complaints Filed Against 

Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance. 

87 CORS first posted its Web site in April 1999 and considers 

the Internet to be one of its most effective outreach tools and 

research sources. DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

88 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, Title VI Legal Manual, Jan. 11, 

2001, <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/vimanual.htm>. 

89 According to CORS, Title VI training is held monthly for 

federal agencies. The training lasts two or two and a half days 

and includes an overview of Title VI, discussion of Title VI 

investigation procedures, and short vignettes involving the 

trainees’ programs. See U.S. Department of Justice, Coordination and Review Section, “Index of Training Materials,” n.d., 

<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/train.htm>. 

90 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 

91 Ibid., p. 8. 

92 Ibid. 

93 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 
16 

designed to yield practical recommendations to 

strengthen Title VI enforcement.94 

Coordination 

CORS’ primary responsibility with respect to 

Title VI is to coordinate the implementation of the 

law by monitoring the enforcement activities of the 

agencies covered under the law. Since 1996, 

CORS has established several methods to ensure 

the accountability of and the effective coordination 

among federal agencies that provide financial assistance: requiring them to submit annual implementation plans; conducting investigations where a 

recipient is funded by more than one agency; developing delegation agreements to avoid duplicative investigations; providing investigative assistance to agencies; conducting ongoing Title VI 

technical assistance; providing policy and legal 

advice; and conducting advisory meetings with 

federal agencies.95 

In 1996, the Commission found the civil rights 

implementation plans (CRIPs) inadequate for 

evaluating federal agencies’ civil rights compliance activities and performance. It recommended 

revising the CRIPs so that they can be used as a 

civil rights enforcement plan to measure compliance activities of the federal agencies. In 2002, 

CORS is still using CRIPs to measure the agencies’ Title VI performance.96 However, CORS indicates that several years ago, it revised the guidelines for the CRIP “to make them less 

burdensome,” and to “require more succinct information to be evaluated by the Section.”97 A 

CORS’ coordinator is assigned to the agency to 

review the CRIP, and a legal advisor is assigned to 

each agency to answer legal questions. If deficiencies are found, the coordinator communicates the 

concerns to the agency and makes recommendations that are sent to the head of the civil rights 

office at the agency. The review’s findings and 

recommendations are sent to the agency when the 

review is completed, approximately three to six 

months after the CRIP is received.98

 

 

94 See ibid., p. 8. 

95 Ibid., p. 4. 

96 Ibid., p. 14. 

97 Ibid. 

98 Ibid., p. 15. 

Community Involvement 

In developing guidance, CORS states it consults 

with community and advocacy groups, as well as 

organizations representing recipients of financial 

assistance.99 Additionally, a departmental brochure, “Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination,” is produced in 16 languages, 

including Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, 

Hmong, Punjabi, and Cambodian. It resembles a 

civil rights handbook like that recommended by 

the Commission in 1992.100 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ RESPONSE TO 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS 

Priority of Civil Rights 

In the 1996 review, the Commission found a 

lack of support from OJP management for civil 

rights enforcement. Civil rights was not a focus or 

a priority at the agency. The OJP organizational 

structure minimized the Office for Civil Rights’ 

(OCR) authority and hindered OCR’s ability to 

fulfill its external civil rights responsibilities.101 In 

2002, the Commission finds the same problems. 

In 1997, Congress directed OJP to develop an 

organizational structure to address its significant 

increase in grants and responsibilities, streamline 

and coordinate agency programs and activities, and 

improve its coordination with funding recipients.102

Between 1995 and 1998, appropriations for OJP 

grew from $1.1 billion to over $3.4 billion,103 in99 Ibid., p. 13. 

100 Ibid., pp. 11–12; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian 

Americans, p. 205; U.S. Department of Justice, “Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination,” October 2000, 

<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/nordwg_brochure.html>. 

101 See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 490–

500.

102 DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, chap. 1, p. 4. 

103 Report of the U.S. House of Representatives, Departments 

of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1999, Report No. 

105-636 (July 20, 1998) as incorporated by reference in U.S. 

Congress, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999: Conference Report to Accompany HR 4328, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1999,

Report No. 105-825 (Oct. 19, 1999) as cited in DOJ/OJP, 

Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, footnote 1, p. 2. See also DOJ, 2003 Budget Summary, p. 

127. The number and funding of grants and programs at OJP 

are still growing. In 2000, the OJP administered $4 billion in 
 17 

creasing the number of funding recipients and 

promulgating the need for stronger civil rights enforcement at OJP.104

The reorganization plan was approved by Congress and the previous administration in fiscal year 

1999. The plan included three components with 

civil rights implications: a central information center for receiving and disseminating OJP information on technical assistance; an office to provide 

geographically based contact with recipients; and 

offices that would better address program policy, 

model program implementation, pre-award activities (including grantee selection) related to discretionary and formula grants, training and technical 

assistance, publications, and other support activities.105 These initiatives addressed some of the 

Commission’s recommendations in the Title VI 

report. 

Although the 1999 reorganization plan was approved,106 it was never implemented.107 The new 

administration decided not to implement it because 

they wanted a plan that reflected their new initiatives. Consequently, OJP is preparing an alternative plan, in which OJP would become a collaborative, coordinated “set of programs” that provides 

for the most efficient use of resources. The attorney general’s position is that the “reorganization of 

OJP should be more than just streamlining, and 

 

 

grants and programs. DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, p. 4. 

In 2002, OJP’s budget totaled nearly $5 billion targeted for the 

administration of its grants and programs, and funding in response to September 11 and terrorism initiatives. DOJ, 2003 

Budget Summary, pp. 127–49. 

104 Most of OJP’s funds are statutorily directed to states or 

units of government. However, certain grant programs have 

statutory requirements that direct a percentage of funding to 

underserved populations, such as American Indians, Alaska 

Natives, and battered immigrant women. In addition, all OJP 

grantees are required to certify compliance with equal employment opportunity laws, and OCR must investigate any 

reported civil rights violations that involve recipients. Department of Justice’s Interrogatory Response to the United 

States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil 

Rights Enforcement, Office of Justice Programs, Apr. 10, 

2002, p. 14 (hereafter cited as DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response). 

105 See DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on 

the Reorganization, p. 7. 

106 Ibid., p. 2. 

107 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 3; OJP, Henke and 

Alston interview, p. 6. 

creating efficiencies and coordination.”108 Although 

nothing in the plan is final, an OJP official, involved 

in the development of the reorganization plan, states 

any reorganization will not change OJP’s responsibilities or compliance with Title VI.109 

Because the approved reorganization was not 

implemented and the proposed plan has not been 

completed, OJP’s organizational structure has not 

significantly changed since the Commission’s 

1996 review.110 The responsibility for external civil 

rights enforcement at OJP remains with OCR. 

OCR is charged with monitoring civil rights compliance by recipients of financial assistance from 

OJP, its bureaus, and other offices. OCR investigates complaints that allege violation of Title VI 

and other applicable laws and conducts reviews to 

ensure compliance with them.111 OCR’s responsibilities, including the enforcement of Title VI, 

have not changed since 1996.112 

For nearly two years, an acting director has 

headed OCR who reports to the principal deputy 

assistant attorney general at OJP.113 The principal 

deputy assistant attorney general, who reports to 

s on the Reorganization, pp. 1, 7. 

108 DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the 

Reorganization, p. 7. The attorney general stated that there 

will be a new mission at OJP and that the proposed 

reorganization will incorporate the old and new missions. 

Under the old mission, OJP will continue to assist state and 

local law enforcement with more traditional crimes. 

According to Attorney General John Ashcroft, “The attacks of 

September 11th have redefined the mission of the Department 

of Justice. Defending our nation and defending the citizens of 

America against terrorist attacks is now our first and 

overriding priority.” The statement reflects the “number one 

priority of the OJP, which is to assist state and local public 

safety officers and citizens across the country in maintaining 

our liberties and safeguarding our nation’s internal security.” 

Attorney General Ashcroft also stated, “The Department’s 

Office of Justice Programs and grant management system also 

will be fundamentally restructured to meet our new 

antiterrorism mission.” DOJ/OJP, Report to the 

Appropriations Committee

109 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 

12, 46. 

110 DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the 

Reorganization, p. 5; Office of Justice Programs, Organizational Chart, Dec. 10, 2001. 

111 OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 1. 

112 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 1. 

113 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, pp. 14–15. Mr. Alston 

has been the acting director since November 2000. Ms. Henke 

explained that Mr. Alston is one of the few staff members still 

in an acting capacity because the new reorganization plan has 

not been finalized and approved. 
18 

OJP’s assistant attorney general, reviews the work 

of OCR to ensure the quality of civil rights enforcement activities.114 The acting director has no 

policy- or decision-making roles at OJP.115 The 

principal assistant attorney general states that although OJP would like to have a permanent director in OCR, it is unlikely that a permanent person 

will be hired before the new reorganization is approved.116 Currently, there are several proposals for 

reorganization. OCR could remain a separate office with a director, or it could become a division 

within OJP’s Office of General Counsel.117 A third 

proposal is to make OCR a “part” of the Civil 

Rights Division.118 Details have not been formulated for any of these proposals. The principal assistant attorney general states it is difficult to hire 

someone in a permanent position until the issues 

are resolved.119 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

OCR has had an increase in funding and staffing since the Commission’s 1996 report. In fiscal 

year 1997, the annual budget for OCR was 

$378,241.120 In fiscal year 2001, the OCR budget 

had increased to $911,793.121 In 1996, three OCR 

staff members were assigned external civil rights 

enforcement responsibilities, including the director 

of OCR, a civil rights compliance specialist, and a 

secretary.122 Currently, OCR has 10 full-time employees. Five full-time attorneys and one part-time 

 

 

114 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 

33–34. As principal deputy assistant attorney general, Ms. 

Henke is the assistant attorney general’s “alter ego.” Ms. 

Henke briefs the assistant attorney general on personnel, resources, and other issues. 

115 When the interview with OJP was requested, the Commission submitted subject matters that would be discussed and the 

need for an OJP official who could discuss policy-related issues. DOJ staff recommended Ms. Henke for policy-related 

issues and the acting director concerning issues related to 

OCR staff. 

116 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 

15–16. Ms. Henke said it would be unfair to advertise for a 

position that is uncertain. 

117 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 

12, 16. 

118 Ibid., p. 13. 

119 Ibid., pp. 15–16. 

120 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

121 Ibid. 

122 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 480. 

attorney investigate civil rights complaints, conduct compliance reviews, and provide technical 

assistance to recipients.123 One full-time legal 

technician reviews equal employment opportunity 

plans (EEOP) that major public recipients (awards 

of $500,000 or more) must submit to OCR for review.124 OCR also has a writer-editor, a legal program technician, and paralegals. In 2002, as a result of the increase in resources since 1996, OJP 

officials state that OCR has the appropriate staff 

and funding to meet its responsibilities under law 

and existing departmental policy.125 However, 

OCR’s increase in resources from 1996 to 2001 is 

misleading. Since the Commission’s 1996 review, 

the number of OJP’s federal financial assistance 

recipients has reached the thousands, which must 

have affected OCR’s Title VI workload. 

Policy Guidance 

An important responsibility of any Title VI 

agency is to provide updated guidance and regulations to its recipients concerning their civil rights 

responsibilities. OJP reports that no civil rights 

regulations have been published since the Commission’s 1996 report.126 In 1997, OCR created inhouse guidance for investigating compliance re123 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2–3. Currently, OCR 

has one full-time attorney on detail. In fiscal year 2001, OCR 

lost three full-time attorneys and a full-time paralegal through 

attrition. A hiring freeze has prevented their replacement. 

124 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2–3. The purpose of 

the equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs) is to ensure 

full and equal participation of men and women regardless of 

race or national origin in the workforce of the recipient 

agency. The EEOP analyzes the agency’s workforce according 

to race, sex, or national origin. U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Civil 

Rights Seven-Step Guide to the Design and Development of an 

Equal Employment Opportunity Plan. 

125 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2; Henke and Alston 

interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 26–27. Ms. Henke said 

that although there has been an increase in funding and staff, a 

review of resources can still be done to see if the resources are 

adequate to do OCR’s kind of work. 

126 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. OCR’s senior staff 

works on policy issues. OJP reports that in January 2001, a 

“moratorium” was placed on the publication of new regulations 

until the President named new leadership at OJP. With the appointment of a new assistant attorney general in September 

2001, OCR has returned to the task of proposing regulations for 

publication. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 
 19 

views and complaint investigations titled “Procedures for Investigating Civil Rights Cases.”127 

Technical Assistance 

Since the Commission’s Title VI report, OCR 

has improved in technical assistance and outreach 

initiatives. OJP reports that in fiscal year 1998, 

OCR designed a technical assistance program for 

the administrative staff of state agencies and subgrantees.128 The technical assistance program offers on-site training programs, a civil rights briefing to state program officers, and a one-day 

training session to subgrantees in which OCR explains the federal civil rights laws that apply to 

recipients of federal financial assistance.129 To 

date, OCR has not developed formal selection criteria to identify states for technical assistance, but 

uses informal criteria such as requests for training, 

the amount of the awards, and the number and nature of discrimination complaints that OCR has 

received.130 

OCR has published a brochure for general distribution providing a general overview of the civil 

rights protections for employees and beneficiaries 

of OJP-funded programs and activities.131 OCR has 

posted public information on OJP’s Web site, with 

information in languages other than English available on request. OCR also has made presentations 

on civil rights enforcement issues at conferences 

sponsored by such groups as the National Black 

Prosecutors, the Hispanic Bar Association, and the 

National Center for Women and Policing.132

 

 

127 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil 

Rights, Procedures for Investigation: Data Collection and 

Information Gathering, April 1997.

128 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 5. 

129 Ibid., pp. 5–7. In planning technical assistance programs 

for fiscal year 2002, OCR formalized a system for evaluating 

the effectiveness of the training programs in accordance with 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. 

130 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 

131 Ibid., p. 7; see U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Laws Prohibit 

Discrimination by Agencies that Receive Federal Financial 

Assistance. 

132 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 8. 

Compliance Reviews 

In 1996, the Commission reviewed OCR’s civil 

rights implementation plans (CRIPs). Although the 

CRIPs followed the Department’s outline, they 

revealed that OJP did little to enforce civil rights 

laws, including Title VI.133 In its plans, OCR proposed limited strategies for conducting pre-award 

reviews and investigating complaints, and no 

strategies for conducting post-award reviews, collecting data from recipients, or improving education and outreach.134 OCR did not propose to initiate a post-award compliance review until its 1994 

plan,135 and did not conduct its first one until fiscal 

year 1997.136 OCR states it has received sufficient 

funding to conduct three or four compliance reviews each year.137 

In its fiscal year 1996 CRIP, OCR stated it used 

the findings and recommendations of the Commission’s Title VI report as a “management tool for 

setting goals and priorities” in improving its 

CRIPs.138 OCR has followed the same framework 

for preparing CRIPs since then.139 These plans follow the outline provided by the Department. The 

fiscal year 1996–2000 CRIPs contain compliance 

goals and activities, including on-site complaint 

investigations, compliance reviews, technical assistance programs, and administrative projects.140

However, OCR’s information on its enforcement 

activities, such as the extremely low number of 

planned post-award and pre-award reviews, continues to concern the Commission. 

133 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 489. 

134 Ibid. 

135 Ibid. 

136 OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 4; DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

137 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

138 OJP/OCR, FY 1996 CRIP, p. 1. The other CRIPs that OJP 

submitted for this review (the 1998–2000 CRIPs) are “updates” to the FY 1996 CRIP and closely model that document 

in information. 

139 See DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4–5, citing the 

framework given in OJP’s fiscal year 1999 strategic plan. 

140 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4–5. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for 

Civil Rights, FY 1996 Civil Rights Implementation Plan, p. 1 

(hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 1996 CRIP); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil 

Rights, Civil Rights Implementation Plan, Update, Fiscal Year 

2000, pp. 1–12 (hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 2000 Implementation Plan (Update)). 
20 

In 1996, the Commission raised concern over a 

proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between OJP and CRD, which authorized the sharing of some Title VI responsibilities. CORS is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the Title 

VI work of the federal agencies that are covered 

under the law. Its major responsibility is to monitor 

and evaluate the civil rights activities of those 

agencies, not to do their work. Under the MOU, 

CORS was to be responsible for conducting postaward compliance reviews and investigating complaints on the bases of race, national origin, color, 

sex, age, and religion in service programs funded 

by OJP.141 The Commission saw the possibility of 

a conflict of interest with respect to CORS’ role in 

the agreement,142 questioning how CORS could 

objectively evaluate OJP’s Title VI enforcement 

when it performed some of the responsibilities. In 

2002, CORS indicates that its responsibilities have 

changed in the final MOU. Under the approved 

MOU, both CORS and OCR investigate individual 

complaints of services discrimination. CORS indicates that it has decreased the number of administrative complaints it was investigating pursuant to 

the final MOU. Currently, CORS only shares nonemployment services complaints with OCR for 

implementation of Title VI.143 OCR shares responsibility with other sections in the Civil Rights Division for disability-related complaints and administrative complaints alleging pattern or practice of 

discrimination by a law enforcement agency.144

Both CORS and OJP justify the use of the MOU 

and conclude it has been working effectively.145

The principal deputy assistant attorney general 

states the MOU gives OCR an opportunity to use 

departmental resources efficiently and effectively, 

including resources and staff with expertise, and to 

 

 

141 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 481. 

142 Ibid., pp. 481, 490–91. 

143 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 1. 

144 Ibid. The Disability Rights Section handles disability-related 

complaints against any OJP grant recipient. The Special Litigation Section is sent administrative complaints alleging a pattern 

or practice of discrimination by a law enforcement agency. 

CORS has decreased the number of administrative complaints it 

was investigating in order to devote more time to the three executive orders it currently coordinates and implements. See 

also OJP/Civil Rights Division, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Office of Justice Programs and the Civil 

Rights Division, n.d., pp. 3–7. 

145 DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 1. 

ensure that overlap and duplication in OCR activities do not occur.146 The Commission finds that the 

conflict of interest issue with respect to CORS’ 

involvement in the MOU has been addressed. 

However, CORS’ involvement in OCR’s complaint processing raises the concern that OCR’s 

current staff may not be able to handle its Title VI 

workload adequately and will not be able to perform the responsibilities if CORS, because of its 

workload, cannot continue to assist in OCR’s Title 

VI work.147

Pre-award Reviews 

In fiscal year 1999, OJP awarded 11,117 federally assisted grants. There were 14,808 recipients.148 In fiscal year 1999, OCR conducted one 

pre-award on-site review and 291 desk audits.149

 At OCR, the review of the recipients’ equal 

employment opportunity plans (EEOPs) functions 

as a “form of a pre-award compliance review.”150

Since 1996, OCR has reviewed more than 1,000 

EEOPs. However, the use of an EEOP as a preaward compliance review addresses discrimination 

only in funded employment programs and not with 

regard to services.151 OCR has established “minimum standards” for an acceptable EEOP and notifies recipients of the consequences, but agency 

standards apply to the preparation, submission, or 

implementation of an EEOP, and not to any other 

146 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, p. 23. 

147 Ibid., pp. 23–26, 33–34. 

148 Some recipients receive more than one award. OJP/OCR, 

FY 2000 CRIP, pp. 10–11. In the interview with OJP, OCR’s 

acting director said the number of federal financial assistance 

recipients has decreased since the fiscal year 1999 report. He 

reports that currently there are between 7,000 and 14,000 such 

recipients. The acting director confirmed that the amount of 

OCR’s compliance work has not changed significantly since 

the fiscal year 1999 CRIP. He acknowledged that components 

within the Civil Rights Division were also performing Title VI 

enforcement work. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Alston, pp. 19, 21–22, 48. 

149 OJP/OCR, FY 2000 CRIP, p. 10. A desk audit is a structured review of compliance information obtained before or 

without going on site. Desk audits do not include routine reviews of assurance forms or other documents to ensure that 

they have been properly completed. 

150 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 10. 

151 Ibid. 
 21 

program.152 Currently, only one staff member (a 

legal technician) reviews the EEOPs.153 

Post-award Reviews 

OCR reports that the goal for the number of onsite reviews it plans to conduct varies each year.154

It has conducted more than a “dozen” on-site compliance reviews since 1996.155 In fiscal year 2000, 

OCR reported that it planned to conduct at least 

three post-award compliance reviews during the 

fiscal year.156 However, in fiscal year 2000, OCR 

conducted only one post-award review.157 

OCR’s procedures for selecting which funding 

recipients will receive on-site investigations include gathering preliminary data, reviewing the 

data in the light of the regulatory selection criteria,158 and then presenting a justification memorandum to the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for approval to initiate the investigation. 

The review includes staffing patterns of the facility, information on group participation rates and 

applicants, and interview materials that could reveal possible barriers to participation. The recipient provides information on its civil rights policies 

and practices.159 The director of OCR reviews the 

compliance review reports and sends them to other 

components of the Department for comment before 

the results are sent to the recipient.160

Staff Training 

In this assessment, the Commission is concerned not only about the small number of OCR 

staff assigned to external civil rights responsibili-

 

 

152 Ibid. OCR has developed an electronic tracking system for 

monitoring delinquent EEOP reports and established procedures for notifying recipients of deficient EEOPs and the consequences of noncompliance. 

153 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

154 Ibid., p. 11. 

155 Ibid. 

156 OJP/OCR, FY 2000 CRIP, pp. 1–2. 

157 Ibid., p. 11. 

158 An EEOP that shows a significant underutilization of minorities in a recipient’s workforce may prompt OCR to investigate whether the recipient is providing adequate services to 

minority populations. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 

11–12. 

159 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 11–12. 

160 Ibid., p. 12. 

ties, but also the training and expertise that may be 

necessary to carry out the many different compliance activities. Currently, OCR relies on in-house 

training for staff, which means utilizing the expertise and knowledge within the office and the Department. For Title VI staff training, OCR relies 

heavily on CORS. However, the staff who carry 

out compliance responsibilities, such as reviews, 

investigations, coordination, and monitoring, may 

need other training to perform these kinds of 

tasks.161 Another consideration would be to hire 

staff with different job classifications and expertise, such as investigators and compliance officers, 

to perform specialized tasks.162 

Coordination 

One important responsibility of the Title VI 

agencies is to monitor and oversee the compliance 

activities of their recipients. OCR views its technical assistance program as “an informal method” for 

monitoring and overseeing compliance of state and 

local governments. OCR believes that technical 

assistance, outreach, and training work to review 

how the state monitors its subgrantees. However, 

the monitoring and oversight focus has often been 

on the recipient’s employment practices rather than 

on the delivery of services and benefits.163 In an 

interview with OJP, staff said efforts are underway 

to improve monitoring. OCR is networking with 

program managers in different OJP offices and 

bureaus to keep OCR abreast of recipients’ activities. There also is “financial monitoring” whereby 

financial managers make site visits and notify 

OCR of any irregularities in the programs. However, staff members said there must be guidance to 

these grant and financial managers because they 

161 For the most part, OCR staff training is in-house. According to OCR, it “guides and trains its own staff.” OCR also uses 

the services of the Coordination and Review Section of the 

Civil Rights Division to “train junior attorneys.” OCR encourages its staff to attend professional training programs provided 

by the Department of Justice. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2, 14. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, p. 32. 

162 As part of developing the reorganization plan, Ms. Henke 

stated that OJP may conduct a “desk audit” of OCR staff to 

ensure that the workload is fairly distributed and appropriate 

for the level of activity. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, 

Statement of Henke, p. 47. 

163 DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 13. 
22 

are not experts in the area of civil rights and 

compliance.164 

DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION’S RESPONSE TO 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority of Civil Rights 

The Disability Rights Section’s (DRS) authority 

to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act has 

remained the same since the Commission’s 1998 

report. In the 1998 review, the Commission concluded that the new section needed sufficient resources and an organizational structure that would 

enhance its ability to enforce the ADA. 

Since the earlier assessment, the Section has 

added another deputy section chief to manage an 

Investigations Unit, which is responsible for investigating and resolving Title II and Title III ADA 

complaints and conducting major compliance reviews. Currently, 14 professional staff are assigned 

to the Investigations Unit. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Before DRS was established and immediately 

after its inception, resources for ADA, Title II, enforcement were shifted from other CRD components, mainly from CORS.165 In fiscal year 2001, 

DRS received over $14 million in appropriations, 

and in fiscal year 2002, nearly $16 million in appropriations. In fiscal year 1994, 48 staff members 

were assigned ADA responsibilities. Currently, the 

Section has 99 permanent positions.166 DRS states 

its resources are sufficient to carry out its current 

responsibilities.167 

Technical Assistance 

Technical assistance and education and outreach are still major parts of the DRS’ ADA activities, an emphasis demonstrated by an increase in 

the number and scope of ADA documents on the 

 

 

164 OJP, Henke and Alston interview, pp. 38–41, 43. 

165 See USCCR, Funding Civil Rights Enforcement, pp. 33–34. 

166 DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 Budget Submission, p. G-3. 

167 Department of Justice’s Interrogatory Response to the 

United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review 

of Civil Rights Enforcement, Disability Rights Section, Mar. 

15, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory 

Response). 

Web site. Many of these documents have been 

translated into different languages.168 DRS uses 

census data as a guide when selecting languages 

for translations and when targeting materials to 

attendees at events held in different areas.169

Complaint Processing 

In its 1998 study, the Commission applauded 

DRS’ use of mediation and technical assistance in 

the enforcement of the ADA, but cautioned against 

an overreliance on alternative dispute resolution 

(or mediation) as the enforcement tool. In 2002, 

DRS uses a multifaceted approach to achieving 

compliance with the ADA that combines mediation 

with regulatory, coordination, and technical assistance activities, all required by law.170 The Section’s litigation activities include cases filed in response to an individual complaint; cases that allege 

a pattern or practice violation; and participation (as 

amicus or intervener) in cases filed by other parties. The Section has identified litigation priorities, 

uses other Department attorneys for investigations, 

and trains U.S. attorneys and their staff on ADA 

matters.171 DRS officials believe that the Section’s 

multifaceted approach for ADA enforcement is 

effective.172

DRS emphasizes the use of mediation as its 

primary enforcement mechanism for ADA.173 DRS 

representatives state that its criteria for mediation 

result in the best outcomes for individuals and the 

most return for resources invested.174 Indeed, the 

Department cites DRS’ use of mediation as one of 

the agency’s most effective enforcement tools.175

168 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 

169 Ibid., pp. 4–5. 

170 DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, p. 114. 

171 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 8–9. 

172 To illustrate, over the past four fiscal years (1998–2001), 

DRS has participated in 168 cases and achieved successful 

results in 100 of them; of the individual complaints investigated, DRS obtained favorable outcomes in the resolution of 

1,147 complaints; and DRS achieved successful results in 583 

of 757 completed mediations. DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 

173 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6–7; DOJ/CRD, FY 

2001 Budget Submission, p. G-53; DOJ, Performance Report 

and Plan, pp. 114–15. 

174 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6–7. 

175 DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, pp. 114–15. 
 23 

Coordination 

In 1996, DRS did not have the resources to implement a strong coordination program involving 

the other federal agencies and state and local governments with ADA responsibilities. In 2002, the 

Section has doubled the size of its Certification and 

Coordination Unit, which has 16 professional staff 

members. Seven professional staff members, including a supervising attorney, are dedicated to 

encouraging state and local governments to revise 

building codes to meet ADA standards.176 Eleven 

DRS staff members spend “most of their time on 

interagency coordination.”177 Other staff members 

participate in coordination activities as needed. 

DRS attributes the improvement in its coordination 

activities to its increase in resources.178 

Community Involvement 

In the 1998 ADA report, the Commission found 

that DRS developed policy guidance and other initiatives without consulting disability and minority 

advocacy groups and strongly recommended that 

the Section regularly contact these groups about 

ADA issues and when developing outreach, training, and education programs.179 DRS now communicates with these organizations and maintains ongoing dialogue with several disability and minority 

groups about their concerns.180 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S 

RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The FBI’s implementation of the Hate Crimes 

Statistics Act has not changed significantly since 

the Commission’s review in 1992.181 In this review, the Commission concludes that the FBI has 

not implemented the recommendations made in 

1992, which called for comprehensive networking 

 

 

176 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1–2. 

177 Ibid., p. 10. 

178 Ibid. 

179 USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 133, 143. 

180 DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4–5. 

181 The FBI’s interrogatory response indicates that there are 

future initiatives to improve the data collection program. If 

these initiatives are implemented, some of the Commission’s 

1992 recommendations and concerns would be addressed. The 

initiatives are discussed later in the section. See DOJ/FBI, 

Interrogatory Response, pp. 1–10. 

with many different entities in the community, including police departments, advocacy organizations, and victims; resources to carry out the act; 

and extensive training for the collection, reporting, 

and dissemination of hate crime information. However, the FBI reports future initiatives that will address some of the Commission’s earlier concerns. 

Priority of Civil Rights 

At the FBI, there is a Civil Rights Unit within 

the Criminal Investigative Division located at the 

FBI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Civil 

Rights Unit is responsible for enforcing federal 

criminal civil rights laws, and investigations are 

conducted by the FBI’s 56 field offices.182 The reporting and collection of hate crime data are assigned to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

(UCR) Program in Clarksburg, West Virginia, 

where all crime information is reported.183 The collection of hate crime data is not viewed as a civil 

rights function. The UCR program’s focus is to 

improve the overall quality of crime data collected 

by the FBI, including hate crime data.184 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

The FBI provided the Commission with information on funding allocated for civil rights enforcement, including fiscal year 2001 funding and 

staffing for the UCR program. In fiscal year 2001, 

the FBI spent approximately $8 million on the program, which employs 108 employees. However, 

the implementation of the Hate Crimes Statistics 

Act is not a separate unit or division with funding 

and staffing levels established by Congress. Thus, 

a funded position and resource level is not avail182 DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

183 The UCR program is charged with providing a national 

view of crime based on data submitted by city, county, and 

state law enforcement agencies. The statistics are used primarily by law enforcement administrators for strategic planning of 

resource allocation and as a tool to address crime as a social 

problem. Hate crime statistics can be used by law enforcement 

to enforce laws against crimes based on bias and prejudice 

only in the development of a reasonable response to a community’s situation. As part of the UCR Program, the hate 

crime statistics are viewed as any other crime data collected 

by the FBI. DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1, 6. 

184 DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1, 6. 
24 

able for hate crime data collection activities.185

Currently, no individual is assigned to the hate 

crime program full time.186 The UCR program has 

designated a full-time coordinator to organize and 

lead training sessions, provide technical assistance, 

and publicize the benefits of reporting hate crimes 

to law enforcement agencies.187 There is currently 

a request for additional senior statisticians for the 

UCR program, which would improve the program’s ability to provide guidance to the contributors and users of hate crime statistics.188 

Policy Guidance 

In this evaluation, the Commission reviewed 

the FBI’s revised hate crimes collection and reporting guidelines and training documents. The guidelines minimize both the importance of collecting 

and reporting hate crime data and the need for additional resources to implement the Hate Crimes 

Statistics Act. For example, the guidelines state: 

The primary emphasis in developing an approach for 

collecting national hate crime statistics was to avoid 

placing new reporting burdens on law enforcement 

agencies contributing data. Although there were no 

comprehensive statistics on the incidence of hate 

crimes, the limited statistics gathered in existing local and state hate crime programs indicated that the 

number of hate crimes reported annually . . . should 

not constitute a major reporting burden. Hate crime 

reporting should not, therefore require large new 

commitments of personnel and other resources by 

local, state, and federal data contributors. . . . Hate 

crimes are not separate, distinct crimes, but rather 

traditional offenses motivated by the offender’s bias. 

It is unnecessary to create a whole new crime category. To the contrary, hate crime data can be collected by merely capturing additional information 

about offenses already being reported.189

 

 

185 Loretta King, deputy assistant attorney general, Civil 

Rights Division, DOJ, letter to Terri A. Dickerson, assistant 

staff director for civil rights evaluation, USCCR, July 12, 

2002, FBI Responses and Comments to U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, p. 4 (hereafter cited as King July 12 letter, FBI 

response). 

186 King July 12 letter, FBI response, p. 7. 

187 DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 

188 Ibid. 

189 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Hate 

Crime Data Collection Guidelines, revised October 1999, pp. 

1–2.

This guidance would not result in any extra efforts by police departments to collect information 

or train personnel to identify and analyze hate 

crimes. 

Technical Assistance 

The Commission also finds that the lack of 

training in identifying, analyzing, and reporting 

hate crimes contributes to the underreporting. For 

the most part, law enforcement officials, particularly police officers, receive FBI hate crime training and technical assistance. The information, 

however, focuses on indicators prevalent more 

than 10 years ago.190 The training manual presents 

indicators usually found in obvious bias-related 

offenses, such as the race of the victim and offender, and signs and symbols of hate.191 Today, 

hate crimes may not be so obvious if there are no 

identifiable indicators to distinguish the act from 

just another criminal offense.192 For example, the 

burning or beating of a person may on the surface 

appear to have been a murder. A further investigation may reveal other factors, such as the person 

attacked happened to be in a neighborhood where 

such persons of his race are not welcomed.193 Another example is the burning, desecration, and 

vandalism of nonreligious establishments such as 

minority-owned stores, landmarks, and cemeteries.194 These offenses, which may be hate crimes, 

are usually reported or classified as arson or van190 See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection, n.d. 

191 See FBI, Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection. 

192 King July 12 letter, FBI response, p. 8. The FBI explains 

that the collection of hate crime information occurs within the 

already existing operational context of law enforcement. The 

UCR program was created to collect crime data within this 

law enforcement context, and not created to see hate crimes as 

a separate substantive offense. 

193 See Southern Poverty Law Center, “The Hate Crime Statistics Act: Ten Years Later, the Numbers Don’t Add Up: Discounting Hate,” Intelligence Report, Issue 104, Winter 2001, 

pp. 12–13 (hereafter cited as SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add 

Up”). The SPLC is a “watchdog” organization in Montgomery, Alabama, that monitors and reports on hate crimes nationwide. 

194 For example, in Arkansas, authorities are investigating the 

vandalism of a Civil War-era cemetery as a hate crime. Over 

one-fourth of the headstones were spray-painted with racial 

slurs in the predominantly African American cemetery. 

“Across the USA, Arkansas,” USA Today, May 30, 2002. 
 25 

dalism.195 Police departments are not receiving the 

technical assistance or training necessary to investigate and identify offenses that on the surface may 

not appear to be hate crimes, but, in fact, are.196 

In 2000, the Department sponsored a one-day 

Hate Crimes Summit in Washington, D.C., which 

brought together about 300 representatives from 

the law enforcement community, including members of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Secret Service, the District of Columbia 

and suburban police departments, and security 

guards from area colleges.197 Attendees were told 

of identifiable “clues” that may be signs of a hate 

crime, such as hateful symbols, hateful speeches or 

literature, and the race of the victim and perpetrator. These are obvious, distinguishable hate crime 

indicators or signs, but many hate crimes may not 

have these obvious “clues” or indicators.198 

 

 195 SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,’’ p. 12. See also 

“Across the USA, New Mexico: Albuquerque,” USA Today,

May 6, 2002. In its national coverage of news events, the 

newspaper reports that a task force has been established to 

probe nearly “60 suspicious fires” in a forest near and around 

the Mascalero Apache Reservation. The tribe has posted a 

monetary reward for information leading to a conviction. 

196 The FBI reports that the subtle indicators in identifying 

hate crimes today are now taught in its UCR course. The current training to law enforcement officers is to encourage them 

to thoroughly examine all aspects of a crime before identifying 

it as bias motivated. For example, the FBI explains that a 

swastika painted on the side of a building may be the result of 

a prank more than destruction or vandalism of property based 

on hate. King July 12 letter, FBI response, pp. 7–8. 

197 See Stacey Pamela Patton, “Hate Crime Clues Shared at 

Summit,” The Washington Post, June 29, 2000, p. A5 (hereafter cited as Patton, “Hate Crime Summit”). 

198 Patton, “Hate Crime Summit,” p. A5; The summit was part 

of the Department’s nationwide response to several “high 

profile hate-related incidents” that occurred during the year. 

“High-profile” hate crimes usually receive national media 

attention and have obvious indicators for being hate crimes. 

The “high-profile” incidents in 2000 included the dragging 

death of an African American male in Jasper, Texas, by white 

perpetrators; a deadly attack on a gay college student in 

Wyoming by persons who did not like gays; and the shootings 

of minorities and Jewish children in Chicago and Los Angeles, 

respectively, by white perpetrators who belonged to biasrelated organizations. Even the Department acknowledged that 

“high-profile” hate crimes are not the majority of such offenses. 

Underreporting of Hate Crimes 

In November 2001, the FBI released its annual 

report on bias-motivated incidents.199 During 2000, 

law enforcement agencies reported 8,063 incidents, 

which involved a total of 9,430 offenses, 9,924 

victims, and 7,530 known (distinguishable) offenders.200 However, a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report, also released in November 

2001, found a large discrepancy between the number of hate crimes it received and the FBI’s figures. 

The SPLC attributed the discrepancy in numbers to 

the underreporting of such incidents to the FBI.201 

Since the FBI began collecting and reporting 

hate crime data under the act,202 it has reported 

about 8,000 hate crimes each year in the United 

States.203 The SPLC contends that the number is 

closer to 50,000.204 The SPLC’s report attributes 

the underreporting of such incidents to several factors. One is that participation in the FBI’s annual 

Hate Crime Statistics Report is voluntary and that 

several states have not participated or have not reported fully.205 This has generated inconsistent and 

199 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2000 (Clarksburg, WVA: Uniform 

Crime Reports), November 2001 (hereafter cited as FBI, Hate 

Crime Statistics 2000). 

200 FBI, Hate Crime Statistics 2000, p. 5. See U.S. Department 

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Hate Crime Statistics, 2000,” press release, Nov. 19, 2001. 

201 See SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,” pp. 6–15. See 

also Darryl Fears, “FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes, Watchdog 

Group Says; Analysis Finds 50,000 a Year in U.S.; Some 

States Do Not Participate Fully in Reporting,” The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2001, p. A2 (hereafter cited as Fears, “FBI 

Data Miss Hate Crimes”). 

202 The Hate Crimes Statistics Act was amended in 1996 to 

extend the data collection from the original five years to “each 

calendar year,” making hate crimes statistics a permanent 

component of the FBI data collection program. 

203 See SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,” p. 7; FBI, 1998–

2003 Strategic Plan, p. 26; Patton, “Hate Crime Summit,” p. 

A5; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes 1995 (Clarksburg, WVA: Uniform Crime 

Reports), p. 1, n.d., <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm>. 

204 SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,” p. 7; Fears, “FBI 

Data Miss Hate Crimes,” p. A2. 

205 In 2000, 48 states and the District of Columbia participated 

in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program. The 1,690 reporting agencies represented 84.2 percent of the nation’s population. See FBI, “Hate Crime Statistics,” press release, p. 2; 

SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,” p. 7; FBI, Hate Crime 

Statistics 2000, p. 5. 
26 

inaccurate reporting.206 SPLC states that another 

reason for the discrepancy is that minimal resources 

have been allocated to train police officers to determine whether a crime is due to bias.207 SPLC’s report also states that victims are reluctant to come 

forward to report such incidents to police departments, and that other community organizations 

must be included in hate crime data collection.208 

According to an SPLC spokesperson, the underreporting of hate crimes means that “the overall 

numbers are virtually useless, and we will not get a 

complete picture of what happened in the wake of 

September 11th and attacks against members of the 

Arab community.”209 The FBI states it is aware of 

the weaknesses in the data collection process and is 

working with law enforcement agencies as well as 

organizations such as the SPLC and the AntiDefamation League to find solutions to these problems.210 The FBI also acknowledges that its hate 

crimes reports are “insufficient to allow a valid 

national or regional measure of the volume and 

types of crimes motivated by hate,” but contends 

that the numbers offer “perspectives on the general 

nature of hate crime occurrence.”211 

Coordination 

The FBI is encouraging state and local agencies 

to submit data via the Internet. The UCR program 

is also beginning to work closely with criminal 

justice information technology industry representatives to provide law enforcement agencies with 

software and system support for their records management systems.212 The UCR program is in the 

process of revising the forms used by local law 

enforcement agencies to report hate crimes. The 

 

 

206 SPLC, “The Numbers Don’t Add Up,” pp. 8–10. 

207 Ibid., p. 8. 

208 Ibid., pp. 8–10. 

209 Fears, “FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes,” p. A2. 

210 DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 7. 

211 FBI, “Hate Crime Statistics,” press release, p. 2. See also 

FBI, FY 2003 Authorization and Budget Request, pp. 1–25. 

The budget report states that while the FBI’s collection of hate 

crime data may be the most comprehensive hate crime data 

technique in existence today, it is insufficient to “allow valid 

measures of the volume and types of hate crimes. Its shortcomings result in the fact that participation by law enforcement agencies is voluntary and all hate crimes are not reported.” 

212 DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 

FBI’s goal is to increase the number of law enforcement agencies reporting UCR data by 10 percent by fiscal year 2004, which should result in an 

increase in agencies submitting hate crime data.213 

Community Involvement 

The FBI’s hate crime training curriculum recommends to law enforcement agencies that they 

canvass many components, including schools, 

churches, and community groups, to get an accurate account of hate crimes nationwide. Trainers 

stress that such entities are invaluable resources in 

support of hate crime victims, prevention of hate 

crimes, and in promoting hate crime awareness and 

recommend that state and local enforcement agencies work closely with local groups and organizations to build relationships with minority communities to improve and increase the information on 

hate crimes.214 However, the final decision of reporting hate crimes is left to the local reporting law 

enforcement agency.215

The UCR program staff has been working 

closely with community organizations through a 

working group that will provide guidance through 

recommendations on such new issues as genderbased bias crimes. The FBI has not received the 

working group’s final recommendations.216

New Initiatives 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

The FBI states it is initiating efforts to improve 

the reporting of hate crimes. Currently, the FBI’s 

hate crime training program is being studied to 

determine its efficacy. The FBI plans to include 

Web-based training as an option to traditional faceto-face training. The new module is being tested.217

The hate crime data collection has been incorporated into the UCR Quality Assurance Reviews 

(QAR). The UCR program uses the QAR to provide feedback to agencies on their problem reporting areas. Additionally, the UCR program has con213 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 

214 Ibid., pp. 5–6. 

215 Ibid., p. 5. 

216 Ibid., pp. 7–8. 

217 Ibid. 
 27 

ducted studies of issues that may contribute to better reporting from the states.218

The FBI’s priority is to provide easier reporting 

for participating law enforcement agencies through 

automation and modernization of the UCR program. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the FBI plans 

to implement a “prototype system to handle online 

 

 

218 Ibid., p. 7. 

electronic receipt of UCR data.”219 By 2003, the 

FBI plans to test the electronic distribution of UCR 

data, and by fiscal year 2004, the goal is to decrease the time it takes to publish annual crime 

reports from seven months to approximately two 

months.220

219 Ibid., p. 9. 

220 Ibid., p. 10. 
28 

CHAPTER 3 

Department of Labor 

The Department of Labor (DOL) office responsible for enforcing Title VI is the Civil Rights Center, the only organizational unit within the Department with civil rights enforcement authority over 

financial assistance programs. In this report, the 

Directorate of Civil Rights (DCR), which was the 

name of the civil rights office when the Commission’s 1996 report was published, is also referred 

to as the Civil Rights Center (CRC), its name today. The name change took effect in 1998. The 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP) within DOL is responsible for coordinating and enforcing civil rights compliance by federal contractors. Between 1993 and 1996, the 

Commission made 35 recommendations to the Department of Labor, which included 26 to the Civil 

Rights Center1

 and nine directed to OFCCP.2 

OVERVIEW

In 1996, the Commission found that the Directorate of Civil Rights was strong in some areas and 

weak in others. For example, the Commission 

found that DOL’s DCR could serve as a model for 

other federal agencies in how it handles many of 

its day-to-day functions. DCR was rated highly in 

terms of staff training, data collection and analysis, 

and policy guidance. Areas in which DCR was 

lacking in its enforcement of civil rights included 

the ineffective use of its policy guidance and regu-

 

1

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement). 

2

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement; U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally 

Assisted Transportation Projects, January 1993 (hereafter 

cited as USCCR, Programs Relating to Federally Assisted 

Transportation Projects). 

lations, the organization and structure of its office, 

the preparation and use of its civil rights implementation plan, its lack of direct interaction with 

community and advocacy groups, its nonperformance of pre-award and post-award compliance reviews, its lack of a monitoring system for following up on action plans or conciliation agreements, 

and its lack of an oversight and monitoring system 

to evaluate Title VI compliance policies and activities at the state and local levels. 

In its 2002 review, the Commission finds that 

some of the areas in which the Civil Rights Center 

has improved include the reorganizing of the Center into three new offices, placing a high priority 

on providing technical assistance and training, revising its Title VI regulations, and establishing a 

system to follow-up on corrective action plans or 

conciliation agreements. The Center did not implement some of the Commission’s recommendations for various reasons, including lack of resources. The implementation of the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998 and other pressing tasks 

caused resources to be diverted from other tasks. 

Department of Labor Components Reviewed: 

 The Civil Rights Center (previously the Directorate 

of Civil Rights) 

 The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

In 1993, the Commission found that because 

the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance had overlapping jurisdiction with 

the Department of Transportation in relation to 

airport construction, there was inconsistency and 

duplication of effort; OFCCP’s contacts with 

community groups during compliance reviews 

were inadequate; and OFCCP needed to reassess 
 29 

its approach to determine compliance under the 

system of localized affirmative action agreements 

known as Hometown Plans. 

In 2002, the Commission finds that there is still 

inconsistency and a duplication of effort between 

the Department of Transportation and OFCCP because the Department of Labor still has not updated 

its December 1979 memorandum of understanding 

with the Department of Transportation to reflect the 

interim agreement to exchange information. In addition, OFCCP still does not solicit involvement from 

the community in selecting companies for compliance reviews. However, OFCCP did reassess its 

approach to determining compliance and now applies uniform compliance standards to all covered 

construction contractors and subcontractors. 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER

The purpose of the Civil Rights Center (CRC or 

the Center), located in the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration and Management, is 

to ensure compliance with nondiscrimination statutes. CRC enforces various federal statutes and 

regulations that prohibit (1) discrimination in 

DOL-funded programs and activities, (2) discrimination based on disability by certain public entities 

and in DOL-conducted activities, and (3) discrimination within DOL itself.3

 When the Commission’s 

1996 Title VI enforcement report was published, 

CRC consisted of two offices, the Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action 

and the Office of Program Compliance and Enforcement (OPCE). The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action oversaw 

internal civil rights and equal employment opportunity matters, such as processing employmentrelated complaints filed against DOL and managing special emphasis and affirmative action programs within DOL. OPCE was responsible for all 

external, recipient-related civil rights activities and 

consisted of the Division of Technical Assistance 

and Compliance Monitoring and the Division of 

Equal Opportunity Investigations and Enforcement. Within OPCE, these two divisions were responsible for conducting post-award compliance 

 

 

3

 U.S. Department of Labor, “U.S. DOL–OASAM Civil 

Rights Enforcement for DOL Grant Recipients, Civil Rights 

Program,” n.d., <http://www.dol.gov/dol/oasam/public/programs 

/civil.htm>. 

and technical assistance activities and processing 

discrimination complaints filed against recipients. 

The Center has since been reorganized.4 

The statutory authorities for the Civil Rights 

Center remain the same as in 1996, except for a 

change in the workforce system financial assistance programs.5

 On August 7, 1998, President 

Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA).6 As a result, many of the recommendations made by the Commission to the Civil 

Rights Center concerning the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA) were not implemented 

because the WIA supersedes the JTPA as the Department of Labor’s primary mechanism for providing financial assistance for a comprehensive 

system of job-training and placement services for 

adults and eligible youth.7

 The WIA, which became effective on July 1, 2000, is the first major 

reform of the workforce development system since 

the JTPA. Through WIA, Congress sought to replace the fragmented training and employment system that existed under the previous program.8

 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER 

In evaluating DOL, the Commission found that 

DOL/CRC could serve as a model for other federal 

agencies in how it handles many of its day-to-day 

functions.9

 The Commission found DOL to be 

strong in staff training, data collection and analysis, and policy guidance. However, recommendations were made that could enhance DOL’s effectiveness in such areas as organizational structure, 

funding and resources, oversight of state recipients, 

and complaint investigation. 

4 See pp. 32–33 of this report. 

5

 Department of Labor’s Interrogatory Response to the United 

States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil 

Rights Enforcement, Civil Rights Center, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 1 

(hereafter cited as Civil Rights Center Interrogatory). 

6

 29 C.F.R., Part 37 (1999). 

7

 WIA and JTPA Statute and Regulation Index, <http://www. 

oalj.dol.gov/public/jtpa/refrnc/jstatin.htm>. 

8

 General Accounting Office, “Workforce Investment Act—

Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements,” October 2001, p. 6. 

9

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement. 
30 

Priority of Civil Rights 

In terms of organizational structure, in 1996 the 

Commission suggested that the DCR director’s 

ability to obtain funding for civil rights enforcement, influence DOL policy development on civil 

rights enforcement, and promote DCR’s mission 

relative to other DOL obligations could be better 

served if DCR was established as an independent 

office headed by an assistant secretary who reported directly to the Secretary.10 To promote a 

more efficient Title VI enforcement program, the 

Commission also recommended that DCR acquire 

legal staff to provide legal guidance and interpretation for Title VI enforcement. At the time the Title 

VI report was published, the legal staff was located 

in the Office of the Solicitor. 

When the Commission issued its 1996 report, 

OPCE was divided into units responsible for internal and external civil rights enforcement. The 

Commission recommended that DCR create additional divisions for external civil rights enforcement and acquire staff specifically assigned to perform pre-award reviews, community outreach and 

public education, and Title VI staff training.11 

The Commission also found that only one person, a senior policy advisor to the director, was 

assigned to policy development. At that time, staff 

addressed policy issues in an ad hoc fashion. The 

Commission recommended that DCR establish 

within OPCE a policy and planning unit to provide 

enforcement policy guidance to DCR staff and 

state recipients with Title VI enforcement responsibilities. It also suggested that DOL model the 

organizational structure of its external civil rights 

enforcement unit after the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.12 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

The Commission found that DCR’s regional 

staff did not perform activities related to Title VI 

enforcement. As a result, DCR must ensure that it 

has budgetary resources to finance travel costs for 

headquarters staff to perform on-site reviews of 

recipients and states that perform civil rights enforcement activities. The Commission concluded 

 10 Ibid., pp. 354–55, 373. 

11 Ibid. 

12 Ibid., pp. 354–55, 373–74. 

that if travel costs outweigh the expense of regional external civil rights enforcement staffing, 

DOL should consider placing some external civil 

rights enforcement staff in regional offices.13 

The Commission also found that OPCE’s staff 

size was insufficient to ensure adequate enforcement of Title VI in all federally assisted and conducted programs. During the 1980s, DCR’s allocation of staff and resources to OPCE for civil rights 

enforcement for federally assisted and federally 

conducted programs decreased, resulting in equal 

opportunity enforcement efforts being limited to 

JTPA programs. The Commission recommended 

that DOL provide DCR with sufficient staff and 

resources to ensure that DCR’s implementation, 

enforcement, compliance, oversight, and monitoring activities for Title VI enforcement reached all 

federally assisted DOL programs and not just 

JTPA programs.14

Planning 

In 1996, the Commission discovered that 

DCR’s civil rights implementation plans provided 

a detailed description of DOL’s Title VI enforcement program; however, the plans did not function, 

as the Department of Justice requires, as a planning 

tool for DOL. As a result, the Commission recommended that DCR develop planning and priorities 

initiatives that incorporate the qualities of its implementation plan, strategic plan, and work plan.15

Policy Guidance 

Although DOL’s Title VI guidelines, regulations, policies, and procedures, especially those 

pertaining to the JTPA, were better than those of 

many other federal agencies in providing guidance 

on Title VI enforcement in 1996, several deficiencies were identified. The Title VI regulations did 

not contain an appendix listing the federally assisted programs to which the regulations apply, nor 

did they reflect the amendments to Title VI created 

by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Although DOL does not meet the Department of Justice’s requirement that it have Title VI guidelines 

for each of its federally assisted programs, DOL 

13 Ibid., pp. 355, 374. 

14 Ibid., pp. 357–59, 375. 

15 Ibid., p. 384. 
 31 

had issued detailed guidance manuals or guidebooks for at least three of its federally assisted 

programs. The Commission recommended that 

DOL add an appendix to its general Title VI regulations specifying the types of financial assistance 

programs DOL administers. In addition, it recommended that DOL issue Title VI guidelines or policy guidance stating the implications of the Civil 

Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and provide practical illustrations of civil rights issues based on 

DOL-assisted programs.16 

The Commission found that DOL used training 

materials developed for the states as a Title VI 

complaint manual and communicated standard operating procedures to be followed in processing 

Title VI complaints and in conducting compliance 

reviews by issuing directives on specific topics. At 

that time, Center officials indicated that they were 

working on compliance and complaint manuals 

that would replace other documents used for those 

purposes.17 The Commission recommended that 

DOL promulgate uniform Title VI enforcement 

procedures for its civil rights enforcement staff and 

funding recipients, including instructions for implementing Title VI, from the application and preaward process through compliance review and 

complaint processing, in each type of program 

DOL sponsors.18 

Technical Assistance and Education 

and Outreach 

When the Commission’s 1996 report was published, several recommendations were made to 

DCR concerning education and outreach and technical assistance. DCR generally had no direct interaction with community and advocacy groups 

and instead delegated education and outreach activities to its recipients. As a result, the Commission recommended that DCR solicit comments and 

suggestions from affected communities and funding recipients on its Title VI enforcement efforts.19

It also recommended that DCR ensure that recipients educate the public about program accessibility. Although DCR provided technical assistance 

on request and regularly conducted training semi-

 

 16 Ibid., p. 376. 

17 Ibid., p. 361. 

18 Ibid., pp. 361, 377. 

19 Ibid., p. 381. 

nars for state and local agency staff on enforcement topics such as data collection and analysis, 

on-site compliance reviews, complaint processing, 

and resolution of noncompliance, the Commission 

recommended that DCR regularly train its staff and 

recipients’ staff on the methods of enforcement, 

such as conducting compliance reviews.20 

Complaint Processing 

The Commission found that during the mid1980s and into the early 1990s, although DCR received an increasing number of civil rights complaints, the number of Title VI complaints received 

declined dramatically. As a result, the Commission 

recommended that DCR increase its public education about Title VI’s nondiscrimination requirement and the rights afforded federal funding program participants and beneficiaries.21 

Compliance Reviews 

Conducting pre-award reviews, post-award 

desk-audit reviews, and on-site compliance reviews is essential to an effective Title VI enforcement program. In 1996, the Commission found that 

DCR (1) did not conduct pre-award reviews, (2) 

did not perform desk audits except as part of its onsite compliance review process, and (3) had performed a decreasing number of Title VI compliance reviews. The Commission recommended that 

before granting funding DCR should ensure that a 

state would maintain an active Title VI enforcement program. The Commission also recommended that DCR implement pre-award reviews 

for all programs receiving federal funds. In addition, DCR should conduct post-award desk audits 

of information from its data collection and analysis 

system to ensure continuing compliance with Title 

VI among all recipients. This asset would allow it 

to reach a large number of recipients in desk-audit 

reviews. The Commission recommended that DCR 

conduct on-site compliance reviews of all grant 

recipients’ facilities, or at least those identified to 

be in noncompliance by desk-audit reviews.22

When found to be in noncompliance, DCR encouraged recipients to comply voluntarily with Title 

20 Ibid. 

21 Ibid., p. 380. 

22 Ibid., pp. 378–79. 
32 

VI. The Commission recommended that DCR establish a system of monitoring these commitments 

to corrective actions.23 

Staff Training 

In 1996, the Commission found that DCR’s staff 

training was among the best offered by federal 

agencies evaluated in the Title VI report. It conducted ongoing training for its external civil rights 

enforcement staff, including computer training, instruction on writing and management skills, seminars concerning particular DOL funding programs, 

briefings on each of DOL’s federally funded programs, instruction on methods for conducting enforcement activities, and training on statutes DCR 

enforces. But DCR had not conducted training specifically on Title VI. As a result, the Commission 

recommended that DCR hold regular training for its 

staff and recipients’ staff on issues specific to Title 

VI enforcement and compliance.24

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

The Commission concluded that the Job Training Partnership Act data collection and analysis 

system was an excellent recipient compliance 

evaluation model that facilitated Title VI enforcement. But one drawback of the system was that 

DCR could only gather information from the database during compliance reviews. The Commission 

recommended that DCR require state recipients to 

maintain information on applicants for JTPA funding and all collected data be accessible online or 

through other means at any time instead of only 

during compliance reviews.25 The Commission 

also recommended that DCR provide detailed instructions on the type of data to be collected from 

recipients and subrecipients. 

The Commission also found that DCR never 

used methods of administration as a means of 

monitoring states’ enforcement efforts until 1993. 

As of 1996, DCR’s Title VI enforcement activities 

and oversight of state-administered programs focused primarily on its JTPA programs. The Commission recommended that DCR establish a systematic oversight and monitoring program to 

 

 

23 Ibid., p. 380. 

24 Ibid., pp. 369, 383. 

25 Ibid., p. 383. 

evaluate the Title VI compliance policies and activities connected with all programs and activities 

administered at the state and local levels, not just 

JTPA programs.26

CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER’S RESPONSE TO 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Establishing Priorities 

In terms of organizational structure and line authority, the Civil Rights Center continues to report 

to the Secretary through the assistant secretary for 

administration and management. The Center 

claimed that this reporting structure does not impede its ability to achieve its objectives.27 Additionally, legal guidance and interpretation for 

agencies within DOL continue to be provided 

through the Office of the Solicitor. No agency 

within DOL, except for the Inspector General’s 

Office, has independent legal staff.28

Shortly before the Commission’s Title VI report was published, the Center was reorganized 

and three new offices were established.29 The Office of Enforcement plans, coordinates, and conducts the Center’s enforcement activities to ensure 

that recipients of financial assistance from DOL 

and its program offices adhere to equal opportunity 

and nondiscrimination laws, regulations, policies, 

standards, procedures, and guidelines and that uniform remedies and sanctions are appropriately imposed.30 According to the Center, the Office of Enforcement has engaged in pre-award reviews with 

the Employment and Training Administration, the 

major DOL grant-making agency, in the review of 

grant applications under the new Workforce Investment Act, which prohibits discrimination based 

on race, color, and national origin.31 The second 

new office, the Office of Compliance Assistance 

and Planning, is responsible for overall program 

planning, and conducting and coordinating compliance and technical assistance activities related to 

26 Ibid., p. 381. 

27 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 3. 

28 Ibid., p. 4. 

29 Ibid. 

30 U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, “Mission 

and Organization,” p. 5 (hereafter cited as CRC, “Mission and 

Organization”). 

31 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, pp. 4–5. 
 33 

civil rights statutes.32 The Office of Mediation, 

Counseling, and Evaluation handles the mediation 

of complaints filed by participants and beneficiaries of DOL federal financial assistance programs.33

Under the new organization, the office of Compliance Assistance and Planning develops and disseminates standards, procedures, guidelines, and

regulations to assist DOL grant-making agencies 

and funding recipients in meeting their equal opportunity responsibilities. Additionally, the Office 

reviews legislative proposals, new legislation, executive orders, regulations, and administrative actions to determine their impact on the Center’s 

compliance and enforcement activities.34 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

In 2002, the Center stated that regional staff 

still does not perform Title VI enforcement functions, and that there are no current plans to place

external civil rights enforcement staff in regional 

offices.35 The Center’s budget remained at $4.9 

million or below from fiscal years 1993 to 1999,

until fiscal year 2000 and after when it increased to 

$5.7, then $5.9 million (see figure 1). External civil 

rights activities received 57 percent of the Center’s

funding and staffing.36 However, during fiscal year 

2000 and after CRC was burdened with implementing the new WIA program. Thus, little of the 

increased funding was likely to finance the ongoing costs of compliance reviews, particularly travel 

costs for site visits. 

In 2002, the Center indicated that DOL has 

provided additional staff and resources to implement a comprehensive enforcement program for 

Title VI (see figure 1 and table 2).37 According to 

the Center, when reductions have occurred, it was 

because the effects of inflation and pay increases

had to be absorbed. Although the Center indicated

it had received additional staff, in actuality staffing 

levels have fluctuated during the past decade and 

between fiscal years 1993 and 2002 the number of 

FTEs decreased by 28 percent (see table 2). Since 

fiscal year 2000, the Center’s budget has remained 

flat (see figure 1). 

 32 CRC, “Mission and Organization,” p. 7. The civil rights 

statutes include Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination

Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and others. 

33 CRC, “Mission and Organization,” p. 7.

34 Ibid., p. 8. 

35 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 5.

36 Ibid., p. 3.

37 Ibid., p. 2.

TABLE 2—Civil Rights Center Staffing History

Fiscal Year Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)

1993 68

1994 61

1995 60

1996 56

1997 52

1998 50

1999 52

2000 51

2001 53

2002 50

SOURCE: Department of Labor’s Interrogatory Response to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil 

Rights Enforcement, Civil Rights Center, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 3.

FIGURE 1—Budget History of the 

Civil Rights Center

4.9 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.4 5.8 5.8 6.0

4.9 4.5 4.5 4.6

4.9

5.7 5.8 5.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Millions of Dollars

Requested Appropriated
34 

Planning 

The Center submits its civil rights implementation plans to the Department of Justice annually. 

According to the Center, the reports are prepared 

in accordance with instructions from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and all questions and concerns posed by DOJ have been fully addressed.38 

In its January 2002 implementation plan, the 

Center failed to describe letters of finding, settlement agreements, or other resolutions of complaint 

investigations or compliance reviews issued since 

the previous year’s submission. In addition, it 

listed only five activities and/or objectives that it 

would be conducting to enforce Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and similar statutes covered 

by Executive Order 12,250. The Center indicated 

that it did not perform any pre-award and postaward reviews in fiscal year 2001.39 

Policy Guidance 

The Commission finds that the compliance and 

complaint manuals that were supposed to have 

been issued several years ago have not been updated since the 1996 report was issued.40 The Center does have a methods of administration training 

manual.41

In addition, work began on the development of 

the Title VI appendix immediately after the Commission issued its 1996 report. However, before 

completion, resources for legislative/regulatory 

issues were diverted to other pressing tasks, such 

as the development of (1) legislation to replace the 

JTPA; (2) regulations implementing the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) and its nondiscrimination 

and equal opportunity provisions; (3) training and 

written guidance on the new legislation; and (4) 

regulations, guidance, and training on new welfareto-work legislation. As a result, the work on the 

Title VI appendix will have to begin anew.42

 

 

38 Ibid., p. 5. 

39 Civil Rights Center, “FY 2002 Implementation Plans,” pp. 

1, 4. 

40 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 361; Civil Rights 

Center Interrogatory, p. 14. 

41 U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, “Methods of 

Administration Under the Workforce Investment Act,” n.d. 

42 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 11. 

With leadership from the Department of Justice, 

the Center is revising Title VI regulations to reflect 

the language of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 

1987. A proposed revision to DOL’s Title VI and 

Section 504 rules was published in the Federal 

Register on December 6, 2000. The Center has 

reviewed and processed DOJ’s final preamble and 

rule through DOL’s departmental clearance process. At the time this report was being prepared the 

Center was awaiting DOJ’s publication of the final 

rules in the Federal Register.

43

Now that WIA has replaced JTPA, the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and 

equal opportunity provisions of WIA are applicable only to recipients of WIA Title I financial assistance. The Center does not have the authority to 

extend their applicability to DOL recipients who 

receive no WIA Title I financial assistance. DOL’s 

general Title VI regulations have not been revised 

to incorporate the requirements of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or 

to make these provisions broadly applicable to 

other DOL-assisted programs.44

As of 2002, the Center has not developed policies specific to Title VI. According to the Center, it 

does not have the resources to develop policies 

related to enforcement specific to each nondiscrimination law it enforces. Instead, regulations 

and policies have been developed for the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of 

WIA, which prohibits discrimination based on Title VI and nine other bases. Since the passage of 

WIA, the Center’s attention has been focused on 

providing guidance to the Center’s staff and DOL 

recipients as to the compliance issues associated 

with WIA and its nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions. When WIA’s Section 188 

was published, the Center began working on guidance for its state recipients on the development of 

WIA methods of administration. DOL has also 

published guidance to recipients on meeting the 

needs of those who are limited English proficient, 

highlighting practices considered discriminatory.45

According to the Center, policy directives are 

distributed to pertinent staff and recipients. The 

distribution to Title VI staff members is through emails and in-boxes, since they are all located in 

43 Ibid., p. 12. 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid., pp. 12–13. 
 35 

Washington, D.C. Recipients obtain copies of policy directives through the mail, as participants in 

one of the Center’s training programs, or through 

the Center’s Web site.46

Technical Assistance and Education 

and Outreach 

During the Commission’s 2002 review, the 

Center indicated that it places a high priority on 

providing technical assistance and training to DOL 

funding recipients.47 The training and assistance 

provided recently includes training conferences on 

the implementation of WIA, annual equal opportunity conferences, training courses on alternative 

dispute resolution, workshops on methods of administration, and information on equal opportunity 

and nondiscrimination in DOL financial assistance 

programs, which is available on the Center’s Web 

site.48 Technical assistance, education, and outreach 

training that has taken place since the Commission 

last reviewed the Civil Rights Center includes: 

 Staff participated in each of the six WIA Implementation Training Conferences.49 During 

the conferences, the Center addressed an audience of approximately 600 to 800 recipients on 

the states’ responsibility to comply with the 

civil rights provisions in WIA and its corresponding regulations. 

 At the Center’s annual Equal Opportunity Conference in 1999, staff conducted three training 

workshops on the WIA’s civil rights regulations. The individuals who drafted these regulations were the presenters. Handouts included 

copies of the draft regulations and slides of the 

presentations. The last plenary session of the 

conference was devoted to the requirements for 

methods of administration and the changes in 

these requirements from those under JTPA.50

 As a result of the new requirements that recipients’ complaint procedures include an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, the Center contracted for an institute to provide training 

for three 40-hour ADR training courses in Bal-

 

 

46 Ibid. p. 13. 

47 Ibid., p. 6. 

48 Ibid., pp. 6–9. 

49 Ibid., p. 6. 

50 Ibid. 

timore, Maryland, during fiscal year 2001. 

Ninety-four individuals representing 45 of the 

53 states and Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) registered for the ADR training.51 

 At the DOL Employment and Training Administration’s request, the Center conducted a methods of administration (MOA) technical assistance workshop on June 19–20, 2001, in Seattle, 

Washington, for the states of Alaska, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.52 

In addition to formalized training and technical 

assistance, the Center staff also provides technical 

assistance for recipients on an ongoing basis, telephonically, or through the exchange of electronic 

documents.53

Currently, the Center is developing several publications that will be widely disseminated to beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries, and the public. 

The publications will be available in English and 

several other languages, but until those publications are available the Center will continue to use 

the Department of Justice’s generic publications, 

such as its Title VI brochure.54

The Center indicated that in developing certain 

policies, guidance, training syllabuses, and enforcement tools, comments and suggestions from 

affected communities and funding recipients are 

considered. For example, in developing the guidance on limited English proficiency, the Center 

solicited comments and suggestions from affected 

communities and funding recipients.55 However, 

the Center has not strategically planned and designed an outreach plan that uses 2000 Census data 

and other labor market or demographic data to target groups that may be victims of discrimination.56

Complaint Processing 

The number of Title VI complaints the Center 

receives has continued to decline since the Commission published its 1996 report. Between fiscal 

years 1997 and 2001, complaints decreased by 76 

51 Ibid., pp. 7–8. 

52 Ibid., p. 8. 

53 Ibid., p. 9. 

54 Ibid., p. 11. 

55 Ibid., p. 10. 

56 Ibid., p. 11. 
36 

percent, from 107 in 1997 to 26 in 2001.57 In the 

1996 report, the Center indicated that it received so 

few Title VI complaints because most of them 

were resolved at the state level.58 

As recommended by the Commission in 1996, 

the Center has increased its public education about 

Title VI nondiscrimination requirements through 

several training modules. With the implementation 

of WIA, priority was on training and education. 

One of the training modules developed was titled 

“Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination Laws 

Applicable to USDOL Financial Assistance Recipients” and it was designed to educate funding 

recipients on Section 188 of WIA, the Age Discrimination Act, Section 504, and Title VI. The 

module begins with the showing of the Department 

of Justice’s Title VI video titled “Understanding 

and Abiding by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964.” More than 250 copies of the video have 

been distributed to DOL recipients in English, 

Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese. When 

national conferences are included, the Center’s 

education and training has reached every state and 

more than 33 percent of the nation’s 600 local 

workforce areas.59

Compliance Reviews 

In 2002, the Center indicated that resources 

continue to limit its ability to conduct pre-award 

reviews of all DOL funding recipients.60 In fiscal 

year 2001, the Center did not conduct any preaward reviews or post-award reviews or have any 

legal administrative enforcement (see table 3). 

However, all DOL grant agreements include equal 

opportunity and nondiscrimination assurance language as specified and required by the Center. In 

fiscal year 2000, the Center conducted 76 preaward reviews (desk audits) but no post-award reviews.61 With the implementation of WIA, all 

states were required to submit applications for receipt of financial assistance. The Center committed 

resources to the pre-award review process and assigned three staff persons to participate with the 

 

57 Ibid., p. 22. 

58 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 364. 

59 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 23. 

60 Ibid., p. 14. 

61 U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, FY 2001 

Civil Rights Implementation Plan, pp. 7–12. 

Department’s grant-making agency in the review 

of all state applications. The Center’s collaboration 

was necessary for a state’s application for financial 

assistance to be approved. The Department’s grantmaking agency and the Center continue to coordinate on pre-award reviews of all major WIA grant 

modifications states submit.62 

TABLE 3—Civil Rights Center Workload 

Fiscal 

Year 

Pre-award 

Reviews 

Postaward 

Reviews 

Administrative 

Enforcement 

2001 0 0 0 

2000 76 0 0 

1999 0 0 10 

1998 0 84 8 

1997 0 2 0 

SOURCE: Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, Civil Rights 

Implementation Plans, FYs 1997–2002. 

Post-award desk reviews are conducted as an 

enforcement mechanism independent of on-site 

reviews.63 The last time the Center conducted a 

post-award review was in fiscal year 1998, when it 

completed 84 post-award reviews (see table 3).64

According to the Center, under WIA each state is 

required to submit methods of administration. The 

MOA describes the actions a state will take to ensure that its WIA financially assisted programs, 

activities, and recipients are complying, and will 

continue to comply, with the nondiscrimination 

and equal opportunity requirements of WIA and its 

implementing regulations.65 The WIA regulations 

require each governor to establish an MOA for the 

state’s programs.66 By submitting an MOA, the 

governor agrees to follow its provisions and failure 

to do so may result in a finding of noncompliance. 

The Center indicated that the MOA provides a reasonable guarantee of compliance with federal civil 

rights laws.67 

 

62 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 14. 

63 Ibid., pp. 14–15. 

64 U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center, FY 2001 

Civil Rights Implementation Plan, pp. 5–11. 

65 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 15. 

66 29 C.F.R., Part 37. See also Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 15. 

67 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 21. 
 37 

In its annual post-award desk reviews, the Center verifies that each state and local workforce investment area has designated equal opportunity 

officers. In addition, desk audits are designed to 

review different administrative requirements each 

year. In fiscal year 2002 they will evaluate communications about equal opportunity, such as 

whether posters describing how to file a discrimination complaint are prominently displayed for the 

general public. Desk audits will also examine data 

reporting and record keeping with respect to requirements for maintaining discrimination complaint logs.68 

The Center has conducted post-award on-site 

compliance reviews since the Commission’s 1996 

review, but indicated that staff resources do not 

permit an extensive annual compliance review 

schedule.69 Additionally, there are thousands of 

primary and secondary recipients for national and 

state block grant programs and it would be impossible to perform an on-site review of all grant recipients’ facilities.70 According to the Center, to 

best utilize resources, compliance reviews are initiated based on congressional request, the nature 

and frequency of complaints, and strategic planning goals. Further, desk audits often assess compliance with regulatory requirements that would 

not necessarily require an on-site visit to validate 

noncompliance. If desk audits established an inference of disparate impact, an on-site review would 

be conducted to confirm or invalidate the deskreview findings.71 

When the Center conducts on-site reviews, the 

area of focus determines the plan and design of the 

review. A compliance review of a program or activity within a program always includes interviews 

of recipient officials, community members, and 

beneficiaries affected by the recipient’s program; 

analysis of statistical evidence on both participation rates and application rejection rates; and other 

evidence that may establish different treatment on 

protected grounds.72

 68 Ibid., p. 16. 

69 Ibid., p. 18. 

70 Ibid., pp. 16–17. In 2001, the number of recipient sites included 2,768 WIA One-Stop Centers. There were also 1,503 

Employment Services Offices and 949 Senior Centers. These 

are just a few of DOL’s assisted programs. 

71 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, pp. 17–18. 

72 Ibid., p. 18. 

The results of on-site reviews are put in writing 

and include specific findings, recommendations, 

and timetables for achieving compliance. In addition, all recipients in the full funding stream, including the primary recipient from the Department, 

are advised in writing of the findings.73

In response to the Commission’s recommendation that the Center develop a system for monitoring the commitments to corrective actions, the 

Center reported that it has a reminder system to 

follow-up on corrective action plans or conciliation 

agreements.74 

Staff Training 

According to the Center, DOL is committed to 

life-long learning for staff. Within the Department, 

CRC staff has the freedom to take training from a 

variety of sources. The Center’s premier training 

initiative is its annual National Equal Opportunity 

Conference.75 The conference is in its 13th consecutive year, and attendance has grown from an 

average of 100 recipient staff to about 300.76 The 

national conference, designed to reach recipient 

staff with direct equal opportunity responsibility, 

includes 26 workshops and three plenary sessions. 

In addition, a full week in the summer is set aside 

for an off-site staff civil rights training retreat, 

where staff receives updates on recent court decisions, complaint planning and investigation procedures, processing ADA Title II complaints, and 

creating an investigative file.77 Staff has also been 

provided with weeklong courses in mediation and 

compliance monitoring.78 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Today, the Department’s grant office has management information systems for all its programs. 

According to the Center, it does not prescribe how 

(either manually or electronically) recipient data 

must be maintained. Nor will the Center require 

73 Ibid., p. 16. 

74 Ibid., p. 22. 

75 Ibid., p. 24. See also U.S. Department of Labor, Civil 

Rights Center, 11th Annual National Equal Opportunity 

Training Conference, Aug. 9–11, 2000. 

76 Civil Rights Center Interrogatory, p. 24. 

77 Ibid. 

78 Ibid. 
38 

submission of data that can be obtained from existing reporting requirements of the Department’s 

grant office. But each recipient is required to collect data and maintain records in accordance with 

procedures the Center prescribes, as it deems necessary to determine whether the recipient has complied or is complying with the nondiscrimination 

and equal opportunity provisions. The system and 

format in which the records and data are kept must 

be designed to allow the Center to conduct statistical or other quantifiable data analyses to verify the 

recipient’s compliance with all nondiscrimination 

regulations. Records must include, but not be limited to, records on applicants, registrants, eligible 

applicants/registrants, participants, terminees, employees, and applicants for employment. Each recipient must record the race/ethnicity, sex, age, and 

where known, disability status, of every applicant, 

registrant, eligible applicant/registrant, participant, 

terminee, applicant for employment, and employee.79 

The Center does have full access to the Department’s grant office’s information systems to 

retrieve any data desired. Although all systems are 

electronic, they cannot be all accessed online. Under the current Workforce Investment Act program, a funding recipient creates an individual record and electronically forwards it to the 

Department’s grant office, where the records are 

merged to form a national database. According to 

the Center, it has access to this database and is able 

to sort data fields over any period of time.80 

According to the Center, with the passage of 

WIA, the WIA methods of administration has become the principal vehicle for oversight and monitoring of continuing state programs at the state and 

local levels. The Department’s strategic planning 

and the Center’s annual planning guide the monitoring priorities. Currently, the President’s agenda 

and the Secretary of Labor’s strategic goals focus 

on improving access to people with disabilities 

and, as a result, the Center’s monitoring is aligned 

with these initiatives. For fiscal years 2002 and 

2003, the Center’s monitoring will focus on reviewing recipients’ compliance with disability 

laws and regulations. The Center will review a rep-

 

 

79 Ibid., p. 19. 

80 Ibid., p. 20. 

resentative sample of the One-Stop Centers in the 

cities of New York and Miami in this regard.81 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT 

COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS (OFCCP) 

Under Executive Order 11,246, the Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs requires 

federal contractors to (1) refrain from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, creed, or 

sex; and (2) take affirmative action in promoting 

equal employment opportunity for protected minority groups and women. OFCCP has jurisdiction 

over all contractors and subcontractors holding 

nonexempt federal contracts and subcontracts exceeding $10,000.82 The regulations implementing 

the executive order establish different compliance 

requirements for construction and nonconstruction 

(supply and service) contractors. Although all covered contractors and subcontractors, including construction and nonconstruction, are required to engage in nondiscriminatory employment practices 

and take affirmative steps to ensure equal employment opportunity, nonconstruction contractors 

that have a contract of $50,000 or more and 50 or 

more employees are also required to develop written affirmative action programs.83 

The Commission’s monitoring of OFCCP focused on implementation of Executive Order 

11,246 at the Denver International Airport and 

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and resulted in a 1993 report.84 The study raised concerns 

about DOL’s civil rights enforcement planning; the 

agency’s contact and coordination with other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), that have overlapping jurisdiction for civil 

rights enforcement; the methods of selecting contractors to receive compliance reviews; the involvement of community groups in the compliance 

81 Ibid. A One-Stop Center is a place where all employment 

and training services are put into one place to make them easy 

to use. These career centers help workers find jobs and help 

employers find qualified employees. 

82 Department of Labor’s Interrogatory Response to the United 

States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil 

Rights Enforcement, Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as OFCCP Interrogatory). 

83 OFCCP Interrogatory, p. 2. 

84 USCCR, Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects. 
 39 

review process; and the monitoring of contractors’ 

affirmative action commitments and training programs for minority and female workers. 

 Since the Commission published its 1993 report, the Department of Labor’s civil rights responsibilities have not changed, although two recent 

statutory amendments have altered OFCCP’s jurisdiction regarding veterans.85 OFCCP’s responsibilities regarding Executive Order 11,246, as 

amended, have not changed. OFCCP continues to 

provide the leadership for administering nondiscrimination and equal employment laws and regulations that apply to federal contractors and subcontractors through compliance evaluations, 

complaint investigations, and a comprehensive 

compliance assistance plan.86 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO OFCCP 

Planning 

In 1993, the Commission recommended that 

Congress require DOL to submit annual reports on 

civil rights enforcement efforts relating to federal 

contracts and financial assistance programs.87 The 

Commission indicated that this would assist DOL 

in establishing aggressive, fully integrated, and 

fully funded civil rights programs.88 

Compliance Reviews 

As a result of its review in 1993, the Commission recommended that OFCCP audit compliance 

reviews conducted of Denver International Airport 

contractors by its Denver district office to ensure 

that the district office was appropriately selecting 

contractors for compliance reviews.89 

Regulations require OFCCP to evaluate individual federal contractors’ and subcontractors’ affirmative action commitments for work performed 

in a particular geographic area. In 1993, the Commission found that contractors in the Denver metropolitan area were required to submit only one 

 

85 OFCCP Interrogatory, pp. 1–2. 

86 U.S. Department of Labor, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report, 

p. 113.

87 USCCR, Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects, p. 15. 

88 Ibid. 

89 Ibid., p. 14. 

affirmative action report encompassing all sites in 

a geographic area.90 The Commission was concerned that a contractor could comply with nondiscrimination laws at one site and not at another. 

Furthermore, OFCCP was not able to enforce civil 

rights compliance because it was unable to target a 

specific site of a given contractor.91 The Commission recommended that OFCCP reassess its approach to determining compliance under this system of localized affirmative action agreements 

known as Hometown Plans.92

Coordination 

In its 1993 report, the Commission was concerned about the overlapping jurisdiction of DOL 

and DOT in relation to airport construction. In an 

attempt to minimize inconsistency and duplication 

of effort, in 1979 DOL/OFCCP and the Federal 

Highway Administration entered into an interim 

memorandum of understanding for exchanging 

information. Although DOT and DOL were to develop similar agreements applicable to all operating components of DOT within 120 days of ratifying the MOU, the Commission found that this 

never happened.93 In addition, the Commission 

recommended that DOT and DOL establish a jointreview and information-sharing agreement between OFCCP’s regional office, the city and 

county of Denver, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).94 

 It was also recommended that the FAA, 

OFCCP, and Denver City and County Contract 

Compliance Office undertake a joint study to address several questions raised by the Commission’s 

Denver forum speakers.95 Some of the questions 

were (1) are all federal employment and contracting guidelines regarding opportunities for women 

and minorities being met, (2) are federally mandated outreach programs for both contracting and 

employment used appropriately and consistently, 

and (3) are reasonable and appropriate training and 

apprenticeship programs in place and are they 

90 Ibid., p. 13. 

91 Ibid. 

92 Ibid., p. 15. 

93 Ibid., p. 9. 

94 Ibid., p. 15. 

95 Ibid. 
40 

serving all members of the Denver metropolitan 

area?96 

The Commission also discovered that lack of 

training for unskilled workers was widely cited as 

a major hurdle facing minorities and women seeking to participate in federally assisted projects.97

As a result, the Commission recommended that the 

Secretary of Labor investigate existing training 

apprenticeship programs to determine whether they 

conform to federal affirmative action guidelines, 

ensure that training and apprenticeship programs 

are mandatory for federal and federally assisted 

construction contractors, and direct a national effort to develop and implement training and apprenticeship programs.98 

Current OFCCP regulations require federal and 

federally assisted construction contractors to develop on-the-job training opportunities and/or participate in training programs that expressly include 

minorities and women.99 

Community Involvement 

A concern expressed during the Commission’s 

1992 Denver forum was that OFCCP’s contacts 

with community groups during compliance reviews have been inadequate.100 These contacts are 

needed to gauge whether contractors are making 

good-faith efforts to recruit women and minorities 

and to identify contractors that are alleged discriminators. 

OFCCP’S RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning 

In 2002, OFCCP stated it does not submit annual reports directly to Congress, but continues to 

submit performance information to Congress in 

DOL’s annual report.101 For example, in DOL’s 

fiscal year 2001 annual report, one of DOL’s goals 

is to foster equal opportunity workplaces.102 Pro-

 

96 Ibid. 

97 Ibid., p. 14. 

98 Ibid. 

99 OFCCP Interrogatory, p. 6. 

100 USCCR, Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects, pp. 4, 10. 

101 OFCCP Interrogatory, p. 6; see DOL, FY 2001 Annual 

Report. 

102 DOL, FY 2001 Annual Report, p. 111. 

gress in fair and equitable federal contractor workplaces is measured by whether the equal employment opportunity performance of federal contractors and subcontractors is improved among those 

that have had prior contact with DOL through 

evaluations, outreach, or technical assistance; and 

within industries where data indicate the likelihood 

of equal opportunity problems is greatest; and by 

whether federal contractors’ and subcontractors’ 

compensation for discrimination is reduced.103 

To achieve these ends, during fiscal year 2001, 

OFCCP was to identify industries in which data indicated the likelihood of equal employment problems is greatest and establish baselines for the indicators. During fiscal year 2001, DOL was behind 

schedule in establishing baselines for all its measures of the effects of its enforcement activities.104 

Compliance Reviews 

OFCCP is required to use neutral selection criteria to select contractors for compliance reviews.105 A Compliance Evaluation Scheduling 

List is generated from OFCCP’s database and sets 

the agenda for the majority of compliance evaluations OFCCP conducts.106 Other types of OFCCP 

compliance evaluations are targeted using neutral 

factors such as the size of the contractor.107

According to OFCCP, it does monitor, at both 

the regional and national office levels, district office selection decisions to ensure that contractors 

are selected appropriately.108 District offices must 

complete exceptions reports justifying any deviation from the ordering of contractors on the selection list the national office provides.109 Monitoring 

to ensure vigorous enforcement of all OFCCP programs is performed at the regional level and 

through the Quality Assurance Program at 

OFCCP’s national office.110 OFCCP’s regional and 

national offices also review the conciliation 

agreements the district office develops.111 In addi103 Ibid., p. 113. 

104 Ibid. 

105 OFCCP Interrogatory, p. 3. 

106 Ibid. 

107 Ibid. 

108 Ibid. 

109 Ibid. 

110 Ibid. 

111 Ibid. 
 41 

tion, OFCCP’s national office monitors the status 

of cases that have been referred to the Solicitor’s 

Office for administrative enforcement.112 

The localized affirmative action agreements, 

known as Hometown Plans, were voluntary tripartite affirmative action agreements between a 

local area’s construction contractors, unions, and 

community representatives. They were originally 

developed because of OFCCP’s belief that the localized activities of construction contractors 

needed a geographical approach.113 According to 

OFCCP, these plans seemed successful in increasing minority and female participation in federally 

funded construction contracts, but county governments, which funded the Hometown Plans, stopped 

financing them.114 It was also difficult to obtain 

agreement among the three parties involved in 

these plans, resulting in the number of approved 

plans declining steadily. When contractors and local groups were unable to come to an agreement, 

OFCCP used Imposed Plans for certain geographic 

areas.115 Because of the difficulties encountered, 

OFCCP no longer uses the Hometown Plan approach to determine if a contractor is in compliance.116 

OFCCP now applies uniform compliance standards to all covered construction contractors and 

subcontractors. This is preferable to the Hometown 

Plan approach because (1) compliance standards 

apply to all construction contracts and not just to 

contracts in a local area; (2) compliance standards 

apply directly to the contractors and subcontractors, rather than to the Hometown Plan; (3) once 

coverage is established for a particular construction 

contractor or subcontractor, all the employees are 

also covered, even if they do not perform work on 

a federally funded construction project; and (4) 

few Hometown Plans operated with the cooperation of all parties and results were difficult to 

monitor.117 

 

 

112 Ibid. 

113 Ibid., p. 4. 

114 Ibid. 

115 Ibid. 

116 Ibid. 

117 Ibid., pp. 4–5. 

Coordination 

According to OFCCP, the Department of Labor 

still has not updated its December 1979 memorandum of understanding with the Department of 

Transportation to reflect the interim agreement to 

exchange information. However, operating procedures are in effect whereby OFCCP regional and 

district offices work with the local Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state DOT officials to exchange information on major construction projects underway in their respective 

geographic areas.118 

In 2002, OFCCP indicated that its regional and 

district offices work closely with their local 

FHWA and state DOT counterparts when scheduling highway construction contractors for compliance reviews.119 While some OFCCP offices have 

program implementation plans and written agreements, others have periodic meetings with FHWA 

and state DOT officials to avoid duplication and to 

reduce the burden on federal contractors.120

OFCCP offices are notified of the highway contracts DOT and state officials award. In addition, 

when pre-construction conferences on projects that 

involve federal funds are scheduled, DOT and state 

highway officials notify OFCCP regional and district offices.121 During pre-construction conferences and joint seminars, OFCCP personnel provide compliance assistance training.122 

In response to the Commission’s 1993 recommendation that DOT and DOL develop operating 

procedures that would create coordinated civil 

rights enforcement activities and thus avoid confusion over responsibilities and duplicated efforts, 

especially for enforcement of Title VI, OFCCP 

indicated that it does not have any enforcement 

responsibility pertaining to Title VI.123 Under its 

executive order program, OFCCP is authorized to 

conduct compliance evaluations of federal and federally assisted construction contractors to determine, 

among other things, whether those contractors are in 

compliance with OFCCP requirements.124 OFCCP 

118 Ibid., p. 5. 

119 Ibid., p. 6. 

120 Ibid. 

121 Ibid., pp. 6–7. 

122 Ibid., p. 7. 

123 Ibid., p. 5. 

124 Ibid. 
42 

is also authorized to investigate complaints of discrimination filed against federal or federally assisted construction contractors. If the complaint 

involves an individual claim of discrimination, 

OFCCP refers the matter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for 

appropriate processing under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended. This agreement is 

based on a 1981 memorandum of understanding 

with EEOC, which was revised in April 1999.125 

During the Commission’s 2002 review, OFCCP 

indicated it has no record of participating in a joint 

study with FAA, Denver City, and the County 

Contract Compliance Office.126 OFCCP stated 

these recommendations go beyond the enforcement 

requirements afforded by Executive Order 11,246 

and its implementing regulations.127 According to 

OFCCP, it does not have enforcement authority 

over federally mandated outreach programs and 

training apprenticeship programs serving the Denver 

 

 

125 Ibid. 

126 Ibid., p. 7. 

127 Ibid. 

metropolitan area.128 In addition, OFCCP program 

requirements do not cover all federal employment 

and contracting guidelines regarding opportunities 

for women and minorities.129

Community Involvement 

Today, OFCCP still does not solicit involvement from the community in selecting companies 

for compliance reviews.130 However, before a 

scheduled compliance evaluation, OFCCP does 

contact the EEOC district office, the state and local 

Fair Employment Practices Agencies, the local 

Veterans Employment and Training Services, and 

if the federal contractor is located near an Indian 

reservation, the reservation’s Tribal Employment 

Rights Council for complaint information on the 

federal contractor.131 OFCCP could also contact 

the affected communities at this point. 

128 Ibid. 

129 Ibid. 

130 Ibid., p. 3. 

131 Ibid., p. 4. 
 43 

CHAPTER 4 

Department of Transportation 

The Commission’s Office of Civil Rights 

Evaluation previously reviewed the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) in a 1993 report that evaluated selected aspects of civil rights enforcement by 

DOT and the Department of Labor (DOL)1

 and in a 

1996 report that reviewed how effective DOT’s 

Office of the Secretary (OST) and most of its operating administrations (OAs) were in fulfilling their 

civil rights enforcement responsibilities within financial assistance programs. The OAs reviewed 

included the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Research and Special Program 

Administration (RSPA), and the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG).2

 There were 96 recommendations, eight 

in the 1993 report and 88 in the 1996 report. 

The statutes for which DOT has external civil 

rights responsibilities include Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Title II of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 

1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, DOT has civil rights responsibilities arising 

from the executive order on environmental justice 

and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) 

 

1

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Enforcement of Equal 

Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Project, January 1993 (hereafter cited as 

USCCR, Enforcement of Equal Opportunity Laws and Programs). 

2

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI 

Enforcement). 

program.3 The Commission’s 1993 and 1996 reports focused on Title VI and the DBE program.4

The Commission revisited OST and the OAs in the 

present study to determine whether there had been 

improvement and progress relative to recommendations previously made. 

Department of Transportation Components 

Reviewed:

 Office of the Secretary (OST) 

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

 (NHTSA) 

 Research and Special Program Administration 

 (RSPA) 

 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

At the time of this evaluation, the Department 

of Transportation consists of the Office of the Secretary and 11 OAs. In addition to those studied in 

the Commission’s 1996 report and the Maritime 

Administration, the Department now includes the 

 

3

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 

“External Policy & Program Development Division,” n.d., 

<http://www.dot.gov/ost/dpcr/about/externalpolicy.html>. 

4

 The DBE program provides federal grants or contracts to 

small business concerns that are at least 51 percent owned by 

one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, specifically women and people of color, and whose 

management and business operations are controlled by one or 

more of these same individuals. DOT has established policies 

and guidelines under DBE for entities that administer programs awarding federal funds. See USCCR, Enforcement of 

Equal Opportunity Laws and Programs, p. 3. 
44 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, and Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation.5 DOT regulations delegate the authority of the Secretary to the 

OAs to carry out and enforce Title VI programs, 

including conducting reviews and complaint investigations, under the general policy guidance of the 

Office of the Secretary Office of Civil Rights 

(DOCR).6

 As a consequence, DOCR has an important oversight role. 

OVERVIEW 

The Commission’s 1993 report found that the 

then Secretary of Transportation failed to monitor 

and assess aspects of civil rights enforcement. 

DOCR had not established procedures to ensure 

OAs were implementing effective DBE programs. 

Thus, civil rights enforcement was not a priority 

and not integral to DOT’s primary mission planning. In 1996, the existing organizational structure 

in several OAs’ offices of civil rights was not conducive to effective enforcement of civil rights. The 

director of the FRA Office of Civil Rights 

(FRA/OCR) did not report to the administrator of 

FRA. Equally important, several OAs acutely 

lacked funding and staffing, which affected their 

ability to enforce civil rights. The FHWA Office of 

Civil Rights’ (FHWA/OCR’s) increasing workload 

in other civil rights areas reduced staff resources 

available for Title VI compliance and enforcement. 

Most civil rights implementation plans (CRIPs) did 

not conform to Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines. The offices of civil rights of NHTSA, FRA, 

and USCG did not have in place regulations, 

guidelines, policies, or procedures for Title VI. 

Findings on compliance reviews were not reassuring either. The FRA Office of Civil Rights’ 

(FRA/OCR’s) post-award reviews were not focused on the broad issues covered by Title VI. 

Civil rights enforcement has shown improvement in 2002, but must be further strengthened. On 

a positive note, the priority of civil rights has gen-

 

 

5

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 

“U.S. Department of Transportation,” n.d., <http://www.dot. 

gov/chart.html>. 

6

 49 CFR Part 1.45(a)(10). See Department of Transportation’s 

Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on 

Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, 

Office of the Secretary, Mar. 22, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as 

DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response). 

erally advanced. One indication is that DOCR now 

plays an important role in DOT’s DBE program. It 

sits on the DOT DBE committee that helps develop 

and issue policy guidance and interpretation of the 

law on DBE issues. Organizationally, there has 

been progress as well. NHTSA and FRA have followed the Commission’s advice and the civil rights 

directors now report to the administrator of the 

agencies. At the same time, Congress did not approve funding to OST for consolidation of its external civil rights program. The Commission is 

concerned to find many OAs still badly handicapped by a lack of funding and staffing for civil 

rights enforcement. The RSPA Office of Civil 

Rights (RSPA/OCR) has two staff members who 

are responsible for eight functional program areas. 

On the other hand, DOCR has sufficient resources 

for civil rights enforcement. Four of the eight 

CRIPs now conform to DOJ guidelines, but three 

OAs still do not have them. As to compliance reviews, the Commission is heartened by NHTSA/ 

OCR’s progress. In the area of policy guidance, 

there has been improvement. DOCR has made appropriate changes to its regulations to conform to 

the Cureton decision7

 and FAA/OCR has prepared 

a draft revised FAA Order 5100.30 for review. 

However, FTA/OCR and NHTSA/OCR still need 

to develop and issue manuals for pre-award and 

post-award compliance reviews. Finally, there is 

clear evidence of coordination, collaboration, and 

community involvement. 

7

 Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999). In 1997, 

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed a class-action lawsuit 

against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 

alleging that the organization discriminated against black athletes because of its eligibility requirements. The lawsuit was 

filed on behalf of two black students who were barred from 

competing as freshmen at Division I colleges because they 

failed to meet eligibility requirements. Eligibility was based 

on a formula combining the student’s GPA and SAT scores. 

Cureton v. NCAA, 198 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999). The NCAA 

appealed and in May 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit ruled in favor of the NCAA, overturning the 

district court decision that NCAA’s freshman-eligibility standards discriminated against black athletes. Judge Buckwalter 

later rejected an attempt by lawyers for the plaintiffs to amend 

Cureton by adding a claim of intentional discrimination. The 

Third Circuit affirmed Judge Buckwalter’s ruling. Cureton v. 

NCAA, 252 F.3d 67 (3d Cir. 2001). See Karla Haworth, 

“Lawsuit Says NCAA’s Eligibility Standards are Racially 

Biased,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 17, 1997, p. 

A46. Welch Suggs, “NCAA Warns Members Not to Interpret 

Judge’s Ruling on Standards Too Freely,” The Chronicle of 

Higher Education, Apr. 2, 1999, p. A48. 
 45 

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Priority of Civil Rights 

The 1993 report found that the then Secretary 

of Transportation, despite having oversight responsibility, had failed to monitor and assess aspects of 

civil rights enforcement such as budget and compliance reviews. As a direct consequence, civil 

rights enforcement at the departmental level and 

within at least one OA, FAA, was grossly underfunded. Furthermore, DOCR had not established 

procedures to ensure OAs implement effective 

DBE programs. Clearly, civil rights enforcement 

was not a top priority and not an integral part of 

DOT’s primary mission planning.8

 

In addition to responsible oversight, organizational structures of civil rights offices and their directors’ reporting line also have bearing on the priority of civil rights. The 1996 study found several 

deficiencies in some organizational structures. The 

structure of OST’s external civil rights program did 

not provide adequate control over Title VI enforcement. The Commission recommended that OST 

continue to request funding for consolidation of the 

external civil rights office. The consolidated office, 

it said, should consist of a headquarters office responsible for coordination and oversight of external 

civil rights activities with regional offices charged 

with day-to-day civil rights enforcement. Additionally, the headquarters office should have a policy 

development unit, program planning and data analysis office, and an oversight office. Regional offices 

should have separate offices for external civil rights 

compliance and enforcement activities.9

 

The Commission noted that FAA/OCR did not 

have a separate unit devoted to external civil rights 

enforcement activities, including Title VI. As a 

result, resources for Title VI enforcement had declined as other civil rights enforcement activities, 

such as DBE, took precedence. Furthermore, regional staff that carried out most of the day-to-day 

civil rights enforcement activities did not report to 

the director of FAA/OCR. Finally, regional staff 

members were not specialized, and thus none was 

able to develop expertise and focus sufficient attention to Title VI matters. As a result, the Com-

 

 

8

 USCCR, Enforcement of Equal Opportunity Laws and Programs, p. 13. 

9

 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 517–18. 

mission recommended that FAA restructure so that 

all staff engaged in civil rights enforcement activities report to the director of FAA/OCR. Furthermore, FAA/OCR should be separated into four 

units: internal civil rights enforcement, external 

civil rights enforcement, the disadvantaged business program, and the historically black colleges 

program.10

In 1996, the Commission recommended that 

FHWA/OCR restructure to improve civil rights 

enforcement. The office, the Commission said, 

should be separated into four distinct units: internal 

civil rights enforcement, external civil rights enforcement, DBE, and historically black colleges 

program, each with its own policy and operational 

components.11 To ensure priority attention to civil 

rights enforcement, the director of the Office of 

Civil Rights should report to the FHWA administrator. Regional and field division civil rights staff 

should report to the director and specialize in either 

internal or external civil rights functions, resources 

permitting.12 

FTA/OCR did not have a separate unit with 

separate supervisory staff responsible for external 

civil rights enforcement. Furthermore, none of the 

civil rights staff specialized in civil rights enforcement. The Commission recommended that 

FTA/OCR reorganize into three areas: external 

civil rights, internal civil rights, and other civil 

rights. All civil rights staff should specialize in 

specific civil rights functions.13 

Further, directors of the offices of civil rights at 

FRA, NHTSA, and USCG should report to their 

respective agency administrator.14 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Neither DOCR nor OAs had sufficient resources to fully meet their civil rights enforcement 

responsibilities. During the 1993 and 1996 reviews, funding and staffing for civil rights implementation, enforcement, and compliance in DOT 

were inadequate. The 1993 report recommended 

that DOCR hire additional compliance officers to 

oversee enforcement activities; still, in 1996, only 

10 Ibid., p. 536. 

11 Ibid., p. 555. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Ibid., p. 580. 

14 Ibid., pp. 564, 590, 607. 
46 

one person was assigned to external civil rights 

compliance and enforcement activities.15 Among 

OAs, FAA/OCR had only one person assigned to 

the external civil rights program; FHWA/OCR’s 

increasing workload in other civil rights areas reduced staff resources available for Title VI enforcement; FRA/OCR’s workload increased but its 

resources remained unchanged; FTA/OCR’s workload also increased but staffing was reduced; 

NHTSA/OCR’s resources had been reduced to pre1970 levels; RSPA/OCR drew heavily on staff untrained in civil rights enforcement to ensure compliance with Title VI; and USCG/OCR had just 

two staff members assigned to Title VI enforcement.16 

As a result, the Commission recommended that 

DOT, FAA, FRA, FTA, and USCG develop management systems to track expenditures and workload separately for each civil rights statute and for 

different types of civil rights activities. Moreover, 

they should retrieve and use the data to conduct 

workload analyses. In addition, the findings should 

be used to document the existence of a workloadresource gap, support the need for additional resources, and prepare budget requests.17 FHWA/ 

OCR, the Commission said, should use its existing 

information management system for the same purposes.18 Because the office already had the ability to 

track expenditures separately for the statutes it enforced, but the ability did not extend to regional and 

field units, the Commission said, tracking must be 

expanded.19 The Commission also recommended 

that NHTSA/OCR and RSPA assign additional staff 

to program and policy development and an adequate 

number to operational responsibilities.20 

Planning 

The Commission found that RSPA did not prepare a CRIP, while DOCR and the other six OAs 

had CRIPs that were not in conformance with De-

 

 15 USCCR, Enforcement of Equal Opportunity Laws and Programs, p. 14; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 518. 

16 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 537, 555, 565–

66, 580–81, 584, 590, 598, 602. 

17 Ibid., pp. 518, 537, 580–81, 564–65, 607–08. 

18 Ibid., p. 555. 

19 Ibid. 

20 Ibid., pp. 584, 590, 598. 

partment of Justice guidelines.21 Thus, RSPA/OCR 

must prepare a CRIP while DOCR and the other 

OAs should revise their CRIPs to fully conform to 

Department of Justice guidelines. Finally, the 

Commission said that all should use the CRIP as a 

management tool. Some of the 1996 findings on 

DOCR’s CRIP are telling. DOCR’s CRIP, submitted for the first time in several years, did not provide 

sufficient information for DOJ or the public to gain 

an understanding of DOT’s civil rights enforcement 

program. Its goals and objectives were vague, and 

DOCR did not use it as a management tool.22

Policy Guidance 

Different situations prevailed at OST and OAs 

in regard to policy guidance, according to the 

Commission’s 1996 report. FHWA had an inclusive set of regulations, guidelines, policies, and 

procedures that formed a sound basis for its Title 

VI program.23 OST, on the other hand, had adequate but outdated Title VI regulations for its compliance and enforcement program. And except for 

issuing a few general civil rights directives, DOCR 

had failed to fulfill its policy development role.

Thus, the Commission recommended that the office update Title VI regulations to reflect recent 

changes in legislation, and that civil rights standards and policies be developed and issued. Furthermore, DOCR should have a unit focused solely 

on policy development and issuance.24 

FAA Order 5100.30 detailed the responsibilities 

of FAA components and recipients and laid out the 

procedures for conducting post-award reviews. 

However, the Commission found that it had language limiting FAA’s jurisdiction under Title VI to 

airport operators that was inconsistent with Title 

VI as clarified by the Civil Rights Restoration Act 

of 1987. Moreover, the order did not clearly indicate the extent of FAA’s jurisdiction over employment discrimination under Title VI. Thus, the 

Commission recommended that the order be revised.25 And, since FAA had not issued the Title 

21 Ibid., pp. 609–10. 

22 Ibid., p. 520. For the Commission’s comments on FAA, 

FHWA, FRA, FTA, NHTSA, RSPA, and USCG, see ibid., pp. 

539–40, 557, 567, 582–83, 592, 600, 609–10. 

23 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 555–56. 

24 Ibid., pp. 518–19. 

25 Ibid., p. 537. 
 47 

VI guidelines DOJ required, it needed to develop 

detailed guidelines for each of its federally assisted 

programs.26 

FTA/OCR and USCG/OCR had Title VI guidelines, but neither had issued policy statements.27 The 

Commission therefore recommended that they regularly issue Title VI policy statements to expand, update, and clarify Title VI policies and guidelines. On 

the other hand, NHTSA/OCR, RSPA/OCR, and 

FRA did not have Title VI regulations, guidelines, 

policies, or procedures for conducting civil rights 

enforcement activities.28 Thus, the Commission recommended that they develop these items. Furthermore, RSPA should assign an additional person to 

RSPA/OCR to develop regulations, guidelines, 

policies, and procedures for Title VI.29 

At the same time, the Commission said 

FTA/OCR and NHTSA/OCR should develop and 

issue a procedures manual for handling complaint 

investigations and conducting pre-award and postaward compliance reviews.30

Technical Assistance 

FHWA/OCR had a good technical assistance 

program that could serve as a model.31 Both DOCR 

and FTA/OCR, however, provided technical assistance only on request.32 As to FAA/OCR and 

USCG/OCR, technical assistance was generally 

provided during infrequent on-site compliance reviews. FRA/OCR provided little technical assistance, while RSPA/OCR’s technical assistance was 

limited to program personnel helping applicants 

and recipients submit Title VI assurances.33 Finally, NHTSA/OCR did not provide any technical 

assistance.34

Thus, the Commission recommended that technical assistance be provided regularly, on request, 

and when circumstances warrant it. In addition, 

FHWA/OCR’s technical assistance program could 

 

 26 Ibid., p. 538. 

27 Ibid., pp. 581, 608. 

28 Ibid., pp. 590–91, 565. 

29 Ibid., p. 590. 

30 Ibid., pp. 581, 590–91. 

31 Ibid., p. 556. 

32 Ibid., pp. 519, 582. 

33 Ibid., pp. 566, 599. 

34 Ibid., pp. 587, 591. 

be further strengthened through use of an information system to track and plan technical assistance 

activities.35 DOCR needed to regularly provide 

technical assistance during oversight and monitoring reviews of OAs’ Title VI programs; FTA/OCR 

should incorporate technical assistance during preaward and post-award compliance reviews; 

FAA/OCR must expand its technical assistance 

program; and FRA/OCR should adopt, with appropriate modification, FHWA’s model.36 Finally, 

NHTSA/OCR must implement an effective monitoring system that included technical assistance 

and training.37 

Education and Outreach 

FTA, FRA, and NHTSA did not perform any 

education and outreach activities.38 DOCR, FAA/ 

OCR, USCG/OCR offered these activities on a 

limited basis.39 RSPA/OCR delegated the responsibility to RSPA’s program offices.40 

Accordingly, the Commission recommended 

that FTA, FRA, and NHTSA develop and implement thorough education and outreach programs 

on Title VI.41 This would help ensure that recipients and program participants and beneficiaries 

understand their rights and responsibilities under 

Title VI. On the other hand, DOCR, FAA/OCR, 

and USCG/OCR needed to implement expanded 

and active programs, and RSPA/OCR needed to 

assume full responsibility for education and outreach.42 

Compliance Reviews 

A central theme in the Commission’s 1996 report was ensuring compliance. The Commission’s 

previous examination of OST revealed that state 

recipients carried out many Title VI compliance 

functions, but DOCR did not have a significant 

role in monitoring the states’ Title VI programs. 

The Commission advised DOCR to take a more 

35 Ibid., p. 556. 

36 Ibid., pp. 519, 582, 539, 566. 

37 Ibid., pp. 587, 591. 

38 Ibid., pp. 581–82, 566, 591. 

39 Ibid., pp. 519, 538, 608–09. 

40 Ibid., p. 599. 

41 Ibid., pp. 581–82, 566, 591. 

42 Ibid., pp. 519, 538, 599. 
48 

active role in monitoring the Title VI activities of 

DOT’s state recipients.43 Although DOCR had 

chief responsibility for overseeing OAs, it had not 

overseen their Title VI programs or coordinated its 

own Title VI program with those of the OAs. Thus, 

DOCR also should actively carry out its coordination and oversight role. In addition, DOCR should 

require OAs to submit annual Title VI selfassessments for review and evaluation. Finally, 

regular on-site monitoring and evaluation of the 

OAs was necessary.44 

The Commission found that while FAA had a 

detailed memorandum on pre-award procedures, 

FAA/OCR conducted very few pre-award reviews. 

Thus, the Commission recommended that regional 

civil rights staff conduct in-depth pre-award reviews of all applicants that received major amounts 

of FAA funding and that FAA/OCR monitor the 

quality of the reviews. Equally disconcerting, 

FAA/OCR did not conduct post-award desk-audit 

reviews.45 As a result the Commission recommended that the office conduct post-award deskaudit reviews and require recipients to submit annual Title VI self-assessments. FAA/OCR also had 

not conducted any on-site compliance reviews in 

recent years. Thus, it should develop procedures 

for selecting recipients for review, set a target 

number of reviews to be conducted by the regional 

offices annually, monitor the quality of the reviews, and provide technical assistance to regional 

staff where necessary.46 In regard to state recipients, the Commission found that FAA/OCR evaluated just one state in FAA’s block grant program. 

It also did not require state recipients to submit 

Title VI self-assessments for review. Consequently, FAA/OCR should develop its Title VI 

guidelines using FHWA as a model, require states 

to submit annual self-assessments for review, and 

conduct periodic on-site evaluation reviews of 

states’ Title VI compliance programs.47 

Limited resources clearly affected FHWA’s 

ability to fulfill its compliance responsibilities. The 

Commission found that FHWA’s regional offices 

did not conduct as many compliance reviews as 

 

 

43 Ibid., p. 520. 

44 Ibid., pp. 519–20. 

45 Ibid., p. 538. 

46 Ibid. 

47 Ibid., p. 539. 

were needed. FHWA should commit additional 

resources to the regional offices to increase the 

number of on-site compliance reviews.48 At the 

same time, the Commission was somewhat heartened to learn that despite legislated formulas for 

allocation of state highway aid, FHWA was still 

able to impose administrative sanctions on recipients, such as fund deferral and suspension, that 

provided a means to compel compliance.49 However, limited staff and transformation of federal 

assistance into block grant programs prevented full 

use of sanctions. Thus, FHWA/OCR should request additional resources to enhance the use of 

sanctions and develop ways of using them in block 

grant programs. Furthermore, the Commission directed FHWA to inform Congress and DOJ of the 

complexities of Title VI enforcement in block 

grants though it did not specify a timeframe.50 

FRA/OCR conducted pre-award reviews when 

new applicants applied for funding.51 Unfortunately, the Commission found that its post-award 

reviews were not focused on the broader issues 

covered by Title VI, but limited to Section 905 

recipients and the fulfillment of their equal employment and affirmative action responsibilities. 

As a result, FRA/OCR must broaden the focus of 

on-site compliance reviews and develop a procedures manual for pre-award and post-award compliance reviews and complaint investigations.52

Furthermore, since austere budgets seriously 

handicapped FRA/OCR’s on-site reviews of state 

recipients, FRA must provide the office with adequate resources for periodic on-site compliance 

reviews of state recipients.53

FTA’s regional staff conducted pre-award reviews of all FTA grantees and also attempted to 

carry out post-award reviews of each recipient 

once every three years.54 However, most of the 

48 Ibid., pp. 555–56. 

49 FHWA had no direct role in allocating funds for its recipients, all state transportation agencies. Funds were allocated 

based on a legislated formula and state transportation agencies 

had legislated contracting authority to distribute funds for their 

programs. See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 

543, 548. 

50 USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 556. 

51 Ibid., p. 560. 

52 Ibid., p. 565. 

53 Ibid., p. 566. 

54 Ibid., p. 573. 
 49 

post-award reviews were desk audits. At the same 

time, FTA was planning to increase the number of 

on-site reviews conducted through use of contractors. As a result, the Commission recommended 

that outside contractors for on-site reviews be selected carefully, contractor-prepared manuals be 

examined closely, and contractors’ performance of 

on-site compliance reviews be monitored carefully.55 FTA delegated considerable responsibilities 

to state recipients to ensure Title VI compliance of 

its subrecipients. However, FTA did not oversee 

states’ Title VI compliance programs. As a result, 

FTA/OCR needed to allocate resources to oversee 

states’ Title VI compliance programs, review 

documents submitted by their liaison officers, and 

conduct on-site reviews of their programs.56

The Commission found that NHTSA/OCR did 

not have an operational program on Title VI enforcement and did not conduct pre-award or postaward reviews, or process complaints. Further, it 

did not require recipients to report on their Title VI 

compliance. NHTSA/OCR needed to implement an 

operational Title VI enforcement program. It 

should conduct pre-award and post-award deskaudit reviews and select recipients for on-site compliance reviews.57 Moreover, NHTSA’s recipients, 

which were all state agencies, did not understand 

their Title VI compliance responsibilities and 

NHTSA/OCR did not monitor and oversee their 

Title VI compliance programs. As a result, the 

Commission said NHTSA/OCR should implement 

an effective system for monitoring states’ Title VI 

responsibilities.58 

RSPA/OCR staff conducted cursory pre-award 

reviews of funding applicants. Thus, the Commission recommended that the office develop preaward review procedures and require applicants to 

submit sufficient data for desk audits of their programs.59 The Commission further recommended 

that RSPA/OCR supplement the work of RSPA 

program personnel by instituting its own postaward reviews, to be conducted for all recipients. 

In addition, RSPA should conduct on-site reviews 

of recipients. Finally, state and university recipi-

 

 

55 Ibid., p. 581. 

56 Ibid., p. 582. 

57 Ibid., p. 591. 

58 Ibid. 

59 Ibid., p. 598. 

ents of continuing grants needed to be reviewed 

periodically, while others needed to be selected for 

on-site review when post-award desk audits revealed potential problems.60 

Despite the requirements stated in USCG guidelines, the Commission found that USCG/OCR only 

conducted cursory pre-award reviews of all applicants and did not conduct periodic post-award reviews. Thus, it recommended that in-depth preaward reviews be conducted on all applicants and 

that all recipients undergo annual post-award desk 

audits. In addition, periodic on-site reviews should 

be conducted to ensure accuracy of the data the 

recipients submitted, and on selected recipients 

when a desk audit suggested possible problems.61 

Staff Training 

Comprehensive training for civil rights staff is 

necessary, including that which addresses the applicability of Title VI to DOT’s federally assisted 

programs. Periodic update training is equally important to deepen and refresh understanding of Title VI and address emerging Title VI issues. Unfortunately, the Commission’s study found that 

FRA/OCR, USCG/OCR, and NHTSA/OCR did not 

provide staff training on Title VI nor had not done 

so in recent years.62 Finally, FAA/OCR and 

RSPA/OCR offered little or inadequate training to 

civil rights staff.63 

Thus, the Commission recommended that 

FRA/OCR, USCG/OCR, and NHTSA/OCR develop and implement a staff-training program to 

provide regular as well as refresher training on Title VI and other civil rights statutes to civil rights 

staff engaged in Title VI activities and recipients 

with significant Title VI responsibilities.64

NHTSA/OCR, in particular, should seek experienced staff. FAA/OCR and RSPA/OCR must provide appropriate staff training on a regular basis.65

Further, FAA/OCR should collaborate with DOCR 

in developing formal staff training modules.66

60 Ibid., pp. 598–99. 

61 Ibid., p. 608. 

62 Ibid., pp. 566, 591. 

63 Ibid., pp. 539, 599. 

64 Ibid., pp. 566, 591. 

65 Ibid., pp. 539, 599. 

66 Ibid., p. 539. 
50 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Although DOCR incorporated data collection, 

reporting, and analysis in its internal order, DOT 

1000.12, the Commission found that it did not ensure OAs collect or analyze the data, nor did it use 

data in evaluating the OAs’ Title VI programs. 

DOCR, therefore, must ensure OAs incorporate 

data-reporting and -analysis requirements into their 

Title VI programs. Further, DOCR should periodically assess OAs’ data collection systems. In addition, DOCR should require OAs to include in their 

annual Title VI self-assessments analyses of the data 

provided by recipients on program participants. 

Moreover, DOCR needed to review the analyses.67 

At the same time, FAA/OCR, NHTSA/OCR, 

and RSPA/OCR did not have a system for collecting and analyzing data on program participants 

submitted by recipients.68 NHTSA and RSPA/OCR 

did not even have reporting requirements for their 

recipients, while FRA/OCR did not have an adequate data collection and analysis system.69 

Thus, the Commission directed FAA/OCR, 

NHTSA/OCR, and RSPA/OCR to each implement 

data collection systems to gather sufficient information from recipients with which to conduct postaward desk-audit reviews and general analyses to 

ascertain if all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate.70 Reporting requirements should 

be included in Title VI guidelines and, in the case 

of RSPA/OCR, data requirements for state recipients and universities receiving research grants 

should be different. FRA/OCR needed to require 

recipients to collect data on program participants, 

program applicants, and eligible populations by 

demographic characteristics. Furthermore, recipients receiving funds for large projects should provide demographic analyses on the affected communities to be included as a standard part of the 

Title VI enforcement process.71 

Coordination 

The Commission 1993 report found that the 

failure of DOT, the Department of Labor (DOL), 

 

 

67 Ibid., p. 520. 

68 Ibid., pp. 538, 591, 600. 

69 Ibid., p. 566. 

70 Ibid., pp. 538, 591, 600. 

71 Ibid., pp. 566–67. 

and the city and county of Denver in 1993 to formulate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to 

coordinate and share information when conducting 

compliance reviews hampered civil rights enforcement efforts.72 As a result, the Commission 

recommended that DOT and DOL update a December 1979 memorandum of understanding, initiate and monitor coordinated enforcement activities, 

and determine if community groups and organizations represented at the Commission’s 1991 forum 

continued to have difficulty obtaining contracts or 

employment. Further, DOT and DOL should establish a joint-review and information-sharing agreement between DOL’s Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) regional office 

and the city and county of Denver, and encourage 

such coordinated actions elsewhere. Finally, OST 

must take immediate action to assess the impact the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) 

would have on the civil rights programs of the 

OAs.73 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S 

RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority of Civil Rights 

DOCR has made significant progress in its 

oversight of DOT’s DBE program. It currently has 

an active role on the DOT DBE committee that 

helps develop and issue policy guidance, guidelines, and interpretation of the law on DBE matters.74 It has developed and maintains DOT’s database, XTRAK, to track the status and disposition 

of DBE and Title VI complaints and ascertain 

trends and patterns. Further, DOT’s DBE program 

72 USCCR, Enforcement of Equal Opportunity Laws and Programs, p. 13. 

73 Ibid., p. 14. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Act 

(ISTEA) of 1991 includes the DBE program, which promotes 

the “goal that not less than 10 percent of authorized highway 

and transit funds be expended with DBEs.” This act was reauthorized in 1998 as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 continues the DBE program. See

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, “Transportation Link,” 

ISTEA Updates, 1998, <http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/translink/jan 

98/isteaupd.html>; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “TEA-21—Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Moving Americans into the 21st 

Century,” A Summary—Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure, 

1998, <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov.gov/tea21/suminfra.htm#dbe>. 

74 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 
 51 

has undergone extensive review and modification 

throughout DOT following the Supreme Court’s 

Adarand75 decision. In 2001, the Court upheld 

DOT’s program.76 

Only some of the 1996 recommendations on restructuring the offices of civil rights to improve priority given to civil rights enforcement have been 

implemented. The directors of FRA/OCR, NHTSA/ 

OCR, and USCG/OCR now report directly to their 

respective administrators. FAA/OCR’s regional offices report to the FAA/OCRE director.77 On the 

other hand, OST has not consolidated its external 

civil rights program because Congress did not approve funding. FHWA/OCR’s current structure is 

not consistent with the Commission’s 1996 recommendation.78 

 

 

75 Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). The Supreme Court 

ruled that federal affirmative action programs using race as a 

basis for selection must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny 

and that such programs must serve a compelling governmental 

interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In Adarand v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (2001), the Supreme Court announced that it would review an appeals court decision rejecting the plaintiff’s equal protection challenge to a federal 

program. On November 27, 2001, the justices unanimously 

decided not to hear the case because of procedural and technical flaws. See Lyle Denniston, “High Court Declines to Rule 

on Race-based Government Programs,” The Boston Globe, 

Nov. 28, 2001, p. A2. 

76 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2–3. 

77 Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to 

the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Federal Railroad Administration, Mar. 22, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as DOT/FRA, 

Interrogatory Response); Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on 

Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, 

National Highway Traffic Administration, Mar. 22, 2002, pp. 

1–2 (hereafter cited as DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response); Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ TenYear Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Research and Special Programs Administration, Apr. 12, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter 

cited as DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response); Department of 

Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to the United States 

Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil 

Rights Enforcement, Federal Aviation Administration, Mar. 

22, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as DOT/FAA, Interrogatory 

Response). 

78 Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to 

the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Federal Highway Administration, Apr. 12, 2002, pp. 1–2 (hereafter cited as 

DOT/FHWA, Interrogatory Response). 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Funding and staffing for civil rights enforcement remain a serious problem for a majority of 

OAs. FAA/OCR’s headquarters two-member external program was assigned an additional position 

in 2001, but it remains unfilled due to budget restraints.79 The headquarters external program is 

now operating with just two staff members; although the entire external program has 11 members, nine of whom are assigned to regional offices.80 Past studies on FHWA/OCR’s resource 

needs, conducted internally and by DOCR and 

DOJ, have documented staffing inadequacy.81 Despite this, FHWA has failed to sufficiently increase 

the number of civil rights staff. The gravity of the 

situation is seen in the use of project teams, whose 

members are drawn from different FHWA divisions, to fulfill some of the responsibilities of 

FHWA/OCR.82 FRA/OCR remains woefully lacking in resources. Its staff of only three members 

has responsibility for all equal employment programs, as well as the minority-owned and womenowned business enterprise programs, and the diversity program.83 RSPA/OCR’s two staff members have responsibility for eight functional program areas,84 and repeated requests for additional 

resources have been unsuccessful.85 The office’s 

79 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

80 Kathleen Connon, national external program manager, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FAA; Wilbur Barham, external 

program manager, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FAA, telephone interview, Apr. 4, 2002. Marc Brenman, senior policy 

advisor, DOT/OST, e-mail to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social 

scientist, USCCR, July 11, 2002. 

81 DOT/FHWA Interrogatory Response, p. 3. 

82 Ed Morris, Jr., director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FHWA, 

telephone interview, Apr. 24, 2002. 

83 Carl Ruiz, director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FRA, letter 

to Debra A. Carr, deputy general counsel, USCCR, Mar. 29, 

2002. 

84 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. These included 

the EEO program and Title VI for RSPA recipients of federal 

financial assistance (including RSPA Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Program, Diversity Program, Disability Program, 

Random and Pre-Employment Drug Testing Program, Graduate 

Internship Program, and RSPA’s Educational Initiatives Program). See RSPA/OCR’s “introduction” to DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response. It also coordinates and oversees all civil 

rights enforcement in RSPA’s Hazardous Materials and Pipeline 

Safety Offices as well as the Volpe Center and the TSI training 

center. See DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

85 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1–2. RSPA/OCR 

had access to a part-time contractor and may call upon the 
52 

recent budget requests have been premised on a 

limited Title VI program.86 USCG/OCR claims 

that it has sufficient resources even though it has 

just one staff dedicated to civil rights enforcement.87 Finally, FTA/OCR simply states guardedly 

that the resource needs of the office are duly considered when resource allocations are made.88

On the other hand, DOCR officials maintain the 

office has been allocated sufficient funding and 

staffing for civil rights enforcement. DOCR’s 

budgets for fiscal years 1995 through 2003 showed 

a generally upward trend. Budgets for fiscal year 

2002 ($8.5 million) and 2003 ($9.2 million) are 

higher than budgets for previous fiscal years.89

NHTSA/OCR officials claim sufficient funding 

and resources have been allocated for civil rights 

enforcement in the current fiscal year.90 An examination of its budget over a period of years finds 

that the office’s budget for fiscal year 2002 is 

$637,463.91 However, further analysis of the 

budget establishes that resources for these offices 

have not kept up with inflation. 

 

 

services of attorneys from the RSPA/Chief Counsel’s Office, 

as well as DOCR. It should be noted that after the September 

11 attacks, RSPA staff, including the director of RSPA/OCR, 

had been called away to work on high-priority issues relating 

to, for example, national pipeline security. See DOT/RSPA, 

Interrogatory Response, p. 3. 

86 See DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 

87 Walter Somerville, assistant commandant, Office of Civil 

Rights, DOT/USCG; Yvonne Deaver, chief, civil rights resource management staff, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/USCG; 

Michael Freilich, compliance manager, external civil rights 

compliance and outreach programs, Office of Civil Rights, 

DOT/USCG; Tina Calvert, director, external civil rights compliance and outreach programs, Office of Civil Rights, 

DOT/USCG; Matt Glomb, deputy chief, Office of General 

Law, DOT/USCG, telephone interview, Apr. 22, 2002 (hereafter cited as Somerville et al. interview). 

88 Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to 

the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Federal Transportation 

Administration, Apr. 12, 2002), p. 1 (hereafter cited as 

DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response). 

89 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1–2. 

90 DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response, p. 1. 

91 George Quick, director of civil rights, DOT/NHTSA, letter 

to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, Apr. 26, 

2002 (hereafter cited as Quick letter). 

Planning 

A current review of the status of civil rights implementation plans (CRIPs) finds four CRIPs conforming to Department of Justice guidelines and 

one still under internal review. Three OAs do not 

have a CRIP. Specifically, DOCR, FAA/OCR, 

FHWA/OCR, and NHTSA/OCR have developed 

CRIPs that conform to the Department of Justice 

guidelines and use them as a management tool.92

Additionally, FHWA/OCR has a set of civil rights 

initiatives and the resource centers’ and division 

offices’ staff members have prepared civil rights 

work plans.93 However, the FHWA administrative 

manual, which addresses FHWA/OCR’s civil 

rights compliance and enforcement responsibilities, does not address the civil rights responsibilities of the state-level division offices, which have 

compliance and enforcement as one of their primary functions.94 RSPA/OCR has an implementation plan that was developed in 1996 in response to 

an EEOC audit, but it is still under consideration in 

RSPA. The office provides input to DOT’s annual 

report to DOJ, which, in effect, serves as 

RSPA/OCR’s implementation plan.95 

FRA/OCR does not have a CRIP, but intends to 

develop one that will incorporate the office’s current action plan within the next year.96 FTA/OCR 

also does not have a CRIP, but it annually produces several documents that identify specific civil 

rights activities to be undertaken.97 At the same 

time, FTA has developed a strategic plan with performance goals, performance measures, and an 

assessment of accomplishments to carry out civil 

rights activities.98 Each civil rights program is included in the plan, and accomplishments are reported quarterly. In addition, FTA’s ADA and Title VI/environmental justice program areas are 

92 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 5; DOT/FAA Interrogatory Response, pp. 4–5; DOT/FHWA, Interrogatory Response, p. 7; DOT/NHTSA Interrogatory Response, p. 2. 

93 DOT/FHWA, Interrogatory Response, p. 7. 

94 Ibid., p. 5. 

95 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 

96 Carl Ruiz, director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FRA, and 

Rhonda Dews, telephone interview, Apr. 26, 2002 (hereafter 

cited as Ruiz and Dews interview). 

97 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, 7. 

98 Ibid., p. 9. 
 53 

included in DOT’s strategic plan.99 The FTA strategic plan is developed in consultation with community and advocacy groups and stakeholders, 

such as the NAACP and the Environmental Defense Fund.100 USCG/OCR no longer has a CRIP, 

but provides input for inclusion in DOJ’s CRIP.101

USCG has a business plan that addresses the 

agency’s program activities, including the Title VI 

program. USCG/OCR plans to incorporate civil 

rights performance goals, performance measures, 

and assessments of accomplishments into the business plan.102 

Policy Guidance 

DOCR has made appropriate changes to its regulations, including changes to comply with the Cureton decision under the guidance of the Department 

of Justice. Additionally, interim procedures for 

processing external complaints have been developed 

and guidance on limited English proficiency published.103 DOCR does not have a unit focused on 

policy development and issuance; it depends on its 

External Policy Program Development Division to 

develop policy and provide guidance.104 

FAA/OCR has issued Title VI enforcement 

guidelines and procedures for the federally assisted 

programs for which the office is responsible, such 

as DBE, environmental justice, and the ADA.105 It 

has revised FAA Order 5100.30 and is seeking 

comments from FAA and DOT. A final order is 

expected to be ready soon.106 Similarly, FRA/OCR 

has developed and issued policy guidance relating 

to Title VI and ADA.107 FRA/OCR officials state 

that as a rule, new internal and external policies 

 

 99 Ibid., p. 7; John Day, legislative analyst, Office of Civil 

Rights, DOT/FTA, e-mail to Sock-Foon MacDougall, social 

scientist, USCCR, Apr. 23, 2002 (hereafter cited as Day email). 

100 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, p. 10; Day e-mail. 

101 Department of Transportation’s Interrogatory Response to 

the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, Apr. 16, 

2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as DOT/USCG, Interrogatory Response). 

102 Somerville et al. interview. 

103 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, pp. 8–9. 

104 Ibid., p. 2. 

105 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 8. 

106 Ibid., p. 8. 

107 DOT/FRA, Interrogatory Response, p. 5. 

and procedural guidance are developed when 

changes occur and when administrations change.108

FRA/OCR has also issued a complaint resolution 

manual.109 Although the process of monitoring 

state recipients has not changed, FTA/OCR is now 

revising the assessment tools used to conduct Title 

VI compliance reviews and has commissioned a 

panel to review and revise a circular that addresses 

the process for monitoring state recipients.110

RSPA/OCR has developed Title VI guidelines 

modeled after FTA’s guidelines. According to the 

office, the guidelines specify the relative responsibility of RSPA and its state recipients. RSPA/OCR 

officials also claim DOT’s Title VI regulations and 

DOT Order 1000.12 cover this area sufficiently.111

USCG/OCR has developed and issued new internal 

guidelines and procedures.112 It has collaborated 

with DOT, the USCG Boating Safety Office, and 

USCG funding recipients on external guidance to 

provide special language services to those with 

limited English proficiency.113 NHTSA claims that 

it has not identified a need for Title VI regulations 

and guidelines beyond those of DOT and DOJ. The 

office has developed procedures for conducting 

pre-award reviews and prepared an internal procedures manual for investigating complaints.114 

Technical Assistance 

There has been improvement in technical assistance to funding recipients. DOCR currently provides standard guidance, resource materials, and 

technical assistance for implementing civil rights 

programs to OAs, and reviews the proposed guidance materials they developed.115 DOCR’s External 

Policy and Program Development Division trains 

108 Ibid. 

109 Day e-mail. 

110 FTA Circular 4702.1, “Title VI Program Guideline for 

FTA Recipients”; Day e-mail. 

111 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

112 DOT/USCG, Interrogatory Response, p. 4, referring to 

COMDTINST 5350.20, which is now in the process of being 

updated. It addresses civil rights compliance by recipients of 

federal financial assistance from the Coast Guard. 

113 Michael Freilich, compliance manager, external civil rights 

compliance and outreach programs, DOT/USCG, e-mail to 

Sock-Foon MacDougall, social scientist, USCCR, Apr. 29, 

2002 (hereafter cited as Freilich e-mail). 

114 DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 5, 6. 

115 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 
54 

OA staff in policies and procedures relating to their 

external civil rights program responsibilities.116

FAA/OCR, FHWA’s Resource Center, FRA/ 

OCR, FTA/OCR, RSPA/OCR, and USCG now provide technical assistance on a regular basis and 

when new circumstances warrant.117 This is usually 

combined with conference participation, workshops, and/or written memoranda. FTA/OCR and 

FHWA have collaborated on an Environmental 

Justice Summit for FTA recipients and community 

groups. FHWA still has no particular systems in 

place to capture the nature and scope of the technical assistance they provide. 

Education and Outreach 

For the most part, the OST and OAs have 

shown improvement in education and outreach, but 

some are clearly further along than the others. FTA 

and FHWA have collaborated on education and 

outreach. 

The education and outreach programs of OST, 

FTA, NHTSA, and RSPA are more advanced than 

the FAA, FRA, and USCG programs. DOCR has 

shown improvement in its education and outreach 

program. Activities have included distributing informational leaflets, publishing the limited English 

proficiency (LEP) regulation, and developing 

DOT’s Indian policy order. Further, DOCR representatives often make presentations on civil rights 

issues at regional and national transportation conferences. The office also maintains a public, readily accessible Web site. Finally, since September 

11, DOCR has been actively working with Muslim, Sikh, and Arab American advocacy and education groups on anti-scapegoating activities.118

FTA/OCR generally plans outreach activities 

based on requests from advocacy and community 

groups, specific compliance concerns in a geo-

 

 

116 Ibid., p. 7. This is sometimes done through coordination 

with DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Coordination and Review 

Section. DOCR is now planning training for all OAs’ external 

civil rights staff. It will include Title VI complaint investigation, ADA, Sections 504 and 508, DBE, and other civil rights 

programmatic areas.

117 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6–7; DOT/FHWA, 

Interrogatory Response, p. 13; DOT/FRA, Interrogatory Response, p. 4; DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 14–15; 

DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 6; DOT/USCG, Interrogatory Response, p. 3. 

118 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, pp. 7–8. 

graphic area, and requests from transit industry 

groups. It has a Title VI education and outreach 

program and has worked with FHWA to make a 

Title VI/environmental justice brochure available in 

Spanish.119 All documents prepared by FTA/OCR 

are available on FTA’s Web site with links to other 

federal agencies’ civil rights information. Moreover, 

it offers daily informal guidance on ADA to lawyers, advocacy groups, and people with disabilities, 

as well as transit staff.120 

NHTSA/OCR has a particularly strong education and outreach program to disseminate information in different formats, and in English and other 

languages, such as Spanish and Chinese. Multilingual and multicultural materials are readily accessible to the public through a multicultural Web 

site. In addition, NHTSA’s program offices also 

conduct education and outreach activities and create products for the public that address the needs of 

people of color.121 NHTSA/OCR also has developed a complaint brochure that describes Title VI 

and its complaint process.122

RSPA/OCR provides interpreters to assist Indian tribes and limited-English-proficient persons 

with the grant application process. Moreover, a 

Spanish language video is used in training sessions 

on awareness and familiarization of the risks associated with hazardous materials.123

FAA/OCR’s education and outreach activities 

include Title VI training and issuance of posters on 

Title VI requirements in Spanish.124 FRA/OCR 

integrates information received from DOCR on 

limited English proficiency, environmental justice, 

ADA, or any other legislative changes, or White 

House initiatives into training updates and makes 

them available to FRA employees.125 Issuance of 

information on Title VI civil rights enforcement 

has been scheduled for fiscal year 2002, while use 

of external resources, such as census information, 

to design outreach activities has been set for fiscal 

119 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, p. 15. 

120 Ibid., p. 19. 

121 NHTSA/OCR Reference, Tabs 4, 5, 8, Apr. 26, 2002. 

122 Ibid., Tab 12. 

123 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6–8. 

124 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 7. 

125 DOT/FRA, Interrogatory Response, p. 5. 
 55 

year 2003.126 Finally, USCG/OCR relies on grant 

recipients for education and outreach.127 

Compliance Reviews 

An examination of OST and OAs on compliance reviews yields mixed results. NHTSA/OCR 

has made remarkable progress, and DOCR has 

made significant progress, while others, such as 

USCG/OCR, need further improvement. 

OAs have responsibility for ensuring that recipients’—including state recipients’—Title VI 

programs are in compliance, usually through compliance reviews and/or desk audits.128 DOCR, on 

the other hand, aids OAs in their Title VI compliance activities through its Data and Evaluation Division and the XTRAK complaint system.129

DOCR also requires OAs to provide guidance to 

states on their Title VI compliance responsibilities 

through DOT Order 1000.12.130 DOCR’s Data and 

Evaluation Division, created in 1995, monitors and 

evaluates OAs on a case-by-case basis. A formal 

review of FAA’s Eastern region has been conducted.131 DOCR also now requires OAs to submit 

annual self-assessments on civil rights enforcement 

through the individual annual reports on civil 

rights compliance efforts under Executive Order 

12,250 and the Age Discrimination Act.132 OAs’ 

civil rights enforcement is coordinated daily 

through development of cross-modal initiatives 

such as the Environmental Justice Order, the Indian Policy Order, Section 508 Policy, and the LEP 

Guidance. In addition, DOCR holds monthly direc-

 

 

126 Ibid. 

127 Somerville et al. interview. 

128 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

129 Ibid. 

130 Ibid., pp. 11–12. 

131 The Commission found that the FAA report is under review. The review was prompted internally, i.e., within the 

agency, and motivated by an interest in evaluating the civil 

rights program’s operation, organization, staff, and effectiveness. See the transcript of the telephone interview with Jeremy 

Wu, director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/OST; Joseph Austin, chief, external policy and program development division, 

Office of Civil Rights, DOT/OST; Marc Brenman, senior 

policy advisor, Office of Civil Rights DOT/OST; Mary N. 

Whigham Jones, deputy director, Office of Civil Rights, 

DOT/OST; Debra Rosen, attorney, Office of General Counsel, 

DOT/OST, Apr. 8, 2002. 

132 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 4. 

tors of civil rights meetings to address concerns 

and discuss major civil rights issues with OAs’ 

OCR directors.133 

Some FAA/OCR regional offices have conducted pre-award reviews, and FAA/OCR monitors the quality of pre-award reviews.134 The office 

has conducted post-award on-site compliance reviews of some recipients and periodically reviews 

the quality.135 FAA’s Performance Management 

Standards addresses the selection of recipients for 

on-site compliance reviews, and other guidance 

instructs regional offices to conduct on-site visits 

as necessary to make certain that any issue involving ADA or the Rehabilitation Act is resolved.136

FAA/OCR has a skeletal program for oversight of 

state recipients. It has not developed guidelines 

that specify the responsibilities of FAA/OCR and 

its state recipients and does not regularly conduct 

reviews of Title VI compliance policies and activities of states.137 

FHWA/OCR considers “post-award reviews” a 

meaningless concept in the context of federal 

highway aid. States do not have to apply for highway grants because congressionally mandated 

formulas allocate highway funds to them for appropriate use.138 Nonetheless, today, within 

FHWA’s existing structure, state-level FHWA division offices are responsible for on-site reviews.139 FHWA/OCR is considering establishing 

an interdisciplinary team to review individual 

states. Team members will be drawn from the division offices with Resource Center involvement.140 

FRA/OCR, unfortunately, still has not developed a procedures manual for conducting preaward and post-award compliance reviews and 

investigations.141 In fact, the complaint processing 

and investigation procedures that were developed 

several years ago have yet to be approved by 

DOCR. FRA/OCR indicated that it would follow133 Ibid. 

134 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 10. 

135 Ibid. 

136 Ibid., citing FAA Order 1400.9. 

137 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 12–13. 

138 DOT/FHWA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 17–18. By the 

same argument, pre-award reviews would also not be meaningful. 

139 DOT/FHWA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 16–17. 

140 Ibid., pp. 17–18. 

141 DOT/FRA, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 
56 

up on this.142 At the present, FRA/OCR merely 

requires funding applicants to sign assurance 

statements indicating that they will comply with 

federal laws and statutes.143 FRA/OCR has not 

conducted any post-award compliance reviews because of its small staff.144 It does not plan to develop guidelines specifying the relative responsibilities of its office and the states for block grant 

programs until 2004.145

FTA officials report that staff review manuals 

prepared by contractors before they are finalized. 

Contractors are required to inform headquarters 

staff of pending on-site compliance reviews and 

reporting of preliminary findings. In most cases, 

FTA/OCR staff attends the opening and exit conferences of the contractors and recipients. On completion of the compliance review, FTA/OCR staff 

works with the contractors in report preparation 

and follow-up until corrective actions are completed. Finally, biweekly conference calls with the 

contractor are conducted to ensure a smooth working relationship and effective results.146 FTA/OCR 

requires state recipients to document how they intend to comply with Title VI in their responses to 

the requirements in FTA’s circular on state oversight. The office reviews each state recipient once 

every three years.147 In addition, FTA/OCR is participating in joint compliance review efforts with 

the Federal Highway Administration.148 

NHTSA/OCR has implemented a pre-award review system and post-award desk-audit program.149

Before awarding a grant, background checks are 

made on applicants to ensure there are no outstanding complaints.150 NHTSA/OCR monitors the 

quality of pre-award reviews.151 NHTSA/OCR’s 

program for post-award compliance reviews includes not just desk audits but on-site compliance 

reviews.152 Recipients are selected to receive com-

 

148 Ibid., p. 23, citing FTA Circular 4702.1. 

142 Ibid., p. 7. 

143 Ibid., p. 6. 

144 Ibid. 

145 Ibid., p. 8. 

146 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 21–22. 

147 Ibid., p. 25. 

149 DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 

150 Quick letter. 

151 DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response, p. 6. 

152 Ibid. 

pliance reviews according to the number of ADA 

and Title VI complaints received.153 For oversight 

of state recipients, NHTSA/OCR is currently conducting on-site reviews in the 50 states.154 Guidance to states on their Title VI responsibilities is 

provided through findings and recommendations 

included in the compliance review reports.155 To 

ensure that recommendations are followed through, 

NHTSA enters into a voluntary compliance agreement with the state and requests follow-up reports 

on complaints and remedial efforts.156 

RSPA/OCR has developed informal procedures 

for a pre-award system and monitors the quality of 

pre-award reviews.157 It does not, however, conduct post-award reviews as the Commission recommended for civil rights enforcement. At best, 

post-award reviews are conducted randomly. When 

a RSPA/OCR staff member is in the field conducting civil rights work and a recipient is in the vicinity, the staff takes advantage of the situation and 

reviews that recipient.158 Clearly, this approach to 

post-award review invariably results in RSPA/ 

OCR missing some noncompliant recipients.159 

USCG/OCR now works with USCG’s Office of 

Boating Safety to conduct pre-award reviews. The 

process involves review of grant applications, civil 

rights checklists, and supporting documents that 

indicate recipient compliance with relevant federal 

civil rights laws.160 The Commission is concerned 

that USCG/OCR does not conduct post-award reviews because its program is very small (about $59 

million a year), similar from year to year, limited 

in scope, and receives no complaints. Furthermore, 

the office depends on recipients’ assurances and 

checklists to make a determination about their Title 

VI compliance. Unfortunately, USCG/OCR does 

not see a need to go beyond this system.161 For 

oversight of state recipients, USCG/OCR again 

relies on self-certifications and information from 

153 Ibid. 

154 Quick letter. 

155 DOT/NHTSA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 7–9. 

156 Quick letter. 

157 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 

158 Helen Hagin, director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/RSPA; 

Paul Sanchez, attorney, DOT/RSPA, telephone interview, Apr. 

25, 2002. 

159 Ibid. 

160 Freilich e-mail. 

161 Somerville et al. interview. 
 57 

state recipients to determine their Title VI compliance. Only in the event of questions or doubts, 

does USCG/OCR engage in discussions with the 

relevant state recipients.162 

Staff Training 

NHTSA’s staff training program has shown the 

most improvement, while other OAs programs 

need further strengthening. NHTSA and USCG 

have collaborated with other federal agencies to 

provide staff training. 

NHTSA/OCR provides enforcement staff with 

annual training on internal procedures for civil 

rights enforcement activities and semiannual training on applicable civil rights statues and policies. 

Several staff members have attended training given 

by DOJ that was coordinated through DOCR. 

NHTSA/OCR states it would benefit from DOT 

coordinating civil rights enforcement training for 

all OAs.163 

FAA, FRA, RSPA, and USCG do not have a 

fully developed program to train civil rights staff. 

FAA/OCR provides training for civil rights enforcement staff once a year when there is adequate 

funding. Staff, however, attend conferences and 

training provided by FHWA and DOJ.164 FRA/ 

OCR has a training program on Title VI and ADA, 

but enforcement training is nonexistent. FRA/ 

OCR’s fiscal year 2002 plan places emphasis on 

training, and the office is working with another 

operating administration to provide cross training 

to staff.165 In regard to FTA/OCR, civil rights training is offered through annual conferences for 

headquarters and regional staff, weekly calls from 

headquarters staff to individual regional civil rights 

officers, and circulation of updates and overviews 

of different civil rights subject areas.166 RSPA/ 

OCR still does not have regular or formalized staff 

training; although discussions about developing 

Title VI training within RSPA have occurred.167

Currently, USCG/OCR staff receives training 

sponsored by DOJ and DOT.168 

 

 

162 Ibid. 

163 Quick letter. 

164 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 15. 

165 DOT/FRA, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. 

166 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, p. 29. 

167 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 14. 

168 Somerville et al. interview. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

DOCR indicates it ensures OAs incorporate 

data collection, reporting, and analysis on their 

funding applicants and recipients into their Title VI 

programs. However, DOCR has not required OAs 

to incorporate analyses of the data on program participants they receive from their funding recipients 

in their annual Title VI self-assessments. Finally, 

DOCR evaluates OAs through analyses of the annual data they provide.169

FAA/OCR has implemented a data collection 

system to collect information from funding recipients for post-award desk-audit reviews.170 On the 

other hand, FRA recipients have to sign assurances 

that include data collection requirements. At the 

same time, FRA/OCR states Amtrak and Union 

Station in Washington, D.C., have provided information on program participants. However, the office has not required recipients that receive large 

amounts of funding to provide demographic analyses on affected communities.171 

On the other hand, RSPA/OCR has not ensured 

all funding recipients incorporate data collection, reporting, and analysis on their program participants 

into their Title VI programs.172 And, it imposes no 

data-reporting requirements on funding recipients.173 

Coordination 

DOT has not updated the December 1979 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) because it 

only applied to FHWA.174 FHWA is developing an 

MOU on on-the-job training with DOL.175 DOCR 

is participating in DOT’s Surface Transportation 

Reauthorization efforts to help ensure coverage of 

civil rights and equal opportunity matters. At the 

same time, OAs’ offices of civil rights have an ongoing assessment of the civil rights impacts of 

transportation legislation.176 NHTSA/OCR and 

USCG/OCR have worked with offices within their 

169 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, pp. 10–11. 

170 DOT/FAA, Interrogatory Response, p. 10. 

171 Carl Ruiz, director, Office of Civil Rights, DOT/FRA, 

telephone interview, May 6, 2002. 

172 DOT/RSPA, Interrogatory Response, p. 11. 

173 Somerville et al. interview. 

174 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 8. 

175 Ibid., p. 3. 

176 Ibid. 
58 

respective OAs. The NHTSA/OCR director and 

the Office of the Chief Counsel jointly develop and 

issue civil rights policies and procedures, while 

USCG/OCR cooperates with the USCG Office of 

Boating Safety to conduct pre-award reviews.177

FTA/OCR has collaborated with FHWA to provide 

technical assistance.178 

Community Involvement 

DOCR and some OAs engage with community 

groups in their civil rights activities. The FTA’s

 

 

177 Quick letter; Freilich e-mail. 

178 DOT/FTA, Interrogatory Response, pp. 14–15. 

strategic plan is developed in consultation with the 

NAACP and the Environmental Defense Fund.179

Since September 11, DOCR has been working actively with Muslim, Sikh, and Arab American 

community groups on anti-scapegoating activities.180 Further, it participated with DOT’s Office 

of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

as part of its national outreach effort to the small 

business community, including minority and disadvantaged businesses.181

179 Ibid., p. 10; Day e-mail. 

180 DOT/OST, Interrogatory Response, p. 8. 

181 Ibid., p. 3. 
 59 

CHAPTER 5 

Findings and Recommendations 

1. INTRODUCTION

Finding 1.1: Prior to 1986, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had a separate office with a $1 

million budget and more than 20 staff members 

who monitored and evaluated the federal civil 

rights enforcement effort. The office monitored the 

work of the agencies daily by meeting with staffs 

of enforcement offices, reviewing their plans and 

programs, assessing their progress made on implementing recommendations, and preparing regular evaluations and reports on agencies’ progress or 

need for improvement. Because of budget reductions, the monitoring office was abolished and the 

Commission’s monitoring efforts diminished significantly. During some years, the function was 

eliminated completely because of competition for 

scarce resources. Monitoring remains an important 

responsibility of the Commission and, moreover, 

safeguards the public investment in civil rights enforcement. 

Recommendation 1.1: Congress should appropriate sufficient resources to enable the Commission to return its monitoring program to its pre1986 level. 

2. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.1: There is a strong need for uniform, consistent, and comprehensive information 

about the resources and activities for civil rights 

enforcement at the Department of Justice. In its 

2002 review, the Commission finds that except for 

the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, 

which prepares budget submissions every fiscal 

year, there is very little information about the Department’s civil rights resources (funding and staffing) or civil rights activities and performance. In 

the Department’s 2002 and 2003 budget summaries, there is no civil rights category or breakdown 

that gives the resources for civil rights functions. 

In the Department’s 2002–2003 budget summaries, 

civil rights functions (including the Civil Rights 

Division) are included under “Litigating Divisions,” which covers much more than civil rights. 

In the FBI’s budget reports, there is no civil rights 

category or heading, rendering it difficult to assess 

the adequacy of resources for civil rights enforcement within the Department. 

Recommendation 2.1: The Department of Justice should include a separate civil rights category 

or heading in its annual budget summaries, and 

require all its components with civil rights responsibilities to submit to the Department a civil rights 

“report” on funding and staffing that would be included in the final departmental budget document. 

Finding 2.2: Previous Commission funding reports concluded that the Civil Rights Division’s 

resources were not commensurate with its many 

civil rights responsibilities. The Division appeared 

not to have enough resources for its 10 program 

sections to carry out their responsibilities effectively, particularly when the budget numbers were 

adjusted for inflation. In addition, over the years, 

the Division’s responsibilities have expanded and 

the workload increased, particularly for the two 

sections under this review. 

CRD’s resources, especially when adjusted for 

inflation, are still not adequate to meet all of its 

responsibilities. In addition, there is always the 

likelihood that the Division’s responsibilities will 

increase. For example, there is a proposal to place 

the Office of Justice Programs’ Office for Civil 

Rights in the Division. This will certainly create 

the need for additional resources. 

Recommendation 2.2: The Department of Justice, particularly the Civil Rights Division, should 

conduct annual assessments of the Division’s responsibilities and workload, especially if it re-
60 

ceives additional civil rights enforcement responsibilities. 

Planning 

Finding 2.3: The Civil Rights Division’s 

budget submissions, which are prepared every fiscal year, are useful documents that present detailed 

information on the Division’s civil rights resources 

and activities. The budget submissions include the 

previous, current, and projected funding, staffing, 

workload, activities, priorities, and performance 

indicators for each of the Division’s sections. The 

document can be analyzed for actual and expected 

appropriations and expenditures, as well as trends 

in budget and staffing, over periods of time and 

reviewed for changes in workload and outcomes. 

This civil rights information allows for an assessment of not only the Division’s civil rights resources and workload, but also of each of its 10 

program sections. 

Recommendation 2.3: The Department of Justice should require all its components with civil 

rights responsibilities to prepare and distribute civil 

rights information in a document that is closely 

modeled after the Civil Rights Division’s fiscal 

year budget submissions. These documents should 

include previous, current, and projected funding, 

staffing, activities, priorities, workload, and performance indicators. These reports should be compiled and included in the final Department’s budget 

summaries under a separate civil rights category. 

COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.4: Since the Commission’s 1996 report, CORS’ enforcement and coordinating responsibilities have increased with two additional executive orders relative to ensuring the benefits of 

federal funds to many groups of people. CORS’ 

increased responsibilities have not adversely affected its enforcement of Title VI. In the Title VI 

report, the Commission determined that CORS’ 

resources were inadequate for effective Title VI 

enforcement. Since the report, CORS’ resources 

have increased each fiscal year, and its staff includes additional attorneys, investigators, coordinators, and a program specialist. CORS also has 

received funding to travel and provide training on 

Title VI. CORS’ assessment of its resources is that 

funding and the number of staff are adequate to 

carry out its current responsibilities. 

Recommendation 2.4: While CORS’ current 

resources may be adequate to meet its current responsibilities, it should assess its resources regularly so that new challenges and responsibilities 

can be met effectively. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.5: Perhaps the strongest improvement of CORS’ work since the 1996 study has 

been the technical assistance and information now 

provided on Title VI. CORS has established a formal technical assistance program that includes Title VI guidance, technical assistance brochures, 

and legal and investigative manuals for federal Title VI agencies and their recipients. All are available on its Web site. The Section also has developed a training course that provides participants 

with information about Title VI and delivers 

shorter presentations that provide an overview of 

Title VI and the regulations. In the 2002 budget, 

CORS requested additional funds to conduct 

“technical assistance reviews” of federal agencies’ 

civil rights programs. As a result, it initiated the 

Title VI Technical Assistance Review (TAR) program, which is an assessment of selected aspects, 

functions, and/or issues concerning an agency’s 

compliance with and enforcement of Title VI. It is 

designed to strengthen and improve an agency’s 

Title VI enforcement. 

Recommendation 2.5: CORS’ technical assistance initiatives implemented since the 1996 review are commendable, and it should continue its 

technical assistance programs and produce additional informational documents as needed. 

Coordination 

Finding 2.6: The Department of Justice requires annual reporting of Title VI activities by the 

affected agencies. The agencies’ civil rights implementation plan is the major tool to measure Title VI performance. In the Title VI report, the 

Commission found the information in the civil 

rights implementation plans to be inadequate for 

effective evaluation of Title VI performance. In 

this review, the Commission finds that CORS revised the guidelines and requires “more succinct” 

information in the document. Each plan is re-
 61 

viewed and, if deficiencies are found, CORS 

communicates them to the appropriate agency. 

However, it takes approximately three to six 

months after receipt of a civil rights implementation plan for CORS to review the document and 

write a letter to the agency asking for it to be improved. The Commission’s assessment is that three 

to six months after a plan has been submitted is too 

long a period for feedback. In some instances, the 

agency is continuing the same efforts and beginning its work on the next plan. Thus, inadequacies 

would not be corrected in a timely fashion. 

Recommendation 2.6: In order to expedite reviews and responses to agencies, CORS should provide feedback to the Title VI agencies more quickly 

or conduct interim reviews. These responses could 

be informal contacts to address any concerns before 

the next formal review. 

Finding 2.7: In 1996, CORS’ monitoring and 

coordination of federal agencies’ Title VI activities 

were seriously flawed. Since the review, CORS 

has established a variety of measures to ensure the 

accountability of and the effective coordination 

among the federal agencies that provide financial 

assistance: requiring improved implementation 

plans, conducting formal and regular technical assistance programs and reviews, preparing guidance 

and other materials to assist agencies in Title VI 

enforcement, conducting investigations, and providing investigative assistance to agencies. 

Recommendation 2.7: CORS’ improvement of 

its Title VI monitoring and coordination efforts is 

commendable, and it should continue to enhance 

these activities to ensure that federal agencies and 

their recipients are in compliance with the law. 

CORS also should develop methods to assess the 

effectiveness of its monitoring and coordination of 

Title VI through surveys and meetings, as examples, with recipients and stakeholders. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 2.8: In the 1996 Title VI report, the 

Commission recommended that OJP initiate a new 

organizational structure that would strengthen the 

Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) external enforcement and coordination roles with respect to its 

funding recipients. In fiscal year 1997, Congress 

also directed OJP to develop a new organizational 

structure that would streamline and coordinate 

agency programs and strengthen its coordination 

activities. In fiscal year 1999, Congress and the 

previous administration approved OJP’s reorganization plan. The plan had definitive civil rights 

components. However, OJP never implemented the 

plan, and the present administration is proposing 

another reorganization plan (as well as a revised 

strategic plan). Because the 1999 approved reorganization plan was never implemented and the 

2002 plan is not complete, OJP’s organizational 

structure has not significantly changed since the 

Commission’s 1996 review. At the time of this 

report, neither the proposed strategic plan nor the 

reorganization plan had been finalized. 

Recommendation 2.8: OJP’s final strategic 

plan and reorganization plan should include a 

strong civil rights enforcement component with 

goals, objectives, and performance indicators that 

address the many civil rights responsibilities of a 

Title VI agency and consider the Commission’s 

1996 and 2002 recommendations. 

Finding 2.9: For the past two years, there has 

not been a permanent director in OJP’s Office for 

Civil Rights and there may be an acting director 

indefinitely. The lack of a permanent civil rights 

leader with authority is a strong sign that civil 

rights is not a priority at the agency, and is detrimental to the enforcement of civil rights. 

Recommendation 2.9: OJP should begin the 

process of hiring a permanent director in OCR 

immediately. He or she should have the authority 

to initiate civil rights policy and authority to enforce civil rights laws. 

Finding 2.10: OJP officials are beginning to 

address the issue of OCR’s structure and have 

three proposals: OCR could remain an office at 

OJP with a permanent director; it may be merged 

into the OJP’s Office of the General Counsel; or it 

could become a part of the Civil Rights Division. 

There is no indication as to how any of these proposals would be implemented. 

Recommendation 2.10: Under no circumstance does the Commission support that OCR be 

merged or consolidated as a division with staff in 

the OJP’s Office of the General Counsel or any 

other OJP office or bureau. The civil rights component is already weak at OJP, and any efforts to 

lower OCR from an office status would make civil 

rights weaker in priority and authority. The Commission recommends that with all of its civil rights 
62 

responsibilities, OCR should remain an office at 

OJP with a permanent director who has the authority to enforce Title VI and other civil rights laws. 

The director should be a major part of the OJP 

management team and included in policy and decision-making initiatives at OJP. If the final decision 

is to place OCR in the Civil Rights Division, it 

should be another program-related section, headed 

by a section chief, with the support for activities, 

authority, and resources afforded to the other Division sections. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.11: In 1996, the Commission concluded that OCR did not receive adequate resources to carry out its external civil rights responsibilities. Since 1996, OCR’s funding has increased 

significantly, and in 2002, OJP/OCR states that 

based on the increase, it has the appropriate funding and staff to implement its responsibilities under 

the present law and existing departmental policy. 

However, OCR’s increase in appropriations and 

staff is misleading, as the number of federal financial assistance recipients also has increased significantly during this period. The increase in funding 

and staffing is not commensurate with OCR’s external civil rights responsibilities and workload. 

Recommendation 2.11: OJP should conduct an 

analysis of OCR’s resources to evaluate whether 

they are commensurate with OCR’s responsibilities and workload, and a desk audit of OCR staff to 

assess their responsibilities and workload. Resources should address the findings. 

Finding 2.12: Currently, OCR has 10 staff 

members. However, six attorneys and one legal 

technician are primarily responsible for external 

civil rights activities. They carry out responsibilities that usually warrant numerous staff members 

with various job classifications and expertise, such 

as program managers, coordinators, compliance 

officers, civil rights analysts, and investigators. 

Recommendation 2.12: Congress should provide OCR with additional funds to increase the 

number of employees who have different backgrounds and expertise. Until funds are made available to hire such staff, the Department of Justice 

should detail staff from other components with the 

expertise and/or make arrangements with Title VI 

agencies to have appropriate staff members detailed to OCR. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 2.13: OCR has not prepared regulations or guidance since the Commission’s Title VI 

report. OCR states that in January 2001, a “moratorium” was placed on the publication of new regulations until the President named new leadership at 

OJP. In September 2001, a new assistant attorney 

general was appointed at OJP. 

Recommendation 2.13: OJP should vigorously 

enforce civil rights by hiring a director of OCR and 

assigning appropriate staff or task forces to begin 

moving OJP toward Title VI enforcement by promulgating relevant guidance, updated regulations, and 

procedures for implementing the law. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.14: OCR’s technical assistance program has improved since the Commission’s last 

review. In 1996, technical assistance was limited to 

publishing several documents. In 1998, OCR designed a “comprehensive” technical assistance 

program for the administrative staff of state agencies and subgrantees. Since the 1996 assessment, 

OCR also developed a brochure that provides a 

general overview of civil rights protections for 

employees and beneficiaries of OJP programs and 

posted public information on a Web site. It has also 

made presentations to different advocacy groups 

on civil rights enforcement issues. However, to 

date, OCR has not developed any formal selection 

criteria for identifying states for technical assistance. There also is no mechanism in place to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the technical assistance program and activities. 

Recommendation 2.14: OCR should develop a 

formal technical assistance program with selection 

criteria and mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and activities. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 2.15: OCR’s civil rights compliance 

efforts have not improved significantly over the 

decade. OCR focuses the majority of its efforts on 

employment programs. When the number of recipients is considered, OCR has conducted very 

few pre-award and post-award reviews. In fiscal 

year 1999, OCR reported one pre-award on-site 

review and 291 desk audits. It reported only one 

post-award review. Although OCR states it has re-
 63 

ceived sufficient funding to conduct three or four 

on-site compliance reviews, the review of recipients’ equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs) 

is the major form of a pre-award review. This review addresses recipients’ employment practices 

and does not address discrimination in services. 

And even with the review of more than 1,000 

EEOPs, OCR has “minimum standards” for an acceptable EEOP. 

The Civil Rights Division and OJP have a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) whereby 

some Division sections, including CORS, handle 

some of OJP’s complaints. In 1996, the Commission was concerned that the MOU concerning 

CORS’ involvement could create a conflict of interest for CORS in carrying out its Title VI responsibilities. However, the conflict of interest concern 

has been addressed. In 2002, CORS’ involvement 

in OCR’s caseload is an indicator that OCR cannot 

meet its Title VI workload effectively. 

Recommendation 2.15: OJP should provide 

support for external civil rights enforcement at the 

agency. The Commission stresses the need for OJP 

to conduct desk audits or staff analysis of the OCR 

staff to assess its workload and responsibilities and 

provide for a study performed by outside consultants (in the Department or from other Title VI federal agencies) on developing effective methods for 

conducting civil rights compliance activities that 

can address the thousands of federal financial assistance recipients at OJP. Rather than a memorandum of understanding with CORS on assisting in 

OCR’s workload, CORS could be better used as a 

resource for assisting OCR in training, communicating and coordinating with other Title VI agencies that have the same recipients, and providing 

OCR with guidance on how to carry out its Title 

VI responsibilities more effectively. 

Staff Training 

Finding 2.16: Because OCR’s staff is so small, 

the office lacks expertise in some civil rights enforcement areas. OCR relies heavily on in-house 

training and assistance from other Department 

components to carry out its work. 

Recommendation 2.16: Until OCR receives 

the resources to expand its staff and to hire personnel with different expertise, OCR, in addition to 

utilizing CORS for training of some staff and assistance in its Title VI work, should contact other Title VI agencies’ civil rights offices to receive training in different areas and to study some of the 

different and similar techniques used in external 

civil rights enforcement. 

Coordination 

Finding 2.17: In 1996, OCR did not monitor 

and oversee the recipients’ Title VI activities. In 

2002, the Commission finds that OCR still does 

not have a formal monitoring and oversight program in place. OCR views its technical assistance 

program as an “informal method” for monitoring 

and overseeing compliance of state and local governments and subrecipients. However, technical 

assistance is provided, usually on request, to recipients concerning information about their responsibilities in implementing the law and what 

the law encompasses. It is a means of correcting 

known flaws in a recipient’s program and planning 

in anticipation of problems. It is not a tool to monitor and evaluate how well recipients carry out their 

responsibilities. Technical assistance is also made 

available so that flaws that have already been identified can be corrected. 

Recommendation 2.17: OCR should develop 

formal guidelines and procedures for monitoring 

and overseeing its recipients and beneficiaries. The 

guidance and procedures should be shared with program and financial managers. OCR should contact 

CORS and other Title VI agencies for guidance on 

how to develop such guidelines and procedures. 

DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.18: DRS’ authority and responsibility for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

have remained the same since the Commission’s 

1998 report. In fiscal year 2002, DRS received 

more than $15 million in appropriations and nearly 

100 staff members to carry out its responsibilities. 

DRS claims that its current resources are sufficient 

to fulfill its civil rights responsibilities. However, 

ADA law is ever evolving and many additional 

issues could surface in the future, causing a need 

for more resources. 

Recommendation 2.18: Because of the potential change in DRS’ workload, annual assessments 

of DRS’ resources should be conducted by the Department, the Civil Rights Division, and DRS so 
64 

that DRS’ resources can keep pace with new ADA 

issues. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.19: Technical assistance remains a 

major part of DRS’ ADA responsibilities. Since 

1998, DRS has expanded its technical assistance 

program and, today, the program has become a 

model for other components in the Department. 

Recommendation 2.19: DRS should expand its 

technical assistance program as new ADA issues 

arise and help other ADA agencies develop their 

technical assistance programs. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 2.20: In 1998, the Commission applauded the use of mediation in the enforcement of 

the ADA. In 2002, DRS reports that its enforcement plan is based on a variety of approaches, including mediation and litigation, and using criteria 

that result in the best outcomes for individuals and 

the most return for resources invested. DRS officials state that the “multifaceted” approach in enforcement is effective. To illustrate, over the past 

four fiscal years (1998–2001) the Section participated in 168 cases and achieved successful results 

in 100 cases; of the individual complaints investigated, DRS obtained favorable outcomes in the 

resolution of 1,147 complaints; and DRS achieved 

successful results in 583 of the 757 completed mediations. As a result of its success, particularly in 

the use of mediation, DRS’ enforcement program 

has become a model in the Department. 

Recommendation 2.20: DRS’ enforcement 

program should become a model for other federal 

agencies that seek to incorporate mediation and 

litigation into their enforcement efforts. 

Coordination 

Finding 2.21: In the 1998 assessment, the 

Commission found that the Section had not assigned staff to coordinate and monitor the enforcement efforts of the other designated federal 

agencies with ADA responsibilities, mainly because of a lack of resources. In 2002, DRS reports 

that 11 staff members spend “most of their time on 

interagency coordination.” Other staff members 

participate in coordination as needed. DRS attributes the improvement in its coordination activities 

to its increase in resources. 

Recommendation 2.21: DRS should develop 

formal coordination procedures and a review process of activities and agencies’ feedback and concerns. 

Community Involvement 

Finding 2.22: In the ADA report, the Commission found that DRS developed its policy guidance 

and other initiatives without consulting the disability community and minority advocacy groups 

about their concerns, and strongly recommended 

that DRS contact such organizations about policy 

initiatives in the future. In 2002, DRS reports that 

it maintains ongoing dialogue with several disability and minority groups about their concerns. 

Recommendation 2.22: DRS should establish 

a formal program for communicating with the public, particularly people with disabilities and their 

advocacy groups, about ADA concerns and issues. 

Perhaps, a survey could be posted on DRS’ Web 

site to solicit information from the public. DRS 

could consider the survey responses when developing policy. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 2.23: Although the Department of Justice, including the FBI, supports the need for hate 

crime data in enforcing laws against such offenses, 

the collection and reporting of hate crimes is a 

separate, disconnected function from the prosecution and investigation of hate crimes, which are 

civil rights enforcement responsibilities. The collection and reporting of hate crime data at the FBI 

is treated as additional crime information rather 

than as a civil rights function. The reporting and 

collecting of hate crime data is a civil rights function that should not be separated from other hate 

crime enforcement activities. 

Recommendation 2.23: Congress should 

amend the Hate Crimes Statistics Act so that hate 

crime reporting is implemented as a civil rights 

function and connected with other federal hate 

crime enforcement activities. 

Finding 2.24: Hate crimes are underreported. 

One major factor is that Congress did not provide 

provisions to make reporting of hate crimes man-
 65 

datory or provide for specific resources and accountability provisions for collecting and reporting 

such information. 

Recommendation 2.24: Congress should 

amend the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to include 

provisions that make the reporting a required function of every state and police department; and provide the Department of Justice with resources to 

implement community and police training and outreach programs for identifying and reporting such 

offenses. Congress should require the Department 

to report past and current data on hate crimes so 

that trends can be analyzed over a period of time. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 2.25: Although the Commission requested information on the FBI’s hate crime resources, the agency did not provide it. Thus, the 

Commission cannot determine whether the FBI has 

sufficient funding and staffing to carry out its hate 

crime data collection responsibilities effectively. 

Recommendation 2.25: The FBI should develop a budget report closely modeled after the 

Civil Rights Division’s fiscal year budget submissions, including previous, current, and projected 

civil rights resource needs, as well as staffing and 

workload information that can be provided on 

request. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 2.26: Since the Commission’s 1992 

report, the FBI has revised its guidelines and training documents for the implementation of the Hate 

Crimes Statistics Act. The guidelines minimize the 

importance of the information and the resources 

necessary for the effort. In addition, the FBI’s 

technical assistance and training do not reflect a 

changing, diverse society since the 1990s, or the 

complexity in identifying and analyzing hate 

crimes today. 

Recommendation 2.26: The FBI should revise 

the guidelines and training manual again to stress 

the importance of reporting hate crime information, and include updated indicators and different 

examples of hate crimes that do not reflect obvious 

hate crime incidents or indicators. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 2.27: The FBI’s technical assistance 

and training activities are still targeted mainly to 

police departments. However, many police departments have not received adequate training on 

how to identify and analyze hate crimes. 

Recommendation 2.27: Because Congress 

mandated that the Department of Justice take responsibility for hate crime reporting and enforcement, the Department must improve and implement 

hate crime technical assistance programs and training. The Commission reiterates its 1992 recommendation that the Department of Justice initiate a 

comprehensive, nationwide training program to 

assist police departments and other local entities on 

how to identify and report hate crimes. 

Community Involvement 

Finding 2.28: In 1992, the Commission recognized the need to involve state and local entities, 

including police departments, schools, organizations, 

churches, and victims in hate crime reporting. There 

is very little evidence that the FBI networks to a 

great degree with other state and local entities, such 

as advocacy groups, schools and churches, and victims to encourage reporting of hate crimes. 

Recommendation 2.28: In addition to training 

police officers, the Department of Justice should 

develop an extensive education and outreach program about hate crimes for the public that can be 

monitored and reviewed, and encourage the participation of such groups in reporting hate crimes 

to police departments and the FBI. The FBI should 

solicit the assistance of hate crime advocacy 

groups in the development and participation in hate 

crime information programs. Efforts to solicit and 

encourage reporting of hate crime statistics from 

the community should be made through the media, 

on the Web site, and through telephone hot lines. 

3. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

THE CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 3.1: Regional staff still does not perform Title VI enforcement functions, and there are 

no plans to place external civil rights enforcement 

staff in regional offices. 
66 

Recommendation 3.1: Staffing and resource 

levels should be evaluated to determine the extent 

to which additional staff and resources are needed 

to implement a comprehensive Title VI enforcement program. In submitting its budget request, the 

Center needs to be more forceful in requesting and 

documenting its need for additional funding. It 

should document the full range of civil rights enforcement activities it is obligated to perform, including conducting pre- and post-award reviews of 

all funding recipients and providing technical assistance, outreach, and education. It should tie its 

current resources to the activities it performs and 

compare that with its obligations in terms of enforcement activities, federally assisted programs, 

and applicable civil rights statutes. 

Planning 

Finding 3.2: In its January 2002 implementation plan, the Center failed to describe letters of 

finding, settlement agreements, and other resolutions of complaint investigations or compliance 

reviews issued since the previous year’s submission. In addition, it listed only five activities and/or 

objectives that it would be conducting to enforce 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and similar 

statutes covered by Executive Order 12,250. The 

Center did not perform any pre-award or postaward reviews in fiscal year 2001. 

Recommendation 3.2: The Center’s civil 

rights implementation plan should be updated 

every three months and allow for changes due to 

increases and decreases in actual compliance activities and responsibilities and new or developing 

civil rights enforcement issues. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 3.3: Work began on the development of 

Title VI regulations immediately after the Commission issued its 1996 report. However, before completion, resources for legislative/regulatory issues 

were diverted to other pressing tasks, such as the 

development of legislation to replace the Job 

Training Partnership Act (JTPA); regulations implementing WIA and its nondiscrimination and 

equal opportunity provisions; training and written 

guidance on the new legislation; and regulations, 

guidance, and training on new welfare-to-work 

legislation. As a result, the work on the Title VI 

appendix will have to begin anew. 

Recommendation 3.3: The Center should add 

an appendix to its Title VI regulations specifying 

the types of financial assistance programs the Department of Labor administers. Since work began 

on developing the Title VI appendix several years 

ago, the Center should salvage as much of the previous work as possible so that it is able to complete 

the appendix expeditiously.

Finding 3.4: The Title VI compliance and complaint manuals have not been updated since the 

Commission’s 1996 report was issued. The Center 

does have a methods of administration training 

manual. 

The Center has not developed policies specific 

to Title VI. Instead, regulations and policies have 

been developed for the nondiscrimination and 

equal opportunity provisions of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which prohibits discrimination based on Title VI and nine other bases. Since 

the passage of WIA, the Center’s attention has 

been focused on providing guidance to the Center’s staff and DOL recipients as to the compliance 

issues associated with WIA and its nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions. 

Recommendation 3.4: The Center should 

promulgate uniform Title VI enforcement procedures for its civil rights enforcement staff and 

funding recipients, including step-by-step instructions for implementing Title VI, from the application and pre-award process through compliance 

review and complaint processing, in each type of 

program DOL sponsors. The Center should expeditiously complete its work on its compliance and 

complaint manuals. 

Technical Assistance 

Finding 3.5: Currently, the Center is developing a number of publications that will be widely 

disseminated to beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries and the public. The publications will be 

available in English and several other languages, 

but until those publications are available the Center 

will continue to use the Department of Justice’s 

generic publications, such as its Title VI brochure. 

Recommendation 3.5: The Center should expeditiously complete its development of publications in other languages. As the population shifts 

from being predominately English speaking to one 
 67 

that is more multilingual, those individuals who do 

not speak English are not being reached, and as a 

result, are not aware of their rights and responsibilities under Title VI. 

Finding 3.6: In developing certain policies, 

guidance, training syllabuses, and enforcement 

tools, comments and suggestions from affected 

communities and funding recipients are considered. For example, in developing the guidance on 

limited English proficiency, the Center solicited 

comments and suggestions from affected communities and funding recipients. However, in planning 

and conducting education and outreach, the Center 

has not strategically planned and designed an outreach plan that uses 2000 Census data and other 

labor market or demographic data to target groups 

that may be victims of discrimination. 

Recommendation 3.6: Each time a new census 

is conducted, the Center should use the most current census figures in developing policies, guidance, training syllabuses, and seeking comments 

and suggestions from affected communities and 

funding recipients. The current census indicates 

that the minority population of the United States is 

becoming the majority, and the Hispanic population is now equal to that of African Americans. 

Complaint Processing 

Finding 3.7: The number of Title VI complaints 

the Center receives has continued to decline since 

the Commission published its 1996 report. Between 

fiscal years 1997 and 2001, the number of Title VI 

complaints decreased by 76 percent, from 107 in 

1997 to 26 in 2001. Very few Title VI complaints 

are received because most of them are resolved at 

the state level. The Center has increased its public 

education about Title VI nondiscrimination requirements through several training modules. 

Recommendation 3.7: The Center should expand on its public education by ensuring that all 

information pertaining to Title VI is in languages 

other than English and that this information is 

reaching all potential victims. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 3.8: In fiscal year 2001, the Center did 

not conduct any pre- or post-award reviews or have 

any legal administrative enforcement. In fiscal year 

2000, the Center conducted 76 pre-award reviews 

(desk audits) but no post-award reviews. The last 

time the Center conducted a post-award review 

was in fiscal year 1998, when it completed 84. 

Since the Commission’s 1996 review, the Center has conducted on-site compliance reviews, but 

staff resources do not allow for an extensive annual 

compliance review schedule. To best utilize resources, compliance reviews are initiated based on 

congressional request, the nature and frequency of 

complaints, and strategic planning goals. 

Recommendation 3.8: As was recommended 

in 1996 to meet the Department of Justice requirement that agencies establish a post-award compliance review process, the Center should utilize postaward desk-audit reviews to ensure continuing 

compliance with Title VI among all recipients. 

Since the Center has full and complete access to the 

Department’s grant office’s information system and 

is able to access and sort data fields over any period 

of time, it should rely on this asset to reach a large 

number of recipients in desk-audit reviews. In addition, the Center needs to conduct compliance 

reviews other than upon congressional request. 

DOL should also delegate the responsibility for 

ensuring civil rights compliance among its secondary recipients to its primary recipients and establish an oversight system for reviewing the civil 

rights enforcement activities of its primary recipients. Thus, primary recipients should impose reporting requirements on the subrecipients so that 

desk audits can be performed on the secondary 

recipients. The primary recipients should use the 

desk audits to identify secondary recipients with 

questionable practices or policies, conduct on-site 

compliance reviews, and provide technical assistance to ensure that they comply with civil rights 

statutes. For more information on the type of data 

secondary recipients should report, on how that 

data are to be reviewed in desk audits, on how 

subrecipients should be selected to receive on-site 

reviews, and on how DOL should design an oversight system for its primary recipients, see volume 

I, chapter 2, of this report. 

Staff Training 

Finding 3.9: DOL supports and encourages 

life-long learning for staff, and the Center’s staff 

training continues to be among the best offered by 

federal agencies. However, the Center does not 

conduct training specifically on Title VI. 
68 

Recommendation 3.9: The Center needs to 

hold regular Title VI training in areas such as instruction on conducting enforcement procedures; 

the nexus between Title VI and other civil rights 

enforcement provisions relevant to ensuring nondiscrimination in federally funded activities; Title 

VI nondiscrimination requirements in particular 

types of DOL programs; and the nexus between 

Title VI and a particular funding program’s objectives and administration. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE 

PROGRAMS 

Coordination 

Finding 3.10: The Department of Labor still 

has not updated its December 1979 memorandum 

of understanding with the Department of Transportation to reflect the interim agreement to exchange 

information. However, operating procedures are in 

effect whereby OFCCP regional and district offices 

work with the local Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state DOT officials to exchange 

information on major construction projects underway in their respective geographic areas. 

Recommendation 3.10: As was recommended 

in 1993, DOT and DOL should update their December 1979 memorandum of understanding and 

include, among other things, operating procedures 

that will create coordinated civil rights enforcement activities and thus avoid confusion over responsibilities and duplicated efforts. 

Finding 3.11: OFCCP’s contacts with community groups during compliance reviews are inadequate. These contacts are needed to gauge whether 

contractors are making good-faith efforts to recruit 

women and minorities and to identify contractors 

that are alleged discriminators. Today, OFCCP still 

does not solicit involvement from the community 

in selecting companies for compliance reviews. 

Recommendation 3.11: When OFCCP contacts the EEOC district office, the state and local 

Fair Employment Practices Agencies, and other 

pertinent agencies prior to a scheduled compliance 

evaluation, DOL officials should also contact affected communities and advocacy groups to get 

feedback on whether local contractors working on 

federally funded transportation projects are employing racial and ethnic minorities and women. 

Finding 3.12: The Commission recommended 

that the Secretary of Labor investigate existing 

training apprenticeship programs to determine 

whether they conform to federal affirmative action 

guidelines, ensure that training and apprenticeship 

programs are mandatory for federal and federally 

assisted construction contractors, and direct a national effort to develop and implement training and 

apprenticeship programs. 

Current OFCCP regulations require federal and 

federally assisted construction contractors to develop on-the-job training opportunities and/or participate in training programs that expressly include 

minorities and women. 

Recommendation 3.12: The Center should 

conduct a study of all federal contractors to determine whether the money set aside for on-the-job 

training and apprenticeship programs is being used 

for its intended purpose. The study should collect 

information on the number of minorities and 

women receiving on-the-job training and apprenticeships under this program and determine whether 

contractors are complying with civil rights laws. To 

the extent that construction contractors are funded 

by the Department of Transportation, OFCCP 

should coordinate this study with that agency. 

The Center should impose any necessary 

reporting requirements on federal contractors to 

collect this information as required for such a 

study, involving the Department of Justice’s guidelines for Title VI enforcement of civil rights 

enforcement to do so. 

If federal construction contractors are not in 

compliance with civil rights statutes in on-the-job 

training and apprenticeship programs, DOL should 

develop and implement technical assistance programs to inform them of their deficiencies, obtain 

their voluntary agreement to comply, and monitor 

their future compliance. In short, DOL should develop and implement a full-fledged Title VI civil 

rights enforcement program and apply it to the onthe-job training and apprenticeship programs that 

federal construction contractors are required to 

operate. (For further details on the elements necessary to implement a successful enforcement program see volume I of this report). 
 69 

4. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Priority of Civil Rights 

Finding 4.1: The Office of the Secretary Office 

of Civil Rights (DOCR) has made significant progress in its oversight of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. It currently has an 

active role on the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) DBE committee that helps develop and issue policy guidance, guidelines, and interpretation 

of the law on DBE issues. Additionally, DOCR 

now has the ability to track the status and disposition of DBE and Title VI complaints to ascertain 

trends and patterns. 

Recommendation 4.1: DOCR should annually 

analyze the collected data to discern recurring areas 

of complaints in the DBE and Title VI programs 

and draw implications for improvement. The analysis should be shared with the operating administrations for implementation where appropriate. 

Finding 4.2: The Office of the Secretary (OST) 

is not able to consolidate its external civil rights 

activities because Congress did not approve DOT’s 

request for funding in 1994. DOCR’s current structure bears some resemblance to the one proposed 

in 1996. The office now consists of an External 

Policy and Program Development Division, Internal Policy and Program Development, a Data and 

Evaluation Division, Compliance Operations Division, and six regional offices. 

Recommendation 4.2: DOCR’s regional offices should have separate offices for external civil 

rights compliance and enforcement activities. 

Finding 4.3: Within the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Civil Rights (FAA/OCR), 

external civil rights and internal civil rights are 

generally separately managed, while the DBE program falls under the former. The headquarters external program is responsible for ensuring compliance with Title VI and other civil rights statutes. 

Recommendation 4.3: FAA/OCR should make 

external civil rights, internal civil rights, and DBE 

into distinct entities. Within the external civil 

rights program, policy and regulatory development 

and issuance responsibilities should be separated 

from operational responsibilities. 

Finding 4.4: The director of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Civil Rights 

(FHWA/OCR) still reports to the executive director of FHWA. Furthermore, only the 12 civil rights 

staff members in the headquarters office report to 

the director of FHWA/OCR. Finally, most civil 

rights staff members have not specialized in specific civil rights areas. 

Recommendation 4.4: The director of FHWA/ 

OCR should report to the FHWA administrator in 

order to ensure priority attention to civil rights enforcement. All civil rights staff should report to the 

director and specialize in either internal or external 

civil rights functions. 

Finding 4.5: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is not subjected to DOT’s DBE regulations because there is no DBE program statute that 

is parallel to those covering the FAA, FTA, or 

FHWA. 

Recommendation 4.5: The FRA administrator 

should take necessary steps to develop a DBE program statute for FRA’s incorporation into DOT’s 

DBE regulations. 

Finding 4.6: The Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights (FTA/OCR) is in the 

process of being restructured. 

Recommendation 4.6: FTA/OCR should be 

organized into separate units with separate supervisory staff for external civil rights, including Title 

VI and DBE activities. 

Resources—Funding and Staffing 

Finding 4.7: Resources for civil rights enforcement remain inadequate for most of the operating administrations (OAs). 

Recommendation 4.7: The DOT Secretary and 

the OA administrators should request, and Congress approve, additional resources for civil rights 

enforcement throughout the Department of Transportation. 

Finding 4.8: The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration Office of Civil Rights’

(NHTSA/OCR’s) budget for fiscal year 2002 is 

$637,463, the highest amount for the years 1995 

through 2002, and represents a 52 percent increase 

over fiscal year 2001. 

Recommendation 4.8: NHTSA/OCR should 

conduct regular workload analyses to ensure that 

adequate resources remain available for civil rights 

activities and share the findings with the administrator. 
70 

Planning 

Finding 4.9: DOCR and three OAs have civil 

rights implementation plans (CRIPs) that conform 

to the Department of Justice guidelines, one 

agency’s CRIP is still under review, and the remaining three did not have CRIPs. At the same 

time, FHWA’s administrative manual does not address the civil rights enforcement responsibilities 

of state-level division offices. 

Recommendation 4.9: FRA, FTA, the Research and Special Program Administration 

(RSPA), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) should 

prepare CRIPs that conform to Department of Justice guidelines. Further, FHWA’s administrative 

manual should be revised to cover the civil rights 

responsibilities of state-level division offices. 

Policy Guidance 

Finding 4.10: FRA/OCR has not developed a 

procedures manual for conducting pre-award and 

post-award compliance reviews and investigations. 

Recommendation 4.10: FRA/OCR should develop a procedures manual for pre-award and postaward compliance reviews and investigations as 

soon as possible. The post-award procedures 

should state that post-award reviews focus on the 

broader issues covered by Title VI and not be limited to Section 905 recipients.

Technical Assistance 

Finding 4.11: DOCR and the OA offices of 

civil rights have generally shown improvement in 

providing technical assistance to funding recipients. 

Technical assistance programs can be strengthened 

with the development and implementation of a system capable of capturing the nature and extent of 

technical assistance provided to recipients. 

Recommendation 4.11: DOCR and OA offices 

of civil rights should develop such a system. They 

should regularly review the data and use the findings to improve technical assistance programs. 

Furthermore, DOCR and the OA offices of civil 

rights should find ways to collaborate to maximize 

limited resources. Finally, they should develop the 

capability to deliver technical assistance in languages other than English in the event of need. 

Education and Outreach 

Finding 4.12: Some OAs have shown improvement in education and outreach. NHTSA is 

much further along than others, such as USCG. Of 

note is a joint effort between FTA and FHWA. 

Education and outreach programs can be strengthened with the development and implementation of 

a system capable of capturing the nature and extent 

of education and outreach. 

Recommendation 4.12: DOCR and OA offices 

of civil rights should develop such a system. They 

should regularly review the data and use the findings to improve education and outreach programs. 

Moreover, DOCR and OA offices of civil rights 

should collaborate to maximize limited resources. 

Education and outreach information should be 

available in languages appropriate to recipients and 

in a variety of formats, such as brochures, workshops, and videos. 

Finding 4.13: FTA/OCR offers education and 

outreach on request, while FAA/OCR and 

FRA/OCR do not have comprehensive programs, 

and USCG/OCR relies on grant recipients to provide education and outreach. 

Recommendation 4.13: FTA/OCR should be 

proactive and conduct education and outreach on a 

regular basis and when situations warrant. 

FAA/OCR, FRA/OCR, and USCG/OCR should 

review and strengthen their respective programs. 

Finally, USCG/OCR should immediately assume 

responsibility for education and outreach. 

Compliance Reviews 

Finding 4.14: Examination of the compliance 

review efforts of DOCR and OA offices of civil 

rights yields mixed results. FAA/OCR’s conducted 

some limited pre-award reviews and did not carry 

out post-award on-site compliance reviews of all 

recipients. Further, the office has a skeletal program for oversight of state recipients. 

Recommendation 4.14: FAA should make 

available additional resources to FAA/OCR for 

thorough pre-award and post-award reviews of 

applicants and funding recipients. FAA/OCR 

should review and strengthen its program for oversight of state recipients. 

Finding 4.15: FHWA/OCR considers “postaward reviews” a meaningless concept in the federal highway aid program. States do not have to 
 71 

apply for highway grants because congressionally 

mandated formulas allocate highway funds to them 

for appropriate use. FHWA/OCR is considering 

establishing an interdisciplinary team to review 

individual states. 

Recommendation 4.15: FHWA/OCR should 

give priority to establishing the interdisciplinary 

review team. 

Finding 4.16: FRA/OCR still has not developed a procedures manual for conducting preaward and post-award compliance reviews and 

investigations. It has not conducted any post-award 

compliance reviews. 

Recommendation 4.16: FRA/OCR should 

immediately develop a procedures manual for conducting pre-award and post-award compliance reviews and investigations. The office should begin 

to conduct post-award compliance reviews. 

Finding 4.17: RSPA/OCR does not have the 

resources to conduct thorough post-award reviews 

for civil rights enforcement. Furthermore, compliance reviews are done randomly. 

Recommendation 4.17: RSPA should make 

available adequate resources to RSPA/OCR to enable thorough pre-award, post-award, and on-site 

compliance views. 

Finding 4.18: USCG/OCR works with USCG’s 

Office of Boating Safety to conduct pre-award reviews. However, USCG/OCR does not conduct 

post-award reviews. The office does not see a need 

to go beyond this approach. For oversight of state 

recipients, USCG/OCR again relies on selfcertifications and information from state recipients 

to determine their Title VI compliance. 

Recommendation 4.18: USCG/OCR should 

implement immediately a comprehensive preaward, post-award, and on-site compliance review 

program. The office should bear the responsibility 

for determining the compliance status of funding 

recipients. 

Staff Training 

Finding 4.19: There has been some improvement in staff training, but further improvement is 

needed. 

Recommendation 4.19: Where feasible and 

appropriate, DOCR and OA offices of civil rights 

should collaborate on staff training to maximize 

resources. Furthermore, OAs are encouraged to 

work with OST to develop formal training modules 

for civil rights enforcement. 

Finding 4.20: FAA, FRA, RSPA, and USCG 

do not have staff training programs offering regular and thorough training for civil rights staff. 

Recommendation 4.20: FAA, FRA, RSPA, 

and USCG should provide comprehensive civil 

rights training and periodic update training to civil 

rights staff. In addition, RSPA/OCR must provide 

appropriate training to RSPA program personnel 

involved in civil rights enforcement. 

Oversight and Quality Assurance 

Finding 4.21: Oversight and quality assurance 

are generally weak. DOCR has not required OAs 

to incorporate an analysis of the data they receive 

from their funding recipients in annual Title VI 

self-assessments. FRA/OCR has not required recipients that receive large amounts of funding to 

provide demographic analyses on affected communities. RSPA/OCR still does not have a datareporting requirement system in place for determination of recipient compliance with Title VI. Finally, USCG/OCR imposes no data-reporting requirements on funding recipients. 

Recommendation 4.21: DOCR should work 

with all OAs to find ways to ensure responsible 

oversight and quality assurance in civil rights enforcement. 

Coordination 

Finding 4.22: DOCR is involved in DOT’s 

Surface Transportation Reauthorization efforts to 

help ensure coverage of civil rights and equal opportunity matters. It is developing a departmentwide civil rights council. Among OAs, 

FHWA is developing an MOU covering on-the-job 

training with DOL. NHTSA/OCR and USCG/OCR 

have collaborated with offices in their respective 

agencies to facilitate civil rights activities. The 

NHTSA/OCR director works with the Office of the 

Chief Counsel to develop and issue civil rights 

policies and procedures, while USCG/OCR works 

with the USCG Office of Boating Safety to conduct pre-award reviews. FTA/OCR has worked 

with FHWA to provide technical assistance. 

Recommendation 4.22: OST and OAs are encouraged to explore ways to increase coordination 
72 

of civil rights enforcement to maximize limited 

resources. 

Community Involvement 

Finding 4.23: Involvement of community and 

advocacy groups in civil rights planning and policy 

development is uneven and inconsistent across 

DOCR and the OAs. 

Recommendation 4.23: DOCR and OA offices 

of civil rights should consistently engage community and advocacy groups in civil rights planning 

and policy development. Furthermore, the involvement with groups should be interactive, 

meaningful, and not limited to inclusion of organizations on mailing lists.