Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process
Published: 2004-04-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, and other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies carry out enforcement activities for several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. The timeliness and effectiveness of the enforcement process have been continuing concerns. GAO describes the stages and practices of the fair housing enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country take inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur. The practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO and the FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some discretion in determining which practices work best for them. As a result, some agencies have developed procedures that they said improved the quality of intake and made investigations easier. For example, some FHAP agencies use experienced investigators during the intake process to help clients develop formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked at such practices to determine if they should be disseminated for potential use at other locales. Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face a lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided. Although the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete investigations into complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP agencies often do not meet that deadline. The typical time to complete an investigation in 1996 through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some investigations taking much longer. However, a lack of data makes it impossible to assess the full length and outcomes of fair housing enforcement activities. For example, because FHAP agencies are not required to report intake data to FHEO, complete information is not available on the number of initial contacts individuals alleging discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of data on the ultimate outcomes of some investigations conducted by both FHEO and FHAP agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time that complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained staff, further affect FHEO's ability to carry out its mission in a timely manner.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been  responsible for addressing nearly 57,000 complaints of housing  discrimination filed in the last 8 years. The Fair Housing Act (the Act)— Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended—prohibits housing  discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other  protected groups. The Act, which is administered by FHEO and 100 Fair  Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies, establishes a 100-day  benchmark for investigating fair housing complaints. In recent years,  neither FHEO nor the FHAP agencies have routinely met this benchmark.  For example, 1,611, or 39 percent, of open fair housing discrimination  investigations were over 100 days old and thus considered “aged” as of  September 2003.
You asked us to review several aspects of the fair housing enforcement  program. Specifically, we agreed with your offices to (1) describe the steps  involved in the fair housing enforcement process; (2) determine the  practices selected FHEO and FHAP agencies use to carry out the  enforcement process and identify practices with the potential to expedite  or improve it; (3) determine the trends, if any, that are discernable in HUD  data on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing  investigations; (4) determine the median time needed to complete each  stage of the enforcement process; and (5) identify factors that may  influence the length and thoroughness of the enforcement process.
To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the  legislation, regulations, and other guidance describing each stage of the  process and interviewed FHEO officials responsible for policymaking. To  determine the practices used at selected locations and their potential for  expediting or otherwise improving the process, we visited FHEO offices  and FHAP agencies in different regions and conducted structured  interviews with key officials in each location. To identify trends in FHEO  data on the numbers, characteristics, outcomes, and length of fair housing  investigations, we obtained and analyzed data from FHEO’s automated  case-tracking system for an 8-year period (1996 to 2003). We also used  these data to determine the median time needed to complete fair housing  investigations. We assessed the reliability of data from this system by  reviewing documents and interviewing managers to determine the  reasonableness of system controls and by conducting reasonableness tests  of system data. To identify the factors that could influence the length and  thoroughness of the Title VIII enforcement process, we interviewed FHEO  and FHAP agency officials responsible for management, intake,  investigation, and legal matters at selected field locations and used a  questionnaire to survey all of FHEO’s 10 regional directors. We conducted  our work in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.;  Fort Worth and Austin, Tex.; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La.; and New  York, N. Y. between September 2003 and February 2004, in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: A number of federal statutes prohibit housing discrimination, but the Act is  the most comprehensive. This report focuses on enforcement of fair  housing rights under the Act, which is one of the federal government’s  central tools for fighting discrimination in housing. The Act (as amended)  prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,  sex, handicap, and familial status. The Act applies to certain issues,  including discrimination in the sale, rental, or advertising or financing of  housing, the provision of brokerage services; and other activities related to  residential real estate transactions. The Act covers all “dwellings,” which  are defined generally as buildings designed to be used in whole or part for a  residence, as well as vacant land offered for sale and lease for constructing  or locating a building, with some exceptions.
The enforcement process granted to HUD and others under the Act has  been expanded since the law’s enactment in 1968. The original Act gave no  enforcement powers to HUD—other than the ability to investigate and  conciliate complaints—and gave limited enforcement powers to private  persons and the Attorney General. Under the 1968 Act, private persons who  believed they had been discriminated against in housing could enforce the  Act by filing a complaint with HUD, and HUD could investigate and  conciliate those complaints. The 1968 Act had no mechanism for HUD to  adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no options for further enforcement if  conciliation efforts failed. The 1968 Act also authorized aggrieved persons  to bring a civil action within 180 days of the date of the alleged  discrimination. The relief that courts could provide in such cases included  only injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages up to $1,000, and,  where the plaintiff was not able to pay his or her own attorneys’ fees, those  fees. Under the 1968 Act, the Attorney General could initiate a civil suit  under some circumstances—for example, when there was reasonable  cause to believe that a “pattern or practice” of resistance had emerged to  the provisions of the Act. The Attorney General could also bring a suit if a  group of persons had been denied a right granted by the Act that raised an  issue considered to be of general public importance. However, damage  awards were not available in actions brought in these types of cases.
The 1988 amendments to the Act provided HUD, private persons, and the  Attorney General with more tools and remedies for enforcement. Currently,  under the Act as amended, there is an adjudication mechanism, so HUD’s  enforcement efforts need not end if conciliation efforts do not succeed.  Additionally, aggrieved parties can elect not to utilize the administrative  enforcement process and can file civil actions in federal court within 2  years of the alleged discrimination; and the Act provides for actual and  punitive damages without limitation and for injunctive relief and attorneys’  fees. As under the original 1968 Act, presently the Attorney General can  bring a civil action in pattern or practice cases or cases of public  importance. The 1988 amendments allow the Attorney General to  commence civil actions in cases of breached conciliation agreements or  discriminatory housing practices referred by HUD and to enforce  subpoenas. In cases commenced by the Attorney General, courts can  award civil penalties up to $100,000 for the second violation, in addition to  compensatory monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. The 1988 Act also  created a deadline of 100 days for HUD’s investigation and reasonable  cause determination.
FHEO directs HUD’s enforcement efforts, although some state and local  FHAP agencies handle most enforcement efforts for their states and  localities. FHEO refers complaints alleging violations of state and local fair  housing laws that are administered by a certified FHAP to that agency. A  certified agency that has entered into a memorandum of understanding  with FHEO is eligible to participate in the Fair Housing Assistance  program. Under this program, FHAP agencies receive funding for fair  housing activities and must conform to reporting and record maintenance  requirements, agree to on-site technical assistance, and agree to implement  policies and procedures provided to the agencies by FHEO. FHEO has staff  in each of HUD’s 10 regional offices, called “hubs,” through which it  conducts its enforcement efforts. FHEO staff has responsibility for the  intake, investigation, and resolution of some of these complaints.  Aggrieved persons may also go directly to FHAP agencies, which then  perform the intake process. However, FHEO must ultimately approve the  filing of all complaints involving alleged violations of the Act. If an  aggrieved party contacts a FHEO office regarding discrimination that  allegedly occurred in a state or locality that has a FHEO-certified  “substantially equivalent” state or local agency (that is, a FHAP agency),  FHEO will complete the intake process and refer the complaint to that  agency for enforcement.
Under the Act and HUD’s implementing regulations, FHEO can certify an  agency if (1) the rights and remedies available under the state or local laws  are substantially equivalent to those available under the Act, and (2) the  operation of the agency demonstrates that it meets performance standards  for timely and thorough fair housing complaint investigations, conciliation,  and enforcement. The local law must require the agency to meet the 100- day investigation benchmark contained in the Act. Although the FHAP  agency enforcement process must be substantially similar to the HUD  process, it need not be exactly the same. That is, FHAP agencies review  incoming complaints to determine if they allege a violation of their state or  local fair housing laws, the Act, or both; investigate complaints to  determine if fair housing laws have been violated; and provide for the final  adjudication of complaints, but each of the 100 FHAP agencies can take  different actions to accomplish these tasks. These certified state and local  agencies could be civil rights agencies like the Michigan Department of  Civil Rights.
FHEO field offices monitor the FHAP agencies, review cases FHAP  agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment  under FHAP, and provide technical assistance. FHEO field offices also have  responsibility for other functions, such as assessing compliance with fair  housing regulations for entities receiving federal funds, providing  community education and outreach efforts for fair housing issues, and  managing grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which funds  public and private entities combating discriminatory housing practices.
FHEO tracks fair housing enforcement efforts through its Title Eight  Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) database. FHEO  enforcement personnel input information at major stages of the  enforcement process, such as when a complaint is filed at FHEO, when an  investigation of a complaint begins, and when a case is resolved. FHEO  managers use TEAPOTS to track the progress of fair housing cases and  enforcement efforts. All FHAPs have access to TEAPOTS and are required  to report their performance information (such as timeliness milestones for  initiated and completed investigations) into TEAPOTS or other data and  information systems technology agreed to by HUD. TEAPOTS captures  numerous aspects of enforcement efforts both nationally and by hub,  including the numbers and lengths of enforcement actions; characteristics  of complaints, such as basis of discrimination (race, religion, etc.) and  subject matter of discrimination (sale, rental, etc.); and type of resolution.
section_title: HUD’s Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for Handling Complaints
paragraphs: The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages: (1) intake,  during which FHEO or FHAP agencies receive inquiries from individuals  with housing discrimination concerns and determine whether those  concerns involve a potential violation of the Act; (2) investigation, during  which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect evidence to determine if  reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice  has occurred or is about to occur; and (3) adjudication, during which an  independent fact finder determines whether the person charged with  discrimination (the respondent) did in fact violate the Act. The  independent fact-finding may occur before an administrative law judge  (ALJ) or, if one of the parties chooses, a federal court or state court for  complaints filed with HUD and FHAP agencies, respectively. The Act and  other guidelines establish timeliness benchmarks for completing certain  parts of the enforcement process. An overview of HUD’s basic fair housing  enforcement process is shown in figure 1.
subsections: section_title: Intake: FHEO Analyzes Inquiries to Determine Whether They Constitute Fair Housing Complaints
paragraphs: In the intake stage, FHEO hubs receive inquiries (called “claims” from 1996  to 2001), determine which ones involve a potential violation of the Act, and  file fair housing complaints for those that do. FHAP agencies also receive  inquiries and work with complainants to determine whether a potential  violation of the Act, state or local law, or both has occurred. According to  FHEO headquarters staff, the process usually starts when an individual  contacts a FHEO hub by telephone, fax, or mail; in person; or over the  Internet. Intake analysts refer numerous contacts they receive that are not  related to fair housing to appropriate outside organizations. Intake analysts  record contacts dealing with fair housing as “inquiries” in TEAPOTS. The  analysts interview complainants and may do other research—for example,  property searches and searches of newspaper or corporate records—to see  if enough information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This  initial process is known as “perfecting” a complaint, although it does not  always result in a complaint. In order for a complaint to be perfected, it  must:   contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the name  and address of the aggrieved party (the person who was allegedly  injured by a discriminatory housing practice), the name and address of  the respondent, a description and address of the dwelling involved, and  a concise statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and   satisfy the Act’s jurisdictional requirements that the complainant has  standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling, subject  matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or refusal to sell), and the  basis (e.g., race, color, familial status) for alleging discrimination are  covered by the Act; and that the complaint has been filed within a year  of the last occurrence of the discriminatory practice.
Hub directors decide whether these conditions are met. If so, the inquiry  becomes a perfected complaint; otherwise, it is dismissed. Intake analysts  record key information about perfected complaints in TEAPOTS, have  complainants sign the official complaints, and send letters of notice about  the complaint and the enforcement process to both complainants and  respondents. The complaint file is then usually delivered to the  investigator.
According to FHEO headquarters staff, the intake stage for a complaint  that will be investigated by FHEO—rather than a FHAP agency—is usually  considered complete when the complaint file is delivered to a FHEO  investigator. For such complaints, FHEO’s Title VIII Intake, Investigation,  and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) establishes a timeliness  benchmark of no more than 20 days for the intake stage. However, FHEO  also performs intake for inquiries that, because of their characteristics, are  ultimately referred to a FHAP agency for investigation. For example, if a  person alleges a discriminatory practice that is within the jurisdiction of a  FHAP agency, FHEO intake analysts complete the intake stage, file the  complaint, and refer the case to the FHAP agency. For such complaints,  the Handbook establishes a timeliness benchmark of no more than 5 days  for the intake stage.
section_title: Investigation: FHEO Collects Evidence to Determine If Reasonable Cause Exists to Believe a Discriminatory Housing Practice Has Occurred or Is about to Occur
paragraphs: During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect evidence to  determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory  housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. Similarly, FHAP  agencies may collect evidence to determine if a local or state fair housing  law has been violated. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators  during this process, although the Handbook notes that investigations will  vary (see table 1).
According to agency guidance, once an investigator completes an  investigation, the appropriate hub director reviews the results and makes a  determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a  discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. With the  concurrence of the relevant HUD’s regional counsel, the hub director  issues a determination of reasonable cause and directs the regional counsel  to issue a “charge” on behalf of the aggrieved person. The charge is a short  written statement of the facts that led FHEO to the reasonable cause  determination. If the hub director decides that no reasonable cause exists  to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred; then, upon  concurrence of the regional counsel, the hub director dismisses the  complaint. In a March 6, 2003, memorandum, HUD’s Office of General  Counsel (OGC) in headquarters requested that regional counsels send  OGC’s Office of Fair Housing the final draft of any charge that they propose  to file and that they not file charges until they have received a response  from OGC’s Office of Fair Housing.
At any stage before the investigation is complete, the enforcement process  can end by either conciliation or administrative closure. FHEO’s  Handbook states that conciliation is the process by which FHEO “assists  the complainant and respondent in achieving a just and mutually  acceptable resolution of the disputed issues in a Title VIII complaint.” The  Act requires that HUD try to conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible,  starting at the time the complaint is filed and continuing until the final  charge is issued or the case is dismissed. The Handbook and federal  regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to act as investigator  and conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state that generally  investigators will not conciliate their own cases. Instead, other  investigators not investigating a complaint conciliate such complaints.  Conciliation agreements are to seek to protect the public interest in  furthering fair housing through various provisions, such as requiring the  respondent to provide FHEO with periodic reports. FHEO may also close  complaints administratively for several reasons—for example, if the  complainant withdraws the complaint.
The regulations implementing the Act require FHEO and the FHAP  agencies to complete an investigation, conciliate a case, or otherwise close  a complaint within 100 days of the filing date unless doing so is  “impracticable.” An investigation is considered complete, and the 100-day  deadline ends, when a hub director makes a cause or no-cause  determination in which the regional counsel concurs. If the investigation  cannot be completed within 100 days, FHEO must notify the complainant  and the respondent in writing of the reasons for the delay. This written  notification is called the 100-day letter.
section_title: Adjudication: An Independent Fact Finder Determines Whether a Violation of the Act Has Occurred
paragraphs: Once a determination of reasonable cause has been made and a charge has  been issued, an independent fact finder determines whether the  respondent has in fact violated the Act (FHAP agencies also use  independent fact finders to make this determination). HUD’s regulations  state that OGC must file charges with the Office of Administrative Law  Judges within 3 business days. When the complainant and respondent  receive notice of the charge, each has 20 days to decide whether to have  the case heard in a federal district court or by an ALJ. The complainant  may intervene as a party, and the complainant and the respondent may be  represented by a lawyer before the ALJ. The Act also requires that the ALJ  hearing begin within 120 days of the date of the charge, unless  impracticable, and that the ALJ decision be issued within 60 days of the end  of the ALJ hearing, unless impracticable. If the ALJ determines that no  discrimination has occurred, the case is dismissed. If the ALJ determines  that discrimination has occurred, he or she is authorized to award  injunctive or other equitable relief, economic and noneconomic damages,  and civil penalties, as applicable. Any party adversely affected by the  ALJ’s decision may appeal it to the HUD Secretary and then to the  appropriate appellate court, within certain time frames. HUD and any  person entitled to relief under the final decision may petition the  appropriate court of appeals to have the final decision enforced.
If either party elects to go to federal district court after the charge is issued,  the HUD Secretary must authorize a civil action in federal district court,  and the U.S. Attorney General must undertake the action on the  complainant’s behalf. The complainant may participate and be represented  by a lawyer in this court proceeding. The respondent may also choose to be  represented by counsel. Any party adversely affected by the final court  decision may file a petition in the appropriate appellate court.
section_title: Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied significantly  among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and officials noted that  certain practices had helped them expedite or improve the quality of the  enforcement process. For example, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies  used experienced investigators during the intake stage, while others did  not. Some officials at locations that used experienced investigators said  that this practice had improved the quality of intake and decreased the  overall length of the enforcement process. The variation in enforcement  practices between FHEO and FHAP agency locations is not surprising,  given the freedom those offices have to administer the enforcement  process. In fact, there is a potential for the variation to be even greater than  we observed, as we visited only 3 of the 10 hubs and just 7 of the 100 FHAP  agencies. Even this limited look revealed practices in some locations that  could potentially expedite cases if adopted elsewhere. However, HUD has  not performed a systematic nationwide review of the enforcement  practices at all of these various locations to identify practices with such  potential.
subsections: section_title: Involving Experienced Investigators in Intake May Shorten Process and Facilitate Investigations
paragraphs: We found two personnel practices that officials at some FHEO and FHAP  agency locations believed had improved their enforcement processes.  First, several locations we visited used experienced investigators during  their intake processes, while others generally did not. Although all three  hubs we visited used dedicated intake analysts rather than current  investigators to handle intake responsibilities, two hubs used some former  investigators as intake analysts. Several FHAP agencies we visited had no  dedicated intake analysts. At these agencies, current investigators simply  shared the intake of complaints. Some FHEO officials told us that using  investigators for intake improved the thoroughness of intake and  decreased the overall length of the enforcement process. Some officials  said that investigators have a better understanding of the information  needed for jurisdiction and investigations, and they thus focus their intake  efforts on getting that information.
Second, one FHAP agency we visited had instituted a team approach to  enforcement. The agency had changed its entire enforcement process in  1997 to incorporate this approach, using several teams consisting of “civil  rights representatives” (as opposed to intake analysts and investigators)  and a “coach attorney.” Teams handled the enforcement process starting  with the initial contact and finishing up with the reasonable cause  recommendation. Teams rotated through the intake function for 1 week  each month, investigating all cases that originated in intake that week.  Although this FHAP agency made other changes simultaneously with the  change to the team approach, FHAP agency officials said that the team  approach had helped its backlog of cases drop significantly and improved  the quality of its enforcement process. It is not possible to isolate the team  approach’s impact on the FHAP agency’s fair housing effort, and the  complaint numbers provided by the agency included other civil rights  enforcement work, such as enforcement of equal employment opportunity  laws. However, FHAP agency officials told us that, after the team approach  had been fully implemented, the average complaint processing time fell  from 476 days to 335 days.
In addition to personnel practices, we found that one FHAP agency was  using a software system to improve the intake procedure. In addition to  using TEAPOTS, this particular FHAP agency, in conjunction with a  software company, had developed Contact Management System (CMS)  software that had significant extra capabilities. The CMS generated a series  of initial intake questions for the FHAP agency’s civil rights representative  to ask during intake and then constructed follow-up questions based on the  answers to the previous questions. These follow-up questions reflected the  elements that would be necessary to prove discrimination in a given case.  At the end of its approximately 2-hour intake process, the FHAP agency  tried to have either a perfected complaint or a reason that the contact did  not warrant a perfected complaint. A FHAP agency official told us that the  CMS software had helped decrease the length and improve the  thoroughness of its enforcement process. Again, it is not possible to isolate  the impact of the CMS software, but after the software was installed,  average complaint processing times for the FHAP agency’s fair housing and  other civil rights work decreased from 335 days to 252 days.
section_title: Differences in Investigations, Including the Degree of Attorney Involvement and Conciliation Methods, May Improve the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: We observed numerous variations in investigative practices among the  FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited. In several locations, officials said  that their specific practices had helped them expedite the process, improve  the quality of the process, or both. First, some locations involved attorneys  earlier and more frequently during the investigation than other locations.  Second, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies simultaneously  investigated and conciliated complaints, while others delayed the  investigation while conciliating. Third, one hub and one FHAP agency  customarily used separate persons to investigate and conciliate a  complaint, while at other hubs and FHAP agencies, a single person handled  both of these tasks. Fourth, some enforcement locations employed a tool  called a “bubble sheet” to help meet the 100-day requirement for  completing investigations. Last, one FHAP agency used software that  provided additional investigative tools that TEAPOTS did not provide.
subsections: section_title: OGC Involvement
paragraphs: At the FHEO offices and FHAP agencies we visited, investigators and  attorneys interacted to different degrees, and several officials told us that  greater interaction had resulted in shorter and more thorough  investigations. For example, at one hub the regional OGC had weekly  meetings with investigators at the same location and biweekly meetings  with investigators at other offices in the region. Interaction at another hub  was less formal, but both regional OGC attorneys and the investigators said  that frequent and meaningful interaction occurred on most cases through  the informal “open-door” approach. At a third hub, OGC attorneys were not  yet formally interacting with investigators, although they had recently  signed a memorandum of understanding to do so. At FHAP agencies, we  saw similar variations. One FHAP agency, as mentioned earlier, had a  “coach attorney” on each team to help from the earliest stages of the  investigations. At other FHAP agencies we visited, investigators had more  limited interaction with the FHAP agency attorney.
In our survey of the 10 hub directors, 5 said that involving OGC in  investigations had a great or very great impact on investigations, improving  thoroughness, decreasing length, or both. Officials cited various reasons  for this result, including that the interactions with OGC:  reduced the amount of work wasted on aspects of a case that should not  receive investigative attention, shortening investigations;  reduced the amount of additional work involved in seeking attorney  concurrence, decreasing the length of investigations;  helped the investigators pursue the appropriate leads at the best times  during an investigation, increasing thoroughness; and  created more cooperation among complainants and respondents, as the  parties believed that attorneys were more involved in the enforcement  process. “significant involvement at complaint intake, in determinations of jurisdiction, in  investigative plan development, in conducting investigations, in the effort to resolve cases  informally through conciliation, and in making determinations of reasonable cause.”
That memorandum also required each regional counsel and each FHEO  hub director to enter into working agreements with each other to formalize  their working relationships. As of November 24, 2003, every hub had those  agreements in place, and one HUD official said that the new memorandum  of understanding had resulted in improved communication between  investigators and OGC.
section_title: Simultaneous Conciliations
paragraphs: Some HUD locations we visited put investigations on hold when  conciliation looked likely, while others did not. Some fair housing officials  at the locations that simultaneously investigated and conciliated told us  that doing so not only expedited the enforcement process but could also  facilitate conciliation. Because the parties were aware that the  investigation was ongoing, two hub directors told us they were sometimes  more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some officials at the offices that  delayed the investigation while attempting conciliation told us that this  practice increased the number of calendar days necessary to investigate a  case. However, one hub official told us that simultaneous investigation and  conciliation could waste resources, as it might not be necessary to obtain  further evidence in a case that would be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10  hub directors told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation had a  great or very great impact on the length of the enforcement process, and all  6 said that the practice decreased the length. Four directors said that the  practice had a great or very great impact on the thoroughness of  investigations, and these four told us that it increased the thoroughness of  investigations.
section_title: Investigator Conciliation of Own Cases
paragraphs: Investigators at some FHEO locations and FHAP agencies customarily  conciliated their own cases, while other locations usually used separate  investigators and conciliators. Officials we spoke with were divided on  the impact of this practice. Some officials told us that having the same  person performing both tasks had not caused problems. Other officials— including some at locations where investigators conciliated their own  cases—indicated a preference to have different people perform these  tasks. One official said that separating these tasks enabled simultaneous  conciliation and investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up  the process. Another official noted that parties might share information  with a conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that a  conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The same  official said that although investigators were not allowed to use  information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the  information could still influence the questions conciliators posed—and  thus the information they learned—as investigators. Similarly, at one hub  an OGC official told us that information learned as a result of conciliation  efforts should not be included in investigative findings. A few enforcement  officials at locations that did not separate the tasks said that they did not  have enough staff to have separate conciliators. One hub director said that  a FHAP agency in its region was experimenting with a separate mediation  track in addition to the conciliation mechanism. The mediation occurred  early in the process and involved a professional, nongovernment mediator.  The director said the mediation had usually pleased the parties, resulting in  timely resolutions of cases and beneficial results.
section_title: Response to 100-day Requirement
paragraphs: In responding to the 100-day requirement, several hubs and FHAP agencies  used variations of what they called a “bubble sheet”-—a list of investigative  milestones and a time line for completing them-—in order to meet the 100- day requirement. If an investigator missed a milestone, the “bubble burst,”  and the investigator might not meet the 100-day requirement. Some  officials said that the bubble sheet helped investigators complete each of  the small steps of the investigation in a timely fashion and thus increased  the likelihood of compliance with the 100-day requirement. Nevertheless,  some people said that the 100-day requirement was arbitrary and often  unattainable, and their response to the 100-day requirement was simply to  send the 100-day letter at the appropriate time.
section_title: Software
paragraphs: As in the intake stage, the CMS software used at one FHAP agency offered  additional tools during investigations that TEAPOTS did not. The CMS  generated interview questions for investigations based on the information  obtained in intake and then generated a list of critical documents that were  usually needed for certain types of investigations. According to FHAP  agency officials, the CMS improved the quality of investigations and  decreased the length of cases. One FHEO center we visited was attempting  to store possible witness questions in a central database for investigators to  review to see if any were applicable to their cases, but this system was not  automated and relied on investigators to compile the list. Officials at that  center hoped that having a central location for all such questions would  give investigators at least some examples of possible questions to ask.  Officials at the FHAP agency noted that some data they are required to  enter into TEAPOTS duplicated information in CMS and indicated that it  would be preferable not to enter this information twice. Another FHAP  agency we visited that used other software in addition to TEAPOTS had  begun a pilot program to alleviate this duplication, using a program that  would allow information entered into TEAPOTS to be incorporated into the  FHAP agency software without keying the data again.
section_title: Some Hubs and FHAP Agencies We Visited Had Limited Adjudication Involvement over Last Several Years
paragraphs: We did not observe any significant variations across agencies in the  adjudication stage of the enforcement process, possibly in part because the  hubs and FHAP agencies we visited had adjudicated very few cases  through their administrative processes. For example, one hub and one  FHAP agency we visited told us they did not have any cases that had gone  through the administrative hearing process over the last 5 years. Officials at  the FHAP agency told us that in the rare cases that could go to an  administrative proceeding, the FHAP agency encouraged parties to opt for  state court, since otherwise the FHAP agency would have to commit  resources to the process. Agency officials said that steering parties to one  forum is inconsistent with the enforcement framework of the Act and the  neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with respect to forum  selection.
section_title: FHEO and FHAP Agencies Had Discretion in Implementing Practices, but FHEO Had Not Examined Different Practices
paragraphs: The variations among hubs, centers, and FHAP agencies are not surprising,  given the discretion FHEO locations and FHAP agencies have had to  administer the enforcement process. While FHEO’s Handbook contains  significant guidance, policies, and procedures, FHAP agencies have not  been required to follow them. Rather, FHAP agencies must meet certain  performance standards to obtain or maintain certification as substantially  equivalent agencies. Under these standards, FHAP agencies must have  engaged in timely, comprehensive, and thorough fair housing complaint  investigation, conciliation, and enforcement activities. For both FHEO  locations and FHAP agencies, the variations we observed could be even  greater, given our small sample. Additionally, according to the 2001  National Council on Disability report, variations in the hubs’ practices had  increased since 1996. Similarly, the potential for variations in FHAP  agencies’ practices has likely grown with the number of FHAP agencies,  which increased from 64 at the start of fiscal year 1996 to 100 at the start of  fiscal year 2004.
Many FHEO hub directors indicated that practical improvements could be  made to the enforcement process; in fact, at least four directors believed  that practical improvements could be made to each stage. Several hub  directors provided specific ideas for improvements to the intake stage. One  hub director said that her hub had recently written its own intake  handbook and had set a requirement of completing intake within 15 days,  rather than the 20 days specified in FHEO’s Handbook. Five of the 10  directors said that improvements could be made to the investigation stage  for FHEO that would reduce the length of the process to a great or very  great extent. One director specifically mentioned a practice—mediation in  the early stages of the complaint process—that was in place at FHAP  agencies in his region. Additionally, 4 of the 10 directors said that practical  improvements could be made to the investigation stage that would increase  the thoroughness of the enforcement process to a very great extent. For  example, several directors suggested either increasing OGC’s staff to  provide more assistance to investigators or putting a non-OGC attorney on  staff at the hub or field level as a resource for the investigators.  Additionally, one hub director said that a checklist she had recently  developed for supervisors reviewing investigations should increase the  thoroughness of investigations. Regarding the adjudication stage, one hub  director said that the region was concerned about not knowing whether  DOJ would accept a fair housing case if a party in the case elected to have  it heard in federal district court.
Despite the existing differences in practices among the entities involved in  enforcing the Act and officials’ belief that some practices could be  improved, HUD has not performed a systematic nationwide review of its or  FHAP agencies’ enforcement practices since 1996. The 1996 review, a  business process redesign, focused on FHEO’s practices, although one  FHAP agency was represented in the process. FHEO uses other reviews for  practices in its offices, such as Quality Management Reviews (QMR), in  part as peer reviews that allow collaboration and information sharing  between FHEO offices. Additionally, FHEO reviews cases FHAP agencies  investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment under the  program. However, the QMRs and FHAP agency reviews are not  systematic, nationwide reviews of the practices that FHEO and FHAP  agencies are using.
section_title: Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of Cases
paragraphs: Our analysis of FHEO data on fair housing enforcement activities from  fiscal year 1996 to 2003 revealed a number of trends. We found that:  The number of claims or inquiries FHEO received annually remained  stable until 2002 but then increased substantially. The number of  complaints filed trended downward in the earlier years but then rose  steadily.
An increasing proportion of these complaints alleged discrimination on  the basis of handicap, while the most frequently cited basis of  discrimination—race—declined as a proportion of all complaints.
While the number of investigations completed fell in 1997 and 1998,  more investigations were completed in each subsequent year. FHAP  agencies rather than FHEO conducted most of the investigations.
The outcomes of investigations changed over the period, with an  increasing proportion of investigations closed without finding  reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.
The frequency with which FHEO and FHAP agencies completed  investigations within 100 days increased over the period.
The trend data we present are reported on a fiscal year basis. We could not  measure the volume of claims and inquiries before 1996. Generally, FHEO  treated all inquiries it received between 1989 and 1994 as complaints,  regardless of whether the contact alleged a violation of the Act. During  parts of 1994 and 1995, FHEO did not collect information on those inquiries  that did not result in an investigation.
subsections: section_title: The Number of Inquiries and Complaints Filed Increased
paragraphs: From 1996 until 2002, FHEO’s annual numbers of claims and inquiries  alleging violations of the Act varied only slightly, averaging about 4,600 per  year, but rose to more than 5,400 in 2003 (fig. 2). Because FHEO does not  require FHAP agencies to report the number of claims and inquiries  received during this period, we could not determine the number of claims  and inquiries received by FHAP agencies.
The combined number of complaints perfected and filed declined slightly  from 1996 until 1998, but then began increasing steadily (fig. 3). By 2003,  the number of complaints filed annually had risen to more than 8,000, with  FHAP agencies responsible for investigating the largest share. Of the 53,866  complaints filed during the period, FHAP agencies were responsible for  investigating 67 percent, and FHEO was responsible for investigating 33  percent.
Overall, FHAP agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing  portion of complaints filed each year from 1998 until 2003. In part, these  increases may be attributable to the growth in the number of FHAP  agencies nationwide. Seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Michigan,  New York, North Dakota, and Vermont), Washington, D.C., and 26 localities  created FHAP agencies between 1996 and 2003 (fig. 4). FHAP agencies  were responsible for investigating an increasing number of complaints filed  between 1998 and 2003 in all except the Denver region (Region 8). In  comparison, four FHEO regions—Boston, Chicago, New York, and  Philadelphia—were responsible for investigating a declining number of  complaints filed during this period.
section_title: The Basis, Subject Matter, and Regional Distribution of Complaints Filed Changed
paragraphs: As the number of complaints filed rose between 1996 and 2003, the basis of,  or reasons for, the alleged discrimination changed somewhat (fig. 5). First,  although complaints alleging discrimination based on race continued to  dominate, accounting for around 40 percent of the total, the annual  percentage declined slightly over the period. The share of complaints  alleging discrimination based on familial status declined from one-quarter  to about one-sixth of complaints filed during the period. In contrast,  complaints alleging discrimination based on handicap increased  significantly, rising by more than 13 percentage points to become the  second most frequently cited basis of complaints. Complaints alleging  discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, and retaliation also  grew somewhat, while those alleging discrimination because of sex and  color declined.
The subject matter, or issue covered by the Act, of complaints also changed  from 1996 through 2003. Most of the complaints filed alleged  discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges (e.g., refusal to repair,  charging an inflated rent) or refusal to rent, but the share of these  complaint issues fell over the period from a high of about 63 percent and 36  percent, respectively, in 1996 to 55 percent and 23 percent in 2003 (fig. 6).  At the same time, the share of complaints alleging failure to make  reasonable accommodation or modification rose significantly, from less  than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 2003. Complaints alleging a single  issue represented about 68 percent of complaints filed during that period,  while complaints alleging more than one issue represented the remaining  32 percent.
While the volume of complaints filed nationwide grew during the period,  two regions, Denver (Region 8) and Seattle (Region 10) saw a decline (table  2). Conversely, two regions saw substantial increases. Specifically,  complaints filed in Kansas City (Region 7) doubled during the period and  almost tripled in the New York region (Region 2). The increases may be  attributable, in part, to the addition of FHAP agencies from 1996 through  2003. By November of 1999, the New York region had two FHAP agencies  online. In fiscal year 2000, the number of complaints filed in the New York  region had more than doubled, rising from 213 to 442 complaints, or 6.3  percent of all complaints filed. FHEO referred 337 of these complaints to  the FHAP agencies for investigation.
section_title: The Number of Completed Investigations Rose, While Outcomes Varied
paragraphs: Investigations may be completed in several ways, each leading to a  particular outcome. First, an investigation is considered complete when it  is closed administratively—for example, the complainant withdraws the  complaint or staff are unable to locate the complainant. Second, a FHEO- conducted investigation may be considered complete when the complaint  is transferred to DOJ because of FHEO’s agreement to do so in certain  instances, such as in cases involving criminal activity or pattern and  practice issues. Third, FHEO or the FHAP agency may complete the  investigation through conciliation with the parties, or the parties may settle  among themselves. Fourth, FHEO or the FHAP agency may determine that  reasonable cause may exist to believe that a discriminatory housing  practice has occurred (find cause). Finally, FHEO or the FHAP agency may  determine that there is not reasonable cause (no cause).
The number of investigations completed annually during the period rose  after falling significantly in 1997 through 1998 (see fig. 7). This pattern was  similar for both FHAP agencies and FHEO, though the number of  investigations completed by FHAP agencies declined in 2003 and the  number of investigations completed by FHEO declined in 2002.
The most frequent outcome of investigations completed during the period  was a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that  discrimination had occurred (see fig. 8). The share of investigations  resulting in this outcome rose from just over 40 percent in 1996 to around  48 percent in 2003. Conversely, the share of investigations completed  through successful conciliation or settlement declined somewhat during  the period, but this outcome remained the second most frequent—about  one-third of all investigations completed during the period.
A determination of reasonable cause accounted for the smallest share of  outcomes, around 5 percent of all completed investigations. TEAPOTS  does not have a code specifically indicating that an investigation was  completed with a finding of reasonable cause, but does provide for a date  on which cause was found. We used this date to measure the number of  investigations completed with a finding of reasonable cause. According to a  HUD official, FHEO hubs do not record cause dates in TEAPOTS  consistently. Specifically, at least two hubs may initially record the date the  case is transferred to the regional counsel, rather than the date of the  issuance of a determination of reasonable cause with which the regional  counsel has concurred. These hubs then enter a new date when the  regional counsel concurs and a charge of discrimination is issued.  Therefore, the number of investigations that we report as completed during  each fiscal year with a finding of reasonable cause may not match the  number of charges that HUD reports, particularly for fiscal year 2003.
We sorted HUD’s data on outcomes by basis of complaint, subject matter,  and region. Our analysis revealed the following:  The percentage of no-cause determinations varied somewhat according  to the basis of discrimination alleged. Above-average proportions of  investigations that involved religion, retaliation, and race ended in no- cause determinations, (55, 53, and 54 percent respectively, compared  with 47 percent overall). Similarly, 41 percent of investigations involving  familial status and 40 percent of investigations involving handicap as at  least one of the bases for discrimination ended in conciliation or  settlement, compared with 32 percent overall.
Outcomes also differed by the subject matter, or issue involved. A  greater proportion of investigations that resulted in a no-cause finding  had discriminatory terms or refusal to rent as an issue (61 and 30  percent, respectively). Conversely, however, relatively few complaints  determined to have no cause involved refusal to sell or noncompliance  with design and construction as issues (4 and 1 percent, respectively).
Regional differences were also apparent in outcomes. Investigations  completed in the Atlanta region (Region 4), for instance, were more  likely to end in no-cause determinations—53 percent—than  investigations in any other region. Similarly, investigations completed in  the Denver region (Region 8) were more likely to end in conciliation or  settlement. Finally, the overall percentage of investigations completed  with a reasonable cause determination varied widely among regions,  from as high as 10 percent in the Boston region (Region 1) to as low as 1  percent in the Fort Worth region (Region 6).
Complaint investigations that resulted in a determination of reasonable  cause generally proceeded to the adjudication stage. Because of TEAPOTS  data limitations, we were not able to determine the final resolutions (that  is, the reasons for closing the cases, including decisions on whether or not  an actual violation of the Act had occurred) of all complaints that reached  the adjudication stage. Specifically, as table 3 shows, for 8 percent of  investigations in which FHEO made a determination of reasonable cause  and 30 percent of investigations in which a FHAP agency made a similar  determination, information on the reason for closure was missing in  TEAPOTS. For the remaining FHEO and FHAP agency investigations  (those for which the reason for closure was available), we identified the  following:   The independent fact finder found that discrimination had occurred in  about 3 percent of the FHEO cases and 7 percent of the FHAP agency  cases.
About one-third of all cases (FHEO and FHAP agency) resulted in a  judicial consent order—that is, the parties negotiated a settlement,  either alone or through an appointed settlement judge, which was  submitted to the independent fact finder as a voluntary agreement to  resolve the case.
Of the FHEO cases, 46 percent were closed when the parties elected to  go to court, about 6 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 2  percent resulted in administrative closure, about 1 percent resulted in  judicial dismissal, and in less than 1 percent the independent fact finder  found that no discrimination occurred.
Of the FHAP agency cases, the independent fact finder dismissed 16  percent, 9 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 4 percent were  closed administratively, and 4 percent resulted in a finding that no  discrimination occurred.
section_title: The Number of Investigations Completed within 100 Days Increased in 2001—2003
paragraphs: The numbers of investigations completed within 100 days by both FHEO  and the FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001 (fig. 9). Some of  the improvement in the number of FHEO investigations completed in 100  days may have been the result of an initiative aimed at reducing the number  of aged cases in FHEO’s inventory. FHEO undertook the initiative in 2001  after completing only 14 percent of its investigations within the 100-day  timeframe in 2000. The number completed in 100 days rose in 2002, to 41  percent of all investigations. At the same time, the number of FHAP  agency investigations meeting the 100-day benchmark remained fairly  stable (23 to 33 percent) over the period 1996 to 2003, rising most markedly  from 2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent. In January 2004, FHEO  established monthly efficiency goals aimed at monitoring the progress of  the hubs in meeting both the 20-day intake and 100-day investigative  timeliness benchmarks. It is too soon to determine what effect this  initiative might have on the timeliness of investigations.
section_title: Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by Each Stage of the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: While data were generally available to measure the length of both FHEO’s  and FHAP agencies’ investigations, we found that reliable data were  lacking on the intake and adjudication stages handled by FHAP agencies.  First, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report on intake activities,  and FHAP agencies accounted for intake on 42 percent of all complaints  filed in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Second, while TEAPOTS contained  data on the dates that inquiries were received for investigations completed  by FHAP agencies, we question the reliability of these data. According to a  FHEO official responsible for TEAPOTS, FHEO staff may have routinely  used the date on which cases were transferred to FHAP agencies as the  “initial inquiry” date. In addition, TEAPOTS data show that 20,226 (54  percent) of complaints investigated by FHAP agencies were filed the same  day that the inquiries were received—that is, the intake stage began and  ended on the same date. Third, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to  report the results of the adjudication of closed investigations. Accordingly,  for many complaints investigated by FHAP agencies that reached the  adjudication stage, TEAPOTS did not show an end date for adjudication.  Finally, TEAPOTS was missing these dates for some complaints  investigated by FHEO as well. Using the data that were available, we  measured the typical length of each stage using medians—that is, the  number at the exact midpoint of the range of days required to complete  each stage (or where there was an even number of observations, the mean  or average of two at the midpoint).
TEAPOTS data indicate a median of 12 days for the intake stage (from the  date of the initial inquiry to the date the complaint was filed) for cases  handled by FHEO in 1996 through 2003. The data showed that 35 percent  of complaints investigated by FHEO were filed the same day that the claims  or inquiries were received (that is, the intake stage began and ended on the  same date), 28 percent within 20 days, and 31 percent within 21 days to 3  months of the date that the claim or inquiry was received. FHEO’s new  monthly efficiency reports aim to, among other things, monitor the hubs’  progress in completing the intake process within 20 days.
The median number of days for investigations (from the date the complaint  was filed to the date the investigation was completed) was 259 for  complaints investigated by FHEO (fig. 10).The median number of days  varied somewhat, depending on the outcome of the investigations (e.g.,  administrative closure, finding of reasonable cause, finding of no cause,  etc.). FHEO completed 61 percent of its investigations within a year of the  date the complaint was filed.
We could not measure the time required to adjudicate all cases for which  FHEO found cause. Specifically, of the 719 investigations for which FHEO  determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that discrimination  had occurred, TEAPOTS included data on 339 cases that were adjudicated  within HUD. In these cases, the median time required to complete the  adjudication process was 203 days. In an additional 330 cases, one or both  parties elected to have their complaints heard in district court at the cause  date, or shortly thereafter. For these individuals the enforcement process  continued, but FHEO did not record the length of the judicial process.    TEAPOTS also did not have information on adjudication for 50 cases for  which FHEO found cause.
section_title: Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title VIII Enforcement Process
paragraphs: We found that numerous factors affected the length and thoroughness of  the enforcement process. First, hub directors we surveyed said that the  characteristics of complaints—certain issues, for example, and the  presence of multiple bases—could increase the time needed for  investigations, reduce thoroughness, or both. Second, both hub directors  and FHEO and FHAP agency officials said that specific practices could  make investigations shorter and more thorough. Third, hub directors and  other officials pointed to human capital issues as potentially increasing the  length and decreasing the thoroughness of investigations, including staff  shortages, low skill levels, lack of training and guidance, and inadequate  travel resources. Finally, hub directors noted that national performance  goals could reduce the number of aged cases but had little effect on  timeliness or thoroughness.
subsections: section_title: The Characteristics and Volume of Complaints May Affect Timeliness of the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: Most hub directors stated that the issue of a complaint had a great or very  great effect on the amount of time required to complete the enforcement  process. Complex issues such as refusing to provide insurance or credit  could add time to investigations. For example, investigators might have to  analyze statistics to determine if the complainant was treated differently  from the norm. According to one director, some issues, such as failure to  make reasonable accommodation, could require time for staff to conduct  time-consuming on-site visits. In addition, some directors thought that  complaints involving multiple issues could take longer to investigate.
Agency data tend to support some of the directors’ observations (fig. 11).  While investigations took a median of 211 days to complete during the  period, the median for investigations involving discriminatory lending was  295 days; and for noncompliance with design and construction issues, it  took 284 days. However, the median for investigations involving reasonable  accommodation or modification was just 162 days.
Although directors generally did not believe that any particular prohibited  basis had an effect on the length of investigations and thus on the  enforcement process, one director did note that complaints involving  multiple bases would likely increase the length of the enforcement process.  We found that the median number of days required to complete  investigations involving multiple bases was slightly higher than for single- issue investigations—217 days. The median number of days FHAP agencies  needed to complete an investigation varied more across specific prohibited  bases than it did for FHEO. For FHEO, the median length of investigations  ranged from a low of 223 days (handicap) to 302 days (retaliation) (see fig.  12). For FHAP agencies, the median length of investigations ranged from a  low of 175 days (handicap) to 211 (sex).
Most directors stated that the volume of complaints received in their region  had a great or very great effect on the length of the enforcement process.  According to one director, a large volume of complaints created competing  demands on staff time. Another director noted that the volume of  complaints could lengthen the enforcement process if staff resources were  in short supply.
Half (5) of the hub directors also believed that the volume of inquiries and  complaints had a great or very great effect on the thoroughness of the  enforcement process. One respondent noted that complex issues in a  complaint or large volumes of complaints in a region might decrease the  thoroughness of the process if resources were strained, staff were not  adequately skilled to accommodate the amount or level of difficulty of the  work to be done, or both. Fewer directors (2 out of 10), said they believed  that the basis of complaints had a great or very great effect on the  thoroughness of the process. One director noted that, regardless of the  factors involved, the thoroughness of the enforcement process should  never be compromised.
section_title: Certain Practices Could Improve the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: As we have seen, some HUD and FHAP agency officials identified two  intake practices that they believe shortened the enforcement process,  increased its thoroughness, or both. The first—involving investigators in  intake—was cited by 4 of the 10 HUD hub directors that responded to our  survey. Further, officials at the FHAP agency that used the team intake and  investigation approach noted that it had led to better investigations that  were conducted in less time. The second practice—using CMS  enforcement software—was credited by the FHAP agency that used it with  facilitating both timeliness and thoroughness.
HUD and FHAP agency officials also cited several investigative practices  that increased the thoroughness or decreased the length of the  enforcement process or both. First, several HUD officials said that early  and frequent OGC involvement was important to increasing the  thoroughness of investigations. Second, some enforcement officials said  that simultaneous conciliation and investigation might decrease the length  of investigations. Third, some HUD hub directors said that using TEAPOTS  affected the length and thoroughness of the process to a great or very great  extent: specifically, 6 hub directors indicated that using the system  increased the thoroughness of the enforcement process, decreased the  length of the process, or both. Some officials, however, also told us that  TEAPOTS could be improved, and one FHAP agency’s CMS software  offered an alternative system that the FHAP agency credited with reducing  the length of its process and improving its thoroughness. The CMS  software provides investigators more sophisticated tools than TEAPOTS  offered for planning and conducting investigations. Finally, one hub official  said that alternative mediation at the outset of the complaint process could  help decrease the length of some complaint investigations.
section_title: Human Capital Challenges Also Affect the Enforcement Process
paragraphs: FHEO officials and others we interviewed identified human capital  management challenges that had negatively affected the fair housing  enforcement process, including the number and skill levels of FHEO staff,  the quality and effectiveness of training, and other issues.
subsections: section_title: Number of Staff
paragraphs: FHEO officials told us that hiring freezes had left a number of FHEO offices  with chronic staffing shortages, especially among supervisors and clerical  workers and that these shortages had never been fully resolved. The  shortages affected not only enforcement of the Act, but also FHEO’s other  responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier caseloads and  professional staff to perform administrative duties rather than  concentrating on enforcement. Hub directors told us that hiring activity in  the last 3 years had at least partially abated the chronic staffing shortages.  However, they added that FHEO now faces the prospect of losing staff  because a corrective action plan requires that FHEO, consistent with  HUD’s key workforce planning effort, have fewer employees than it  currently has.
As figure 13 shows, the total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) in  FHEO has fluctuated over the last 10 years, falling from a high of 750 in  fiscal year 1994 to a low of 579 in fiscal year 2000. In 2003, FHEO’s FTEs  rose once more to 744 after a concerted hiring initiative, although the  workforce effort mentioned above suggested a level of 640. Currently,  FHEO faces the challenge of meeting a mandatory ceiling of 640. FHEO  comprised about 6 percent of HUD’s total workforce until fiscal year 2002  and 7 percent in 2003, when FHEO directors received hiring authority for  new staff. FHEO staff have other responsibilities beyond enforcing Title  VIII, including monitoring program compliance by housing providers  receiving federal funds, performing Fair Housing Initiatives Program  (FHIP) grant management, monitoring FHAP agencies, providing technical  assistance, and performing education and outreach activities.
FHEO hired 167 staff beginning in July 2002 as part of a departmental effort  to reach its requested ceiling by September 30, 2002. That is, HUD was  attempting to reach 9,100 FTEs at the end of fiscal year 2002, a number that  would equal the approved fiscal year 2002 FTE level and the requested  fiscal year 2003 level. FHEO’s hiring initiative, like HUD’s overall, was not  in line with the department’s workforce planning efforts. The most  important of these, the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process  (REAP), a series of department studies conducted from 2000 through 2002,  to assess HUD’s staffing requirements, recommended a total FTE ceiling  for FHEO of 640. As a result of HUD’s hiring initiative, HUD had a staffing  level of 9,395 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003—295 above the approved  fiscal year 2002 and requested fiscal year 2003 levels. Therefore, HUD was  forced both to reprogram more than $25 million to cover the costs of the  newly hired excess staff and to submit to Congress a corrective action plan  consistent with REAP. HUD’s Strategic Placement Plan, issued in January  2004, would reduce FHEO’s excess staff to the mandated level of 640 FTEs  by the end of fiscal year 2004 through voluntary and, if necessary,  involuntary reassignments. However, as of February 2004, FHEO remained  at 727 FTEs, and FHEO officials told us they did not know how they would  meet the mandated level on schedule. The officials also expressed concern  that they would lose many of their best staff through the voluntary  reassignment plan.
Officials expressed concern not only with the insufficient number of staff  but also the lack of staff at key positions. Some HUD managers said that  due to unfilled supervisor positions in their regions, existing supervisors  were not able to review materials as carefully as they could have with those  positions filled. For example, one center director told us that investigators  did not get supervisory input on initial investigative plans due to a vacant  supervisory post. This center director said that the gap in supervision  decreased the thoroughness and sometimes increased the length of  investigations, as existing supervisors were unable to complete work in a  timely manner.
section_title: Staff Skills and Experience
paragraphs: Some hub directors and other officials we spoke with cited concerns about  the noncompetitive reassignment of staff into FHEO. They noted that the  level of staff skills could influence the length and thoroughness of the  enforcement process and that the reassignment process had a generally  negative impact on FHEO’s overall skill levels. According to these officials,  while many of the reassigned staff had worked at HUD for years, their skills  were often not transferable to FHEO activities, which require specific  analytical, investigative, and writing skills. Some directors cited the skills  issue as a greater problem for FHEO than the actual numbers of personnel.  FHEO’s own internal review also cites concerns about reassigned  employees’ qualifications, skills, and work products and about the amount  of time and supervision these employees require. FHEO documentation  shows that 106 staff were reassigned to the program under various HUD  realignments from 1998 to 2002. Figure 14 shows the numbers of staff in  the three hubs we visited by their years of experience with FHEO and  reassignment status. Although FHEO has brought many new staff on board  recently through competitive hiring, many staff in the hubs we reviewed  came to the organization via noncompetitive reassignment.
Although figure 14 shows that more than half of the FHEO staff currently  located in the three sites we visited had fewer than 10 years of experience  with FHEO, many have a significant number of years of federal service.  Figure 15 shows a snapshot of the same FHEO employees in the three sites  we visited by their years of federal service. The figure demonstrates that  half of the FHEO employees in the three sites we visited have 20 or more  years of federal service, and 14 percent have 30 or more years of federal  service.
Retirement eligibility was an issue not only for the three sites we visited,  but also for FHEO as a whole. Officials expressed concern about the loss of  skilled and experienced staff to retirement, and personnel data provided by  the HUD human resources staff show that 40 percent of FHEO employees  overall were eligible for either early or immediate retirement in February  2004 (see fig. 16). Moreover, as we have noted previously, officials that we  spoke with also expressed concern that current plans to eliminate a  significant number of FHEO staff by voluntary reassignment could cause  skilled workers to leave FHEO and seek opportunities elsewhere.
Providing effective training is another human capital challenge that FHEO  faces. Half of the directors told us that the quality and effectiveness of  training helped reduce the length of the fair housing enforcement process,  and six said that it improved thoroughness. For example, some directors  said that training serves to expedite investigations as staff gain more  technical skills. Other directors said that training improves thoroughness  because staff can recognize issues of discrimination and decide what  evidence is needed to support complaints.
We heard concerns from FHEO staff, an ALJ, and others outside of HUD  about the quality or availability of training for FHEO employees. Most staff  we spoke with reported that they had received initial formal training for  their positions, though not always in a timely fashion. A list of courses  supplied by the HUD Training Academy, which provides the majority of  formal training for FHEO, showed that the basic course in investigation  had been offered annually in all but 1 of the last 5 years. However,  depending on the hiring date, a new staff member might have to wait 1 year  or more to attend the basic course. Potentially compounding this problem,  hub directors told us that although training was available in fiscal year  2003, lack of travel funds sometimes prevented them from sending staff to  training out of the area. Finally, budget data show that although FHEO had  initial approval from the HUD Training Academy to spend $416,000 for  training in fiscal year 2003, the HUD Training Academy reduced FHEO’s  training funds to $200,000 as part of the department’s overall efforts to  reduce expenditures to cover the cost of excess staff hiring.
FHEO recognized the need for additional training by establishing the HUD  Fair Housing Training Academy, which is slated to open in the summer of  2004. FHEO officials told us that they hope to standardize what the agency  believes are uneven fair housing processes and practices implemented  around the nation by FHEO and its FHAP agency partners, create a more  professional group, and possibly reduce turnover rates at FHAP agencies  by certifying attendees. Initially, however, the academy will serve staff from  only FHAP agencies, not FHEO employees. Officials explained that FHAP  agency funds would cover the costs of this initial training.
FHEO’s human capital challenges are symptomatic of those facing HUD as  a whole. FHEO, like the department and other federal agencies, is  experiencing significant challenges in deploying the right skills in the right  places at the right time, is facing a growing number of employees who are  eligible for retirement, and is finding it difficult to fill certain mission- critical jobs—a situation that could significantly drain its institutional  knowledge.
We have observed that federal agencies need effective strategic workforce  planning to identify and focus on the long-term human capital issues that  most affect their ability to attain mission results. We identified five key  principles that strategic workforce planning should address, which include  (1) involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in  developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce  plan; (2) determining the critical skills and competencies that will be  needed to achieve current and future programmatic results; (3) developing  strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and  alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the  contributions of all critical skills and competencies; (4) building the  capability needed to address administrative, educational, and other  requirements important to support workforce strategies; and (5)  monitoring and evaluating the agency’s progress toward its human capital  goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward  achieving programmatic goals. In developing strategies to address  workforce gaps, we reported that agencies should, among other things,  consider hiring, training, staff development, succession planning,  performance management, use of flexibilities, and other human capital  strategies and tools that can be implemented with resources that can  reasonably be expected to be available.
We have reported in the past that HUD had not done the strategic  workforce planning necessary to address its human capital challenges.  Like HUD, FHEO does not have a comprehensive strategic workforce plan  to help it meet key human capital challenges. REAP, which estimates the  staff needed to handle HUD’s workload in each of its offices, does not  include the extensive analysis involved in a comprehensive assessment.  However, since we last reported, HUD contracted a technical adviser to  conduct a comprehensive workforce analysis. Such an assessment would  cover current workforce skills, anticipated skill needs, current and future  skill gaps, and needed training and development that will be used to  develop a comprehensive 5-year departmental workforce plan.  Additionally, HUD plans to rollout over the next 3 years a customized  human resources and training information system known as the HUD  Integrated Human Resources and Training System (HIHRTS). HUD  documentation says that the system will replace several legacy systems;  will integrate all human resource information into one platform, making  information available to managers for strategic planning and employee  development; and helping ensure that HUD employees are used effectively.
section_title: Lack of Travel Funds Can Affect How Thoroughly Cases Are Investigated
paragraphs: Officials from headquarters and the sites we visited also told us that  inconsistencies in the amount and availability of travel funds impaired the  length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement process. As  mentioned previously, in May 2003, Congress approved the reprogramming  of funds within HUD to cover the cost of excess staff hiring, including a  $7.7 million reduction in travel funds. FHEO officials told us that following  this reprogramming, they had no travel funds for up to 6 months,  preventing investigators from making timely visits to the sites of  complaints. Budget data show that FHEO has experienced larger decreases  in travel funds than HUD as a whole. From fiscal year 2002 to 2003, HUD’s  allotment for travel decreased by 12 percent. FHEO’s travel allotment,  however, decreased by 17 percent over the same period. Directors reported  that interruptions in travel funds in fiscal year 2003 had impeded efforts to  plan and manage investigations. Directors also told us that uncertainties  regarding the department’s ultimate annual appropriations amount had  forced headquarters to limit travel funds at the beginning of fiscal years and  prevented them from establishing a firm annual travel budget. Without this  budget, directors said, they could not plan for the travel that would have  helped reduce the length of investigations.
Directors reported using several methods to stretch their travel funds,  including curtailing and delaying travel, limiting the time investigators  could spend in the field, catching up on needed travel when funds became  available at the end of the fiscal year, reducing travel for FHEO’s other  responsibilities outside of fair housing enforcement, and asking  investigators from offices closer to the site of the complaint to assist with  the investigation. Some investigators told us that they had used their own  vehicles or funds for site visits and conducted desk investigations. At the  same time, budget data show that hub directors’ routine meetings  consumed an increasing share of FHEO’s travel budget from fiscal year  2001 to 2003. Director’s meetings utilized 13 percent of FHEO’s travel  expenditures of approximately $900,000 in fiscal year 2003.
section_title: Performance Goals May Affect the Length of Investigations
paragraphs: Hub directors we visited told us that while FHEO’s national performance  goals have helped reduce the number of aged cases, these goals have had a  negligible impact on the thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement  process and could create competing demands for staff time. Performance  reports show that the percentage of aged fair housing complaints for HUD  nationwide has declined steadily since fiscal year 2000, exceeding the  national goals in fiscal year 2001 through 2003. For example, in fiscal year  2003, the national goal was a 25 percent maximum for aged cases and  FHEO achieved 23 percent. However, there are no national goals that  directly relate to the thoroughness of investigations or the fair housing  enforcement process. Regardless, some directors told us that although they  strive to meet performance goals, they are more motivated by the statute’s  100-day benchmark and the need to provide good customer service.
Directors also cited a tension between the need to meet the 100-day  benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough investigation  and said that at times one goal cannot be achieved without some cost to the  other. One director stated that while mindful of the 100-day benchmark, she  would not close a case to meet the time limit unless she felt that the  investigation had been thorough. Directors told us that the existence of  overall performance goals for FHEO could exacerbate the problem of  competing demands. For example, annual goals routinely set achievement  targets in FHEO’s area of responsibility outside of Title VIII enforcement,  including program compliance review, monitoring FHIP and FHAP  agencies grantees, increasing the number of substantially equivalent  agencies, and providing training on accessibility and handicap rights. The  time and resources needed to meet these targets could increase the  challenges involved in meeting Title VIII commitments in a timely and  thorough manner.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for  considering complaints of housing discrimination. However, persons who  have experienced alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a  lengthy wait before their complaint is resolved. Because flexibility is built  into the process, enforcement practitioners have devised a variety of  practices for processing inquiries and complaints, some of which could  improve the timeliness and thoroughness of investigations. Our limited  look at enforcement operations at FHAP agencies and FHEO centers  within 3 of FHEO’s 10 regions revealed practices that could potentially  expedite cases if they were adopted elsewhere. Further, many FHEO hub  directors told us they believed that every stage of the fair housing  enforcement process could be improved. However, practitioners may be  unaware of such practices because FHEO has not taken steps to identify  those practices that hold the promise of improving the fair housing  enforcement process.
Because of data limitations—specifically, data that are of questionable  reliability, missing, or not currently collected—FHEO does not know how  much time individuals face from the day they make an inquiry to the day  they learn the outcome of their cases, particularly when FHAP agencies  handle the investigation. Without comprehensive, reliable data on the dates  when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot judge how long  complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes an  investigation. Similarly, without comprehensive, consistent, and reliable  data concerning the dates that complaints are finally decided, HUD cannot  determine how long the intended beneficiaries of the Act typically wait for  a decision. Data that provide a comprehensive view of the enforcement  process from start to finish for both FHEO and FHAP agencies could help  HUD target problem areas and improve management of the enforcement  process. TEAPOTS provides a platform that FHEO and FHAP agencies may  use for recording these key enforcement data.
FHEO’s human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge of  improving enforcement practices. Human capital management issues at  both HUD and FHEO are an immediate concern. FHEO’s planned reduction  in staff and other human capital factors may affect its ability to enforce fair  housing laws. To meet such challenges, HUD managers will need to  continue their efforts to analyze workforce needs and to develop a  workforce planning process that makes the best use of the department’s  most important resource—the people that it employs now and in the  future. A comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that builds  on the five principles that we have observed at other federal agencies will  help FHEO and other departmental programs identify and focus their  investments on the long-term human capital issues that most affect the  agency’s ability to achieve its mission.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To improve the management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement  process, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant  Secretary of FHEO to take the following 4 actions:  establish a way to identify and share information on effective practices  among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies;  ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,  reliable data on key dates in the intake stage of the fair housing  enforcement process for FHAP agencies;   ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,  reliable data on key dates in the adjudication stage of the fair housing  enforcement process for both FHEO and FHAP agencies;  ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,  reliable data on the outcomes of the adjudication stage of the fair  housing enforcement process for FHEO and FHAP agencies; and  ensure that hubs enter cause dates into the automated case-tracking  system in a consistent manner.
Further, we recommend that the Secretary take the following action:  In developing HUD’s 5-year Departmental Workforce Plan, follow the  five key principles discussed in this report. As part of the  comprehensive workforce analysis, ensure that HUD fully considers a  wide range of strategies to make certain that FHEO obtains and  maximizes the necessary skills and competencies needed to achieve its  current and emerging mission and strategic goals with the resources it  can reasonably expect to be available.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. We  received written comments from the department’s Assistant Secretary for  Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These comments, which are included  in appendix IV, indicated general agreement with our conclusions and  recommendations. The Assistant Secretary noted that FHEO has already  begun to take steps to improve the quality and timeliness of the fair housing  enforcement process. Specific planned actions that are consistent with our  recommendations include (1) implementing a new Business Process  Redesign review; (2) establishing a reporting requirement addressing post- cause results; and (3) enhancing, in conjunction with the department,  FHEO’s efforts at workforce analysis. The Assistant Secretary commented  that FHEO would take a close look at all of the report’s recommendations.  HUD’s comments also included several suggestions to enhance clarity or  technical accuracy. We revised the report to incorporate these suggestions  and have included them in this report where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier,  we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issuance  date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chair of the  Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the HUD  Secretary; and other interested congressional members and committees.  We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this  report will also be available at no charge on our Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me or Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-6794 if you or your staff  have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors to this report  were Emily Chalmers, Rachel DeMarcus, Tiffani Green, M. Grace Haskins,  Marc Molino, Andrew Nelson, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, and Anita Visser.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations  conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended,  rather than fair housing activities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation  Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the  legislation, regulations, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal  Opportunity’s (FHEO) guidance for intake, investigation and adjudication  of fair housing complaints. We also interviewed officials at FHEO  headquarters who are responsible for oversight and policymaking. In  addition, we conducted site visits and structured interviews with key  FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency officials,  including FHEO hub, FHAP agency, and center directors; intake staff;  investigators and attorneys. We selected 3 of the 10 FHEO hubs and 8 of the  18 centers for site visits (table 4). We selected the hub sites on the basis of  (1) the number of “aged” cases within the region, (2) the total number of  complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to all  investigations, and (4) the number of organizational components—that is  the number of centers and offices within the hub. We ranked each hub on  the basis of whether they were among the 3 hubs with the highest values,  the 3 with the lowest values or the 4 hubs with the middle values for the  dimensions we measured. We also visited at least one FHAP agency in each  of the selected hub regions.
To describe the trends in FHEO data on the numbers, characteristics,  outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, we used data from  FHEO’s automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS). Specifically, we  obtained data on inquiries and claims made and investigations completed  as of September 2003, for each fiscal year from 1996 through 2003. Using  these data, we computed the following:  number of inquiries and claims made,  number of complaints filed,  number and outcome of investigations completed,  percentage of investigations completed within 100 days, and   median length of each enforcement stage.
For the purposes of measuring the percentage of investigations completed  within 100 days, we measured the time elapsed between the most recent of  the date filed, date reopened, or date reentered and the date the  investigations were either transferred to the Department of Justice, closed  administratively, conciliated or settled, found to have reasonable cause, or  found not to have reasonable cause.
To assess the reliability of TEAPOTS data we used, we examined (1) the  process FHEO and FHAP agencies use to capture and process inquiry and  complaint information and (2) the internal controls over the TEAPOTS  database that store and retrieve this information. We interviewed the  system’s managers, reviewed documentation of and reports produced by  the system, compared some of our results to summary reports previously  produced by FHEO, and performed basic reasonableness checks on  TEAPOTS data. Missing values and fields, inconsistencies between fields,  and out-of-range values in fields were infrequent and did not pose a  material risk of error in our analysis. We concluded that the data we  analyzed were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. However,  we encountered several limitations in the TEAPOTS data that prevented us  from using them to fully describe the trends in the numbers,  characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing investigations. Because of  indications that TEAPOTS data may either be incomplete or inconsistent  regarding the dates that inquiries were made, and the dates that an  independent fact finder ultimately determined that discrimination did or  did not occur, we were unable to provide complete information on one of  our report objectives. Specifically, we were unable to report on the average  time taken by two phases of the enforcement process for cases handled by  FHAP agencies.
In attempting to determine the average time needed to complete each stage  of the fair housing enforcement process, we relied on data from TEAPOTS.  Specifically, we obtained TEAPOTS data on complaint investigations  completed from 1996 through 2003 by FHEO and FHAP agencies and  attempted to measure (1) the time elapsed between a complainants’ first  contact with either the FHEO or a FHAP agency and the date that the  complaint was filed; (2) the time elapsed between filing a complaint and  completing an investigation; and (3) the time elapsed between completing  an investigation and the final disposition, the end of the adjudication  process. Because of inconsistent intake data and missing adjudication data,  we were unable to determine the average time that had been required to  complete the first and last stages of the complaint process for cases  handled by FHAP agencies.
section_title: Hub Directors’ Survey Questions and Responses
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: (p. 3-44), this term covers race, color, religion,  sex, national origin, familial status, and  handicap.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is  currently reviewing HUD’s Fair Housing  Enforcement efforts.  As part of this review, we  have visited a number of Fair Housing and Equal  Opportunity (FHEO) offices to talk with  enforcement management and staff.
For all questions, please consider the conditions  in your entire HUB region, including centers  and sites.
To ensure the broadest coverage, GAO is now  conducting this survey of all 10 regional FHEO  HUB Managers.
The purpose of this survey is to identify the  factors that HUD fair housing enforcement  practitioners believe impact the length and  thoroughness of the Title VIII fair housing  enforcement process including intake,  investigation, and adjudication.
In the survey, we use the following terms:  Length:  The amount of time that elapses  between the date a Title VIII complaint is  received at HUD as an inquiry and the date that  the complaint is resolved (e.g., administrative  closure, conciliation, adjudication through ALJ  hearing, or other means).
During the interview, we will ask you to read  and discuss your answers, providing examples  to the extent possible.
Thoroughness:  The extent to which accurate  and complete evidence is collected and analyzed  to enable staff (investigators, attorneys, etc.) to  recommend and make the appropriate  resolution.
If you have any questions about this survey or  the GAO study, please contact _____________ at  ____________ or e-mail her at: _______________  Thank you for your participation.
Subject matter/issue: As used in the HUD  Title VIII Investigations Handbook  (p. 3-24),  subject matters and issues include items such as  rentals, sales, lending, and redlining.
Prohibited basis of discrimination:  As used  in the HUD Title VIII Investigations Handbook  1.  To what extent do the following factors influence the amount of time  it takes to complete the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process?  We understand that many things can affect the length of the process.   However, we ask that when responding to each specific factor, you hold all  others constant and check the box that comes closest to your “best answer.” Check one box for each row.
Human Capital  Management &  Planning  performance  management goals  set for your Region   Director’s  Elements set for  you as a HUB  Director  L. Workforce analysis  (Alignment of staff  skill with mission  accomplishment)
N. Please specify.  (Type in the  shaded blank  below.)  2.  To what extent do the following factors influence the ability of your  staff to thoroughly complete the Title VIII fair housing enforcement  process?  We understand that many things can affect the thoroughness of the  process.  However, we ask that when responding to each specific factor, you  hold all others constant and check the box that comes closest to your “best  answer.” Check one box for each row.
L. Workforce analysis  (Alignment of staff  skill with mission  accomplishment)
N. Please specify.  (Type in the  shaded blank  below.)  3.  To what extent do the following enforcement practices impact the  overall length of the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process (or  to what extent would they impact the length of the process, if your  office does not practice them)?  We understand that many things can  affect the length of the process.  However, we ask that when responding to  each specific practice, you hold all others constant and check the box that  comes closest to your “best answer.” Check one box for each row.
Page 5 of 8  conduct  investigations  while in  conciliation  4. To what extent do the following enforcement practices impact the  overall thoroughness of the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process  (or to what extent would they impact the thoroughness of the process,  if your office does not practice them)?  We understand that many things  can affect the thoroughness of the process.  However, we ask that when  responding to each specific practice, you hold all others constant and check the  box that comes closest to your “best answer.”   Check one box for each row.
Page 6 of 8  5. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the following  Title VIII activities that would reduce the amount of time required to complete  the entire process? Please consider any ideas or practices that differ from HUD's  current enforcement process and that, with proper funding and training, would  improve the overall length of the process.  You will have an opportunity to share these  ideas and practices during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row.
B. Investigation stage (including  the conciliation process)6. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the following  Title VIII activities that would improve the overall thoroughness of the entire  process? Please consider any ideas or practices that differ from HUD's current  enforcement process, and that, with proper funding and training, would improve the  overall thoroughness of the process.  You will have an opportunity to share these ideas  and practices during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row.
B. Investigation stage (including  the conciliation process)7. Please describe any noteworthy practices that your office uses in each stage of the  Title VIII fair housing enforcement process.  (If you are using the Word version of  this survey, please type your answers in the shaded blanks.)
Investigation Stage (including the conciliation process)
Some hub directors may have defined the investigation and adjudication stages differently than  other directors.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs