Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough
Published: 2005-10-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related state and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies receive and investigate several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. These activities, including required conciliation attempts, are directed by HUD's standards, which are based on law, regulation, and best practices. GAO's 2004 report examining trends in case outcomes raised questions about the quality and consistency of the intake (the receipt of initial inquiries) and investigation processes. This follow-up report assesses the thoroughness of fair housing intake and investigation (including conciliation) processes, and complainant satisfaction with the process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Evidence from several sources raises questions about the timeliness and thoroughness of the intake process. Thirty percent of complainants GAO surveyed noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency. GAO experienced similar difficulty in test calls it made to each of the 10 FHEO and 36 state FHAP agency intake centers. For example, 5 locations did not respond to the test calls. Further, FHEO and FHAP agencies do not consistently record in their automated information system contacts they receive that they consider potential fair housing inquiries and timeliness data are unreliable, limiting the system's effectiveness as a management control. GAO's review of a national random sample of 197 investigative case files for investigations completed within the last 6 months of 2004 found varying levels of documentation that FHEO and FHAP investigators met investigative standards and followed recommended procedures. Further, though the Fair Housing Act requires that agencies always attempt conciliation to the extent feasible, only about a third of the files showed evidence of such attempts. FHEO officials stated that the required investigation and conciliation actions may have been taken but not documented as required in case files. According to GAO's survey of a national random sample of 575 complainants whose complaint investigations were recently completed, about half were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the outcome of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Although GAO and survey respondents found that FHEO and FHAP agency staff were generally courteous and helpful, important lapses remain in the complaint process that may affect not only how complainants feel about the process but also how thoroughly and promptly their cases are handled.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and  the 100 state and local agencies it has certified through its Fair Housing  Assistance Program (FHAP agencies) handled over 9,000 complaints of  housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil  Rights Act of 1968, as amended). The act generally prohibits  discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other  protected groups in the sale and rental of residential dwellings. The act as  amended provides HUD with enforcement powers and establishes a  100-day benchmark for completing investigations of complaints. HUD’s  Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) administers the  program and handles complaints of housing discrimination. FHAP agencies  also handle complaints that allege violations of substantially similar state  and local laws.
To meet the Fair Housing Act’s (Act) requirements, FHEO has developed a  process for receiving, investigating, and resolving housing discrimination  complaints. This process has three stages:  intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive inquiries  from individuals (complainants), determine whether the inquiries  involve a potential violation of the Fair Housing Act (or equivalent state  law), and file fair housing complaints for those that do;   investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect  evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a  discriminatory housing practice occurred or is about to occur and  simultaneously work with parties to conciliate, or reach a mutually  acceptable solution; and  adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another  administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines  whether a violation of the Act has occurred.
The Act requires that efforts be made to conciliate complaints—that is, to  reach a resolution acceptable to all parties—throughout the complaint  process, beginning with the intake stage. FHEO and FHAP agencies use an  automated case tracking system, the Title Eight Automated Paperless  Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) to record information about  complaints and key steps in the investigative process.
HUD reported in 2002, that the incidence of consistent adverse treatment  against minority home seekers had declined over the last decade.  Nonetheless, a series of reports using paired testing to measure the level of  discrimination in the U. S. housing market found that about 20 percent of  the time a member of a protected group will experience discrimination  when attempting to rent an apartment.
This report, which focuses on intake, investigation, and conciliation (the  complaint process), is the second in a series on HUD’s handling of housing  discrimination complaints. GAO’s earlier report on fair housing found,  among other things, that as of September 2003 more than a third (39  percent) of open housing discrimination investigations had passed the  100-day benchmark. GAO noted at the time that FHEO and the FHAP  agencies were trying to speed their efforts to resolve these cases. Further,  GAO reported that FHEO hub directors cited tension between the need to  meet the 100-day benchmark and the need to conduct a thorough  investigation, stating that at times one goal cannot be achieved without  some cost to the other. The report also found that increasingly the most  common outcome of housing discrimination investigations was a finding of  “no reasonable cause” to indicate discrimination occurred. In 2004, almost  half of all investigations closed had a finding of no-cause and less than 7  percent had a finding of reasonable cause. About one third were  conciliated.
This report addresses the thoroughness of the process for resolving  housing discrimination complaints—that is, the extent to which FHEO and  FHAP agencies meet HUD standards, policies, and best practices in a  timely manner. GAO reviewed  the thoroughness and timeliness of FHEO and FHAP agencies’ efforts  during the intake process;  the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies ensure the thoroughness  of investigations, regardless of the outcome;  the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies attempt to conciliate fair   complainants’ satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, and  outcomes of the fair housing process.
To assess the thoroughness of the intake process, we asked FHEO offices  and FHAP agencies around the country to keep logs of inquiries they  received during a 4-week period and measured (1) the extent to which  these inquiries were in FHEO’s information system and resulted in fair  housing complaints and (2) the timeliness of the responses. The centers  that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent of  investigations in 2004. We also made “test” telephone calls to 46 selected  intake centers (one FHEO office in each of HUD’s 10 regions and all 36  statewide FHAP agencies) during which GAO analysts posing as  complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We used  these calls to measure the time it took to ultimately reach a staff person or  to receive a return call. We also determined the extent to which, during the  initial contact, intake staff gathered necessary information for deciding  whether to undertake a full investigation, including whether Title VIII  appeared to cover the alleged incident. Because of the limitations of this  sample, the results are not generalizable to all potential complainants of  housing discrimination. To assess the thoroughness of investigations and  efforts to conciliate complaints, we reviewed the documentation in 197  randomly selected case files of housing discrimination cases from around  the country that were completed during the second half of calendar year  2004 with outcomes of no-cause or that were closed administratively or  conciliated. We used a structured data collection instrument to record  whether the files contained specific evidence of investigation steps and  their timing. We sampled a sufficient number of case files to permit  national estimates—that is, to permit statistical generalization to all cases  closed with these outcomes during the second half of 2004. Using the same  data collection instrument, we also reviewed 12 of the 15 FHEO cases with  reasonable cause outcomes that completed the adjudication process during  this period. In addition, for each case we compared selected file contents  with TEAPOTS records used to track the case. We did not assess whether  investigations reached an appropriate decision regarding any specific fair  housing inquiry or investigation. To measure complainants’ satisfaction  with the complaint process, we conducted a nationwide telephone survey  of a random sample of 575 complainants in housing discrimination cases  that were investigated and closed between July 2004 and December 2004.  The survey had an overall 38 percent response rate. Appendix I contains a  detailed description of our methodology. In addition, our detailed survey  results can be found on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov. We conducted our  work from September 2004 to October 2005 in Atlanta; Chicago; San  Francisco and Oakland; Kansas City, Kansas; Baltimore; Columbia, South  Carolina; and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Fair Housing Act is the most comprehensive of the federal statutes that  prohibit discrimination in the rental and sale of housing. Passed in 1968  and amended in 1988, the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of color,  family status, handicap, national origin, race, religion, and sex. It applies  to a number of what are termed “issues,” including discrimination in the  sale, rental, advertising, and financing of housing; in the provision of  brokerage services; and in other activities related to residential real estate  transactions. Generally, the Act covers all dwellings—that is, buildings  designed to be used wholly or in part as residences and land where a  dwelling will be located. When first enacted in 1968, the Fair Housing   Act’s administrative enforcement process was limited principally to  conciliation. In 1988, Congress strengthened HUD’s authority and  established a comprehensive administrative process to enforce the law, but  conciliation remained a primary feature.
The Act gives HUD, private persons, and the U.S. Attorney General tools  and remedies to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions. Using HUD’s  administrative process, individuals who believe they have experienced  discrimination in a housing-related situation can file a complaint that HUD  may then investigate and resolve. Individuals may also elect to file suit in  civil court rather than using the administrative procedure set out in the act.  The Attorney General can bring a civil action in cases that show a pattern  of discriminatory practices.
subsections: section_title: The Act Is Administered by FHEO and FHAP Agencies
paragraphs: FHEO has staff in each of HUD’s 10 regional offices, or hubs, who respond  to complaints (see fig. 1). Agencies certified to participate in HUD’s Fair  Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and receive funding from HUD for  handling fair housing complaints are obligated to comply with FHEO’s  reporting and record maintenance requirements, must agree to on-site  technical assistance provided by HUD, and are obligated to implement  certain policies and procedures. FHAP agencies must be in states or  localities whose laws provide rights and remedies that are substantially  similar to those in the Act—for example, local laws must provide for the  same 100-day benchmark for investigations that is stipulated in the Act.  FHEO offices refer complaints alleging violations of state and local fair  housing laws to FHAP agencies—for example, a certified state office of  civil rights. Currently, there are 100 of these agencies around the country.
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. 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.
In 2004, FHEO and the FHAP agencies received approximately 9,500 filed  complaints (see fig. 2). For this same period, only 5 percent of the closed  case files resulted in reasonable cause outcomes. HUD reimburses FHAP  agencies for carrying out investigations once FHEO has reviewed the  completed cases. Along with reviewing cases to determine whether HUD  should pay for services rendered, FHEO monitors FHAP agencies and  provides technical assistance. FHEO monitors the fair housing  enforcement efforts through TEAPOTS.
Our last report identified a number of human capital challenges facing  FHEO, including the number and skill level of FHEO staff, the quality and  effectiveness of training, and other issues. An FHEO official noted that the  staff shortage 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 the complaint process. 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  fiscal year 2004, FHEO had 650 FTEs.
section_title: Complaint Process Includes Intake and Investigation Phases
paragraphs: The complaint process beginning at intake represents the initial contact a  complainant has with an agency responsible for enforcing the Act or  equivalent state law. Figure 3 describes the complaint process for  HUD-investigated complaints. FHAP agencies would follow a similar  process. In the intake stage, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies receive  inquiries by telephone, fax, mail, in person, or over the Internet. Intake staff  record inquiries in TEAPOTS, interview complainants, and may do other  research—for example, searches of public records—to see if enough  information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This process is  known as “perfecting” a complaint. In order to be perfected, a complaint  must  contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the names  and addresses of the person alleging the discriminatory practice and the  respondent, a description and the address of the dwelling involved, and  a 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 sell) and the basis (e.g.,  race, color, or familial status) for the alleged discrimination are covered  by the Act; and that the complaint has been filed within a year of the last  occurrence of the alleged discriminatory practice.
Hub directors decide which complaints meet these criteria and become  perfected complaints. Complaints that do not meet the criteria are  dismissed. Intake staff record information about perfected complaints in  TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the complaints, send letters notifying  complainants and respondents about the complaint and the process that  will be used to address it, and send the complaint file to an investigator.  FHEO’s Title VIII Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook  (Handbook) sets a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake stage for  these cases, but a 5-day benchmark for cases that it first takes in and then  refers to FHAP agencies.
Complaints that are perfected proceed to an investigation. During this  stage, FHEO and FHAP agencies gather evidence to determine whether a  violation of the Act or a state or local housing law has occurred or is about  to occur. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators but notes that  investigations may vary. Agency guidance directs that directors of FHEO’s  hub offices review the results of completed investigations to determine  whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing  practice has taken place or could take place. With the concurrence of the  relevant HUD regional counsel, the hub director issues a determination and  directs the regional counsel to issue a charge, or short written statement of  facts, that led to the decision. 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. Figure 3 provides  an overview of HUD’s basic fair housing complaint process, including  timeliness benchmarks established by the Act or agency guidance.
An investigation can be closed at any point for administrative reasons or  through conciliation. Cases are closed administratively for several  reasons—for instance, when a complainant withdraws from the case or  cannot be located. The Act requires HUD to make conciliation efforts  throughout the complaint process, beginning when the complaint is filed  and continuing until the charge is filed or the case dismissed. The  Handbook and federal regulations allow investigators to make conciliation  efforts, but the regulations also state that generally officers, employees,  and agents not associated with the case will attempt conciliation.  Conciliation agreements are intended to protect the public interest through  provisions such as requiring respondents to file periodic reports with HUD.  When a conciliation agreement is reached, the Act authorizes the  Department of Justice to enforce the agreement in the event of a breach. In  2004, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies closed about one-third of their cases  via conciliation.
The Act set a deadline of 100 days from the date the complaint is filed for  completing an investigation or conciliating or otherwise closing a case,  unless doing so is “impracticable.” If the investigation cannot be completed  within this time frame, FHEO or the FHAP agency must notify the  complainant and respondent in writing in what is called the “100-day  letter.” In our previous report, we found that the number of investigations  completed within 100 days by the FHEO or FHAP agencies increased  significantly after 2001, partly in response to FHEO’s initiative to reduce  aged cases.
section_title: Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about Thoroughness of Intake Process and Effectiveness of Controls
paragraphs: Although often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and  information, our test calls and analysis of contact logs found that FHEO  and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely in carrying out  intake activities. Our test calls, while not generalizable, suggest that  potential complainants may have difficulty in making initial contact with an  intake staff person; moreover, 30 percent of the complainants we surveyed  reported such difficulty. Our test calls also showed that FHEO and FHAP  agency staff sometimes did not seek information needed to determine  whether a potential violation of the Act had taken place and to file a formal  complaint, or gather limited information that might help the agency  recontact the complainant or assess the urgency of the situation. Among  the logged contacts that the agencies determined were potential violations  of the Act and were recorded in TEAPOTS, half resulted in formal  complaints. However, only 57 percent of these completed the process  within the 20-day benchmark. Additionally, missing or inconsistent data  suggests that TEAPOTS may be of limited usefulness as a management  control over the intake process.
subsections: section_title: Agency Staff Did Not Always Return Test Calls or Collect Initial Intake Information Promptly
paragraphs: The intake process is the first contact prospective complainants have with  the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act or an equivalent state law.  Depending on the quality of intake, potential complainants may or may not  feel comfortable continuing the process, and those who do not may give up  on pursuing their complaints. Thus, the agency’s initial response to  complainants plays an important role in the fair housing complaint process.  However, our test calls revealed some potentially serious lapses in  agencies’ responses to complainants’ inquiries.
First, we found that agencies did not always respond promptly to initial  attempts to contact them to file a complaint and that because of  requirements that some agencies imposed, trying to file a complaint could  be a challenging process. In 5 of the 46 calls, the agency did not return the  test call, even after 3 attempts. In another 2 cases, the intake organization  required that the caller provide intake information via the Internet or in  person. As shown in figure 4, in 20 of the remaining 39 test cases, the caller  spoke with a live person on initial contact. Of the 9 calls requiring a  callback, 6 were not returned within 1 business day, and 3 were not  returned for 3 or more days. Our survey of complainants suggests that they  experienced similar difficulties to ours in contacting intake staff. An  estimated 30 percent noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to  reach a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency, and  34 percent said they had difficulty contacting staff after the initial contact.  These percentages were relatively constant regardless of whether FHEO or  a FHAP agency handled the case or its outcome, with one exception.  Complainants whose cases were conciliated reported that they had less  difficulty contacting staff than complainants whose cases were closed with  other outcomes.
We also found that intake staff did not seem to display a sense of urgency in  dealing with complaints. Over half of the agencies (23 of 39) relied  primarily on a form that the complainant must fill out (HUD-903 or state  equivalent) to collect the information needed to begin an investigation, and  in the initial phone call requested little more than the complainant’s name  and mailing address. Using such a form to gather information for a  potential complaint could take a week or more—during which the caller  could lose a housing opportunity. Two other agencies would not mail a  complaint form, insisting that the caller come in to the office to file a  complaint. However, information from contact logs that the FHAP agencies  and FHEO offices maintained for 4 weeks, at our request, showed that the  most prevalent mode of contact is telephone, and that walk-in and Internet  contacts represented less than 5 percent. Given this situation, requiring  potential complainants to appear in person added an additional challenge  that could potentially make it difficult for a complainant to continue with  the process. Further, a test caller to one of these agencies, stressing the  urgency of her situation, was informed that filing a complaint was a “slow  process” and that her complaint would not be acted on for some time,  whether intake was done over the phone or via the organization’s form.  FHEO’s annual performance goals do not include goals for the time it takes  to return initial contacts from complainants. However, FHEO has  established a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake process, starting  with the date that the initial inquiry is recorded in TEAPOTS. In  commenting on a draft of this report, HUD’s General Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that the agency  tracks the time it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial contact,  and that a new initiative, the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research  Project, is expected to assist with decision making during the intake  process since it uses a triage system to determine case complexity.
Despite any inconveniences, when our test callers did reach the agencies,  the staff treated them well. In none of our test cases did hold time exceed 3  minutes, and staff at several agencies spoke extensively with test callers,  answering questions and providing guidance and information on the  process. Our survey of former complainants that completed the  investigation process showed similar findings. While complainants had  difficulty reaching an agency, once they did, more than half said that  agency staff did either a good or an excellent job of explaining the process  and timing of each step.
section_title: FHEO and FHAP Agencies Collected Limited Information during Initial Intake Contacts
paragraphs: When collecting intake information during our test calls, FHEO and FHAP  agency staff focused primarily on collecting the complainant’s name,  address, and protected class, as well as a description of the discriminatory  act. Staff sometimes did not ask for other information that would be helpful  in recontacting the complainant or assessing the urgency of the situation.  To systematically assess the thoroughness of the intake test calls, we  identified criteria from the Act (the minimum elements of information  needed to proceed with the complaint), HUD’s Title VIII Handbook, and  training materials from the National Fair Housing Training Academy.  Additionally, we obtained information on best practices from a fair housing  advocacy group as well as HUD’s training materials and interviews with  agency officials. We categorized these criteria at four levels:   Level 1—information that, according to HUD policy, should always be  collected during intake, though not necessarily during the first contact,  regardless of the basis of the complaint or the protected class.
Level 2—information that is potentially applicable to all complaints and  that should be collected during the intake process.
Level 3—information that is relevant to a particular basis or protected  class—that is, information necessary to determine, for example,  whether the complainant met a certain protected class (e.g., handicap or  familial status).
Level 4—information that is considered to be a best practice—for  example, information that may be used for testing.
We also discussed these criteria and the designated levels with agency  officials.
We measured the percentage of information elements collected at each of  these levels during our test calls. The elements associated with each level,  and the results we observed during our test calls, are shown in figure 5.
While level 1 information should always be collected in order to proceed  with a complaint, some of this information may not always need to be  collected during the initial contact. However, HUD policy recommends that  staff obtain as much information as possible during the initial intake  interview. We also believe that level 1 items should, with little exception, be  collected as part of the initial contact in order to have information  necessary to recontact the complainant and determine the urgency of the  situation.
How complinnt knew  of thi property/nit Doe client wnt nit/property?
For rentnit, did complinnt  submit ppliction?
Wht otcome doe the  complinnt hope to ee  result from the complint?
Did complinnt sugget to  repondent thn invetigtion  might commence?
Did complinnt diuss thi  complint with ny other  orgniztion?
Disability of complinnt (if ny)
How did complinnt feel  abt the dicrimintory ct?
Was complinnt informed  abt other check/inqrie?
Was complinnt informed  tht credit check wold e done?
Wht was complinnt  wering when ct occrred?
Was complinnt informed  tht previousndlord  wold e contcted?
On average, intake staff collected approximately 44 percent of level 1  information, which is identified by HUD policy as critical to collect during  intake. For example, 21 agencies did not ask for the respondent’s first and  last name, and 15 did not ask for the respondent’s organization. As  indicated in figure 5, in only 8 agency test cases did intake staff ask the  complainant for the name of an alternate contact person and in only 7  agency test cases did the intake staff request a work number—an important  piece of information because, according to FHEO officials, many  complainants are in the process of moving and are difficult to recontact.  Also, intake staff about half of the time asked for the respondent’s  telephone number. Further, the agencies collected little information  beyond level 1. On average, they gathered 8 percent of level 2, 11 percent of  level 3, and 9 percent of level 4 information. Some level 4 (best practice)  information that was most often collected during our case study includes  the respondent’s gender (13 test calls), respondent’s race (9 test calls), and  what the complainant hoped to see as a result of filing a complaint (8 test  calls). (See fig. 5.)
Although HUD policy recommends that intake staff obtain as much  information as possible regarding the aggrieved person’s allegations during  the initial intake interview, the amount of information collected on initial  contact varied significantly by agency. One location collected nothing  beyond the complainant’s name and mailing address, while another  collected up to 80 percent of the level 1 data. However, in none of the test  calls did intake staff collect 100 percent of the level 1 information. While  most agencies appeared to collect the remainder of the critical information  through their intake forms (either the HUD-903 form or state equivalent),  this practice prevents the agency from taking any further action on the  complaint until a signed form is received. According to HUD officials, the  revised Title VIII Handbook contains standards for information that HUD  will collect during initial contact with a complainant. However, these and  other standards may not apply to FHAP agencies since their certification by  HUD does not ensure that they follow identical procedures.
The time it takes to receive the form can delay the enforcement process,  potentially resulting not only in the loss of a housing opportunity but also in  complainants becoming frustrated with the process and deciding not to  pursue their complaint. In particular, some complainants may need urgent  attention, such as when they are about to become homeless because they  are being evicted from their rental home or apartment, or are losing the  home they own in a foreclosure. HUD has authority under the Act in such  urgent circumstances to take prompt judicial action by authorizing the  Attorney General to initiate a civil action seeking appropriate temporary or  preliminary relief pending final disposition of the complaint. HUD’s Title  VIII Handbook establishes that intake staff has a critical role in identifying  when a complaint may involve a situation warranting prompt judicial  action. Time is critical, and the efforts of the intake staff are helpful in  gathering sufficient information for determining when prompt judicial  action may be necessary. This is also important for intake by the FHAP  agencies, since they must have substantially equivalent authority to seek  prompt judicial action.
section_title: Intake Log Data Indicate That TEAPOTS Is of Limited Effectiveness as Management Control of Intake Process
paragraphs: Our prior report noted that while FHEO offices kept records of potentially  Title VIII-related contacts, it had not required FHAP agencies to do so. (For  that reason, when preparing our prior report, we were unable to determine  the extent to which FHAP agencies met the goal of perfecting complaints  within 20 days of initial contacts.) FHAP agencies typically entered  information only for perfected complaints. Accordingly, we recommended  that HUD ensure that the automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS)  include complete, reliable data on key dates in the intake stage for FHAP  agencies. The latest version of HUD’s Title VIII Handbook (issued in May  2005) requires FHEO intake staff to record in TEAPOTS each inquiry that is  potentially Title VIII-related, regardless of whether it results in a perfected  complaint.
Our comparison of information from the logs—that intake centers kept, at  our request, during February and March 2005—with TEAPOTS data  highlights the need for reliable information regarding potentially Title  VIII-related contacts and the dates of their occurrence. First, the analysis  showed that a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-related contacts  (68 percent) were not entered in TEAPOTS, and of those that were, about  half resulted in perfected complaints. While there are valid reasons for this  “attrition,” our results suggest that staff are not recording in TEAPOTS a  substantial number of potentially Title VIII-related contacts (inquiries in  which the caller alleges housing discrimination and intake staff believe the  call represents a potential Title VIII violation). Further, we found that, for  those contacts that were entered into TEAPOTS, the initial contact dates  shown in the logs were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of  first contact shown in TEAPOTS. Thus, HUD’s use of TEAPOTS data is  likely overstating its performance in meeting its 20-day intake timeliness  benchmark. Without assurance that TEAPOTS is being used consistently,  HUD is unable to account for potentially Title VIII-related contacts that do  not appear in the system or accurately measure timeliness of those that are  recorded in the TEAPOTS system, thus limiting TEAPOTS’ utility as a  management control.
subsections: section_title: Many Logged Contacts Did Not Appear in TEAPOTS
paragraphs: To determine the volume of intake-related contacts received by fair  housing agencies and the proportion of these contacts that resulted in  perfected complaints, we had 47 sites record all incoming  contacts—telephone calls, walk-ins, and Internet queries—that were  related to fair housing over a 4-week period (February 22 through March  21, 2005). The 32 state FHAP agencies, 5 local FHAP agencies, and 10  FHEO offices that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent  of the volume of investigations in 2004. Specifically, we asked the sites to  record the date, method, and purpose of each contact; the name of the  person making the contact; whether the contact alleged having  experienced housing discrimination; and whether the intake staff agreed  that the matter pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related complaint.
During our tracking period, the sites recorded a total of 9,655 contacts. As  shown in figure 6, the majority (80 percent) of contacts for which we had  complete data was by telephone, and 42 percent were new potential  complaints. Furthermore, a sizable number of initial contacts  (approximately 24 percent) did not pertain to fair housing (confirming, as  our prior report noted, that intake analysts receive numerous contacts that  are not related to fair housing.) The time necessary for handling the calls  can place an additional burden on FHEO’s limited resources.
Our review of the log also showed that a sizable number of new potential  complaints that intake staff believed could involve a Title VIII violation did  not result in perfected complaints in TEAPOTS (see fig. 7):  Agency staff coded 2,000 contacts as coming from a named individual  whose allegations they believed both involved a new potential  complaint and pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related violation.
Of these 2,000 individuals, we were able to match 631 to a new inquiry  shown in TEAPOTS.
Of the 631 inquiries, 306 are shown in TEAPOTS as perfected  complaints.
We sorted these data into two groups: contacts recorded by FHEO offices  and contacts recorded by FHAP agencies. We found that the attrition rates  differed somewhat between these groups. At FHEO sites, intake staff  identified 1,347 unique individuals as having potentially valid new Title VIII  complaints. Of these, 506, or 38 percent, were shown as unique inquiries in  TEAPOTS, and 216 of those—16 percent of the original 1,347—resulted in  perfected complaints shown in the automated system at the time of our  analysis. At the same time, FHAP sites identified 620 unique individuals  with potential new Title VIII violations, of which 92, or 15 percent, were  shown as unique inquiries in TEAPOTS and 66, or 11 percent, became  perfected complaints.
Attrition can occur for a number of reasons. For example, because some  state laws contain additional protected classes, some calls that FHEO  offices receive may be for matters that are covered under a FHAP agency’s  jurisdiction. Also, intake staff may believe that a contact pertains to a valid  Title VIII violation at the outset but may later find out that the respondent is  exempt from Title VIII or that the 1-year statute of limitations has expired.  Furthermore, the intake process is sometimes terminated because a  complainant either does not cooperate with agency staff or resolves the  issue with the respondent and voluntarily discontinues the complaint  process. Finally, it is possible that, during our process of matching names  in the log to TEAPOTS records, a small number of matches were not made,  either due to misspellings of names or timings of entry into the system.  Information in TEAPOTS provides some insight as to the reasons why  inquiries were not perfected during this time period. In 20 percent of all  inquiries for which TEAPOTS had data, the complainant failed to respond;  in 13 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid basis for  complaint; and in 8 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid  issue. However, TEAPOTS shows that 43 percent of the inquiries that were  not perfected were coded as “Other Disposition,” which means that no  further information is available to indicate why the contact did not result in  a perfected complaint.
In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD’s General Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that while HUD  considered requiring FHAP agencies to record initial inquiry dates for all  potential complaints, it has not done so because of the way HUD funds  FHAP agencies. Specifically, HUD reimburses the FHAP agencies for each  (actual) complaint that they investigate, and does not reimburse them for  their consideration of inquiries that do not result in complaints. However,  this continues to leave HUD without data or knowledge of a significant  number of potential Title VIII-related inquiries or a means of assessing the  FHAP agencies’ response to such inquiries.
section_title: Some Logged Contact Dates Differed from TEAPOTS’ ‘Date of First Inquiry’
paragraphs: Our prior report questioned the reliability of initial inquiry dates shown in  TEAPOTS. Our analysis for this report raises further questions, because we  found differences in the dates recorded in the contact logs and those in  TEAPOTS for the same contacts. HUD policy requires that FHEO offices  perfect or close all inquiries within 20 days of initial contact. Statistics  generated by HUD show an approximate 95 percent compliance with this  policy. However, for internal measurement and benchmarking purposes,  HUD begins counting the 20 days on the day the inquiry is entered into  TEAPOTS. Because HUD does not track the actual initial contact dates, it  can not use them to begin measuring the 20-day period. Our analysis of the  contacts recorded in the logs leading to the 306 perfected complaints noted  above indicates that 57 percent of the complaints were perfected within 20  days of initial contact, based on the earliest contact date in the log.  However, using the inquiry date in TEAPOTS as the starting point for the  20-day benchmark, as HUD does, indicates that 79 percent of the  complaints were perfected within 20 days. In fact, the median number of  days to perfect complaints was 11 using TEAPOTS inquiries, but 18 using  the data recorded in our log. These results indicate that HUD lacks an  accurate picture of how much time individuals face from the day they make  an inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, and that HUD’s  reliance on TEAPOTS data leads to an inaccurate assessment of  performance in meeting its timeliness benchmark.
section_title: Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met Required Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures
paragraphs: In reviewing investigative case files and associated TEAPOTS records, we  found that some lacked evidence that required investigative standards were  met, investigators followed recommended planning and procedure  guidelines, or that internal control measures were used and documented.  Throughout this section, we present estimates of agency compliance with  certain requirements and recommended practices based on our review of a  random sample of 197 FHAP agency and FHEO investigations that were  closed during the last half of 2004 either administratively, through  conciliation, or with a finding of no reasonable cause. Unless otherwise  noted, these estimates are surrounded by a confidence interval, due to  sampling error, of plus or minus 8 percentage points or smaller. We also  present results from our review of 12 of the 15 FHEO cases that completed  the adjudication process and subsequent monitoring during the same period. Our review of each case was limited to reviewing the contents of  case files and the associated TEAPOTS records (that is, we did not  interview case investigators, other officials involved in the case,  complainants, or respondents), and it is important to note that the lack of  evidence we found does not necessarily indicate that required or  recommended steps were not taken. However, the lack of evidence does  raise questions about HUD’s ability to assure that investigations are as  thorough as they need to be.
subsections: section_title: Some Files Lacked Evidence of Adherence to Investigative Standards
paragraphs: The Act sets several standards for investigators to follow during the  complaint process. First, investigators must establish and document four  jurisdictional elements to ensure that the complaint is covered under the  Act. Second, certain notifications to the complainants and respondents  must be sent and received. Third, a Final Investigative Report (FIR) must  be prepared at the end of each investigation. As a practical matter, this  means a FIR is required for investigations that conclude with a  determination of reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and  for investigations closed with a determination of no reasonable cause (i.e.,  there is no reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred).  Investigators must also meet a 100-day deadline for completing an  investigation unless it is impracticable to do so. If the investigation is not  completed in 100 days, complainants and respondents should be notified in  writing of the reasons.
subsections: section_title: Elements of Jurisdiction
paragraphs: Our review of investigative case files completed during the last half of 2004  showed that the elements of jurisdiction we measured were addressed in  nearly all of the no-cause cases (see fig. 8). Similarly, we observed that  with one exception, all of the cause case files we reviewed addressed the  elements of jurisdiction we reviewed. The high incidence of documentation  addressing jurisdiction may be explained by the fact that jurisdiction  should be verified throughout the complaint process. Consequently, there  is more than one opportunity to identify deficiencies.  FHEO officials at  one location said that in addition to an intake analyst, the intake and  enforcement or compliance branch chiefs also reviewed complaints before  investigations began. However, they also said that in some instances,  complaints for which jurisdiction had not been established had been  inadvertently accepted and later found to lack a required jurisdictional  element. For example, one case we reviewed showed that as the  investigation proceeded, investigators determined that the respondent was  exempt as a result of not owning more than one rental property. The Act  provides that certain properties and property owners are exempt, and  owners who do not have an interest in more than three single-family homes  or condominium units meet the guidelines for exemption.
Although most files contained evidence that jurisdictional elements had  been addressed, we did not always find evidence that complainants and  respondents received required notifications. As noted above, the Act  requires the fair housing agency handling the complaint to send  complainants an initial notice acknowledging the filing of the complaint.  Further, HUD’s complaint notification letter advises complainants of  certain guidelines of the complaint process. Respondents must be served  by certified mail or personal service with an initial notice of the original  complaint no later than 10 days after the complaint is filed or when the  respondent is identified. Respondents must also be notified whenever a  complaint is amended (complaints may be amended at any time during an  investigation to add or remove parties, and complainants must sign the new  complaints). Complainants and respondents should also be notified when  an investigation is closed. We therefore looked for evidence indicating that  these requirements were followed in all cases.
HUD regulations require that complainants be notified by certified mail or  personal service, but FHEO officials said that some FHAP agency  procedures do not require this. While we found initial notification letters  addressed to complainants in 97 percent of the files and letters to  respondents in 91 percent for closure types other than reasonable cause,  we frequently did not find evidence that the letters had been received (see  fig. 9). The lack of evidence in case files that complainants and respondents  had received initial notifications does not necessarily mean that they did  not in fact receive the notices.  Some FHEO officials told us that certified  mail receipts were sometimes maintained in separate files. We looked not  only for evidence such as return receipts from certified mail or certificates  of personal service, but also for correspondence indicating receipt or  knowledge of the complaint notification. Fifty-nine percent of these cases  contained evidence that complainants had received initial notifications,  and 67 percent contained evidence that respondents had received initial  notifications. Our survey of complainants that completed the investigation  process also indicates that some may not have received initial notifications.  Specifically, 86 percent said they received a letter informing them whether  an investigation would be conducted. We did not observe a significant  difference in documentation between organizations. For the cases where  HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found initial notification letters  addressed to complainants in 9 of the 12 files, and letters to respondents  were found in 10. Evidence of receipt was greater for reasonable cause  cases than for other closure types—8 and 9 of the 12 files, respectively, had  evidence that complainants and respondents received initial notification  letters.
Some cases did not contain evidence that final closure notices had been  addressed to complainants and respondents (see fig. 10). For closure types  other than reasonable cause, 10 percent and 21 percent of the files,  respectively, did not include copies of closure letters addressed to  complainants and all named respondents. Investigations conducted by  FHAP agencies were more likely not to have closure notices addressed to  respondents (26 percent) compared with FHEO-investigated cases (8  percent). Similarly, FHAP agency-investigated cases did not have  evidence of closure notices addressed to complainants 14 percent of the  time, compared with 2 percent for FHEO-investigated cases. Our survey  of complainants revealed that about 9 percent said they did not receive  notification of the case being closed. We found that for the cases where  HUD had determined reasonable cause, there were more notices of  reasonable cause determination addressed to respondents than  complainants. Specifically, 5 of the 12 files did not include notices  addressed to complainants informing them that the FHEO investigation  was completed, and of the reasonable cause finding. Two of the files did  not include such notices addressed to respondents.
For reasonable cause determinations, HUD’s regulations require that all  parties to a complaint be notified of the reasonable cause determination by  certified mail or personal service. For no reasonable cause  determinations, the parties must be notified by mail and the notification  must include a written statement of the facts upon which the determination  was based. HUD guidance also states that for administrative closures, all  parties and their designated representatives must be notified by regular or  certified mail.
Fifteen percent of the case files for closure types other than reasonable  cause had evidence that the complaint had been amended. We also could  not find evidence in all cases that copies of the amended complaints had  been received by all respondents even though the statute requires that all respondents receive them. Finally, not all of the cases, where applicable,  contained evidence that new respondents received a copy of the  complaint.
As stated, FHEO officials noted that not all FHAP agency procedures  require certified mail notices, while HUD notifications are sent by certified  mail. As with initial notifications, we looked not only for evidence of  certified mail or personal service, but also other forms of evidence that a  notification was made, including response letters or subsequent  correspondence that indicated the parties’ knowledge. FHEO officials  noted that the absence of notices in FHEO case files is more likely a  clerical omission than a failure to follow procedure.
section_title: Final Investigative Reports
paragraphs: Our file review showed that the Final Investigative Report (FIR) required  for reasonable cause and no reasonable cause outcomes and the  Determination showing the outcome of cases were not always present.   The documents are intended to demonstrate that investigations were  thorough and that the investigator’s conclusions were founded in fact and  evidence. FIRs, which HUD guidance states fulfill the statutory  requirement to document investigations, are used as a basis for preparing  the charge for reasonable cause cases. FIRs should summarize the  allegation and evidence, including such things as dates and summaries of  contacts with parties, witness statements, descriptions of pertinent  records, and answers to interrogatories. The Act requires FHEO,  following the completion of the investigation, to make information derived  from the investigation—including the FIR—available upon request to the  parties to the complaint. The Determination includes the elements of  jurisdiction as well as a summary of the complainant’s allegations, the  respondents’ defenses, and the investigator’s findings and conclusions.
For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found the FIR  and Determination in all 12 of the files. However, for cases closed with a  Determination of no reasonable cause, we found the FIR missing in 5  percent of the files, and a Determination missing from 8 percent. The  percentage of FIRs for no reasonable cause cases was similar for FHAP  agency and FHEO files.
HUD requires that FIRs and Determinations of reasonable cause and no  reasonable cause be approved by the FHEO regional director. FHAP  agency managers approve and sign these documents for FHAP agency  investigated cases. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable  cause, we found that 11 FIRs and 10 Determinations had been signed. For  cases with no reasonable cause outcomes, 71 percent of Determinations  were signed, compared with only 45 percent of FIRs. For no reasonable  cause outcomes, FHEO files showed more evidence of Determination  approval—100 percent compared with 60 percent of FHAP agency  Determinations. FHEO noted that missing signatures for FIRs and  Determinations are more likely an oversight rather than a question of  thoroughness or lack of review. They also noted that case files will not  document informal means of review.
section_title: Adherence to 100-Day Notice Requirement
paragraphs: As noted above, the Act requires that fair housing investigations be  completed within 100 days from the date the complaint was filed, unless it  is impracticable to do so. An investigation is completed when a  Determination or charge is issued, a conciliation agreement is executed, or  the complaint is otherwise closed. We estimate that 98 percent of all  cases with closure types other than reasonable cause—including relatively  more no reasonable cause cases—took more than 100 days to complete. If  investigators do not meet the 100-day deadline, the investigating agency is  required to notify both complainants and respondents in writing, explaining why the investigation is not complete. We found 100-day letters  in each file for these closure types with investigations that took more than  100 days to complete. We found that in about two-thirds of these cases, the  100-day letter was sent after 100 days had passed. Moreover, about 14  percent of the notices we found were dated more than 130 days after the  HUD filing date (see fig. 11). For cases where HUD had determined  reasonable cause, all 12 investigations lasted longer than 100 days, but 2 of  the files did not have copies of 100-day letters.
According to FHEO officials in one location, for cases with complex issues,  it was often difficult to meet the 100-day investigative requirement and  conduct a thorough investigation. Officials in another FHEO location said  that the 100-day time frame is a critical factor at day one, and a new  initiative had been implemented to track and focus on cases at the 50-day  mark. The FHAP agencies’ record of meeting the 100-day requirement is  directly tied to their performance ratings and to the reimbursement they  receive for completed cases. Officials at one FHAP agency stated that the  100-day requirement was a priority for each new investigation and their  agency had established shorter investigative deadlines internally, using  their own streamlined process to assist them in meeting the 100-day  requirement. In our last report, we observed that the percentage of  investigations completed within 100 days increased between 2001 and  2003, particularly for FHEO cases. Specifically, the percentage of FHEO  investigations completed within 100 days increased from 17 percent in  fiscal year 2001 to 50 percent in fiscal year 2003. We also noted that FHEO  hub directors reported that the 100-day benchmark and the simultaneous  need to conduct a thorough investigation were sometimes competing goals.
section_title: Some Files Lacked Evidence That Investigators Followed Recommended Procedures
paragraphs: In addition to the statutory requirements, HUD guidance recommends a  number of activities that contribute to a more complete investigation.  Among these are preparing investigative plans, conducting on-site visits  and interviews, and requesting policy and procedure information from  respondents. The guidance also recommends that investigators follow  certain procedures before closing a case administratively.  HUD officials  said that an investigation may be thorough without following each  recommended practice; moreover, as noted above, a lack of evidence does  not necessarily indicate that a procedure was not followed. However, the  relative infrequency with which some practices were used, according to  documentation in the case files, raises questions about investigation  thoroughness.
subsections: section_title: Investigative Plans
paragraphs: HUD guidance states that investigative plans are critical to efficient and  effective investigation. The guidance also provides extensive instruction on  preparing plans, and adds that, in developing investigative plans,  investigators and their supervisors should consult with Regional Counsel.
According to HUD’s revised Title VIII Handbook, investigative planning  allows supervisors and investigators to ensure that the scope of the  investigation is carefully tailored for adequate investigation of all claims  made in the complaint, and careful planning should also prevent  “over-investigation” of claims. However, FHEO officials stated that most  experienced investigators do not prepare investigative plans for any except  technical and very complex cases since investigators are familiar with the  procedures for more common discrimination cases.
Our file reviews showed that 62 percent of the cases with closure types  other than reasonable cause did not include investigative plans. Further,  the plans we found were not as detailed as the guidance suggests. For  example, while the type of discrimination was identified in 93 percent of  plans, the theory of discrimination was identified in 65 percent.55, 56 Also,  planned interviews with complainants and respondents were specified in  59 percent and 62 percent of plans, respectively, and a list and sequence of  interview questions was present in 27 percent of plans (see fig. 12). For  cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found an  investigative plan in 10 of the 12 files, but these also contained little detail.  For example, the type of discrimination was identified in all 10 of the plans,  but the theory of discrimination was identified in only 3. Additionally, only  2 and 3 of the plans, respectively, specified interviews with complainants  and respondents, and a list and sequence of interview questions was  present in only 2 of the plans. With regard to supervisory review, officials at  the agencies we visited stated that there was no established procedure for  documenting review of investigative plans.
According to HUD’s Title VIII Handbook, violations of illegal discrimination of the Fair  Housing Act may be established under either (1) a disparate treatment theory, which is also  known as “discriminatory intent” or (2) a discriminatory impact theory, which is also known  as “discriminatory effect.” The disparate treatment theory includes overt discrimination  cases where there is direct evidence of intentional discrimination and other cases where  there is only circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of a discriminatory motive.  Further, there are single motive cases and mixed motive cases. The particular theory of the  case determines the evidence needed to prove or rebut the allegations. These theories  developed in federal employment discrimination cases, but they are generally applied by the  courts to cases brought under the Fair Housing Act.
The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 98 percent and 54 percent to  76 percent, respectively.
Files with investigative plan content (out of files that contained investigative plan)
We found substantially more investigative plans in FHEO case files (74  percent) than in FHAP files (24 percent). There was little variation in the  percentage of cases with investigative plans across closure types (see fig.  13).
HUD’s training manual for fair housing investigators states that interviews  are a vital part of collecting evidence, and that they allow an investigator to  probe for additional information that otherwise might not be provided.  The  manual recommends that investigators interview not only complainants  and respondents, but also other individuals, such as witnesses for the  parties and independent witnesses. FHEO officials noted that there are  circumstances where complainant or respondent interviews are not  necessary, such as when a case is conciliated before the investigation has  begun or when an investigator determines that a respondent is exempt  under the Act.
The majority of cases with closure types other than reasonable cause  included interviews with the parties to the complaint, but 28 percent did  not include interviews with respondents.  Cases with no reasonable cause  outcomes were more likely to include interviews with complainants and  respondents (see fig. 14). FHEO cases for these closure types were more  likely than FHAP cases to include interviews with complainants.  Specifically, we estimate that FHEO cases did not include interviews with  complainants 8 percent of the time, compared with 21 percent of the time for FHAP cases. We found at least one respondent interview for all cases  where HUD had determined reasonable cause. By contrast, only seven of  these cases included interviews with complainants.
In a number of cases, investigators interviewed complainants and  respondents once or twice. Forty-seven percent of cases with closure types  other than reasonable cause showed one or two complainant interviews,  and 40 percent showed one or two interviews with a respondent or  representative. We found that the content of interviews recorded in the  TEAPOTS database varied widely.
We looked specifically for evidence explaining why interviews were not  conducted or whether it was apparent why interviews were not conducted.  While we often could not find documentation as to why complainants and  respondents were not interviewed, the reason was apparent in a number of  cases.
We also looked at the time frame within which the parties were interviewed  for the first time following the official HUD filing date. The 100 days that  HUD allocates for conducting fair housing investigations begins on the date  a complaint is officially filed with HUD. HUD’s training manual for fair  housing investigators suggests that investigators interview complainants  first to clarify the details of the allegation and to evaluate the viability of the  complaint. We found that complainants were typically interviewed first, but  that in a number of cases, initial investigative interviews were conducted  weeks and even months after the complaint had been filed. For closure  types other than reasonable cause, 65 percent of cases with complainant  interviews showed the first investigative interview occurring more than 2  weeks after the complaint was filed; this was also the case for 67 percent of  respondent interviews. Further, 52 percent of cases with complainant  interviews showed the first investigative interview occurring more than 1  month after the complaint was filed; this was also the case for 46 percent of  respondent interviews.
FHEO officials noted that it may be appropriate to conduct a respondent’s  initial interview after first receiving documentation. Respondents have 10  days to provide a response to the complaint. FHEO officials noted that in  addition to caseload, the time involved in mail delivery and the difficulty of  locating people who have moved are factors that can impact the initial  interview with the parties. Officials at some of the FHAP agencies we  visited indicated that time may be of the essence in housing discrimination  cases since housing opportunities may be lost during the initial filing  period.  For pending evictions, one agency’s practice was to request an  eviction abeyance through the court or to petition the landlord to postpone  eviction pending a speedy investigation. To expedite the filing process, the  intake coordinator at another agency may go on site to have the complaint  form completed and signed in order to begin the investigation.
section_title: On-Site Visits
paragraphs: HUD’s guidance does not require that an investigator visit the site of the  alleged discriminatory act, such as the subject dwelling and respondent’s  place of business, and FHEO officials stated that many cases do not require  an on-site visit. However, the guidance also states that an on-site visit is the  most efficient way to conduct an investigation in most situations involving  fair housing complaints. Additionally, it states that while such a visit may  not appear necessary at the beginning of an investigation, issues may  develop as a case progresses that support the necessity of an on-site  investigation. One FHAP agency we visited had a policy of conducting  on-site interviews or inspections for each investigation, and officials there  reported that 95 percent of their cases included visits to the property in  question to conduct interviews and to obtain supporting documentation. In  contrast, officials at FHEO offices and other agencies said that limited  financial resources and time constraints may prevent investigators from  including on-site visits as a routine part of their investigations.
About three-quarters of the cases we reviewed with closure types other  than reasonable cause showed no evidence that investigators made on-site  visits. For non-cause cases that included an on-site visit, we found that  investigators toured the property in question, collected physical evidence  such as photographs, and interviewed complainants and respondents (see  fig. 15). We saw no statistically significant difference in use of on-site visits  among the non-cause closure types, but we found substantially more  on-site visits documented for cases where HUD had determined reasonable  cause. Ten of these cases included on-site visits, and investigators generally  carried out more activities while on site. The investigator toured the  property in 4 cases, physical evidence was collected in 9, and both  complainants and respondents were interviewed in 7 of the 10 cases.
HUD’s training manual for fair housing investigators recommends that  investigators request information on respondents’ policies and procedures  to compare the established policies and procedures with the alleged  discriminatory practice. Policy and procedure documents may take a  variety of forms, including lease agreements and housing covenants. We  found that 74 percent of cases for closure types other than reasonable  cause contained evidence that investigators requested policy and  procedure information from respondents. Although policy and procedure  documents are not always necessary to establish reasonable cause, we  found that such documents were requested in all of the cases where HUD  had determined reasonable cause.
The manual also suggests that investigators request comparative  information, especially in cases alleging unequal treatment, about persons  in the same protected class as the complainant and persons not in the complainant’s protected class. We found that the files for 58 percent of  cases for closure types other than reasonable cause showed that  comparative information was requested. FHEO officials noted that for  cases involving refusal to rent, they generally would expect that  investigators collect such information. However, in cases involving design  and construction for access by persons with disabilities, such information  typically is not necessary. For cases with closure types other than  reasonable cause, we found that 30 percent of cases where refusal to rent  was at least one issue did not show evidence that comparative information  was requested. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we  saw evidence in 10 of the 12 files that comparative information was  requested.
Comparative information was requested most often for cases with a finding  of no reasonable cause (see fig. 16). Specifically, we estimate that 82  percent of no reasonable cause cases had comparative information  requests. FHEO officials believe that recommended practices for planning  investigations, interviewing complainants and respondents, conducting  on-site visits, and seeking policy information need not be carried out in  every case. They believe that every case is unique and each investigation  should be tailored to the case. Our prior report noted that at least one  FHAP agency had developed software that automatically generated a list of  critical documents that were usually needed for certain types of  investigations. According to officials of this FHAP agency, this system  improved the quality of investigations and decreased the length of cases.
Finally, we found that investigators documented multiple attempts to reach  complainants before closing complaints administratively. Twenty-one  percent of the cases we reviewed had been closed administratively, most of  them because complainants withdrew their complaints. Relatively few of  the cases closed administratively resulted because a complainant could not  be located or was uncooperative with the investigator. Nonetheless,  investigators documented as many as 11 attempts to contact uncooperative  complainants by telephone, certified mail, and regular mail. The  investigating agency is required to notify the parties of administrative  closures as with other closure types, and 82 percent of administrative  closures had evidence that such notices had been addressed to the  parties.
section_title: TEAPOTS Was Used Inconsistently to Record Investigation Activity
paragraphs: Selected information entered in TEAPOTS was generally consistent with  the information found in source documents in the case files, but use of the  system varied considerably among agencies conducting fair housing  investigations. Complete and reliable TEAPOTS information is important  for each case since the database is used to record activities and  information throughout the investigation and subsequently as a resource  for preparing investigative reports. In addition, HUD officials point to  TEAPOTS as a control to determine that investigations are conducted in  accordance with statute and regulation. Without including evidence as an  investigation is completed, TEAPOTS cannot provide an accurate  representation of the evidence.
As part of our review of case files, we traced information in TEAPOTS  relating to the basis and issue of discrimination, the date of the last alleged  violation, and the HUD filing date and found that it generally matched  source document information, with some exceptions. We found that for  more common complaint issues—discriminatory terms and refusal to  rent—the information matched 83 percent and 81 percent of the time,  respectively. Similarly with regard to the discrimination basis, the  information matched 92 percent and 84 percent for race and national  origin, respectively, but the evidence is less clear for color. For familial  status, the information matched 86 percent of the time. When we  compared the date of the last alleged violation and the HUD filing date in  TEAPOTS with the same dates in the source documents, we found that  these matched 91 percent and 84 percent of the time, respectively. Also,  an estimated 91 percent of the last alleged violation dates in TEAPOTS  matched the source documents. Finally, filing dates in TEAPOTS matched  those in the source documents in 84 percent of cases.
In reviewing TEAPOTS reports for investigation details, we saw that the  amount of information varied a great deal depending on which agency had  investigated the case and entered the information. In some instances, entire  sections such as those for recording interviews, case chronology, and the  investigator’s findings and conclusion had not been completed. Without a  complete record of an investigation, investigators may be unable to utilize  TEAPOTS functions for preparing investigative reports. Further, because  the statute requires that information derived from investigations, including  the FIR, be made available to complainants and respondents upon request,  it is pertinent that all appropriate details be included.
section_title: Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate Complaints
paragraphs: Although HUD requires fair housing agencies to attempt conciliation  throughout the complaint process, our review of case files, survey of  complainants, and test calls revealed that FHEO and FHAP agencies did  not always attempt to conciliate complaints, made limited efforts to do so,  or did not meet HUD’s requirement that they document these efforts. While  having the fair housing specialists act as both investigators and conciliators  is permitted, investigators faced with pursuing conciliation as well may  focus on investigative activities, particularly considering FHEO’s emphasis  on completing investigations within 100 days.
subsections: section_title: Conciliation Was Not Always Discussed during Intake
paragraphs: FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook states that conciliation should be discussed  during the initial intake interview and should be noted in the standard  notification letters to the complainant and respondent. Further, the statute  requires that conciliation must be attempted to the extent feasible  commencing with the filing of the complaint and concluding with the  issuance of a charge on behalf of the complainant, or upon dismissal of the  complaint. For time-sensitive complaints, conciliation may be the most  effective procedure and, given that the resources of FHEO and FHAP  agencies are limited, an effective means of reducing staff workloads.  FHEO’s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal  Opportunity noted that conciliation is an integral part of the complaint  process. He noted that FHEO officials have “confidence that every party is  informed during the initial interview or contact of HUD’s statutory  obligation to attempt conciliation and is asked about the possibility of  conciliating the complaint and what it might take to effect conciliation.”
According to our survey of complainants, fewer than half (42 percent) were  offered assistance with conciliation (see fig. 17). In 26 percent of the  cases, complainants said staff suggested that the parties work out their  differences on their own.
Further, during the test calls we placed to FHEO and FHAP agencies, we  found the possibility of conciliation was discussed in only 18 percent of the  locations we called. FHAP agencies mentioned conciliation 23 percent of  the time, and FHEO did not mention conciliation at all.
Based on our survey of complainants, we estimate that nearly 90 percent of  complainants who were offered conciliation accepted it. About 12 percent  of complainants said they sought help with conciliation through other  organizations. The percentages did not vary among cases depending on  whether they were investigated by FHEO or a FHAP agency, but did vary  based on closure type, with approximately half of the complainants who  were offered conciliation far more likely to have their case end with a  conciliation outcome. We estimate that complainants with conciliation  outcomes were offered conciliation 67 percent of the time, while those  with no-cause outcomes were offered conciliation just 27 percent of the  time.
Overall, we estimate that parties involved in fair housing complaints were  more likely to reach conciliation agreements when FHEO or a FHAP  agency was involved. For example, we estimate that complainants reached  agreement 64 percent of the time when FHEO or a FHAP agency assisted  with conciliation, but only about 35 percent of the time when another  organization did the conciliation. Complainants who worked with FHEO or  a FHAP agency were satisfied with the outcome about 81 percent of the  time and with the other party’s compliance with the agreement more than  90 percent of the time, compared with 47 percent and 90 percent,  respectively, for complainants working with other organizations.
Our previous report noted that one FHAP agency was experimenting with a  separate “mediation track” when handling complaints. At this agency,  mediation attempts occurred early in the process during intake and  involved a professional private-sector mediator. The mediation had usually  pleased the parties, resulting in timely resolutions of cases and beneficial  results. Two FHAP agencies we visited for this study offered mediation.  Further, other FHAP agencies had begun offering mediation during the  intake stage, and the complainants’ decision to participate or not  participate in mediation was almost always documented. One FHAP in its  notification letter to the complainant offered the complainant the choice of  two options—either conciliation or investigation. Staff from one FHEO  regional office noted the use of mediation by a FHAP agency in their region  reduced complaints by approximately one-third.
section_title: Case Files Often Contained No Documentation of Conciliation Attempts
paragraphs: During our file review of no-cause cases, we found no documentation of  conciliation attempts around a third of the time and often no  documentation of contacts with either party to attempt conciliation.  Specifically, an estimated 36 percent of the files contained no evidence that  complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation, while 30 percent  of files lacked evidence that respondents had been contacted to attempt  conciliation.  For the 12 cases with outcomes of reasonable cause that we  reviewed, we found documentation that conciliation was attempted in 11 of  them.
When an agency contacted parties to a complaint, they often did so once or  twice. For example, we estimate that 21 percent of complainants in cases  with no-cause outcomes were contacted only once. As indicated in figure  18, we also found that conciliation attempts varied somewhat by closure  type. Conciliation was attempted with complainants less often for cases  that were closed administratively. However, for all cases, we found that  information on conciliation contained in the case file varied tremendously,  with some cases noting “conciliation discussed,” while others included  significant details.
As is the case with other aspects of our file review, the lack of evidence of  conciliation attempts does not necessarily indicate that such attempts did  not occur; attempts may not have been documented. However, according  to FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook, the lack of detailed documentation of  conciliation attempts could be problematic. For example, the Handbook  noted that FHEO Headquarters or the Office of General Counsel  occasionally questioned the sufficiency of conciliation efforts for cases  forwarded to FHEO Headquarters with recommendations of a  Determination of reasonable cause. Further, it stated that when these  questions were asked, the case was often remanded to the agency handling  the case with instructions to undertake additional late-stage conciliation  efforts. The Title VIII Handbook noted that a number of these remands  result not from a lack of initial conciliation attempts, but rather from a lack  of documentation of conciliation attempts in the case file.
Conciliation attempts should be documented in TEAPOTS before a case  can be closed. TEAPOTS includes a separate section that allows the intake  specialist and investigator to document conciliation efforts. While HUD  relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that investigations, including  conciliation attempts, are performed in accordance with statute and  regulation, information that we obtained from TEAPOTS shows that its use  varied from one location to another. For example, the descriptions of  conciliation attempts varied in detail, and the case information recoded by  some FHEO and FHAP offices did not include a chronological listing of  conciliation attempts as suggested by the Title VIII Handbook.
Finally, we found that conciliation agreements were generally  well-documented. Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of cases closed  with conciliation included copies of conciliation agreements in the case  file. A HUD conciliation agreement is a written, binding agreement to  resolve the disputed issues in a Title VIII housing discrimination complaint.  The HUD conciliation agreement must contain provisions to protect the  public interest in furthering fair housing. According to the Act, a  conciliation agreement requires HUD approval. Approximately ninety-five  percent of these agreements were signed by all parties and approximately  90 percent were approved by FHEO or the FHAP agency.
section_title: Complainants Viewed Conciliation as a Case Outcome More Favorably Than Other Possible Outcomes
paragraphs: Based on our survey, complainants whose cases were conciliated were  more positive with this outcome than those who experienced  administrative closure or a finding of no-cause, but complainants felt at  least some pressure to conciliate their complaints, most commonly  because they felt their cases would not be handled otherwise. As shown in  figure 19, 52 percent of the complainants surveyed indicated that they felt a  little to great pressure to resolve their cases. In commenting on a draft of  this report, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and  Equal Opportunity noted that the Fair Housing Act mandates attempts at  conciliation and that this statutory construct may result in what  complainants perceive to be pressure to resolve their case.
Our survey of complainants indicated that conciliation seemed to work  when an agency such as FHEO or FHAP agencies were involved (over 64  percent resulted in a conciliation). However, a significant number of survey  complainants indicated that this opportunity was not presented to them.  Moreover, those who sought conciliation assistance from any other  organization were less likely to reach a satisfactory outcome; 47 percent  did not realize a satisfactory agreement.
section_title: Emphasis Given to Conciliation May Be Affected in Cases of Dual Investigator/Conciliator Role
paragraphs: Our previous report noted that investigators at some FHEO locations and  FHAP agencies customarily conciliated their own cases, while other  locations usually used separate investigators and conciliators. Also, our  previous report noted that officials 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 FHEO  location 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 functions said  they did not have enough staff to have separate conciliators. We  recommended in our previous report that FHEO establish a way to identify  and share information on effective practices among its regional fair  housing offices and FHAP agencies.
According to the Title VIII Handbook, conciliation may be a fertile source  of information regarding a respondent’s housing practices. However, the  Handbook notes that nothing said or done during the course of conciliation  can be used in the investigator’s reasonable cause recommendation, in the  final investigative report, or in any subsequent Title VIII enforcement  proceeding. Information discovered during conciliation should not be  made public without the written consent of the persons concerned.  Although information discovered during the conciliation process cannot be  factored into the investigator’s recommendation, if this same information is  discovered outside of the conciliation process, it is permissible for  investigators to use this information in their recommendations. For  example, if respondents make an admission during conciliation  negotiations, investigators cannot use this admission in their  recommendations. However, if respondents make this same admission in a  later deposition, the investigator can use this admission in their  recommendations.
In our previous report, we also noted that 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 cases 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 FHEO 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  FHEO 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 complaint process, and all 6  said that the practice decreased the length.
During our current review, officials from one FHEO regional office noted  that using separate conciliators would definitely assist in making their  investigative process more effective. However due to staffing constraints,  they believed it was impractical to do so without a significant increase in  staff.  These officials noted that they needed additional staff to speed up  the investigative process, separate investigation from conciliation, conduct  more thorough investigations, and more effectively monitor compliance  with conciliation agreements.
section_title: Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint Process, Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and Investigation
paragraphs: While an estimated 44 percent of complainants were somewhat or very  satisfied with the fair housing complaint process, based on our survey, we  estimate that about half of all complainants were either somewhat or very  dissatisfied. Similarly, nearly 60 percent were dissatisfied with the  outcome of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent  would be unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Complainants’  dissatisfaction varied for each stage of the complaint process, as well as by  type of complaint closure (administrative, conciliation, and no-cause  finding), with complainants in no-cause cases expressing the least  satisfaction with various aspects of investigations. However, according to  FHEO, the low satisfaction levels of complainants with a no-cause finding  is not wholly unexpected given that they failed to receive the desired  outcome and thus question the process that produced the outcome.
subsections: section_title: Many Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Complaint Process, but Satisfaction Varied According to the Stage of the Process and Case Outcome
paragraphs: Overall, about 34 percent of all complainants were satisfied with both the  process and the outcome; conversely, 48 percent of all complainants were  dissatisfied with both the process and the complaint outcome (see fig. 20).  When looking at complainants’ overall satisfaction level, we found no  significant differences when we sorted by type of agency--that is, between  cases investigated by FHEO and those investigated by FHAP agencies.  However, variations by closure type existed. For example, over two-thirds  of those with a no-cause finding were dissatisfied with both the process  and the outcome of their complaint (about 68 percent). In contrast, over  two-thirds of those closed through conciliation were satisfied with both the  process for handling their complaint and its outcome (about 68 percent).  Also, just under half of the complainants with administrative closures were  dissatisfied with both the process and outcome (about 43 percent).
While an estimated one-half of all complainants—regardless of their case  outcomes--were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with their experience  with the overall complaint process, the percentages expressing  dissatisfaction with the intake and investigative stages were smaller (see  fig. 21). Specifically, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat to  very satisfied with the intake stage and nearly 55 percent with the  investigative stage.
In addition, we found that complainants who were dissatisfied with the  outcome of the complaint process were also likely to express  dissatisfaction with the process itself. These results were consistent across  FHEO offices and FHAP agencies. Further, complainants with a no-cause  finding were more likely to be dissatisfied with both the process and  outcome than complainants whose complaints were conciliated or closed  administratively. For example, complainants with a no-cause outcome  were somewhat to very dissatisfied with the process 72 percent of the time  (23 percent were satisfied) and with the outcome of their cases 84 percent  of the time, while those with a conciliation outcome reported  dissatisfaction levels of 21 percent with the process (75 percent were  satisfied) and 25 percent with the outcome.
About 40 percent of complainants said they would be somewhat to very  unlikely to file any future complaint with the same fair housing agency.  These results did not differ significantly by type of agency but did differ by  closure type. For example, complainants with a no-cause outcome said  they would be somewhat to very unlikely to file another complaint about 56  percent of the time, compared with 14 percent of those whose cases were  conciliated.
Generally, complainants’ level of satisfaction with the process and its  outcome did not vary with the expectations they had before talking to  anyone at a fair housing organization. There were a few important  exceptions, however. About 20 percent of complainants reported that they  expected that the fair housing organization would not help both sides  equally. These complainants were significantly more dissatisfied with the  overall process and its outcome. The same was true for the approximately  30 percent of complainants that expected the fair housing organization  would get the complainant a financial award. Half of all complainants had  expectations that were not listed in our survey. Those complainants that  had expectations other than those we listed were significantly more  dissatisfied with each stage of the process, the overall process, and its  outcome. These results may indicate that some complainants have  different or greater expectations than others.
section_title: Complainants Viewed the Overall Intake Process Positively but Expressed Concern about Specific Intake Activities
paragraphs: According to our survey, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat  or very satisfied with the intake process (see fig. 22). More than half of the  complainants reported that they received clear information during the  intake process and that intake staff were courteous and mostly acted  promptly. Yet, a substantial number of complainants gave poor ratings to  specific aspects of the process, citing difficulty contacting intake staff and  the lack of timeliness of some intake activities. These opinions were  generally true across agency type and closure types.
Complainants reported that intake staff at both FHEO and FHAP agencies  provided understandable information more than half of the time, including  satisfactory explanations about an agency’s decision on whether to pursue  an investigation. In general, about 60 percent of the time complainants told  us that they received clear information on the likely length of each step in  the process and explanations of the complaint and investigative process.  Moreover, an estimated 66 percent of complainants were very or somewhat  satisfied with the way the organizations explained their decision to pursue  or not pursue a case (see fig. 23). The results varied by closure type with  the exception of the organization’s explanation of their decision whether to  investigate. For example, fewer complainants with no-cause outcomes,  relative to complainants with conciliation outcomes, felt that they had  received understandable information on the time involved or felt that they  had received explanations of the complaint and investigative processes.
Based on survey results, complainants believe intake staff took action in a  timely manner more than half the time on the intake activities we reviewed.  Specifically, we estimate that about 70 percent of the time intake staff  sought the complainant’s signature somewhat to very quickly after the  initial contact and that 62 percent of the time intake staff acted somewhat  to very quickly in deciding whether to pursue an investigation (see fig. 24).  Staff performance in getting back to complainants was apparently less  satisfying, with just 55 percent of complainants responding that intake staff  acted somewhat to very quickly, a result that complements our findings on  the difficulty of contacting intake staff. In general, these results were true  regardless of whether FHEO or FHAP agencies had handled the  complainants’ cases. Complainants with no-cause outcomes cited the  slowest response time, saying that staff responded somewhat or very  quickly only about 40 percent of the time. On the other hand, complainants  whose cases were conciliated reported the fastest agency action for certain  actions.
In general, complainants felt that intake staff provided services in an  acceptable and professional way (see fig. 25). We estimate that intake staff  at both FHEO and FHAP offices treated complainants with courtesy and  respect about 85 percent of the time and were helpful and impartial more  than 70 percent of the time, according to complainants we surveyed.  Complainants with no-cause outcomes reported positive treatment less  often. For example, these complainants said that intake staff were helpful  and interested in their complaint about 60 percent of the time and thorough  about half of the time.
We asked complainants whether intake staff carried out a variety of  activities that were either required or that could be considered best  practices—for example, did intake staff notify complainants whether the  fair housing organization would pursue the case? According to survey  results, FHEO and FHAP agency staff carried out some intake-related  activities, such as seeking signatures for a complaint, more frequently and  more quickly than others, such as taking action to prevent the loss of a  housing opportunity. Among other things, our survey showed the following:  Intake staff very often asked complainants to sign a complaint. This was  true for about 90 percent of complainants who were working with a  single fair housing agency. In contrast, only about 48 percent of those  complainants who were working with two or more fair housing agencies  were asked to sign a complaint. We did not observe any significant  differences by type of agency (FHEO or FHAP) or closure type. Because  we surveyed only complainants that had filed complaints, we would  expect that all would have been asked to sign the complaint. According  to the Title VIII Handbook, a complaint should generally be signed  before it can be considered as filed, so as to provide protection against  frivolous or false claims or inadvertent erroneous statements on the  intake form.
Complainants stated by a large margin—about 81 percent—that intake  staff asked questions that would help the agency understand what led to  the complaint, and 86 percent stated that the agency notified them with  a decision on whether an investigation would be undertaken. Again, all  complainants should be asked questions about their allegation,  including information needed to satisfy the required elements of  jurisdiction. In general, these results were similar across FHEO, the  FHAP agencies, and the closure outcomes.
Complainants reported that intake staff were less likely to take some  actions or to ask certain questions (see fig. 26). For example, according  to complainants we surveyed, about 69 percent of the time both FHEO  and FHAP intake staff did not attempt to prevent the loss of a housing  opportunity when asked to do so, although the percentage varied across  outcome types. Complainants with administrative closures or  conciliated cases were slightly more likely to report that staff took  action for them than those with a no-cause outcome.
Complainants also said that intake staff did not offer to resolve  differences between parties about 45 percent of the time. Again, the  results differed according to case outcome, with complainants who  conciliated reporting the most offers (76 percent) and those with a  no-cause outcome the least (37 percent). As previously discussed, the  Act requires the fair housing organization to offer conciliation to the  extent feasible in all cases.
section_title: Most Complainants Reported Being Satisfied with the Investigative Stage, but Substantial Numbers Rated Poorly Certain Aspects of the Investigation Process
paragraphs: Although most complainants were satisfied with the investigative stage of  the complaint process, they were generally less positive than they were  about the intake stage. Further, a substantial number of complainants  expressed dissatisfaction and concern about certain aspects of  investigations.
We estimate that about 40 percent of complainants were dissatisfied with  the conduct of investigations, whether it was conducted by FHEO or a  FHAP agency (see fig. 27). As they were with other activities, complainants  whose cases were closed with a no-cause outcome were the most  dissatisfied with the conduct of investigations, with nearly two-thirds  reporting dissatisfaction. The concerns that led to this dissatisfaction  included problems contacting staff, concern that staff did not perform  actions such as informing complainants about options after their case was  closed, and difficulty obtaining clear information. However, those whose  cases were conciliated very often reported being satisfied with the  investigation. Despite the concerns cited, complainants in general believed  that staff treated them professionally and with respect and courtesy.
We estimate that a quarter to a third of complainants had problems  reaching investigators, believed that investigators performed poorly in  providing case updates, and were dissatisfied with the amount of contact  they had with investigators. An estimated one-quarter of the complainants  found it hard or somewhat hard to reach investigators, and more than 30  percent of the complainants noted dissatisfaction with the amount of  contact they had with investigators (see fig. 28). These results did not vary  significantly depending on whether cases had been investigated by FHEO  or FHAP agencies, but did differ according to the closure type. For  example, more than one-third of complainants whose cases were closed  with a finding of no-cause reported difficulties in contacting the  investigators, compared with 22 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of  complainants whose cases were closed administratively or conciliated.  Complainants with a no-cause finding were most dissatisfied with the  amount of contact they had with the investigator; 49 percent reported  dissatisfaction, compared with 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively, for  those having administrative or conciliation outcomes.
Significant numbers of complainants reported that investigative staff  performed administrative functions acceptably and in a timely manner but  did only a fair or poor job on others. For example, complainants reported  that they were told their investigator’s name about 83 percent of the time,  and 92 percent said they received their closure notifications. But about 59  percent of complainants whose cases were administratively closed  reported that they were not told about any options they might have had for  pursuing a complaint. Further, overall many complainants believed that  staff did a fair to poor job of listening to them (nearly 40 percent),  explaining the investigative process (about 36 percent), investigating the  evidence (about 44 percent), interviewing their witnesses (nearly 40  percent), and asking for documents related to their cases (about 32  percent).  These percentages were generally similar whether complainants’  cases had been handled by FHEO or a FHAP agency, with one exception:  Complainants indicated that FHAP agencies were slightly better at  interviewing witnesses (33 percent excellent or good) than FHEO (23  percent). We found more differences among complainants’ experiences  based on their closure outcomes. Complainants with no-cause outcomes  were more likely to perceive difficulties in a variety of areas than  complainants with administrative closures or conciliated cases.  Specifically, complainants with no-cause outcomes  more frequently reported problems receiving case updates (62 percent  of the time, compared with 34 percent for administrative closures and 23  percent for conciliations);  were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of  investigating the evidence (68 percent of the time, compared with 37  percent for administrative closures and 20 percent for conciliations);  and  were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of  interviewing witnesses (58 percent of the time, compared with 35  percent for administrative closures and 14 percent for conciliations).
Despite these views, most complainants reported that staff moved quickly  in conducting the investigation. About three-fifths of complainants said  that both FHEO and FHAP investigators were prompt in contacting them to  start an investigation, responding to questions, and completing an  investigation. However, complainants with no-cause outcomes typically  reported problems with timeliness at twice the rate of complainants with  different outcomes (see fig. 29).
Finally, we found that complainants generally felt they were treated well by  investigators (see fig. 30), regardless of the type of agency that investigated  the complaint or the closure type, with one exception: Complainants whose  cases ended in a no-cause outcome usually felt less well treated by staff.  For example, an estimated 83 percent said that investigators treated them  with respect and courtesy, 74 percent said that staff were interested in their  complaint, about 72 percent believed that staff were impartial, and around  71 percent found staff helpful. In general, complainants had similar  responses for FHEO and FHAP investigations.  As noted, those with a  no-cause outcome were less complimentary, and only 53 percent of them  believed that the investigator had been helpful, versus 78 percent and 90  percent, respectively, for those with administrative or conciliation closures.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In our April 2004 report, we found that persons who have experienced  alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a lengthy wait before  their complaint is resolved. In preparing this current report, the results of  the test calls even though they are not generalizable to all potential  complainants and our survey of complainants that is generalizable—  suggest that some complainants may also face difficulties from the  outset—that is, during the intake phase—in contacting staff and presenting  their initial allegations. We also previously reported that 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. For this report, our analysis of logged  contacts indicates that FHAP agencies and FHEO hubs did not enter into  TEAPOTS all contacts alleging Title VIII violations. Moreover, the  discrepancies we observed between the dates of logged initial contacts and  the corresponding dates entered into TEAPOTS as the beginning of the  inquiries indicate that FHEO does not have reliable data for measuring the  extent to which its offices and FHAP agencies meet the benchmark of 20  days for completing the intake process.
Our review of case files and TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that  investigations are consistently as thorough or expeditious as FHEO  guidance requires or recommends. HUD officials have noted their reliance  on TEAPOTS for assurance that cases are investigated in accordance with  applicable requirements and guidance. While the lack of evidence we  observed may be the result of not documenting certain actions, rather than  not carrying them out, the very lack of documentation or detailed  TEAPOTS records raises questions about HUD’s ability to assure that  investigations are as thorough as they need to be.
The Fair Housing Act has from the outset mandated that persons alleging  housing discrimination be offered the opportunity to conciliate their  complaint with the other party. However, our review of case files and  TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that conciliation attempts were  consistently made throughout the process, despite HUD’s requirements  that these attempts be documented. The lack of documentation that  conciliation is offered raises questions about HUD’s ability to assure that  such attempts are made as appropriate throughout the fair housing  process. Further, this lack of documentation, along with complainants’  first-hand experience and our observation during mock complaint calls that  conciliation was not discussed, suggest that FHEO and FHAP agencies are  not consistently offering conciliation, as required by the Act. We  recommended in our previous study that FHEO establish a way to identify  and share information on effective practices among its regional fair  housing offices and FHAP agencies. We observed during our previous study  and this study that some FHAP agencies have used independent mediators  and had staff not involved in a particular case attempt conciliation.  Officials who use these techniques point to their benefits in speeding up the  resolution of complaints, while offering the parties a satisfactory outcome.  In our last report, we concluded that FHEO’s human capital challenges  serve to exacerbate the challenge of improving enforcement practices.  However, the identification and use of best practices may help FHEO, as  well as FHAP agencies, more effectively utilize their limited resources.
Our work does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate  decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation.  Further, our review of case files shows that many investigative  requirements were met, and former complainants we surveyed expressed  satisfaction with some aspects of their experience. Nevertheless, we  believe that our findings are cause for concern. Individuals who believe  they have experienced discrimination and make the effort to contact a fair  housing agency, but are unable to easily reach an intake staff person or to  expeditiously convey needed information, may simply give up and cease  cooperating. Further, our survey of former complainants shows that some  who successfully filed complaints have a sufficiently negative view of the  process that they would be unlikely to file a complaint again—even if they  were satisfied with the outcome of their case. Events of either type  diminish the Act’s effectiveness in deterring acts of housing discrimination  or otherwise promoting fair housing practices.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that complainants are able to readily contact a fair housing  agency and file a complaint, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct  the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to ensure that intake activities are  conducted consistently. Specific actions may include  establishing clear standards for information that should be collected  with the initial contact;  creating benchmarks and performance goals for the treatment of  complainants during the initial contact, including measures of  responsiveness, such as hold times and call-back timeliness, as well as  measures of completeness of initial information collection;  developing special procedures for identifying and responding to   establishing means (including automation, where appropriate) of  assuring that standards, benchmarks, and special procedures are  followed.
To improve the usefulness of TEAPOTS as a management control in  assuring that potential Title VIII-related contacts are identified and  assessing performance in meeting timeliness guidelines, we recommend  that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take the  following two actions:  Specify that FHAP agencies use TEAPOTS for recording initial inquiry  dates for all inquiries, as defined in the Title VIII Handbook, that allege  housing discrimination.
Require that the initial inquiry date reflect the first contact made by the  complainant, regardless of whether that contact was with FHEO or a  FHAP agency.
To enhance FHEO and FHAP agency ability to assess the thoroughness of  investigations, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant  Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:  Establish documentation standards and appropriate controls to ensure  that required notifications of complaint, amendment, and closure are  made and received, and that 100-day letters are sent before an  investigation has reached 100 days.
Clarify requirements for planning investigations, including specifying  when plans must be prepared, their content, and review and approval.
To ensure that some form of conciliation is made available for all  complainants, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant  Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions:  Work with FHAP agencies and others to develop best practices for  offering conciliation throughout the complaint process, including at its  outset.
Ensure that investigators comply with requirements to document  conciliation attempts, and complainants’ or respondents’ declination of  conciliation assistance.
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 General Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The letter,  which is included in appendix II, indicated a general agreement with our  conclusions and recommendations. The General Deputy Assistant  Secretary noted that FHEO conducts analyses of its programs and strives  to continually improve its operations and those of FHAP agencies in order  to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are handled in an  effective and efficient manner. The letter also expressed confidence based  on the extensive internal reviews, final determinations, and requests for  reconsideration, in the integrity of the fair housing process, the soundness  of decisions and the competent professional service accorded every party  to the process. The letter noted a variety of initiatives that have been  implemented to improve the quality of investigations, including  establishing the National Fair Housing Training Academy, which trains  fair housing professionals on fair housing law, critical thinking, and  interview techniques;   completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and Conciliation  sections of the Title VIII Handbook, which provides guidance to  investigators on case processing standards and sets nationwide policy;  developing the FHEO-OGC Case processing Research Project, which  focuses on early interaction and continuous consultation between  FHEO and OGC; and  undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify best  practices in the field among the FHAP agencies, as well as codifying  operations and procedures in headquarters.
The General Deputy Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would, as  feasible, work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and  procedures.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier,  we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report  date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chair of the Senate Committee  on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chair, Subcommittee on  Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban  Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested congressional members  and committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request.  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
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. We  did not address fair housing activities under Section 504 of the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For  certain analyses of the fair housing complaint process, we relied on  national samples of complaints closed during the last half of 2004— enabling us to provide national estimates.
subsections: section_title: Intake
paragraphs: To determine the thoroughness of efforts by the Office of Fair Housing and  Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)  agencies during the intake process, we conducted two activities. First, we  asked intake staff to keep a log of the contacts they had with potential  complainants over a 4-week period and to note the proportion of contacts  alleging housing discrimination.
We designed an Intake Contact Log for staff to use that enabled us to obtain  never-before-collected data consistently across agencies for a set time  period. We asked the 10 FHEO offices, 36 state FHAP agencies, and 5 local  FHAP agencies with the highest volume (based on number of complaints  filed during fiscal year 2004) to maintain the log over the 4-week period  from February 21 through March 21, 2005. All of the FHEO offices, local  FHAP agencies, and all but 4 of the state FHAP agencies agreed to maintain  our contact log. These offices represented 78 percent of the volume of  investigations in 2004. The log required intake staff to document  the date each contact was received;  the method of each contact (such as telephone, mail, e-mail);   whether the contact involved a new potential complaint or a previously  existing complaint, or was a referral from another agency;  whether the callers claimed that they had experienced housing   whether the intake staff or supervisor believed the contact potentially  involved a jurisdictional Title VIII violation; and  the name of the individual making the contact.
Once we received the data, we reviewed them for consistency and logic.  Where we identified coding that was apparently not consistent with our  instruction, we called the staff that prepared the log for clarification. In  some cases, we needed to recode the log based on these conversations.
We focused our analysis on entries that the intake staff indicated pertained  to a potentially valid Title VIII issue, that included names, and that they  coded as new potential complaints. Using entries with names allowed us to  eliminate multiple contacts from the same person and report statistics on  people rather than on contacts. Once we identified the unique names that  met these criteria, we matched the names to records in a TEAPOTS extract  to determine how many of the new potential complaints during the 4-week  recording period were perfected. Specifically, we requested an extract of  the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s TEAPOTS database  for the time period coinciding with the contact log reporting period, plus 5  additional weeks to allow sufficient time for perfecting complaints. We did  not evaluate the judgments of the intake staff in determining whether a  contact should have been pursued. Since FHAP agencies tended not to  enter inquiries into TEAPOTS until the complaint was ready to be  perfected, the results of our name matching are reported both in aggregate  and separately for FHEO office and FHAP agencies. We also reported on  the total number of intake-related contacts received during the reporting  period, the proportion of contacts alleging housing discrimination that the  intake staff determined did not constitute a valid Title VIII complaint, and  percentages for each contact method (telephone, e-mail, and walk-in).
In order to assess the degree to which intake staff obtained sufficient and  appropriate information to determine whether a contact should become a  Title VIII complaint, we designed a telephone “test call” program of intake  staff at the 10 HUD hubs and 36 state FHAP agencies. GAO analysts posing  as complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We  excluded local FHAP agencies from telephone testing because these  agencies tend to have a low volume of investigations, compared with state  FHAP agencies. We placed one test call to each site using the same case  scenario with different identifying information, such as names and  addresses. Testers were trained to consistently volunteer only certain  information such as the “name” and description of what happened, and to  respond in standardized ways to questions asked by intake staff.  The calls  were recorded and later coded against a list of information that might be  sought as part of the intake process. We developed this list of information  based on requirements and recommended practices derived from multiple  sources. Among these were requirements of the Fair Housing Act, guidance  provided by HUD in the form of policy and training manuals, and training  materials from the National Fair Housing Alliance, as well as discussions  with HUD and FHAP agency officials.  We categorized the information into  four levels: information that (1) should always be gathered at intake, (2) is  potentially applicable to all complaints and should be collected, (3) is  relevant to a particular basis or protected class, and (4) is considered by  officials we spoke with and training materials as a best practice.
We placed one pretest call to each of the 46 sites we planned to contact to  get a sense of how each location conducts intake. We adjusted the design to  account for differences in the intake process to the fullest extent possible.  For example, we allowed for scheduled intake interviews for locations that  only conducted intake calls on a scheduled basis. We found that  approximately 25 percent of the time we could expect to speak with a  person on initial contact who could complete the intake process. In many  cases, an agency staff member would perform an initial screening before  forwarding the call to the intake staff, and in other cases, the call was  forwarded to a voice mailbox.  Based on our findings during the pretest, we  decided to evaluate not only the information collected by intake staff, but  also the number of attempts required to speak with a live person, hold  times, and the length of time that elapsed before staff responded to voice- mail messages by returning calls. We included information that callers  volunteered and obvious items such as gender. Because of the limitations  of our sample—only one call to each site—the results of our analysis are  not generalizable to the entire population of potential complainants in  housing discrimination cases.
section_title: Investigation and Conciliation
paragraphs: To address the thoroughness of investigation procedures, including  conciliation attempts, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly  selected case files of housing discrimination cases completed during the  last 6 months of 2004 around the country (see table 1). We originally  sampled 205 cases, but we were unable to locate files or matching  TEAPOTS data records for 8 cases. The sample files included 58 cases  closed administratively, 63 cases that were conciliated without a finding of  reasonable cause, and 90 that were closed with a finding of no reasonable  cause. We oversampled administrative closures to ensure that we had a  sufficient number of files to permit estimates for this subpopulation. The  population of complaints and the sample we used are enumerated in tables  1 and 2. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random  selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different  estimates (sampling error), our results have confidence intervals of plus or  minus 8 percentage points or smaller, unless otherwise noted, at a 95  percent level of confidence. In other words, this interval would contain the  true value for the actual population for 95 percent of the samples we could  have drawn.
We also reviewed files for 12 of the 15 complaint investigations FHEO  concluded with a finding of “cause,” and for which the adjudication  process, including any agency monitoring, had been completed during the  last 6 months of 2004. We could not locate files for the remaining cases. All  12 files were identified by the Department of Justice as having met these  criteria. We did not review files for which a FHAP agency found “cause”  and that completed the adjudication because these could not be identified.
We examined the documentation in the files, as well as the full TEAPOTS  case summary for each case, to determine whether it demonstrated that the  investigator had met certain requirements and best practices for  conducting fair housing investigations. We identified these requirements  and best practices through reviewing the Fair Housing Act, implementing  regulations, FHEO’s Title VIII Handbook and training material, and other  guidance. In addition, we interviewed FHEO officials at both HUD  headquarters and field offices in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco. We  also interviewed FHAP agency officials in California, Georgia, Maryland,  South Carolina, and Virginia. We met with the National Fair Housing  Alliance and attended training at the John Marshall Law School on Fair  Housing enforcement and at HUD’s National Fair Housing Training  Academy. We provided a draft summary of our criteria to FHEO officials  and made technical corrections based on their comments. To ensure the  consistency of our file review, we developed a structured data collection  instrument. We anchored each item on the instrument to the criteria  identified above. We pretested the instrument with several team members,  and based upon this test, modified the instrument to ensure clarity. For 10  percent of all files reviewed, another team member reviewed the coding, to  ensure its accuracy.
section_title: Complainant Satisfaction
paragraphs: We surveyed a sample of complainants whose cases had been investigated  and closed by FHEO and FHAP agencies from July 1 to December 31, 2004,  to determine levels of satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness,  timeliness, and outcomes of the intake and investigation process. We did  not include cases that proceeded to the adjudication process owing to a  finding of reasonable cause to avoid surveying complainants that may still  be involved in the adjudication process. The survey also provided  supplemental evidence for our analysis of the thoroughness of the intake  and investigation stages of the complaint process and the frequency of  conciliation.
We determined that there was a population of 4,327 fair housing complaints  (contact information was not provided for 6 of the original 4,333 cases) that  had ended in administrative closure, conciliation without determination of  cause, or a determination of no-cause for the 6-month period between July  1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. The complainants of record were mostly  private individuals, but some were fair housing organizations acting on  their own behalf or on that of one or more individuals. From a list obtained  from HUD’s TEAPOTS database, the PA Consulting Group, a survey firm  under contract to GAO, called the complainants of record selected in the  sample. The total sample of 1,675 was parceled out in seven individual  waves over the field period, in an attempt to use the smallest possible  sample to achieve the quota of 575 completed interviews.  The sample was  allocated across six categories—two agency types by three closure types— to ensure that enough interviews were conducted in each category to allow  statistically valid comparisons between them. (See table 4 for the  distribution of the population, sample, responses, and response rates  across these categories.) With this probability sample, each member of the  population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that  probability could be computed for any member. Each sampled complaint  for which an interview was obtained was subsequently weighted in the  analysis to account statistically for all the members of the population,  including those who were not selected and those who were selected but did  not respond to the survey.
Beginning in early May 2005, GAO mailed letters notifying those sampled  complainants with valid mailing addresses of the upcoming survey and  encouraging them to participate. Calling to those complainants typically  began several days after the letters were mailed. The advance letters also  included an address correction form. Recipients were asked to revise any  incorrect information and return the form. A toll-free number also was  provided for recipients to ask any questions or to correct information such  as names and phone numbers. Calling began in early May and continued for  7 weeks, ending on June 20, 2005.
For institutional complaints drawn into our sample, the interviewer helped  the organization’s representative identify the specific complaint by  describing the issue, basis, and respondent name. Multiple interviews could  be conducted with the same institutional informant if more than one  complaint from that organization was randomly drawn. Thirty-three  interviews were completed on institutional complaints. Proxies (typically  family members, guardians, or other representatives) for the named  complainant were interviewed for 19 of the sampled complaints. Not all  sampled complaints met GAO’s eligibility requirements for the survey:  Some complainants indicated that their cases were still open and  experiencing legal activity. GAO could not have any involvement with such  complaints. For the same reason, other complainants who said they had an  ongoing agreement with the other party resolving the complaint were also  not interviewed. Some complaint cases also became ineligible for the  survey due to the death of the complainant, a complainant’s insistence that  a case was not a fair housing discrimination case, and complaints sampled  multiple times (more than four for institutional complainants and one for  individuals—see table 3).
Complainants with an issue or basis alleging racial discrimination because  the complainant was Hispanic received letters printed in both English and  Spanish. The survey was also administered by Spanish-speaking  interviewers when the complainant indicated a preference for speaking  Spanish.
When named complainants could not be found using records provided by  HUD, interviewers used a variety of search techniques to try to locate  complainants, including calling alternate contacts named in the complaint  record and using directory assistance and online tracking services. For  example, if an address was available but no working phone number could  be found, interviewers used reverse directories and contacted neighbors by  phone to ask about the whereabouts of the named complainant. Once  during the fieldwork period, 547 noncontactable records were submitted to  Lorton Data’s National Change of Address and Telephone Append services,  resulting in some updated phone numbers and mailing addresses. To  maximize the possibility of reaching complainants, multiple attempts were  made over a period of time on different days of the week and at different  hours. The number of attempts required to reach subjects ranged from 1 to  34, with an average of 12.
Results from sample questionnaire surveys are subject to several types of  errors: failure of the sample frame to cover the study population,  measurement errors in administering the questionnaire, sampling errors,  nonresponse errors from failing to collect information from part of the  sample, and data processing error. To limit coverage errors, we used the  most recent available data from TEAPOTS to identify eligible  complainants. At the beginning of the interview, we also confirmed that the  complainant of record had lodged an actual fair housing discrimination  complaint and that the complaint had been closed as TEAPOTS indicated.
To limit measurement errors, we first took steps in the development of the  questionnaire to ensure that our questions gathered the information  intended. GAO asked knowledgeable representatives of fair housing  organizations and other government agencies to review early versions of  the instrument. We also conducted a pilot test of an early version of the  questionnaire with 26 complainants in December 2004 and seven pretests  with complainants in the study population during March 2005. Finally, the  telephone survey contractor completed nine pretests of the final  instrument in late April 2005. Interviewers were trained using materials  developed by GAO before the survey began and were routinely monitored  during interviews.
The survey is also subject to sampling error—our results have confidence  intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or smaller at a 95 percent  level of confidence.
Our survey received a low response rate, with only 38 percent of those  known or assumed to be eligible in our survey participating. If those who  did not respond might have answered our survey questions differently from  those who did, our estimates would be biased because we would have  missed the answers from a set of people with fundamentally different  views. In fact, response rates varied widely across the three different  closure types, which were associated with key variables in the survey such  as satisfaction with the complaint process and outcome.  We tended to get  relatively more responses from complainants in conciliation cases than  from complainants in no-cause cases, and those whose cases were  conciliated tended to be more satisfied. However, we could address this  potential bias because we controlled the allocation of our sample across  the closure types. We could statistically adjust, or weight, responses by  closure type to bring them into proportion with the population and thus  account for the different nonresponse rate across those types, which  should compensate for the nonresponse bias. Nevertheless, the possibility  of bias in the results still remains. Our weighting adjustment only  compensates for differences in opinion between those with different  closure types and agency responsibility, not other characteristics that may  have been over- or under-represented in our responses and that may be  related to our survey questions.
To limit the possibility of data processing errors, the survey firm used a  computer-assisted telephone interviewing system that recorded electronic  data directly from the telephone interviewers’ answers, and also checked  for missing data, inconsistencies, and unlikely answer patterns. Data  analysis programming was also independently verified.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to Mathew J. Scirè (Assistant Director), Nicholas Alexander,  Carl Barden, Johnnie Barnes, Bernice Benta, Emily Chalmers, Arielle  Cohen, Paul Desaulniers, Grace Haskins, Robert Lowthian, Alexandra  Martin-Arseneau, Amanda Miller, Marc Molino, Jeff Pokras, Linda Rego,  Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, Paige Smith, Anita Visser, and Joan Vogel made  key contributions to this report.