late in FY 1974. As space becomes available training slots will be allocated to OFCC, other Federal agencies and state and local fair employment practice agencies. 4. Orientation. The Training Center will develop a standardized orientation package for use in Headquarters and field offices. The package will include a general orientation to the Federal civil service and a specific overview of Commission activities, practices and organization. All new Commission employees will go through the orientation. The implementation of the Training Center is being accomplished through existing personnel with training responsibilities and capabilities and the assistance of an outside contractor. The cost of the contract is $207,000. As we move toward the date for the first course offerings in September and heavy scheduling in the winter months additional resources such as facilities, materials, production, and audio-visual support will be required. Initially, major personnel resources are being supplied by the contractor. The contractor staff is supplemented and monitored during the current developmental period by two senior Commission employees. Additional Commission personnel resources will be required from September on to assist in the delivery of the training. The need for additional Commission personnel will become especially critical during the second half of FY 1975 as we begin to phase out the contractor's personnel and plan for full internal operation and staffing during FY 1976. During FY 1975 we will meet the Training Center's personnel needs by shifting about six positions, mostly from our Employee Development Branch, which already have training responsibility. This initial permanent cadre must be supplemented by Commission technical and professional personnel brought into the Academy on short-term assignments. However, by the end of FY 1975 we will need to make personnel allocations to allow full-time staffing of the Training Center. If the Training Center is to effectively serve as a means toward standardized administration of Title VII, nation-wide and increased Commission productivity, a full-time staff is a necessity to insure that training activities do not place a continuing drain on field operations. The proposed staffing pattern calls for a cadre of education specialists, technical instructors, and normal educational administrative and management support personnel. Question 11. Provide a breakdown of the Commission's contracts (actual and projected) with State and local human rights agencies for Fiscal Year 1974, when the Commission received an appropriation of $2.5 million, and Fiscal Year 1975, when the Commission requested an appropriation of $5 million, for this purpose. Answer. Table 5 shows the contract amounts for State and local human rights agencies for FY 1974, when the Commission received an appropriation of $2.5 million. We have not yet entered into any contracts with State and local deferral agencies for FY 1975 since the amount to be appropriate to this activity has not yet been determined. If Congress grants our requests for $5 million, we anticipate that those agencies which have demonstrated unusual competence in terms of quality and quantity of their work product will receive substantial increases in their funding. These agencies will generally be located in areas where the backlog of charges is sufficient to warrant funding increases. TABLE 5.-EEOC's contracts with State and local human Atlanta region office: Tennessee Commission for Human Development.. Kentucky Commission on Human Rights- Chicago regional office: Ohio Civil Rights Commission___ Indiana Civil Rights Commission__ Youngstown Fair Employment Practice Committee- East Chicago Human Relations Commission-- Gary Human Relations Commission___. Michigan Civil Rights Commission_. Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission__. Contract amount Wisconsin Equal Rights Division Department Industry, Labor and Human Relations___. 1 Fiscal year 1974 money obligated in September 1973. $26, 500 57,000 175,000 41, 000 9, 000 24, 000 6, 500 80, 000 60,000 121, 500 TABLE 5.-EEOC's contracts with State and local human Fort Worth/Dallas regional office: Oklahoma Human Rights Commission___. Arkansas (Governor's Commission on Human Resources) . Kansas City regional office: Kansas Commission on Civil Rights_. Iowa Civil Rights Commission_. New York City Commission on Human Rights_ State of New York Division on Human Rights--. Philadelphia regional office: Contract amount 41, 000 30, 400 27, 200 56, 000 30,000 18,000 33,000 18, 000 18,000 132, 000 18, 000 102, 000 15, 500 28,000 Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Delaware Human Relations Commission____ District of Columbia Commission on Human Relations-- West Virginia Human Rights Commission_. San Francisco regional office: Human Relations Commission of the County and City of Sacra- Colorado Civil Rights Commission__. Idaho Civil Rights Commission____ South Dakota Commission on Human Relations_. San Francisco Human Rights Commission___ Alaska Commission for Human Rights. Nevada Commission on Equal Rights.... Oregon Bureau of Labor Civil Rights Division_.. Washington State Human Rights Commission_. 190,000 153, 660 70,000 30, 000 210, 000 161, 840 28,000 61, 000 33,000 60,000 3,400 76,000 22, 000 18, 000 28,000 48,000 22, 000 21,000 12,000 19,500 35,000 30,000 2, 500, 000 Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations__. Total Question 12. In your testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations on April 30, 1974, you indicated that the Commission would expand its efforts to seek voluntary compliance through its Office of Voluntary Programs, yet no increase in staff of this office was requested. Please indicate how you intend to accomplish this goal. Answer. The reference in my testimony to the "Office of Voluntary Programs" was intended to encompass both Headquarters and Regional voluntary programs activities. In addition to 30 positions located at Headquarters, each of the seven Regional Office now has three professional voluntary programs positions. The Commission's FY 1975 Budget Request includes an increase of fourteen Regional Office positions (two per Region). No additional resources were requested for the Headquarters Office because we plan to further decentralize operational activities and progressively limit Headquarters to staff and support activities. As this decentralization occurs it will be possible to reprogram resources to expand field capability even more than is indicated by the FY 1975 request. In addition to expanding field capability, a major change in program emphasis is contemplated during FY 1975. Until FY 1974, voluntary programs activity was limited essentially to responses to requests for educational and technical assist ance. During FY 1974 a limited experiment was begun in which attempts were made, without reference to pending charges, to obtain voluntary agreements with employers. These agreements are to contain all that might be included in conciliations agreements growing out of charge investigations. The basic difference is that voluntary agreements would not directly resolve charges but would, rather, deal with systems change and affirmative action and, as was the case in the AT&T Agreement, provide a procedure for resolving pending and future charges. An agreement has been reached with one major firm. Several other attempts with utility companies are in process. This limited success has encouraged us to expand the experiment in FY 1975 to seek seven such agreements. However, we propose to enter into such agreements only if the employer is willing to make them fully enforceable in the courts as contracts. If this investment proves effective, the Commission will reprogram and seek additional resources as appropriate to take full advantage of the "voluntary agreements" approach. Finally, we also propose to concentrate and structure our educational and technical assistance to employers in a manner aimed at explicitly documented affirmative action commitments which can be monitored and by which actual progress on commitments can be measured. By this means we hope to obtain maximum and measurable pay-off to our statutory technical assistance authority. Question 13. Submit a summary of the findings and recommendations of the recent study of the Commission's investigative systems. To what extent have you, or do you intend to implement these recommendations? Answer. The following briefly describe the findings and recommendations of a recent study of the Commission's investigative systems and the extent to which they have been implemented. (a) Use of Written Requests for Information Finding.-Insufficient use is made during investigations of written requests for information, and where they are used they are not sufficiently standardized. Recommendation.—Minimize to the extent possible on-site investigations where investigations either wholly or partially by mail would suffice, and minimize the amount of time expended by District Office personnel in drafting requests for information. Implementation.-Recommendation has been approved and development begun on a complete standardized "request for information" package to be distributed for field use by the end of the second quarter. (b) Settlement of Charges During Investigation Finding. There is an unrealized potential for settling many charges prior to completion of a full investigation. The primary reason for this is uncertainty as to (1) which charges are appropriate for settlement, (2) what the minimum settlement standards are, and (3) the appropriateness of permitting an "investigator" (rather than a "conciliator") to negotiate a settlement. Recommendation.-Because settlement of charges during investigation normally results in substantial efficiencies, it should be strongly encouraged whenever the following conditions exist: (1) the charge does not have important class implications (it is estimated that only about 20% of pending charges have important class implications); (2) a settlement satisfactory to charging party is available; and (3) the settlement can be accomplished efficiently. Wherever possible, the settlement should be handled by the "investigator". Implementation.-Currently, under review. (c) Investigation by Conciliation Units Finding.-Very little investigative input is provided by District Office conciliation units, despite the potential for substantial efficiencies if conciliations units are given investigative responsibility in selected situations. Recommendation.-Direct conciliations units of District Offices that whenever possible they are to either settle or investigate and settle charges pending against respondents with whom they are negotiating or reviewing for compliance. In addition, to the extent permitted by the conciliations unit's workload, they should be given responsibility for the handling of expedited charge-processing mechanisms, including the completion of the investigation of any charges that cannot be settled through the mechanism. Implementation.-Currently under review. (d) Immediate Investigation of Selected Charges Finding. When a narrow charge is investigated very soon after it is filed, the investigation can be conducted much more efficiently and the possibility of settlement during investigation is greatly enhanced. Recommendation.-Selected narrow charges which involve issues of unusual importance to charging parties (e.g. discharge) should be scheduled for immediate investigation. Implementation.-Recommendation approved. Guidelines should be incorporated in the Compliance Manual and distributed to field offices by the end of the second quarter. (e) Investigative Standards Relating to Narrow Charges Finding. There is uncertainty at the field operational level both as to which charges should be given a narrow construction, and as to the investigative standards that should be applied to such charges. As a consequence, inappro priately broad investigations and unnecessarily high investigative standards have resulted in significant inefficiencies. Recommendation.-EEOC Compliance Manual should be redrafted so as to both: (1) provide more specific guidance on when and how to investigate a charge only to the scope of the complaint and (2) clearly identify the file and evidentiary requirements which apply to charges which do not have important class implications. Implementation.—Recommendation approved. Action to be completed by the end of the second quarter. Question 14. Describe what efforts are being made to reduce the current backlog of cases through coordination with State agencies (e.g. FEP) and Federal agencies (e.g. OFCC). Answer. The State and Community Affairs Program will be decentralized to the District Office level in FY 1975 to fully utilize the potential of deferral agencies. Roughly sixty percent of the charges received by EEOC are deferred to state and local agencies, so that the potential for backlog reduction through coordination with these agencies is significant. In order to tap this potential, the Commission is developing new procedures, standards and controls for processing charges. These new procedures and standards will eliminate duplication of effort between EEOC and deferral agencies. Indicative of the importance which the Commission attaches to decentralization is the planned transfer of Headquarters positions to the field and the distribution of fifteen positions to District Offices with the largest number of unresolved charges. As a result of the redirection of the state and community program to improve the partnership between EEOC and its sister agencies, we have projected that 15,000 charges can be resolved by deferral agencies if $5 million is appropriated to this program for FY 1975. This partnership would contribute significantly to the goal of zero backlog growth for the Commission in FY 1975. The continuation of the partnership in FY 1976 is expected to result in a significant contribution by deferral agencies in achieving an absolute reduction in the number of charges in the backlog. The use of work performed by related federal agencies offers a significant opportunity to reducing EEOC workload. By its participation in the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council EEOC is attempting to develop programs designed to use the work of other federal agencies. A number of difficulties exist in implementing this effort, including regulation restricting the examination and copying by other federal agencies of documents obtained by their compliance officers. We are confident that through the efforts of the coordinating council those difficulties can be resolved. Question 15. Elaborate on the current success of conciliation efforts in resolving charges and reducing the current backlog. Answer. The success rate in conciliations (after the Commission has found reasonable cause either in a field issued Determination Letter or a Headquarters issued Decision) has risen from 25.4% in first quarter FY 1973 to 47.5% in third quarter FY 1974 (the most recent period for which data are available). The total number of charges successfully conciliated in FY 1973 was 1,188. This has risen to 2.065 in the first three quarters of FY 1974 alone. The total number of charges conciliated in FY 1973 was 3,879. This has risen to 4,829 for the first three quarters of FY 1974 alone. The success rate in pre-determination settlement attempts (in cases where respondents come forward before the Commission makes its determination as to reasonable cause but after investigation) has risen from 20.4% in first quarter FY 1973 to 49.3% in third quarter FY 1974. The total number of charges successfully settled through pre-determination settlement attempts during FY 1973 was 1,091. This has risen to 1,151 for the first three quarters of FY 1974 alone. The total number of pre-determination settlement attempts has declined from 769 in first quarter FY 1973 to 688 in third quarter FY 1974 in line with a general policy direction to limit pre-determination settlement attempts to those cases with a high probability of success because if an attempt is unsuccessful another attempt at settlement of the same issues must be made after the Commission issues its reasonable cause finding. The rise in the volume of charges conciliated increased markedly with the change in procedure on September 27, 1972, which provided that 32 District Directors could issue Determination Letters in cases where the Commission had previously ruled on a similar fact situation. This change in procedure also permitted District Directors to make and approve conciliation agreements and predetermination settlement agreements. See 29 CFR 1601.19 (b) (d). Previous to September 27, 1972, all determinations of reasonable cause and most conciliation agreements or pre-determination settlement agreements were issued by the five Commissioners. The decentralization of authority had the effect of decreasing substantially the time period between the date of filing of a charge and the date the Commission made its finding of reasonable cause and thereby increased the likelihood that a charge could be successfully conciliated. Although there is a two-year limitation on the accrual of backpay liability, the two-year period covers the two years prior to the filing of the charge, not from the date the Commission makes its reasonable cause determination. Consequently some respondents were reluctant to conciliate charges once the backpay liability had become too burdensome. In addition, the fact that the factual setting in which the discrimination occurred may have changed substantially between the date of the investigation and the conciliation attempt tended to dissuade respondents from settling the charge through the voluntary process of conciliation. The decline in the total volume of pre-determination settlements is also, to some extent, reflective of the change in Commission procedure because in the period prior to September 27, 1972, the policy direction was to make a pre-determination settlement attempt on virtually all charges in an attempt to avoid the long waiting period between investigation and the issuance of a Decision by the five Commissioners. This rationale, of course, disappeared once the determination process was decentralized and gave rise to the policy direction previously mentioned of limiting pre-determination settlement attempts to cases with a high probability of success. Question 16. Specifically, provide us with a detailed statistical breakdown of the charges disposed of through administrative closure. Answer. Table 6 shows the total number of Administrative Closures by Region for FY 1973 and through April 30, 1974 for FY 1974. The Administrative Closures are divided into two categories: those which are closed for no jurisdiction and those which are closed for failure to proceed. Charges administratively closed for failure to proceed have increased in FY 1974 over FY 1973. This is primarily due to the Charging Party Contact Program (discussed in question five) which contacts Charging Parties with charges over two years old to see if they wish to still have their charge processed. This was not done previously until the investigator was assigned the charge for investigation. |