3. Support.-Technical assistance and training are important elements in the state effort to handle deferred cases. EEOC has been providing training to 706 deferral agencies for several years. For the past four years IAOHRA has received training grants for this purpose. The emphasis of this years' training will be development of technical skills of investigation and conciliation and the training of lawyers in discovery and trial techniques.

Technical assistance to non-deferral agencies is also important so that they may be put in a position to qualify for designation as a deferral agency. Continuing and expanded training is essential to the deferral concept. Professionalism is the key to expediting cases and to a harmonious relationship between the states and EEOC.

4. Pattern and Practice Complaints.—EEOC has shifted its emphasis and contract provisions with the states from pattern and practice cases to one-to

one cases.

At IAOHRA's annual conference in July, 1974, a resolution was passed which urged EEOC to find appropriate ways to retain a programmatic emphasis on agency-initiated pattern and practice systematic approaches. IAOHRA believes that pattern and practice complaints initiated by agencies to eliminate systemic discrimination constitute the most important tool yet developed to eliminate discrimination. Its potential to eliminate engrained patterns of discrimination against minorities and women is unparalleled, and, of all the tools available to us, it can have the greatest impact on the largest number of individual groups, and institutions.

The member agencies believe that shifts in emphasis by EEOC must take into account the need for balance between one-on-one cases and systemic and pattern approaches to discrimination. The complete elimination of agency-initiated pattern and practice cases against systemic discrimination would have a seriously regressive effect on enforcement, taking many agencies back to individual case strategies more attuned to the 40's and 50's than to today. Where state and local agency contracts are involved, the balance between one-on-one cases and systemic work should take into account such questions as the location of the agency, its past record in eliminating systemic discrimination, the requisite time needed to effect a change of emphasis to avoid administrative problems, and the like.

EEOC is concerned with its backlog and we appreciate that concern. EEOC is quite properly asking on a return on its investment in state/local agencies and deferral agencies are capable and willing to produce, but the internal procedures and these decisions concerning whether to enlarge a single charge to a pattern and practices investigation must be a decision by that agency alone. EEOC's concern is moving cases to satisfactory conclusions. The contracts call for EEOC to pay a deferral agency to close a certain number of cases. If the number of cases are closed to EEOC's satisfaction, there seems to be no reason for EEOC to direct, as part of the contract, state/local agencies to limit investigations and conciliations to the one issue in the one charge filed. This will appropriately be an internal matter for the agency to determine.

There are 47 "706" agencies including 40 state commissions, 6 city commissions and one County Commission. IAOHRA surveyed these agencies and while we have not received repiles from all of them, a summary of relevant information is attached. Of the 24 agencies that did respond, budgets for 1974-75 ranged from $20,600 in Wyoming to $8.462,400 in Michigan. Backlog ranged from 0 in Rhode Island and Dade County to 3,973 in Michigan. Case load per investigator ranged from 25 to 90, and the number of professional employees ranged from one in Wyoming and Hawaii to 169 in Michigan. The average back pay awarded in each case was $1,050. Probable Cause findings are made in 30% of all charges filed.

Attempting to average statistics from these agencies is somewhat like attempting to add apples and oranges. They have various histories, some are only months old, some were established over 30 years ago but they do have similar concerns and problems. We are still receiving information from these agencies and would be happy to supply it to the Committee when it is compiled.

The State agencies which comprise IAOHRA share the concern of Congress, as expressed in Title VII, that a viable state-based remedy for employment discrimination is preferred to Federal Action. We also share the concern of EEOC that the backlog be reduced so complaintants can be assured of having cases heard promptly and fairly. We believe that the states are in a position to participate fully in this effort with the appropriate financial and technical support from EEOC.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies I wish to thank you for the opportunity this morning to present our views relative to the subject under discussion.

I would also like to initially introduce to you, and they will have further remarks, to my left the chairperson of the New York City Commission, Eleanor Holmes Norton, to my far left, Mr. Homer Floyd, Director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, on my far right, Mr. Galen Martin, Director of the Kentucky Human Relations Commission.

The International Association is perhaps the only national organization and perhaps international in scope, dealing with ways in which we can bring our local-State human rights Commissions together.

We meet annually and attempt to share our concerns. But, more importantly, we attempt to develop our professionalism by relating to each other both in our annual session and meetings throughout the year.

We have, for some time, been concerned with the subject that brings us here today, and that is the large backlog of cases, or, as I like to call it in Connecticut, all cases are simply pending. They are not backlogged, they are pending.

The large number of pending cases that are backlogged cases before EEOC concerns us because, as you understand, under title VII all charges filed with EEOC are deferred to local-State Commissions.

Further, the title VII provisions gave EEOC an opportunity to give substantial weight to the findings of local-State Commissions. Substantial weight is one of the issues here because that is not defined well by EEOC.

The standards are important. The criteria should be established so that there will be some general and common knowledge as to what we mean by substantial weight. Substantial weight philosophy is very important if we are going to look at the backlog problem carefully. I wish to just highlight four areas in which the international and its member agencies and agencies that relate to us that are not members feel that the EEOC can relieve some of its problems in terms of backlog.

My colleagues later will, of course, address themselves to more specifics in terms of their own perspectives.

The first item is money very clearly. The fact that title VII provides for deferral to the local-State Commissions with jurisdiction in the scope of title VII means that if the local-State Commissions that are deferral agencies have more money to hire more investigators and staff attorneys perhaps we could indeed alleviate some of that backlog because, in the first instance, at least for the first 60 days we must handle and process all complaints filed with EEOC.

You might ask the question, "Why give that money to the localState Commissions when EEOC ought to use it to hire more staff?" First of all, we are closer to the problem. Indeed, that is the language of the Congress with respect to title VII.

Because the problems are local in many respects we ought to develop mechanisms nationwide so that we can deal with those problems in a local way.

Second, local-State Commissions have the knowledge and expertise of history in terms of the problems in the community or the State. Philosophically and socially we are closer to the problem.

It is quite a different proposition for a Federal investigator to come into a State or community and try to conduct an investigation and conciliation than it is for someone more familiar with the territory, more familiar with the people living there. Those are very important considerations.

Up till recently EEOC provided funds to local-State Commissions for so-called projects in which we initiated so many charges. But, we have moved away from that, from the broad pattern practice exclusively to being allowed to use the money to hire people in general.

This is what I am saying initially, that money is a very important factor that Congress needs to appropriate and allow EEOC to give more money to the States and the local Commissions.

The second major area is the matter I mentioned earlier, the 706 status, or the ability of the EEOC to give substantial weight to our findings, the findings of the deferral agency.

In terms of management, it is ridiculous for EEOC to reinvestigate after 60 days, or some longer period, a complaint that they referred to us. The answer to that has been to develop better training programs of a mutual nature, training programs whereby EEOC and the localState Commission staff and personnel will share in the training to acquire common knowledge, common criteria, common standards to determine the nature of a violation, and, more importantly, the formulation of remedy that would be common throughout the Nation in a given situation.

If EEOC reinvestigates everything we send back to them, they will never eliminate the backlog. Their backlog is our backlog because those complaints come from our States and cities.

So, the acceptance of the findings must be, first of all, to apply a very sound standard remedy that EEOC shares with us and we share with them in a partnership. I don't agree that any Federal agency, in this case EEOC, has any greater expertise on this than we do.

Some of our local-State Commissions have been in existence longer. Some of the personnel employed by EEOC came out of local-State agencies. Therefore, the standards and guidelines that EEOC uses internally must be shared with the local-State Commissions if substantial weight is to have any real meaning.

That has begun. They have begun to share this with us. My comment here is that there needs to be more of that cooperation. To give us more money, of course, is not the sole answer. We need other kinds of support from EEOC.

One might call that general training support and technical assistance. Technical assistance is seen in terms of the State-local Commission using Federal standards. The EEOC guidelines will either initiate complaints or process cases on a 1-to-1 basis and find themselves in litigation, again using EEOC philosophy and standards or Federal standards, in the State courts without any help or any legal assistance. We need that technical support very often. I am talking about developing professionalism around the Nation that would see common standards and common remedy formulation.

The fourth area of EEOC, to shift a bit from the pattern and practice complaints, I heard you talk about this this morning. That is a

42-235-75-7

way of looking at discrimination in a systematic way back to a 1-to-1 basis.

We haven't given it enough time, resource and support to the philosophy and methodology of pattern and practice investigations. That is the sole way perhaps, given all the other factors, all the other things that we are going to see a large increase in backlog of the local-State Commissions and EEOC eliminated. That is taking one complaint and broadening it as much as you can.

We will have to continue looking at cases on a 1-to-1 basis, but for EEOC to shift its resources and its capability in the pattern and practice approach back to the 1-to-1 will, I think, cause us great difficulty in the State and local Commissions because we have, over the past few years, adopted that procedure ourselves.

We may find ourselves left hanging without any Federal support. Finally, I think one of the major reasons that we are all having problems, all of us in the local-State Commissions and the EEOC, with the caseload, is that of management. We need to learn how to manage our resources better.

For example, the Connecticut Commission, as a management technique, I require each investigator to produce a certain number of satisfactory cases for disposition for our Commissioners each month. It is a simple management technique. It requires a quota, if you will, goal or timetable for each investigator. That is a management responsibility.

Second, we require, as an intake procedure, a prescreening of all complaints. Very obviously, the Congress and our State and local government did not intend for our local agencies to do everything in the human rights or human relations area, but certain specified things. Therefore, there needs to be an initial screening by someone in these offices because anyone that walks in with a problem we don't take everyone's problem. We take only those problems we have jurisdiction

over.

In the deferral process you are going to hear how we get complaints that we should not have. That suggests to me another management kind of problem at the level of EEOC, either the regional, district or central office level in Washington.

I will be glad to, later or now, answer any questions but my comments are intended to highlight and be general in respect to the national picture as most Commissions see it.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you. I think we will have all of the members of the panel making their presentation and then we will have questions. We have your complete statements, and if any of you care to summarize rather than to read, it is up to you.

Now we are going to hear from Commissioner Eleanor Holmes Norton, chairman of the New York City Commission for Human Rights. Ms. Norton your entire statement will be entered into the record at this point.

[Ms. Norton's prepared testimony follows:]

TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, CHAIRPERSON, NEW YORK CITY
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

I am Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairperson of the New York City Commission on Human Rights. The New York City Commission is a self-contained structure