A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
EEOC AT A GLANCE
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
January 30, 2004
It is with distinct pleasure that I present the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) performance and accountability report for fiscal year (FY) 2003. I am especially pleased that independent auditors could render an opinion on our balance sheet. I am confident that the financial information and the data measuring EEOC’s performance contained in this report are complete and accurate.
It has been nearly 40 years since the Commission was established as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the world and the workplace have changed dramatically during that time, our service delivery infrastructure has remained virtually unmodified. In FY 2003 the time came for a good look-see at the agency. Indeed, we would be remiss of our responsibilities if we failed to examine the trends and issues that are driving the economy and fueling the workplace and how those issues impact the way we carried out our responsibilities at the Commission.
Shifting demographics and the explosion of technological innovations, globalization, and a heightened state of security alert have converged in the workplace to require the Commission to be more flexible and adaptable in its enforcement role. As a public service agency, we have a choice to make. We can disregard these external indicators and keep everything the same, continuing to face budgetary constraints and to forego much needed human capital investment in the process, or we can seize the moment and catch up to the times.
As a first step in our self-examination we set out to develop a new strategic plan for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Having a strategic vision of the future has never been more important for the EEOC. Working through cross-organizational groups we developed a plan that moves away from measuring our accomplishments through organizational processes and activities. All of the measures in the new plan are intended to demonstrate the EEOC’s impact on creating fair and inclusive workplaces across America. The measures are now results-oriented and expressed in directly quantifiable terms or through program evaluations. These measures of success represent a fundamental break with the past, and are a major step forward in how we view, manage and carry out the important work of the EEOC.
However, our final destination remains the same: to eradicate discrimination and ensure equal employment opportunity. During FY 2003, the EEOC made some significant strides toward that goal. Our staff resolved more than 87,000 complaints of discrimination; litigated nearly 400 lawsuits and reached out to more than 325,000 employers and employees. Beyond the numbers, our staff worked to develop strategic approaches to enforcement and litigation, make the EEOC more efficient, and improve the Federal sector complaint process.
In summary, FY 2003 was an exceptional year. I invite you to read this report and learn about how the EEOC is working toward creating equality of opportunity for all who live and work in the United States.
Cari M. Dominguez
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established in 1964 to enforce the employment provisions of civil rights legislation. We have jurisdiction over the Federal Government’s role as an employer, public and private employers, public and private employment agencies, and labor organizations. We provide leadership to Federal departments and agencies with equal employment opportunity programs and offer assistance to departments and agencies in the implementation and completion of equal employment coordination responsibilities. Through our headquarters and field offices, we receive, review, and investigate charges of employment discrimination and approve the filing of civil rights discrimination suits under legislation, including:
The EEOC is a bipartisan Commission, which comprises five presidentially appointed members, including the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Commissioners. The Chair is responsible for the administration and implementation of policy for the Commission and for the financial management and organizational development of the Commission. The Vice-Chair and the Commissioners participate equally in the development and approval of the policies of the Commission, issue charges of discrimination where appropriate, and authorize the filing of suits. Additionally, the President appoints a General Counsel who is responsible for directing, coordinating, and supervising the EEOC’s litigation program.
Through our Office of Federal Operations, we provide leadership and guidance to Federal agencies on the Federal Government’s equal employment opportunity program. This office ensures Federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations. These regulations establish systems for the fair resolution of discrimination complaints within the Federal Service, provide guidance and technical assistance during pre-appellate hearings, the adjudication of appeals from Federal agency decisions, offer case resolution assistance, and help guide the development and implementation of affirmative employment policies.
Through our headquarters Office of Field Programs, Office of General Counsel, and 51 field offices, we effectively enforce the statutory, regulatory, policy, and program responsibilities of the Commission through a variety of resolution methods tailored to each charge. The field staff is responsible for fulfilling a wide range of performance objectives that focus on the quality, timeliness, and appropriateness of individual, class, and systemic charges and for securing relief for victims of discrimination in accordance with Commission policies. The field staff also counsels individuals about their rights under the laws enforced by the EEOC, conducts outreach and technical assistance programs, and provides access to individuals who are geographically distant from EEOC field offices.
Additionally, through our State and Local Programs and more than
90 State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies, the EEOC
seeks to avoid a duplication of effort in the investigation and
litigation of complaints between dually charged Federal, State, and
local claims. Through our partnership with more than
60 Tribal Employment Rights Offices (TEROs), we seek to promote employment opportunity on or near Indian reservations.
Through our Office of Legal Counsel we develop policy guidance, provide technical assistance to employers and employees, and coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders regarding the statutes and regulation we enforce. The Office of Legal Counsel also includes an internal and external litigation and advice division and a Freedom of Information Act unit.
The promise of equal opportunity is a legal right afforded to all of our nation’s workers and job applicants and is woven into the fabric of the American dream. Since its inception in 1965, the EEOC has helped individuals realize this dream. Equal opportunity in the American workplace is a matter of social justice and a national economic imperative.
The American workplace is rapidly changing. Researchers forecast an ever more diverse workforce. Increased workplace participation of ethnic and racial minority groups, people with disabilities, and older workers is helping to redefine attitudes and expectations toward work and retirement. The very nature of the traditional employer–employee relationship is also undergoing dramatic change. Fiercely competitive global markets; an economy in which many companies are restructuring, reengineering, and establishing or expanding multinational operations; and the fast pace of technological advances are combining to produce the most mobile and flexible workforce in history. These social, economic, and demographic trends have important implications for the EEOC.
The EEOC worked to address these challenges through more
strategic, proactive, and innovative approaches. During fiscal year
(FY) 2003, we managed activities through our Five-Point
a broad operational guide for maximizing resources. The Commission embraced its responsibilities as outlined by the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) and the New Freedom Initiative (NFI), while furthering our own Freedom to Compete Initiative. We also implemented innovative technologies to enhance management information systems throughout the agency and instituted benchmarking systems to track program activities. In FY 2003, we operated at the most efficient levels in the Commission’s history.
In frontline program areas, notably enforcement and outreach, we surpassed our goals for FY 2003. While we resolved charges more efficiently and effectively, we also enhanced public outreach and education. During FY 2003, EEOC staff resolved more than 87,000 complaints of discrimination in the private sector and resolved in litigation nearly 350 lawsuits. Our National Mediation Program secured the highest number of resolutions since its inception. Through our education, training, and technical assistance efforts, we reached nearly 325,000 people. Visits to our website continued to increase, reaching more than 350,000 per month by the end of the fiscal year. However, we still have far to go to reach renewed goals and to stay abreast of changing demographics and global competition while we address evolving challenges.
Because of the changes in the American workplace and the realities of the new century, we examined many of our most basic assumptions and began the process of transitioning the agency to better accomplish our mission. With the Five-Point Plan to guide us, we developed a new Strategic Plan and began to study how to reposition EEOC at an operational level and reform the Federal sector process.
At the direction of EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez, the Commission’s senior managers developed a Five-Point Plan, which provides the foundation for the agency’s vision and the strategic framework for operations. It is a broad, progressive approach that forms strategic alliances both within and outside the agency to enhance the effectiveness of all programs and services. The plan serves as a guide for exploring ways to make the best use of EEOC data, information, and experiences and places a premium on coordination, innovation, and results.
The EEOC is an agency with too few resources to adequately address its challenging and important mission. About 80% of our budget goes for salaries and office rent and our organizational structure has not been significantly modified in more than 30 years. In addition, under the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), each Federal agency must conduct an internal review and develop a five-year restructuring plan. Consequently, in March 2002, we asked the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct an objective, independent study of our structure and program delivery systems. NAPA completed its report, and in September 2003, the Commission convened a meeting to review the study findings and hear suggestions from a wide range of stakeholders about how best to reposition the agency for the future; respond to demographic shifts and changing customer needs; plan for the impact of technology, new business environments, and workplace trends; and meet our fiscal responsibilities.
During FY 2003, we initiated a review of our Federal sector responsibilities. Stakeholders representing both complainants and Federal agencies have long voiced concerns that the Federal sector discrimination complaint process, which is currently available to 2.7 million Federal employees, is slow, expensive, and inherently unfair. The Commission convened a meeting in November 2002 to hear testimony about the current process from a cross-section of stakeholders. We held a series of smaller roundtable discussions with various stakeholder groups and received numerous written comments. After considering a number of options, we hope to propose corrective measures in FY 2004.
Under our responsibilities as “Chief EEO Officer” for the Executive Branch, the EEOC is focusing on a new approach to creating a barrier-free, level playing field throughout the Federal Government. This bold new approach is defined in the new Management Directive-715. The directive, which the Commission voted in April 2003 to release for interagency coordination under Executive Order 12067, emphasizes the identification and elimination of unnecessary barriers to equality of opportunity and focuses on the design and implementation of agency programs. With this directive, the Commission will be able to provide valuable assistance to agencies in designing affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity currently required by existing law.
Through our Strategic Plan, we focus on vigorously pursuing all types of employment discrimination. In addition to addressing charges filed with the agency, we coordinate with Federal, State, and local partners and with partners in the private sector to proactively seek evidence of discriminatory activities not yet reported through case filings.
In FY 2003, we revised our six-year strategic plan. The updated plan became effective October 1, 2003. However, the performance section of this report—“Achieving Results”—is based on the prior strategic plan. Figure 1 depicts the results of our attempt to shift resources from Strategic Goal 1: Enforcement to Strategic Goal 2: Prevention. Our budget does not allow for significant shifts in strategies within a one- or two-year period. The target remains to shift resources over several years from enforcement to prevention while managing case inventory at an acceptable level.
This goal includes our nationwide investigation and litigation activities for the enforcement of civil rights employment laws for the private sector, Federal sector, and State and local programs. We have identified key performance objectives for each sector’s support for this strategic goal.
Numerous workplace trends and employment issues have made it necessary for us to reconsider how best to use limited resources to carry out our enforcement and litigation mission.
We formed the Strategic Enforcement and Litigation Workgroup to consider how these and other changes affect our functions and priorities. As part of this long-range planning effort, the workgroup has studied the types of charges we receive and how we resolve them to identify trends and possible areas on which to focus our resources. With the added emphasis on mediation, the workgroup also formulated standards to guide the field offices in determining which charges should be referred to mediation; promoted closer cooperation between legal and enforcement staff; identified significant legal issues developing in the courts; and researched other emerging workplace issues for future enforcement, litigation, and policy development.
By thinking strategically about the use of enforcement resources, we are able to litigate in situations where the EEOC is better positioned than private plaintiffs to obtain broad-based relief or to obtain relief otherwise unavailable to private plaintiffs. For example, in March 2003, the Commission settled an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) lawsuit in which it had intervened against one of the largest State employee retirement systems. Under the terms of a consent decree, approximately 1,700 retired public safety officers received or will receive monetary relief (a total of $250 million). The lawsuit had alleged that a disability retirement system that calculated benefits based on the age at which an individual began working as a public safety officer discriminated against older workers. Our resolution of the suit is significant because private individuals cannot sue State entities for monetary relief under the ADEA.
We received 81,293 private sector charges, 4% less than the 84,442 received in FY 2002. Through administrative resolutions and mediation, we obtained $236 million in monetary benefits for victims of employment discrimination. Other achievements in the private sector program include:
(See Figure 2.)
EEOC field legal units filed 361 new lawsuits on the merits and 29 subpoena enforcement and other actions during FY 2003. Legal staff resolved 344 lawsuits for a monetary recovery of more than $148.9 million dollars. This amount does not include the additional $200 million in future monetary benefits recovered in a settlement involving CALPERS (the California state pension program), which is the largest litigation settlement in the Commission’s history. Significantly, the $148.9 million recovery is the highest monetary recovery for a single year in the history of the Commission’s litigation program.
Of the 344 resolutions, there were 254 Title VII settlements, 47
ADA settlements, 28 ADEA settlements, 13 concurrent settlements,
and 2 EPA settlements. Thirty-one subpoena enforcement and other
actions were also resolved during the year. In terms of dollars
recovered in direct and intervention lawsuits by statute,
$87.4 million was recovered in Title VII settlements, $57.7 million in ADEA settlements, $2.5 million in ADA settlements, $1.15 in concurrent settlements, and $15,000 in EPA settlements.
In addition, the number of cases on the EEOC docket that involve discriminatory policies or multiple aggrieved parties has steadily risen, reaching 220 cases—or 41% of the EEOC’s cases—in FY 2003.
Mediation is the centerpiece of the Five-Point Plan. Since the private sector mediation program was launched in 1999, more than 35,000 charges have been resolved through the agency’s private sector mediation program—which is the largest workplace mediation program of its kind in the country. Our program is both voluntary and confidential. It is designed to encourage the earliest possible amicable resolution of charges by the parties themselves with the help of a neutral mediator.
In FY 2003, EEOC’s National Mediation Program secured 7,990 resolutions—the highest number ever—an increase over the previous year’s 7,858. More than $115.9 million in benefits were realized from mediation resolutions, compared with $111.5 million obtained in FY 2002.
One of the strategies that we are pursuing to bring more charges into mediation is universal agreements to mediate (UAMs) with employers. UAMs save time and effort for employers and for EEOC. Through FY 2003, 414 such agreements have been entered into locally between employers and our district offices. At the national level, 16 large corporations, including several Fortune 500 companies, have agreed to enter into national universal agreements to mediate (NUAMs) charges filed with the EEOC at any of our district offices across the country.
In 2003, we also implemented a pilot Referral Back program. Under the program, and with the charging party’s consent, we hold the processing of the charge in abeyance while the parties attempt to resolve the matter through the employer’s internal ADR program.
We have taken our successes in the private sector mediation
program and are applying them to the Federal sector. Persuading all
Federal agencies of the merits of ADR in resolving discrimination
conflicts is one of our top priorities for
We implemented several pilot programs to resolve complaints in which hearings before a Commission administrative judge had been requested. The overall goal has been to guide the parties toward a mutually positive outcome without the need for a hearing.
We continued to enhance the hearings program in our field offices and to slow the growth of the hearings inventory. At the end of FY 2003, the Federal sector hearings inventory had decreased from 10,072 pending requests to 8,467, a 16% decline. The Federal sector aged hearings inventory has continued to decline. We ended FY 2003 with a significant decrease in our aged inventory. At the end of FY 2003, our 180-day inventory decreased from 6,081 at the end of FY 2002 to 4,443, a 27% decline.
During the year, we resolved 12,230 cases and obtained over $52.4 million in monetary benefits for complainants. The joint initiative between the EEOC and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to refer USPS hearings cases back to that agency’s internal mediation program for resolution continued in FY 2003, and we continued to emphasize the use of ADR to resolve hearings cases. The continued use of ADR programs in the hearings process has contributed to the efficient resolution of cases by providing mutually satisfactory resolution without the need for a formal hearing and by reducing processing time. Using ADR to resolve cases earlier in the process enables EEOC staff to focus on resolving older cases. We are also able to reduce future complaints by improving communication between parties through mediation and other forms of ADR.
Other FY 2003 highlights include:
We improved the processing of our Federal sector appellate cases—reducing inventory to 3,831 cases, which is 20% less than the FY 2002 level and a 68% reduction from the high of 11,918 appeals in January 2000. This is the first time that the appellate inventory has fallen below 4,000 cases since 1994.
In addition to reducing the size of the appellate inventory, we also substantially reduced the average age of the remaining open appellate cases. The average age of the appellate cases open at the end of FY 2003 was 190 days. This is a 26% reduction from the FY 2002 average age of 256 days and a 55% reduction of the FY 2001 average age of 430 days. We also reduced the average processing time of all appellate closures from 467 days in FY 2002 to 285 days in FY 2003—a 39% reduction. We achieved all of these case processing successes while obtaining a record $20 million of compliance benefits at the appellate level.
FEPA charge receipts decreased by 2%, from 63,376 in FY 2002 to
FY 2003. FEPAs resolved 61,590 charges, 5% more than during the previous year. The pending inventory decreased to 62,774, down from 65,833 in
This goal focuses on preventing employment discrimination by emphasizing outreach, technical assistance, and voluntary compliance with a broad range of stakeholders. To achieve this goal, the EEOC promotes understanding of the laws enforced by the Commission and emphasizes our efforts to reach out to employers, employees, and members of the public, including small businesses and underserved communities, through major programs for employers and employees.
The agency’s Freedom to Compete Initiative is designed to build partnerships with our stakeholders and to develop solutions that eliminate barriers to open competition in the workplace. To further promote the initiative, we hosted a series of meetings with various stakeholders nationwide to discuss 21st century employment trends and workplace issues. In FY 2003, outreach efforts also included CEO roundtable discussions, public service announcements, media presentations, identification of best practices, and a more user-friendly website. Since launching the initiative, we have established 23 strategic alliances with new partners.
In 2001, President Bush launched the NFI, a comprehensive strategy to achieve full integration of individuals with disabilities into all aspects of the nation’s social and economic life. Because the unemployment rate of people with disabilities is estimated as high as 70%, access to employment is a critical aspect of full integration. As the agency responsible for enforcing the employment provisions of the ADA, we assumed a lead role in furthering the NFI.
Our NFI activities include free workshops on the ADA targeted at small businesses, the publication of a fact sheet on telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and the publication of The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Primer for Small Business in both English and Spanish. More than 10,000 free copies of the primer have been distributed and more than 60,000 people have accessed the publication online.
The underlying theme of our outreach strategy is proactive prevention and expansion of the EEOC as a workplace partner to help prevent discrimination. Education and outreach are critical to this effort, particularly outreach to non-traditional partners. Examples of our new and expanded outreach activities include:
Figure 3 summarizes the outreach contacts made with the employer community.
Countries around the world seek EEOC’s expertise on employment matters, and we have a tradition of sharing our expertise and experiences with other nations. During the past year, we further expanded international cooperation by
This goal focuses on improving support operations to enable us to meet our 12 measures and objectives. It includes major programs, such as enhancing staff effectiveness, providing guidance and technical assistance, and enhancing the agency’s infrastructure.
The launch of our new internal ADR program, RESOLVE, provides a one-stop, informal program for settling all types of workplace disputes and serves as an alternative not only to equal employment opportunity complaints, but also to grievances and unfair practice claims. A number of Federal agencies have already asked us to share the program with them so they may use it as a model in developing their own internal mediation programs.
During FY 2003, we worked to enhance internal communication by holding an annual all-employee meeting at headquarters, bimonthly interactive “chats” among the Chair and 30 headquarters staff from all levels of EEOC, and regular email messages to all EEOC personnel to keep staff informed on the status and progress of issues of interest.
During FY 2003, we implemented the Employee Development Center
(EDC), a website and e-learning training pilot program for
employees. More than 1,800 courses are available for EEOC
employees. The EDC helps us meet the
e-government and human capital objectives of the PMA.
We established a Management Development Institute, a program that provides all EEOC managers, supervisors, and potential leaders with leadership development training.
The PMA envisions a customer-centered, performance-driven, results-oriented Federal Government, using standards of success for each of five government-wide objectives: strategic management of human capital, budget and performance integration, competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, and expanded electronic government. Getting a green on the PMA scorecard signifies “success.” We incorporated PMA objectives into the operations of all of our offices and programs so that we can achieve our goal of “getting to green.”
In FY 2003, we met and surpassed significant challenges to improve our financial management. To prepare and comply with the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) requested a non-opinion audit of the FY 2002 financial statements and internal controls through the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG’s 29 findings provided the basis for improvements implemented during FY 2003. During FY 2003, we hired an outside consultant to assist with an off-the-shelf product to automate the preparation of the financial statements. A second consultant prepared automated solutions and standard operating procedures for several technical accounting issues, including future workers compensation liability using a Department of Labor methodology and the capitalization of property, plant, equipment, leased equipment, and internal use software.
We use one financial management system to record and report on financial and performance results, the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). Within IFMS, we use the core modules, including project cost accounting, the procurement desktop module, the fixed asset module, and the travel manager module as subsidiary ledgers to support our general ledger capabilities. The system provides a cross-section of management and transaction queries and reports to allow management and staff access to the financial information. This system is the sole source for financial control totals and detailed financial information required to prepare the EEOC’s quarterly and annual financial reports.
The financial resources obligated this fiscal year are detailed in Figure 4. Within the uses of funds, compensation and benefits and rent continue to consume almost 80% of our annual budget. The budget and cost structure issues are discussed further in the message from the CFO in the Financial Statements section of this report.
This section of the report summarizes the results we achieved in FY 2003, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Our FY 2003 Annual Program Performance Report is incorporated into the FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report and links to our Strategic Plan for FYs 2000-2005. Using specific performance targets, we track our progress toward achieving our mission to eradicate and prevent employment discrimination at the workplace.
During FY 2003, we continued to address key Commission and Administration initiatives that carried over from FY 2002. These multiyear initiatives are a critical component of our mission and serve as the guiding principles for future planning efforts. These initiatives work together to support the EEOC’s vision and mission and to help us achieve our goals.
In early FY 2002, the Chair and the agency’s senior leadership developed a Five-Point Plan. The plan is a strategic framework that builds on what we have done to improve operations. It seeks to broaden the EEOC’s reach through increased education, outreach, mediation, and strategic enforcement and litigation. The goal of the Five-Point Plan is to provide the best service possible at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayer.
The Five-Point Plan provides the framework for accomplishing our mission and is central to the three overarching strategic goals in our Strategic Plan. The plan places a premium on coordination, innovation, and results. Under the plan, all facets of EEOC’s work are viewed with an eye toward being more proactive and more effective.
The best way to combat discrimination is to prevent it. Under this element of the Five-Point Plan, we will proactively prevent discrimination by educating employees and employers and providing information that will help them identify and solve problems, enhance outreach activities, promote sound workplace practices, introduce new and expanded outreach activities, and better use available technology to communicate with the public and our stakeholders.
The EEOC must consistently deliver quality services in a timely and cost-effective manner. Charge and complaint processing must be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Staff and other resources must be deployed to ensure the quality and timeliness of processing. We will institute effective quality control measures and mechanisms to assess our success in meeting this objective.
Promoting and expanding mediation and other types of ADR is the centerpiece of our Five-Point Plan. Dispute resolution is intended to settle conflicts quickly, amicably, and effectively. We will build on our earlier successes with ADR to address employment disputes and continue to improve our services. Through marketing, information sharing, and outreach we will further encourage the public’s use of ADR.
The EEOC will continue to address illegal discrimination through coordinated enforcement and focused litigation that ensures that we deploy agency resources wisely and effectively. We will develop baseline information on enforcement and litigation activities; analyze and consider workplace trends, national and local issues, and industry information; and use other tools to enhance our efforts to remedy discrimination in the workplace.
We will set the standard for employer excellence. The principles and standards we promote to employers must be an integral part of our own operations. Our roadmap to achieve this objective is the PMA, which addresses important enhancements to internal agency operations and the agency’s interface with the public. This integration of the Five-Point Plan and other Administration and agency initiatives will help build a model workplace through which we can effectively and efficiently accomplish our goals.
In addition to the Five-Point Plan, other Administration and Commission initiatives were incorporated into the FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and our new Strategic Plan.
The PMA envisions a citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based Federal Government and focuses on five Government-wide areas to improve agency management and deliver results to the American public. The EEOC has incorporated each of the following critical initiatives into its Five-Point Plan.
In 2001, President George W. Bush launched the NFI—a comprehensive strategy for achieving full integration of individuals with disabilities into all aspects of the nation’s social and economic life. Access to employment is, of course, one critical aspect of full integration. As the law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the employment title of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the EEOC continues to work closely with other Federal agencies and the White House to implement the NFI in the workplace.
NFI emphasizes the importance of telework and technological innovation as vehicles for increasing employment of people with disabilities. We have launched an initiative on telework as it relates to an employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA and will continue to undertake aggressive outreach efforts aimed at small businesses and people with disabilities. We have also launched a State Best Employment Practices project where by EEOC will collaborate with several states to review their best practices relating to hiring and advancement of individuals with disabilities, to be highlighted in a commission report.
The agency launched the Freedom to Compete Initiative in 2001. Through the Freedom to Compete Initiative, we work to proactively ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to compete in the workplace on a fair and level playing field, without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability. This initiative focuses on building partnerships, liaisons, and strategic alliances with our stakeholders to identify and eliminate organizational and attitudinal barriers that may still be obstructing open competition in the workplace and to develop proactive and innovative solutions to eliminate those barriers.
The goal of this initiative is being accomplished through a building approach that will culminate in its institutionalization at EEOC. We engaged a cross-section of stakeholders in a dialogue about the agency and explored with them how we could broaden our presence and more proactively address 21st century workplace issues. We then began forming partnerships, developing alliances, and using other collaborative efforts to engage stakeholders to influence the opinion leaders in the economic community and drive change in the workplace. We will enhance our outreach and education efforts to include roundtable discussions, commission meetings, and public service announcements. We will also develop programs to honor and recognize individuals and organizations that demonstrate exemplary efforts to open doors to employment and level the playing field to ensure free and fair competition in the workplace.
The EEOC serves as the lead agency in coordinating Federal agencies’ enforcement of all Federal statutes, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies requiring equal employment opportunity without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Since Executive Order 12067 was issued in 1978, the EEOC has exercised this responsibility in many different ways by coordinating and cooperating with key Federal agencies responsible for areas of equal employment opportunity. We will reinvigorate our leadership of equal employment policies and programs.
During FY 2003, the Chair formed a cross-organizational strategic planning group that developed a new Strategic Plan for the EEOC. Discussed at length later in this section, the new Strategic Plan for FY 2004–2009 helps reposition the agency to better fulfill its mission. The new plan includes more results-oriented performance measures that seek to measure the EEOC’s impact rather than its processes and activities. Consequently most of the performance measures reported in this report will not be continued. A brief narrative following each measure discusses whether that measure will be continued into FY 2004.
Under this strategic goal, we seek to enhance our effectiveness in three major program areas: private sector programs, Federal sector programs, and State and local program. This strategic goal relates to three elements of our Five-Point Plan: Proficient Resolution, Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR, and Strategic Enforcement and Litigation.
Since 1965, the EEOC has been charged with enforcing the nation’s civil rights employment laws, which protect individuals from discrimination in the workplace. During this time, additional legal protections have been created by Congress, interpreted by the courts, and applied in the public and private business arenas. We continue to hold true to our fundamental responsibility—seeking to correct the wrongs of employment discrimination and bringing justice and equal opportunity to the workplace.
To carry out our mission, we seek to quickly, accurately, and consistently resolve charges of discrimination against private sector employers. As we investigate charges of discrimination, we are impartial finders of fact. Once discrimination is found, however, we work to correct the injustice and effect change in the workplace through all avenues available, including conciliation and litigation. We are also introducing more workers and employers to the benefits of ADR by expanding the use of our voluntary mediation program.
In addition, we want to ensure that the doors of justice and opportunity are open to Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment. Through oversight of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process and the administration of our Federal hearings and appellate programs, we are ensuring the fair, efficient, and equitable resolution of employment discrimination disputes.
Three major programs cover our nationwide investigative and litigation activities under this goal—the private sector program, the Federal sector program, and the State and Local Program.
The Commission, in its role as a law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing the nation’s civil rights employment laws. Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against in the workplace or in an employment-related activity may file a charge with the EEOC. We assist them in filing their charge; offer mediation to both charging parties and respondents, where appropriate; review and investigate their charges; and conduct other settlement efforts throughout the charge process. Finally, when the EEOC determines that discrimination has occurred, we seek to correct it, through settlement/ conciliation, mediation, or, in appropriate cases, litigation.
The Commission continues to make considerable gains in enhancing its private sector enforcement program. In FY 2003, we built on these past successes, which helps us achieve several key aspects of our Five-Point Plan and other initiatives.
For FY 2003, we measured the timeliness and quality of charges processed to illustrate the effectiveness of our private sector enforcement program.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.1.1: Percent of private sector charge workload1 resolved2 during the fiscal year.|
|1.1.2: Administratively processed private sector charges resolved within 180 calendar days.|
|1.1.3: Percent of sampled district office charge files with information supporting the categorization of the charges as “A,” “B,” or “C.”|
|1) Total workload is defined as pending inventory
at the beginning of the fiscal year + receipts + net transfers.
2) Resolved charges include Merit Factor, No Cause, and Administrative Closures.
We exceeded by a considerable margin our FY 2003 targets for Measures 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3. We maintained a balanced workload by resolving almost 75% of the charges and ending the fiscal year with a pending inventory of approximately 29,000 charges. We processed almost 69% of resolved charges within 180 days of their receipt. Our success in exceeding our targets for Measures 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 builds on a steady pace of success in reducing the average charge processing time from a high of 336 days in 1995 to only 160 days in 2003. The target values used in both of these measures reflect a balance for continuing the trend of providing prompt service while preserving our ability to devote the necessary time and attention to charges that present meritorious or complex claims and to remedy discrimination where it is found. Measure 1.1.1 has been discontinued; however, our new Strategic Plan continues Measure 1.1.2, which calls for us to resolve at least 70% of private sector charges within 180 days.
Finally, we exceeded the target for Measure 1.1.3, which asks us to maintain a high quality standard for ensuring that charges are appropriately prioritized, because the proper categorization of charges is critical to the effective administration of our private sector enforcement process. We reviewed 1,055 sampled closed charge files from 22 field offices and determined that more than 95% contained information that supported the categorization of the charges. Although this objective is not continued beyond FY 2003, the new Strategic Plan includes a measure of overall quality in the investigation of charges, which encompasses the quality of our charge prioritization process.
Our Federal sector enforcement program focuses on addressing employment discrimination in the Federal Government. Its emphasis is different from our private sector enforcement program in several important ways. Most notably, the EEOC has the authority to hold hearings, issue decisions, and review matters on appeal. In the private sector program, individuals file charges directly with the Commission. Individuals in the Federal sector file employment discrimination complaints with their own agencies first and those agencies investigate the allegations. Complainants can then request a hearing by the EEOC on the claims. Administrative judges (AJs) from the EEOC complete the process of developing a full and appropriate record in the hearings process by adjudicating claims and issuing decisions. Hearings only occur in the Federal sector process. AJs also attempt to settle complaints without the need for a hearing. In FY 2003, more than 32% of hearings cases were resolved based on settlement agreements. A complainant or Federal agency can file an appeal of the decision with the EEOC. Relief ordered by a final Commission decision is mandatory and binding on the agency, except in limited circumstances. This appeals procedure is also not part of the private sector enforcement process. If dissatisfied with the outcome of either a hearing or appeal, a Federal sector complainant can file a lawsuit in Federal court, similar to a private sector charging party.
In addition to hearings and appeals programs for Federal sector complainants, our enforcement efforts include program evaluations of Federal agencies’ EEO programs as part of our oversight role. These evaluations help us identify concerns and advise Federal agency managers about establishing and maintaining effective programs to foster equal employment opportunity. Similar to the private sector program, we also establish policies implementing the equal employment opportunity laws in the Federal sector.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.2.1: Percent of closed hearings cases over 180 days old.|
|Target||N/A||5% reduction of cases over 180 days old at beginning of FY 2000||20% of closures are 360 days old and older||20% of closures are 360 days old and older||Resolve 95% of cases filed on or before 9/30/01|
|1.2.2: Percent of hearings cases resolved within 180 days.|
The hearings process is a major component of the EEOC’s Federal sector program. Our focus in FY 2003 was to continue the considerable improvements we have made to address the inventory of older hearings cases and to reduce the complaint inventory by resolving more hearings within 180 days.
During FY 2003, our target for the older hearings cases was to resolve 95% of them filed on or before September 30, 2001. Although we did not meet the target established by resolving 80.7% of the older hearings, we believe that the results were partially affected by the inter-district transfer of cases. Each year, based on an analysis of available staffing resources and workload projections, we balance the workload by transferring some cases between selected offices. For example, in FY 2003, we transferred approximately 1,000 cases. As a result, our ability to achieve this measure was affected because of the time needed to transfer the case files and for the receiving office staff to familiarize themselves with the new cases. We will not continue this measure beyond FY 2003 because Measure 1.2.2 encompasses these cases and is a more appropriate indicator of success for the agency as a whole.
We exceeded our target for Measure 1.2.2, our second measure of the timeliness of processing hearings during FY 2003, by a considerable margin. We resolved a total of 30.5% of the hearings cases within 180 days. In the new Strategic Plan, we will continue to measure the percentage of all hearings resolved within 180 days. In addition, we have established an ambitious target for the new measure—to resolve by FY 2009 at least 50% of all hearings within 180 days. This target will ensure that a balance of newer and older hearings cases are addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.2.3: Reduce substantially the aged inventory of Federal appellate cases.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||50% of cases 500 days old will be resolved||50% of cases 500 days old will be resolved|
|1.2.4: Percent of appeals resolved within 180 days.|
|Target||N/A||10% of cases received in 2000||20% of cases received in 2001||20% of cases received in 2002||20% of cases received in 2003|
EEOC improved the processing of Federal sector appellate cases, and in FY 2003 we substantially exceeded the targets for these two measures. Like the hearings cases, these two appeals measures addressed older appellate cases as well as cases filed within FY 2003.
For Measure 1.2.3, we identified 672 cases that were more than 500 days old at the beginning of FY 2003. By the end of the fiscal year we had resolved 650 of them (96%), substantially exceeding our target of 50%. This extraordinary accomplishment aids all parties, because older cases are often more difficult to process and resolve. This measure is not continued beyond FY 2003 because of the success the agency has achieved in resolving many of its older cases. We also were concerned about those appeals cases that would become more than 500 days old by the end of the fiscal year if they remained open. These cases are not included in this measure. We identified 2,039 cases in this category and closed 1,911, or 94%, of them by the end of the fiscal year. Consequently, during FY 2003, we resolved most of the aged cases in our appellate inventory.
Our second measure addressed those appeals cases received in FY 2003 that we resolved within 180 days. We achieved more than double the percentage of resolutions of these cases than we had targeted. Of the 7,035 new appeals received during the FY, we resolved 3,158 of them within 180 days, or 44.8%. Like the comparable measure for our hearings process, our new Strategic Plan includes a measure to resolve at least 70% of Federal sector appeals within 180 days. This will include all appellate cases, eliminating the need to continue the Measure 1.2.3 beyond FY 2003.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.2.5: Percent of appeals resolved within 180 days involving breach of settlement agreements filed within the first three quarters of the fiscal year.|
This objective helped guide our efforts to take a more proactive approach in monitoring agencies’ activities to determine whether they are complying with the terms of settlement agreements entered into by the parties in our appellate cases and resolving any breaches of an agreement quickly. The target was to resolve within 180 days at least 50% of the appeals filed during the first three quarters of the fiscal year alleging a breach of a settlement agreement. We exceeded our target for this measure by completing 165 of the 268 breach appeals received within the time frame, or 62%, and determined that it was unnecessary to continue measuring this type of activity beyond FY 2003.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.2.6: Reduce the time it takes to collect and verify the Federal agency EEO data and issue the public report.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||40% reduction in time to collect and verify data and issue the public report (as compared to FY 2001)||10% reduction in time to collect and verify data and issue the public report (as compared to FY 2002)|
In FY 2002, we completed our first year implementing a web-based system that enables Federal agencies to submit their annual EEO reports to EEOC across the Internet. Among other features, the system included an automated edit checker that enhances the validity and reliability of the transmission of an agency’s data. This system also greatly improved our ability to issue our yearly report containing information and data on the EEO program Government-wide. For example, we issued our FY 2001 report in May 2002, 220 days after the end of the fiscal year. We issued the FY 2002 report in mid-April, 197 days after the end of the fiscal year—10.5% faster, which exceeded our target in just the first year of implementation.
We will continue to improve the reliability and the capability of Federal agencies to report their EEO program information and continue to reduce the time it takes to issue our annual report. For example, in FY 2003 we surveyed Federal agencies’ EEO staff about the usefulness of the web-based data collection system. Based on their input, we made the system more user-friendly by consolidating the collection of some data and updating and revising instructions and help screens to clarify the type of data requested. We anticipate that this should enable us to issue our FY 2003 annual report even sooner. However, during the process of developing our new Strategic Plan, we identified more relevant measures of success for the Federal sector program and will not continue this measure beyond FY 2003.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.2.7: Improve the processing time of internal EEO investigations.|
|Target||N/A||15% use innovative approaches including ADR||15%||Issue investigative reports in 180 days or less for all complaints filed on or after 2/1/02||Issue investigative reports in 180 days or less for all complaints|
|Results||N/A||25% implemented ADR program and other innovative approaches||7.7% increase||29%||40%|
|1.2.8: Improve the processing time and quality of internal EEO hearings.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||Issue determination in 180 days or less for at least 70% of the EEO hearings requested on or after 2/1/02||Issue determination in 180 days or less for at least 70% of the EEO hearings requested|
As a Federal agency, we must implement an effective and efficient EEO program to achieve the last goal contained in our Five-Point Plan: EEOC as a Model Workplace. We want to make our program an example for other agencies to emulate. For FY 2003, the two measures above addressed key aspects for efficiently processing our internal EEO complaints.
We did not achieve our target to issue investigative reports within 180 days or less for all complaints. We did issue the Reports of Investigation within 180 days or less for 40% of the complaints filed during FY 2003. Using ADR techniques and closely monitoring investigative time frames, however, we did reduce the average processing time to investigate a complaint filed during FY 2003 to under 180 days. Also, 56% fewer cases were pending investigation by the end of the fiscal year, as compared to the previous year, which significantly reduced the number of cases pending in the investigation stage. Of these pending cases, only one was more than 180 days old, a mixed-EEO case awaiting a jurisdictional decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). By the end of FY 2003, the average age of all of these pending cases was 124 days, including the case awaiting a MSPB decision.
The second measure of efficiency for our internal EEO complaint process is to issue determinations within 180 days of a requested hearing. In FY 2003, using contract administrative judges, the agency issued determinations within 180 days for 15 of the 22 hearings, or 68.2%, meeting our target for the year.
These two measures are not continued beyond FY 2003 in their current form. As part of our effort to develop our new Strategic Plan, the agency determined that a new measure for our internal EEO complaint process more appropriately measured our organizational excellence and was included under Strategic Objective 3. Also, the measure combines the entire process, rather than separating it into two steps, to target the reduction in the average time to process internal EEO complaints throughout the entire investigative and hearings process by at least 40% over a six-year period. In addition, we have included another measure in our new Strategic Plan that will improve our efforts to resolve internal complaints expeditiously using ADR techniques. Both of these new measures will enhance our ability to become a model workplace.
We work with many State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Native-American Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs) throughout the country to enhance efforts to enforce employment discrimination statutes nationwide. EEOC’s partnerships with these agencies and organizations, through our work-sharing agreements and other activities, benefit both the employer and employee communities for several important reasons. With our FEPAs, we coordinate charges that are dual-filed under both State or local law and Federal law. This enables both the EEOC and our State or local partners to prevent duplication, coordinate enforcement efforts, streamline the charge resolution process for both charging parties and respondents, consistently apply enforcement programs, and conserve resources. A respondent charged with allegations of employment discrimination usually responds to only one agency, but that single investigation can be the basis for the resolution of both the State or local and Federal action.
In addition, we provide training on investigative and legal issues and conduct joint activities to benefit our mutual constituencies, such as outreach to provide education and technical assistance. Additionally, we contract with our TERO partners to promote employment opportunity on Native American reservations.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|1.3.1: The number of dual-filed charges contracted with FEPAs.|
|Target||N/A||Approx. 53,000 resolved||Approx. 55,000 resolved||Approx. 55,000 contracted||Approx. 55,000 contracted|
We contracted for 60,597 dual-filed charges to be resolved by FEPAs, which far exceeded our target of 55,000 for this measure. The increase in the number of contracted charges was directly attributable to a $3 million increase in the State and local appropriation in the EEOC’s FY 2003 budget. This increase enabled us to contract with the FEPAs at 100% of their projected full charge processing capacity. We are not continuing this measure beyond FY 2003 because the agency identified alternative results-based measures in its new Strategic Plan.
This strategic goal aims to increase voluntary compliance with the Federal equal employment laws and increase individual knowledge of rights and responsibilities under the laws. Strategic Goal 2 focuses on one element of the EEOC’s Five-Point Plan: Proactive Prevention.
We believe that the best way to combat workplace discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Educating employers and workers about their rights and responsibilities under the law is the first step toward an inclusive work culture—where all workers are judged on their talents and abilities, without regard to race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, age, or disability.
A strong prevention program helps employers comply with the law and breaks down barriers to employment opportunities. Through outreach and education, the EEOC seeks to prevent unlawful exclusionary practices from taking root at all. Encouraging inclusive, equal opportunity workplaces is a powerful prevention strategy.
The EEOC recognizes that many employers and employees today are committed to equal employment principles. Prevention strategies should seek to strengthen our shared responsibility for implementing these principles and to extend this commitment to new generations. This is increasingly important as American society becomes more diverse and new challenges to equal opportunity principles arise.
Our FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan identified separate goals and measures for employer and employee groups. Although employers and employees, and their respective stakeholders, attend many of our outreach, education, and technical assistance events or benefit from our educational materials, it was important to separately focus on the unique issues and perspectives of each group for a number of years. Our new Strategic Plan combines our prevention efforts and does not focus on the same types of activity measures for these separate groups. Therefore, all performance measures for Strategic Goal 2 are not continued beyond FY 2003. Instead, in the future, we are focusing on more results-based measures to assess improvements in workplace policies, practices, and procedures as indicators of success with our prevention programs.
We believe that discrimination can be averted if companies, Federal agencies, and individuals know their legal rights and responsibilities. Knowledge and understanding can lead to changed practices and behaviors in the workplace. The employer community is a key component of the equation for creating an inclusive workplace. Our strategy to prevent discrimination in the first place includes extensive outreach, education, and technical assistance efforts to assist private sector and Federal sector employers to voluntarily comply with the laws we enforce.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|2.1.1: The number of consultations with employer stakeholders on operational and legal issues.|
|2.1.2: The number of representatives of private sector and Federal sector employers attending technical assistance activities other than Revolving Fund activities.|
|Target||10,000||At least 46,500||50,000||50,000||50,000|
We exceeded the target for Measure 2.1.1 by having a total of 1,623 consultations with employer stakeholders on operational and legal issues during FY 2003. This total included consultations with employers (1,360), Federal sector representatives (254), and Bar Associations (9).
For Measure 2.1.2, a total of 63,111 representatives from private sector and Federal sector employers attended our technical assistance activities (excluding those conducted by our Revolving Fund), substantially exceeding our target for this measure. Representatives from the private sector (51,518) and the Federal sector (11,593) attended no-cost technical assistance activities, which included oral presentations, stakeholder input meetings, free training, and expanded presence programs.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|2.1.3: The number of outreach events provided to employers to encourage participation in EEOC’s mediation program.|
We more than doubled the projected target for this measure by conducting 520 outreach events nationwide. These events were provided to employers to encourage them to participate in EEOC’s mediation program, which has resulted in quicker resolutions of charges filed against employers.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|2.1.4: The number of outreach, education, or technical assistance activities conducted to assist Federal agencies, make EEO program improvements, including (ADR) programs throughout the EEO process.|
|2.1.5: The percentage of participants rating each Technical Assistance Program Seminar (TAPS) overall quality as acceptable or better.|
We also far exceeded our target for conducting outreach or education activities or other technical assistance activities to help Federal agencies make EEO program improvements, including the enhanced use of ADR programs throughout the EEO process. We held 304 no-cost and 153 fee-based events, for a total of 457 outreach, education, and technical assistance activities. These events to assist Federal agencies included oral presentations (216), stakeholder input meetings (31), no-cost training events (48), expanded presence events (9), and fee-based training/technical assistance events provided under our Revolving Fund Program (153).
EEOC’s field offices continued to deliver high quality Technical Assistance Program Seminars (TAPS) throughout FY 2003 under the auspices of the Revolving Fund. Virtually all participants at TAPS events continued to rate the overall quality of the training as acceptable or better, exceeding our 90% target.
We make extensive information available to private sector and Federal sector employee communities to help educate them about their rights and assist them in the important steps they need to take to exercise those rights. The agency recognizes that employees, or applicants for employment, are valuable partners in the quest to create an inclusive workplace. The private sector and Federal sector employee communities require special attention with programs to ensure that we are able to reach this broad-based audience.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|2.2.1: The number of consultations with employee stakeholders on operational and legal issues.|
|2.2.2: The number of employees and employee representatives provided EEOC’s education and information materials, including representatives from under-served groups or communities.|
We exceeded both of the targets for these measures in FY 2003. We held 2,096 consultations with employee stakeholders on operational and legal issues, exceeding our target of 2,000 consultations. We also provided 74,678 employees and employee representatives (including representatives from under-served groups or communities) with EEOC’s education and information materials, exceeding the target value for this measure by almost 60 percent.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|Target||N/A||N/A||Initiate efforts to make 15 publications available by the end of FY 2002||Make 15 publications available by the end of FY 2002 and initiate efforts to make them available on the EEOC website||Make publications available in alternate languages on the EEOC website|
|Results||N/A||N/A||Initiated efforts on
18 publications; made an additional 13 publications available in alternate languages
|Make 17 documents available in 7 alternate languages; submitted them for inclusion on the website||Translated documents were prepared, however technical issues prevented their posting on the website|
Although we finalized the preparation of the required documents in alternative languages for posting on the agency’s website during FY 2003, technical issues with computer software prevented the use of all of the files and they could not be posted on the website within the fiscal year. The issues have been rectified and we expect to post the foreign language documents to our website once it is redesigned. We translated three other documents into multiple languages and our important “Equal Opportunity is the Law” poster was updated and translated into Spanish during FY 2003. In addition, we are currently developing a Spanish language version of our website that we expect to launch in June 2004.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|2.2.4: Provide EEOC informational materials to Federal sector employees and major employee groups.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||Materials and assistance provided for major employee groups identified in FY 2000||Materials and assistance provided for identified major employee groups||Materials and assistance provided for identified major employee groups|
|Results||N/A||N/A||Materials and assistance provided||Materials and assistance provided||Materials and assistance provided|
This measure encompasses many proactive, substantive activities to assist Federal agencies in complying with the laws and regulations designed to prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place. Our proactive approach enables us to help agencies identify problems before they escalate, provide recommendations and practices to help prevent discrimination from occurring, and reduce associated costs for addressing allegations of discrimination after complaints are filed.
As a key component of this approach, we have expanded the availability and access to Federal sector informational material and publications. We continue to provide our interactive computer-based training program, “Sailing Through the Federal Sector EEO Process,” to stakeholder groups and individuals at stakeholder events, training courses, and through an email address (firstname.lastname@example.org). We also continue to disseminate various Federal sector research materials, case decisions, and other helpful information on our website.
Strategic Goal 3 is intended to help us improve organizational capacity and infrastructure to more effectively and efficiently carry out our mission. It also includes one element of the EEOC’s Five-Point Plan: EEOC as a Model Workplace.
The performance measures for this strategic goal focus on improving capacity in three key areas: Staff effectiveness, policy guidance and technical assistance, and agency infrastructure. Achieving these goals will enable us to more effectively and efficiently carry out our mission. Each of these areas is essential for achieving our enforcement and prevention efforts. Working together, all three of our overarching strategic goals are necessary to accomplish our mission. These three areas and the performance measures aligned with them are described below.
None of these measures are continued beyond FY 2003 because our new Strategic Plan has identified different performance measures that are more results-based. For example, for the first time we will be measuring customer confidence in our services. We have developed better measures of the success of our internal EEO program, including the implementation of the Federal sector Model EEO Program criteria. Also, we will demonstrate enhancements to our human capital planning initiatives and measure employee satisfaction.
Our employees’ skills and abilities are key to successful enforcement of our statutory authorities. Because knowledge and technological requirements are quickly changing in our society, we must give our employees the necessary information and tools to do a quality job. Part of the PMA emphasizes critical components of human resource management because Federal agencies are now facing challenges to recruit, select, and retain employees. To address these areas, we have identified several performance measures to enhance staff effectiveness.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.1.1: The number of training prototypes developed from approaches identified for technology-based learning.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||Identify tech-based learning approaches||Develop at least one prototype||Begin implementing technology-based learning approaches|
|Results||N/A||N/A||Several approaches have been identified to augment delivery of classroom training||Used video technology. launched pilot of
|Began implementing technology-based learning approaches|
During FY 2003, the agency evaluated its e-learning pilot and recommended its continuation with enhanced online and electronic marketing of the program. A prototype computer-generated marketing video for online learning was developed and was displayed during training sessions and sent to selected offices for comment and evaluation. Another prototype of a computer-generated video was developed to determine whether videos are an effective means for distributing and disseminating information and training using live transmissions with fewer resources.
The agency also initiated a Management Development Institute (MDI). An integral part of its training is the information processing instrument called the IOPTd, which is delivered to training participants, evaluated, and delivered online to the agency’s training staff. The information is used by the MDI to train the agency’s managers, and in the future will be used for team building training and organizational development purposes. Also, the agency is introducing managers to the capability of using software solutions for delivering remote training, convening meetings, and providing other activities.
Finally, technology-based training was used when implementing our new Integrated Mission System (IMS), which is EEOC’s primary mission-related information system. Live, remote, online training was provided over the EEOC’s intranet to approximately 2,000 staff in 48 field offices, saving the agency more than $200,000 in travel expenses. This method provided multiple training sessions, in digestible two-hour segments, to IMS users within two weeks of system deployment to their respective office. In addition, we used the same method to conduct user training to deploy the travel manager component of the agency’s finance system nationwide. This approach resulted in additional cost savings for the agency.
External policy guidance and technical assistance aids employers, employees, courts, and Congress in understanding the Federal equal employment opportunity laws. These items provide valuable information about individual and employer rights and responsibilities and also encourage voluntary compliance with Federal employment discrimination laws. In addition, courts carefully review Commission regulations and policy guidance to interpret employment discrimination law.
Internal guidance assists our employees in understanding Federal equal employment opportunity laws and enables them to provide better customer service. Using the Commission’s policies and internal guidance, our employees apply investigative and legal standards accurately, effectively, and consistently nationwide. In addition, internal guidance and training helps foster a model employer atmosphere at the EEOC. It is critical that the Commission adopt and implement internal programs and guidance that allow its own employees to work in an environment free of discrimination.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.2.1: Implement the President’s New Freedom Initiative.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||Develop ADA training and publish handbook for small businesses; publish fact sheet on telecommuting (as a reasonable accommodation) on EEOC’s website.||Implement ADA training; review and update fact sheet on telecommuting (as a reasonable accommodation) on EEOC’s website|
|Results||N/A||N/A||N/A||Training developed and delivered Small business handbook published Technical assistance document drafted||ADA training implemented Telecommuting fact sheet issued and posted on website in 2/03 (was reviewed and there was no need to update)|
The agency achieved the target for this measure through a number of activities, which included providing ADA training and reviewing our telecommuting fact sheet covering the employment of people with disabilities. In addition to these specific activities, we continued activities as part of the agency’s implementation of President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative.
For this initiative, the agency continues to pursue a number of innovative strategies that venture beyond our traditional enforcement role. The agency has conducted more than 50 free workshops for small businesses to answer questions about the ADA and to inform them of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. One of these workshops was conducted in collaboration with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Other workshop co-sponsors included various local chapters of the Business Leadership Network and local chambers of commerce, The Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, and the American Society of Employers.
In addition to the workshops, the agency published a hard copy version of its ADA Primer for Small Business—a practical, reader-friendly handbook that provides a common sense explanation of the ADA’s employment provisions. Since its publication, more than 10,000 copies have been distributed in English and Spanish, including copies to nearly 100 targeted small businesses, small business development centers, and local chambers of commerce.
While continuing its outreach to small businesses, we also began several other activities to support the NFI. We asked several disability rights organizations to participate in upcoming conferences to explain the legal rights of individuals with disabilities who are employed or trying to enter the job market. The agency also continued working with the National Council on Disability to provide technical assistance to mediators and persons with disabilities on the rights of people with disabilities in the mediation process. Finally, we began to form partnerships with three States that volunteered to participate in a project that will highlight State’s best practices for employing people with disabilities.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.2.2: Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement of Federal EEO laws by Federal agencies.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||Continue to reinvigorate EEOC’s coordination role through improved management of EEO policy and guidance, use of the Internet, and training opportunities||Continue to reinvigorate EEOC’s coordination role through management of EEO policy and guidance, use of the Internet, and training opportunities|
|Results||N/A||N/A||N/A||Coordination role explanation posted on public website; coordinated with other agencies on policy and laws; trained other agencies||Developed a joint policy on selection procedures and employer report forms; conducted training for agencies; and other similar activities|
EEOC achieved this measure by coordinating and cooperating with several agencies in developing various policy matters and conducting training for Federal agencies’ staffs. For example, we coordinated the development of joint policy and guidance with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management on the definition of the term “applicant” for Internet recruiting and hiring and for the race and ethnic designations and job categories for the EEO-1 reporting form used by private sector employers.
We finalized procedures for complaints against the EEOC under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, developed a fact sheet about the ADA and the Federal Drug Administration’s Food Code, and provided assistance to the Department of Labor regarding ADA confidentiality issues raised in the Office of Safety and Health Administration litigation.
We also approved EEO-related rules enforced by Federal agencies under Executive Order 12067, including the Homeland Security Department’s Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 regulations; and the Department of Justice’s Joint Final Rule to implement the definition of “program or activity” or “program” in the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
The agency used the Internet and computer technologies to
enhance its coordination function. We updated our entry on the
Internal Revenue Service’s Small Business Resource CD-ROM for
distribution free-of-charge to the public, reviewed the
agency’s internal and external websites for consistent
descriptions of documents, participated in an initial assessment of
e-rulemaking initiative, and updated the agency’s EEO poster on the website.
We also conducted numerous training events for Federal agencies on various EEO subjects. We met with the Department of Justice’s National Origin Task Force and with advocacy, private, and Federal sector human resources groups to publicize the EEOC’s Compliance Manual chapter on national origin discrimination.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.2.3: Develop and deliver diversity training to EEOC supervisors and managers.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||Develop and deliver training for all supervisors and managers by the end of FY 2003|
|Results||N/A||N/A||N/A||Examined online options for delivery of diversity training||Continued to examine options for delivery of training, within funding limitations|
We could not deliver diversity training to all supervisors and managers during FY 2003 because of funding constraints that limited new or traditional approaches we considered to accomplish this measure. The agency is continuing to explore different approaches to provide all of our supervisors and managers with the type of training that will give them the tools and techniques to effectively manage a diverse workforce. Our challenge is to find or develop a diversity training program that addresses the circumstances of our agency, where we have an already diverse workforce, and our need to address the more subtle cultural issues of diversity. Many of the standard diversity training programs focus on the egregious issues of employment discrimination and the anti-discrimination laws that we enforce. Our focus is to find cost-effective alternatives to some of the traditional approaches for offering training (for example, face-to-face diversity training) or even some of the newer techniques (for example, contracting for online training services) without sacrificing the quality or content of the training. During FY 2003, we explored several online training and other long-distance training options; however, these did not provide an effective, affordable means to deliver the unique type of diversity training we need.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|Objective 3.2.4: Develop and implement agency restructuring plan.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||Develop plan||Implement plan|
|Results||N/A||N/A||N/A||Restructuring plan pending release of NAPA study||NAPA study released. Agency reviewing options and sought input throughout the fiscal year. Incorporating human capital plans and repositioning initiatives starting in FY 2004.|
Although the NAPA study that offered restructuring recommendations was released during FY 2003, other efforts that will establish the proper context for our restructuring plans took precedence, including developing our new Strategic Plan and obtaining input from stakeholders. The EEOC continued to receive input from employees and stakeholders. For example, in September 2003, the Commission held a public meeting to solicit input from various internal and external stakeholders on repositioning the agency for the future. Among our plans is the implementation of a cost-effective customer service contact center to provide optimum service and quality information to the public.
Additionally, throughout FY 2003, the agency also participated in an extensive, cross-organizational effort to develop a new Strategic Plan that covers six fiscal years from 2004 to 2009. The plan, which was effective on October 1, 2003, will guide many facets of the agency’s operations, including human capital and repositioning initiatives. While this measure is not continued beyond FY 2003, we are diligently working to reposition the agency within the budgetary realities in which we operate.
The agency’s infrastructure includes the financial, human resource management, technology, and administrative support systems that help achieve our Strategic Goals and performance measures. We must maintain an effective and efficient finance system to account for resource expenditures and promptly pay for services. We need a modern personnel system to help manage our workforce and strategically address human capital issues—an important reform initiative of the Administration and one that is critical to implementing our new Strategic Plan. In addition, EEOC needs integrated mission systems to consolidate data, streamline business functions, and improve work efficiency.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.3.1: Implement a new Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).|
|Target||Implement system||N/A||Complete transition plans for implementation||Implement core accounting and budget modules||Implement procurement, travel, and fixed assets modules of IFMS|
|Results||System implemented||N/A||Completed||Implemented accounting, budget, procurement, and fixed asset modules. Piloted travel module||Implemented all modules|
|3.3.2: Continue to develop, test, and pilot a number of subsystems of the EEOC’s Integrated Mission System (IMS).|
|Target||N/A||Continue to develop IMS||Test 4 subsystems: private sector, Federal sector, litigation and outreach||Pilot the 4 subsystems in field offices||Initiate implementation of 4 IMS subsystems (private, Federal sector, litigation, and outreach) in EEOC field offices|
|Results||N/A||IMS development continued||Tested private, Federal sector, litigation, and outreach subsystems||Piloted in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, and Richmond||Completed implementation of 4 subsystems in all field offices|
We fully implemented the Interior Department’s Electronic Acquisition System (IDEAS) procurement module, the fixed assets module, and piloted and fully implemented the travel manager module to continue to improve our IFMS. The IFMS integrates our core accounting system with budget, procurement, travel, and asset management. It also supports e-commerce activities such as electronic routing of contract documents, direct electronic communications with vendors, and direct entry of vendor profiles and other contract data through the Internet. The enhancements made to this system in FY 2003 continue to support and improve the efficiency of the EEOC’s front-line programs.
We exceeded our target for Measure 3.3.2 by fully deploying the four subsystems to our IMS to all EEOC field offices during FY 2003, instead of only initiating the deployment with several field offices. This deployment of the IMS culminates a multi-year, cross-functional effort to implement the most important mission-related information system for the EEOC.
The IMS is the agency’s enterprise-wide mission system that supports major front-line programs. It replaces a legacy system, the Charge Data System, which was almost two-decades old. The system supports our enforcement goals by integrating the processes and data for charges in intake, mediation, investigation, and settlement/conciliation, as well as, for the first time, cases in litigation. The IMS also supports our prevention goals by integrating the processes and data for our outreach and technical assistance programs.
Built with state-of-art web technology, the IMS represents a substantial change in the way the agency’s field and headquarters employees use technology to perform the agency’s core mission activities. The system provides an intuitive, graphical user interface, supports the tracking of allegations of employment discrimination, provides real-time search capability against a national database of current and historical charges, incorporates an easy-to-use reporting facility, integrates with the agency’s word processing software to generate Commission forms and letters, and supports our strategic enforcement efforts by integrating investigation and litigation data for the first time.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.3.3: Percent of properly completed travel vouchers paid within 15 business days after receipt in headquarters.|
|3.3.4: Percent of procurement actions for less than $25,000 awarded within 25 business days after acceptance of the request.|
We substantially exceeded our target for Measure 3.3.3 by properly completing and paying 99% of the travel vouchers within 15 business days after receipt. In fact, 96% were properly completed and paid within 5 business days. The agency has contracted with the Department of Interior’s (DOI) National Business Center since December 2001 to perform this function.
We also exceeded our target for Measure 3.3.4 by a significant margin. The agency initiated several new approaches among its contracting officers, including team functions and cooperative activities, to enhance procurement processes. Also, the agency employed a new automated, desktop procurement system, IDEAS, which facilitated the expedited preparation, processing, and tracking of all related acquisition forms.
|FY 1999||FY 2000||FY 2001||FY 2002||FY 2003|
|3.3.5: Improve the efficiency of paying commercial vendors.|
|Target||N/A||N/A||N/A||30% reduction in use of less efficient methods to pay commercial vendors compared to FY 2001||30% reduction in use of less efficient methods to pay commercial vendors compared to FY 2001|
|3.3.6: Percent of Revolving Fund annual costs covered by annual revenues.|
The agency also significantly improved the efficiency of its
payment functions by reducing the use of less efficient payment
methods by more than half during
FY 2003. We accomplished our goal by ensuring that most vendors accepted the agency purchase card and by training administrative officers on the IFMS bankcard interface module to take full advantage of the agency’s new technology tools. The module enables administrative staff to access and review overnight bankcard charges online, and eliminates much of the paper processing associated with hardcopy receipts and invoice copies.
We exceeded our goal for Measure 3.3.6 with annual revenues of the Revolving Fund covering 91% of its costs for FY 2003. The Revolving Fund enables the EEOC to charge a fee for the costs associated with delivering specialized external education, technical assistance, and training on the laws we enforce. Programs offered through the Revolving Fund enhance those activities provided to the public free of charge. We will continue to move to self-sufficiency for this fund but, with the agency’s new performance measures that are incorporated into our Strategic Plan for FYs 2004–2009, we will not continue this measure beyond FY 2003.
This section discusses the EEOC’s new Strategic Plan for
FY 2004–2009 and communicates the changes in subsequent GPRA
plans and reports, beginning in FY 2004. Driven by the need to
respond to a changing environment, the plan was developed through
an extensive, cross-organizational process throughout
FY 2003. Our new Strategic Plan will reposition the agency over the next six years and enable us to better fulfill our mission. The new plan represents a major improvement in our overall strategic planning and measurement framework. It articulates an overall vision and reformulates the agency’s mission.
Consequently, most of the measures from the FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan will not continue into FY 2004. Many measures focused on activity or output rather than specifically measuring the outcome of our work. As the Federal Government moves toward adopting measures that identify how agency programs ultimately influence an agency’s ability to achieve its mission, the EEOC has continually worked to develop more meaningful measures that identify the effect our programs have in ensuring equal opportunity in the American workplace. Our new measures bring us closer to the ideal of capturing the results of our work.
The following table outlines key differences between the overall structure of our previous Strategic Plan, which guided the development of both the FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and this report, as well as the structure in our new Strategic Plan. The new Strategic Plan for the first time includes outcome, results-based performance measures and a performance evaluation schedule. All of these revisions create powerful drivers to measure our program achievements and provide a clear articulation of the agency’s priorities.
|Previous Strategic Plan (and FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan)||New Strategic Plan|
|VISION||Become the world’s preeminent civil rights employment law agency and serve as the standard bearer for excellence in outreach, enforcement, and professionalism.[Adopted as a Management Vision in the new plan.]||A strong and prosperous Nation secured through a fair and inclusive workplace.|
|MISSION||Eradicate employment discrimination at the workplace.||Promote equality of opportunity in the workplace and enforce Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.|
|MANAGEMENT VISION||None||Become the world’s preeminent civil rights employment law agency and serve as the standard bearer for excellence in outreach, enforcement, and professionalism.|
|STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND GOALS||Strategic Goal 1:
Enforce Federal Civil Rights Employment Laws
|Strategic Objective 1:
Justice and Opportunity
|Strategic Goal 2:
Promote Equal Opportunity in Employment
|Strategic Objective 2:
|Strategic Goal 3:
Enhance Agency Effectiveness to Achieve Our Mission and Strategic Goals
|Strategic Objective 3:
The EEOC continues to make significant progress in implementing its five-year technology plan, which is critical for ensuring the reliability and integrity of the agency’s data. Data accuracy and reliability are necessary for effective planning and resource allocation. Our major front-line programs in the private and Federal sector require accurate enforcement data and financial and human resources information to assess agency operations and performance results.
Over the past few years, we have designed and implemented several important, new, technology-based systems to ensure more accurate and easily verifiable data. Implementation of these systems has improved our data and its application during FY 2003.
A desktop software program provides EEOC investigators and attorneys with a quick and easy way to view employers’ EEO-1 reports, which are surveys of private sector companies’ employment profiles by race, ethnicity, and sex. The desktop program enables our employees to compare this employer information to other employers in the same industry, to employers within a geographic area, or to profiles in the Census. We also launched a new secure web-based system that allows Federal agencies to electronically submit annual EEO statistics to the EEOC, improving the quality and timeliness of reporting.
We have implemented several new data systems that enhance our budget and performance integration efforts. A new personnel system was implemented in September 2001 to provide more accurate information on our employees and provide enhanced technological capabilities for using this information. The Federal Personnel/Payroll System (FPPS) is maintained by the Department of Interior's National Business Center. We implemented our new IFMS in October 2001. The system is also operated and maintained by the Department of the Interior National Business Center. It has core accounting, budget execution, and project cost accounting modules. This system provides centralized access to a single, integrated, corporate-wide financial database and provides a mechanism for consolidated financial reporting. We made two additional modules, procurement and fixed assets/property accounting, available in FY 2002. We implemented the travel management module in FY 2003.
We also deployed the new IMS to headquarters and all field offices. The IMS consolidates information related to charge intake, investigation, mediation, litigation, hearings, and outreach into a single database for real-time access and operational reporting. This data and process integration eliminated duplicate data entry and storage and streamlined functions to achieve data integrity.
Our Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which we drafted during FY 2002, became effective on October 1, 2002. They describe the EEOC’s policy and procedures for reviewing and substantiating the quality of information and data before it is disseminated to the public and provide an administrative mechanism for individuals to seek and obtain correction of the disseminated information.
Under the guidelines, we will be able to strengthen our verification and validation procedures to improve the quality of the agency’s data. The guidelines require us to ensure that the information is protected from unauthorized access or revision.
We also completed the internal directive that guides the agency’s process for ensuring that all information is reviewed for quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity before it is released to the public. The review will ensure that the public obtains the information it needs; displays the information in a way that it can use; ensures that the substance of the information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased; and, even where the information is accurate, ensure that it is also presented accurately, clearly, completely, in an unbiased way, and in context so that it can be interpreted properly.
We will continue to build on the guidelines throughout FYs 2004 and 2005 to ensure the quality, usefulness, objectivity, and integrity of our information and our ability to verify and validate our information and data.
Program evaluation is an important component of an agency’s effort to ensure that its programs are operating as intended; the programs’ policies, procedures, and processes are operating effectively and efficiently; and the programs are achieving results. A program evaluation is a thorough examination of the program, using a rigorous methodology and statistical and analytical tools. It uses expertise within and outside the program under review to enhance the analytical perspectives and add credence to the evaluation and recommendations.
As the Administration and Congress continue to stress measurable results and accountability, program evaluations take on an important role in assessing our results and justifying resources. The EEOC conducted several evaluation activities to inform management of the effectiveness of the agency’s programs during the year. We have used these evaluation activities in the past to monitor our progress with, and performance in, our programs and goals.
For example, we reviewed processes for major program areas to foster improved operations and compliance with applicable rules and regulations; conducted on-site reviews of Federal agencies’ Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)/affirmative employment programs; applied “substantial weight” criteria for reviewing some charges processed by our State and local agencies’ partners to ensure quality, timeliness, and adherence to appropriate standards; and reviewed and studied EEOC programs and operations.
In our outreach, education, and technical assistance programs, we assessed the validity of the results achieved by reviewing and checking, at least quarterly, data and reports submitted by field offices. We also reviewed evaluation forms completed by participants assessing the results of fee-based training under the Revolving Fund. In the future, we intend to survey samples of employers to our fee- and non-fee-based events and measure improvements to employment policies, practices, or procedures as a result of the training and technical assistance provided.
The agency’s independent Office of the Inspector General also conducts audits, reviews, and evaluations, and recommends program improvements. These reviews, as well as those conducted by the General Accounting Office, are important sources of information for us to improve program effectiveness and our operations. In addition, we are exploring more effective ways to evaluate program results. These and other endeavors, including our Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) program for improving our management controls environment, aid our efforts to measure, verify, and validate data for program effectiveness and service delivery.
As part of our new Strategic Plan for FYs 2004-2009, we incorporated a schedule for conducting more structured program evaluations over the next six years. At this time, we have scheduled five program evaluations that will focus on key aspects of our programs. During FY 2004, we will establish procedures for conducting program evaluations and prepare for the first program evaluation scheduled in FY 2005, the assessment of our private sector mediation program. The following table briefly describes the program evaluations scheduled through FY 2009.
|Private Sector Mediation Program||Assess private sector mediation program by examining how the overall program and implementation strategies have affected resolutions achieved, savings obtained, and customer service and workplace improvements.||FY 2005|
|Private Sector Charge Process||Examine and evaluate characteristics of the private sector charge process to enhance the process and the efficacy of procedures used.||FY 2006|
|Federal Sector Mediation Programs||Assess the range of mediation/ADR programs in the Federal sector to measure mediation approaches and compare advantages.||FY 2007|
|Effect of EEOC High Impact Litigation||Identify specific high impact litigation and discern how employers reacted by changing policies, practices, or procedures.||FY 2008|
|Effect of EEOC’s Federal Sector Evaluations and Assistance||Identify specific EEOC activities that resulted in changed policies, practices, or procedures and develop a methodology to estimate the results achieved from those changes.||FY 2009|
We will report on the results of these program evaluations in subsequent performance and accountability reports. They will enable us to make critical adjustments to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of these programs. We also will be able to review our performance measures and refine them, if necessary.
In accordance with Section 3 of the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, a statement is provided by the Inspector General which summarizes what she considers to be the most serious management challenges facing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These issues were the focus of significant work conducted by the Office of Inspector General during Fiscal Year 2003, and they require continuous effort by the agency. The management challenges also link directly to the President’s Management Agenda initiatives.
The organizational structure of EEOC is hierarchical and 80% of its budget is devoted to fixed costs (including compensation, benefits and rent). The remaining amount is primarily devoted to mediation, litigation support, state and local programs, outreach and technology. Further, demographic shifts and the changing business environment require better resource allocation and distribution nationwide. There are few resources devoted to the human capital investments and workload redistribution requirements needed to respond to workplace changes. This scenario represents our most critical management challenge, according to the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) assessment.
On September 8, 2003, the Commission held a meeting on
“Repositioning for New Realities: Securing EEOC’s
Continued Effectiveness.” This meeting allowed employees,
experts and stakeholders an opportunity to discuss their
perspectives on structure and workforce issues confronting the
agency, in light of recommendations contained in National Academy
of Public Administration workforce restructuring study and OIG
assessment of expanded telework options to reduce real estate costs
reports. These reports, issued in January/February 2003, provide
recommendations that could guide the development of a workforce
restructuring plan. Funds were requested in the
FY 2004 budget to implement a five-year restructuring effort.
EEOC’s future workforce planning needs continues to be a serious concern. On October 1, 2003, a revised Strategic Plan for FY 2004–2009 period was issued and a human capital strategy was implemented. This represents progress for the agency since OMB requires that human capital strategy be aligned with mission, goals, and organizational objectives and integrated into the budget and strategic plan. During FY 2003, a new staff development plan was included in the FY 2004 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the union, a workforce planning system was developed to identify and address gaps in mission critical occupations and competencies, and a seven-step succession planning process was developed.
The weaknesses in the strategic management of human capital initiative include the need to: update the skills gap assessment for the agency performed in 2001; evaluate the performance management system for non-SES employees and link their performance appraisal plans to agency mission, goals, and outcomes; and to develop and execute Individual Development Plans for all employees. Further, the link between the Commission’s Strategic Plan and the human capital strategies has not been communicated to the workforce. EEOC is in the process of fully implementing the new workforce planning system and pending a decision by the Commission on the future structure of the agency, the Office of Human Resources will ensure that the organizational structure is delayered and oriented toward performing mission activities.
The FY 2004 budget request and annual performance plan initiated the approach toward budget and performance integration. The request focused on better measures to assess the results of Agency programs and accomplishments and funding, and for the first time, was tied to specific goals in the FY 2000- 2005 Strategic Plan. A revised strategic plan was issued on October 1, 2003 allowing the agency to proceed on planned tasks under the budget and performance integration initiative that will be directly linked to the plan. During FY 2003, the Chief Financial Officer began providing consolidated monthly financial reports by strategic goals, objectives and programs to senior managers. These reports include field and headquarters direct and indirect costs for compensation, benefits, rent and program, and administration. In future years, funding will be allocated at more detailed levels to enhance the budget and performance integration effort. Specifically, plans include redesigning the internal budget formulation process and associated guidance, comparing agency performance with other civil rights enforcement agencies, implementing a time study for analyzing costs, and to document alignment of cost centers in the financial accounting system to agency programs.
OIG’s assessment of EEOC’s 2004 Annual Performance Plan and 2002 Annual Performance Report found these documents useful in determining intended performance, credibility of performance data, and progress towards meeting Agency goals. Although performance in these areas improved, OIG found some gaps between what EEOC reported and the standards outlined in Government Performance and Results Act guidelines. Areas needing improvement include adding adequate descriptions of the methods used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of performance data.
The most important financial criterion for improved financial performance under the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) is an unqualified opinion on the audit of agency financial statements. However, the EEOC has never received an audit opinion on its financial statements. Significant progress was made in FY 2003 when the agency completed a practice audit of the FY 2002 financial statements, conducted by OIG’s contract auditor. As was recommended, the Chief Financial Officer hired consultants to assist in the development of agency financial statements for FY 2003 and OIG is conducting the audit of these statements, as required by the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. An audit opinion will be rendered at the end of the work.
The agency planned to consistently identify commercial and inherently governmental inventories throughout the Commission. In September 2003, a contract for the back-office and logistics support of the Revolving Fund was successfully competed and awarded. However, planned competitions for information technology desktop support and applications training, human resources processing and federal operations intake have been delayed awaiting directions from the Administration and Congress. Since OIG found little progress made under this PMA initiative during the year, and until direction is received, this remains a critical management challenge.
Improvements in EEOC’s technological infrastructure will enable it to proceed with major initiatives to provide more extensive electronic government. During FY 2003, the Modernization Blueprint was developed and documented in accordance with OMB A-11 providing a business case plan for each IT investment. An agency-wide IT Security Plan of Action and Milestone Remediation Plan was reviewed and verified by OIG during the Federal Information Security Act review. EEOC currently participates in four categories of E-Gov initiatives designed to eliminate the need for redundant or agency unique IT projects. However, lack of consistent funding continues to compromise the progress of both new and ongoing information technology projects that presents a persistent challenge to EEOC management. For example, the workforce repositioning initiative and the streamlining of work processes requires strong investment in technology.
January 30, 2004
I am pleased to present the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s financial statements for fiscal year 2003. Our financial statements are an integral component of our Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). The President signed the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 on November 7, 2002. This Act extends to the Commission a requirement to prepare and submit audited financial statements. The President’s Management Agenda initiative of Improved Financial Performance also requires us to obtain and sustain clean audit opinions on our financial statements. Our agency initiated a pre-audit of our fiscal year 2002 financial statements through our Office of the Inspector General almost one year prior to the legislative requirement. The Tax Dollars Act also required the agency to prepare a PAR starting with FY 2004, however, the agency has elected to produce a PAR for fiscal year 2003, one year ahead of schedule.
Our FY 2003 balance sheet received a qualified opinion. This independent examination of our financial health is very important considering the previous financial system was unauditable. EEOC’s financial condition is sound in part because in October 2001 we successfully implemented and are operating an approved government financial system with our business partner, Department of the Interior’s National Business Center. Our fiscal responsibilities start with this official system of financial records that has the controls in place to ensure that the agency did not exceed our budget authority. The system provides our agency budget, status of funds, and other financial data online and through recurring reports to our managers and staff.
For fiscal year 2003 the agency submitted a $308 million budget
based on certain assumptions for our future workforce profile. A
significant change in both the actual separation rate and average
compensation and benefit costs contributed to a fiscal crisis. To
address it, the President submitted a $11.6 million supplemental
budget request to Congress on January 7, 2003. Shortly afterward,
Congress enacted a $308 million budget which required our agency to
absorb an unfunded $1.7 million pay increase, a $3 million State
and local program increase, and a
$2 million Government-wide rescission. However, with support from the President and Congress, a $15 million supplemental appropriation was approved in April 2003.
At a September 8, 2003, Commission meeting, I testified that there were several critical fiscal issues which I advised the Commission to focus on to improve the long-term financial health of the agency. I recommended the Commission address three important budget and performance planning considerations to reposition the agency for the 21st century. They are:
Execute a disciplined analysis of future workforce and infrastructure requirements
The Commission must create a more analytical approach for
workforce and infrastructure budget planning. There is a critical
need to reevaluate how we serve citizens and to determine the
optimal workforce mix of skills, occupation codes, career ladder
and development tracks, supervisor-to-employee ratios, and
compensation and benefit plans. The appropriate level of budget
resources will emerge from this analysis. Also, the agency may be
paying up to
$8 million in excess rent over the next five years unless the Commission does something to challenge the long-term infrastructure needs. The scope of this review must include an examination of the current location and space requirements for our headquarters building.
Recognize and manage competing budget priorities
Like any public or private sector organization, the Commission must regularly examine its mission and goals, internal program priorities, and costs so our future budget requests are reasonable and help us to achieve our mission more cost-effectively. If the Commission has new programs or wants to expand existing programs, the agency must make an exceptionally strong budget business case with factual workload data and explain how we plan to measure success for our choice of investments in new and expanded programs. We also must be willing to consider offsetting new costs by redirecting funds and increasing efficiencies.
Formulate a long-term performance budget strategy
The Commission must focus on a long-term performance budget approach that more clearly blends together the complex workload relationships, budget requirements, and performance metrics among our major programs. It is critical that the Commission work toward rationalizing the agency’s budget requirements using three- to five-year, forward-looking, workload, budget, and performance plans for each of our program activities.
In FY 2004, guided by our updated Strategic Plan with improved performance measures, the EEOC will continue to shift its focus to more accountability of program management through improved performance metrics. We must effectively address program management accountability to better serve our customers, remain an effective law enforcement agency, more effectively carry out our mission, and demonstrate meaningful results of the important work we do.
Jeffrey A. Smith, CPA, CGFM
Chief Financial Officer
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20507
Office of Inspector General
January 27, 2004
TO: Aletha L. Brown
FROM: Jeffrey A. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Draft FY 2003 Financial Statement Audit Reports (OIG Report No. 2003-04-FIN) - Comments
We have reviewed the draft audit report prepared by Cotton & Company, LLP and request the following comments be considered before the report is finalized.
1. Workers’ Compensation Benefit - The Department of Labor (DOL) methodology used by EEOC was used by the federal government including CFO Act agencies. The DOL developed the formula which incorporated ratios after a review by auditors prior to inclusion in the model. The DOL chose the approach for unlisted agencies because of the time and expense to re-engineer the DOL actuarial model output for each government agency. We applied the historical data from DOL charges to calculate EEOC workers’ compensation liability. Although DOL chose to qualify the use of the methodology for unlisted entities, we believe DOL should stand by their actuarial approach. The finding by Cotton & Company implies that the EEOC should obtain an actuary to validate the formula developed by the DOL. We believe that the estimated FY 2003 EEOC workers’ compensation liability, although material, does have a clear and documented audit trail and is a reasonable estimate of future workers’ compensation benefits as of September 30, 2003. If Cotton & Co. LLP is requiring EEOC to use an actuary for FY 2004 financial statements, we recommend they make a clear statement on this matter.
2. Financial Reporting Process - We agree that an effective and efficient quality assurance process must be implemented to ensure that errors do not occur. We disagree with the comment that a link to an incorrect cell resulted in a line item on the statements being initially reported as $657,000 when the amount with the proper cell reference was $38,000. We believe that these references are two unrelated instances and require an understanding of the spreadsheet tool and EEOC processes. We recommend the removal of this sub-finding as supporting rationale for the major finding.
3. Allocation of Costs - We agree that the method for allocating costs was not in substantial compliance with the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting. However, in the draft report on compliance with laws and regulations, the recommendation is that the EEOC collect hours worked after the end of the fiscal year. We believe this frequency is wrong and the recommendation should be changed. In accordance with OMB Bulletin 01-09, Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements, interim quarterly financial statements must be prepared and should include full accrual accounting with a Statement of Net Costs. To prepare accurate interim statements we must have a way to reliably estimate the allocation of costs. The draft audit recommendation method will not provide a reliable estimate. In addition, SFFAS No. 4 requires agencies to accumulate and report costs on a regular basis. It specifically states that procedures to accumulate and report costs be continuous, routine and consistent for management information purposes. Collecting costs at the end of the fiscal year may give us reliable data at the end of the fiscal year, but does not address the previous three quarters. Gathering data at the end of the fiscal year does not appear to meet the intent of SFFAS No.4.
We would like to thank Cotton & Co. LLP management and staff for their professional approach to this audit and observations to help us improve financial statement preparation. Should you have questions regarding our comments on the draft audit report, please feel free to contact me on 202.663.4201.
December 4, 2003
TO: Cari M. Dominguez
FROM: Aletha L. Brown
SUBJECT: Agency Compliance with the Federal Managers’
Financial Integrity Act
(OIG Report No. 2004-02-AIC)
The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), P.L. 97-255, as well as the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control, establish specific requirements with regard to management controls. Accordingly, each agency head must establish controls to reasonably ensure that: (1) obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws; (2) funds, property and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and (3) revenues and expenditures applicable to agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for, in order to permit the preparation of reliable financial and statistical reports, as well as to maintain accountability over the assets. FMFIA further requires each executive agency head, on the basis of an evaluation conducted in accordance with applicable guidelines, to prepare and submit a signed statement to the President disclosing that their agency’s system of internal accounting and administrative controls fully comply with requirements established in FMFIA.
On November 17, 2003, the Office of Research, Information and Planning (ORIP) submitted EEOC’s, “Fiscal Year 2003 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement to the President,” to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for review. Agency regulation, EEOC Order 195.001, Internal Control Systems requires this office to annually provide a written advisory to the Chair on whether the management control evaluation process complied with OMB guidelines. To make this determination OIG reviewed: (1) assurance statements submitted by headquarters and district directors attesting that their systems of management accountability and control were effective and that resources under their control were used consistent with the agency’s mission and in compliance with the laws and regulations set out in the FMFIA of 1982; (2) all functional area summary tables, and functional area reports; and (3) ORIP’s FY 2003 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement and Assurance Statement Letter, with attachments. Based on our independent assessment of this year’s process, OIG is pleased to advise you that the Agency’s management control evaluation was conducted in accordance with OMB’s standards.
Further, based on the results of audits, evaluations, and investigations conducted by OIG during the fiscal year, and information obtained through intra-office exchanges, OIG concurs with ORIP’s assertion that the Agency had no material weaknesses during this reporting cycle. Attachment 2 of the Assurance Statement Letter reflects information provided by the Office of Chief Financial Officer and Administrative Services (OCFO-AS) regarding the disclosure of twenty (20) financial non-conformances. Based upon our review of Attachment 2, OIG concludes that the OCFO-AS corrected 9 of the 20 financial non-conformances during the fiscal year.
The EEOC has prepared its financial statements to report its financial position and results of operations, pursuant to the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994.
While the EEOC statements have been prepared from its books and records in accordance with the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources, which are prepared from the same books and records.
These statements should be read with the understanding that they are for a component of the United States Government, a sovereign entity. Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources cannot be liquidated without the enactment of an appropriation by Congress, and payment of all liabilities, other than for contracts, can be abrogated by the Federal Government.
|Fund balance with treasury (Note 2)||$55,837,438||$51,389,769|
|Accounts receivable (Note 3)||13,692||19,783|
|Total intragovernmental assets||55,851,130||51,409,552|
|Accounts receivable, net (Note 3)||108,565||44,540|
|General property and equipment, net (Note 4)||2,941,127||4,144,117|
|Accounts payable (Note 6)||$2,995||$3,000|
|Employer payroll taxes||1,094,782||943,509|
|Worker's compensation liability (Note 7)||2,162,970||1,905,993|
|Total intragovernmental liabilities||3,260,747||2,853,502|
|Accrued annual leave (Note 7)||16,229,649||15,953,834|
|Future worker's compensation liability (Note 7)||12,113,502||20,000,000|
|Contingent liabilities (Note 9)||-||600,000|
|Capital lease liability (Note 10)||501,340||619,128|
|Amounts collected for restitution||246,207||243,786|
|Amounts due to Treasury for non-entity assets||356,386||194,133|
|Cumulative results of operations||(23,941,440)||(30,797,490)|
|Total net position||4,651,620||9,633,871|
|TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION||$58,907,295||$55,627,438|
|Total program costs - Private Sector||238,575,572||246,791,280|
|Net cost - Private Sector||238,485,624||246,728,072|
|Net cost - Federal Sector||33,783,397||41,172,211|
|State and Local:|
|Net cost - State and Local||46,272,884||35,184,803|
|Net cost of Enforcement||318,541,905||323,085,086|
|Net cost - Training||1,035,116||1,964,592|
|Net cost - Outreach||24,944,816||30,253,135|
|Net cost of Prevention||25,979,932||32,217,727|
|Totals all programs|
|Revenue (Note 11)||(3,607,025)||(3,743,463)|
|Net Cost of Operations||$ 344,521,837||$ 355,302,813|
|Cumulative Results of Operations||Unexpected Appropriations||Cumulative Results of Operations||Unexpected Appropriations|
|Beginning balances, as adjusted||(30,689,474)||40,448,158||5,768,203||47,647,350|
|Budgetary Financing Sources:|
|Appropriations received (Note 12)||323,822,000||311,707,000|
|Recissions and canceled appropriations||-||(4,306,078)||-||(209,000)|
|Unexpended appropriations - used||331,371,020||(331,371,020)||318,737,119||(318,713,989)|
|Other Financing Sources:|
|Imputed financing sources (Note 13)||19,898,851||-|
|Total Financing Sources||351,269,871||(11,855,098)||318,737,119||(7,215,989)|
|Net Cost of Operations||(344,521,837)||(355,302,813)|
|Appropriations received (Note 12)||$323,822,000||$311,707,000|
|Beginning of period||9,646,720||8,468,285|
|Spending authority from offsetting collections|
|Recoveries of prior year obligations||6,361,319||7,978,120|
|Permanently not available|
|Total Budgetary Resources||$339,116,719||$331,997,236|
|Status of Budgetary Resources|
|Unobligated Balances Not Available||11,075,763||10,964,580|
|Total Status of Budgetary Resources||$339,116,719||$331,997,236|
|Relationship of Obligations to Outlays:|
|Obligated balance - net, beginning of period||$41,296,278||$57,511,320|
|Obligated balance - net, end of period|
|Resources Used to Finance Activities|
|Budgetary Resources Obligated|
|Less: Spending authority from offsetting collections||(3,592,758)||(4,052,831)|
|Less: Spending authority from recoveries||(6,361,319||(7,978,120)|
|Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others (Note 13)||19,898,851||-|
|Total resources used to finance activities||337,391,057||308,105,081|
|Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of Operations|
|Change in budgetary resources obligated for goods, services and benefits ordered but not yet provided||(13,918,177)||(10,133,690)|
|Resources that fund expenses recognized in prior periods||8,486,498||1,106,349|
|Resources that finance the acquisition of assets||561,816||170,592|
|Other resources or adjustments to net obligated resources that do not affect net cost of operations||2,675||13,716,806|
|Total resources used to finance items not part of the net cost of operations||(4,867,188)||4,860,057|
|Total resources used to finance the net cost of operations||342,258,245||303,245,024|
|Components of the Net Cost of Operations that will not Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period:|
|Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:|
|Increase in annual leave liability||275,815||13,923,050|
|Total components of Net Cost of Operations that will require or generate resources in future periods||532,792||50,988,552|
|Components not Requiring or Generating Resources|
|Depreciation (Note 4)||1,688,157||951,076|
|Revaluation of assets or liabilities||4,538||-|
|Other resources or adjustments to net obligated resources that do not require or generate resources||38,105||118,161|
|Total components of Net Cost of Operations that will not require or generate resources in the current period||1,730,800||1,069,237|
|Total components of net cost of operations that will not require or generate resources in the current period:||2,263,592||52,057,789|
|Net Cost of Operations||$344,521,837||$355,302,813|
September 30, 2003 and 2002
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 253:42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq) as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Public Law 92261) and became operational on July 2, 1965. Title VII requires that the Commission be composed of five members, not more than three of whom shall be of the same political party. The members are appointed by the President of the United States of America, by and with the consent of the Senate, for a term of five years. The President designates one member to serve as Chairman and one member to serve as Vice Chairman. The General Counsel is also appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of four years.
In addition, through the Education Technical Assistance and Training Revolving Fund Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-411) the EEOC is authorized to charge and receive fees to offset the costs of education, technical assistance, and training.
The Commission is concerned with discrimination by public and private employers of 15 or more employees (excluding elected or appointed officials of State and local governments), public and private employment agencies, labor organizations with 15 or more members or agencies which refer persons for employment or which represent employees of employers covered by the Act, and joint labor-management apprenticeship programs of covered employers and labor organizations. The Commission carries out its mission through investigation, conciliation, litigation, coordination, and regulation in the Federal sector and through education, policy research, and provision of technical assistance.
These financial statements have been prepared to report the consolidated financial position of the EEOC, consistent with the Chief Financial Officers’ Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. These financial statements have been prepared from the books and records of the EEOC in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) using guidance issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the EEOC’s accounting policies, which are summarized in this note. These consolidated financial statements present proprietary information while other financial reports also prepared by the EEOC pursuant to OMB directives are used to monitor and control the EEOC’s use of Federal budgetary resources.
The Commission’s integrated Financial Management System uses American Management System’s Federal Financial System (FFS), which is a highly flexible financial accounting, funds control, management accounting, and financial reporting system designed specifically for Federal agencies. FFS complies with the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program’s core requirements for federal financial systems.
Financial transactions are recorded in the financial system, using both an accrual and a budgetary basis of accounting. Under the accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when a liability is incurred, without regard to the receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary accounting facilitates compliance with legal requirements and mandated controls over the use of Federal funds. It generally differs from the accrual basis of accounting in that obligations are recognized when new orders are placed, contracts awarded, and services received that will require payments during the same or future periods. Any EEOC intra-entity transactions have been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.
The EEOC receives the majority of the funding needed to support its programs through congressional appropriations. Financing sources are received in direct and indirect annual and no-year appropriations that may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures. Appropriations used are recognized as an accrual-based financing source when expenses are incurred or assets are purchased.
Additional funds are obtained through fees charged to offset costs for education, training, and technical assistance provided through the Revolving Fund. The fund is used to pay the cost (including administrative and personnel expenses) of providing education, technical assistance, and training by the Commission. Revenue is recognized as earned when the services have been rendered by the EEOC.
An imputed financing source is recognized to offset costs incurred by the EEOC and funded by another Federal source, in the period in which the cost was incurred. The types of costs offset by imputed financing are: (1) employees’ pension benefits; (2) health insurance, life insurance, and other post-retirement benefits for employees; and (3) losses in litigation proceedings. Funding from other Federal agencies is recorded as an imputed financing source.
Assets and liabilities presented on the EEOC’s balance sheets include both entity and non-entity balances. Entity assets are assets that the EEOC has authority to use in its operations. Non-entity assets are held and managed by the EEOC, but are not available for use in operations. The EEOC’s non-entity assets represent receivables that, when collected, will be transferred to the United States Treasury.
Intra-governmental assets and liabilities arise from transactions between the Commission and other Federal entities. All other assets and liabilities result from activity with non-Federal entities.
Liabilities covered by budgetary or other resources are those liabilities of the EEOC for which Congress has appropriated funds or funding is otherwise available to pay amounts due. Liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources represent amounts owed in excess of available congressionally appropriated funds or other amounts. The liquidation of liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources is dependent on future congressional appropriations or other funding.
Fund Balances with Treasury are cash balances remaining as of the fiscal year-end from which the EEOC is authorized to make expenditures and pay liabilities resulting from operational activity, except as restricted by law. The balance consists primarily of appropriations. The EEOC records and tracks appropriated funds in its general funds. Also included in Fund Balances with Treasury are fees collected for services which are recorded and tracked in the EEOC’s revolving fund.
Accounts receivable consists of amounts owed to the EEOC by other Federal agencies and from the public.
Intra-governmental accounts receivable represents amounts due from other Federal agencies. The receivables are stated net of an allowance for estimated uncollectible amounts. The method used for estimating the allowance is based on analysis of aging of receivables and historical data.
Accounts receivable from non-Federal agencies are stated net of an allowance for estimated uncollectible amounts. The allowance is determined by considering the debtor’s current ability to pay, the debtor’s payment record and willingness to pay, and an analysis of aged receivable activity.
Property, plant, and equipment consist of equipment, leasehold improvements, and capitalized software. There are no restrictions on the use or convertibility of property, plant, and equipment.
The EEOC capitalizes property, plant, and equipment with a useful life of two years or more and an acquisition cost of $15,000 or more ($25,000 for bulk purchases and $100,000 for leasehold improvements). Software purchases of $15,000 or more are capitalized with a useful life of two years or more.
Expenditures for normal repairs and maintenance are charged to expense as incurred unless the expenditure is equal to or greater than $15,000 and the improvement increases the asset’s useful life by two years or more.
Depreciation or amortization of equipment is computed using the
straight-line method over the assets’ useful lives ranging
from five to
15 years. Copiers are depreciated using a five-year life. Lektriev power files are depreciated over 15 years and Computer hardware is depreciated over ten to twelve years. Capitalized software is amortized over a useful life of two years. Amortization of capitalized software begins on the date it is put in service, if purchased, or when the module or component has been successfully tested if developed internally. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the remaining life of the lease.
The EEOC leases the majority of its office space from the General Services Administration. The lease costs approximate commercial lease rates for similar properties.
Amounts advanced to EEOC employees for travel are recorded as an advance until the travel is completed and the employee accounts for travel expenses.
Annual leave, compensatory time, and other leave time, along with related payroll costs, are accrued when earned, reduced when taken, and adjusted for changes in compensation rates. Sick leave is not accrued when earned, but rather expensed when taken.
EEOC employees participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). On January 1, 1987, FERS went into effect pursuant to Public Law 99-335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by FERS and Social Security. Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, could elect to either join FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS.
For employees under FERS, the EEOC contributes an amount equal to one percent of the employee’s basic pay to the tax deferred thrift savings plan and matches employee contributions up to an additional four percent of pay. FERS employees can contribute thirteen percent of their gross earnings to the plan. CSRS employees are limited to a contribution of eight percent of their gross earnings and receive no matching agency contribution.
The EEOC recognizes the full cost of providing future pension and Other Retirement Benefits (ORB) for current employees as required by SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government. Full costs includes pension and ORB contributions paid out of EEOC appropriations and costs financed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The amount financed by OPM is recognized as an imputed financing source. Reporting amounts such as plan assets, accumulated plan benefits, or unfunded liabilities, if any, is the responsibility of OPM.
Liabilities for future pension payments and other future payments for retired employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program (FEGLI) are reported by OPM rather than EEOC.
A liability is recorded for estimated future payments to be made for workers’ compensation pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). The FECA program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, which initially pays valid claims and subsequently seeks reimbursement from Federal agencies employing the claimants. Reimbursements to the Department of Labor (DOL) on payments made occur approximately two years subsequent to the actual disbursement. Budgetary resources for this intra-governmental liability are made available to the EEOC as part of its annual appropriation from Congress in the year in which reimbursement to the DOL takes place. A current liability is recorded for actual un-reimbursed costs paid by DOL to recipients under FECA.
Additionally, an estimate of the expected liability for death, disability, medical, and miscellaneous costs for approved compensation cases is recorded. This estimate is determined using a method that analyzes historical benefit payment patterns related to a specific period to predict the ultimate payments related to the current period. The estimated liability is not covered by budgetary resources and will require future funding. This estimate is recorded as a future liability.
Contingencies are recorded when losses are probable, and the cost is measurable. When an estimate of contingent losses includes a range of possible costs, the most likely cost is reported; where no cost is more likely than any other, the lowest possible cost in the range is reported.
Unexpended appropriations represent the amount of EEOC’s unexpended appropriated spending authority as of the fiscal year-end that is unliquidated or is unobligated and has not lapsed, been rescinded, or withdrawn.
As an agency of the Federal government, EEOC is exempt from all income taxes imposed by any governing body, whether it be a Federal, state, commonwealth, local, or foreign government.
Management has made certain estimates and assumptions in reporting assets and liabilities and in the footnote disclosures. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Significant estimates underlying the accompanying financial statements include the allowance for doubtful accounts receivable, contingent liabilities, and future workers’ compensation costs.
Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2002 balances to conform to the 2003 presentation.
The 2002 financial statements have been restated to make certain corrections to the Balance Sheet for capital leases, capitalized software, and leasehold improvements and to the Statement of Net Costs, Statement of Changes in Net Position, and Statement of Financing for the related depreciation. Corrections were also made to the Statement of Net costs, Statement of Changes in Net Position, and Statement of Financing for adjustments for expenses of prior periods that were reported in the 2002 financial statements.
Consolidated Balance Sheet
Consolidated Statement of Net Costs
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Financial Position
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
(presented on a budgetary basis of accounting)
Consolidated Statement of Financing
(a reconciliation of accrual and budgetary accounting)
Treasury performs cash management activities for all Federal agencies. The net activity represents Fund Balance with Treasury. The Fund Balance with Treasury represents the right of the EEOC to draw down funds from Treasury for expenses and liabilities.
Fund Balance with Treasury by fund type as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, consists of the following:
|Revolving funds||$3,555,191||$ 4,053,710|
|General appropriated funds||51,684,671||46,903,216|
|Other fund types||597,576||432,843|
The status of the fund balance may be classified as unobligated available, unobligated unavailable, and obligated. Unobligated funds, depending on budget authority, are generally available for new obligations in current operations. The unavailable amounts are those appropriated in prior fiscal years, which are not available to fund new obligations. The unavailable balance also includes funds in deposit funds and miscellaneous receipts. The obligated but not yet disbursed balance represents amounts designated for payment of goods and services ordered but not yet received, or goods and services received but for which payment has not yet been made.
Obligated and unobligated balances reported for the status of Fund Balance with Treasury do not agree with obligation and unobligated balances reported on the Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources because the Fund Balance with Treasury includes items for which budgetary resources are not recorded, such as deposit funds and miscellaneous receipts.
Status of Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, consist of the following:
|Obligated balance not yet disbursed||43,569,426||41,296,278|
(3) Accounts Receivable, Net
Intragovernmental accounts receivable due from Federal agencies arise from the sale of services to other Federal agencies. This sale of services generally reduces the duplication of effort within the Federal government resulting in a lower cost of Federal programs and services. While all receivables from Federal agencies are considered collectible, an allowance for doubtful accounts is used to recognize the occasional billing dispute.
Accounts receivable due to EEOC from the public arise from enforcement or prevention services provided to public entities or state and local agencies. An analysis of accounts receivable is performed to determine collectibility and an appropriate allowance for uncollectible receivables is recorded.
Accounts receivable as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, are as follows:
|Accounts receivable (see below)||$28,955||$82,188|
|Allowance for uncollectible receivables||(15,263)||(62,405)|
|Accounts receivable - net||$13,692||$19,783|
|With the public|
|Allowance for uncollectible receivables||(55,923)||(99,475)|
|Accounts receivable -net||$108,565||$44,540|
Amounts due from various Federal agencies as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, are shown below.
|Department of Defense||$5,952||$5,952|
|Health and Human Service||2,997||2,997|
|Department of Labor||2,250||0|
|General Services Administration||1,348||3,958|
|Department of Agriculture||799||34,287|
|Department of Veteran’s Affairs||235||1,437|
|Department of the Treasury||199||2,996|
|General Printing Office||0||7,538|
|Housing and Urban Development||0||7,277|
|Corps of Engineers||0||1,259|
|Total intragovernmental receivables||$ 28,955||$ 82,188|
(4) Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net
Property, plant, and equipment consists of that property which is used in operations and consumed over time. The following tables summarize cost and accumulated depreciation of property, plant, and equipment.
|As of September 30, 2003||Cost||Accumulated Depreciation||Net Book Value|
|Internal use software||2,664,371||(2,068,913)||595,458|
|Totals||$7,079,720||$(4,138,593)||$ 2, 941,127|
|As of September 30, 2002|
|Equipment||$ 1,493,133||$ (860,262)||$ 632,871|
|Internal use software||2,359,953||(940,721)||1,419,232|
|Totals||$ 6,624,684||$ (2,480,567) ,480||$ 4,144,117|
Depreciation expenses for September 30, 2003, and 2002, are $1,688,157 and $951,076 respectively.
(5) Non-Entity Assets
Non-entity assets, restricted by nature, consist of miscellaneous receipt accounts. These amounts represent cash collected and accounts receivable (net of allowance for uncollectible amounts) that are due to the U.S. Treasury.
|Fund Balance with Treasury||$ 351,369||& 189,057|
|Accounts receivable (net of allowance)||0||2,158|
|Accounts receivable (net of allowance)||5,017||2,918|
|Total non-entity assets||356,386||194,133|
|Total entity assets||58,550,909||55,433,305|
|Total||$ 58,907,295||$ 55,627,438|
(6) Liabilities Owed to Other Federal Agencies
As of September 30, 2003, the EEOC owed $2,995 to the Office of Personnel Management. As of September 30, 2002, EEOC owed $3,000 to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
(7) Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources
Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources represent amounts owed in excess of available congressionally appropriated funds or other amounts.
Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, are shown in the following table:
|Accrued workers’ compensation liability||$ 2,162,970||$ 1,905,993|
|Accrued annual leave||16,229,649||15,953,834|
|Future workers’ compensation liability (see below)||12,113,502||20,000,000|
|Contingent liability (See Note 9 below)||600,000|
|Capital lease liability (See Note 10 below)||501,340||619,128|
|Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources||31,007,461||39,078,955|
|Total liabilities covered by budgetary resources||23,248,214||6,914,612|
|Total liabilities||$ 54,255,675||$ 45,993,567|
Future Worker’s Compensation Liability
For FY 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) developed a model for Agencies not specified in the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) model to use as an estimate of their FECA actuarial liability. The model utilizes the amount of benefit payments for the entity over the last 9 to 12 quarters as provided in the quarterly charge back reports issued by the FECA, and calculates the annualized average of payments for medical expenses and compensation. The annualized average is then multiplied by the liability to benefits paid ratios for the whole FECA program for 2003. Using this tool, the EEOC determined that the 2003 actuarial liability is $12,113,502. This amount is approximately $8 million less than the FY 2002 estimate. During FY 2002, the DOL model was not available to the EEOC. Therefore, an estimate was made based on available information.
(8) Liabilities Analysis
Current and non-current liabilities as of September 30, 2003, and 2002, are shown in the following tables:
|Covered by budgetary resources:|
|Accounts payable||$ 2,995||$||$ 2,995|
|Total intragovernmental liabilities||1,097,777||0||1,097,777|
|Amounts collected for restitution||246,207||246,207|
|Amounts due to Treasury||356,386||356,386|
|Total covered by budgetary resources||23,248,214||0||23,248,214|
|Not covered by budgetary resources|
|Total intragovernmental liabilities||2,162,970||0||2,162,970|
|Accrued annual leave||16,229,649||16,229,649|
|Future worker’s compensation||12,113,502||12,113,502|
|Capital lease liability||138,814||362,526||501,340|
|Not covered by budgetary resources||18,531,433||12,476,028||31,007,461|
|Total liabilities||$ 41,779,647||$ 12,476,028||$ 54,255,675|
|Covered by budgetary resources|
|Accounts payable||$ 3,000||$||$ 3,000|
|Total intragovernmental liabilities||946,509||0||946,509|
|Amounts collected for restitution||243,786||243,786|
|Total covered by budgetary resources||6,914,612||0||6,914,612|
|Not covered by budgetary resources|
|Total intragovernmental liabilities||1,905,993||0||1.905.993|
|Accrued annual leave||15,953,834||15,953,834|
|Future worker’s compensation||20,000,000||20,000,000|
|Capital lease liability||117,788||501,340||619,128|
|Not covered by budgetary resources||17,977,615||21,101,340||39,078,955|
|Total liabilities||$ 24,892,227||$ 21,101,340||$ 45,993,567|
(9) Contingent Liabilities, Commitments, and Contingencies
EEOC is a party to various administrative proceedings, legal actions, and claims that may eventually result in the payment of substantial monetary claims to third parties, or in the reallocation of material budgetary resources. Any financially unfavorable administrative or court decision could be funded from either the various claims and judgment funds maintained by Treasury or paid by EEOC. In FY 2003 there is no amount for contingent liabilities recorded, because any potential contingencies are either not considered probable or are not measurable. In FY 2002 $600,000 has been recorded for contingent liabilities, which was the amount considered probable and measurable by EEOC’s management and legal counsel.
The EEOC has several capital leases for copiers in the amount of $501,340 for fiscal year 2003. These leases can be canceled without penalty. The future lease payments and net capital lease liability as of September 30, 2003, is as follows:
|Total future lease payments||
|Less: Imputed Interest||
|Net Capital Lease Liability||
None of the future lease payments are covered by budgetary resources.
The EEOC has several cancellable operating leases with the
General Services Administration (GSA), for office space that do not
have a stated expiration. The GSA charges rent that is intended to
approximate commercial rental rates. Rental expenses for operating
leases during fiscal years 2003 and 2002 were $27,596,360 and
$25,173,537 respectively. The EEOC has estimated its future minimum
liability on GSA operating leases by adding inflationary
adjustments to the
FY 2003 lease rental expense. Future estimated minimum lease payments, for five fiscal years under GSA as of September 30, 2003 are:
|Fiscal Year||Estimated Payments|
(11) Earned Revenue
Revenue earned by the Commission for fees charged to offset costs for education, training, and technical assistance. Fees earned and miscellaneous revenue are shown below for the years ended September 30, 2003 and 2002.
|Education, training and technical assistance||
|Total earned revenue||
(12) Appropriations Received
The Commission received $323,822,000 and $311,707,000 in warrants for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2003 and 2002 respectively.
(13) Imputed Financing
OPM pays pension and other future retirement benefits on behalf of Federal agencies for Federal employees. OPM provides rates for recording the estimated cost of pension and other future retirement benefits paid by OPM on behalf of Federal agencies. The costs of these benefits are reflected as imputed financing in the consolidated financial statements. The U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund paid certain judgments on behalf of the EEOC. Expenses of the EEOC paid or to be paid by other Federal agencies at September 30, consisted of:
|Office of Personnel Management:|
|Federal employees health benefits (FEHB)||
|Federal employees group life insurance program (FEGLI)||
|Treasury Judgment Fund||
|Total Imputed Financing||
Note: These costs were not recorded in FY 2002.
(14) Intragovernmental Transactions
Revenue and expense transactions with other Federal entities are shown in the tables below for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2003 and 2002.
|Department of Agriculture||$71,519||$1,474|
|Department of Defense||0||8,756|
|Department of Health and Human Services||0||2,997|
|Total Intragovernmental Revenue||$80,023||$33,827|
|General Services Administration||$33,279,631||$37,671,888|
|Department of the Interior||5,827,836||2,624,554|
|Department of Justice||2,035,318||3,474,287|
|Department of Defense||1,272,097||4,402,991|
|U.S. Postal Service||1,183,254||1,170,880|
|Library of Congress||674,218||985,862|
|Total intragovernmental expense||$46,429,327||$54,211,548|
(15) Restatement of Prior Year Balances
Reclassifications have been made to lines on the financial statements to conform with this year’s presentation. Certain lines on the financial statements have been restated for 2002 to include the Revolving Fund and Miscellaneous and Deposit Funds in the Consolidated Statements. Other restatements are explained below.
|As Originally Stated||Add Misc, Deposit & RevolvingFund||Reclassify||Restatements||2002Restated|
|Fund Balance with Treasury(1)||$49,103,772||$4,486,552||$||$(2,200,555)||$51,389,769|
|Accounts receivable – Intra-governmental(1)||0||22,535||(2,752)||19,783|
|Accounts receivable from the public(1)||16,696||39,379||(11,535)||44,540|
|General property and equipment, net(2)||632,872||3,511,245||4,144,117|
|Accounts payable - Intragovernmental||0||3,000||3,000|
|Employer payroll taxes||0||943,509||943,509|
|Worker’s Compensation liability||0||1,905,993||1,905,993|
|Accounts payable - Public||1,243,505||7,032||(3,000)||1,247,537|
|Future worker’s comp liability||21,905,993||(1,905,593)||20,000,000|
|Accrued annual leave||943,509||15,010,325||15,953,834|
|Capital lease liability(2)||0||619,128||619,128|
|Amounts collected for restitution||0||243,786||243,786|
|Amounts due to Treasury||0||194,133||194,133|
|Cumulative results of operations||(37,793,461)||4,103,853||2,892,118||(30,797,490)|
|Total liabilities and Net Position||$49,782,231||$4,548,804||$1,296,403||$55,627,438|
|Statement of Net Cost Restatements||As Originally Stated||Add Misc, Deposit & RevolvingFund||Reclassify||Restatements||2002Restated|
|Enforcement(2 & 3)||$||$||$327,065,766||$(3,980,680)||$323,085,086|
|Prevention(2 & 3)||32,659,753||(442,026)||32,217,727|
|Net Cost of Operations - General||359,861,668||(359,861,668)|
|Net Cost of Operations - Revolving||(136,149)||136,149|
|Net Cost of Operations||$359,861,668||$(136,149)||$(4,422,706)||$355,302,813|
|Changes in Net Position Restatements|
|Cumulative results of operations|
|Cumulative results of operations - beginning balance||$3,331,088||$3,967,704||$||$7,298,792|
|Prior period adjustments(2 & 3)||(1,530,589)||(1,530,589)|
|Net cost of operations(2 & 3)||(359,861,668)||136,149||4,422,706||(355,302,813)|
|Cumulative results of operations - ending balance||(37,793,461)||4,103,853||2,892,117||(30,797,491)|
|Prior period adjustments(4)||0||2,237,973||2,237,973|
|Statement of Budgetary Resources Restatements||As Originally Stated||Add Misc, Deposit & RevolvingFund||Reclassify||Restatements||2002Restated|
|Budgetary ResourcesUnobligated balance - beginning of period||$5,567,138||$2,901,147||$||$||$8,468,285|
|Offsetting collections - earned - collected||84,775||3,968,056||4,052,831|
|Status of Budgetary ResourcesDirect obligations incurred||316,659,152||3,476,880||320,136,032|
|Unobligated balance - apportioned||255,279||351,323||290,022||896,624|
|Unobligated balance not available||5,998,759||3,041,000||1,924,821||10,964,580|
|Obligations to OutlaysObligated balance, net - beginning of period||56,798,165||713,155||57,511,320|
|Statement of Financing Restatements||As Originally Stated||Add Misc, Deposit & RevolvingFund||Reclassify||Restatements||2002Restated|
|Spending authority from offsetting collections||0||(4,052,831)||(4,052,831)|
|Spending authority from recoveries||0||(7,978,120)||(7,978,120)|
|Spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries||(8,062,896)||(3,968,055)||12,030,951|
|Change in budgetary resources ordered but not yet provided||0||0||(10,133,690)||(10,133,690)|
|Resources that fund expenses recognized in prior periods(6)||0||0||1,106,349||1,106,349|
|Resources that finance the acquisition of assets(2)||0||0||170,592||170,592|
|Other resources that do not affect the cost of operations(7)||1,350,235||(355,026)||9,963,098||2,758,499||13,716,806|
|Other expenses that will not require or generate resources in the current period(2 & 8)||38,459,827||0||0||(1,394,325)||37,065,502|
|Other expenses that do not require or generate resources(8)||0||0||118,161||118,161|
|Net Cost of Operations||$359,861,668||$(136,149)||$(4,422,706)||$355,302,813|
Summary of Restatements
1. To correct information for Fund Balance with Treasury and Accounts Receivable for collections which occurred prior to year-end and for cash from canceled appropriations.
2. To include assets under capital lease, internal use software, leasehold improvements, capital lease liability and depreciation expense for these assets.
3. To decrease net cost of operations for prior period adjustments
4. To adjust beginning balance for cash for canceled appropriations included in original statements and for other prior period adjustments.
5. To remove change in accounts receivable for “off-budget” accounts receivable.
6. To record a decrease in unfunded expenses.
7. To include other budgetary resources that do not affect the net cost of operations.
8. To decrease expenses that do not require or generate resources.
(16)Schedule of Budgetary Information by Major Budget Account for Comparison to the President’s Budget for September 30, 2002.
The EEOC’s budget is allocated between two strategic goals:
|(In millions)Program and Financing||President’s BudgetFY 2002 actual||Statement of Budgetary ResourcesFY 2002||Estimated FY 2003||Estimated FY 2004|
|Total new obligations||$311||$3201||$320||$335|
The differences between the President’s 2002 budget and the Statement of Budgetary Resources for 2002 are shown below:
1. New obligations in prior year’s funds on upward adjustments of $9 million.
2. Net outlays in miscellaneous funds and the revolving fund of ($1 million).
Cari M. Dominguez, Chair
Cari M. Dominguez is the 12th Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Her five-year term expires on July 1, 2006.
As EEOC Chair, Ms. Dominguez continues her distinguished career in the Federal government, having served from 1989-1993 in the U.S. Department of Labor as Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards and as Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In the latter capacity, she launched and led the Labor Department's “Glass Ceiling Initiative,” designed to remove invisible barriers from the workplace.
Ms. Dominguez brings to the Commission a broad perspective and a wealth of expertise in employment and workplace issues gained in a variety of settings: as a small business owner, as a consultant, and as a corporate executive. She owned Dominguez & Associates, a management consulting firm that served many Fortune 500 companies in the areas of workforce preparedness assessments and employment related issues. She was a partner at Heidrick & Struggles and a Director at Spencer Stuart, two globally recognized executive search firms. Her corporate experience includes various human resources positions with Bank America Corporation, including Director of Executive Programs.
Naomi Churchill Earp, Vice Chair
Naomi Churchill Earp joined the EEOC on April 28, 2003, to serve in the capacity of Vice Chair. She received a recess appointment by President George W. Bush on April 22 to complete the remainder of a five-year term expiring July 1, 2005. She was subsequently renominated by President Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2003.
Ms. Earp’s work experience in promoting diversity in the EEO field includes a series of progressively responsible leadership positions with various Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Science and Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She brings to the EEOC refined expertise in the EEO field, as well as, hands-on leadership and management experience.
Paul Steven Miller, Commissioner
Paul Steven Miller is one of the longest serving Commissioners in the 40-year history of the EEOC. Mr. Miller was first nominated as a Commissioner of the EEOC by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate several months later. Since that time, Mr. Miller was unanimously confirmed two more times by the Senate.
Prior to his appointment at EEOC, Mr. Miller served as the Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs and as the White House liaison to the disability community. Earlier, he was the Director of Litigation for the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, a non-profit legal services center specializing in disability rights issues. There, Mr. Miller litigated disability rights cases of all types, including employment, education, transportation, and access discrimination. He was also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a visiting Lecturer of Law at the University of California at Los Angeles. Mr. Miller began his career as a litigator for a large Los Angeles law firm.
Leslie E. Silverman, Commissioner
Leslie E. Silverman was sworn in on March 7, 2002, as a Commissioner of the to serve the remainder of a term expiring July 1, 2003. Ms. Silverman was re-nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a five-year term in October 2003.
Ms. Silverman’s work experience in labor and employment law includes positions in both the public and private sectors. Immediately prior to joining the Commission, she served for five years as Labor Counsel to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. In that capacity, she provided legal advice and counsel to the Committee’s Chairman, James Jeffords, and subsequently to Senator Judd Gregg, the Ranking Member, on EEO law and wage and hour matters, as well as on labor standards and labor-management relations.
Paul Igasaki, Commissioner
Paul Igasaki was initially nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate in 1994. From January to October 1998, Mr. Igasaki served as Acting Chairman. He was confirmed for a second term as Vice Chair on October 21, 1998. Mr. Igasaki is the first Asian American to serve in these positions at EEOC. Mr. Igasaki’s term expired in July, 2003.*
Prior to his appointment, he was Executive Director of the Asian Law Caucus, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization. He served also as Washington, D.C. Representative of the Japanese American Citizens League, a national civil rights organization, working on such issues as the Civil Rights Act, immigration reforms, and funding for the Japanese American redress program.
Note: Stuart Ishimaru was nominated by President George W. Bush to fill the seat on the Commission held by Commissioner Igasaki. Mr. Ishimaru was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2003.
Eric Dreiband, General Counsel
Eric Dreiband joined the EEOC on August 11, 2003, as General Counsel. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on February 4, 2003, and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 31, 2003. Mr. Dreiband will serve as General Counsel for a four- year term.
Mr. Dreiband brings to the Commission a strong background in litigation. Before joining the EEOC, he served as Deputy Administrator for Policy in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. Earlier he worked with the Chicago law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Mawe, where he litigated cases before state and Federal trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative agencies throughout the United States. Mr. Dreiband’s practice included labor and employment, consumer fraud, computer fraud, Internet dispute, class action, commercial dispute, and criminal cases. His areas of practice included Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Occupational Safety And Health Act. Mr. Dreiband also worked as a Federal prosecutor in the Office of the Independent Counsel.
AJ Administrative Judge
ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
EEO Equal Employment Opportunity
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEPA Fair Employment Practice Agencies
FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act
IFMS Integrated Financial Management System
IMS Integrated Management System
MDI Management Development Institute
NFI New Freedom Initiative
NUAM National Universal Agreements to Mediate
PMA President’s Management Agenda
TERO Tribal Employment Rights Offices
UAM Universal Agreements to Mediate
EEOC - www.eeoc.gov
EEOC FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report - www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc
EEOC Strategic Plan - www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc
EEOC Performance Plan - www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc
This FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report is a collaborative endeavor on the part of many EEOC employees and contractors. We would like to acknowledge and thank them for their hard work and commitment in successfully preparing this report and in supporting the audit of the financial statements.
Thank you for your interest in EEOC’s FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your comments on how we can make this report more informative for our readers. Please send your comments to
Frances M. Hart, Executive Officer
Office of the Executive Secretariat
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20507
TTY (202) 663–4494
This report is also available at www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/par/2003
This page was last modified on October 27, 2004
Return to Home Page