1. Home
  2. Addendum: Interim Adjustments To The Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2007-2012

Addendum: Interim Adjustments To The Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2007-2012

The agency has made interim modifications to its Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012, which was initially issued on October 1, 2006 (FY 2007). As the agency implemented the new performance structure and several new performance measures included in the Strategic Plan, it has made several modifications. As the modifications were adopted, they were included in the agency's Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and its performance budget. On July 28, 2008, the Commission approved a Strategic Plan that contained previous modifications made to the initial Plan, and included several additional modifications to the performance structure. All of the modifications made to the Strategic Plan are described below:

  • Revised Long-Term Measure 1

    Initially, Long-Term Measure 1 included two Annual Measures. These integrated measures were designed to demonstrate the EEOC's results in providing benefits to individuals in the workplace because of its enforcement and outreach programs. During the agency's review and preliminary efforts to design an appropriate methodology for collecting data, the agency determined that the enforcement program was the substantial component of the Long-Term Measure, and that it was not currently feasible to develop a reliable method for collecting and analyzing outreach data. The measure was modified to measure the agency's enforcement programs only. The Annual Measure regarding outreach results was removed. Since the remaining Annual Measure for enforcement results was now redundant with the Long-Term Measure, it was also removed. Long-Term Measure 1 was modified to Long-Term/Annual Measure 1 and minor language changes were made.

  • Removed the Management Objective—Incorporate Concepts into Means and Strategies

    In reviewing the overall focus of the agency's Strategic Plan, it was determined that a separate Management Objective was not required, since the agency's efforts to improve its internal operations were designed to benefit its front-line enforcement and outreach programs. The agency incorporated the concepts of organizational improvement into the Means and Strategies section of the Strategic Plan; highlighting their important supportive role. Organizational changes and efforts to implement the President's Management Agenda are part of the agency's strategies for doing all of its work more effectively and efficiently.

  • Revised References to the Five-Point Plan

    Also, the concepts described under the umbrella of the Five-Point Plan have always been critical aspects of its work. Although the Five-Point Plan itself provided an overall structure to express these important concepts, it added another organizational layer to the Strategic Plan that the agency now considers unnecessary. With the removal of a separate Management Objective and the incorporation of the essential elements into the Strategic Plan's Means and Strategies, the structure of the Five-Point Plan was less important and may add confusion for the reader of the EEOC's documents. Even though the structure of the Five-Point Plan was removed, the essential concepts remain in the Strategic Plan.

  • Revised the Schedule of Program Evaluations

    The agency also revised a number of the program evaluations it intends to conduct during the life of the Strategic Plan. The revised program evaluation schedule is included in this plan.

    In addition, a completed program evaluation on the Private Sector Charge Process, that informed one of our revisions of the program evaluation schedule, was described.

  • Revised Organizational Elements

    The organization of the measures was revised to better explain their interrelationship. Since the Efficiency Measure was directly related to the results achieved with the revised Long-Term/Annual Measure 1, it was moved directly after Measure 1 to better describe that relationship.

  • Revised Performance Structure and Established Final Goals for all Performance Measures

    The performance measures in the Strategic Plan published on October 1, 2006, did not include final goals, because of the new performance structure that had been developed during the 2006 program assessment of the agency a few months earlier. Since that time, the agency has developed annual targets and final goals for those performance measures retained in the modified Strategic Plan (not all of the original measures were retained—see the description of other modifications to the performance measurement structure, above). As targets/final goals were adopted for measures, they were incorporated into other agency reports; such as the agency's fiscal year 2007 PAR published in November 2007 and its fiscal year 2009 budget submission to Congress in February 2008.

    Further modifications were included in the Strategic Plan approved by the Commission on July 28, 2008. For Long Term Measure 2—public confidence in the EEOC to enforce its laws—the agency increased the previously published baseline value for fiscal year 2007; the multi-year targets; and the final goal for fiscal year 2012. The increased values resulted from a re-assessment of the data collected from the survey taken of nationwide respondents who were asked a question about their confidence in the EEOC. The original values were established using scores in the 8-10 range on a 10-point scale, with "10" as the highest score. Based on the re-assessment, the range was expanded to the 7-10 range, which included additional respondents indicating their confidence in the EEOC. The Commission determined that the modification was warranted because the revised range of scores more appropriately measured the public's confidence in the EEOC's enforcement of its laws.

    The Commission's vote on the Strategic Plan in July also modified the annual targets and final goal for Annual Measure 2.1—resolving private sector charges within 180-days or fewer. It reduced these values to adopt ambitious, but more realistic, goals for the Commission. In its evaluation, increasing workloads are expected to grow significantly worse, because charge receipts and the year-end inventory are significantly increasing while the number of investigative staff needed to process the work is continuing to decline. However, after the agency's earlier program assessment, which developed the new performance structure, higher annual targets and a final goal were established for this measure. This measure and annual targets and a final goal will be reviewed as the agency prepares a new Strategic Plan it anticipates issuing on Fiscal Year 2010.

    Another modification was to remove Annual Measure 2.7—the number of individuals who demonstrate an awareness of their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities. Subsequent to the baseline and target information first reported for this measure, the agency has considered some alternative methodologies that could be used to measure the results for this performance measure, using data based upon responses to other questions from the nationwide survey. Since the agency is still considering the approach that should be used to measure results in this area, the Commission felt that it was appropriate to remove the measure from the agency's performance structure at this time, until we have had a full opportunity to carefully consider the best approach.

    The agency also modified the program evaluation schedule to move the evaluation of the Systemic Enforcement initiative to fiscal year 2012. The Commission determined that it would be more advantageous to evaluate this initiative after the agency has had more time to implement it, so that it can measure results over a more appropriate time frame.

  • Other Revisions

    A placeholder was added for the development of a measure of the contribution of our FEPA partners toward achievement of the agency's goals. This development effort is part of the program assessment improvement plan.

    In addition, the graphic presentation of the new performance structure was revised to accurately reflect the other revisions made to the plan.