We will serve the public interest by obtaining justice for individuals who experience employment discrimination and remove discriminatory barriers to create a level playing field. The expected outcomes are (1) remedying and deterring unlawful employment discrimination and (2) increased public confidence in the fair and prompt resolution of employment discrimination disputes.
The Commission, in its role as a law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing the nation’s civil rights employment laws. Our first Strategic Objective was premised on this role and the belief that our fundamental responsibility is to correct the wrongs of employment discrimination and bring justice and equal opportunity to the workplace. To fulfill this responsibility, we must improve our delivery of quality services to the public and enhance confidence in our ability to resolve charges of discrimination in a timely, accurate, and consistent manner. Our enforcement programs in the private and Federal sectors require a substantial investment in resources to ensure that we are able to handle our workload.
Strategic Objective 1, Justice and Opportunity, relates to three of the elements of our Five-Point Plan—Proficient Resolution, Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR, and Strategic Enforcement and Litigation. A total of 13 performance measures were included under these three elements.
Charge processing in the private sector and complaint processing in the Federal sector must be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Staff and other resources must be deployed to ensure the quality and timeliness of processing. We enhanced effective quality control standards and mechanisms to measure our success in meeting this objective.
In the private sector, 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, to try to resolve the charge; review and investigate the 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.
In our Federal sector program, the Commission has a unique role in ensuring that all employees have the freedom to compete in the Federal workplace on a fair and level playing field and to be judged on the merits of their performance and not on the basis of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. Our hearings and appellate enforcement efforts and our monitoring, guidance, and assistance activities help us achieve our purposes.
In the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006, there were five performance measures under the Proficient Resolution element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures ensured that a significant percentage of private sector charges, Federal sector hearings, and Federal sector appeals would be resolved in 180 days or fewer. Another measure evaluated the quality of investigative charge files. The final measure determined how the general public rates its confidence in EEOC’s enforcement of Federal equal employment laws.
All five of these measures are retained in our new Strategic Plan, although the overall framework of the Plan and the performance measures are revised. The final goals will be reassessed and extended to
FY 2012, and the annual targets will be realigned to meet the final goals established.
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 60.0% | 60.0% | 65.0% | 70.0% | 70.0% |
| Result | 65.6% | 68.9% | 67.1% | 65.9% | 60.7% |
|
Target not met | ||||
Although the FY 2009 goal is to resolve 75% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, we did not meet our FY 2006 target of 70%. The agency resolved 60.7% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, 45,158 charges out of 74,308 total resolutions.
Several factors contributed to this result. While our receipts have stayed level between FY 2005 and
FY 2006, our investigator staffing levels have declined, which has resulted in a growing pending inventory that is correspondingly older. To ensure that this measure did not unduly affect older cases, we enhanced efforts to process our aging inventory in a timely way. As a result, offices had to balance the processing of its older inventory with the concurrent processing of newer charges. In addition, the agency relied on the transfer of cases between offices to address workload and staffing
imbalances. All of these factors adversely affected our ability to achieve this measure.
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 20.0% | 20.0% | 35.0% | 38.0% | 50.0% |
| Result | 24.4% | 30.5% | 32.8% | 51.3% | 43.6% |
|
|
Target not met |
||||
Like our private sector charges, this measure identifies our efforts to process a significant portion of our Federal sector hearings workload in 180 days or fewer. The goal for this measure in FY 2006 was 50%; however, we did not meet it. The agency resolved 43.6% of Federal sector hearings within 180 days; 3,788 out of 8,685 resolutions. Our goal achievement was affected by staffing imbalances in our field offices, which forced us to utilize complaint transfers to shift our workload. As a result, it took more time for these cases to be processed. Additionally, we continued to focus on resolving the oldest cases in our inventory, in addition to new complaints.
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 20.0% | 20.0% | 45.0% | 50.0% | 55.0% |
| Result | 40.3% | 44.8% | 51.8% | 52.0% | 59.7% |
|
Target met |
||||
We made significant gains in processing our Federal sector appellate inventory during FY 2006 using the revised methodology for calculating the achievement of our targets and final goal for this measure. In
FY 2006, our target was to ensure that at least 55% of all appeals closed were resolved in 180 days or fewer. We surpassed this goal, resolving 59.7% of the appeals within 180 days or fewer (3,863 out of 6,465 closures). We surpassed our target through effective management of the appellate inventory and by using strategic inventory management projects and technological innovations, including the expanded use of our digital Document Management System.
We will also increase our targets levels in the future as we implement our new Strategic Plan. To ensure that the accomplishment of this goal is not at the expense of the older cases in our Federal sector appellate inventory, we are utilizing inventory management techniques to effectively strike an appropriate balance between the processing of the older and newer inventory.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Define criteria to evaluate quality and develop system to collect information. | Establish baseline value for FY 2005 and target values/final goal for FY 2006–2009. | 87.0% |
| Result | Defined criteria and developed system to collect information. | Baseline: 88.5%. | 88.1% |
|
|
Target met |
||
This measure builds on one of the three key factors of charge processing—quality. Along with timeliness (captured in Measure 1.1.1) and inventory, these factors are interdependent and affect our charge processing efforts. In FY 2005, we established our baseline for this measure and the targets for subsequent fiscal years. We used a sampling methodology to select investigative files processed by our field offices, then evaluated the files on two critical quality criteria: (1) appropriate charge categorization and file documentation to support actions and (2) charge resolution.
The agency target for FY 2006 was 87.0% and we achieved a quality level of 88.1%, exceeding the target.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline of confidence. Set target values for FY 2005–2009. | Establish baseline. Future targets/goal to be determined. | Meet established target |
| Result | Initiated survey design to establish baseline of confidence. | Baseline: 49%. | Establishing target postponed. |
|
|
Target not met |
||
Our Strategic Plan identifies several agency measures that involve the use of external surveys to collect information, establish baseline and target values for results expected, and determine results achieved. The agency’s survey methodology to establish our goals and measure our results for this performance measure was to survey members of the public to determine how familiar they are with our enforcement efforts and to what extent they believe that we responsibly and effectively address workplace discrimination. Our assumption is that employers, employees, attorneys, and members of the general public will have confidence in our impartial role as a law enforcement agency, come to us for assistance, and trust in our capability to handle the complaint, if we are viewed as a fair and just enforcer of the civil rights employment laws.
Results from a 2004 survey conducted by a reputable private organization were available during FY 2005, including responses to a question that the agency used to identify an FY 2005 baseline value for this measure. The results demonstrated that 49% of all of the individuals responding to the question who identified a specific confidence level have confidence in EEOC’s ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws.
Although the agency anticipated conducting a survey to establish a final goal and intermediate targets to attain, we were not able to fund the survey until the end of FY 2006. This measure does continue in our new Strategic Plan, and we anticipate obtaining critical information that will enable us to identify yearly targets and a final goal extended to FY 2012 for this measure. Also, the agency will assess whether it will be necessary to adjust the earlier baseline value because of the differences in the methodologies utilized for the new survey and the previous survey.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is intended to settle conflicts quickly, amicably, and cost effectively. We will build on our earlier successes with ADR and use this tool in various stages of the private and Federal sector processes to address employment disputes and continue to improve our services. Through marketing, information sharing, and outreach we will further encourage the use of ADR.
Our private sector mediation program is an important tool for resolving charges quickly to the benefit of both employees and employers. Since launching it in the early 1990s, we have resolved almost 60,000 charges through the private sector mediation program—the largest workplace mediation program in the country. The program has been very successful and has contributed to our management of our charge inventory and processing time, thus enhancing our timeliness measure (1.1.1).
In our Federal sector program, ADR can have a powerful impact on Federal agencies’ EEO complaint inventories and, in turn, EEOC’s hearings and appeals inventories. Resolving disputes as early as possible in the Federal sector EEO process will improve the work environment and reduce the number of formal complaints, allowing all agencies, including the EEOC, to redeploy their resources.
There are four performance measures under the Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures involve EEOC’s private sector mediation/ADR program: increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in the program; maintain a high level of confidence in the program; and assess the contributions of the program toward improved workplaces. The fourth measure aims to increase the participation of Federal employees in mediation to resolve issues before a formal complaint of discrimination is filed.
Only one measure about respondent and charging party confidence in the private sector mediation program (Measure 1.2.3.) is retained in the new Strategic Plan. Aspects of the measure pertaining to improved workplaces (Measure 1.2.1.) have been substantially expanded to measure individuals benefiting from improvements in their workplaces through all of our enforcement efforts, which encompasses our private sector charges, litigation, and Federal sector hearings and appeals, including any mediation/ADR resolutions currently measured in FY 2006.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Establish procedures to conduct all agency program evaluations. | Establish baseline for FY 2005 and set targets for FY 2006–2009. | 3.1% |
| Result | Program evaluation will not be used to assess this measure. Alternate Approach: Collect information in the charge database to assess contributions of the ADR program. |
Baseline: 3.1%
Targets and final goal established. |
4.0% |
|
|
Target met |
||
Each year, the agency resolves many charges that cover a broad range of relief—from an individual receiving a position previously denied, back pay awarded to a person to correct for lost wages, or various types of relief for multiple groups of individuals to correct for alleged acts of discrimination at an employer’s workplace. Although relief obtained in a resolved charge for one or more individuals is a vital part of our work, the agency identified Measure 1.2.1 to assess the contributions our mediation program makes to improve workplaces. This type of effect on workplaces is a critical measure of our work; however, it represents only a portion of the ADR resolutions we obtain.
For FY 2006, 4.0% of the resolutions in our private sector ADR mediation program, or 229 out of the 5,727 settlements obtained, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices, or procedures. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 52,200 individuals.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Maintain baseline | 8.5% above baseline | 20% above baseline |
| Result | Maintained the baseline (13,177) of FY 2003 employers accepting mediation. | 12% below baseline | 20% below baseline |
|
|
Target not met |
||
The targets and final goal for this measure are percentage increases above the FY 2003 baseline level of 13,177 charges in which employers agreed to participate in the EEOC mediation program. The FY 2006 target was to increase the number of such charges in which an employer agrees to mediate by 20% above the baseline, to 15,812. The FY 2006 result was that only 12,590 employers agreed to mediate, which falls 20% below the baseline. While we continued our efforts to try to increase the acceptance level, it was a challenge to achieve the goal by the end of FY 2006 because we did not receive the additional resources that had been factored into the calculations for establishing the target.
In FY 2006, in an effort to increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in our private sector mediation program, staff continued to utilize two DVDs highlighting the benefits of mediation to employers, as well as PowerPoint presentations developed in FY 2005 addressing employer concerns about mediation and bookmarks highlighting the “Top Ten Reasons to Mediate,” which are included with charge notices to employers. We also increased the number of Universal Agreements to Mediate (UAMs) with employers to a total of 1,097, 190 more than in FY 2005. These UAMs reflect employers’ commitment to utilize our mediation process in charges that may be filed against them.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Maintain 90% | Maintain 90% | Maintain 90% |
| Result | 95.6% | 96.3% | 96.8% |
|
|
Target met |
||
We obtained the result for this measure by surveying participants in EEOC’s mediation program during the year and tabulating their responses about their confidence in using the program. The FY 2006 survey result of 96.8% exceeds our target by a substantial margin and continues to demonstrate the success of our private sector mediation program once both parties elect to participate in it. We will continue to maintain the high confidence level expected for our program, because it helps with our efforts to convince participants, particularly company representatives, of the value of the mediation approach.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 25% | 40% | 42% |
| Result | 43.3% | 45.4% (Data became available by 2nd quarter of FY 2006.) |
Data not available until 2nd quarter of FY 2007. |
|
|
Target met |
||
Using ADR can have a powerful impact on Federal agencies’ EEO complaint inventories and, in turn, EEOC’s hearings and appeals inventories. Resolving disputes as early as possible in the Federal sector EEO process will improve the work environment and reduce the number of formal complaints, allowing all agencies, including the EEOC, to redeploy resources otherwise devoted to these activities. In addition, a growing number of agencies have incorporated dispute prevention techniques into their ADR programs, further increasing productivity and reducing the overall number of employment disputes.
With Measure 1.2.4., we aimed to increase the use of ADR techniques at the pre-complaint stage in the Federal sector—the stage before a formal complaint is filed with a Federal agency. The Commission’s efforts in promoting and expanding mediation/ADR at all stages of the Federal EEO complaint process appear to be having a positive effect on Federal agencies’ EEO complaint inventories, as the number of formal complaints filed in FY 2005 declined by 5.3% over the previous year. As more agencies expand their efforts to offer ADR during the informal process, we expect to see continued decreases in the number of formal complaints filed, which will reduce costs for complainants and all Federal agencies and enable an agency to focus resources on its primary mission.
The goal for Measure 1.2.4 is to increase ADR participation to 50% or higher at the pre-complaint stage by FY 2009. Our FY 2005 target was 40%. FY 2005 data submitted by Federal agencies after the close of the fiscal year indicate that there were 42,412 instances of pre-complaint EEO counseling across the Federal Government. Of the parties participated in ADR in 18,634 cases, or 45.4% of the time. With this initial success, and our continued technical assistance efforts with agencies to encourage the development of effective ADR programs and promote ADR training among government managers and staff, we anticipate that this percentage will steadily increase. We have not continued this particular measure in our new Strategic Plan.
We approach our enforcement activities strategically, taking workplace trends, workforce dynamics, and demographic shifts into consideration. Employing our resources in ways that will achieve maximum results, while still protecting the rights of the individual, we seek to broadly influence policies and practices in the American workplace and bring justice and opportunity to all.
For our private sector program, the importance of a strong litigation program to effectively enforce our statutes cannot be overstated. Not only does it provide relief for many victims of discrimination who may have no other recourse, but it also serves as an incentive for other employers to settle cases earlier in our administrative enforcement process. In addition, we believe that publicity regarding our high impact cases and other litigation increases employer compliance with the civil rights laws we enforce.
Additionally, an important mechanism to assist our Federal sector program in its efforts to get Federal agencies to improve employment policies, practices, and procedures is our authority to conduct evaluations of Federal agency EEO programs. To better implement the Commission’s focus on establishing effective relationships with Federal employers, we conduct assessments of agencies to help them establish model EEO programs.
There are four performance measures under the Strategic Enforcement and Litigation element of our Five-Point Plan. One measure assesses how resolutions of our private sector charges result in workplace improvements. Two measures assess the ripple effect of our high impact litigation and our ability to maintain our high rate of successful litigation. A final measure assesses the results of our Federal sector evaluations and assistance efforts in improving Federal workplaces. Although we have retained only one specific measure in our new Strategic Plan (Measure 1.3.3., success rate of litigation), several of the benefits attained from the other measures will be reflected in new measures. For example, we will measure persons benefited from our enforcement efforts, which incorporates the emphasis intended with Measures 1.3.1. and 1.3.4.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline level for improvements. | Determine baseline value for 2005 and set target values and final goal for FY 2006–2009. | 18.1% |
| Result | Program Evaluation will not be used to assess this measure. Alternate Approach: Collect information in charge database to assess contributions of private sector resolutions. |
Baseline: 18.1%
Target values and final goal established. |
17.8% |
|
|
Target not met |
||
Measure 1.3.1 includes all resolutions of a charge of discrimination obtained by a settlement or conciliation agreement in our private sector charge process, excluding settlements obtained in our mediation program that are covered by companion Measure 1.2.1. We know that these types of agreements have an impact on the workplace. It is important, however, to measure the ones that specifically improve employment policies, practices, or procedures at the workplace.
In FY 2005, we began to collect more detailed information to assess the effect these agreements have on improving workplaces. Many agreements that resolve charges of discrimination provide a broad range of relief for individuals. This work is vital to fulfilling our mission by providing relief to the identified victims of alleged acts of discrimination. The agency proposed this measure, however, to identify the types of relief that have a broader effect in the workplace. Similar to the ADR measure, this is an important part of our work, but it represents only a portion of the charge resolutions we obtain.
In FY 2006, 17.8% of the private sector charge resolutions (excluding those from our mediation program), or 697 out of 3,914 settlement/conciliation agreements, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices, or procedures. While we did not meet this target, this is likely due to the increase in mediation settlements in Measure 1.2.1., which reduced the available pool of charges that reach the settlement/conciliation stage of enforcement. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 622,000 individuals, a 62% increase over the FY 2005 level of 384,500 individuals. Although the agency is not continuing this specific measure in its new Strategic Plan, a new measure will capture data about persons benefited by agreements obtaining workplace changes.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Establish procedures to conduct program evaluation. | Initiate steps to measure the impact of litigation and develop approaches to improve efforts to achieve greater results. | Identify additional “high impact” cases. Collect relevant information on affected groups and improved workplaces to build database for analysis. |
| Result | Defined types of cases that constitute “high impact litigation” and how to measure “change in workforce status.” | Initiated steps to collect information in charge/case database on workplace impact. Addressing methodology for evaluation. | Identified additional “high impact” cases and developed refinements for collecting data. Considered ways to better capture the impact of our litigation program and developed a new measure for the 2007 Strategic Plan. |
|
|
Target met |
||
This measure assesses the impact of the litigation and subsequent publicity of selected significant cases. In FY 2004, we defined the case types that constitute our “high impact litigation” and how we would measure any “change in workforce status.” Based on our criteria, we have been selecting significant case resolutions each year, with the goal of assessing their impact on reducing workplace discrimination through a program evaluation. This year, we identified five cases: EEOC v. John Pickle Co.; EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.; EEOC v. SPS Temporaries, Inc. et al.; EEOC v. Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education and Seafarers International Union; and EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc. Detailed descriptions of FY 2006 high impact litigation cases are located in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of this report.
In FY 2005, we modified our charge database to obtain more detailed information to help us measure the effects of our high impact litigation and to measure “changes in workforce status” occurring as a result of our litigation program. In FY 2006, we focused on improving the quality of our data collection on improvements to workplace policies, practices, and procedures and we considered ways to prepare for a planned program evaluation scheduled for FY 2008 in the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006. With the adoption of the agency’s new Systemic Initiative this year, we began to explore other ways to capture the impact of our litigation program. Ultimately, we determined that it would be better to replace this measure with an improved measure in our new Strategic Plan to identify persons benefiting from workplace changes in all of our enforcement activities.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 90% or higher 6-year rolling average | 90% or higher 6-year rolling average | 90% or higher 6-year rolling average |
| Result | 92.2% | 92.8% | 92.7% |
|
|
Target met |
||
This measure ensures that we maintain a high success rate in resolving our lawsuits. Based on an earlier 5-year study, we established the baseline value of 90% for this measure. We expect to continue to maintain at least this level of success using a 6-year rolling average of successful resolutions. In FY 2006, we successfully resolved 92.1% of our lawsuits, bringing our 6-year rolling average to 92.7%. This measure is included in our new Strategic Plan. Under the previous Strategic Plan, we concluded that the target was appropriate because some of our litigation raises developing or unsettled legal issues where there is a substantial risk of loss. Litigating these cases is part of our responsibility to interpret the laws we enforce and vindicate the public interest. The target for this measure allowed us to continue to take on challenging cases where there is substantial risk of loss. For the new Strategic Plan, the final goal will be reassessed and extended to FY 2012 and the annual targets will be realigned to meet the final goal established.
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Conduct pilot evaluations of six agency EEO programs in preparation of techniques for Program Evaluation. | Develop steps and data needed, using pilots’ information and results, to prepare for FY 2009 program evaluation. | Evaluate 12 pilots. Design programs to enhance evaluations and technical assistance efforts for Federal agencies. |
| Result | Conducted pilot evaluations of six agencies’ EEO programs. | Doubling the Relationship Management Project to include an additional 6 Federal agencies for a total of 12 agencies’ EEO programs. | Pilots evaluated and programs revised to improve evaluations and assistance. Added 20 additional agencies to the pilot. |
|
|
Target met |
||
The Commission embraced organizational transformation to better deliver services to its Federal sector customers. In implementing the mandates of MD-715 we are emphasizing consultation with agencies to enable them to achieve a barrier-free workplace, through the creation and subsequent expansion of our successful Relationship Management project during FY 2006. This proactive stance enabled us to assist agencies in focusing on the identification of problems before they escalated, as well as provide them with recommendations and practices that will enable them to prevent discrimination.
In FY 2006 we provided more than 300 outreach and technical assistance presentations before stakeholder groups. In addition to our participation at several national employee stakeholder conferences, we sponsored the FY 2006 EXCEL conference, which had nearly 1,000 EEO, labor, and employment relations professional attendees. Commission staff also responded to more than 8,240 calls regarding the EEO complaint/appeals process, providing the Federal sector EEO community and employees with timely information.
In addition, the expansion of our Relationship Management pilot in FY 2006 was a key strategy in our efforts to be more responsive to our Federal sector customers. The Relationship Management initiative was first piloted in FY 2004. It was modeled after the private sector’s approach to customer service. Relationship Management brings together EEOC Federal sector staff with EEO staffs from pilot agencies in a nonadversarial partnership to examine methods to help these agencies foster
an inclusive work culture and successfully implement the essential attributes of the MD-715’s Model EEO Program. We evaluated results and received feedback from the 12 larger agencies included in the pilot during the first 2 years of the project. We used that information to apply the same principles to expand the project in
FY 2006 to include 20 small agencies. The application of the strategies and tools developed from these experiences places the agency’s Federal sector program in a position to better establish a customer-oriented organization that can deliver relevant information and solutions to other Federal agencies. We will continue to expand this program, even though this specific measure is not retained in our new Strategic Plan.
This page was last modified on December 7, 2006
