This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-463 
entitled 'Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and 
Management of the Enforcement Process' which was released on May 06, 
2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

April 2004:

FAIR HOUSING:

Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the 
Enforcement Process:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463]:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-463, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, and 
other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each year, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies carry out enforcement 
activities for several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. 
The timeliness and effectiveness of the enforcement process have been 
continuing concerns. GAO describes the stages and practices of the fair 
housing enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies 
factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the process. 

What GAO Found:

The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for 
addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair 
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country 
take inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct 
investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur. 
The practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO 
and the FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some 
discretion in determining which practices work best for them. As a 
result, some agencies have developed procedures that they said improved 
the quality of intake and made investigations easier. For example, some 
FHAP agencies use experienced investigators during the intake process 
to help clients develop formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked 
at such practices to determine if they should be disseminated for 
potential use at other locales. 

Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face 
a lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided. 
Although the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete 
investigations into complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP 
agencies often do not meet that deadline. The typical time to complete 
an investigation in 1996 through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some 
investigations taking much longer. However, a lack of data makes it 
impossible to assess the full length and outcomes of fair housing 
enforcement activities. For example, because FHAP agencies are not 
required to report intake data to FHEO, complete information is not 
available on the number of initial contacts individuals alleging 
discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of data on the ultimate 
outcomes of some investigations conducted by both FHEO and FHAP 
agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time that 
complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital 
management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained 
staff, further affect FHEO’s ability to carry out its mission in a 
timely manner.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO makes six recommendations to the HUD Secretary for improving the 
management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement process. These 
recommendations include exploring ways to disseminate effective 
practices used at various enforcement locations, improving tracking and 
data-gathering procedures, and finding a way to meet human capital 
challenges in, among other things, staffing and skill levels. 

HUD generally agreed with the report’s conclusions and recommendations 
and stated an intent to look closely at incorporating them into planned 
efforts to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of enforcement.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at (202) 
512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for 
Handling Complaints: 

Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement 
Process: 

Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of 
Cases: 

Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by 
Each Stage of the Enforcement Process: 

Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title 
VIII Enforcement Process: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:  

Appendix II: Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses:  

Appendix III: Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12:  

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:  

Tables:

Table 1: FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations: 

Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY 
1996-2003: 

Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP 
Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe That 
Discrimination Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-
2003): 

Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits: 

Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003: 

Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003: 

Table 7: Prohibited Basis of FHA Complaints Filed with FHEO and FHAP 
Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, 
FY 1996-2003: 

Table 10:  Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Table 11:  Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 
1996-2003: 

Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of 
Discrimination FY 1996-2003: 

Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by 
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003: 

Figures:

Figure 1: HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process: 

Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for 
Investigation, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 2003: 

Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year 
with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, 
FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 
1996-2003: 

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement 
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003): 

Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of 
Discrimination, FY 1996-2003: 

Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by 
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003): 

Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004A: 

Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status 
of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York 
Regions): 

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as of 
January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions): 

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of February 
2004: 

Abbreviations: 

ALJ: Administrative Law Judge:

CSRS: Civil Service Retirement System:

CMS: Contact Management System:

DOJ: Department of Justice:

FERS: Federal Employee Retirement System:

FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program:

FHEO: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:

FHIP: Fair Housing Initiatives Program:

FTE: Full-Time Equivalent:

HUD: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

HIHRTS: HUD Integrated Human Resources and Training System:

OGC:: Office of General Counsel:

QMR: Quality Management Review:

REAP: Resource Estimation and Allocation Process:

TEAPOTS: Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking System:

Letter April 21, 2004:

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Jack Reed: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate:

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been responsible 
for addressing nearly 57,000 complaints of housing discrimination filed 
in the last 8 years. The Fair Housing Act (the Act)--Title VIII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended--prohibits housing discrimination 
against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other protected groups. 
The Act, which is administered by FHEO and 100 Fair Housing Assistance 
Program (FHAP) agencies, establishes a 100-day benchmark for 
investigating fair housing complaints.[Footnote 1] In recent years, 
neither FHEO nor the FHAP agencies have routinely met this benchmark. 
For example, 1,611, or 39 percent, of open fair housing discrimination 
investigations were over 100 days old and thus considered "aged" as of 
September 2003.

You asked us to review several aspects of the fair housing enforcement 
program. Specifically, we agreed with your offices to (1) describe the 
steps involved in the fair housing enforcement process; (2) determine 
the practices selected FHEO and FHAP agencies use to carry out the 
enforcement process and identify practices with the potential to 
expedite or improve it; (3) determine the trends, if any, that are 
discernable in HUD data on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes 
of fair housing investigations; (4) determine the median time needed to 
complete each stage of the enforcement process; and (5) identify 
factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the 
enforcement process.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the 
legislation, regulations, and other guidance describing each stage of 
the process and interviewed FHEO officials responsible for 
policymaking. To determine the practices used at selected locations and 
their potential for expediting or otherwise improving the process, we 
visited FHEO offices and FHAP agencies in different regions and 
conducted structured interviews with key officials in each 
location.[Footnote 2] To identify trends in FHEO data on the numbers, 
characteristics, outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, 
we obtained and analyzed data from FHEO's automated case-tracking 
system for an 8-year period (1996 to 2003). We also used these data to 
determine the median time needed to complete fair housing 
investigations. We assessed the reliability of data from this system by 
reviewing documents and interviewing managers to determine the 
reasonableness of system controls and by conducting reasonableness 
tests of system data. To identify the factors that could influence the 
length and thoroughness of the Title VIII enforcement process, we 
interviewed FHEO and FHAP agency officials responsible for management, 
intake, investigation, and legal matters at selected field locations 
and used a questionnaire to survey all of FHEO's 10 regional directors. 
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C; Chicago, Ill; Columbus, 
Ohio; Detroit, Mich; Fort Worth and Austin, Tex; New Orleans and 
Baton Rouge, La; and New York, N. Y. between September 2003 and 
February 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages:

1. Intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive 
inquiries from individuals (complainants), determine whether the 
inquiries involve a potential violation of the Act, and file fair 
housing complaints for those that do.

2. Investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators 
collect evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to 
believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred, or is about to 
occur and simultaneously work with parties to conciliate complaints to 
the extent possible.

3. Adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another 
administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines 
whether a violation of the Act has occurred.

For each stage, either the Act or FHEO guidelines establish timeliness 
benchmarks for certain aspects of the enforcement process.[Footnote 3] 
For a number of reasons, however, not all intake actions proceed 
through the subsequent stages. For example, FHEO or FHAP agency 
personnel may determine during the intake stage that the allegation 
does not fall within the Act's scope and therefore may not proceed with 
the investigation. Similarly, FHEO or a FHAP agency may help resolve a 
complaint during the investigation stage.

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied 
significantly among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and 
officials noted that certain practices have helped them expedite or 
improve the enforcement process. For example, some FHEO offices and 
FHAP agencies used experienced investigators during the intake stage to 
gather required information from aggrieved parties, a practice that 
staff at these locations believed improved the quality of intake and 
decreased the overall length of the enforcement process. (Other offices 
used some intake analysts who did not have investigative experience.) 
Similarly, some sites involved attorneys earlier and more frequently in 
the investigation stage than did other sites. Officials at locations 
where attorneys were involved earlier and more frequently believed that 
practice improved the thoroughness and decreased the length of the 
enforcement process. We did not observe any significant variations in 
FHEO and FHAP practices in the adjudication stage. Because FHEO and 
FHAP agencies have some discretion in choosing the practices they use 
to carry out the enforcement process, the variations in practices may 
be greater than what we observed in our limited sample. Many FHEO field 
office directors believed that the practices used during the 
enforcement process could be improved, but we found that FHEO had not 
systematically reviewed the practices in use across its field offices 
and FHAP agencies to determine which ones worked best. Because of the 
potential some practices may have to expedite the fair housing 
enforcement process and reduce the backlog of aged cases, we are 
recommending that HUD establish a way of sharing information on 
effective practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP 
agencies.

FHEO's fair housing program data revealed several trends in the volume, 
characteristics, and outcomes of enforcement actions between 1996 and 
2003. Among other things:

* Overall, the number of inquiries received annually varied only 
slightly but increased substantially in 2003. The number of fair 
housing complaints filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998. 
Further, the nature of discrimination alleged in complaints changed 
during the period, with an increasing proportion alleging 
discrimination on the basis of handicap and a declining proportion 
alleging discrimination because of race.[Footnote 4] However, race was 
most often cited as the basis of housing discrimination over the 
period.

* The total number of fair housing investigations completed each year 
increased somewhat over the period after declining in 1997 and 1998. 
Throughout the period, FHAP agencies conducted more investigations than 
FHEO.

* The outcomes of investigations also changed, with an increasing 
percentage closed without a finding of reasonable cause to believe 
discrimination occurred. Conversely, a declining percentage of 
investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with the help 
of FHEO or a FHAP agency. The ultimate outcomes for many cases in which 
FHEO and FHAP agencies found reasonable cause were not clear because 
the data from FHEO's automated case-tracking system were incomplete, 
particularly for cases processed by FHAP agencies. Accordingly, we are 
recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that its system contains 
complete data on the outcomes of the adjudication process.

* Finally, the percentage of investigations completed within 100 days 
showed a general increase during the period.

Because of limitations in the data provided by FHEO's automated case-
tracking system, we were not able to determine the median number of 
days needed to complete each stage of the enforcement process. Complete 
data were available only for measuring the length of investigations. 
From 1996 to 2003, the median number of days required for 
investigations was 259 days for investigations that FHEO conducted and 
195 for those FHAP agencies conducted. Because of the importance of 
reliable data in monitoring progress, managing cases, and achieving 
timeliness benchmarks, we are recommending that FHEO take steps to 
ensure that its system includes complete data documenting the key dates 
in each stage of the process.

FHEO and FHAP agency officials identified a number of factors that 
could influence the length and thoroughness of the fair housing 
enforcement process. First, the nature of the complaint itself could 
affect the length of investigations. For example, complaints involving 
lending or financial practices generally took longer to investigate. 
Second, as noted above, variations in the practices followed appeared 
to affect the length and thoroughness of investigations. Third, human 
capital issues, including the numbers, skill, and experience of 
investigators and other staff involved in the process, could also 
influence investigations. Several FHEO field officials stated that 
their staff lacked some of the skills needed to conduct investigations, 
and some also pointed to limitations in the quantity and timing of 
training. Fourth, the availability of funds that enabled investigators 
to travel and collect evidence, conduct interviews, or undertake 
related activities impacted investigations. We are recommending that 
HUD consider a wide range of strategies to help ensure that the skills 
and competencies needed to meet the fair housing mission are fully 
developed.

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 
provided comments on a draft of this report indicating general 
agreement with our findings and recommendations. The comments also 
included technical clarifications, which we have incorporated into this 
report as appropriate. HUD's comments are reprinted in appendix IV.

Background:

A number of federal statutes prohibit housing discrimination, but the 
Act is the most comprehensive.[Footnote 5] This report focuses on 
enforcement of fair housing rights under the Act, which is one of the 
federal government's central tools for fighting discrimination in 
housing. The Act (as amended) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, and familial 
status. The Act applies to certain issues, including discrimination in 
the sale, rental, or advertising or financing of housing, the provision 
of brokerage services; and other activities related to residential real 
estate transactions. The Act covers all "dwellings," which are defined 
generally as buildings designed to be used in whole or part for a 
residence, as well as vacant land offered for sale and lease for 
constructing or locating a building, with some exceptions.[Footnote 6]

The enforcement process granted to HUD and others under the Act has 
been expanded since the law's enactment in 1968. The original Act gave 
no enforcement powers to HUD--other than the ability to investigate and 
conciliate complaints--and gave limited enforcement powers to private 
persons and the Attorney General. Under the 1968 Act, private persons 
who believed they had been discriminated against in housing could 
enforce the Act by filing a complaint with HUD, and HUD could 
investigate and conciliate those complaints.[Footnote 7] The 1968 Act 
had no mechanism for HUD to adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no 
options for further enforcement if conciliation efforts failed. The 
1968 Act also authorized aggrieved persons to bring a civil action 
within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination. The relief 
that courts could provide in such cases included only injunctive 
relief, actual damages, punitive damages up to $1,000, and, where the 
plaintiff was not able to pay his or her own attorneys' fees, those 
fees.[Footnote 8] Under the 1968 Act, the Attorney General could 
initiate a civil suit under some circumstances--for example, when there 
was reasonable cause to believe that a "pattern or practice" of 
resistance had emerged to the provisions of the Act. The Attorney 
General could also bring a suit if a group of persons had been denied a 
right granted by the Act that raised an issue considered to be of 
general public importance. However, damage awards were not available in 
actions brought in these types of cases.

The 1988 amendments to the Act provided HUD, private persons, and the 
Attorney General with more tools and remedies for enforcement. 
Currently, under the Act as amended, there is an adjudication 
mechanism, so HUD's enforcement efforts need not end if conciliation 
efforts do not succeed. Additionally, aggrieved parties can elect not 
to utilize the administrative enforcement process and can file civil 
actions in federal court within 2 years of the alleged discrimination; 
and the Act provides for actual and punitive damages without limitation 
and for injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. As under the original 
1968 Act, presently the Attorney General can bring a civil action in 
pattern or practice cases or cases of public importance. The 1988 
amendments allow the Attorney General to commence civil actions in 
cases of breached conciliation agreements or discriminatory housing 
practices referred by HUD and to enforce subpoenas. In cases commenced 
by the Attorney General, courts can award civil penalties up to 
$100,000 for the second violation, in addition to compensatory monetary 
damages and attorneys' fees. The 1988 Act also created a deadline of 
100 days for HUD's investigation and reasonable cause determination.

FHEO directs HUD's enforcement efforts, although some state and local 
FHAP agencies handle most enforcement efforts for their states and 
localities. FHEO refers complaints alleging violations of state and 
local fair housing laws that are administered by a certified FHAP to 
that agency. A certified agency that has entered into a memorandum of 
understanding with FHEO is eligible to participate in the Fair Housing 
Assistance program. Under this program, FHAP agencies receive funding 
for fair housing activities and must conform to reporting and record 
maintenance requirements, agree to on-site technical assistance, and 
agree to implement policies and procedures provided to the agencies by 
FHEO. FHEO has staff in each of HUD's 10 regional offices, called 
"hubs," through which it conducts its enforcement efforts.[Footnote 9] 
FHEO staff has responsibility for the intake, investigation, and 
resolution of some of these complaints. Aggrieved persons may also go 
directly to FHAP agencies, which then perform the intake process. 
However, FHEO must ultimately approve the filing of all complaints 
involving alleged violations of the Act. If an aggrieved party contacts 
a FHEO office regarding discrimination that allegedly occurred in a 
state or locality that has a FHEO-certified "substantially equivalent" 
state or local agency (that is, a FHAP agency), FHEO will complete the 
intake process and refer the complaint to that agency for enforcement.

Under the Act and HUD's implementing regulations, FHEO can certify an 
agency if (1) the rights and remedies available under the state or 
local laws are substantially equivalent to those available under the 
Act, and (2) the operation of the agency demonstrates that it meets 
performance standards for timely and thorough fair housing complaint 
investigations, conciliation, and enforcement. The local law must 
require the agency to meet the 100-day investigation benchmark 
contained in the Act. Although the FHAP agency enforcement process must 
be substantially similar to the HUD process, it need not be exactly the 
same. That is, FHAP agencies review incoming complaints to determine if 
they allege a violation of their state or local fair housing laws, the 
Act, or both; investigate complaints to determine if fair housing laws 
have been violated; and provide for the final adjudication of 
complaints, but each of the 100 FHAP agencies can take different 
actions to accomplish these tasks. These certified state and local 
agencies could be civil rights agencies like the Michigan Department of 
Civil Rights.

FHEO field offices monitor the FHAP agencies, review cases FHAP 
agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for 
payment under FHAP, and provide technical assistance. FHEO field 
offices also have responsibility for other functions, such as assessing 
compliance with fair housing regulations for entities receiving federal 
funds, providing community education and outreach efforts for fair 
housing issues, and managing grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives 
Program, which funds public and private entities combating 
discriminatory housing practices.

FHEO tracks fair housing enforcement efforts through its Title Eight 
Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) database. FHEO 
enforcement personnel input information at major stages of the 
enforcement process, such as when a complaint is filed at FHEO, when an 
investigation of a complaint begins, and when a case is resolved. FHEO 
managers use TEAPOTS to track the progress of fair housing cases and 
enforcement efforts. All FHAPs have access to TEAPOTS and are required 
to report their performance information (such as timeliness milestones 
for initiated and completed investigations) into TEAPOTS or other data 
and information systems technology agreed to by HUD. TEAPOTS captures 
numerous aspects of enforcement efforts both nationally and by hub, 
including the numbers and lengths of enforcement actions; 
characteristics of complaints, such as basis of discrimination (race, 
religion, etc.) and subject matter of discrimination (sale, rental, 
etc.); and type of resolution.

HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for 
Handling Complaints:

The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages: (1) 
intake, during which FHEO or FHAP agencies receive inquiries from 
individuals with housing discrimination concerns and determine whether 
those concerns involve a potential violation of the Act; (2) 
investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect 
evidence to determine if reasonable cause exists to believe that a 
discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur; and 
(3) adjudication, during which an independent fact finder determines 
whether the person charged with discrimination (the respondent) did in 
fact violate the Act. The independent fact-finding may occur before an 
administrative law judge (ALJ) or, if one of the parties chooses, a 
federal court or state court for complaints filed with HUD and FHAP 
agencies, respectively. The Act and other guidelines establish 
timeliness benchmarks for completing certain parts of the enforcement 
process. An overview of HUD's basic fair housing enforcement process is 
shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Although the most common way to initiate the enforcement process 
is through an inquiry made by an individual, the HUD Secretary, a FHAP 
agency, or a private fair housing organization might bring a complaint 
on behalf of an aggrieved party. For illustration, this figure shows 
HUD's basic process. FHAP agencies follow a similar process.

[End of figure]

Intake: FHEO Analyzes Inquiries to Determine Whether They Constitute 
Fair Housing Complaints:

In the intake stage, FHEO hubs receive inquiries (called "claims" from 
1996 to 2001), determine which ones involve a potential violation of 
the Act, and file fair housing complaints for those that do.[Footnote 
10] FHAP agencies also receive inquiries and work with complainants to 
determine whether a potential violation of the Act, state or local law, 
or both has occurred. According to FHEO headquarters staff, the process 
usually starts when an individual contacts a FHEO hub by telephone, 
fax, or mail; in person; or over the Internet.[Footnote 11] Intake 
analysts refer numerous contacts they receive that are not related to 
fair housing to appropriate outside organizations. Intake analysts 
record contacts dealing with fair housing as "inquiries" in TEAPOTS. 
The analysts interview complainants and may do other research--for 
example, property searches and searches of newspaper or corporate 
records--to see if enough information exists to support filing a formal 
complaint. This initial process is known as "perfecting" a complaint, 
although it does not always result in a complaint. In order for a 
complaint to be perfected, it must:

* contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the 
name and address of the aggrieved party (the person who was allegedly 
injured by a discriminatory housing practice), the name and address of 
the respondent, a description and address of the dwelling involved, and 
a concise statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and:

* satisfy the Act's jurisdictional requirements that the complainant 
has standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling, 
subject matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or refusal to 
sell),[Footnote 12] and the basis (e.g., race, color, familial status) 
for alleging discrimination are covered by the Act; and that the 
complaint has been filed within a year of the last occurrence of the 
discriminatory practice.

Hub directors decide whether these conditions are met. If so, the 
inquiry becomes a perfected complaint; otherwise, it is dismissed. 
Intake analysts record key information about perfected complaints in 
TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the official complaints, and send 
letters of notice about the complaint and the enforcement process to 
both complainants and respondents.[Footnote 13] The complaint file is 
then usually delivered to the investigator.[Footnote 14]

According to FHEO headquarters staff, the intake stage for a complaint 
that will be investigated by FHEO--rather than a FHAP agency--is 
usually considered complete when the complaint file is delivered to a 
FHEO investigator. For such complaints, FHEO's Title VIII Intake, 
Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) establishes a 
timeliness benchmark of no more than 20 days for the intake stage. 
However, FHEO also performs intake for inquiries that, because of their 
characteristics, are ultimately referred to a FHAP agency for 
investigation. For example, if a person alleges a discriminatory 
practice that is within the jurisdiction of a FHAP agency, FHEO intake 
analysts complete the intake stage, file the complaint, and refer the 
case to the FHAP agency.[Footnote 15] For such complaints, the Handbook 
establishes a timeliness benchmark of no more than 5 days for the 
intake stage.

Investigation: FHEO Collects Evidence to Determine If Reasonable Cause 
Exists to Believe a Discriminatory Housing Practice Has Occurred or Is 
about to Occur:

During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect evidence to 
determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a 
discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. 
Similarly, FHAP agencies may collect evidence to determine if a local 
or state fair housing law has been violated. The Handbook provides 
guidance for investigators during this process, although the Handbook 
notes that investigations will vary (see table 1).

Table 1: FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations:

Task: Review case file from intake; 
Description: Review intake documents, including intake log, Housing 
Discrimination Information form (Form 903), interviews or investigation 
conducted during intake, including fair-housing testing.

Task: Review jurisdiction; 
Description: Make sure that the complaint is timely, that the 
complainant has standing, that neither the dwelling nor respondent is 
exempt, and that the complaint alleges violation of the Act.

Task: Interview complainant; 
Description: Inform the complainant of rights and steps in the 
enforcement process and obtain information crucial to investigation.

Task: Receive respondent's defense; 
Description: Receive (orally or in writing) the respondent's response 
to notification made during the intake process.

Task: Develop investigative plan; 
Description: Study the respondent's defense to determine whether it 
appears valid. Supervisors and investigators are responsible for 
ensuring that all claims made in the complaint are adequately 
investigated.

Task: Request necessary additional data from parties; 
Description: Gather information and documents in preparation for 
interviews.

Task: Interview respondent; 
Description: Clarify issues and facts in dispute in the complaint, 
collect additional information about the respondent, and assess all 
responses to the complainant's allegations.

Task: Make on-site or off-site visits; 
Description: Communicate with parties and witnesses and examine records 
or other documents, either on or off site.

Task: Analyze case; 
Description: Evaluate the evidence gathered and determine whether 
further investigation is needed to make a recommendation of reasonable 
cause or no cause.

Task: Final interviews; 
Description: Request responses to or clarification of all of the 
evidence collected in the case from the complainant and respondent.

Task: Create final investigative report; 
Description: Conduct final check to validate jurisdiction, summarize 
the position of parties, summarize investigation activity and records, 
and summarize and analyze the evidentiary record. Recommend a finding 
of cause or no cause to believe that respondent violated the Act. 

Source: FHEO Handbook.

[End of table]

According to agency guidance, once an investigator completes an 
investigation, the appropriate hub director reviews the results and 
makes a determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe 
that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to 
occur. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD's regional counsel, the 
hub director issues a determination of reasonable cause and directs the 
regional counsel to issue a "charge" on behalf of the aggrieved person. 
The charge is a short written statement of the facts that led FHEO to 
the reasonable cause determination. If the hub director decides that no 
reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing 
practice has occurred; then, upon concurrence of the regional counsel, 
the hub director dismisses the complaint. In a March 6, 2003, 
memorandum, HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) in headquarters 
requested that regional counsels send OGC's Office of Fair Housing the 
final draft of any charge that they propose to file and that they not 
file charges until they have received a response from OGC's Office of 
Fair Housing.

At any stage before the investigation is complete, the enforcement 
process can end by either conciliation or administrative 
closure.[Footnote 16] FHEO's Handbook states that conciliation is the 
process by which FHEO "assists the complainant and respondent in 
achieving a just and mutually acceptable resolution of the disputed 
issues in a Title VIII complaint." The Act requires that HUD try to 
conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible, starting at the time 
the complaint is filed and continuing until the final charge is issued 
or the case is dismissed. The Handbook and federal regulations 
implementing the Act allow an individual to act as investigator and 
conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state that generally 
investigators will not conciliate their own cases.[Footnote 17] 
Instead, other investigators not investigating a complaint conciliate 
such complaints. Conciliation agreements are to seek to protect the 
public interest in furthering fair housing through various provisions, 
such as requiring the respondent to provide FHEO with periodic 
reports.[Footnote 18] FHEO may also close complaints administratively 
for several reasons--for example, if the complainant withdraws the 
complaint.

The regulations implementing the Act require FHEO and the FHAP agencies 
to complete an investigation, conciliate a case, or otherwise close a 
complaint within 100 days of the filing date unless doing so is 
"impracticable."[Footnote 19] An investigation is considered complete, 
and the 100-day deadline ends, when a hub director makes a cause or no-
cause determination in which the regional counsel concurs. If the 
investigation cannot be completed within 100 days, FHEO must notify the 
complainant and the respondent in writing of the reasons for the delay. 
This written notification is called the 100-day letter.

Adjudication: An Independent Fact Finder Determines Whether a Violation 
of the Act Has Occurred:

Once a determination of reasonable cause has been made and a charge has 
been issued, an independent fact finder determines whether the 
respondent has in fact violated the Act (FHAP agencies also use 
independent fact finders to make this determination). HUD's regulations 
state that OGC must file charges with the Office of Administrative Law 
Judges within 3 business days. When the complainant and respondent 
receive notice of the charge, each has 20 days to decide whether to 
have the case heard in a federal district court or by an ALJ.[Footnote 
20] The complainant may intervene as a party, and the complainant and 
the respondent may be represented by a lawyer before the ALJ. The Act 
also requires that the ALJ hearing begin within 120 days of the date of 
the charge, unless impracticable, and that the ALJ decision be issued 
within 60 days of the end of the ALJ hearing, unless 
impracticable.[Footnote 21] If the ALJ determines that no 
discrimination has occurred, the case is dismissed. If the ALJ 
determines that discrimination has occurred, he or she is authorized to 
award injunctive or other equitable relief, economic and noneconomic 
damages, and civil penalties, as applicable.[Footnote 22] Any party 
adversely affected by the ALJ's decision may appeal it to the HUD 
Secretary and then to the appropriate appellate court, within certain 
time frames.[Footnote 23] HUD and any person entitled to relief under 
the final decision may petition the appropriate court of appeals to 
have the final decision enforced.

If either party elects to go to federal district court after the charge 
is issued, the HUD Secretary must authorize a civil action in federal 
district court, and the U.S. Attorney General must undertake the action 
on the complainant's behalf. The complainant may participate and be 
represented by a lawyer in this court proceeding. The respondent may 
also choose to be represented by counsel. Any party adversely affected 
by the final court decision may file a petition in the appropriate 
appellate court.

Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement 
Process:

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied 
significantly among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and 
officials noted that certain practices had helped them expedite or 
improve the quality of the enforcement process. For example, some FHEO 
offices and FHAP agencies used experienced investigators during the 
intake stage, while others did not. Some officials at locations that 
used experienced investigators said that this practice had improved the 
quality of intake and decreased the overall length of the enforcement 
process. The variation in enforcement practices between FHEO and FHAP 
agency locations is not surprising, given the freedom those offices 
have to administer the enforcement process. In fact, there is a 
potential for the variation to be even greater than we observed, as we 
visited only 3 of the 10 hubs and just 7 of the 100 FHAP agencies. Even 
this limited look revealed practices in some locations that could 
potentially expedite cases if adopted elsewhere. However, HUD has not 
performed a systematic nationwide review of the enforcement practices 
at all of these various locations to identify practices with such 
potential.

Involving Experienced Investigators in Intake May Shorten Process and 
Facilitate Investigations:

We found two personnel practices that officials at some FHEO and FHAP 
agency locations believed had improved their enforcement processes. 
First, several locations we visited used experienced investigators 
during their intake processes, while others generally did not. Although 
all three hubs we visited used dedicated intake analysts rather than 
current investigators to handle intake responsibilities, two hubs used 
some former investigators as intake analysts. Several FHAP agencies we 
visited had no dedicated intake analysts. At these agencies, current 
investigators simply shared the intake of complaints. Some FHEO 
officials told us that using investigators for intake improved the 
thoroughness of intake and decreased the overall length of the 
enforcement process. Some officials said that investigators have a 
better understanding of the information needed for jurisdiction and 
investigations, and they thus focus their intake efforts on getting 
that information.

Second, one FHAP agency we visited had instituted a team approach to 
enforcement. The agency had changed its entire enforcement process in 
1997 to incorporate this approach, using several teams consisting of 
"civil rights representatives" (as opposed to intake analysts and 
investigators) and a "coach attorney." Teams handled the enforcement 
process starting with the initial contact and finishing up with the 
reasonable cause recommendation. Teams rotated through the intake 
function for 1 week each month, investigating all cases that originated 
in intake that week. Although this FHAP agency made other changes 
simultaneously with the change to the team approach, FHAP agency 
officials said that the team approach had helped its backlog of cases 
drop significantly and improved the quality of its enforcement process. 
It is not possible to isolate the team approach's impact on the FHAP 
agency's fair housing effort, and the complaint numbers provided by the 
agency included other civil rights enforcement work, such as 
enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws. However, FHAP agency 
officials told us that, after the team approach had been fully 
implemented, the average complaint processing time fell from 476 days 
to 335 days.

In addition to personnel practices, we found that one FHAP agency was 
using a software system to improve the intake procedure. In addition to 
using TEAPOTS, this particular FHAP agency, in conjunction with a 
software company, had developed Contact Management System (CMS) 
software that had significant extra capabilities. The CMS generated a 
series of initial intake questions for the FHAP agency's civil rights 
representative to ask during intake and then constructed follow-up 
questions based on the answers to the previous questions. These follow-
up questions reflected the elements that would be necessary to prove 
discrimination in a given case. At the end of its approximately 2-hour 
intake process, the FHAP agency tried to have either a perfected 
complaint or a reason that the contact did not warrant a perfected 
complaint. A FHAP agency official told us that the CMS software had 
helped decrease the length and improve the thoroughness of its 
enforcement process. Again, it is not possible to isolate the impact of 
the CMS software, but after the software was installed, average 
complaint processing times for the FHAP agency's fair housing and other 
civil rights work decreased from 335 days to 252 days.

Differences in Investigations, Including the Degree of Attorney 
Involvement and Conciliation Methods, May Improve the Enforcement 
Process:

We observed numerous variations in investigative practices among the 
FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited. In several locations, officials said 
that their specific practices had helped them expedite the process, 
improve the quality of the process, or both. First, some locations 
involved attorneys earlier and more frequently during the investigation 
than other locations. Second, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies 
simultaneously investigated and conciliated complaints, while others 
delayed the investigation while conciliating. Third, one hub and one 
FHAP agency customarily used separate persons to investigate and 
conciliate a complaint, while at other hubs and FHAP agencies, a single 
person handled both of these tasks. Fourth, some enforcement locations 
employed a tool called a "bubble sheet" to help meet the 100-day 
requirement for completing investigations. Last, one FHAP agency used 
software that provided additional investigative tools that TEAPOTS did 
not provide.

OGC Involvement:

At the FHEO offices and FHAP agencies we visited, investigators and 
attorneys interacted to different degrees, and several officials told 
us that greater interaction had resulted in shorter and more thorough 
investigations. For example, at one hub the regional OGC had weekly 
meetings with investigators at the same location and biweekly meetings 
with investigators at other offices in the region. Interaction at 
another hub was less formal, but both regional OGC attorneys and the 
investigators said that frequent and meaningful interaction occurred on 
most cases through the informal "open-door" approach. At a third hub, 
OGC attorneys were not yet formally interacting with investigators, 
although they had recently signed a memorandum of understanding to do 
so. At FHAP agencies, we saw similar variations. One FHAP agency, as 
mentioned earlier, had a "coach attorney" on each team to help from the 
earliest stages of the investigations. At other FHAP agencies we 
visited, investigators had more limited interaction with the FHAP 
agency attorney.

In our survey of the 10 hub directors, 5 said that involving OGC in 
investigations had a great or very great impact on investigations, 
improving thoroughness, decreasing length, or both.[Footnote 24] 
Officials cited various reasons for this result, including that the 
interactions with OGC:

* reduced the amount of work wasted on aspects of a case that should 
not receive investigative attention, shortening investigations;

* reduced the amount of additional work involved in seeking attorney 
concurrence, decreasing the length of investigations;

* helped the investigators pursue the appropriate leads at the best 
times during an investigation, increasing thoroughness; and:

* created more cooperation among complainants and respondents, as the 
parties believed that attorneys were more involved in the enforcement 
process.

FHEO has recognized the importance of greater FHEO-OGC interaction. A 
May 5, 2003, memorandum to all hub directors and OGC regional counsels 
from the FHEO Assistant Secretary and the HUD General Counsel said, 
"The most effective fair housing enforcement actions are the result of 
frequent coordination and collaboration between investigators and 
counsels." That memorandum required FHEO/regional counsel to consult 
with FHEO personnel frequently during the enforcement process, 
including having:

"significant involvement at complaint intake, in determinations of 
jurisdiction, in investigative plan development, in conducting 
investigations, in the effort to resolve cases informally through 
conciliation, and in making determinations of reasonable cause.":

That memorandum also required each regional counsel and each FHEO hub 
director to enter into working agreements with each other to formalize 
their working relationships. As of November 24, 2003, every hub had 
those agreements in place, and one HUD official said that the new 
memorandum of understanding had resulted in improved communication 
between investigators and OGC.

Simultaneous Conciliations:

Some HUD locations we visited put investigations on hold when 
conciliation looked likely, while others did not. Some fair housing 
officials at the locations that simultaneously investigated and 
conciliated told us that doing so not only expedited the enforcement 
process but could also facilitate conciliation. Because the parties 
were aware that the investigation was ongoing, two hub directors told 
us they were sometimes more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some 
officials at the offices that delayed the investigation while 
attempting conciliation told us that this practice increased the number 
of calendar days necessary to investigate a case. However, one hub 
official told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation could 
waste resources, as it might not be necessary to obtain further 
evidence in a case that would be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10 hub 
directors told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation had 
a great or very great impact on the length of the enforcement process, 
and all 6 said that the practice decreased the length. Four directors 
said that the practice had a great or very great impact on the 
thoroughness of investigations, and these four told us that it 
increased the thoroughness of investigations.

Investigator Conciliation of Own Cases:

Investigators at some FHEO locations and FHAP agencies customarily 
conciliated their own cases, while other locations usually used 
separate investigators and conciliators.[Footnote 25] Officials we 
spoke with were divided on the impact of this practice. Some officials 
told us that having the same person performing both tasks had not 
caused problems. Other officials--including some at locations where 
investigators conciliated their own cases--indicated a preference to 
have different people perform these tasks. One official said that 
separating these tasks enabled simultaneous conciliation and 
investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up the process. 
Another official noted that parties might share information with a 
conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that a 
conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The 
same official said that although investigators were not allowed to use 
information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the 
information could still influence the questions conciliators posed--and 
thus the information they learned--as investigators. Similarly, at one 
hub an OGC official told us that information learned as a result of 
conciliation efforts should not be included in investigative findings. 
A few enforcement officials at locations that did not separate the 
tasks said that they did not have enough staff to have separate 
conciliators. One hub director said that a FHAP agency in its region 
was experimenting with a separate mediation track in addition to the 
conciliation mechanism. The mediation occurred early in the process and 
involved a professional, nongovernment mediator. The director said the 
mediation had usually pleased the parties, resulting in timely 
resolutions of cases and beneficial results.

Response to 100-day Requirement:

In responding to the 100-day requirement, several hubs and FHAP 
agencies used variations of what they called a "bubble sheet"---a list 
of investigative milestones and a time line for completing them---in 
order to meet the 100-day requirement. If an investigator missed a 
milestone, the "bubble burst," and the investigator might not meet the 
100-day requirement. Some officials said that the bubble sheet helped 
investigators complete each of the small steps of the investigation in 
a timely fashion and thus increased the likelihood of compliance with 
the 100-day requirement. Nevertheless, some people said that the 100-
day requirement was arbitrary and often unattainable, and their 
response to the 100-day requirement was simply to send the 100-day 
letter at the appropriate time.

Software:

As in the intake stage, the CMS software used at one FHAP agency 
offered additional tools during investigations that TEAPOTS did not. 
The CMS generated interview questions for investigations based on the 
information obtained in intake and then generated a list of critical 
documents that were usually needed for certain types of investigations. 
According to FHAP agency officials, the CMS improved the quality of 
investigations and decreased the length of cases. One FHEO center we 
visited was attempting to store possible witness questions in a central 
database for investigators to review to see if any were applicable to 
their cases, but this system was not automated and relied on 
investigators to compile the list. Officials at that center hoped that 
having a central location for all such questions would give 
investigators at least some examples of possible questions to ask. 
Officials at the FHAP agency noted that some data they are required to 
enter into TEAPOTS duplicated information in CMS and indicated that it 
would be preferable not to enter this information twice. Another FHAP 
agency we visited that used other software in addition to TEAPOTS had 
begun a pilot program to alleviate this duplication, using a program 
that would allow information entered into TEAPOTS to be incorporated 
into the FHAP agency software without keying the data again.

Some Hubs and FHAP Agencies We Visited Had Limited Adjudication 
Involvement over Last Several Years:

We did not observe any significant variations across agencies in the 
adjudication stage of the enforcement process, possibly in part because 
the hubs and FHAP agencies we visited had adjudicated very few cases 
through their administrative processes. For example, one hub and one 
FHAP agency we visited told us they did not have any cases that had 
gone through the administrative hearing process over the last 5 years. 
Officials at the FHAP agency told us that in the rare cases that could 
go to an administrative proceeding, the FHAP agency encouraged parties 
to opt for state court, since otherwise the FHAP agency would have to 
commit resources to the process. Agency officials said that steering 
parties to one forum is inconsistent with the enforcement framework of 
the Act and the neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with 
respect to forum selection.

FHEO and FHAP Agencies Had Discretion in Implementing Practices, but 
FHEO Had Not Examined Different Practices:

The variations among hubs, centers, and FHAP agencies are not 
surprising, given the discretion FHEO locations and FHAP agencies have 
had to administer the enforcement process. While FHEO's Handbook 
contains significant guidance, policies, and procedures, FHAP agencies 
have not been required to follow them. Rather, FHAP agencies must meet 
certain performance standards to obtain or maintain certification as 
substantially equivalent agencies. Under these standards, FHAP agencies 
must have engaged in timely, comprehensive, and thorough fair housing 
complaint investigation, conciliation, and enforcement activities. For 
both FHEO locations and FHAP agencies, the variations we observed could 
be even greater, given our small sample. Additionally, according to the 
2001 National Council on Disability report, variations in the hubs' 
practices had increased since 1996.[Footnote 26] Similarly, the 
potential for variations in FHAP agencies' practices has likely grown 
with the number of FHAP agencies, which increased from 64 at the start 
of fiscal year 1996 to 100 at the start of fiscal year 2004.

Many FHEO hub directors indicated that practical improvements could be 
made to the enforcement process; in fact, at least four directors 
believed that practical improvements could be made to each stage. 
Several hub directors provided specific ideas for improvements to the 
intake stage. One hub director said that her hub had recently written 
its own intake handbook and had set a requirement of completing intake 
within 15 days, rather than the 20 days specified in FHEO's Handbook. 
Five of the 10 directors said that improvements could be made to the 
investigation stage for FHEO that would reduce the length of the 
process to a great or very great extent. One director specifically 
mentioned a practice--mediation in the early stages of the complaint 
process--that was in place at FHAP agencies in his region. 
Additionally, 4 of the 10 directors said that practical improvements 
could be made to the investigation stage that would increase the 
thoroughness of the enforcement process to a very great extent. For 
example, several directors suggested either increasing OGC's staff to 
provide more assistance to investigators or putting a non-OGC attorney 
on staff at the hub or field level as a resource for the investigators. 
Additionally, one hub director said that a checklist she had recently 
developed for supervisors reviewing investigations should increase the 
thoroughness of investigations. Regarding the adjudication stage, one 
hub director said that the region was concerned about not knowing 
whether DOJ would accept a fair housing case if a party in the case 
elected to have it heard in federal district court.

Despite the existing differences in practices among the entities 
involved in enforcing the Act and officials' belief that some practices 
could be improved, HUD has not performed a systematic nationwide review 
of its or FHAP agencies' enforcement practices since 1996. The 1996 
review, a business process redesign, focused on FHEO's practices, 
although one FHAP agency was represented in the process. FHEO uses 
other reviews for practices in its offices, such as Quality Management 
Reviews (QMR), in part as peer reviews that allow collaboration and 
information sharing between FHEO offices. Additionally, FHEO reviews 
cases FHAP agencies investigate to determine if the agencies are 
eligible for payment under the program. However, the QMRs and FHAP 
agency reviews are not systematic, nationwide reviews of the practices 
that FHEO and FHAP agencies are using.

Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of 
Cases:

Our analysis of FHEO data on fair housing enforcement activities from 
fiscal year 1996 to 2003 revealed a number of trends. We found that:

* The number of claims or inquiries FHEO received annually remained 
stable until 2002 but then increased substantially. The number of 
complaints filed trended downward in the earlier years but then rose 
steadily.

* An increasing proportion of these complaints alleged discrimination 
on the basis of handicap, while the most frequently cited basis of 
discrimination--race--declined as a proportion of all complaints.

* While the number of investigations completed fell in 1997 and 1998, 
more investigations were completed in each subsequent year. FHAP 
agencies rather than FHEO conducted most of the investigations.

* The outcomes of investigations changed over the period, with an 
increasing proportion of investigations closed without finding 
reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred.

* The frequency with which FHEO and FHAP agencies completed 
investigations within 100 days increased over the period.

The trend data we present are reported on a fiscal year basis. We could 
not measure the volume of claims and inquiries before 1996. Generally, 
FHEO treated all inquiries it received between 1989 and 1994 as 
complaints, regardless of whether the contact alleged a violation of 
the Act. During parts of 1994 and 1995, FHEO did not collect 
information on those inquiries that did not result in an investigation.

The Number of Inquiries and Complaints Filed Increased:

From 1996 until 2002, FHEO's annual numbers of claims and inquiries 
alleging violations of the Act varied only slightly, averaging about 
4,600 per year, but rose to more than 5,400 in 2003 (fig. 2). Because 
FHEO does not require FHAP agencies to report the number of claims and 
inquiries received during this period, we could not determine the 
number of claims and inquiries received by FHAP agencies.[Footnote 27]

Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Does not include inquiries received by FHAP agencies.

[End of figure]

The combined number of complaints perfected and filed declined slightly 
from 1996 until 1998, but then began increasing steadily (fig. 3). By 
2003, the number of complaints filed annually had risen to more than 
8,000, with FHAP agencies responsible for investigating the largest 
share. Of the 53,866 complaints filed during the period, FHAP agencies 
were responsible for investigating 67 percent, and FHEO was responsible 
for investigating 33 percent.

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for 
Investigation, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Not all inquiries are perfected into complaints.

[End of figure]

Overall, FHAP agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing 
portion of complaints filed each year from 1998 until 2003. In part, 
these increases may be attributable to the growth in the number of FHAP 
agencies nationwide. Seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, 
New York, North Dakota, and Vermont), Washington, D.C., and 26 
localities created FHAP agencies between 1996 and 2003 (fig. 4). FHAP 
agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing number of 
complaints filed between 1998 and 2003 in all except the Denver region 
(Region 8). In comparison, four FHEO regions--Boston, Chicago, New 
York, and Philadelphia--were responsible for investigating a declining 
number of complaints filed during this period.

Figure 4: Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Does not include territories in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, 
none of which had FHAP agencies. There are two local FHAP agencies 
located in Charlotte, NC and Seattle, WA, and two in Tampa, FL (one of 
which existed before 1996).

[End of figure]

The Basis, Subject Matter, and Regional Distribution of Complaints 
Filed Changed:

As the number of complaints filed rose between 1996 and 2003, the basis 
of, or reasons for, the alleged discrimination changed somewhat (fig. 
5). First, although complaints alleging discrimination based on race 
continued to dominate, accounting for around 40 percent of the total, 
the annual percentage declined slightly over the period. The share of 
complaints alleging discrimination based on familial status declined 
from one-quarter to about one-sixth of complaints filed during the 
period. In contrast, complaints alleging discrimination based on 
handicap increased significantly, rising by more than 13 percentage 
points to become the second most frequently cited basis of complaints. 
Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, national 
origin, and retaliation also grew somewhat, while those alleging 
discrimination because of sex and color declined.

Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year 
with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Discrimination based upon retaliation prohibits retaliation 
against anyone who has filed a fair housing complaint, encouraged or 
assisted another person in the filing of a fair housing complaint.

[End of figure]

Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints alleged more 
than one basis.

The subject matter, or issue covered by the Act, of complaints also 
changed from 1996 through 2003. Most of the complaints filed alleged 
discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges (e.g., refusal to 
repair, charging an inflated rent) or refusal to rent, but the share of 
these complaint issues fell over the period from a high of about 63 
percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1996 to 55 percent and 23 
percent in 2003 (fig. 6). At the same time, the share of complaints 
alleging failure to make reasonable accommodation or modification rose 
significantly, from less than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 
2003.[Footnote 28] Complaints alleging a single issue represented about 
68 percent of complaints filed during that period, while complaints 
alleging more than one issue represented the remaining 32 percent.

Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO 
and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints involve 
more than one issue.

[A] Retaliation is covered under Section 818 of the Act making it 
illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person 
in the exercise of, or on account of, his/her having aided any other 
person in the exercise of the right to file a fair housing complaint.

[B] Advertising refers to making, printing, or publishing, or causing 
to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement or 
advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that 
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a 
protected class (e.g., race, color, etc.).

[C] Discriminatory lending or financial practices refers to engaging in 
residential real estate-related transactions (e.g., mortgages, 
construction loans, home equity loans, home improvement loans, and 
appraisals) that discriminate against any person making such a 
transaction on the basis of a protected class. This category includes 
discrimination in the provision of professional opportunities in real 
estate by restricting membership in the associations necessary for 
success.

[D] False representation refers to representing to any person that any 
dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such a 
dwelling is, in fact, so available.

[E] Design and construction refers to discrimination in connection with 
the failure to design and construct a dwelling in such a manner that, 
for example, the public and common use portions are readily accessible 
to and usable by persons with disabilities.

[F] Steering refers to the practice of guiding prospective tenants or 
homebuyers to areas where persons of their class have previously been 
housed. Blockbusting refers to the practice of inducing homeowners to 
sell their property at depressed prices by appealing to their fear of 
integration. Redlining refers to a policy of excluding specific 
geographic areas from the consideration for investment.

[G] Other category includes six issues involving (1) criminal activity 
(i.e., covered under a federal criminal statute, Section 901 of the 
Act, intended to prohibit housing-related acts of violence motivated by 
a prohibited basis such as race, sex, or religion); (2) refusal to 
insure, which was cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; 
and (3) failure to qualify for the senior housing exemption all of 
which were cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; (4) 
discriminatory zoning and land use (i.e., the practice of applying 
zoning codes in an uneven manner or voting to rezone tracts of land to 
prevent the construction of housing projected to attract persons of 
another race), which was cited in about 1 percent of complaints in 
2003; (5) failure to comply with HUD poster regulations, which was not 
cited in any complaints in 2003; and (6) allegations involving 
otherwise denying or otherwise discriminating in housing, which were 
cited in about 10 percent of complaints in 2003.

[End of figure]

While the volume of complaints filed nationwide grew during the period, 
two regions, Denver (Region 8) and Seattle (Region 10) saw a decline 
(table 2). Conversely, two regions saw substantial increases. 
Specifically, complaints filed in Kansas City (Region 7) doubled during 
the period and almost tripled in the New York region (Region 2). The 
increases may be attributable, in part, to the addition of FHAP 
agencies from 1996 through 2003. By November of 1999, the New York 
region had two FHAP agencies online. In fiscal year 2000, the number of 
complaints filed in the New York region had more than doubled, rising 
from 213 to 442 complaints, or 6.3 percent of all complaints filed. 
FHEO referred 337 of these complaints to the FHAP agencies for 
investigation.

Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY 
1996-2003:

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 1 (Boston); 
1996: 386; 
1997: 382; 
1998: 359; 
1999: 374; 
2000: 436; 
2001: 407; 
2002: 400; 
2003: 458.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 2 (New York); 
1996: 253; 
1997: 239; 
1998: 238; 
1999: 213; 
2000: 442; 
2001: 607; 
2002: 699; 
2003: 685.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 3 (Philadelphia); 
1996: 506; 
1997: 453; 
1998: 368; 
1999: 408; 
2000: 532; 
2001: 536; 
2002: 560; 
2003: 541.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 4 (Atlanta); 
1996: 839; 
1997: 851; 
1998: 742; 
1999: 954; 
2000: 1,306; 
2001: 1,266; 
2002: 1,497; 
2003: 1,367.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 5 (Chicago); 
1996: 887; 
1997: 953; 
1998: 1,049; 
1999: 924; 
2000: 1,040; 
2001: 1,059; 
2002: 1,142; 
2003: 1,296.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 6 (Fort Worth); 
1996: 892; 
1997: 629; 
1998: 692; 
1999: 693; 
2000: 700; 
2001: 855; 
2002: 942; 
2003: 968.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 7 (Kansas City); 
1996: 507; 
1997: 580; 
1998: 780; 
1999: 808; 
2000: 654; 
2001: 677; 
2002: 760; 
2003: 1,035.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 8 (Denver); 
1996: 401; 
1997: 286; 
1998: 251; 
1999: 281; 
2000: 266; 
2001: 257; 
2002: 280; 
2003: 269.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 9 (San Francisco); 
1996: 1,118; 
1997: 1,113; 
1998: 1,061; 
1999: 1,089; 
2000: 1,058; 
2001: 1,003; 
2002: 1,067; 
2003: 1,176.

Complaints by region filed each year: Region 10 (Seattle); 
1996: 479; 
1997: 389; 
1998: 277; 
1999: 379; 
2000: 536; 
2001: 339; 
2002: 298; 
2003: 341.

Complaints by region filed each year: Total; 
1996: 6,268; 
1997: 5,875; 
1998: 5,817; 
1999: 6,123; 
2000: 6,970; 
2001: 7,006; 
2002: 7,645; 
2003: 8,136. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Excludes 26 complaints filed with Region 00 (Washington, D.C.).

[End of table]

The Number of Completed Investigations Rose, While Outcomes Varied:

Investigations may be completed in several ways, each leading to a 
particular outcome. First, an investigation is considered complete when 
it is closed administratively--for example, the complainant withdraws 
the complaint or staff are unable to locate the complainant. Second, a 
FHEO-conducted investigation may be considered complete when the 
complaint is transferred to DOJ because of FHEO's agreement to do so in 
certain instances, such as in cases involving criminal activity or 
pattern and practice issues. Third, FHEO or the FHAP agency may 
complete the investigation through conciliation with the parties, or 
the parties may settle among themselves. Fourth, FHEO or the FHAP 
agency may determine that reasonable cause may exist to believe that a 
discriminatory housing practice has occurred (find cause). Finally, 
FHEO or the FHAP agency may determine that there is not reasonable 
cause (no cause).

The number of investigations completed annually during the period rose 
after falling significantly in 1997 through 1998 (see fig. 7). This 
pattern was similar for both FHAP agencies and FHEO, though the number 
of investigations completed by FHAP agencies declined in 2003 and the 
number of investigations completed by FHEO declined in 2002.

Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, 
FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The most frequent outcome of investigations completed during the period 
was a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that 
discrimination had occurred (see fig. 8). The share of investigations 
resulting in this outcome rose from just over 40 percent in 1996 to 
around 48 percent in 2003. Conversely, the share of investigations 
completed through successful conciliation or settlement declined 
somewhat during the period, but this outcome remained the second most 
frequent--about one-third of all investigations completed during the 
period.[Footnote 29]

A determination of reasonable cause accounted for the smallest share of 
outcomes, around 5 percent of all completed investigations. TEAPOTS 
does not have a code specifically indicating that an investigation was 
completed with a finding of reasonable cause, but does provide for a 
date on which cause was found. We used this date to measure the number 
of investigations completed with a finding of reasonable cause. 
According to a HUD official, FHEO hubs do not record cause dates in 
TEAPOTS consistently. Specifically, at least two hubs may initially 
record the date the case is transferred to the regional counsel, rather 
than the date of the issuance of a determination of reasonable cause 
with which the regional counsel has concurred. These hubs then enter a 
new date when the regional counsel concurs and a charge of 
discrimination is issued. Therefore, the number of investigations that 
we report as completed during each fiscal year with a finding of 
reasonable cause may not match the number of charges that HUD reports, 
particularly for fiscal year 2003.

Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Does not include investigations closed by FHEO through referral 
to the DOJ (about 1 percent in 2003).

[End of figure]

We sorted HUD's data on outcomes by basis of complaint, subject matter, 
and region. Our analysis revealed the following:

* The percentage of no-cause determinations varied somewhat according 
to the basis of discrimination alleged. Above-average proportions of 
investigations that involved religion, retaliation, and race ended in 
no-cause determinations, (55, 53, and 54 percent respectively, compared 
with 47 percent overall). Similarly, 41 percent of investigations 
involving familial status and 40 percent of investigations involving 
handicap as at least one of the bases for discrimination ended in 
conciliation or settlement, compared with 32 percent overall.

* Outcomes also differed by the subject matter, or issue involved. A 
greater proportion of investigations that resulted in a no-cause 
finding had discriminatory terms or refusal to rent as an issue (61 and 
30 percent, respectively). Conversely, however, relatively few 
complaints determined to have no cause involved refusal to sell or 
noncompliance with design and construction as issues (4 and 1 percent, 
respectively).

* Regional differences were also apparent in outcomes. Investigations 
completed in the Atlanta region (Region 4), for instance, were more 
likely to end in no-cause determinations--53 percent--than 
investigations in any other region. Similarly, investigations completed 
in the Denver region (Region 8) were more likely to end in conciliation 
or settlement. Finally, the overall percentage of investigations 
completed with a reasonable cause determination varied widely among 
regions, from as high as 10 percent in the Boston region (Region 1) to 
as low as 1 percent in the Fort Worth region (Region 6).

Complaint investigations that resulted in a determination of reasonable 
cause generally proceeded to the adjudication stage. Because of TEAPOTS 
data limitations, we were not able to determine the final resolutions 
(that is, the reasons for closing the cases, including decisions on 
whether or not an actual violation of the Act had occurred) of all 
complaints that reached the adjudication stage. Specifically, as table 
3 shows, for 8 percent of investigations in which FHEO made a 
determination of reasonable cause and 30 percent of investigations in 
which a FHAP agency made a similar determination, information on the 
reason for closure was missing in TEAPOTS. For the remaining FHEO and 
FHAP agency investigations (those for which the reason for closure was 
available), we identified the following:

* The independent fact finder found that discrimination had occurred in 
about 3 percent of the FHEO cases and 7 percent of the FHAP agency 
cases.

* About one-third of all cases (FHEO and FHAP agency) resulted in a 
judicial consent order--that is, the parties negotiated a settlement, 
either alone or through an appointed settlement judge, which was 
submitted to the independent fact finder as a voluntary agreement to 
resolve the case.

* Of the FHEO cases, 46 percent were closed when the parties elected to 
go to court, about 6 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 2 
percent resulted in administrative closure, about 1 percent resulted in 
judicial dismissal, and in less than 1 percent the independent fact 
finder found that no discrimination occurred.

* Of the FHAP agency cases, the independent fact finder dismissed 16 
percent, 9 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 4 percent 
were closed administratively, and 4 percent resulted in a finding that 
no discrimination occurred.

Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP 
Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe That 
Discrimination Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-
2003):

Types of Closures: Judicial consent order by ALJ or FHAP agency related 
fact finder; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 591; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 30.5; 
FHEO: Number: 230; 
FHEO: Percent: 32.0; 
Total: Number: 821; 
Total: Percent: 30.9.

Types of Closures: Parties elect to go to court; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 0; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 0.0; 
FHEO: Number: 330; 
FHEO: Percent: 45.9; 
Total: Number: 330; 
Total: Percent: 12.4.

Types of Closures: Judicial dismissal by ALJ or fact finder related to 
FHAP agency; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 309; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 16.0; 
FHEO: Number: 10; 
FHEO: Percent: 1.4; 
Total: Number: 319; 
Total: Percent: 12.0.

Types of Closures: Conciliation or settlement by FHEO or FHAP agency; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 176[A]; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 9.1; 
FHEO: Number: 44; 
FHEO: Percent: 6.1; 
Total: Number: 220; 
Total: Percent: 8.3.

Types of Closures: Discrimination found in legal proceedings of ALJ or 
fact finder related to FHAP agency; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 134; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 6.9; 
FHEO: Number: 24; 
FHEO: Percent: 3.3; 
Total: Number: 158; 
Total: Percent: 5.9.

Types of Closures: Administrative closure by FHEO or FHAP agency[B]; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 74[C]; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 3.8; 
FHEO: Number: 14; 
FHEO: Percent: 1.9; 
Total: Number: 88; 
Total: Percent: 3.3.

Types of Closures: No discrimination found in legal proceedings of ALJ 
or fact finder related to FHAP agency; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 77; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 4.0; 
FHEO: Number: 5; 
FHEO: Percent: 0.7; 
Total: Number: 82; 
Total: Percent: 3.1.

Types of Closures: Open case or information on adjudication decision 
missing[D]; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 576; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 29.7; 
FHEO: Number: 59; 
FHEO: Percent: 8.2; 
Total: Number: 635; 
Total: Percent: 23.9.

Types of Closures: Total; 
FHAP agencies: Number: 1,937; 
FHAP agencies: Percent: 100.0; 
FHEO: Number: 719[E]; 
FHEO: Percent: 99.5; 
Total: Number: 2,656; 
Total: Percent: 99.8. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

[A] Includes 145 FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed 
through conciliation or settlement. However, FHEO officials are 
concerned that FHAP agencies are incorrectly coding what actually may 
be cases closed through judicial consent order.

[B] Includes complaints that were withdrawn by the complainant after 
the case was resolved.

[C] Includes three FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed 
because a trial had begun. According to FHEO officials, there have been 
problems in the past with FHAP agencies coding these case closures 
incorrectly.

[D] The case is either still open in the adjudication process or 
TEAPOTS did not include a closure code.

[E] Includes 3 complaints, that had a determination of reasonable cause 
but were coded in TEAPOTS as having an adjudication closure code of no 
cause (one case) or DOJ settlement (two cases). According to FHEO 
officials, the coding for adjudication is likely incorrect.

[End of table]

The Number of Investigations Completed within 100 Days Increased in 
2001--2003:

The numbers of investigations completed within 100 days by both FHEO 
and the FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001 (fig. 
9).[Footnote 30] Some of the improvement in the number of FHEO 
investigations completed in 100 days may have been the result of an 
initiative aimed at reducing the number of aged cases in FHEO's 
inventory. FHEO undertook the initiative in 2001 after completing only 
14 percent of its investigations within the 100-day timeframe in 2000. 
The number completed in 100 days rose in 2002, to 41 percent of all 
investigations.[Footnote 31] At the same time, the number of FHAP 
agency investigations meeting the 100-day benchmark remained fairly 
stable (23 to 33 percent) over the period 1996 to 2003, rising most 
markedly from 2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent. In January 2004, 
FHEO established monthly efficiency goals aimed at monitoring the 
progress of the hubs in meeting both the 20-day intake and 100-day 
investigative timeliness benchmarks. It is too soon to determine what 
effect this initiative might have on the timeliness of investigations.

Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 
1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: For this analysis, we use HUD's method of measuring compliance 
with the 100-day benchmark for investigations--that is, the most recent 
of the dates the complaint was filed, reopened, or reentered.

[End of figure]

Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by 
Each Stage of the Enforcement Process:

While data were generally available to measure the length of both 
FHEO's and FHAP agencies' investigations, we found that reliable data 
were lacking on the intake and adjudication stages handled by FHAP 
agencies. First, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report on intake 
activities, and FHAP agencies accounted for intake on 42 percent of all 
complaints filed in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Second, while 
TEAPOTS contained data on the dates that inquiries were received for 
investigations completed by FHAP agencies, we question the reliability 
of these data. According to a FHEO official responsible for TEAPOTS, 
FHEO staff may have routinely used the date on which cases were 
transferred to FHAP agencies as the "initial inquiry" date. In 
addition, TEAPOTS data show that 20,226 (54 percent) of complaints 
investigated by FHAP agencies were filed the same day that the 
inquiries were received--that is, the intake stage began and ended on 
the same date. Third, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report the 
results of the adjudication of closed investigations. Accordingly, for 
many complaints investigated by FHAP agencies that reached the 
adjudication stage, TEAPOTS did not show an end date for 
adjudication.[Footnote 32] Finally, TEAPOTS was missing these dates for 
some complaints investigated by FHEO as well. Using the data that were 
available, we measured the typical length of each stage using medians-
-that is, the number at the exact midpoint of the range of days 
required to complete each stage (or where there was an even number of 
observations, the mean or average of two at the midpoint).

TEAPOTS data indicate a median of 12 days for the intake stage (from 
the date of the initial inquiry to the date the complaint was filed) 
for cases handled by FHEO in 1996 through 2003.[Footnote 33] The data 
showed that 35 percent of complaints investigated by FHEO were filed 
the same day that the claims or inquiries were received (that is, the 
intake stage began and ended on the same date), 28 percent within 20 
days, and 31 percent within 21 days to 3 months of the date that the 
claim or inquiry was received. FHEO's new monthly efficiency reports 
aim to, among other things, monitor the hubs' progress in completing 
the intake process within 20 days.

The median number of days for investigations (from the date the 
complaint was filed to the date the investigation was completed) was 
259 for complaints investigated by FHEO (fig. 10).[Footnote 34]The 
median number of days varied somewhat, depending on the outcome of the 
investigations (e.g., administrative closure, finding of reasonable 
cause, finding of no cause, etc.). FHEO completed 61 percent of its 
investigations within a year of the date the complaint was 
filed.[Footnote 35]

We could not measure the time required to adjudicate all cases for 
which FHEO found cause. Specifically, of the 719 investigations for 
which FHEO determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that 
discrimination had occurred, TEAPOTS included data on 339 cases that 
were adjudicated within HUD. In these cases, the median time required 
to complete the adjudication process was 203 days. In an additional 330 
cases, one or both parties elected to have their complaints heard in 
district court at the cause date, or shortly thereafter. For these 
individuals the enforcement process continued, but FHEO did not record 
the length of the judicial process.[Footnote 36] TEAPOTS also did not 
have information on adjudication for 50 cases for which FHEO found 
cause.

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement 
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003):

[See PDF for image]

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we measured the end of the 
intake stage and the beginning of the investigation stage using the 
date the complaint was filed. The median numbers of days shown are 
based on 19,312 inquiries that resulted in FHEO investigations 
completed during fiscal years 1996 through 2003, for which TEAPOTS 
included data on the date the inquiry was received and the date the 
resulting complaint was filed; 19,299 investigations completed during 
fiscal years 1996 through 2003, for which TEAPOTS included data on the 
date the complaint was filed and the date the investigation was 
completed; and 339 investigations completed during fiscal years 1996 
through 2003 that were adjudicated within HUD, for which TEAPOTS 
included data on the date that FHEO determined there was reasonable 
cause and the date the adjudication stage was completed.

[End of figure]

Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title 
VIII Enforcement Process:

We found that numerous factors affected the length and thoroughness of 
the enforcement process. First, hub directors we surveyed said that the 
characteristics of complaints--certain issues, for example, and the 
presence of multiple bases--could increase the time needed for 
investigations, reduce thoroughness, or both. Second, both hub 
directors and FHEO and FHAP agency officials said that specific 
practices could make investigations shorter and more thorough. Third, 
hub directors and other officials pointed to human capital issues as 
potentially increasing the length and decreasing the thoroughness of 
investigations, including staff shortages, low skill levels, lack of 
training and guidance, and inadequate travel resources. Finally, hub 
directors noted that national performance goals could reduce the number 
of aged cases but had little effect on timeliness or thoroughness.

The Characteristics and Volume of Complaints May Affect Timeliness of 
the Enforcement Process:

Most hub directors stated that the issue of a complaint had a great or 
very great effect on the amount of time required to complete the 
enforcement process. Complex issues such as refusing to provide 
insurance or credit could add time to investigations. For example, 
investigators might have to analyze statistics to determine if the 
complainant was treated differently from the norm. According to one 
director, some issues, such as failure to make reasonable 
accommodation, could require time for staff to conduct time-consuming 
on-site visits. In addition, some directors thought that complaints 
involving multiple issues could take longer to investigate.

Agency data tend to support some of the directors' observations (fig. 
11). While investigations took a median of 211 days to complete during 
the period, the median for investigations involving discriminatory 
lending was 295 days; and for noncompliance with design and 
construction issues, it took 284 days. However, the median for 
investigations involving reasonable accommodation or modification was 
just 162 days.

Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of 
Discrimination, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: See notes to figure 6 for a discussion of issues covered under 
the Act.

[End of figure]

Although directors generally did not believe that any particular 
prohibited basis had an effect on the length of investigations and thus 
on the enforcement process, one director did note that complaints 
involving multiple bases would likely increase the length of the 
enforcement process. We found that the median number of days required 
to complete investigations involving multiple bases was slightly higher 
than for single-issue investigations--217 days. The median number of 
days FHAP agencies needed to complete an investigation varied more 
across specific prohibited bases than it did for FHEO. For FHEO, the 
median length of investigations ranged from a low of 223 days 
(handicap) to 302 days (retaliation) (see fig. 12). For FHAP agencies, 
the median length of investigations ranged from a low of 175 days 
(handicap) to 211 (sex).

Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by 
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Most directors stated that the volume of complaints received in their 
region had a great or very great effect on the length of the 
enforcement process. According to one director, a large volume of 
complaints created competing demands on staff time. Another director 
noted that the volume of complaints could lengthen the enforcement 
process if staff resources were in short supply.

Half (5) of the hub directors also believed that the volume of 
inquiries and complaints had a great or very great effect on the 
thoroughness of the enforcement process. One respondent noted that 
complex issues in a complaint or large volumes of complaints in a 
region might decrease the thoroughness of the process if resources were 
strained, staff were not adequately skilled to accommodate the amount 
or level of difficulty of the work to be done, or both. Fewer directors 
(2 out of 10), said they believed that the basis of complaints had a 
great or very great effect on the thoroughness of the process. One 
director noted that, regardless of the factors involved, the 
thoroughness of the enforcement process should never be compromised.

Certain Practices Could Improve the Enforcement Process:

As we have seen, some HUD and FHAP agency officials identified two 
intake practices that they believe shortened the enforcement process, 
increased its thoroughness, or both. The first--involving investigators 
in intake--was cited by 4 of the 10 HUD hub directors that responded to 
our survey. Further, officials at the FHAP agency that used the team 
intake and investigation approach noted that it had led to better 
investigations that were conducted in less time. The second practice--
using CMS enforcement software--was credited by the FHAP agency that 
used it with facilitating both timeliness and thoroughness.

HUD and FHAP agency officials also cited several investigative 
practices that increased the thoroughness or decreased the length of 
the enforcement process or both. First, several HUD officials said that 
early and frequent OGC involvement was important to increasing the 
thoroughness of investigations. Second, some enforcement officials said 
that simultaneous conciliation and investigation might decrease the 
length of investigations. Third, some HUD hub directors said that using 
TEAPOTS affected the length and thoroughness of the process to a great 
or very great extent: specifically, 6 hub directors indicated that 
using the system increased the thoroughness of the enforcement process, 
decreased the length of the process, or both. Some officials, however, 
also told us that TEAPOTS could be improved, and one FHAP agency's CMS 
software offered an alternative system that the FHAP agency credited 
with reducing the length of its process and improving its thoroughness. 
The CMS software provides investigators more sophisticated tools than 
TEAPOTS offered for planning and conducting investigations. Finally, 
one hub official said that alternative mediation at the outset of the 
complaint process could help decrease the length of some complaint 
investigations.

Human Capital Challenges Also Affect the Enforcement Process:

FHEO officials and others we interviewed identified human capital 
management challenges that had negatively affected the fair housing 
enforcement process, including the number and skill levels of FHEO 
staff, the quality and effectiveness of training, and other issues.

Number of Staff:

FHEO officials told us that hiring freezes had left a number of FHEO 
offices with chronic staffing shortages, especially among supervisors 
and clerical workers and that these shortages had never been fully 
resolved. The shortages affected not only enforcement of the Act, but 
also FHEO's other responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier 
caseloads and professional staff to perform administrative duties 
rather than concentrating on enforcement. Hub directors told us that 
hiring activity in the last 3 years had at least partially abated the 
chronic staffing shortages. However, they added that FHEO now faces the 
prospect of losing staff because a corrective action plan requires that 
FHEO, consistent with HUD's key workforce planning effort, have fewer 
employees than it currently has.

As figure 13 shows, the total number of full-time equivalents 
(FTE)[Footnote 37] in FHEO has fluctuated over the last 10 years, 
falling from a high of 750 in fiscal year 1994 to a low of 579 in 
fiscal year 2000. In 2003, FHEO's FTEs rose once more to 744 after a 
concerted hiring initiative, although the workforce effort mentioned 
above suggested a level of 640. Currently, FHEO faces the challenge of 
meeting a mandatory ceiling of 640. FHEO comprised about 6 percent of 
HUD's total workforce until fiscal year 2002 and 7 percent in 2003, 
when FHEO directors received hiring authority for new staff. FHEO staff 
have other responsibilities beyond enforcing Title VIII, including 
monitoring program compliance by housing providers receiving federal 
funds, performing Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grant 
management, monitoring FHAP agencies, providing technical assistance, 
and performing education and outreach activities.

Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004A:

[See PDF for image]

[A] In fiscal year 1994, FHEO contained the function of the Office of 
Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity (ODEEO), which is responsible 
for planning and implementing the department's internal equal 
employment activities. HUD established ODEEO in 1995 as a separate 
program area. HUD moved ODEEO back under FHEO's responsibilities in 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and FHEO's FTE total for those years 
includes ODEEO's FTEs. The department moved ODEEO out of FHEO in fiscal 
year 2003, and the FTE total (744) for that year does not include ODEEO 
FTEs.

[B] Mandated ceiling for 2004.

[End of figure]

FHEO hired 167 staff beginning in July 2002 as part of a departmental 
effort to reach its requested ceiling by September 30, 2002. That is, 
HUD was attempting to reach 9,100 FTEs at the end of fiscal year 2002, 
a number that would equal the approved fiscal year 2002 FTE level and 
the requested fiscal year 2003 level.[Footnote 38] FHEO's hiring 
initiative, like HUD's overall, was not in line with the department's 
workforce planning efforts. The most important of these, the Resource 
Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP), a series of department 
studies conducted from 2000 through 2002, to assess HUD's staffing 
requirements, recommended a total FTE ceiling for FHEO of 640.[Footnote 
39] As a result of HUD's hiring initiative, HUD had a staffing level of 
9,395 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003--295 above the approved 
fiscal year 2002 and requested fiscal year 2003 levels.[Footnote 40] 
Therefore, HUD was forced both to reprogram more than $25 million to 
cover the costs of the newly hired excess staff and to submit to 
Congress a corrective action plan consistent with REAP. HUD's Strategic 
Placement Plan, issued in January 2004, would reduce FHEO's excess 
staff to the mandated level of 640 FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2004 
through voluntary and, if necessary, involuntary reassignments. 
However, as of February 2004, FHEO remained at 727 FTEs, and FHEO 
officials told us they did not know how they would meet the mandated 
level on schedule. The officials also expressed concern that they would 
lose many of their best staff through the voluntary reassignment plan.

Officials expressed concern not only with the insufficient number of 
staff but also the lack of staff at key positions. Some HUD managers 
said that due to unfilled supervisor positions in their regions, 
existing supervisors were not able to review materials as carefully as 
they could have with those positions filled. For example, one center 
director told us that investigators did not get supervisory input on 
initial investigative plans due to a vacant supervisory post. This 
center director said that the gap in supervision decreased the 
thoroughness and sometimes increased the length of investigations, as 
existing supervisors were unable to complete work in a timely manner.

Staff Skills and Experience:

Some hub directors and other officials we spoke with cited concerns 
about the noncompetitive reassignment of staff into FHEO. They noted 
that the level of staff skills could influence the length and 
thoroughness of the enforcement process and that the reassignment 
process had a generally negative impact on FHEO's overall skill levels. 
According to these officials, while many of the reassigned staff had 
worked at HUD for years, their skills were often not transferable to 
FHEO activities, which require specific analytical, investigative, and 
writing skills. Some directors cited the skills issue as a greater 
problem for FHEO than the actual numbers of personnel. FHEO's own 
internal review also cites concerns about reassigned employees' 
qualifications, skills, and work products and about the amount of time 
and supervision these employees require.[Footnote 41] FHEO 
documentation shows that 106 staff were reassigned to the program under 
various HUD realignments from 1998 to 2002.[Footnote 42] Figure 14 
shows the numbers of staff in the three hubs we visited by their years 
of experience with FHEO and reassignment status. Although FHEO has 
brought many new staff on board recently through competitive hiring, 
many staff in the hubs we reviewed came to the organization via 
noncompetitive reassignment.

Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status 
of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York 
Regions):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Although figure 14 shows that more than half of the FHEO staff 
currently located in the three sites we visited had fewer than 10 years 
of experience with FHEO, many have a significant number of years of 
federal service. Figure 15 shows a snapshot of the same FHEO employees 
in the three sites we visited by their years of federal 
service.[Footnote 43] The figure demonstrates that half of the FHEO 
employees in the three sites we visited have 20 or more years of 
federal service, and 14 percent have 30 or more years of federal 
service.

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as 
of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Retirement eligibility was an issue not only for the three sites we 
visited, but also for FHEO as a whole. Officials expressed concern 
about the loss of skilled and experienced staff to retirement, and 
personnel data provided by the HUD human resources staff show that 40 
percent of FHEO employees overall were eligible for either early or 
immediate retirement in February 2004 (see fig. 16). Moreover, as we 
have noted previously, officials that we spoke with also expressed 
concern that current plans to eliminate a significant number of FHEO 
staff by voluntary reassignment could cause skilled workers to leave 
FHEO and seek opportunities elsewhere.

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of 
February 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Training:

Providing effective training is another human capital challenge that 
FHEO faces. Half of the directors told us that the quality and 
effectiveness of training helped reduce the length of the fair housing 
enforcement process, and six said that it improved thoroughness. For 
example, some directors said that training serves to expedite 
investigations as staff gain more technical skills. Other directors 
said that training improves thoroughness because staff can recognize 
issues of discrimination and decide what evidence is needed to support 
complaints.

We heard concerns from FHEO staff, an ALJ, and others outside of HUD 
about the quality or availability of training for FHEO employees. Most 
staff we spoke with reported that they had received initial formal 
training for their positions, though not always in a timely fashion. A 
list of courses supplied by the HUD Training Academy, which provides 
the majority of formal training for FHEO, showed that the basic course 
in investigation had been offered annually in all but 1 of the last 5 
years. However, depending on the hiring date, a new staff member might 
have to wait 1 year or more to attend the basic course. Potentially 
compounding this problem, hub directors told us that although training 
was available in fiscal year 2003, lack of travel funds sometimes 
prevented them from sending staff to training out of the area. Finally, 
budget data show that although FHEO had initial approval from the HUD 
Training Academy to spend $416,000 for training in fiscal year 2003, 
the HUD Training Academy reduced FHEO's training funds to $200,000 as 
part of the department's overall efforts to reduce expenditures to 
cover the cost of excess staff hiring.

FHEO recognized the need for additional training by establishing the 
HUD Fair Housing Training Academy, which is slated to open in the 
summer of 2004. FHEO officials told us that they hope to standardize 
what the agency believes are uneven fair housing processes and 
practices implemented around the nation by FHEO and its FHAP agency 
partners, create a more professional group, and possibly reduce 
turnover rates at FHAP agencies by certifying attendees. Initially, 
however, the academy will serve staff from only FHAP agencies, not FHEO 
employees. Officials explained that FHAP agency funds would cover the 
costs of this initial training.

FHEO's human capital challenges are symptomatic of those facing HUD as 
a whole. FHEO, like the department and other federal agencies, is 
experiencing significant challenges in deploying the right skills in 
the right places at the right time, is facing a growing number of 
employees who are eligible for retirement, and is finding it difficult 
to fill certain mission-critical jobs--a situation that could 
significantly drain its institutional knowledge.

We have observed that federal agencies need effective strategic 
workforce planning to identify and focus on the long-term human capital 
issues that most affect their ability to attain mission results. We 
identified five key principles that strategic workforce planning should 
address, which include (1) involving top management, employees, and 
other stakeholders in developing, communicating, and implementing the 
strategic workforce plan; (2) determining the critical skills and 
competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future 
programmatic results; (3) developing strategies that are tailored to 
address gaps in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital 
approaches for enabling and sustaining the contributions of all 
critical skills and competencies; (4) building the capability needed to 
address administrative, educational, and other requirements important 
to support workforce strategies; and (5) monitoring and evaluating the 
agency's progress toward its human capital goals and the contribution 
that human capital results have made toward achieving programmatic 
goals. In developing strategies to address workforce gaps, we reported 
that agencies should, among other things, consider hiring, training, 
staff development, succession planning, performance management, use of 
flexibilities, and other human capital strategies and tools that can be 
implemented with resources that can reasonably be expected to be 
available.[Footnote 44]

We have reported in the past that HUD had not done the strategic 
workforce planning necessary to address its human capital 
challenges.[Footnote 45] Like HUD, FHEO does not have a comprehensive 
strategic workforce plan to help it meet key human capital challenges. 
REAP, which estimates the staff needed to handle HUD's workload in each 
of its offices, does not include the extensive analysis involved in a 
comprehensive assessment. However, since we last reported, HUD 
contracted a technical adviser to conduct a comprehensive workforce 
analysis. Such an assessment would cover current workforce skills, 
anticipated skill needs, current and future skill gaps, and needed 
training and development that will be used to develop a comprehensive 
5-year departmental workforce plan. Additionally, HUD plans to rollout 
over the next 3 years a customized human resources and training 
information system known as the HUD Integrated Human Resources and 
Training System (HIHRTS). HUD documentation says that the system will 
replace several legacy systems; will integrate all human resource 
information into one platform, making information available to managers 
for strategic planning and employee development; and helping ensure 
that HUD employees are used effectively.

Lack of Travel Funds Can Affect How Thoroughly Cases Are Investigated:

Officials from headquarters and the sites we visited also told us that 
inconsistencies in the amount and availability of travel funds impaired 
the length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement process. As 
mentioned previously, in May 2003, Congress approved the reprogramming 
of funds within HUD to cover the cost of excess staff hiring, including 
a $7.7 million reduction in travel funds. FHEO officials told us that 
following this reprogramming, they had no travel funds for up to 6 
months, preventing investigators from making timely visits to the sites 
of complaints. Budget data show that FHEO has experienced larger 
decreases in travel funds than HUD as a whole. From fiscal year 2002 to 
2003, HUD's allotment for travel decreased by 12 percent. FHEO's travel 
allotment, however, decreased by 17 percent over the same period. 
Directors reported that interruptions in travel funds in fiscal year 
2003 had impeded efforts to plan and manage investigations. Directors 
also told us that uncertainties regarding the department's ultimate 
annual appropriations amount had forced headquarters to limit travel 
funds at the beginning of fiscal years and prevented them from 
establishing a firm annual travel budget. Without this budget, 
directors said, they could not plan for the travel that would have 
helped reduce the length of investigations.

Directors reported using several methods to stretch their travel funds, 
including curtailing and delaying travel, limiting the time 
investigators could spend in the field, catching up on needed travel 
when funds became available at the end of the fiscal year, reducing 
travel for FHEO's other responsibilities outside of fair housing 
enforcement, and asking investigators from offices closer to the site 
of the complaint to assist with the investigation. Some investigators 
told us that they had used their own vehicles or funds for site visits 
and conducted desk investigations. At the same time, budget data show 
that hub directors' routine meetings consumed an increasing share of 
FHEO's travel budget from fiscal year 2001 to 2003. Director's meetings 
utilized 13 percent of FHEO's travel expenditures of approximately 
$900,000 in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 46]

Performance Goals May Affect the Length of Investigations:

Hub directors we visited told us that while FHEO's national performance 
goals have helped reduce the number of aged cases, these goals have had 
a negligible impact on the thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement 
process and could create competing demands for staff time. Performance 
reports show that the percentage of aged fair housing complaints for 
HUD nationwide has declined steadily since fiscal year 2000, exceeding 
the national goals in fiscal year 2001 through 2003.[Footnote 47] For 
example, in fiscal year 2003, the national goal was a 25 percent 
maximum for aged cases and FHEO achieved 23 percent.[Footnote 48] 
However, there are no national goals that directly relate to the 
thoroughness of investigations or the fair housing enforcement process. 
Regardless, some directors told us that although they strive to meet 
performance goals, they are more motivated by the statute's 100-day 
benchmark and the need to provide good customer service.

Directors also cited a tension between the need to meet the 100-day 
benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough investigation 
and said that at times one goal cannot be achieved without some cost to 
the other. One director stated that while mindful of the 100-day 
benchmark, she would not close a case to meet the time limit unless she 
felt that the investigation had been thorough. Directors told us that 
the existence of overall performance goals for FHEO could exacerbate 
the problem of competing demands. For example, annual goals routinely 
set achievement targets in FHEO's area of responsibility outside of 
Title VIII enforcement, including program compliance review, monitoring 
FHIP and FHAP agencies grantees, increasing the number of substantially 
equivalent agencies, and providing training on accessibility and 
handicap rights. The time and resources needed to meet these targets 
could increase the challenges involved in meeting Title VIII 
commitments in a timely and thorough manner.

Conclusions:

The fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for 
considering complaints of housing discrimination. However, persons who 
have experienced alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a 
lengthy wait before their complaint is resolved. Because flexibility is 
built into the process, enforcement practitioners have devised a 
variety of practices for processing inquiries and complaints, some of 
which could improve the timeliness and thoroughness of investigations. 
Our limited look at enforcement operations at FHAP agencies and FHEO 
centers within 3 of FHEO's 10 regions revealed practices that could 
potentially expedite cases if they were adopted elsewhere. Further, 
many FHEO hub directors told us they believed that every stage of the 
fair housing enforcement process could be improved. However, 
practitioners may be unaware of such practices because FHEO has not 
taken steps to identify those practices that hold the promise of 
improving the fair housing enforcement process.

Because of data limitations--specifically, data that are of 
questionable reliability, missing, or not currently collected--FHEO 
does not know how much time individuals face from the day they make an 
inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, particularly 
when FHAP agencies handle the investigation. Without comprehensive, 
reliable data on the dates when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot 
judge how long complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes 
an investigation. Similarly, without comprehensive, consistent, and 
reliable data concerning the dates that complaints are finally decided, 
HUD cannot determine how long the intended beneficiaries of the Act 
typically wait for a decision. Data that provide a comprehensive view 
of the enforcement process from start to finish for both FHEO and FHAP 
agencies could help HUD target problem areas and improve management of 
the enforcement process. TEAPOTS provides a platform that FHEO and FHAP 
agencies may use for recording these key enforcement data.

FHEO's human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge of 
improving enforcement practices. Human capital management issues at 
both HUD and FHEO are an immediate concern. FHEO's planned reduction in 
staff and other human capital factors may affect its ability to enforce 
fair housing laws. To meet such challenges, HUD managers will need to 
continue their efforts to analyze workforce needs and to develop a 
workforce planning process that makes the best use of the department's 
most important resource--the people that it employs now and in the 
future. A comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that 
builds on the five principles that we have observed at other federal 
agencies will help FHEO and other departmental programs identify and 
focus their investments on the long-term human capital issues that most 
affect the agency's ability to achieve its mission.

Recommendations:

To improve the management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement 
process, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant 
Secretary of FHEO to take the following 4 actions:

* establish a way to identify and share information on effective 
practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies;

* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 
reliable data on key dates in the intake stage of the fair housing 
enforcement process for FHAP agencies;

* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 
reliable data on key dates in the adjudication stage of the fair 
housing enforcement process for both FHEO and FHAP agencies;

* ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete, 
reliable data on the outcomes of the adjudication stage of the fair 
housing enforcement process for FHEO and FHAP agencies; and:

* ensure that hubs enter cause dates into the automated case-tracking 
system in a consistent manner.

Further, we recommend that the Secretary take the following action:

* In developing HUD's 5-year Departmental Workforce Plan, follow the 
five key principles discussed in this report. As part of the 
comprehensive workforce analysis, ensure that HUD fully considers a 
wide range of strategies to make certain that FHEO obtains and 
maximizes the necessary skills and competencies needed to achieve its 
current and emerging mission and strategic goals with the resources it 
can reasonably expect to be available.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. 
We received written comments from the department's Assistant Secretary 
for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These comments, which are 
included in appendix IV, indicated general agreement with our 
conclusions and recommendations. The Assistant Secretary noted that 
FHEO has already begun to take steps to improve the quality and 
timeliness of the fair housing enforcement process. Specific planned 
actions that are consistent with our recommendations include (1) 
implementing a new Business Process Redesign review; (2) establishing a 
reporting requirement addressing post-cause results; and (3) enhancing, 
in conjunction with the department, FHEO's efforts at workforce 
analysis. The Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would take a 
close look at all of the report's recommendations. HUD's comments also 
included several suggestions to enhance clarity or technical accuracy. 
We revised the report to incorporate these suggestions and have 
included them in this report where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested congressional 
members and committees. We will make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, this report will also be available at no charge 
on our Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

Please contact me or Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-6794 if you or your 
staff have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors to 
this report were Emily Chalmers, Rachel DeMarcus, Tiffani Green, M. 
Grace Haskins, Marc Molino, Andrew Nelson, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, 
and Anita Visser.

Signed by: 

David G. Wood, 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations 
conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 
rather than fair housing activities under Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the 
legislation, regulations, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity's (FHEO) guidance for intake, investigation and 
adjudication of fair housing complaints. We also interviewed officials 
at FHEO headquarters who are responsible for oversight and 
policymaking. In addition, we conducted site visits and structured 
interviews with key FHEO and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) 
agency officials, including FHEO hub, FHAP agency, and center 
directors; intake staff; investigators and attorneys. We selected 3 of 
the 10 FHEO hubs and 8 of the 18 centers for site visits (table 4). We 
selected the hub sites on the basis of (1) the number of "aged" cases 
within the region, (2) the total number of complaints received, (3) the 
ratio of FHEO investigations to all investigations, and (4) the number 
of organizational components--that is the number of centers and offices 
within the hub. We ranked each hub on the basis of whether they were 
among the 3 hubs with the highest values, the 3 with the lowest values 
or the 4 hubs with the middle values for the dimensions we measured. We 
also visited at least one FHAP agency in each of the selected hub 
regions.

Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits:

Location: Chicago Hub; 
Centers; (Detroit; Columbus; Chicago); 
Percentage of aged cases: Medium; 
Number of complaints received: High; 
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: Medium; 
Number of organizational components: High.

Location: Fort Worth Hub; 
Centers; (Fort Worth; New Orleans; Austin); 
Percentage of aged cases: High; 
Number of complaints received: Medium; 
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: High; 
Number of organizational components: High.

Location: New York Hub; 
Centers; (New York City; Newark); 
Percentage of aged cases: Low; 
Number of complaints received: Medium; 
HUD investigations as a percentage of all investigations: Low; 
Number of organizational components: Medium. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

[End of table]

To describe the trends in FHEO data on the numbers, characteristics, 
outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, we used data from 
FHEO's automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS). Specifically, we 
obtained data on inquiries and claims made and investigations completed 
as of September 2003, for each fiscal year from 1996 through 2003. 
Using these data, we computed the following:

* number of inquiries and claims made,

* number of complaints filed,

* number and outcome of investigations completed,

* percentage of investigations completed within 100 days, and:

* median length of each enforcement stage.

For the purposes of measuring the percentage of investigations 
completed within 100 days, we measured the time elapsed between the 
most recent of the date filed, date reopened, or date reentered and the 
date the investigations were either transferred to the Department of 
Justice, closed administratively, conciliated or settled, found to have 
reasonable cause, or found not to have reasonable cause.

To assess the reliability of TEAPOTS data we used, we examined (1) the 
process FHEO and FHAP agencies use to capture and process inquiry and 
complaint information and (2) the internal controls over the TEAPOTS 
database that store and retrieve this information. We interviewed the 
system's managers, reviewed documentation of and reports produced by 
the system, compared some of our results to summary reports previously 
produced by FHEO, and performed basic reasonableness checks on TEAPOTS 
data. Missing values and fields, inconsistencies between fields, and 
out-of-range values in fields were infrequent and did not pose a 
material risk of error in our analysis. We concluded that the data we 
analyzed were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 
However, we encountered several limitations in the TEAPOTS data that 
prevented us from using them to fully describe the trends in the 
numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing investigations. 
Because of indications that TEAPOTS data may either be incomplete or 
inconsistent regarding the dates that inquiries were made, and the 
dates that an independent fact finder ultimately determined that 
discrimination did or did not occur, we were unable to provide complete 
information on one of our report objectives. Specifically, we were 
unable to report on the average time taken by two phases of the 
enforcement process for cases handled by FHAP agencies.

In attempting to determine the average time needed to complete each 
stage of the fair housing enforcement process, we relied on data from 
TEAPOTS. Specifically, we obtained TEAPOTS data on complaint 
investigations completed from 1996 through 2003 by FHEO and FHAP 
agencies and attempted to measure (1) the time elapsed between a 
complainants' first contact with either the FHEO or a FHAP agency and 
the date that the complaint was filed; (2) the time elapsed between 
filing a complaint and completing an investigation; and (3) the time 
elapsed between completing an investigation and the final disposition, 
the end of the adjudication process. Because of inconsistent intake 
data and missing adjudication data, we were unable to determine the 
average time that had been required to complete the first and last 
stages of the complaint process for cases handled by FHAP agencies.

To determine the factors that could influence the length and 
thoroughness of Title VIII investigations, we interviewed FHEO and FHAP 
agency officials responsible for management, intake, investigation, and 
legal matters at selected field locations. We also surveyed the 10 FHEO 
hub directors. Appendix II reproduces our questionnaire. We also 
reviewed and analyzed information concerning the allocation, numbers, 
experience, and tenure of FHEO staff, including Quality Management 
Reviews and Resource Estimation and Allocation Process analyses. In 
addition, we interviewed officials and staff responsible for 
implementing the fair housing process at selected fair housing 
enforcement hubs and selected centers within these hubs. We also 
reviewed reports on HUD human capital challenges prepared by GAO, the 
HUD Inspector General, and other relevant sources:

[End of section]

Appendix II: Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12:

Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003:

1996; 
Claims: 4,614; 
Inquiries: 0; 
Total: 4,614.

1997; 
Claims: 4,333; 
Inquiries: 0; 
Total: 4,333.

1998; 
Claims: 4,791; 
Inquiries: 1; 
Total: 4,792.

1999; 
Claims: 4,831; 
Inquiries: 1; 
Total: 4,832.

2000; 
Claims: 4,445; 
Inquiries: 2; 
Total: 4,447.

2001; 
Claims: 1,323; 
Inquiries: 3,140; 
Total: 4,463.

2002; 
Claims: 0; 
Inquiries: 4,628; 
Total: 4,628.

2003; 
Claims: 0; 
Inquiries: 5,417; 
Total: 5,417.

Total; 
Claims: 24,337; 
Inquiries: 13,189; 
Total: 37,526.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 2.

[End of table]

Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003:

1996; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,213; 
FHEO: 2,055; 
Total: 6,268.

1997; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,057; 
FHEO: 1,819; 
Total: 5,876.

1998; 
FHAP Agencies: 3,792; 
FHEO: 2,026; 
Total: 5,818.

1999; 
FHAP Agencies: 3,888; 
FHEO: 2,251; 
Total: 6,139.

2000; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,823; 
FHEO: 2,150; 
Total: 6,973.

2001; 
FHAP Agencies: 5,034; 
FHEO: 1,975; 
Total: 7,009.

2002; 
FHAP Agencies: 5,079; 
FHEO: 2,568; 
Total: 7,647.

2003; 
FHAP Agencies: 5,397; 
FHEO: 2,739; 
Total: 8,136.

Total; 
FHAP Agencies: 36,283; 
FHEO: 17,583; 
Total: 53,866.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 3.

[End of table]

Table 7: Prohibited Basis of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with FHEO 
and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

Race; 
1996: Number: 2,729; 
1996: Percent: 43.5; 

1997: Number: 2,562; 
1997: Percent: 43.6; 

1998: Number: 2,638; 
1998: Percent: 45.4; 

1999: Number: 2,457; 
1999: Percent: 40; 

2000: Number: 2,801; 
2000: Percent: 40.2; 

2001: Number: 2,745; 
2001: Percent: 39.2; 

2002: Number: 3,000; 
2002: Percent: 39.3; 

2003: Number: 3,198; 
2003: Percent: 39.4.

Handicap; 
1996: Number: 1,577; 
1996: Percent: 25.2; 

1997: Number: 1,740; 
1997: Percent: 29.6; 

1998: Number: 1,766; 
1998: Percent: 30.4; 

1999: Number: 2,082; 
1999: Percent: 33.9; 

2000: Number: 2,398; 
2000: Percent: 34.4; 

2001: Number: 2,438; 
2001: Percent: 34.8; 

2002: Number: 2,888; 
2002: Percent: 37.9; 

2003: Number: 3,166; 
2003: Percent: 39.

Familial Status; 
1996: Number: 1,578; 
1996: Percent: 25.2; 

1997: Number: 1,306; 
1997: Percent: 22.2; 

1998: Number: 1,165; 
1998: Percent: 20; 

1999: Number: 1,163; 
1999: Percent: 18.9; 

2000: Number: 1,281; 
2000: Percent: 18.4; 

2001: Number: 1,248; 
2001: Percent: 17.8; 

2002: Number: 1,238; 
2002: Percent: 16.2; 

2003: Number: 1,297; 
2003: Percent: 16.

National Origin; 
1996: Number: 810; 
1996: Percent: 12.9; 

1997: Number: 693; 
1997: Percent: 11.8; 

1998: Number: 660; 
1998: Percent: 11.4; 

1999: Number: 690; 
1999: Percent: 11.2; 

2000: Number: 818; 
2000: Percent: 11.7; 

2001: Number: 903; 
2001: Percent: 12.9; 

2002: Number: 930; 
2002: Percent: 12.2; 

2003: Number: 1,052; 
2003: Percent: 13.

Sex; 
1996: Number: 780; 
1996: Percent: 12.4; 

1997: Number: 698; 
1997: Percent: 11.9; 

1998: Number: 644; 
1998: Percent: 11.1; 

1999: Number: 559; 
1999: Percent: 9.1; 

2000: Number: 729; 
2000: Percent: 10.5; 

2001: Number: 812; 
2001: Percent: 11.6; 

2002: Number: 870; 
2002: Percent: 11.4; 

2003: Number: 935; 
2003: Percent: 11.5.

Color; 
1996: Number: 470; 
1996: Percent: 7.5; 

1997: Number: 589; 
1997: Percent: 10; 

1998: Number: 429; 
1998: Percent: 7.4; 

1999: Number: 277; 
1999: Percent: 4.5; 

2000: Number: 285; 
2000: Percent: 4.1; 

2001: Number: 317; 
2001: Percent: 4.5; 

2002: Number: 186; 
2002: Percent: 2.4; 

2003: Number: 180; 
2003: Percent: 2.2.

Retaliation; 
1996: Number: 142; 
1996: Percent: 2.3; 

1997: Number: 123; 
1997: Percent: 2.1; 

1998: Number: 180; 
1998: Percent: 3.1; 

1999: Number: 184; 
1999: Percent: 3; 

2000: Number: 286; 
2000: Percent: 4.1; 

2001: Number: 411; 
2001: Percent: 5.9; 

2002: Number: 401; 
2002: Percent: 5.3; 

2003: Number: 408; 
2003: Percent: 5.

Religion; 
1996: Number: 95; 
1996: Percent: 1.5; 

1997: Number: 116; 
1997: Percent: 2; 

1998: Number: 113; 
1998: Percent: 1.9; 

1999: Number: 145; 
1999: Percent: 2.4; 

2000: Number: 163; 
2000: Percent: 2.3; 

2001: Number: 155; 
2001: Percent: 2.2; 

2002: Number: 204; 
2002: Percent: 2.7; 

2003: Number: 241; 
2003: Percent: 3.

Total; 
1996: Number: 6,268; 
1997: Number: 5,875; 
1998: Number: 5,813; 
1999: Number: 6,138; 
2000: Number: 6,972; 
2001: Number: 7,004; 
2002: Number: 7,624; 
2003: Number: 8,111; 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Data also represented in figure 5.

Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may have more 
than one basis.

[End of table]

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

Discriminatory terms; 
Total: Number: 31,466; 
1996: Number: 3,932; 
1996: Percent: 62.7; 

1997: Number: 3,775; 
1997: Percent: 64.2; 

1998: Number: 3,539; 
1998: Percent: 60.9; 

1999: Number: 3,586; 
1999: Percent: 58.4; 

2000: Number: 3,961; 
2000: Percent: 56.8; 

2001: Number: 4,008; 
2001: Percent: 57.2; 

2002: Number: 4,213; 
2002: Percent: 55.1; 

2003: Number: 4,452; 
2003: Percent: 54.7.

Refusal to rent; 
Total: Number: 15,011; 
1996: Number: 2,274; 
1996: Percent: 36.3; 

1997: Number: 1,775; 
1997: Percent: 30.2; 

1998: Number: 1,417; 
1998: Percent: 24.4; 

1999: Number: 1,699; 
1999: Percent: 27.7; 

2000: Number: 1,962; 
2000: Percent: 28.1; 

2001: Number: 1,990; 
2001: Percent: 28.4; 

2002: Number: 2,014; 
2002: Percent: 26.3; 

2003: Number: 1,880; 
2003: Percent: 23.1.

Reasonable accommodation or modification; 
Total: Number: 5,954; 
1996: Number: 11; 
1996: Percent: 0.2; 

1997: Number: 154; 
1997: Percent: 2.6; 

1998: Number: 367; 
1998: Percent: 6.3; 

1999: Number: 685; 
1999: Percent: 11.2; 

2000: Number: 1,018; 
2000: Percent: 14.6; 

2001: Number: 1,020; 
2001: Percent: 14.6; 

2002: Number: 1,357; 
2002: Percent: 17.8; 

2003: Number: 1,342; 
2003: Percent: 16.5.

Retaliation (Section 818); 
Total: Number: 6,990; 
1996: Number: 857; 
1996: Percent: 13.7; 

1997: Number: 699; 
1997: Percent: 11.9; 

1998: Number: 863; 
1998: Percent: 14.8; 

1999: Number: 855; 
1999: Percent: 13.9; 

2000: Number: 887; 
2000: Percent: 12.7; 

2001: Number: 777; 
2001: Percent: 11.1; 

2002: Number: 942; 
2002: Percent: 12.3; 

2003: Number: 1,110; 
2003: Percent: 13.6.

Advertising; 
Total: Number: 3,854; 
1996: Number: 257; 
1996: Percent: 4.1; 

1997: Number: 286; 
1997: Percent: 4.9; 

1998: Number: 408; 
1998: Percent: 7.0; 

1999: Number: 611; 
1999: Percent: 10.0; 

2000: Number: 645; 
2000: Percent: 9.3; 

2001: Number: 649; 
2001: Percent: 9.3; 

2002: Number: 558; 
2002: Percent: 7.3; 

2003: Number: 440; 
2003: Percent: 5.4.

Discriminatory lending or financial practices; 
Total: Number: 2,876; 
1996: Number: 238; 
1996: Percent: 3.8; 

1997: Number: 293; 
1997: Percent: 5.0; 

1998: Number: 291; 
1998: Percent: 5.0; 

1999: Number: 246; 
1999: Percent: 4.0; 

2000: Number: 359; 
2000: Percent: 5.2; 

2001: Number: 427; 
2001: Percent: 6.1; 

2002: Number: 492; 
2002: Percent: 6.4; 

2003: Number: 530; 
2003: Percent: 6.5.

False representation; 
Total: Number: 1,405; 
1996: Number: 175; 
1996: Percent: 2.8; 

1997: Number: 150; 
1997: Percent: 2.6; 

1998: Number: 193; 
1998: Percent: 3.3; 

1999: Number: 163; 
1999: Percent: 2.7; 

2000: Number: 189; 
2000: Percent: 2.7; 

2001: Number: 159; 
2001: Percent: 2.3; 

2002: Number: 169; 
2002: Percent: 2.2; 

2003: Number: 207; 
2003: Percent: 2.5.

Refusal to sell; 
Total: Number: 1,788; 
1996: Number: 153; 
1996: Percent: 2.4; 

1997: Number: 156; 
1997: Percent: 2.7; 

1998: Number: 203; 
1998: Percent: 3.5; 

1999: Number: 181; 
1999: Percent: 3.0; 

2000: Number: 260; 
2000: Percent: 3.7; 

2001: Number: 261; 
2001: Percent: 3.7; 

2002: Number: 288; 
2002: Percent: 3.8; 

2003: Number: 286; 
2003: Percent: 3.5.

Design and construction; 
Total: Number: 1,418; 
1996: Number: 55; 
1996: Percent: 0.9; 

1997: Number: 126; 
1997: Percent: 2.1; 

1998: Number: 215; 
1998: Percent: 3.7; 

1999: Number: 278; 
1999: Percent: 4.5; 

2000: Number: 219; 
2000: Percent: 3.1; 

2001: Number: 152; 
2001: Percent: 2.2; 

2002: Number: 154; 
2002: Percent: 2.0; 

2003: Number: 219; 
2003: Percent: 2.7.

Steering, blockbusting, and redlining; 
Total: Number: 605; 
1996: Number: 51; 
1996: Percent: 0.8; 

1997: Number: 53; 
1997: Percent: 0.9; 

1998: Number: 68; 
1998: Percent: 1.2; 

1999: Number: 62; 
1999: Percent: 1.0; 

2000: Number: 93; 
2000: Percent: 1.3; 

2001: Number: 80; 
2001: Percent: 1.1; 

2002: Number: 79; 
2002: Percent: 1.0; 

2003: Number: 119; 
2003: Percent: 1.5.

Other; 
Total: Number: 4640; 
1996: Number: 498; 
1996: Percent: 8.0; 

1997: Number: 437; 
1997: Percent: 7.4; 

1998: Number: 516; 
1998: Percent: 8.9; 

1999: Number: 650; 
1999: Percent: 10.6; 

2000: Number: 517; 
2000: Percent: 7.4; 

2001: Number: 421; 
2001: Percent: 6.0; 

2002: Number: 727; 
2002: Percent: 9.5; 

2003: Number: 874; 
2003: Percent: 10.7.

Single issue; 
Total: Number: 36,287; 
1996: Number: 4,300; 
1996: Percent: 68.6; 

1997: Number: 4,176; 
1997: Percent: 71.1; 

1998: Number: 3,969; 
1998: Percent: 68.2; 

1999: Number: 3,912; 
1999: Percent: 63.7; 

2000: Number: 4,579; 
2000: Percent: 65.7; 

2001: Number: 4,748; 
2001: Percent: 67.7; 

2002: Number: 5,076; 
2002: Percent: 66.4; 

2003: Number: 5,527; 
2003: Percent: 67.9.

Multiple issues; 
Total: Number: 17,574; 
1996: Number: 1,968; 
1996: Percent: 31.4; 

1997: Number: 1,700; 
1997: Percent: 28.9; 

1998: Number: 1,847; 
1998: Percent: 31.8; 

1999: Number: 2,226; 
1999: Percent: 36.3; 

2000: Number: 2,393; 
2000: Percent: 34.3; 

2001: Number: 2,261; 
2001: Percent: 32.3; 

2002: Number: 2,570; 
2002: Percent: 33.6; 

2003: Number: 2,609; 
2003: Percent: 32.1.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Data also represented in figure 6.

Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may involve more 
than one issue.

[End of table]

Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, 
FY 1996-2003:

1996; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,737; 
FHEO: 3,190; 
Total: 7,927.

1997; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,430; 
FHEO: 1,921; 
Total: 6,351.

1998; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,038; 
FHEO: 1,449; 
Total: 5,487.

1999; 
FHAP Agencies: 3,806; 
FHEO: 1,963; 
Total: 5,769.

2000; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,216; 
FHEO: 2,336; 
Total: 6,552.

2001; 
FHAP Agencies: 4,846; 
FHEO: 3,089; 
Total: 7,935.

2002; 
FHAP Agencies: 5,860; 
FHEO: 2,474; 
Total: 8,334.

2003; 
FHAP Agencies: 5,667; 
FHEO: 2,877; 
Total: 8,544.

Total; 
FHAP Agencies: 37,600; 
FHEO: 19,299; 
Total: 56,899.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 7.

[End of table]

Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and 
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003:

1996; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,454; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 18.3; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 293; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 3.7; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,833; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.7; 
No Cause: Number: 3,323; 
No Cause: Percent: 41.9; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 24; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 0.3; 
Total: Number: 7,927.

1997; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 896; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.1; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 262; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.1; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,316; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 36.5; 
No Cause: Number: 2,844; 
No Cause: Percent: 44.8; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 33; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 0.5; 
Total: Number: 6,351.

1998; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 812; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.8; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 300; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5.5; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 1,971; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.9; 
No Cause: Number: 2,349; 
No Cause: Percent: 42.8; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 55; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1; 
Total: Number: 5,487.

1999; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 833; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.4; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 290; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,057; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.7; 
No Cause: Number: 2,412; 
No Cause: Percent: 41.8; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 177; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 3.1; 
Total: Number: 5,789.

2000; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 929; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.2; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 324; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.9; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,301; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 35.1; 
No Cause: Number: 2,892; 
No Cause: Percent: 44.1; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 106; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.6; 
Total: Number: 6,552.

2001; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,104; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 13.9; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 405; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 5.1; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,325; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 29.3; 
No Cause: Number: 3,958; 
No Cause: Percent: 49.9; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 143; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.8; 
Total: Number: 7,935.

2002; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,087; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 13; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 409; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.9; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,464; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 29.6; 
No Cause: Number: 4,285; 
No Cause: Percent: 51.4; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 89; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.1; 
Total: Number: 8,334.

2003; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 1,035; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 12.1; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 373; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.4; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 2,912; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 34.1; 
No Cause: Number: 4,126; 
No Cause: Percent: 48.3; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 98; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.1; 
Total: Number: 8,544.

Total; 
Administrative Closure: Number: 8,150; 
Administrative Closure: Percent: 14.3; 
Reasonable Cause: Number: 2,656; 
Reasonable Cause: Percent: 4.7; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Number: 19,179; 
Conciliation or Settlement: Percent: 33.7; 
No Cause: Number: 26,189; 
No Cause: Percent: 46; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Number: 725; 
Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only): Percent: 1.3; 
Total: Number: 56,899.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 8.

[End of table]

Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 
1996-2003:

1996; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,110; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.4; 
FHEO: Number: 524; 
FHEO: Percent: 16.4; 
Total: Number: 1,634; 
Total: Percent: 20.6; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 7,927.

1997; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,060; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.9; 
FHEO: Number: 407; 
FHEO: Percent: 21.2; 
Total: Number: 1,467; 
Total: Percent: 23.1; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 6,351.

1998; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 957; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 23.7; 
FHEO: Number: 308; 
FHEO: Percent: 21.3; 
Total: Number: 1,265; 
Total: Percent: 23.1; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 5,487.

1999; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,014; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 26.6; 
FHEO: Number: 491; 
FHEO: Percent: 25; 
Total: Number: 1,505; 
Total: Percent: 26.1; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 5,769.

2000; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,145; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 27.2; 
FHEO: Number: 328; 
FHEO: Percent: 14; 
Total: Number: 1,473; 
Total: Percent: 22.5; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 6,552.

2001; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,316; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 27.2; 
FHEO: Number: 539; 
FHEO: Percent: 17.4; 
Total: Number: 1,855; 
Total: Percent: 23.4; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 7,935.

2002; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,471; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 25.1; 
FHEO: Number: 1,011; 
FHEO: Percent: 40.9; 
Total: Number: 2,482; 
Total: Percent: 29.8; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 8,334.

2003; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 1,893; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 33.4; 
FHEO: Number: 1,448; 
FHEO: Percent: 50.3; 
Total: Number: 3,341; 
Total: Percent: 39.1; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 8,544.

Total; 
FHAP Agencies: Number: 9,966; 
FHAP Agencies: Percent: 26.5; 
FHEO: Number: 5,056; 
FHEO: Percent: 26.2; 
Total: Number: 15,022; 
Total: Percent: 26.4; 
Total Investigations complete: Number: 56,899.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 9.

[End of table]

Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of 
Discrimination FY 1996-2003:

Discriminatory terms; 
FHAP Agencies: 197; 
FHEO: 261; 
Overall: 214.

Refusal to rent; 
FHAP Agencies: 218; 
FHEO: 283; 
Overall: 234.

Reasonable accommodation or modification; 
FHAP Agencies: 156; 
FHEO: 175; 
Overall: 162.

Retaliation (Section 818); 
FHAP Agencies: 218; 
FHEO: 296; 
Overall: 245.

Advertising; 
FHAP Agencies: 219; 
FHEO: 267; 
Overall: 231.

Discriminatory lending or financial practices; 
FHAP Agencies: 240; 
FHEO: 408; 
Overall: 295.

False representation; 
FHAP Agencies: 206; 
FHEO: 373; 
Overall: 250.

Refusal to sell; 
FHAP Agencies: 216; 
FHEO: 347; 
Overall: 242.5.

Design and construction; 
FHAP Agencies: 203; 
FHEO: 398; 
Overall: 284.

Steering, blockbusting, and redlining; 
FHAP Agencies: 228; 
FHEO: 359; 
Overall: 265.5.

Other; 
FHAP Agencies: 192; 
FHEO: 199; 
Overall: 194.

Single issue; 
FHAP Agencies: 184; 
FHEO: 242; 
Overall: 199.

Multiple issues; 
FHAP Agencies: 220; 
FHEO: 293; 
Overall: 240.

Source: GAO analysis of HUD Data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 11.

[End of table]

Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by 
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003:

Race; 
FHAP Agencies: 210; 
FHEO: 294; 
Overall: 230.

Handicap; 
FHAP Agencies: 175; 
FHEO: 223; 
Overall: 190.

Familial Status; 
FHAP Agencies: 204; 
FHEO: 269; 
Overall: 219.

National Origin; 
FHAP Agencies: 181; 
FHEO: 290; 
Overall: 209.

Sex; 
FHAP Agencies: 211; 
FHEO: 275.5; 
Overall: 226.

Color; 
FHAP Agencies: 168; 
FHEO: 340; 
Overall: 191.

Retaliation; 
FHAP Agencies: 196; 
FHEO: 302; 
Overall: 216.

Religion; 
FHAP Agencies: 210; 
FHEO: 267.5; 
Overall: 224.

Single Basis; 
FHAP Agencies: 195; 
FHEO: 253; 
Overall: 211.

Multiple Bases; 
FHAP Agencies: 194; 
FHEO: 283; 
Overall: 217. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 12.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY:

US. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-2000:

April 6, 2004:

Mr. David G. Wood:

Director, Financial Markets and Community Investments:

U.S. General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report entitled 
"Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management 
of the Enforcement Process" (GAO-04-463).

HUD appreciates the conscientious and professional work of your staff 
in analyzing the complaint-handling processes of the Office of Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and the Fair Housing Assistance 
Program (FHAP). We value their constructive insights into improving our 
enforcement process.

Out of our desire to continually improve the quality and timeliness of 
our enforcement process, we had already implemented the following 
measures: (1) a revised Title VIII Investigator's Handbook to better 
enumerate our procedures for receipt of complaints and the conduct of 
investigations; (2) new processes to improve the timely completion of 
inquiries; (3) joint training between FHEO investigators and attorneys 
from HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) to promote collaborative 
investigations and to promulgate handbook guidance; and (4) FHAP 
attorney training to facilitate idea sharing and consistency of 
enforcement.

FHEO is also beginning a new Business Process Redesign (BPR) review. 
This BPR will look at the practices of all ten Hubs and some FHAP 
agencies. It will allow HUD to catalog the most effective enforcement 
techniques in every region. These results will be used to further 
address the report's recommendations. HUD's Fair Housing Training 
Academy will also enhance investigations in the ways suggested in your 
report. The Academy will teach effective investigation techniques to 
FHAP investigators throughout the country and create greater 
consistency in fair housing enforcement. We initiated this project in 
2003, and it will be ready for implementation in the summer of 2004.

Your first recommendation covers gathering and sharing information on 
effective intake and investigation techniques from Hub offices and FHAP 
agencies. FHEO's quarterly Hub Directors meetings and biennial Fair 
Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)/FHAP policy conferences will 
continue to serve as a vehicle for sharing this kind of information. 
Further, FHEO's planned BPR will facilitate the identification of 
effective intake and investigation techniques. In addition, we will 
explore ways of developing a more systematic plan for gathering and 
making this information available.

In response to your second, third, and fourth recommendations, all of 
which relate to case tracking, the Department recognizes the importance 
of improving the data collection of inquiries made to FHAP agencies and 
of adjudications and case outcomes where FHEO or a FHAP agency has 
found reasonable cause. HUD is committed to improving data collection 
to obtain information on HUD post-cause outcomes. In the case of FHAP 
agencies, however, HUD does not reimburse for receiving and processing 
inquiries or for adjudicating fair housing cases, but only for the 
complaint investigation. Without providing additional funding to cover 
the costs, data entry requirements at those earlier stages may be 
burdensome for FHAP agencies; however, we will build in reporting 
requirements to document post-cause results.

The fifth recommendation concerns HUD's 5-year Departmental Workforce 
Plan and advises HUD to consider a wide range of strategies to make 
certain that FHEO obtains the necessary skills and competencies needed 
to achieve its current emerging mission. HUD has initiated a 
comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that incorporates 
methodology approved by the Office of Personnel Management and used by 
other federal agencies. In fiscal year 2003, HUD contracted the 
services of a technical adviser to conduct a comprehensive workforce 
analysis of its major program offices.

The comprehensive workforce analysis for FHEO is scheduled to begin in 
April 2004. As part of the analysis, the contractor will assist FHEO 
managers in developing a five-year projection of its future mission, 
along with an assessment of future demands for its products, services, 
staffing levels, and core competency requirements. The workforce 
planning effort will include FHEO's headquarters and field offices. The 
workforce analyses and plans for HUD's major program offices are 
scheduled for completion by July 2004. The plans will be used to 
develop the Five-Year Comprehensive Departmental Workforce Plan, which 
is scheduled for completion by September 30, 2004.

HUD has included the strategic workforce planning effort as a major 
component of the Department's Five-Year Strategic Human Capital 
Management Plan and the supporting Human Capital Implementation Plan. 
These plans include specific action items and metrics to promote the 
Department's human capital goals and objectives.

HUD is also making steady progress toward the implementation of the HUD 
Integrated Human Resources and Training System (HIHRTS). HIHRTS will 
provide managers easy access to critical information to support the 
full spectrum of human capital management including strategic planning, 
staffing and recruitment, employee development, and performance 
management.

The following statements in your draft report require clarification or 
correction:

1. The report states, "During the investigation stage, FHEO 
investigators try to collect enough evidence to make a `reasonable 
cause' determination, that is, to determine if reasonable cause exists 
to believe that the respondent violated the Act." (Page 11). This is an 
improper characterization that implies that investigations are biased 
to reach a pre-determined outcome. The statement should be revised to 
read "During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect 
evidence in order to determine whether reasonable 
cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has 
occurred, or is about to occur." This characterization occurs at 
several other places in the report, specifically on page 3, page 8, and 
in the Section Heading on page 11.

2. In several places, the report refers to the three stages of the fair 
housing enforcement process as intake, investigation and adjudication. 
It is important to remember that the second stage involves not only 
investigation, but also conciliation, which is required by the Fair 
Housing Act. This is not an incidental point, as conciliation is the 
second most common outcome for a fair housing complaint.

3. On pages 12 and 13, the discussion of the requirement that 
headquarters Office of General Counsel (OGC) concur in cause and no 
cause determinations is inaccurate, see, 67 Fed. Reg. 44234 (2002). We 
recommend the first paragraph on page 12 be revised as follows:

With the concurrence of the Regional Counsel, the Hub Director issues a 
determination of reasonable cause and directs the Regional Counsel to 
issue a `charge' on behalf of the aggrieved person. The charge is a 
short written statement of the facts that led FHEO to the reasonable 
cause determination. If the Hub Director decides that no reasonable 
cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has 
occurred, then, upon concurrence of the Regional Counsel, the Hub 
Director dismisses the complaint.

4. An issue closely related to the above is contained in the 
enforcement process flow chart at page 9. Under the "Investigation 
complete" portion of the flow chart, we recommend the following 
revision:

With the concurrence of the Regional Counsel, FHEO will issue a 
determination of reasonable cause. The Regional Counsel will then issue 
a charge of discrimination, and file the charge with the Office of ALJs 
and notify the parties of the filing of the charge.

5. On page 13, the second sentence of the second paragraph should be 
revised to read, "An investigation is considered complete, and the 100-
day deadline ends, when a Hub Director makes a cause or no cause 
determination in which the Regional Counsel concurs.":

6. The first paragraph on page 23 conveys the impression that FHAP 
agencies file more complaints than FHEO. This is incorrect. FHEO 
receives inquiries, perfects them, files the complaint, and then, as 
required by an Memorandum of Understanding with the FHAP agency, refers 
the complaint to the FHAP agency for investigation. Through this 
process, HUD files more fair housing complaints, while FHAP agencies 
investigate more.

The Department agrees that greater and earlier collaboration between 
FHEO and OGC could improve investigation quality and timeliness. To 
implement this, each Hub Director and 
Regional Counsel have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 
detail their working relationship, as noted in the report. FHEO and OGC 
have discussed the possibility of developing a standard process for all 
regions. Recognizing the value of teamwork, FHEO and OGC will work 
toward executing one MOU to facilitate a more collaborative enforcement 
process.

We would like to add our own emphasis to the statement in the draft 
report that FHEO's enforcement responsibilities extend beyond Title 
VIII. FHEO must conduct investigations and compliance reviews under 
Title VI, Section 504, Section 109, and other civil rights authorities 
that apply to recipients of HUD financial assistance. The Hub 
Director's comment about FHEO performance goals for non-Title VIII work 
(page 50) raises a concern about the potential for some offices to have 
a singular focus on Title VIII enforcement at the expense of our other 
responsibilities.

Finally, the Department would like to note its concern at the draft 
report's observation that a FHAP agency encouraged parties to opt for 
state court so that the agency would not have to commit resources to 
the administrative process. Steering parties to one forum is 
inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act's enforcement framework and the 
neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with respect to forum 
selection. We note also that FHAP agencies have access to HUD funds 
that could help ease the cited resource concerns.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. We 
will take a close look at all of your recommendations and, to the 
extent possible, incorporate them into our efforts to improve the 
timeliness and effectiveness of our enforcement. Should you or your 
staff have any questions or require additional information, please 
contact Floyd O. May, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity at (202) 708-4211.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Carolyn Peoples: 
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:

[End of section]

(250156):

FOOTNOTES

[1] FHAP agencies are state and local agencies that receive funding 
under FHEO's Fair Housing Assistance Program because they have rights 
and regulations that are substantially equivalent to those defined in 
the Act. FHAP agencies may investigate fair housing complaints made in 
their regions.

[2] We selected these locations on the basis of several factors within 
the regions, including (1) the number of "aged" cases, (2) the total 
number of complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to 
all investigations FHEO and FHAP agencies completed, and (4) the number 
of FHEO centers and offices. 

[3] When we refer to "timeliness benchmarks," we mean guidance on 
completing certain enforcement actions. Some of these benchmarks are 
contained in the Act, and some of them are contained in FHEO's Title 
VIII Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook.

[4] The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of a 
dwelling or provision of services because of a handicap of the buyer or 
another person associated with the buyer. According to the Act 
"handicap" means--with respect to a person--a physical or mental 
impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major 
life activities, or a record of having such an impairment, or being 
regarded as having such an impairment. It does not include the current, 
illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.

[5] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 
U.S.C. §794 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., as amended prohibit discrimination in 
housing that receives federal funds.

[6] The Act does not apply to certain transactions involving private 
homes marketed without a broker and without advertising if the owner 
does not own more than three single-family dwellings at any one time, 
or to transactions involving units within certain owner-occupied 
dwellings. The Act also does not apply, in certain circumstances, to 
religious organizations or private clubs, and the familial status 
provisions do not apply to housing for older persons. Finally, the Act 
specifically provides that it does not "limit the applicability of 
reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum 
number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." 

[7] Conciliation is the process by which FHEO helps the parties find a 
"just and mutually acceptable" resolution of the disputed issues to a 
Title VIII complaint.

[8] Injunctive relief is an order that commands or prevents an action.

[9] Figure 4 shows the states for which hubs have enforcement 
authority. These hubs are located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, 
Fort Worth, Kansas City, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, 
and Seattle.

[10] Of FHEO's many field locations, only the 10 hubs handle intake. 
Although complainants sometimes contact other offices about fair 
housing issues, these offices refer the complainants to the appropriate 
hub. 

[11] FHAP agencies may also contact FHEO with an inquiry that they have 
received directly. If FHEO determines that an inquiry alleges a 
violation of the Act, FHEO considers the inquiry a complaint and "dual 
files" it, paying the FHAP agency if it investigates the complaint. 
FHEO reviews complaints received from a FHAP agency to ensure that the 
complaint alleges a violation under the Act as well. Intake analysts 
identify complaints that should be "dual-filed" with the appropriate 
FHAP agency.

[12] FHEO uses the terms "issue," "type," or "subject matter" of 
discrimination interchangeably.

[13] Federal regulations allow the complaint to be signed at any time 
during an investigation, but FHEO prefers to have the complaint signed 
early on to protect against frivolous or false claims and erroneous 
statements. 

[14] In some cases, however, FHEO has special processing procedures 
that it follows. These cases include complaints requiring assistance 
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), such as those that require prompt 
judicial action, show a pattern and practice of housing discrimination, 
or involve local zoning laws; complaints involving free speech that 
might be protected by the First Amendment and complaints naming HUD as 
a respondent.

[15] FHEO generally does not take further action on a complaint 
referred to a FHAP agency but may reactivate the complaint in certain 
circumstances--for instance, when FHEO and the FHAP agency agree to it 
or when the FHAP agency has not taken sufficient actions within certain 
time frames.

[16] In rare instances, FHEO does not resolve a case or complete an 
investigation but instead refers it to DOJ.

[17] 24 C.F.R. 103.300 (c).

[18] The Act authorizes DOJ to enforce conciliation agreements. 

[19] 42 U.S.C.A. 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires investigations to be 
completed within 100 days after the filing of the complaint, "unless 
doing so is impracticable."

[20] HUD enforcement personnel said that parties to a case have a 
variety of reasons for going to court. These reasons include, for a 
complainant, wanting greater access to the punitive damages that a 
federal district court can levy; for a defendant, fearing that the ALJ 
might be biased in favor of FHEO or the complainant; and for either the 
complainant or the respondent, wanting a jury trial or having been 
advised by an attorney more comfortable with the federal court 
procedures.

[21] 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(1).(2).

[22] Equitable relief is a nonmonetary remedy, such as a specific 
performance, when monetary damages cannot adequately redress the 
injury.

[23] A party adversely affected by the decision may, within the first 
15 days of the decision, file a motion with the Secretary explaining 
how and why the decision should be modified. The ALJ's decision becomes 
HUD's official decision after 30 days, during which time the Secretary 
may affirm, modify, or set aside the decision or remand the case for 
additional proceedings. Any party adversely affected by the final 
decision may file a petition in the appropriate appellate court within 
30 days of the final decision. If no petition is filed, the final order 
becomes conclusive for any issues in connection with any petition for 
enforcement. 

[24] The complete results of our survey appear in appendix II. 

[25] Federal regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to 
act as investigator and conciliator on the same case, but the 
regulations state that generally investigators will not conciliate 
their own cases.

[26] "Reconstructing Fair Housing," (National Council on Disability) 
NCD Report, (Washington, D.C., November 6, 2001). The NCD Report said 
that FHEO headquarters had greater authority over the enforcement 
process in the early 1990s but that in 1996 authority began to devolve 
to FHEO's hubs. As a consequence of that development and other factors, 
the NCD report said, significant differences among hubs emerged.

[27] Other FHEO data give an indication of the extent to which FHAP 
agencies received inquiries. Specifically, FHAP agencies were 
responsible for intake for nearly 24,000 complaints filed, or 42 
percent of all complaints filed during the period.

[28] Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of 
handicap includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in the 
rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be 
necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a 
dwelling. This category may also include (with the exception of rental 
environments) the refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped 
person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be 
occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to 
afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. 42 U.S.C. 
3604(f)(3).

[29] About 1 percent of investigations completed during this period 
were closed by FHEO when they were transferred to DOJ.

[30] HUD requires that the time to complete an investigation be 
measured from the date a complaint is filed, reopened, or reentered 
(taken back from the FHAP agency)--whichever is most recent--to the 
date the investigation is closed. 

[31] We found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2003, the most frequent 
month in which HUD reopened or reentered a fair housing complaint was 
September, the last month of the fiscal year. This practice had the 
effect of increasing the percentage of investigations that were aged 
less than 100 days for statistics reported at the end of the fiscal 
year. We report data on the age of complaints for investigations 
completed during the year.

[32] Specifically, of the 1,937 FHAP agency investigations that 
resulted in reasonable cause determinations, 575 (30 percent) had no 
date shown in TEAPOTS to indicate that the adjudication period had 
ended.

[33] For the purpose of measuring compliance with the 100-day benchmark 
for investigations, HUD used the most recent of the dates a complaint 
was filed, reopened, or reentered (i.e., when HUD takes over an 
investigation from a FHAP agency). For the purposes of this section of 
the report, however, we used the date on which the complaint was filed 
in order to represent the elapsed time experienced by a complainant. 
That is, we measured the intake stage from the date the inquiry was 
received until the date the complaint was filed, and we measured the 
investigation stage starting with the date the complaint was filed.

[34] In comparison, FHAP agencies took a median of 195 days to complete 
investigations during fiscal years 1996 through 2003. TEAPOTS contained 
complete information on filing and completion dates for 37,600 such 
FHAP agency investigations.

[35] In comparison, FHAP agencies completed 80 percent of 
investigations within 1 year.

[36] According to HUD officials, FHEO shares responsibility for 
inputting adjudication decisions into TEAPOTS with OGC and depends upon 
getting information about the adjudication of these cases back from 
DOJ. 

[37] A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the number of regular hours a full 
time equivalent would work during a given year. For most years, an FTE 
equals 2,080 hours. The FTEs reported here represent the total number 
of hours worked by all FHEO or HUD staff during the year divided by 
2,080.

[38] Congress authorized a total of 10,297 FTEs for HUD for fiscal year 
2003 to be funded through the Salaries and Expenses fund, the Working 
Capital Fund, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight accounts. This amount included 
9,100 FTEs funded through the Salaries and Expenses account and 643 for 
FHEO. HUD later asked the Office of Management and Budget and Congress 
to increase the fiscal year 2003 FTE ceiling for the entire department, 
including 758 FTEs for FHEO. 

[39] The REAP study conducted in 2000 through 2002 suggested 660.2 FTEs 
for FHEO, but officials later revised this figure downward. Under the 
fiscal year 2003 Corrective Action Plan, FHEO received a prorated 
amount of 655.8 FTEs plus 5 FTEs for interns for a total of 660.8 FTEs. 
In its fiscal year 2004 request, FHEO received an additional 8.3 FTEs 
for a total of 669, and HUD removed ODEEO's 29 FTEs from FHEO, 
resulting in a ceiling of 640 for fiscal year 2004.

[40] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the 
Inspector General, Review of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Staffing 9/30 Initiative. 2003-AO-0004. (Washington, 
D.C.: August 14, 2003).

[41] HUD's internal QMR Program is a peer-review reporting system for 
evaluating HUD's field office operations. HUD began conducting QMRs in 
2000 and had covered the majority of FHEO offices by 2003. 

[42] These realignments included the Community Builder Redeployment, 
the HUD 2020 Management Reform, the Office of Administration 
Redeployment, Cross Placement, and the Voluntary Reassignment 
Initiative. 

[43] Employees are eligible for 'optional' or immediate retirement 
under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal 
Employee Retirement System (FERS) if they are 62 years of age with 5 
years of federal service; age 60 with 20 years and, under the CSRS, age 
55 with 30 years and, under the FERS, the Minimum Retirement Age with 
between 10 and 30 years. Under both systems, employees are eligible for 
'early' retirement at any age if they have 25 years of service or are 
age 50 with 20 years of service.

[44] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for 
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: 
December 2003).

[45] U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Human Capital Management: 
Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Planning Needed, GAO-02-839 
(Washington D.C.: July 2002).

[46] Up significantly from 2 percent of total travel expenses in fiscal 
year 2001 and 7 percent in fiscal year 2002.

[47] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and 
Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 2-121. In fiscal year 
2000, HUD's percentage of aged cases nationally was 82 percent. In 
fiscal year 2001, the goal called for a maximum of 40 percent; FHEO's 
actual percentage was 37 percent. For 2002, the corresponding 
percentages were 35 and 29 percent, respectively. 

[48] According to HUD's Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal 
Year 2003, FHEO achieved 19 percent maximum aged cases, however, a HUD 
official told us this figure is incorrect because it omits open aged 
cases, which are with OGC, and that the correct figure is 23 percent.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, 
D.C. 20548: