Achieving Results

INTEGRATION OF ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN

EEOC implemented our Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Strategic Plan) at the beginning of FY 2004. The plan charts our course of action for 6 years. Results-oriented, customer centered, and performance-driven, it represents an improvement in our overall strategic planning and measurement framework. The plan melds our strategic objectives, the Chair's Five-Point Plan, performance measures, and important program initiatives, all of which are integral to the accomplishment of our mission. The figure above illustrates how the integration of these elements will enable us to achieve and evaluate our results.

In this section of the report, we summarize the results achieved in FY 2005 for the 24 performance measures in our Strategic Plan. Our performance measures and the results achieved are organized by the three overarching strategic objectives in the Strategic Plan and in the Chair's Five-Point Plan. We briefly outline the key interrelationships using this organization.

The Commission, in its role as a law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing the Nation's civil rights employment laws. Our first Strategic Objective is premised on this role and the belief that our fundamental responsibility is to correct the wrongs of employment discrimination and bring justice and equal opportunity to the workplace. To fulfill this responsibility, we must improve our delivery of quality services to the public and enhance confidence in our ability to resolve charges of discrimination in a timely, accurate, and consistent manner. Our enforcement programs in the private and Federal sectors require a substantial investment in resources to ensure that we are able to handle an expanding workload.

Strategic Objective 1, Justice and Opportunity, relates to three of the elements of our Five-Point Plan-Proficient Resolution, Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR, and Strategic Enforcement and Litigation. A total of 13 performance measures are included under these three elements.

Five-Point Plan Element: Proficient Resolution

Charge processing in the private sector and complaint processing in the Federal sector must be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Staff and other resources must be deployed to ensure the quality and timeliness of processing. We are enhancing effective quality control standards and mechanisms to measure our success in meeting this objective.

In the private sector, individuals who believe they have been discriminated against in the workplace or in an employment-related activity may file a charge with the EEOC. We assist them in filing their charge; offer mediation to both charging parties and respondents, where appropriate, to try to resolve the charge; review and investigate the charges; and conduct other settlement efforts throughout the charge process. Finally, when the EEOC determines that discrimination has occurred, we seek to correct it through settlement/conciliation, mediation, or in appropriate cases, litigation.

In our Federal sector program, the Commission has a unique role in ensuring that all employees have the freedom to compete in the Federal workplace on a fair and level playing field and to be judged on the meritsof their performance and not on the basis of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. Our hearings and appellate enforcement efforts and our monitoring, guidance, and assistance activities help us achieve our purposes.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are five performance measures under the Proficient Resolution element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures ensure that a significant percentage of private sector charges, Federal sector hearings, and Federal sector appeals will be resolved in 180 days or fewer. Another measure evaluates the quality of investigative charge files. The final measure determines how the general public rates its confidence in EEOC's enforcement of Federal equal employment laws.

This measure builds on our steady success in recent years in reducing the average time to process private sector charges. Although the FY 2009 goal is to resolve 75% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, we did not meet our FY 2005 target of 70%. The agency resolved 65.9% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, 51,060 charges out of 77,441 total resolutions.

Several factors contributed to this result. To ensure that this measure did not unduly affect older cases, we enhanced efforts to process our aging inventory in a timely way. As a result, offices had to balance the processing of its older inventory with the concurrent processing of newer charges. In addition, the agency relied on the transfer of cases between offices to address workload and staffing imbalances. Finally, for the last 5 weeks of this fiscal year, our New Orleans office was not operational because of the effects of Hurricane Katrina. Nearby regional offices were later affected by Hurricane Rita. As a result, their projected contribution to agency resolution figures was not reflected in our final count.

All of these factors adversely affected our ability to achieve this measure. We believe that our long-term approach to balance the age of our inventory and manage the workload will assist us in meeting this goal in future years. We will maintain the 70% target level for FY 2006, because it balances prompt service in our private sector processes with the need to devote resources to charges that take longer to process because meritorious or complex claims are involved. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008 we will increase our targets to 72% and 73%, respectively, in order to achieve our final FY 2009 goal that 75% of the charges resolved in 180 days or fewer.

Like our private sector charges, this measure identifies our efforts to process a significant portion of our Federal sector hearings workload in 180 days or fewer. By focusing our resources on reducing our older charges in FY 2004, we better positioned ourselves to address newer hearings cases in FY 2005. This strategy enabled us to resolve 51.3% of our hearings cases within 180 days or fewer (5,241 complaints out of 10,221 total resolutions), exceeding our target of 38.0% by a substantial margin. We believe that our approach lets us increase future targets for this measure to 50% of the hearings resolved in 180 days or fewer for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, maintaining this significant achievement to reach our final goal. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of our efforts to update the Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

We made significant gains in processing our Federal sector appellate inventory during FY 2004, exceeding our goal for resolving appeals in 180 days or fewer, even with an 11% increase in new appeals. Building on this achievement, our target for FY 2005 was to resolve 50% of the appellate cases received during the fiscal year in 180 days or fewer. We surpassed this goal, resolving 52% of the appeals within 180 days or fewer (3,899 out of 7,490 appeals received). We surpassed our target through the effective management of the appellate inventory and by using strategic inventory management projects and technological innovations.

Starting in FY 2006, however, we will revise the current methodology for calculating the achievement of our targets and final goal for this measure. The formula will mirror the way we measure the timeliness of our private sector charge resolutions, calculating all appellate cases regardless of the fiscal year they were filed, rather than just cases filed and closed within the fiscal year being measured.

Besides this new approach to the calculation of success for this measure, we will also increase our targets by 5% each year from FY 2006 through FY 2009. These target levels will enable us to meet our final goal of resolving 70% of all Federal sector appeals cases, regardless of the year filed, in 180 days or fewer. The revised methodology will uniformly address our timeliness standards for both the private and Federal sectors, and the increased target values will help us continue to make steady gains toward our long-range goal as many of the streamlining efforts and other federal sector reforms take hold. As Federal sector enforcement staff successfully resolves the older appellate inventory, resources will be deployed to resolve an increasing percentage of newly filed appeals in 180 days or fewer.

This measure builds on one of the three key factors of charge processing-quality. Along with timeliness (captured in Measure 1.1.1) and inventory, these factors are interdependent and impact our charge processing efforts. In FY 2005, we established our baseline for this measure and the targets for fiscal years 2006-2009. We used a sampling methodology to select investigative files processed by our Field Offices, then evaluated the files on two critical quality criteria: (1) appropriate charge categorization and file documentation to support actions and (2) charge resolution.

Using this methodology, the agency established a baseline value for this measure of 88.5% to indicate the quality of our charge processing. For subsequent years, we have established target values that will enable us to achieve our final goal of 90% by FY 2009.

Our Strategic Plan identifies several agency measures that involve the use of external surveys to collect information, establish baseline and target values for results expected, and determine results achieved. The agency's survey methodology to establish our goals and measure our results for this performance measure was to survey members of the public to determine how familiar they are with our enforcement efforts and to what extent they believe that we responsibly and effectively address workplace discrimination. Our assumption is that employers, employees, attorneys, and members of the general public will have confidence in our impartial role as a law enforcement agency, come to us for assistance, and trust in our capability to handle the complaint, if we are viewed as a fair and just enforcer of the civil rights employment laws.

Results from a 2004 survey conducted by a reputable private organization were available during FY 2005, including responses to a question that the agency used to identify an FY 2005 baseline value for this measure. The results demonstrated that 49% of all of the individuals responding to the question who identified a specific confidence level have confidence in EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws.

As we revise our Strategic Plan in FY 2006, we will simultaneously continue to review the survey information and possible targets for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. A critical component of our review will be determining a survey methodology to use in subsequent years to identify yearly targets and a final goal for this measure.

Five-Point Plan Element: Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is intended to settle conflicts quickly, amicably, and cost-effectively. We will build on our earlier successes with ADR and use this tool in various stages of the private and Federal sector processes to address employment disputes and continue to improve our services. Through marketing, information sharing, and outreach we will further encourage the use of ADR.

Our private sector mediation program is an important tool for resolving charges quickly to the benefit of both employees and employers. Since launching it in the early 1990s, we have resolved more than 51,000 charges through the private sector mediation program-the largest workplace mediation program in the country. The program has been very successful and has contributed to our ability over the past few years to maintain a manageable inventory and resolve more charges in 180 days or fewer, thus enhancing our timeliness measure (1.1.1).

In our Federal sector program, ADR can have a powerful impact on Federal agencies' EEO complaint inventories and, in turn, EEOC's hearings and appeals inventories. Resolving disputes as early as possible in the Federal sector EEO process will improve the work environment and reduce the number of formal complaints, allowing all agencies, including the EEOC, to redeploy their resources.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are four performance measures under the Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures involve EEOC's private sector mediation/ADR program: increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in the program; maintain a high level of confidence in the program; and assess the contributions of the program toward improved workplaces. The fourth measure aims to increase the participation of Federal employees in mediation to resolve issues before a formal complaint of discrimination is filed.

Each year, the agency resolves many charges that cover a broad range of relief-from an individual receiving a position previously denied, back pay awarded to a person to correct for lost wages, or various types of relief for multiple groups of individuals to correct for alleged acts of discrimination at an employer's workplace. Although relief obtained in a resolved charge for one or more individuals is a vital part of our work, the agency identified Measure 1.2.1 to assess the contributions our mediation program makes to improve workplaces. This type of effect on workplaces is a critical measure of our work; however, it represents only a portion of the ADR resolutions we obtain.

In FY 2005, we began to collect data for all settlement agreements obtained in ADR to resolve charges, and for our companion Measure 1.3.1 for settlement and conciliation agreements covering charges resolved outside the mediation program. For FY 2005, 3.1% of the resolutions in our private sector ADR mediation program, or 171 out of 5,577 settlements obtained, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices or procedures. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 191,000 individuals.

Establishing meaningful targets and a final goal for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 must consider the limitations, described above, for obtaining settlements in an ADR process that included the type of workplace changes reflected by this measure. Even moderate percentage changes in target values can indicate substantial increases in either the number of settlements obtained or the number of individuals benefited from year to year. Since the agency only began collecting this type of data in FY 2005, we anticipate that the overall percentage of these types of settlements will not increase during FY 2006. By the end of FY 2009, we project that 4.6% of the settlements in ADR will result in improvements in workplace policies, practices or procedures. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of efforts to update the agency's Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

The targets and final goal for this measure are percentage increases above the FY 2003 baseline level of 13,177 charges in which employers agreed to participate in the EEOC mediation program. The FY 2005 target was to increase the number of such charges in which an employer agrees to mediate by 8.5%, or to 14,297. The FY 2005 result was 12,527 employers who agreed to mediate, which falls below our target. For FY 2006, we have the final goal is to increase the acceptance rate over the baseline by 20%. Although we will continue our efforts to try to increase the acceptance level, including some of the activities we engaged in during FY 2005, it will be a challenge to achieve the goal by the end of FY 2006.

This fiscal year, in an effort to increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in our private sector mediation program, we produced and distributed two DVDs highlighting the benefits of mediation to employers, developed a universal PowerPoint presentation addressing employer concerns about mediation for EEOC staff to use during outreach events, and developed and distributed a bookmark for employers highlighting the "Top Ten Reasons to Mediate." These efforts were considerable, but have not yet translated into an improved respondent acceptance rate of participation in our mediation program. We will continue outreach efforts in FY 2006 to allow more time for the effects of these efforts to become apparent. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of efforts to update the agency's Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

We obtained the result for this measure by surveying participants in EEOC's mediation program during the year and tabulating their responses about their confidence in using the program. The FY 2005 survey result of 96.3% exceeds our target by a substantial margin and continues to demonstrate the success of our private sector mediation program once both parties elect to participate in it. We will continue to survey participants and maintain the high confidence level expected for our program, because it helps with our efforts to convince participants, particularly company representatives, of the value of the mediation approach. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of efforts to update the agency's Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

This measure supports the proposition that resolving complaints at Federal agencies at the earliest possible stage of the EEO (equal employment opportunity) process improves the workforce environment and curtails actions that could take substantially longer to resolve and use valuable Federal agency and EEOC resources. EEOC did not receive data from Federal agencies for FY 2004 until the second quarter of FY 2005. Consequently, we now can report that we exceeded the FY 2004 target by a substantial amount. Due to lag time in reporting, the FY 2005 result for this measure will be reported in FY 2006.

Because this was a relatively new approach when we first developed the measure, we estimated for FY 2004 that only 25% of the Federal employees would engage in an ADR attempt during the pre-complaint stage. In fact, in FY 2004 parties elected to participate in ADR in 18,381 out of 42,412 instances of pre-complaint EEO counseling across the Federal government, or 43.3% of the time. Since this result was substantially above the target value we had estimated, we are adjusting our future target values. For FY 2005, we raised our target value considerably, from 30% to 40%, expecting more parties to participate in ADR in the pre-complaint stage because of the initial success in FY 2004 and, during FY 2005, our continued technical assistance efforts with agencies to encourage the development of effective ADR programs and the promotion of ADR training among Government managers and staff. For fiscal years 2006 through 2008, we will then increase the target value by 2% each year in order to make steady progress toward our 50% goal by the end of FY 2009.

Five-Point Plan Element: Strategic Enforcement and Litigation

We approach our enforcement activities strategically, taking workplace trends, workforce dynamics, and demographic shifts into consideration. Employing our resources in ways that will achieve maximum results, while still protecting the rights of the individual, we seek to broadly influence policies and practices in the American workplace and to bring justice and opportunity to all.

For our private sector program, the importance of a strong litigation program to effectively enforce our statutes cannot be overstated. Not only does it provide relief for many victims of discrimination who may have no other recourse, but it also serves as an incentive for other employers to settle cases earlier in our administrative enforcement process. In addition, we believe that publicity regarding our high impact cases and other litigation increases employer compliance with the civil rights laws we enforce.

Additionally, an important mechanism to assist our Federal sector program in its efforts to get Federal agencies to improve employment policies, practices, and procedures, is our authority to conduct evaluations of Federal agency EEO programs. To better implement the Commission's focus on establishing effective relationships with Federal employers, we conduct assessments of agencies to help them establish model EEO programs.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are four performance measures under the Strategic Enforcement and Litigation element of. One measure assesses how resolutions of our private sector charges result in workplace improvements. Two measures assess the ripple effect of our high impact litigation and our ability to maintain our high rate of successful litigation. A final measure assesses the results of our Federal sector evaluations and assistance efforts in improving Federal workplaces.

Measure 1.3.1 includes all resolutions of a charge of discrimination obtained by a settlement or conciliation agreement in our private sector charge process, excluding settlements obtained in our mediation program that are covered by companion Measure 1.2.1. We know that these types of agreements have an impact on the workplace. It is important, however, to measure the ones that specifically improve employment policies, practices, or procedures at the workplace.

In FY 2005, we began to collect more detailed information to assess the affect these agreements have on improving workplaces. Many agreements that resolve charges of discrimination provide a broad range of relief for individuals. This work is vital to fulfilling our mission by providing relief to the identified victims of alleged acts of discrimination. The agency proposed this measure, however, to identify the types of relief that have a broader effect in the workplace. Similar to the ADR measure, this is an important part of our work, but it represents only a portion of the charge resolutions we obtain.

In FY 2005, 18.1% of the private sector charge resolutions (excluding those from our mediation program), or 701 out of 3,863 settlement/conciliation agreements, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices, or procedures. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 384,500 individuals.

Using this value as a baseline, we anticipate that the percentage of settlement and conciliation resolutions will remain the same for FY 2006, increase to 18.5% in FY 2007, remain at that level in FY 2008, and increase to our final goal of 19.0% in FY 2009. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of efforts to update the agency's Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

This measure will assess our high impact litigation and the subsequent publicity that results from that litigation and how they affect workplaces through a program evaluation in FY 2008. In FY 2004, we defined the case types that constitute our "high impact litigation" and how we will measure any "change in workforce status." Based on our criteria, we identified three High Impact Litigation cases resolved in FY 2004: EEOC v. Morgan Stanley, EEOC v. Heartway (which is now on appeal to the 10th Circuit), and EEOC v. Milgard Manufacturing. We identified an additional five High Impact Litigation cases resolved in FY 2005: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., EEOC v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. and U.A.W., EEOC v. Dial Corp., and EEOC v. EchoStar Communications Corp. Detailed descriptions of FY 2005 high impact litigation cases are included in Appendix B.

In early FY 2005, we developed an approach to obtain more detailed information to help us measure the effects of our high impact litigation and to measure "changes in workforce status" occurring as a result of our litigation program. The methodology is cost-effective in that it utilizes data collected from the agency's charge/case database, the Integrated Mission System (IMS). Now, instead of using the database to capture only monetary and non-monetary benefits achieved on behalf of specific individuals, we modified the system to track a broader form of relief on the kind of workforce-wide impact, if any, a resolved lawsuit will have.

During fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we will continue to improve the quality of the data we collect for measuring the effects of our designated high impact litigation cases (and other cases we identify), and to develop approaches for improving our efforts to achieve greater results. We will begin to analyze the information and determine the extent of impact in specific workplaces, geographical areas, or industries, and assess whether these cases, along with our targeted outreach and publicity efforts, resulted in any positive changes in the workplace. The identified cases and the collection and analysis of data will assist us with the Program Evaluation of our litigation program in FY 2008.

This measure ensures that we maintain a high success rate for resolving our lawsuits. Based on an earlier 5-year study, we established the baseline value of 90% for this measure and our litigation program. To aid our efforts to deter and remedy discrimination in the workplace, we expect to maintain at least this 90% level using a 6-year rolling average of successful lawsuits. In FY 2005, we successfully resolved 93.1% of our lawsuits, bringing our 6-year rolling average to 92.8%. We will revisit the target for this measure as part of efforts to update the agency's Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

Building on the success of the first year of the Relationship Management pilot, in FY 2005 we expanded the pilot to include an additional 6 Federal agencies for a total of 12 agencies. The Relationship Management Project is designed to improve customer service and relationships among EEOC and Federal agencies; help agencies achieve a Model EEO Program under MD-715; address specific agency needs; and change the way we provide services to our stakeholders. Applying the strategies and tools developed from the experiences of this Relationship Management Project better positions the agency to become a more customer-oriented organization that can deliver relevant information and solutions to Federal agencies. The effects of these activities on the Federal sector EEO community will be assessed with a Program Evaluation study in FY 2009. During fiscal years 2005 through 2008, we will continue to assess, refine, and expand our outreach, training, technical assistance, and oversight efforts with agencies in preparation for the 2009 Program Evaluation study to determine program achievements.

We believe that the best way to combat workplace discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Educating employers and workers about their rights and responsibilities under the law is the first step toward an inclusive work culture where all workers are judged on their talents and abilities without regard to race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, age, or disability. A strong prevention program helps employers comply with the law and breaks down barriers to employment opportunities.

Our Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 links our broad strategic objectives to the agency's Five-Point Plan. Strategic Objective 2, Inclusive Workplace, relates to one element of our Five-Point Plan: Proactive Prevention. It also identifies our long-term goals for achieving results in this area.

Five-Point Plan Element: Proactive Prevention

We will proactively prevent discrimination by educating employees and employers and by providing information that will help them identify and solve problems; enhancing outreach activities; promoting sound workplace practices; introducing new and expanded outreach activities, including outreach to small and mid-sized companies; and making better use of available technology to communicate with the public and our stakeholders.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are three performance measures under Strategic Objective 2. One measure assesses the extent to which private and Federal sector employers attending our major outreach events improve their workplaces as a result of their participation. A second measure seeks to ensure that over half of the Federal agencies will implement EEOC's Model EEO Program attributes. Our final measure assesses individuals' awareness of their EEO rights and responsibilities.

We postponed establishing a baseline and target values through FY 2009 because earlier survey results were from only a limited year-end sample of our fee-based outreach participants. Our FY 2005 results reflect a sampling of the employer representatives attending our free and fee-based outreach and training.

Based on responses on training evaluation forms from participants attending our free and fee-based outreach and training who had previously attended EEOC training or other presentations, 91.2% of the participants in FY 2005 indicated that their organization had made an improvement in their employment policies, practices, or procedures as a result of their participation in previous programs. We believe, however, that this result may include participants' responses about cumulative or repeated workplace changes from attendance at several previous years of EEOC training activities. Our survey methodology in subsequent years will adjust the time frame for participants to link our training activity to resulting workplace improvements in order to avoid double-counting responses in later years for the same workplace changes. We project that this adjustment will lower the claimed rate of improvements over the next 4 years. We have set realistic, yet challenging targets to take this revised approach into account: 85% in FY 2006, 75% in FY 2008, and a final goal of 70% by
FY 2009.

We are in the final stages of completing the EEO Performance Compliance Assessment (EPCA) tool, the measurement index for assessing the performance of Federal agencies' EEO programs. The tool will be shared with appropriate agencies before it is finalized. With this tool we will measure Federal agencies' progress toward meeting our goal of 50% of the identified agencies successfully implementing the Model EEO Program elements described in EEOC's Management Directive (MD)-715 by the end of FY 2009. We will focus our resources and efforts on 83 identified agencies with 100 or more employees, a sample that comprises over 99% of the civilian employees in the Federal Government.

Since Federal agencies report their EEO information only once each year, several months after the fiscal year ends, we will also establish preliminary target values for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and reassess them once we collect the information and determine the current status of agencies in meeting the criteria.

Our Strategic Plan identifies this performance measure as an indicator of the agency's contributions toward ensuring that individuals understand their EEO rights and responsibilities. Much of our past work has provided people with information they need to understand their rights and responsibilities under the EEO laws we enforce. We believe that individuals who know both their rights and their responsibilities are more likely to properly identify discriminatory behaviors at the workplace and know what to do about them. In addition, we believe it is equally important for individuals who are responsible for workplace policies, practices, and procedures to possess the information they need to critically assess whether their workplaces are contributing to a discriminatory environment and what their responsibilities are for changing the situation.

Although we intend to use a survey methodology and establish our targets and final goal to measure our results, agency resource priorities have necessitated that we postpone this activity at this time. We anticipate future opportunities to initiate the activities necessary to implement the survey approach; however, we also will reassess measures, including this one, when we update our Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

Achieving Organizational Excellence ensures that the principles and standards we promote are readily apparent in our own operations. Through vision, leadership, and a culture of continuous improvement, our efforts seek to improve our organizational capacity and infrastructure to carry out our mission more effectively through sound management of our resources - human, financial and technological. We aim to be an organization that sets and implements the highest quality standards for equal opportunity, customer service, internal efficiencies, and fiscal responsibility, using the President's Management Agenda (PMA) as a roadmap. The PMA addresses important enhancements to internal agency operations and interface with the public by improving organizational performance and efficiency and instilling a climate of respect, service, and responsiveness.

Strategic Objective 3, Organizational Excellence, relates to one element of our Five-Point Plan: EEOC as a Model Workplace. It also identifies our long-term goals to achieve results in this area.

Five-Point Plan Element: EEOC as a Model Workplace

The principles and standards we promote to employers must be an integral part of our own operations. This integration of the Five-Point Plan and other Administration and agency initiatives will build a model workplace where we can effectively and efficiently accomplish EEOC'sgoals.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are eight performance measures under Strategic Objective 3. One measure assesses the confidence our customers have in our services. Two measures address our initiatives to manage our human capital and obtain input from our employees. Another measure ensures that, when our financial systems are audited, we receive unqualified opinions from our auditors. Three measures ensure that we internally implement the Federal sector Model EEO Program attributes successfully, process our internal complaints of discrimination in a timely manner, and increase confidence in using ADR to resolve workplace disputes. Our final measure ensures that we transition toward a "paperless" environment by converting our charge and case files into electronic format to improve agency efficiency and enhance disaster recovery.

Our Strategic Plan identified this performance measure as an indicator of service to our customers. We are currently piloting our National Contact Center, which includes customer service measures for this portion of our work. We intend to use a broader survey methodology to address other aspects of our work to measure customer service. As noted for Measure 2.1.3, agency resource priorities have necessitated that we postpone this broader activity at this time. We anticipate future opportunities to initiate the activities necessary to implement the survey approach for this measure. We will also reassess measures, including this one, when we review and update our Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

It is critical that we address our future human capital needs and provide a good working environment for our employees in order to achieve our internal and external customer service goals. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has developed guidance to help Federal agencies evaluate their working environment and apply successful strategies to manage and develop their human capital. Measure 3.1.2 is designed to track and implement that guidance in order to manage our human capital and to apply one of the five important elements of the PMA, Strategic Human Capital Management.

We achieved our 2-year target for FY 2004 and FY 2005 to develop our comprehensive human capital strategy and begin to implement approaches toward achieving this goal. By the end of FY 2005, we were using our draft strategic human capital plan to chart further efforts to support our Strategic Plan. Several cross-organizational working groups have been established to design a working plan and address several other human capital issues. In addition, a performance management system was developed and implemented for managers to align efforts and rewards with the agency's strategic direction. Managerial development expanded to encompass all levels from first-level supervisors to senior executives, and a performance system will be introduced in FY 2006 for nonsupervisory staff. Managers also received general and tailored guidance on labor relations issues.

A timeline with yearly strategies for implementing the plan and revising it as necessary was developed and will be implemented throughout fiscal years 2006 through 2008 in order to achieve the agency's FY 2009 goal to meet OPM standards in this area.

EEOC participated in OPM's Government-wide Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS), starting at the end of FY 2004. OPM released the FHCS results during the summer of 2005. At this point, OPM is not expected to construct an index for assessing the overall results. To address the approach designed for this measure, we constructed a methodology for evaluating agency results compared with Government-wide results: a simple percentage from the number of questions receiving a positive response (the two most positive options available for each question). Using this methodology, in FY 2004 employees throughout the Government answered 57% of the 78 survey questions with a positive response and EEOC employees answered 54% of the questions with a positive response.

We have established our baseline for this measure. To ensure that our target is met, we have begun to initiate feedback and action planning in our Headquarters and District Offices. With the cooperation of OPM, we provided office-specific survey results directly for their review and began to develop action plans for implementation during fiscal years 2006 through 2008 to meet our goal.

OPM is expected to conduct the Government-wide survey every 2 years, with the next survey scheduled for late spring of 2006. In the intervening years, starting with FY 2007, we will conduct our own employee survey, obtain and analyze the results, and chart our progress toward achieving our final goal.

In FY 2005, the agency received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements.

This measure reinforces our commitment that EEOC will be a model workplace, particularly in the area of equal employment opportunity for our own employees. We intend to adopt the Model EEO Program described in MD- 715 and referenced in Measure 2.1.2. That measure expects 50% of all Federal agencies to successfully implement the model program by the end of FY 2009. As a Federal agency, we intend to achieve that goal, but to do so even earlier-by the end of FY 2006-to serve as a model for all Federal agencies. As noted in Measure 2.1.2, the EEO Performance Compliance Assessment (EPCA) tool-a measurement index for assessing the performance of Federal agencies' EEO programs-is in the final stages of completion. Once it is complete, we will assess our actions in the equal employment opportunity area against the elements of the tool. In the meantime, we have been implementing those same elements, which are described in MD-715. We have successfully implemented 79% of the items identified in the MD-715 self-assessment.

This measure captures the average processing time for all internal EEO complaints from the filing date to the closure date. This includes complaints that were settled during the formal stage, withdrawn from the process, closed by a Final Decision without an Administrative Judge, and closed by a Final Action after an Administrative Judge issues a decision. The benchmark for this measure was set at 510 days based on the average processing time for closures in FY 2003.

In FY 2004, we were able to reduce this average time to process by 17.5%, to 421 days on average, exceeding our target substantially. However, during FY 2005 our average processing time rose from 421 days to 470 days. This is only 8% below the 2003 baseline; therefore, we did not meet the target for this fiscal year.

For a number of reasons, the results for this measure can vary widely at any time. The percentage of cases for each type of closure may vary from year to year. In FY 2004, 47% of all closures were withdrawals or settlements; that number decreased to only 38% in FY 2005. Generally, the average processing time for withdrawals and settlements is lower than for cases in which a Final Decision is issued on the merits. Likewise, cases that proceed to the hearing stage are likely to have longer processing times than those that do not. The percentage of closures in 2004 that resulted from a complaint that proceeded to the hearing stage was 22% but increased to 30% during FY 2005.

In addition, our success at reducing our overall year-end inventory by 57% (from 56 complaints at the end of FY 2003 to 24 complaints at the end of FY 2005) affects the validity of this measure. As the total number of cases processed decreases, the average processing time is more susceptible to being skewed by a small number of cases that exceed the expected timeframes. The number of formal complaints filed has also decreased over the past 2 years, from the 38 formal complaints filed in FY 2003 to 31 in FY 2004 and 26 in FY 2005. Much of this reduction is attributable to the success of our ADR Program, RESOLVE, which was implemented in the last quarter of FY 2003. More complaints are being resolved at the informal stage of the process.

We will continue efforts to reduce the average processing time for the complaints in our inventory. However, we are reevaluating the effectiveness of this measure for assessing this program component and exploring methods to capture a more appropriate measure of the efficiency of our complaint processing procedures. As we review our Strategic Plan, we will determine the future efficacy of this measure.

The RESOLVE Program began in July 1, 2003. We anticipated that it would take several years for employee confidence to build and achieve established targets based on limited information at the time. We increased our targets and final goal for this measure substantially based on the overwhelming success of the program during FY 2004. Our new targets and long-term goal at 90% or greater seem to be appropriate given our results for 2 years. For FY 2005, 92% of our employees using the program who responded in a survey were willing to use the program again. We intend to sustain this high level of employee confidence in our RESOLVE program; however, we will review this measure as we consider and revise our Strategic Plan in FY 2006.

Our 2-year target for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 focused on building a technical infrastructure required to prepare for the phased-in, multi-year implementation of the Document Management System (DMS). During fiscal years 2004 and 2005, EEOC installed the first phase of the production DMS infrastructure. Additionally, in FY 2005 we completed the conversion of the Federal appellate case files into a structured, electronic format within the DMS. We have also set interim targets for meeting our final goal for FY 2009.

Although we postponed the field pilot, the conversion of our Federal appellate files provided the necessary framework and experience to prepare for the conversion of our Field Office files. Postponing the field pilot will have no measurable impact on the DMS program. In addition, by the end of FY 2005, four areas of our DMS project were in place (Correspondence Tracking System, Commission Notation Voting System, Office of Federal Operations' Federal Appellate Case Files, and Office of Communication and Legislative Affairs' News Clips System). Each area has provided us with more experience that will assist us with our future applications, including the electronic conversion of our litigation case files during FY 2007.

This page was last modified on December 2, 2005

Return to Home Page