Our Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 provided a schedule of program evaluations the agency expected to conduct over a 5-year period. Program evaluations are designed to be a thorough examination of a program area by ensuring an independent review, using a rigorous methodology, and applying appropriate statistical and analytical tools. It uses expertise within and outside the program under review to enhance the analytical perspectives and add credence to the evaluation and recommendations. Program evaluations with this degree of rigor and independence are important because they enable an agency to determine whether or not its programs are operating as they are intended to, are operating effectively and efficiently, and are achieving results.
In the past two fiscal years we have modified the initial approach to our program evaluations in several ways. We expected to establish general procedures for conducting all of the evaluations before initiating the first one in FY 2005. We decided that it was more effective to establish our approach to program evaluations as we gained practical experience conducting our first evaluation under the Strategic Plan. We also revised the schedule of program evaluations by deciding to review our private sector charge process first, in FY 2005, instead of reviewing the mediation program as previously scheduled. This interim adjustment to our Strategic Plan was not a substantive revision and was described in our FY 2006 Performance Budget.
An EEOC contractor initiated the program evaluation of our private sector charge process in FY 2005. Early on, the contractor engaged in extensive activity to identify several key areas on which to focus the evaluation. The charge process covers a wide range of activities including inquiries from the public, preparing charges of discrimination, mediating charges, investigating charges, making findings about the merits of charges, and attempting to settle charges. Focusing on a few key areas for the agency would enable the contractor to conduct the evaluation within the fiscal year and with the resources available. The contractor discussed the charge process in a focus group format with over 100 EEOC employees, including staff and senior leadership.
From this broad, inclusive effort the contractor identified the initial stages of the charge process-the inquiry and intake process leading to the filing of a charge-on which to focus the program evaluation of the private sector charge process. The contractor also identified the year-end resolution of charges for review and comparison with resolutions at other times in a fiscal year. The contractor is currently in the data collection phase, where information from Field Office managers is being collected with a survey instrument and data from the agency's charge data system-the Integrated Mission System (IMS)-is being analyzed. A program evaluation report with recommendations is expected in early FY 2006. We will use the information in the report and the recommendations provided by the contractor to review the intake process and implement appropriate changes.
We will also conduct a program evaluation of the Federal Sector Mediation Program
during
FY 2006; a year earlier than the fiscal year identified in our Strategic Plan.
The agency's initial efforts to encourage the use of ADR mechanisms throughout
the Federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) process have been a major success.
During the initial phase of the program evaluation, the review will focus on
several possible areas. We may collect information about the variety of programs
being used throughout the Government and their efficacy in improving the EEO
environment in Federal agencies. We also may evaluate our own efforts to encourage
agencies to adopt ADR approaches in their EEO programs. The agency will postpone
the evaluation of the private sector mediation program again, because it will
be more valuable to review the Federal sector mediation program at this time.
We show the adjusted program evaluation schedule in the following table, which is a nonsubstantive change to our current Strategic Plan.
|
Program Evaluation |
Statement of Parameters of the Program Evaluation |
Expected Initiation and Completion |
|---|---|---|
|
Private Sector Charge Process |
The evaluation will examine and evaluate the quality, timeliness, and other relevant characteristics of the private sector charge process to identify key methods for maintaining high quality investigations, areas to enhance the process, and the efficacy of procedures used. |
FY 2005 |
|
Private Sector Mediation Program |
The evaluation will assess the range of mediation/ADR programs used to resolve Federal sector complaints. It will review historical results achieved, techniques employed, customer service attained, and other important criteria to measure the various mediation approaches and compare advantages. |
FY 2006 |
|
Federal Sector Mediation Programs |
The evaluation will assess EEOC's private sector mediation program by examining how the overall program and different implementation strategies have achieved resolutions and economic savings, enhanced customer service, and improved workplace areas such as morale, productivity, and motivation. The evaluation will explore the quantification of the economic benefits attained by using EEOC's mediation/ADR program and the benefits of using alternative implementation approaches in the program. |
FY 2007 |
|
Effect of EEOC High Impact Litigation |
The evaluation will identify specific high impact litigation that occurred and discern how employers reacted. The expectation is that a number of changed policies, practices or procedures can be identified that correlate to EEOC's litigation activity. |
FY 2008 |
|
Effect of EEOC's Federal Sector Evaluations and Assistance |
The evaluation will identify specific activities conducted by the EEOC with Federal agencies that result in changed policies, practices, or procedures. It will develop a methodology to estimate the results achieved from those changes. |
FY 2009 |
This page was last modified on December 2, 2005
