Detailed Information on the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Assessment

Continuing to modernize its data collection system.

Implementing program improvements based on the independent evaluations that have been completed or are currently underway. Continuing to subject its programs to independent evaluation, with the goal of identifying additional opportunities for improvement.

Exploring the development and implementation of new performance measures with challenging targets for all agency performance goals.

Regularly and more comprehensively reviewing program regulations and requirements.

Completing review of and, as appropriate, changes to the Equal Opportunity Survey.

Monitor the efficiency of its operations using the newly-developed measure, and improve efficiency where possible.

Implementing challenging targets for all agency performance outcome goals.

Measure: Discrimination rate for audited Federal contractors.

Explanation:This measure tracks OFCCP's success in identifying and reducing systemic discrimination found during compliance evaluations of federal contractors and subcontractors. Systemic discrimination is defined as cases involving a significant number of workers or applicants subjected to discrimination because of an unlawful employment practice or policy. In assessing OFCCP's progress, the number of cases wherein systemic discrimination is found is divided into the total number of compliance reviews. While the percentage goal is stationary, the set of contractors represented in the denominator (compliance evaluations conducted) varies from year to year, e.g., carryover cases and increase in new federal contractors. This is due in part to the extensive investigative efforts inherent to these types of cases and an enhancement in our data collection systems in locating federal contracts.

Measure: Compliance rate for all other EEO requirements

Explanation:This measure tracks federal contractors and subcontractors' compliance with "all other" applicable equal opportunity (EO) laws. "All other" refers to the technical requirements necessary to comply with EO laws, such as developing and maintaining an affirmative action plan. These laws prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the bases of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, disability and veteran status. They also require contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative steps to ensure equal employment opportunity in their employment practices. Each year, OFCCP audits a sampling of federal contractors to ensure their compliance with these laws. Possible outcomes are: 1) no violations, 2) technical violations, or 3) systemic discrimination. In addition to its evaluation activity, OFCCP provides compliance assistance to its contractor population in an effort to educate and train. This indicator is calculated by dividing the number of cases that resulted in technical violations by the total number of compliance reviews conducted, then subtracting the product from 100.

Measure: FTE per systemic case resolved.

Explanation:OFCCP measures the efficiency of activities dedicated to resolution of systemic discrimination. The ratio is obtained by dividing average level of resources, measured by FTE, by the number of systemic cases in which a settlement has been reached, or where a settlement could not be achieved but there is a sufficiently strong case to pursue litigation.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the employment non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements imposed on federal contractors by Executive Order 11246 (race, color, gender, religion, national origin) and federal statute (disability, veterans). These requirements are based on the principle that federal dollars may not be used to perpetuate discrimination. Contractors and subcontractors with a federal contract of $50,000 or more and 50 or more employees develop written plans to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity in their workplaces. To determine compliance, OFCCP audits a percentage of contractors each year and attempts to resolve violations first through conciliation agreements with each contractor. OFCCP also promotes voluntary compliance through technical assistance to covered employers and extensive, effective partnering with stakeholder organizations.

Evidence: Executive Order (EO) 11246, as amended, www. archives.gov/federal_register/codification/executive _order/11246.html; Rehab. Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112), §503; Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA, P.L. 93-508), affirmative action provisions; OFCCP regulations appearing in 41 CFR Part 60, www.dol.gov/ esa/regs/cfr/main. htm; OFCCP website, www.dol.gov /esa/ofccp/; Department of Labor (DOL), 2003 Annual Report on Performance and Accountability (PAR), www. dol.gov/_sec/ media/reports/annual2003/complete _doc.pdf (laws OFCCP administers govern "nearly all Federal contracts, and are an integral part of the Federal procurement process," "are based on the... principle that employment opportunities generated by Federal dollars should be available to all Americans on an equitable and fair basis"); and the OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted each February with the President's Budget.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The federal government has a strong, continuing interest in ensuring that businesses with which it partners are in compliance with federal law, including those laws governing employment rights and standards. The executive order and statutes governing OFCCP reflect a determination by the legislative and executive branches that it is desirable for federal contractors to take deliberate action to diversify their workplaces. Since the universe of federal contractors continually changes, compliance levels in one year are not strong predictors of compliance levels in future years and, hence, there is a need for year-to-year, centralized compliance oversight and assistance. In some cases, OFCCP's presence alone may deter discriminatory practices.

Evidence: OFCCP website, www.dol.gov/esa/ media/reports/ofccp/sfaqspay.htm (describing continuing need for DOL role in monitoring and ensuring compliance with these laws); and "Update on OFCCP's Enforcement Strategy," Statement by William Doyle, OFCCP Deputy Director, at National Inustry Liaison Group Conference 8/11/2003 (between 1998 and 2001, OFCCP found discrimination in 6-8% of compliance reviews; 15% of those cases involved "systemic" discrimination, which OFCCP defines as affecting a class of 10 or more workers).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The focus on affirmative action by federal contractors is not repeated in the state, local, or private sectors. The remedies the program offers are systemic (designed to cure high-level discriminatory policies that affect groups of workers within an establishment) and forward-looking (the changes made to a hiring, promotion, or other employment practice benefit both current and future employees). Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with other DOL and federal agencies enhance collaboration while minimizing duplication.

Evidence: EO 11246, as amended, requires federal agencies to include non-discrimination and affirmative action provisions in each of their contracts, and places administrative and enforcement authority exclusively in DOL.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Here, a regulatory mechanism is the most appropriate means to achieve the contract compliance oversight and complaint investigation and resolution activities mandated by EO 11246. As designed, the program collects, synthesizes, and analyzes data from and about federal contractors to identify employment patterns or practices that have an adverse impact on protected classes of employees. Program activities to prevent and/or correct these practices include targeted, tiered audits (resources allocated to each case are proportionate to level of violation or nature of findings); compliance assistance as both a corrective (during reviews) and preventive measure; and financial agreements with individual employers. Program regulations require certain government contractors to develop workforce analyses and employment plans to assist them in self-monitoring.

Evidence: EO 11246, as amended; OFCCP regulations appearing in 41 CFR Part 60; OFCCP website, www.dol.gov /esa/ofccp/

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program investigates and remedies systemic discrimination in workplaces under its jurisdiction. Consistent with the executive order that frames the program, and the statutory provisions OFCCP enforces, program resources support compliance reviews; compliance assistance to contractors in the context of reviews, in furtherance of partnerships with industry, and in response to requests from individual employers; and enforcement activities, as needed. Under an MOU with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), OFCCP refers individual complaints of discrimination to EEOC.

Evidence: EO 11246, as amended; 41 CFR Part 60; Memo. of Underst. with EEOC, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/ fedreg/notices/99009066.pdf; DOL 2003 PAR; Doyle Stmt. 8/11/2003 (focusing enforcement resources on systemic discrimination furthers OFCCP's objectives to: focus on worst offenders; encourage employer self-auditing, leverage program resources to protect maximum number of workers; and complement compliance assistance efforts); WESTAT, Eval. of Office of Fed. Contr. Compl. Prog.: Final Report 12/2003 ("OFCCP generally targets its reviews in order to focus its resources on those establishments thought most likely, on the basis of observed employment patterns, to discriminate against minorities and women"); and Assessing the Rel. Betw. Empl. Diversity Behavior, Contr. Status and Industry Group 10/7/2003 (OFCCP internal analysis of EEO-1 data from 1993 - 2001 comparing diversity levels of federal contractors to those of noncontractors found that "contractor status is related to increased proportions of [certain minority groups] in several industry groups").

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: OFCCP's strategic goal is tied to authorities the program enforces and is achieved through two long-term performance measures with numerical targets. The two long-term outcome measures are: (1) the rate of reduction in discrimination levels among federal contractors (measured by findings of discrimination made in compliance reviews); and (2) the rate of increased contractor compliance with other equal employment workplace standards (measured by the rate of technical violations). These long-term performance measures are divided into interim (annual) targets. Each year, for each measure, performance against the numerical target is tracked by compiling information from various data sources. The program goals tie to the Employment Standards Administration's (ESA) strategic and outcome goals and to DOL's strategic and outcome goals. The targets are currently under review.

Evidence: DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/strat_plan_2003-2008.htm; ESA Strategic Plan for FYs 1999-2004, www.dol.gov/esa/aboutesa/str-plan/SP99_04final.PDF; and OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget. OFCCP strategic goal: Federal contractors achieve equal opportunity workplaces. Long-term performance indicators: (1) Reduce incidence of discrimination among federal contractors by 2% (from 9% to 7%); (2) Increase compliance among federal contractors with other equal opportunity workplace standards by 6% (from 59% to 65%). ESA strategic goal: Create better workplaces by increasing employer / employee commitment to equal employment opportunity. Outcome goal: Federal contractors achieve equal opportunity workplaces. DOL strategic goal: Foster quality workplaces that are safe, healthy, fair. Outcome goal: Foster equal opportunity workplaces.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: OFCCP exceeded its performance goals for FY 2003. There is some question as to whether current performance targets are sufficiently ambitious. The program is reviewing its targets.

Evidence: DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008; and OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget. Annual goals: (1) Reduce incidence of discrimination among federal contractors to 9% in FY 2003 and FY 2004, and 8% in FY 2005 (over 2001 baseline of 12.5%). In 2003, actual level of discrimination findings was 1.2%, or 7.8% better than the target for the year. (2) Increase compliance with other equal opportunity workplace standards to 59% in FY 2003, 61% in FY 2004, and 62% in FY 2005 (over 2001 baseline of 57%). In 2003, actual level of compliance was 72.4%, or 13.4% better than the target. The program plans an external study that could lead to refinements in its indicators or targets.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Performance measures in use since FY 2003 are clearer and more focused than previous goals, and now include an efficiency measure. To gain a more accurate sense of short-term performance levels, each quarter the national office also monitors and addresses regional office productivity deviations of 10% from the OFCCP national average in a wide range of operational categories (including time for completion of each type of evaluation, complaint investigations, compliance assistance, and monitoring of conciliation agreements).

Evidence: DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008; and OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget. Annual goals: (1) Reduce incidence of discrimination among federal contractors; (2) Increase compliance with other equal opportunity workplace standards. The efficiency measure will track "FTE per system case resolved." The OFCCP staff has briefed OMB on program operations, including quarterly reviews and other quality controls currently in place.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: OFCCP exceeded its performance goals for FY 2003. There is some question as to whether current performance targets are sufficiently ambitious. The program is reviewing its targets.

Evidence: DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, and OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget. As stated above, the program plans an external study that could lead to refinements in its indicators or targets.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Regulations focus on self-analysis and goal-setting by employers. Upon request (based on audits, and subsequent conciliation agreements), contractors commit to and report on compliance, good faith efforts to achieve compliance, and results. OFCCP then uses this information to better manage the program (e.g., select companies for further review and follow-up) and track its own performance (e.g., numbers brought into compliance).

Evidence: 41 CFR Part 60; OFCCP Compliance Manual, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/how2; OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget (data from OFCCP's EEO-1 file, its Case Management System, and compliance evaluation results are the sources underlying the performance indicators); General Accounting Office (GAO) Rept. HEHS-95-177 9/1995, www.gao.gov/ archive/1995/he95177 .pdf (description of program); DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG), Rept. 05-02-004-04-410 3/29/2002, www.oig.dol.gov; and OIG, OFCCP's Method of Selecting Construction Contractors for Compliance Reviews (3/2002) (not available on line).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: OFCCP completed an external evaluation of program effectiveness and an in-house impact study, and has contracted an outside firm to evaluate and maximize the predictive value of the data it collects and reduce information collection burdens on contractors. These evaluations follow others completed over the years by GAO, the DOL OIG, and other organizations. Those evaluations were numerous and often consistent in their description of major program weaknesses, but in recent years became more issue-specific and did not always address questions raised by earlier reviews. By contrast, the 2003 evaluation, separate impact analysis, and data work in progress, all cover a number of program areas, assess impact as well as process (data collection strategies and mechanisms), and take into account context and current program priorities. The evaluations and analyses combine with and reinforce findings of the 2004 and 2005 OFCCP PART assessments to provide a more recent and reliable baseline from which to measure process improvements and future program performance.

Evidence: WESTAT evaluation 12/2003; OFCCP employer diversity study 10/7/2003; reports by DOL OIG, www. oig.dol.gov, on veterans' empl. rights (No. 05-02-004-04-410 3/2002), selection of construction contractors for review (3/2002), information systems (No.23-01-008-04-001 9/2001; No.09-00-005-04-001 9/2000), scheduling of supply/service contractors for review (No.2E-04-410-0001 3/2000), collection of data on federal contractors (4/1997), and performance measures (9/2004, 9/2003); GAO Rept. HEHS-95-177 9/1995, www. gao.gov (selection of contractors for review); Aff. Action: Report to the Pres. 7/1995, describing OFCCP effects and performance, clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/ html/aa/aa-index.html); US Comm'n on Civ. Rights, Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Fed. Agencies Responded to Civ. Rts. Recomms.? 9/2002, www.usccr.gov/; Leonard report for Glass Ceiling Comm'n 4/1994, www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/e_archive/gov _reports/glassceiling).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Like the rest of DOL, OFCCP does not have an integrated accounting and performance management system to identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day-to-day operations.

Evidence: OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget; DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/ strat_plan_2003-2008.htm (describing DOL's budget/performance integration efforts).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department's budget/performance integration effort includes a "full cost accounting" initiative that reaches into each DOL agency, and DOL's FY 2005 budget submission moved closer to fully integrating performance goals with budget information. At the program level, OFCCP has developed an efficiency measure, to be implemented in FY 2005, to enhance long-term planning and cost analysis. One major area of concern, however, is that annual and long-term goals still do not have stable, ambitious targets. OFCCP is working with an outside consultant to determine whether to refine its indicators and targets.

Evidence: OFCCP Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget; DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/ strat_plan_2003-2008.htm (describing DOL's budget/performance integration efforts). The new efficiency measure, "FTE per systemic case resolved," is designed to capture efficiency across program activities.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: One major regulation sets requirements for non-discrimination and Affirmative Action Plans and codifies an Equal Opportunity (EO) Survey. This regulation, particularly the EO Survey, has been strongly criticized as burdensome and not providing information useful to OFCCP in demonstrating discriminatory practices. This regulation is currently under review.

Evidence: 41 CFR Parts 60-1, 60-2.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: OFCCP collects and analyzes information on performance of contractors and regional offices (ROs); has completed an external evaluation whose findings will inform decisions about program design and execution; and has developed an efficiency measure. Safeguards already in place to evaluate, improve effectiveness include: (1) National office uses quarterly reviews to monitor, address productivity deviations in ROs; conducts frequent "spot checks" on data and "quality" audits (of RO decisions at various stages of each case) on 10% of cases closed each year; audits every new activity (e.g., compliance checks); designs additional, ad hoc audits around feedback from Industry Liaison Groups, other constituencies. (2) National office has strengthened oversight of ROs through system of "directives" for all major changes; holds weekly conference calls with ROs on issues of case resolution, program administration, employee morale. (3) Conciliation agreements reached in ROs are examined by DOL Solicitor for legal validity prior to approval.

Evidence: DOL 2003 PAR (data from OFCCP's EEO-1 file, its Case Management System, and compliance evaluation results are the sources underlying the performance indicators). The OFCCP staff has briefed OMB on program operations, including data collection and analysis and quality controls currently in place. Relevant OFCCP directives are now being posted on the OFCCP website, www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/directives/dirindex.htm A new efficiency measure ("FTE per systemic case resolved", which is designed to capture efficiency across program activities) will be implemented in FY 2005.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: DOL ties performance ratings for managers and supervisors to the achievement of Departmental and program-specific goals and outcomes; employee evaluations are aligned on a fiscal year cycle to help cascade standards to non-supervisory personnel. A percentage of federal contractors is reviewed every year for compliance with laws enforced by OFCCP; contractors found out of compliance report on, and are held accountable for, agreed upon levels of progress, which feed into OFCCP's own performance measures.

Evidence: Revised Performance Management Plans for Senior Executives (Form DL 1-2059, Rev. 10/2001) and for Supervisors and Managers (Form DL 1-382, Rev. 10/2001); DOL 2003 PAR (data from OFCCP's EEO-1 file, its Case Management System, and compliance evaluation results are the sources underlying the performance indicators); and GAO, DOL Contract Compliance Reviews Could Better Target Fed. Contractors (9/1995; www.gao.gov /archive/1995/he95177.pdf) (description of program).

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: OFCCP closely monitors DOL and ESA financial management systems that support the program's day-to-day operations. On a monthly basis, OFCCP reviews expenditures and prepares spending forecasts for its executive staff and the ESA Assistant Secretary. Reviews of cost documents, including requisitions and purchase orders, are ongoing.

Evidence: Estimated and actual obligations reported by quarters in OMB apportionments and DOL reports to the Treasury Department.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: OFCCP has numerous quality controls in place -- including quarterly reviews by the national office to enforce efficiency standards in operational categories -- as well as an Active Case Management (ACM) system. The ACM model supports decision-making that is integrated (national office, to regional office, to district and area directors), that takes place in real time, and that leads to more effective and efficient resource allocation. As part of Department-wide FY 2005 budget integration efforts, OFCCP has developed, and is implementing, an outcome-based measure that ambitiously seeks to capture cross-functional efficiency within the program by examining resources devoted to systemic discrimination cases with positive outcomes (systemic cases are the primary focus of the program). In addition, OFCCP's 2004 inventory of job functions designates field compliance officer functions as commercial, opening the door to additonal analysis, cost comparisons, and potential savings. These strategies and procedures help OFCCP to measure, and manage against, efficiencies created by management practices from year to year.

Evidence: DOL 2003 PAR (attributing substantial increase in contractor compliance, from 2002 to 2003, in part to use of active case management system, which DOL states has increased the number of establishments reviewed while reducing [lengthy and] burdensome on-site evaluations); DOL 2004 Commercial Activities and Inherently Governmental (FAIR Act) Inventories; Bureau of National Affairs, Daily Labor Report (DLR) No.155, p.C-1 8/12/2003 (active case management system "requires managers to work more closely with compliance officers throughout the continued course of an investigation and to employ more flexibility in devoting greater resources where warranted by an investigation"). OFCCP's efficiency measure tracks the number of FTE dedicated to each systemic case that is "resolved" (defined as settlement reached or enforcement action initiated). Doyle Statement 8/11/2003 (management strategies).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OFCCP regularly collaborates with a diverse group of stakeholders and related programs, including a number of other DOL and federal agencies, and state agencies, with which OFCCP has MOUs. For example, OFCCP regional offices have MOUs under which state rehabilitation agencies agree to refer workers with disabilities to federal contractors for potential employment. OFCCP also has MOUs with the organizations or agencies listed in the column to the right.

Evidence: Memoranda of Understanding with other DOL (Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Wage & Hour Division, Women's Bureau, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training) and federal agencies (EEOC, DOJ/Immigration and Naturalization Service, DOJ/Office of Special Counsel, DOT, GSA, and SBA), state agencies, other organizations (AFL-CIO National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFGE Local 12, National Council of Negro Women); and DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan/ strat_plan_2003-2008.htm (noting important role of active, ongoing consultation with stakeholders; DOL agencies "develop and enhance partnerships with public and private entities" as one strategy for accomplishing the goal of "fostering equal opportunity workplaces").

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: There have been no material control weaknesses reported by auditors. OFCCP closely monitors DOL and ESA financial management systems that support the program's day-to-day operations. On a monthly basis, OFCCP reviews expenditures and prepares spending forecasts for its executive staff and the ESA Assistant Secretary. Reviews of cost documents, including requisitions and purchase orders, are ongoing.

Evidence: Estimated and actual obligations reported by quarters in OMB apportionments and DOL reports to the Treasury Department.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: DOL ties performance ratings for managers and supervisors to the achievement of Departmental and program-specific goals and outcomes; has numerous quality controls in place to gauge and improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness; uses an Active Case Management model to facilitate real-time decision-making and inform resource allocation; is coordinating more closely with the DOL Solicitor's Office; and is upgrading staff investigative skills through training. One important cautionary note: Unresolved questions regarding the program's collection and management of data from and about federal contractors -- including its accuracy, usefulness (predictive value), and/or production burden -- continue to be a concern. Data that is not needed when requested, is inaccurate, or has low predictive value leads to inefficient use of program and contractor resources. OFCCP is working closely with outside experts to settle these questions and improve data collection and analysis.

Evidence: Revised Performance Management Plans for Senior Executives (Form DL 1-2059, Rev. 10/2001) and for Supervisors and Managers (Form DL 1-382, Rev. 10/2001); Doyle Stmt. 8/11/2003 (management strategies; work with outside experts to evaluate predictive power of Equal Opportunity Survey); DOL 2003 PAR (OFCCP has commissioned empirical study "to evaluate the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunity Survey as an instrument for identifying contractors engaged in systemic discrimination", that is, whether OFCCP can use data from the survey "to target contractor establishments where the likelihood of systemic discrimination is the highest"; OFCCP will "develop and validate a model to identify those workplaces in which systemic discrimination exists").

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The agency regularly collaborates on process and regulatory improvements with a diverse group of stakeholders, including Industry Liaison Groups, which provide contractor input; veterans' groups; and women's and civil rights groups. Major regulations and information collection requests have analyzed and responded to comments received.

Evidence: ESA Strategic Plan for FYs 1999-2004, describing consultation with stakeholders (www.dol.gov/esa/aboutesa/str-plan/SP99_04final.PDF).

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: A review of OFCCP regulations found no cases in which OFCCP rulemaking failed to meet the requirements; regulations issued over the past year required no Regulatory Impact Analyses.

Evidence: OFCCP regulations issued in 2003 did not require regulatory impact analyses: Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Government Contractors, Executive Order 11246, as Amended; Exemption for Religious Entities, a rule effective on October 30, 2003, did not require a regulatory analysis because it is estimated that the rule will not have a significant economic impact. In addition, the rule does not include federal mandates that may result in increased expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: Although OFCCP reviews its regulatory agenda on a quarterly basis, it conducts no look-back studies and does not systematically review existing regulations. It does not have a regulatory review plan in place. However, the program has taken important steps to quantify and reduce the burden of key regulations. For example, OFCCP: (1) has performed burden-hour reduction studies for both its "supply and service" (non-construction) and construction compliance evaluation activities and regulations; (2) is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of its EO Survey; (3) revised rules implementing EO 11246 in 2000 and 2003, and is currently revising rules implementing VEVRAA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) has worked with other federal agencies to issue guidance on employer recordkeeping obligations in the context of the Internet and related technologies; and (5) in conjunction with this guidance, has proposed regulations governing recordkeeping by federal contractors for job applicants who use the Internet. OFCCP expects to issue a final rule in Fall 2004.

Evidence: See discussion elsewhere in this document on OFCCP's work with outside researchers to evaluate and improve its data collection policies, practices and instruments, including the EO Survey; 69 Fed.Reg. 10152 3/4/2004, Adoption of Additional Questions and Answers To Clarify and Provide a Common Interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures as They Relate to the Internet and Related Technologies (OFCCP collaborated with EEOC, DOJ, and the Office of Personnel Management to issue interagency guidance to employers on how to identify "applicants" for employment in the context of the Internet and similar technologies -- for example, when resumes or job-related inquiries arrive through the employer's e-mail or its website; federal law requires employers to maintain vital statistics on all applicants for employment); 69 Fed. Reg. 16446 3/29/2004 (OFCCP proposed rule governing recordkeeping requirements for federal contractors, consistent with new interagency guidance). Results of the burden-hour studies will be published in the First Quarter of FY 2005.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The program could be doing more to maximize net benefits by completing its review of and modifications to the Equal Opportunity Survey.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program significantly exceeded its targets, clearly demonstrating progress toward long-term goals. However, there is some question as to whether the annual and long-term performance targets originally established for FYs 2003 and beyond are sufficiently ambitious. The program is reviewing its targets.

Evidence: See DOL, ESA, and OFCCP goals listed in Section II, above.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Recent performance data point both to case-by-case successes and annual progress toward long-term objectives. For example, in FY 2003, OFCCP exceeded its annual targets in both performance goals. In FY 2002, OFCCP fully achieved its nine major indicators, six measuring improvements in the industries with the greatest likelihood of equal employment opportunity problems, and three measuring improvement by contractors and subcontractors previously contacted by the agency. However, there is some question as to whether the annual and long-term performance targets established for 2003 and beyond are sufficiently ambitious. The program is reviewing its targets.

Evidence: See DOL, ESA, and OFCCP goals listed in Section II, above.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: As described above, quarterly reviews by the national office enforce efficiency standards in operational categories (productivity deviations of more than 10% from the norm are investigated and corrected as appropriate); OFCCP audits 10% of cases closed each year, conducts frequent "spot checks" on data, and designs additional audits around feedback from industry groups and other stakeholders, all to analyze and manage returns on investment; and a new Active Case Management system supports decision-making that is integrated, takes place in real time, and leads to more effective and efficient resource allocation. In addition, since the previous PART assessment, OFCCP has designated field compliance officer functions as commercial, opening the door to additonal analysis, cost comparisons, and potential savings. However, a 2003 external evaluation found that cost effectiveness could be improved, in that OFCCP could potentially be finding more discrimination with the same number of compliance reviews. We have no data yet from the program's new efficiency measure.

Evidence: DOL 2004 Commercial Activities and Inherently Governmental (FAIR Act) Inventories; WESTAT evaluation 12/2003 (on selection, found "OFCCP effectively selected establishments for review", though "targeting could have been better [and m]ore discrimination might have been found with the same number of reviews"; recommended improvements to targeting strategies, and certain data collection and contractor selection practices).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The program is not participating in the "common measures" exercise. At first blush, other federal programs designed to reduce employment discrimination -- such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Justice's Employment Litigation Section -- could be deemed comparable. However, OFCCP's performance relative to these other programs is not currently known. Further, before an analysis is initiated, OMB and DOL must discuss and agree on which programs lend themselves to an appropriate comparison.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: An external evaluation completed in December 2003 found that: (1) OFCCP effectively targets establishments for review; and (2) its targeted review process is "highly effective" in identifying and removing unlawful barriers to employment growth for members of protected groups; but (3) cost effectiveness could be improved, in that OFCCP could potentially be finding more discrimination with the same number of compliance reviews. Of note: DOL is funding an independent evaluation of OFCCP in 2004 to develop an improved targeting system and more meaningful performance measures. Separately, OFCCP is working with a research firm to evaluate the usefulness of data being collected and identify more predictive, reliable data. The results of this data evaluation should be available in 2004, and will be incorporated into the next PART assessment.

Evidence: WESTAT evaluation 12/2003 (found review process "highly effective" and "OFCCP effectively selected establishments for review", though "targeting could have been better [and m]ore discrimination might have been found with the same number of reviews"; recommended improvements to data collection and contractor selection practices); OFCCP employer diversity study 10/7/2003 (analysis of employer data submitted to federal government 1993-2001 compared diversity levels of federal contractors against those of noncontractors as proxy for direct measure of program impact and effectiveness; found "contractor status is related to increased proportions of [certain minority groups] in several industry groups"). In 2005, OFCCP will dedicate funding to the design, development, and testing of a new OFCCP Information System whose objectives include enhanced automated contractor evaluations and investigations, including more accurate determinations of OFCCP jurisdiction; standardized statistical tools; and centralized information collection and management within OFCCP's Managerial Cost Accounting function.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: The program could be doing more to maximize net benefits by completing its review of and modifications to the Equal Opportunity Survey. As mentioned above, an empirical study of the survey is underway.

Evidence: 41 CFR Parts 60-1, 60-2, www.dol.gov/esa/ regs/cfr/main.htm; Doyle Statement 8/11/2003 (describing work with outside firm on Equal Opportunity Survey); DOL 2003 PAR (describing empirical study to evaluate Equal Opportunity Survey and develop an effective, predictive model for selecting contractors for review).