Strategic Objective 1: Justice and Opportunity

Our first Strategic Objective is premised on 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. We must enhance confidence in our abilities 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 contain an expanding workload.

Thirteen performance measures in our Strategic Plan are included under three elements of our Five-Point Plan. The following table describes these measures.

In our Strategic Plan, we identified many new types of measures for the agency. Several involve using external surveys to collect information for establishing baseline and target values of results we expect to achieve over several years and measuring actual results achieved. Originally, we anticipated conducting surveys in FY 2004 to establish these baseline and target values through FY 2009 so that we could begin to measure results. We were required to balance many critical and competing priorities throughout FY 2004, which impeded our ability to conduct surveys. However, we initiated steps during the fiscal year that will help us complete surveys in FY 2005. With the survey information, we will establish intermediate and final target goals and stay within our long-term time frames for the measures that rely on surveys.

Performance Results for Justice and Opportunity

Strategic Objective 1 includes performance measures for our two major nationwide enforcement programs: Private sector enforcement, including administrative charge processing, mediation and litigation; and Federal sector enforcement, including hearings, appeals, and oversight of Federal EEO programs.

Measure 1.1.5. is one of the indicators where we intend to survey to establish target goals and measure our success.

We expect to survey members of the public to determine how familiar they are with our enforcement efforts and to what extent they believe that we have responsibly and effectively addressed workplace discrimination. Our assumption is that they will come to us for assistance and trust in our capability to handle their complaint if they know their rights and responsibilities and believe that we will address workplace discrimination. If we are viewed as a fair and just enforcer of the civil rights employment laws, employers, attorneys, advocacy groups and members of the general public will have confidence in our impartial role as a law enforcement agency.

As noted earlier, we initiated steps in FY 2004 to begin the design of some of our surveys. Competing priorities within the Agency prevented us from conducting the surveys. We intend to complete most of our survey activities and steps in FY 2005.

Private Sector Enforcement

Charge Processing

The Commission, in its role as a law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing the Nation's civil rights employment laws. 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 their 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.

The Commission continues to make considerable gains in enhancing its private sector enforcement program.

Measure 1.1.1 establishes a goal for FY 2009 to resolve 75% of our private sector charges in 180 days or fewer. This overall goal will help us build upon our steady success in recent years in reducing the average time to process private sector charges. Towards that end, our FY 2004 target is to process 65% of the charges in 180 days or fewer. We processed 67.1% of our resolved private sector charges in the time frame; exceeding the target. Our target for FY 2005 is increased to 70%.

Another of our measures for the private sector balances our efforts to achieve more timely charge processing and ensuring that the quality of our work is maintained. Measure 1.1.4. uses methodologies and more detailed criteria to assess the quality of our charge processing. In FY 2004, we met our targets to define the criteria that will be used to assess the quality of our investigative files and developed a system to collect the information needed to gauge results. In FY 2005, we will determine our baseline value and establish targets for FY 2006 through
FY 2009 to measure our success.

Measure 1.3.1. involves a joint effort of our enforcement programs to measure the effect private sector charge and litigation resolutions have on improvements in the workplace. We know that settlements and conciliation agreements, obtained during the processing of a charge of discrimination, or consent decrees and favorable court orders, obtained during EEOC litigation, have an impact on the workplace. It is important, however, to measure those resolutions, which improve employment policies, practices or procedures at the workplace. In FY 2004, we developed approaches to obtain this information by modifying our existing charge database so that we can collect the information that will allow us to establish a baseline value in FY 2005, set intermediate targets for FY 2006 through FY 2008, and a final goal for FY 2009. Initially, we sought to use a survey to collect this data. However, upon further examination and clearly defining data needed to assess improvements to employment policies, practices and procedures, we decided to utilize a more cost effective approach to assessing the results of the measure. The methodology adopted utilizes data collected from the agency's database on private sector resolutions to assess the results of this measure.

Mediation/ADR

Our private sector mediation program is an important tool for resolving charges quickly to the benefit of both employees and employers. The program has been very successful and has contributed to our ability over the past few years to reduce our inventory and resolve more charges in 180 days or less. We have three performance measures that will help us gauge the success of our private sector mediation efforts.

A key aspect of success for our mediation program is the impact it has on the workplace. Measure 1.2.1 will enable us to assess the contributions our mediation program makes toward improved workplaces. As expressed in the target, initially, we planned to conduct a program evaluation for this measure. However, we devised a similar approach to Measure 1.3.1 to assess the results of this measure. In FY 2004, we began to develop procedures and criteria to collect information in our charge database to assess the impact of the private sector mediation program towards improved workplaces. Once this information is collected, we will establish targets for FY 2005 through FY 2009.

While participants almost uniformly view our mediation program favorably, the number of employers agreeing to mediate is considerably less than the number of charging parties agreeing to mediate. A past independent study of our mediation program identified several key reasons that made employers reluctant to participate in EEOC's mediation program, therefore, we are faced with a challenging goal.

Beginning in FY 2004, we implemented a new performance measure to increase the number of charges in which employers agree to mediate. We established the target for FY 2004 to maintain the FY 2003 level of employer acceptances. We achieved this target by maintaining the baseline range. During FY 2004, 13,100 employers agreed to participate, which is 77 acceptances outside of the FY 2003 level of 13,177, and is within 0.5% of the baseline. This represents a maintenance of the FY 2003 baseline range. We are continuing our efforts to increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in our mediation program. However, we face several challenges in meeting this measure and will be assessing our performance to identify the resources and other activities needed to reach the target in future years.

Measure 1.2.3 will help us maintain a high level of confidence of those charging parties and employers who participate in our mediation program. Our past results from survey information, asking participants whether they would use the mediation program again, demonstrated at least a 90% confidence level in our program. In
FY 2004, using the same survey, we questioned a sample of mediation participants and achieved a 95.6% confidence level, surpassing the target for FY 2004.

Litigation

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

We have two measures to assist us in evaluating the success of our litigation efforts.

While obtaining monetary benefits is crucial to the fulfillment of our public interest role, it is only part of the mosaic of positive changes that can be brought about by our enforcement and litigation programs. We have begun to capture empirical data and report on the prospective improvements in the workplace garnered through our enforcement efforts.

In addition, we plan to use our resources to focus on lawsuits that have a high impact on reducing discrimination and removing barriers in the workplace. High impact cases frequently affect large numbers of individuals, including individuals not party to a case, and can lead to positive changes throughout a wide geographical area, industry, or employer community.

For these reasons, we adopted Measure 1.3.2 to address our high impact litigation and the subsequent publicity that results from that litigation. This measure will assess how this litigation and publicity changes the workforce status of affected groups and/or improves employment policies, practices, or procedures in affected workplaces. In FY 2004, we defined the type of cases that constitute our "high impact litigation" and how we will measure any "change in workforce status." Throughout FY 2005 through FY 2007, we will initiate steps to collect information to assist us in measuring the impact of our litigation and to develop approaches for improving our efforts to achieve greater results.

Measure 1.3.3 will ensure that we maintain a high success rate for resolving our lawsuits at 90% or higher. A five-year study of our litigation program demonstrated that we have achieved this rate of success in the recent past. It is important for us to maintain this high success rate to aid our efforts to deter and remedy discrimination in the workplace. Throughout the entire period from FY 2004 through FY 2009, we expect to maintain at least the 90% level using a 6-year rolling average of successful lawsuits to account for minor year-to-year fluctuations that can result from a limited database of observations. For FY 2004, we met our target and achieved a success rate of 92.2%.

Federal Sector Enforcement

Our Federal sector program has a unique role in ensuring that all Federal employees have the freedom to compete in the workplace on a fair and level playing field and to be judged on the merit of their performance and not on the basis of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. Our hearings and appellate enforcement efforts and our monitoring, guidance, and assistance activities help us achieve our purposes. We will continue to enhance the hearings program by reducing the age of the complaint inventory by utilizing approaches that will yield swifter processing. We also will continue our recent success in controlling the growth of the appellate inventory while ensuring that appeals are resolved in a fair and efficient manner. Using the guidance and principles contained in the landmark MD 715, which became effective October 1, 2003, the Commission will evaluate the progress of Federal agencies in creating effective equal employment opportunity programs. We will monitor plans submitted by the Federal agencies to the EEOC to identify and remove barriers to free and open competition in the workplace. With the implementation of MD 715 and our focus on establishing effective relationship programs with agencies, we will deliver relevant and helpful information, training, and EEO solutions to Federal agencies. We will implement new initiatives and make further improvements in the Federal sector as part of our continuing evaluation of efforts to reform the process.

In addition to the contributions the Federal sector enforcement program makes to the achievement of Measure 1.1.5 (the measure was discussed in the introduction to performance results for Strategic Objective 1: Justice and Opportunity), the Federal sector enforcement program has four additional performance measures for FY 2004.

Hearings

Increased efforts by our hearings program to utilize early case assessment as a tool to expedite the processing of cases along with the continued use of ADR in the hearings program has aided in the proficient resolution of cases in FY 2004. We have targeted a higher rate in FY 2005 and FY 2006. The increased use of ADR provides the parties with a setting to mutually resolve their complaints without the need for a formal hearing and has reduced the overall processing time in the Federal sector. The incidence of future complaints is also affected by improving communication between parties through mediation and other forms of ADR

Measure 1.1.2. sets our long-range goal to increase the rate to 50% for Federal sector hearings to be resolved in 180 days or less. We have a target of 35% and achieved a rate of 32.8% for FY 2004. We believe our results were affected by two factors, specifically our focus on reducing the aged inventory and the inter-district transfer of cases. In FY 2004, we targeted the oldest cases in our inventory for resolution, which meant we were not able to devote as much attention to new complaints. Because of staffing imbalances in our field offices, we had to utilize complaint transfers to shift our workload, and, as a result, it takes more time for these cases to be processed. We have raised our target for FY 2005 and FY 2006 to resolve 38% and 40%, respectively, of our hearings in 180 days or fewer.

We intend to achieve these goals by using coordinated initiatives we began in FY 2004 to provide substantive and operational support and oversight towards the resolution of hearings cases to help prepare decisions more expeditiously. Our administrative judges, who conduct the hearings on discrimination complaints filed against Federal agencies, will be provided guidance and assistance. The hearings workload will be monitored by analyzing hearings data and evaluating staffing needs and the quality of administrative judges' work. We will continue to expand the use of ADR to resolve complaints at the hearings stage. Federal sector appellate legal tools will be made available to assist administrative judges in processing hearings efficiently by making available fully researched and computerized legal language for inclusion in findings and decisions and fully-searchable past decisions on the our Intranet site.

Appeals

Our Federal sector program adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by Federal agencies on complaints of employment discrimination filed by Federal employees or applicants for Federal employment. The Federal sector appellate program has fully implemented the Proficient Resolution component of the Chair's Five-Point Plan by streamlining operations to make its appellate adjudicatory body more efficient with the result that we have dramatically reduced the number, age, and processing time of pending appeals.

Measure 1.1.3. demonstrates the significant results we have achieved over the years by timely completing more of the appellate cases. We have a goal to resolve 70% of our Federal sector appeals in 180 days or fewer by FY 2009. We set a goal for FY 2004 to resolve 45% of the new appeals received within this time frame. Even though we projected an increase in new appeals, we contained the growth of the appellate inventory and continued our progress to ensure that we met this target with 51.8% of new appeals resolved in 180 days or fewer.

We have had an appeals measure of this type since FY 2000. With a relatively high and aged workload, we initially established targets based on the appeals received and resolved within a specific fiscal year; helping us to simultaneously work on new appeals coming into the workload while using some of our resources to resolve the aging inventory. We used this approach in FY 2004 and will continue using it for FY 2005. For FY 2006, however, we will be revising the method we use to calculate the appellate resolutions to mirror the way we measure the timeliness of charge resolutions in the private sector and hearings resolutions in the Federal sector. We will include in the calculation all appellate cases regardless of the fiscal year they were filed.

Oversight of Federal EEO Programs

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

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

We aim to increase the use of ADR techniques at the pre-complaint stage in the Federal sector; the stage before a formal complaint is filed with a Federal agency. The Commission's efforts in promoting and expanding mediation/ADR at all stages of the Federal EEO complaint process appear to be having a positive effect on Federal agencies' EEO complaint inventories. As more agencies expand their efforts to offer ADR during the informal process, we expect to see continued decreases in the number of formal complaints filed, which will reduce costs for complainants and all Federal agencies, and enable an agency to focus resources on its primary mission.

The goal for Measure 1.2.4 is to increase ADR participation to 50% or higher at the pre-complaint stage. Our
FY 2004 target was 25%. Since Federal agencies do not report their information to the EEOC until the middle of the first quarter of FY 2005, we will provide the information on the achievement of this target as soon as possible after the reporting period ends.

Evaluation and Technical Assistance

One of the most important mechanisms in our Federal sector program 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 will conduct these assessments of agencies for establishing model EEO programs. Using targeted evaluations, combined with the new self-assessment tools and checklists in MD 715, we will help Federal agencies assess the effectiveness and efficiency of their EEO programs and whether there are barriers precluding them from effectively utilizing their entire workforce in accomplishing their missions. We will periodically issue evaluative reports on a wide variety of topics in order to share government-wide, as appropriate, valuable information to assist agencies in developing model EEO programs.

The results of these Federal sector activities, included under Measure 1.3.4, will be assessed with a Program Evaluation study in FY 2009. For FYs 2004 and 2005, we will be defining and evaluating steps to take to prepare for this evaluation. Through our Relationship Manager project, we were able to conduct pilots of six agencies EEO programs. We will use information obtained from pilot evaluations to assist our planning efforts in preparation for the program evaluation scheduled in FY 2009.

This page was last modified on November 18, 2004

Return to Home Page