ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

GENERAL FINDINGS

The Federal civil rights arsenal consists of legislation, Presidential Executive orders, and court decisions, outlawing racial or ethnic discrimination in almost every aspect of American life. It represents a powerful instrument for assuring equal opportunity for all citizens. A variety of problems common to most agencies with civil rights responsibilities, however, has prevented full utilization of these laws and has virtually impeded them from achieving their goals.

1. Without exception, all agencies with civil rights responsibility lack sufficient staff to carry them out at an acceptable level of effectiveness.

2. In most agencies, the official in charge of civil rights responsibilities lacks the status, authority, and position in the administrative hierarchy to make certain that civil rights needs and goals are accorded an appropriate priority among agency activities.

3. In most cases, agencies either have failed to state the goals of their civil rights programs with sufficient clarity and specificity or have defined them too narrowly. This has hindered the setting of strategic priorities for civil rights activities and the development of programs capable of attacking the problem of discrimination on a broad scale.

4. Many agencies operate their substantive programs in isolation from civil rights compliance and enforcement programs and without regard to their civil rights implications. Few agencies offer civil rights training to their program officials.

5. Some agencies have failed to recognize that they have any civil rights responsibility. Others, while recognizing the applicability of nondiscrimination laws and policies, have

failed to take any action implementing these laws and policies.

6. The agencies have not been adequately concerned with the civil rights problems of such groups as Spanish surnamed Americans, American Indians, and women.

7. The agencies have failed to collect, maintain, and evaluate racial and ethnic data to determine compliance and to measure the impact of substantive and civil rights programs.

8. Many agencies have adopted a passive role in carrying out their civil rights responsibilities. They have relied mainly, or entirely, upon the receipt of complaints as the indicator of civil rights compliance and have exhibited reluctance to initiate compliance actions, such as instituting compliance reporting systems and conducting onsite compliance reviews.

9. Failure to make sufficient use of the sanctions available to enforce civil rights laws has placed undue emphasis on voluntary compliance. This often results in delays and interminable negotiations. Sanctions such as fund termination and debarment have been used so rarely as to undermine the credibility of the Government's civil rights effort.

10. There has been a failure to coordinate and focus the Federal civil rights enforcement effort adequately. Agencies having civil rights responsibilities in the same area have tended to operate independently-with different goals, different orientations, and different levels of compliance activity-even where specific coordination mechanisms have been provided. There also has been a failure to provide overall coordination of and direction to the Federal civil rights enforcement efforts.

FINDINGS IN SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS

I. EMPLOYMENT

A. Federal Employment

1. The Federal Government, with nearly 3 million civilian workers, is the largest single employer in the Nation. Despite recent improvements, minority group members remain underrepresented in the Federal employment ranks.

(a) Disparities are most pronounced at higher grade levels. In nearly all Federal agencies the proporation of Negroes, Spanish surnamed Americans, and American Indians decreases at each grade level above GS-3 or its equivalent.

(b) Minority underrepresentation is more pronounced at the regional than the central office level.

2. Over the past year, the Civil Service Commission, responsible under a Presidential Executive order for supervising the Federal equal employment opportunity effort, has taken up its equal employment opportunity duties with increasing vigor and imagination. CSC has reorganized, centralized, and strengthened its equal opportunity office to facilitate carrying out the affirmative action program of minority employment called for by the President in his 1969 Executive order.

3. CSC has initiated innovative programs and has made energetic efforts to increase minority employment in the Federal service. Among the steps CSC has undertaken are:

(a) Increased efforts to recruit more minority employees;

(b) Continuing reappraisal of civil service examinations to weed out bias and to eliminate employment tests that tend to exclude minority group applicants;

(c) Revision of Federal merit procedures to reduce the possibility of deliberate or inadvertent discrimination and to facilitate more rapid promotions for minority group employees;

(d) A requirement that all first-line super

visors undergo training to make them aware of and sensitive to equal opportunity problems; (e) Increased attention in CSC inspections to equal employment aspects of agency programs;

(f) Revision of discrimination complaint procedures to facilitate resolution of problems on an informal basis;

(g) Modernization of the system for collecting and maintaining Federal employment data by race and ethnic origin, with recommendations for adoption by all Federal agencies.

(h) Increased efforts to promote communication between Federal agencies and private groups and individuals concerning issues of equal employment opportunity.

4. Of great potential significance is a recent CSC guideline which emphasizes specific goals in the Federal equal employment opportunity effort. In the past, CSC has discouraged agencies from listing specific numerical or percentage goals in their equal employment opportunity plans of action. The recent guideline suggests that these earlier restrictions may be modified.

5. Despite the recent affirmative steps taken by CSC, weaknesses remain in the effort to increase employment opportunities in the Federal service for minority group members.

a. Some Federal agencies have not adopted adequate procedures for collecting and maintaining racial and ethnic data on Federal employment, necessary to provide them with an accurate picture of progress being made. Further, use of broad categories, such as "Spanish American" or "Spanish surnamed American," precludes a more accurate assessment of problems affecting ethnic groups within these categories, such as Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans.

b. Although currently there is greater emphasis on training supervisors in becoming aware of and sensitive to civil rights problems,

training to facilitate advancement of lower- and middle-grade employees and to permit full utilization of their talents remains inadequate.

c. Positions at the executive level usually are filled by promotion from the ranks of senior level personnel already in the Federal service, most of whom are majority group members.

6. Rigid adherence to the existing merit system by CSC and other Federal departments and agencies has impeded achievement of the goal of equitable representation of minorities in the Federal service.

B. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC)

1. Federal efforts to require Government contractors to follow nondiscrimination in their employment practices began nearly 30 years ago and culminated in the issuance of Executive Order 11246 in 1965, under which leadership responsibility was assigned to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor. Until recently, OFCC had failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures that would produce vigorous compliance programs in the Federal agencies immediately responsible for contract compliance.

a. OFCC and the contracting agencies were grossly understaffed and, despite recent increases, remain so.

b. OFCC monitoring of compliance agency enforcement activities-a key ingredient to an effective contract compliance program—was haphazard, consisting of a series of ad hoc efforts which did not have lasting effects. For example, OFCC was not systematically informed of the number, kind, and adequacy of compliance reviews of Government contractors conducted by the agencies, nor was there a method of evaluating the reviews of compliance agencies.

c. OFCC had to deal with a large number of compliance agencies, which were assigned responsibility for equal employment opportunity on the basis of the amount of the contracts each held with particular companies.

d. OFCC failed to define what was meant by the "affirmative action" requirement of the Executive order, leaving compliance agencies and contractors in doubt as to what steps were called for to satisfy the requirement.

e. Efforts to establish an effective compliance

program in employment by federally assisted construction contractors failed to produce significant results.

f. Effective OFCC liaison with the Department of Justice and EEOC, which also have significant responsibilities in the equal employment opportunity area, was not achieved. For example, between 1965 and 1970, OFCC referred only eight cases to the Department of Justice for litigation.

2. Recent OFCC actions show promise of overcoming some of these past weaknesses.

a. Early in 1970, OFCC expanded its regulations dealing with the nature of the affirmative action requirement of the Executive order, to require contractors to establish plans which include specific numerical goals and timetables to correct deficiencies in minority utilization.

b. OFCC recently improved its capacity for monitoring the activities of compliance agencies by reorganizing its own structure and reducing the number of compliance agencies from 26 to 15. Compliance agency responsibility now is assigned on the basis of particular industries rather than individual contractors.

c. OFCC has established a firm basis for a Governmentwide construction compliance program through the Philadelphia Plan which establishes numerical goals of minority employment by federally assisted contractors. This stimulates community-developed plans, or "home-town solutions," which set goals for all construction in a given community.

3. A continuing weakness in the contract compliance program is OFCC's is OFCC's consistent failure to impose the sanctions of contract termination or debarment on noncomplying Government contractors. The failure to use these sanctions lessens the credibility of the Government's compliance program and weakens the contract compliance effort. Compliance Agencies

1. Of the 15 departments and agencies currently asigned contract compliance responsibility, the Department of Defense, the major Federal contracting agency, is the most important. Until 1970, the Department did not perform effectively in this respect.

a. In two 1969 contract compliance matters, involving southern textile mills and a large aircraft manufacturer, the Department of De

fense failed to follow its own compliance procedures.

b. Its compliance review efforts have been inadequate. Only a small fraction of its contractors are reviewed at all. Although noncompliance frequently is found, followup reviews to determine whether violations have been corrected are almost never done.

2. Since exposure in 1970 of noncompliance by a multi-billion-dollar aircraft manufacturer, the Department of Defense has made significant changes to strengthen its compliance program. The Department has assisted in developing a model compliance plan by the aircraft contractor and has issued "show cause" notices (the first formal step leading to the imposition of sanctions) to more than 35 contractors.

3. The other 14 compliance agencies, including agencies such as HUD and GSA which are responsible for billions of dollars in Government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts, have failed to take the steps necessary to assure compliance with equal opportunity requirements.

a. The compliance agencies do not have sufficient staff to carry out contract compliance responsibilities and frequently assign staff to contract compliance duties on less than a fulltime basis.

b. Only a small percentage of contractors are reviewed by the compliance agencies. When deficiencies are found, few followup reviews are conducted to determine whether corrective action has been taken.

c. None of the compliance agencies has taken more than rudimentary steps to implement OFCC's recent guidelines on affirmative action.

d. Lesser sanctions, such as passing over noncomplying low bidders for construction projects and temporary suspension of contractors, rarely have been used. In no case have they been used systematically and consistently as compliance tools. In most case where agencies have determined noncompliance, they take no action themselves, but forward the cases to OFCC. The sanctions of contract termination or debarment never have been imposed by compliance agencies.

e. The compliance agencies do not collect adequate information to measure the impact of the contract compliance program. Consequently, they are unable to plan effective compliance

programs or evaluate the extent of progress in minority employment.

C. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission

1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged with responsibility for administering Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting private employment discrimination, has not had sufficient budget and staff resources to carry out its responsibilities with anything approaching maximum effectiveness. It has not been able to process the large number of employment discrimination complaints it receives expeditiously and has been unable to devote adequate attention to its other responsibilities.

2. The effectiveness of EEOC has been adversely affected by a rapid turnover and long vacancies in key agency positions, such as Chairman, Commission members, Executive Director, General Counsel, and Director of Compliance. This has resulted in a lack of continuity and direction in the agency's program.

3. In carrying out its functions, EEOC, limited by statute to enforcement by "conference, conciliation, and persuasion", has further restricted its effectiveness by adopting a passive role, placing heavy emphasis on the processing of individual discrimination complaints received. EEOC has made relatively little use of its initiatory capabilities, such as public hearings and Commissioner-initiated charges, to broaden its attack against job bias.

4. Although EEOC has placed primary emphasis on processing individual complaints, it has failed to establish mechanisms necessary to process them with dispatch. A discrimination charge currently takes the Commission approximately 16 months to 2 years to process. This delay has the effect of rendering cases moot, making respondents less willing to conciliate, and requiring reinvestigations by the Department of Justice in cases which it wishes to litigate. New procedures have been developed, however, designed to accelerate the complaint process.

5. No system of priorities has been developed in EEOC complaint processing by which cases of greater importance are handled on an expeditious basis. Efforts have not been made to broaden EEOC investigation beyond the in

dividual complaint or to secure relief that would benefit persons in addition to the individual complainant.

6. EEOC has not made effective use of the affirmative action mechanisms available to it. a. Technical assistance and cooperation with State and local fair employment practices commissions have, for all purposes, operated in a vacuum, all but unrelated to EEOC compliance functions.

b. Public hearings have not been coordinated with the activities of other Federal agencies concerned with equal employment opportunity OFCC, Department of Justice, compliance agencies-nor have they been followed up in a systematic fashion.

c. In collecting racial and ethnic data concerning employment, EEOC has had difficulty in processing the data quickly. Thus, studies based on these data tend to be outdated by the time they are published which severely hampers use of the data for compliance purposes.

D. Department of Justice

1. The Employment Section of the Civil Rights Division, which carries out the Department of Justice's litigation role in enforcing the equal employment opportunity provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246, has 25 authorized attorney positions, thereby making it the largest unit in the Division. However, this number is not sufficient to make a significant impact on existing discriminatory employment practices.

2. Employment cases brought by the Department have been largely limited to those involving discrimination against Negroes. To date, it has brought few cases in which Spanish surnamed Americans, American Indians, or women are the major victims of employment discrimination.

3. The Department has failed to coordinate its law suits into a total Government effort to eliminate employment discrimination. It also has failed in effectively coordinating its nonlitigative activities with EEOC and OFCC.

E. Coordination

1. Despite overlapping legal jurisdiction and inadequate staff, EEOC, OFCC, and the Department of Justice have not yet effectively coordinated their efforts.

a. Each has independently developed its own goals, policies, and procedures which are not watched with those of its sister agencies and sometimes reflect inconsistencies.

b. Until recently, no systematic efforts were made to share data or findings based on complaint investigations or compliance.

c. Employers occasionally have been reviewed by two or three different Federal agencies and inconsistent demands have been made upon them.

d. An Interagency Staff Coordinating Committee, consisting of representatives of EEOC, OFCC, and the Department of Justice, formed in July 1969, to deal with problems of coordination among the three agencies, has made little overall progress in resolving these problems.

2. The lack of successful coordination in meeting problems of discrimination in employment has resulted, in large part, from the fact that responsibilities are split among three separate agencies, each having different orientations and goals.

II. HOUSING

A. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

1. HUD, which has fair housing responsibilities under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 11063, is the only Federal Department other than the Department of Justice whose chief civil rights officer is at the Assistant Secretary level.

2. HUD lacks sufficient staff to carry out its fair housing responsibilities with maximum effectiveness.

3. Although HUD is restricted in its methods of enforcing fair housing laws, it has not made full use of the enforcement tools at its command, nor has it made most effective disposition of available resources.

(a) The Department has emphasized processing of individual complaints almost to the exclusion of other potentially more effective means of furthering the cause of fair housing.

(b) Although HUD has begun to assume a leadership position under Title VIII in attempting to focus the entire Federal housing effort toward promoting the purposes of fair housing, it has been less vigorous in shaping its own pro

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »