Dramatic changes have occurred in civil rights over the last decade. When the 1960's began only one of the three branches of the Federal Government-the judiciary-had

been actively engaged in the fight to protect the rights of minority citizens. Through such cases as Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court helped awaken government-Federal, State, and local to its responsibility to assure equal protection of the laws for all persons. And through Brown v. Board of Educa tion of Topeka, the Court made it clear that equality could not be achieved constitutionally under a system of apartheid.

The executive and legislative branches had only begun to stir themselves to action. Presidential Executive orders, issued during the 1940's and 1950's, desegregated the Armed Forces and began an attack on employment discrimination. Congress, in 1957, passed the first civil rights law since post-civil war years, which was, however, extremely limited in scope.

But during the 1960's civil rights, in a sense, came of age. For the first time all three branches of the Federal Government acted with vigor to secure basic legal rights for the country's minorities. The courts continued to define the civil rights responsibility of government and brought new life and substance to constitutional and statutory protections in such key areas as education, employment, housing, and voting. The executive branch, through additional Presidential Executive orders, strengthened its attack against employment discrimination and moved also to end housing discrimination. And Congress enacted four major civil rights laws covering such areas as education, employment, housing, public accommodations, public facilities, and voting. In short, by the end of the 1960's, there existed a significant array of Federal laws and policies to protect basic rights of minorities.

What also changed dramatically in the

course of that decade was the attitude and perspective of the American people and their leaders toward civil rights problems-a change from optimistic hope that they could be resolved quickly and simply to sober realization that the problems were so deep seated and complex that they could not yield readily to easy solutions. They involve not only denials of basic legal rights but social and economic injustices which have been allowed to grow and ferment for many years. The civil rights laws attack only the first aspect of the problemdenials of basic rights. As for the second, as a Nation, America has barely begun to deal with them.

Measured by a realistic standard of results, progress in ending inequity has been disappointing. Even in securing basic rights-by far the easier part of the problem-success has been spotty and moot. In many areas in which civil rights laws afford pervasive legal protection-education, employment, housingdiscrimination persists and the goal of equal opportunity is far from achievement. The plain fact is that some of these laws are not working well. The Federal civil rights effort has been inadequate to redeem in full the promise of true "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans. As a result, many minority group members are losing faith in the Federal Government's will and capacity to protect their rights. Some also are losing faith that equality can be achieved through law. It is important that their faith be restored and that the promise of the hard fought battle for civil rights laws be redeemed.

From its establishment in 1957, this Commission, through hearings, investigations, and reports, has documented the need for many of the civil rights laws and participated in the effort to enact them. The civil rights struggle now has shifted in large part from legislating to administering and enforcement. In recent years, the Commission has closely examined

the civil rights enforcement operation of various Federal departments and agencies. It has investigated the role of agencies charged with responsibility for assuring against employment discrimination by Federal or federally assisted contractors. It also has looked into policies and practices of agencies with civil rights responsibilities in housing and home finance. It has paid particular attention to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance, and has studied the structure and mechanism by which enforcement of that important law is carried out. The Commission has issued reports based on these studies concerning such diverse agencies as the Department of Agriculture, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Department of the Interior, and, most recently, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

To some extent, the problems and inadequacies in the civil rights structure and mechanism of Federal agencies can be considered unique and attributable to the special qualities of their programs. Many problems and inadequacies, however, are shared by all the examined agencies and cut across program lines. By the same token, the wide disparities in the effectiveness of civil rights enforcement efforts can be attributed, partly but not totally, to program differences.

The Commission's experience in its investigations of contract compliance, housing, and Title VI persuaded it of the utility of conducting an across-the-board investigation of the Federal civil rights enforcement effortof discovering, for one given period of time, where various Federal departments and agencies with significant civil rights responsibilities stand in terms of effectiveness.

This study represents one of the Commission's most ambitious undertakings. An effort was made to review the civil rights operation of some agencies not widely recognized as having significant civil rights responsibilities such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and those regulating particular industries, such as radio and television broadcasting, rail, air, and motor transportation, and gas and electric poweras well as those whose importance has been generally recognized, such as the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, inquiry was made into areas which have not received widespread public attention in civil rights discussions, such as programs of assistance flowing directly from the Federal Government to individual beneficiaries, as well as programs of insurance and guaranty. Not neglected, however, were those activities which have been in the eye of the civil rights storm, such as federally assisted loan and grant programs, covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nonetheless, this study is not an exhaustive one. Limits necessarily have been placed upon it, in terms of the laws, agencies, and programs covered. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has been treated in previous Commission reports, is not covered. Further, in the sections dealing with various Federal programs, it was impossible to treat more than a representative sample. In addition, considerable variation in the depth of treatment of the included programs and agencies was inevitable, due to restrictions of time and staff resources.

Since it was not possible to investigate firsthand the field civil rights operation, the study has involved work almost exclusively in Washington, D.C. However, information on field activities, as well as central office operations, was obtained through examination of central offices files, interviews with agency personnel, and agency responses to questionnaires. The Commission received excellent cooperation throughout its work and is grateful to department and agency personnel who provided the requested information.

To assure the accuracy of the report, the Commission forwarded copies of it in draft form to departments and agencies whose activities are discussed in detail and requested their comments and suggestions. Their responses invariably were helpful, serving to correct factual inaccuracies, clarify points which may not have been sufficiently clear, and provide updated information on activities undertaken subsequent to the time of Commission staff investigations. These comments have been incorporated in the report. In some instances, agencies expressed disagreement