Performance and Accountability Report FY 2006

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

I am pleased to present the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC’s) Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year (FY) 2006.  I am pleased that we have received an unqualified opinion for the third consecutive year from independent auditors.

Employment discrimination has changed fairly dramatically over the past 40 years. In the years before and immediately after Title VII was passed, discrimination was blatant and pervasive. Newspapers published sex-segregated job ads, and employers implemented or continued policies of segregating employment facilities by race, paying female employees less than male employees, restricting employment and promotion opportunities for women and minorities, and enforcing mandatory retirement policies to force older workers out.  

Today, discrimination has become more subtle and thus more difficult to prove. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult to overcome summary judgment motions and achieve favorable rulings from courts in employment discrimination cases. Furthermore, a victory in trial court does not guarantee success on appeal. In addition to the procedural and legal difficulties presented by discrimination cases, current demographic changes, such as the graying of the workforce and the increased gender and ethnic diversity of the workforce, also present new challenges and opportunities for employees, employers, and the Commission. To effectively address these existing and newly emerging issues, we must all work together sharing resources and expertise.

In FY 2006, we focused on working together to move forward. We worked together to begin new initiatives to strengthen our systemic enforcement efforts and help the Federal Government take the lead in hiring people with disabilities. We worked together to change our field structure to have more staff work directly with the public, and we are implementing changes to our National Contact Center to make it more responsive and effective. We continued to work with our partners to educate young workers and disseminate best practices. We are continuing to recognize and reward specific practices and activities that produce results and reflect an abiding commitment to access and inclusion in the workplace through the EEOC’s Freedom to Compete Award.

We also worked together to manage our internal controls. Based on a review of agency-wide materials and the assurances of the agency’s senior managers, the agency’s management and financial controls environment under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) was sound in FY 2006, with the exception of findings of one material weakness in information security controls and seven financial non-conformances. Six of the financial non-conformances have already been corrected and the remaining one non-conformance and one material weakness have corrective action plans in place to resolve the findings in FY 2007.

Throughout the long history of this nation, discrimination has been a persistent problem. Since the EEOC opened its doors more than 40 years ago, government and community efforts to end this discrimination have made tremendous progress. However, bias and other barriers to equal employment opportunity continue to separate people in the workplace. We can overcome these barriers if we all put our energy into confronting the problem directly. When we work together, we become far more powerful than the sum of our individual efforts.

Naomi C. Earp
Chair
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

November 8, 2006

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

The EEOC has jurisdiction over employment discrimination issues for the Federal Government’s role as an employer and also for private employers, State and local agencies, employment services, and labor organizations. The EEOC receives, reviews, investigates, and processes charges of employment discrimination, and files discrimination suits. We also provide guidance and information to both employers and employees concerning their rights and responsibilities under the laws we enforce. A more detailed explanation of our structure and the laws we enforce can be found in Appendix A.

This FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), prepared in accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, presents the results of the agency’s programs and financial performance, along with its management challenges. This section of the PAR summarizes our efforts in each of these areas. More detailed discussion can be found in the following sections of the report:

• Performance Results highlights the progress made in meeting the Commission's performance measures, which are articulated in our Strategic Plan for FYs 2004 through 2009.
• The Inspector General’s Statements presents key management challenges identified by the Inspector General and the agency's progress and plans to address them, as well as a statement of FMFIA compliance.
• The Consolidated Financial Statements demonstrate our efforts to be good stewards over the funds the agency receives to carry out its mission. Included in this section is an independent auditor's opinion on the agency's financial statements.

This report is also available on our website at www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/par/2006/index.html.

The Year in Highlights

FY 2006 was a period of tremendous change for the EEOC. Implementation of field repositioning, continuation of the National Contact Center (NCC), and the reopening of our Office in New Orleans all presented the EEOC with unique challenges. However, our focus continues to be upholding our long-held standard of providing quality service to the public and fulfilling our mission of promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace and enforcing Federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination.

The Commission continued to make significant progress in repositioning itself to better serve the public. In January 2006, the agency implemented the field repositioning plan approved by the Commission on July 8, 2005. The plan, which retains all existing field offices and adds two new offices in Mobile, Alabama, and Las Vegas, Nevada, allows for expanded presence, reduced costs, flattening of overall management structure, and more logical geographic alignment of our offices. This restructuring permits the agency to redeploy staff to front-line positions, fill additional positions, and ensure that each office has the staff necessary to manage its workload. 

In July 2006, the Commission approved a one-year contract extension for the operation of EEOC’s pilot National Contact Center, the most pressing of the three major recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in its 2002 in-depth examination of the Commission. The pilot was extended to allow for a NAPA evaluation of the NCC to address concerns raised during an evaluation by the Office of the Inspector General. The Inspector General’s report and the Commission’s rebuttal and comments can be found at www.eeoc.gov. The Commission endorsed many of the Inspector General’s recommendations for improvement of the NCC and directed that they be implemented. We are currently in the process of implementing these changes.

These repositioning efforts, as well as the future restructuring of our Headquarters operations, will allow the agency to use its human capital where it is most needed, so that the Commission can continue its role as the preeminent civil rights agency well into the 21st century.

Finally, the devastation on the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina had a profound impact on the EEOC and our New Orleans District Office. After locating and assisting our New Orleans employees, we started working on reopening our office in New Orleans. After a local search for space, the office reopened on November 29, 2005, in downtown New Orleans, 3 months after damage from the hurricane forced its closure.  

New Strategic Plan

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Strategic Plan covering at least 6 years, but to review, revise, and reissue the plan every 3 years. EEOC issued its Strategic Plan for FYs 2004 through 2009 on October 1, 2003. During FY 2006, the agency operated under this plan, which it was required to replace by October 1, 2006 (FY 2007), while it developed a new plan.

The new Strategic Plan was developed at the same time that the agency was under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) using its Program Assessment Rating Tool, the PART. OMB started the PART initiative 5 years ago to review all Federal Government programs in a number of critical performance areas. It reviews one-fifth of the programs each year. OMB’s review of EEOC occurred this year, the final year of the initial 5-year cycle. The PART assessment focuses extensively on performance and, in particular, performance measures. It was beneficial for us to participate in the PART process while we were developing our new Strategic Plan. As a result, the structure of the new plan and our identified performance measures dramatically changed, even though we were also able to incorporate some of our existing measures.

This PAR provides both performance and financial results for the just-completed FY 2006. The performance information contained in this FY 2006 PAR is based on a Strategic Plan that has now ended. The structural approach for our Strategic Objectives, the Five-Point Plan, and our performance measures is very different in the new plan. Where appropriate throughout this Management Discussion and Analysis section and the Performance section, we provide some information about whether the 24 performance measures in our now-ended Strategic Plan were continued into the new Plan or curtailed.

Each Strategic Objective and its corresponding Five-Point Plan elements have a series of performance measures used to drive results and accountability throughout the agency. Our progress in meeting these measures is summarized below and discussed in detail in the Performance Results section of this report.

EEOC FY 2006 Performance

Measures	Targets Met	Targets Partially Met1	Targets Not Met
24	14	0	10
1 Targets Partially Met: A rating assigned to target results where (1) at least half of the activities targeted for completion were completed, or (2) the target is a 2-year target and at least half of activities have been completed.

Strategic Objective 1: Justice and Opportunity

As legal and business landscapes evolve, we continue to focus on our fundamental responsibility: to correct the wrongs of employment discrimination and bring justice and equal opportunity to the workplace.

Through our Justice and Opportunity Strategic Objective, we strive to remedy and deter unlawful discrimination and increase public confidence in the fair and prompt resolution of employment discrimination disputes. These broad outcomes focus our measures and strategies on three points of our Five-Point Plan: Proficient Resolution, Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and Strategic Enforcement and Litigation.

Justice and Opportunity FY 2006 Performance

Total FY 2006 Investment: $ 314 million
Measures	Targets Met	Targets Partially Met	Targets Not Met
13	8	0	5

Proficient Resolution Proficient Resolution

Proficient resolution connotes the importance of timeliness and quality in service delivery. Our private and Federal sector enforcement programs strive to achieve both success factors-timeliness and quality—in serving our customers.

Private Sector Enforcement Program: Providing quality services that are fair and prompt, for both employees and employers, in our administrative processing system is vital to our mission. In FY 2006, we received 75,768 private sector charges of discrimination, slightly more than the 75,428 received in FY 2005. We also received a net increase of 4,616 charges through net transfers from State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies and adjustments. We achieved 74,308 resolutions, with a merit factor resolution rate of 22.2%. (Merit factor resolutions include mediation and other settlements and cause findings, which, if not successfully conciliated, are considered for litigation.) In comparison, the merit factor resolution rate for FY 2005 was 21.5%. This left us with a growing pending inventory of 39,946 charges at the end of the fiscal year, compared with the FY 2005 figure of 33,562.

Timeliness is a key measure of our success in processing private sector charges. Measure 1.1.1 tracks our progress in resolving charges in 180 days or fewer. In FY 2006, our target was to resolve 70% of charges within this time frame. We did not meet this target. Rather, 60.7% of charges were resolved in 180 days or fewer. Several factors contributed to this result. While our receipts have stayed level between FY 2005 and FY 2006, our investigator staffing levels have declined, which has resulted in a growing pending inventory that is correspondingly older. To keep the age of the inventory under control both in this fiscal year and in future years, offices continue to focus on resolving both older cases and newer charges. Further, the average charge processing time was 193 days, up significantly from 171 days in FY 2005. These and other factors are discussed in the Performance Results section of the PAR.

Our other key measure for success in processing private sector charges assesses the quality of our charge files. Under Measure 1.1.4, we slightly exceeded our FY 2006 target of 87% of investigative charge files meeting the standard of quality, with 88.1% meeting the quality standard.

Under Measure 1.3.1, we assess the impact of our resolutions of charges of discrimination obtained by settlement or conciliation agreement where EEOC is a party, except for those charges resolved through our mediation program, which are included in Measure 1.2.1. Our goal for FY 2006 was to maintain our FY 2005 baseline figure of 18.1% of settlement and conciliation resolutions that included improvements made to the workplace by changes to employer policy, practices, and procedures. For FY 2006, 17.8% of the resolutions in our enforcement program (excluding mediated resolutions), or 697 out of 3,914, resulted in employers agreeing to make changes to their workplace practices, policies, and procedures. This slight decrease is likely due to the increase in mediation settlements, which limits the available pool of charges that reach the settlement/conciliation stage in enforcement. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 622,000 individuals in addition to the specific individuals that received relief under the settlement or conciliation agreements. 

Through our partnership contracts with 96 State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs), we continued to resolve dual-filed charges as a means of preventing duplication of effort and streamlining the charge resolution process. FEPA charge receipts decreased by 12.5%, from 55,928 in FY 2005 to 48,926 in FY 2006. FEPAs resolved 50,599 charges, 7.2% fewer than during the previous year. 

Federal Sector Enforcement Program: The EEOC is responsible for providing hearings and appeals after the initial processing of the complaints by each individual agency. Unlike our responsibilities in the private sector, we do not process charges of discrimination for Federal employees. In FY 2006, we received 7,802 requests for hearings and 6,743 requests for appeals.

As with our Private Sector Program, timeliness and quality are important measures of success in serving the Federal sector. For FY 2006, our target for Measure 1.1.2 was to resolve 50% of Federal sector hearings in 180 days or fewer. We did not meet our goal, resolving 43.6% of hearings cases in 180 days or fewer. Our ability to achieve this goal was impacted by staffing imbalances in our field offices. We utilized complaint transfers to shift our workload, and as a result, it took more time for these cases to be processed. 

Other accomplishments in managing the hearings caseload include the following:

• Reduced the hearings inventory by 16.6%—from 5,896 cases in FY 2005 to 4,912 cases in FY 2006.
• Obtained more than $51.9 million in monetary benefits, compared with $58.6 million in FY 2005.

We made significant gains in processing our Federal sector appellate inventory during FY 2006. Our goal for Measure 1.1.3 was to resolve 55% of appeals within 180 days or fewer. In FY 2006 we resolved 6,465 appeals, 59% of them within 180 days of their receipt. We were able to surpass our goal because of effective management of the appellate inventory, strategic inventory management projects and technological innovations.

Other accomplishments in managing the appellate caseload include the following:

• The end-of-year appellate inventory stood at 3,887, which, while above the FY 2005 ending inventory, was a more than 67% reduction from the inventory high of 11,918 appeals in January 2000.
• Although the average processing time of all appellate closures rose from 194 days in FY 2005 to 220 days in FY 2006, the average processing time for appellate closures in FY 2006 marks a 53% reduction from FY 2002.

Promotion and Expansion of Mediation

The Commission has been successfully implementing its initiative on Promoting and Expanding Mediation/ADR in our private and Federal sector programs. As an enforcement tool, mediation has proven beneficial in advancing the agency's mission in an effective and efficient manner.

Private Sector Mediation Program: The EEOC’s mediation program has been very successful and has contributed to our ability, over the past few years, to manage our growing inventory and resolve charges in 180 days or fewer. In FY 2006, the EEOC’s National Mediation Program secured 8,201 resolutions, which is more than the 7,909 reported last year. We secured more than $109.1 million in monetary benefits for complainants from mediation resolutions.

Three measures highlight important aspects of our private sector mediation program: employer participation, the confidence that employers and charging parties have in the program, and workplace improvements resulting from ADR resolutions. Although participants almost uniformly view our mediation program favorably (see a discussion of Measure 1.2.3 in the Performance Results section), the percentage of employers agreeing to mediate is considerably less than the percentage of charging parties agreeing to mediate. Beginning in FY 2004, we implemented Measure 1.2.2 to increase the number of charges in which employers agree to mediate. In FY 2006, 12,590 employers agreed to mediate, a slight increase from the 12,527 that agreed to participate in FY 2005. As part of our efforts to increase the participation of employers in the mediation program, we have encouraged employers to enter into Universal Agreements to Mediate (UAMs). These agreements reflect the employer’s commitment to utilizing the mediation process to resolve charges. Many employers entered into these agreements in FY 2006, with the result that we now have 1,097 UAMs (142 National/Regional UAMS and 955 Local UAMs). This is an increase from our FY 2005 level of 907 UAMs (100 National/Regional UAMS and 807 Local UAMs).

Participant confidence in our program remains high, with our FY 2006 figures reflecting that 96.8% of all participants would return to EEOC’s Mediation Program in the future. This exceeds our target for Measure 1.2.3 of maintaining a 90% satisfaction rate. We believe this high confidence level helps with our continuing efforts to convince parties to charges, particularly employer representatives, of the value of the mediation approach.

Under Measure 1.2.1, we assess the impact of our mediation efforts on employees in their workplace. This measure is a companion to Measure 1.3.1. discussed earlier. For FY 2006, 4% of the resolutions in our mediation program, or 229 out of 5,727, resulted in employers agreeing to make changes to their workplace practices, policies, and procedures. Our goal for FY 2006 was that 3.1% of mediated resolutions would contain provisions relating to improving the workplace. These workplace improvements benefited over 52,200 persons in addition to the specific individuals who received relief under the settlement. This compares favorably to our FY 2005 achievement of 171 mediated resolutions that had workplace impact benefits.

Federal Sector Mediation Program: Using ADR techniques to resolve workplace disputes throughout the Federal Government can have a powerful impact on agencies’ EEO complaint inventories and, in turn, the Commission’s hearings and appeals inventories. Resolving disputes as early as possible in the Federal sector EEO process improves the work environment and reduces the number of formal complaints, allowing all agencies, including the EEOC, to redeploy resources otherwise devoted to these activities. In addition, a growing number of agencies have incorporated dispute prevention techniques into their ADR programs, further increasing productivity and reducing the overall number of employment disputes. 

Measure 1.2.4 seeks to increase the percentage of Federal employees who participate in ADR during the pre-complaint stage to 50% or higher by FY 2009. Data submitted by Federal agencies at the close of FY 2005 indicate that there were 42,412 instances of pre-complaint EEO counseling across the Federal Government. Of that number, the parties participated in ADR in 18,634 cases, or 45.4% of the time. This is an increase in participation rates from 23% in FY 2002, and surpasses the target rate for FY 2005 of 40%.

The Commission’s efforts in promoting and expanding mediation/ADR at all stages of the Federal EEO complaint process also appear to be having a positive effect on Federal agencies’ EEO complaint inventories, as the number of formal complaints filed in FY 2005 declined by 5.3% over the previous year. 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 agencies to focus resources on their primary missions. 

EEOC continues to actively pursue a variety of ways to assist Federal agencies improve participation in alternative dispute resolution by identifying and sharing best practices, providing assistance in program development and improvements, providing training to Federal employees and managers on the benefits of ADR, and maintaining a web page that serves as a clearinghouse for information related to Federal sector ADR. We will continue to expand technical assistance efforts with agencies to encourage the development of effective ADR programs and promote ADR training among government managers and staff.

Strategic Enforcement and Litigation

To have a meaningful impact on discrimination, we approach our enforcement activities strategically. We employ our resources in ways that will achieve maximum results, while still protecting the rights of the individual. Through focused and strategic enforcement efforts under all of the statutes we enforce, we seek to broadly influence policies and practices in the American workplace and to bring justice and opportunity to all. In April 2006, to enhance our strategic enforcement of the statutes, the EEOC made the fight against systemic discrimination an agency-wide priority. The Commission unanimously adopted the recommendations contained in an internal task force report that focuses on strengthening the Commission's nationwide approach to investigating and litigating systemic cases.

The task force, led by now Vice Chair Leslie E. Silverman, defined systemic cases as “pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location.” Recommendations adopted by the Commission included the following:

• Systemic investigations and litigation will be conducted in the field, and the systemic investigation and litigation units in Headquarters will be eliminated.
• Each district in the field must develop systemic plans to ensure that the Commission is identifying and investigating systemic discrimination in a coordinated, strategic, and effective agency-wide manner.
• The Office of General Counsel should facilitate the staffing of systemic cases using a national law firm model, whereby cases are staffed with employees who have the expertise needed in each particular case.

The full task force report is available at www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/task_reports/systemic.html.

An effective litigation program provides relief for victims of discrimination, many of whom have no other recourse, and it encourages employers to settle cases earlier in EEOC’s administrative enforcement process. Also, publicity about our high impact cases and other litigation increases employer compliance with the statutes we enforce and educates employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities under the law.

In FY 2006, EEOC field legal units filed 370 merits lawsuits and 32 subpoena enforcement and other actions. Legal staff resolved 382 merits lawsuits for a total monetary recovery of over $44 million. Of these resolutions, 294 contained Title VII claims, 49 contained ADA claims, 50 contained ADEA claims, and 8 contained EPA claims. We also resolved 34 subpoena enforcement and other actions during the fiscal year. In terms of dollars recovered in direct and intervention lawsuits by statute, EEOC recovered more than $34 million in Title VII resolutions, nearly $5.5 million in ADEA resolutions, almost $3 million in ADA resolutions, $73,800 in EPA resolutions and $1.7 million in concurrent suit resolutions. At the end of FY 2006, the number of cases on the EEOC’s active docket that involve multiple aggrieved parties or challenges to employment policies was 256 cases, or 43.3% of our total caseload.

For many years, we have achieved a 90% rate of success in our litigation program. We established Measure 1.3.3 in our Strategic Plan to maintain this high level of success while allowing us to continue pursuing cases that have the potential to develop the law in the public interest. Throughout the entire measurement period, we expect to maintain at least a 90% level of success, 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 2006, we exceeded our target, achieving a 6-year rolling average success rate
of 92.7%.

We established Measure 1.3.2 in our Strategic Plan to reflect our focus on litigating cases that are expected to have a high impact on reducing discrimination and removing barriers in the workplace. High impact cases frequently affect large numbers of individuals, including many who are not party to the case, and can lead to positive changes throughout a wide geographic area, industry, or employer community. While many of our cases are expected to have a broad impact, we have selected the following five cases, resolved in FY 2006, to illustrate this measure.

• EEOC v. John Pickle Co. (N.D. Okla. resolved May 24, 2006). The Commission alleged that a fabricator of products used in the petrochemical and power industries discriminated against East Indian steel fabrication workers (welders, fitters, roll/brake operators, and electrical maintenance personnel) in wages and other terms and conditions of employment and subjected them to a hostile work environment because of their race and national origin. EEOC’s suit was consolidated with a private action filed by 52 East Indian employees seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), State tort law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

  Defendant, through a contract with an Indian company, Al Samit International, recruited the claimants, all citizens of India, to come to the United States for jobs they were told would last at least 2 years, with possible long-term employment after that. Many of the claimants left good jobs or their own successful businesses, and some obtained loans from their families and friends to pay large fees required by Al Samit. EEOC participated in a 2-week bench trial on the issue of whether the plaintiffs were employees or trainees under the FLSA. 

  After the EEOC and co-plaintiffs prevailed on this issue, the court held another 2-week bench trial and decided for plaintiffs on all claims. The court found that defendant and its President misrepresented the pay and living and working conditions the East Indian employees would receive in the United States; failed to pay them the minimum wages and overtime premiums required under the FLSA; paid them less than similarly situated non-Indian employees because of their race and national origin; and subjected them to a hostile work environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment because of their race and national origin. The hostile work environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment included numerous offensive comments about the claimants’ ancestry, ethnic background, culture, and country; threatening to physically harm them; threatening to deport them; requiring them to live in substandard housing and to subsist on poor quality, rationed food; subjecting them to greater testing requirements, lower job classifications, and less desirable job assignments; and restricting their movement, communications, worship opportunities, and access to health care. The court awarded a variety of damages under all claims, and the total recovery on EEOC’s claims was around $650,000. 

• EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (N.D. Ill. resolved Mar. 13, 2006). The Commission alleged that defendant subjected employees in three Illinois stores to sex and race discrimination and retaliation. Defendant subjected female and black employees to a hostile work environment, and required black employees to wait on customers that white employees refused to serve and to work in the smoking section. According to the suit, management officials at the three Illinois stores failed to take effective corrective action to stop the harassment and other discrimination, and the company took no action in response to complaints reported to the company’s complaint hotline. Under the 2-year consent decree, defendant will pay $2 million into a settlement fund. Fifty-one individuals are eligible to receive payments from the settlement fund, and any undistributed payments will be distributed to a nonprofit organization that benefits women’s and/or minority workplace interests in one or more of the communities in which the stores are located. Defendant must provide annual training to managers on discrimination, including harassment and retaliation issues, and to all employees on workplace harassment.

• EEOC v. SPS Temporaries, Inc.; Professional Personnel Management Corp.; Jamestown Container Lockport, Inc.; Jamestown Container Corp.; and Whiting Door Manufacturing Corp. (W.D. N.Y. resolved Nov. 22, 2005). The Commission alleged that the largest temporary employment agency in Buffalo, New York, and two of its clients engaged in various violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The suit alleged that SPS: (1) failed to refer applicants for temporary employment based on their race, gender, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, and responses to preemployment medical inquiries; (2) violated the Commission’s recordkeeping regulations by intentionally and systematically destroying documentary evidence during the EEOC’s investigation; (3) required applicants for temporary employment to complete a preemployment questionnaire that elicited information regarding potential disability; (4) failed to hire/refer a charging party for a machinist position because it regarded him as disabled due to his disclosure of a medical condition on a preemployment medical questionnaire; (5) discharged a second charging party from a sales representative position for questioning defendants’ failure to hire the first charging party; and (6) discharged a third charging party from a service coordinator position because of her pregnancy.  In addition, according to the suit, one client asked the temporary agency not to refer female applicants and another client asked the agency not to refer black or female applicants.

  The EEOC entered into separate consent decrees with the defendants, settling the case for a total of $580,000 in monetary relief to be administrated through a claims fund. The 4-year SPS decree enjoins future discrimination, including complying with discriminatory requests from clients and requiring applicants for temporary employment to complete preemployment questionnaires containing questions that may reveal information about actual or potential disabilities. The SPS decree also requires the distribution of a notice regarding resolution of the case and a memorandum setting forth the coverage of Federal employment discrimination laws to all applicants, employees, and clients. SPS must also place job advertisements for temporary positions in specified newspapers and send job notices to specified organizations, with the goal of increasing applications from blacks, Latinos, females, disabled individuals, and persons 40 years old and above. SPS will provide the EEOC with semiannual reports on the race, sex, age, national origin, and disability status of applicants for temporary employment. The Whiting Door and Jamestown Container decrees (3 years each) require training, the adoption of nondiscrimination policies, and reporting on the hiring of temporary employees and on temporary employment agencies each defendant uses.

• EEOC v. Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education and Seafarers International Union (D. Md. resolved Nov. 14, 2005). The Commission alleged that the defendants discouraged individuals age 40 and above from applying for, and denied them admission to, a seafarers’ apprenticeship program. Paul Hall operates an apprenticeship program for deep sea merchant seafarers and inland waterways boatmen. Graduates of the program become eligible for membership in the union, which places many of them with cooperating shipper-employers. One of the eligibility criteria for admission was being “between the ages of 18 through 25.” Application requests from a number of individuals in the protected age group were marked “too old.” According to the suit, after defendants dropped the age limit from the application form, they continued to exclude applicants in the protected age group.

  Award-Winning Attorneys

  Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney, Dallas District EEOC, was a co-recipient of the American Bar Association’s first “Federal Labor and Employment Attorney of the Year” award. Mr. Canino, who has served for a number of years on the Worker Exploitation Task Force with Department of Justice, Department of Labor and other agency representatives, was asked by an underfunded, local practitioner for help with a lawsuit he had filed involving over 50 East Indians who were recruited under false pretenses by the defendant to work at its company as welders or in similar jobs under a special visa program. Mr. Canino immediately saw an opportunity to extend the reach of EEOC’s laws to cover these victims of “human trafficking.” On his recommendation, the Commission approved EEOC’s filing suit, and EEOC’s case was filed and consolidated with the private case. After nearly three and a half years of intense litigation, including two bench trials of two weeks each, the court ruled in favor of the EEOC and the private plaintiffs on all claims, and awarded them $1.24 million and pre-judgment interest.

  The lawsuit was resolved through a 5-year consent decree following defendants’ unsuccessful interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit challenging EEOC’s regulation extending the age discrimination prohibitions of the ADEA to all apprenticeship programs. The appeals court ruled that EEOC’s regulation was a valid exercise of the agency’s rulemaking authority. Under the decree, the defendants will pay aggrieved individuals $625,000 for lost wages. The decree enjoins defendants from imposing any upper age limit in recruiting applicants for or admitting applicants to the apprenticeship program. It also enjoins defendants from discriminating based on age (40 or older) against individuals who inquire about the program, apply for the program, or are enrolled in the program. In all written and electronic recruiting and admissions materials for the program, defendants will state that they do not discriminate on the basis of age.

• EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc. (N.D. Ohio resolved Aug. 16, 2006). The Commission alleged that a Cleveland manufacturer of precision metal-formed products and assemblies refused to hire women and African Americans into laborer and machine operator positions at its plant because of their sex and race, and failed to retain employment applications. According to the suit, defendant rejected qualified female applicants in favor of lesser qualified male applicants. Evidence showed that women were employed only as clericals and blacks were not employed at all. External measures of availability showed statistically significant disparities between defendant’s employment of women and blacks in laborer and operative positions and their representation in the relevant labor market. Under the 39-month consent decree, defendant will pay $940,000 into a fund to compensate at least 19 individuals, and the fund administrator will identify additional potential claimants. In addition, the defendant will make good faith efforts to increase recruitment of female and black applicants, appoint an EEO Coordinator, and retain extensive hard copy and computer records regarding its recruitment and hiring efforts. Defendant will also submit reports to the EEOC indicating application flow and hiring data by race and sex.

Strategic Objective 2: Inclusive Workplace

The best way to combat workplace discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Educating employers and workers about their rights and responsibilities under the law is the first step toward an inclusive work culture—where all workers are judged on their talents and abilities, without regard to race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, age, or disability.

A strong prevention program helps employers comply with the law and breaks down barriers to employment opportunities. Through outreach and education, we seek to prevent unlawful exclusionary practices from taking root. Through new and innovative proactive approaches, we are helping move toward sound workplace practices that foster a level playing field and allow the best talent to emerge. Encouraging inclusive, equal opportunity workplaces is a powerful prevention strategy.

For our Inclusive Workplace Strategic Objective, we strive to achieve increased voluntary compliance with the Federal equal employment laws and increased individual awareness and understanding of rights and responsibilities. With these broad goals, our measures and strategies focus on one point of our Five-Point Plan: Proactive Prevention.

Inclusive Workplace FY 2006 Performance

Total FY 2006 Investment: $ 13 million
Measures	Targets Met	Targets Partially Met	Targets Not Met
3	1	0	2

Proactive Prevention

The Commission’s outreach programs reached 300,494 persons. Field and headquarters offices participated in 5,628 educational, training, and outreach events. This is an increase in the number of events over the same period in FY 2005, when there were 5,505 events.

Also, our offices distributed information materials on EEO laws and represented the Commission at 834 other public events that reached an additional 79,389 people. These events included information booths at job fairs, conventions, cultural expositions, and conferences. Through participation in many community organization meetings, informational materials were distributed to another 66,869 people. We also made 796 media presentations, including radio and TV interviews, talk shows, and press conferences that provided substantive EEO information to millions of stakeholders.

Our performance measures for Proactive Prevention focus on increasing voluntary compliance with Federal equal employment laws and individual awareness of rights and responsibilities. Measure 2.1.1 affords us an opportunity to determine the percentage of employers who improve their workplaces as a result of their participation in one of our outreach or technical assistance programs. Our FY 2006 data show that 94.7% of participants indicated they made an improvement in their employment policies, practices, or procedures as a result of previously attending our free or fee-based outreach activities and training, which far exceeds our target of 85%. This result demonstrates the far-reaching impact that these outreach efforts have on changing the workplace to better ensure a fair and equitable environment for all employees. Highlights of our major outreach initiatives for FY 2006 follow.

Small Business Outreach: The Commission is working cooperatively and collaboratively with the small business community to proactively prevent employment discrimination and promote voluntary compliance. We recognize that many small businesses do not have separate human resources and legal staff to guide them through the regulatory process. Therefore, it is important to establish open lines of communication and provide the necessary training and tools to ensure that small employers comply with the law. EEOC district offices conducted 583 no-cost outreach events directed toward small businesses in FY 2006, including several events under the President’s New Freedom Initiative (NFI). Events included oral presentations, training, and stakeholder input meetings that reached 29,461 small business representatives. An additional 1,849 small business representatives attended Revolving Fund events. The topics of mediation, EEOC overview, sexual harassment, charge processing, Title VII, and the ADA were the most popular for small business audiences.

Mediation Outreach: In FY 2006, EEOC offices conducted 533 outreach events directed toward the private-sector employer community to promote our mediation program. Events included workshops, mock mediations, and panel discussions with employer representatives as well as representatives from the plaintiff and defense bar.

Freedom to Compete Initiative:  Launched in 2002, the EEOC’s Freedom to Compete Initiative is a national outreach, education and partnership campaign designed to recognize and reward specific practices that produce results and reflect a commitment to access and inclusion in the workplace. The EEOC’s Freedom to Compete Award, presented annually, honors excellence in the implementation of effective EEO practices that can be replicated by other employers or organizations.

We presented our Freedom to Compete Awards in June 2006 to a diverse group of companies, Federal agencies, and associations:

• McDonald’s Corporation of Oak Brook, Illinois, was recognized for its national “Employee Networks” program, which provides forums for diverse groups of employees to foster relationships and career development opportunities. The four major diversity networks are geared toward Hispanic, Asian, African American, and female employees.
• Arizona Public Service Company of Phoenix, Arizona, was recognized for its “Academy for the Advancement of Small, Minority, and Women Owned Enterprises,” a 2-year mentoring program to provide small employers with business skills training, one-on-one mentoring, group projects, and individualized goal setting and action plans.
• Public Service Electric & Gas Company of Newark, New Jersey, was recognized for its “Energy Utility Technology Degree Program” to develop a continuous pipeline of diverse talent for employment in entry-level technical trade positions and to establish a commitment to education that generates renewed interest in technical trade careers.
• North Broward Hospital District of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was recognized for its “Employee Advocacy and Fair Treatment Program,” designed and implemented for employees to address their equal employment opportunity concerns and reach fair resolutions with management at the lowest possible level.
• Fluor Corporation of Sugar Land, Texas, was recognized for its “Mentoring Circles Program,” which provides a diverse group of employees with valuable exposure to leadership in a team-based setting that allows for informal dialogue, mentoring, and learning.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) was recognized for its “Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program,” which makes assistive technology and services available at no cost to DoD employees and other Federal agencies.
• Linking Employment, Abilities, and Potential (LEAP) of Cleveland, Ohio, was recognized for hiring, training, and promoting qualified persons with disabilities to help other persons with disabilities find and retain employment.

Youth@Work: In September 2004, we announced our Youth@Work Initiative to promote equal employment opportunity for our nation’s next generation of workers. This innovative national outreach and education campaign is designed to educate young workers about their workplace rights and responsibilities.

The Youth@Work website (www.youth.eeoc.gov) is dedicated to educating young workers about their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities. The website explains the different types of job discrimination that young workers may encounter and suggests strategies they can use to prevent and, if necessary, respond to such discrimination. The site includes an interactive tool called “Challenge Yourself!” that provides an opportunity for young workers to test their knowledge by analyzing sample job discrimination scenarios. The site, created with the assistance of EEOC student interns, also includes examples of recent cases involving workplace harassment of young workers. A Spanish-language version of the website debuted in June 2005 at www.youth.eeoc.gov/es.

In September 2006, the Youth@Work Initiative celebrated its second birthday. Over the past 2 years, EEOC offices nationwide have hosted or participated in more than 1,800 events to educate teenage employees and their employers about workplace discrimination and harassment. We have reached more than 123,000 high school students, parents, teachers, and employers—arming them with the information they need to create positive first work experiences for our young adults.

In FY 2006, we conducted 1,012 events to educate teenage employees and their employers about workplace discrimination and harassment, reaching 50,710 high school students, parents, teachers, and employers. These events, which include information about the laws enforced by EEOC and the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, are aimed at assisting young workers as they enter and navigate the professional world and encouraging employers to proactively address discrimination issues confronting young workers.

Compliance Manual Chapter on Race and Color Discrimination: Commission guidance, which can reach a very broad audience, is a critical educational tool. In FY 2006, the Commission issued a Compliance Manual section on race and color discrimination. The manual section is designed to help employers prevent race and color discrimination; employees or job applicants evaluate whether they have a valid complaint and, if so, how to address it; and enforcement staff investigate a form of discrimination that is seldom overt.

LEAD Initiative: LEAD (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is the EEOC’s initiative to address the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the Federal workforce. People with targeted disabilities comprised less than 1% of the Federal workforce last year and the percentage of permanent Federal workers with targeted disabilities has been consistently below 1.3%. Commissioner Christine Griffin announced the initiative at a Commission meeting in June.

The over-arching goal for this initiative is to significantly increase the population of individuals with disabilities employed by the Federal Government. This national outreach and education campaign is designed to

• Increase the awareness of Federal hiring officials about the declining numbers of people with disabilities in Federal employment
• Reverse the trend of decreasing participation in Federal employment
• Educate Federal hiring officials about how to use special hiring authorities to bring people with disabilities on board, particularly those with severe disabilities
• Educate applicants with severe disabilities about how to apply using the special hiring authorities available
• Provide information and resources on reasonable accommodation

The LEAD Initiative includes (1) educational events and seminars and (2) focus group sessions with Federal managers, hiring officials, and other interested parties to explore the issue of declining employment for individuals with severe disabilities and come up with concrete solutions to address the problem. More information can be found at www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/lead/index.html.

New Freedom Initiative: In 2001, President Bush launched the New Freedom Initiative (NFI), a comprehensive strategy to achieve full integration of individuals with disabilities into all aspects of the nation’s social and economic life. As the agency responsible for enforcing the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), EEOC is actively involved in advancing the initiative.

During FY 2004, we began to develop a series of documents in question-and-answer format that explain how the ADA applies in the workplace to individuals with particular disabilities. That year, we published documents on diabetes and epilepsy; in FY 2005, we added publications on intellectual disabilities and cancer; and in FY 2006, we published documents on blindness and vision impairments and deafness and hearing impairments. In May 2006, we issued Reasonable Accommodations for Attorneys with Disabilities, in conjunction with the first American Bar Association conference on the employment of lawyers with disabilities.

To further advance the NFI, our innovative States’ Best Practices Project, begun in 2003, created partnerships between EEOC and nine States—Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. For this project, the EEOC reviewed policies and procedures related to the employment of individuals with disabilities in State government. In early FY 2006, we issued our Final Report on Best Practices for the Employment of People With Disabilities in State Government, which highlighted best practices in recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement, and reasonable accommodation. The report also describes practices in the nine participating states that promote employment of people with disabilities generally and some policies or practices that may inadvertently result in barriers to employment.

We have also offered participating states free technical assistance to enhance compliance with the ADA. In February 2006, for example, we conducted six training sessions for employees and managers at the Maryland Department of Transportation, and in late August 2006, we provided training to more than 100 key state employees in Kansas.

Federal Sector Outreach: The Commission has championed a new approach toward creating a barrier-free, level playing field throughout the Federal Government. This new approach was captured in the landmark issuance of EEOC MD-715, which was unanimously approved by the Commission and became effective government-wide on October 1, 2003. MD-715 is the roadmap for Federal agencies to identify and remove barriers to equality of employment opportunity so that the American people can have a model Federal workforce. Using the guidance and principles contained in MD-715, the Commission now has an effective tool for evaluating agencies’ progress in creating effective equal employment opportunity programs and monitoring plans submitted by agencies to identify and remove barriers to free and open competition in the workplace.

In FY 2005, the first year requiring MD-715 report submission, the Commission received submissions from a total of 171 agencies and subcomponents. To assist agencies in preparing these reports, we conducted 109 in-person and 30 telephonic technical assistance meetings with the responsible agency employees. For the 49 agencies that timely submitted their MD-715 reports, we issued written feedback letters to the agency heads utilizing an innovative, systematic review of the submissions, referred to as the Panel Review Process, which was designed to ensure thoroughness and consistency. In FY 2006, we completed nearly 200 feedback letters to all agency heads who submitted untimely reports in FY 2005, as well as to all who timely submitted reports for the FY 2006 reporting period. A key strategy to be more responsive to our Federal sector customers was the creation and subsequent expansion of our successful Relationship Management project during FY 2006. This project, modeled after the private sector’s approach to customer service, brought Commission personnel together with EEO staff from 12 large agencies and 20 small agencies in nonadversarial partnerships to examine methods of helping these agencies foster an inclusive work culture and successfully implement the essential attributes of the MD-715's Model EEO Program. 

Strategic Objective 3: Organizational Excellence

Our goal is to ensure that the principles and standards we promote in the workplace are readily apparent in our own operations. We strive to be an organization that sets and implements the highest quality standards for EEO, customer service, internal efficiencies, and fiscal responsibility. Improving our capacity and infrastructure will help us carry out our mission more effectively and efficiently. Sound management of our resources—human, financial, and technological—is critical to this effort.

The President’s Management Agenda (PMA) is integral to the final element of our Five-Point Plan: EEOC as a Model Workplace. The PMA addresses important enhancements to internal agency operations, with an emphasis on customer service. The integration of the Five-Point Plan and other Administration and agency initiatives will help us build a model workplace where we can effectively and efficiently accomplish two broad outcomes in an environment conducive to good employment practices: (1) improving organizational performance and efficiency and (2) instilling a climate of respect, service, and responsiveness.

Organizational Excellence FY 2006 Performance

Total FY 2006 Investment: Allocated Between Strategic Objectives 1 and 2
Measures	Targets Met	Targets Partially Met	Targets Not Met
8	5	0	3

EEOC as a Model Workplace

EEOC employees are at the heart of our efforts to become a model workplace and achieve organizational excellence. In FY 2006, we continued to implement strategies, programs, and practices to manage our employees for greater results. 

Several of our performance measures demonstrate the agency’s efforts to be a model for other employers in resolving internal complaints and other disputes quickly and successfully. One example is the agency’s RESOLVE program, a one-stop, informal program for settling all types of workplace disputes within the EEOC. It is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process available for equal employment opportunity complaints, as well as grievances and unfair labor practice claims. 

Measure 3.1.7 tracks employees’ acceptance of the RESOLVE program by looking at their willingness to use the program again. Employees who completed a mediation or facilitation through RESOLVE are asked to complete a participant satisfaction survey. Of the employees who completed the survey, 100% indicated that they would use the program again, exceeding the FY 2006 target of 92%.

President's Management Agenda: The PMA identifies five areas that require improvement throughout the Federal Government. The five-part agenda is an integrated set of management reforms designed to create a more results-oriented, customer-focused, and market-based government. Since FY 2003, the agency’s Inspector General has rated the agency in all areas. Our ultimate goal is to achieve a green rating in all PMA scorecard categories. Our efforts to get to green are discussed in the following sections.

Strategic Management of Human Capital: The EEOC has engaged in several key steps toward fully implementing the human capital initiative. These steps include developing a human capital plan to guide strategic management of our most valuable resource—our employees; revising the agency's performance management system for executives, managers  and employees—strengthening its alignment with the agency's mission and goals; preparing a workforce planning report and honing our efforts to improve forecasting and management of staffing for the future; addressing succession planning/leadership continuity through our Management Development Institute; adopting benchmarking and monitoring for human resources (HR) procedural systems; and reviewing and improving HR processes and operations. The agency also participated in the 2004 and 2005 Federal Human Capital Survey. Results of the survey will guide the development of action plans in each EEOC office.

Competitive Sourcing:  The agency submitted the 2006 FAIR Act inventory on time: June 30, 2006. The inventory identifies commercial and inherently governmental functions and was adjusted to reflect the decrease in staffing levels over the past 12 months. The agency updates a 5-year competitive sourcing plan from time to time. For FY 2006, the agency initiated planning to undertake a standard competition for the file disclosure function. The scope of the study includes both Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and Section 83 of the EEOC Compliance Manual Section I information requests. The 1-year competition will be completed in October 2007. During FY 2007, the agency will consider a standard competition for information technology desktop management to cover both the headquarters and field locations since an independent study suggested cost savings could be achieved under a different staffing model.

Improved Financial Management: FY 2006 was marked by an important decision on how and when to replace an obsolete financial system operated the Department of the Interior’s National Business Center (DOI-NBC). After conducting a competition among OMB approved shared service providers, the DOI-NBC was awarded an $11.7 million, 6-year interagency agreement to install and operate the Momentum® suite of financial software as well as provide a range of accounting operations services. Implementation is scheduled for October 1, 2007. In addition to the shared services decision, the agency made progress communicating with the management team through monthly financial reports and briefings. Also, a decision was made to distribute a detailed agency operating plan to all senior managers as evidence of the need for more transparency of financial information within the agency.    

As part of the FY 2006 independent financial audit, the Inspector General contracted for an A-123 Internal Control review of the time and attendance/cost accounting payroll process as well as a review of the State and local program accounts payable process. Overall, the report stated that the internal control structure provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of the agency are being achieved.

Expanded Electronic Government: The EEOC is committed to fulfilling the PMA’s vision of improved service and government efficiency by transforming to electronic government (e-gov). Over the past several years, we have implemented projects that automated internal processes, reduced paperwork burden, integrated data, and provided electronic alternatives for obtaining services and interacting within the agency. Benefits related to these projects include decreasing the burden on businesses and achieving internal cost savings and efficiencies by enabling businesses to update and submit required EEO-1 (private employers), EEO-3 (local referral unions), EEO-4 (State and local governments), and EEO-5 (elementary and secondary education institutions) report data online; enhancing customer service and internal efficiency by providing the ability to register and pay for EEOC seminars and training materials via the Internet; improving public access to information by submitting EEOC civil case information electronically; decreasing the burden on other government agencies through electronic submission and acceptance of annual Federal EEO statistics; and enhancing communication and collaboration with State and local government Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) by providing them with secure on-line access to EEOC’s Integrated Mission System.  In addition, the agency has implemented, through the National Contact Center, a new EEOC Assessment System that walks the public through a series of questions to determine whether EEOC is the most appropriate agency to provide them assistance and allows electronic submission of complaint information to the appropriate EEOC field office for follow-up.

Budget and Performance Integration:  During FY 2006, two important activities helped strengthen the integration of budget and performance data. Working with OMB, the agency completed for the first time the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. The results will be released in February 2007. The agency also undertook a review and update of the 6-year Strategic Plan, which now covers FYs 2007 through 2012, including an examination of the performance measures. A number of measures were eliminated while others were improved to focus on broader outcomes. We continue to improve and configure our financial and workload reporting systems to support OMB reporting requirements for financial and performance data.

Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)

An evaluation of the agency's management controls and financial management systems revealed that EEOC had one material weakness and seven financial nonconformances.

An Office of Inspector General’s audit found a significant deficiency in the agency’s information security program under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), primarily in areas regarding documentation and tracking processes. The Office of Management and Budget guidance (Circular A-123) requires the agency to simultaneously identify a FISMA significant deficiency as a FMFIA material weakness. A corrective action plan has been implemented and we expect to resolve all of the audit findings during FY 2007.

The agency has already corrected six of the seven financial non-conformances. Two of corrected financial nonconformances were first identified in FY 2005. Four of them were identified during FY 2006. Finally, the agency has implemented a corrective action plan to resolve the remaining nonconformance by FY 2007.

Although the agency found one material weakness and identified seven financial nonconformances, it resolved six nonconformances and implemented corrective action plans to resolve the outstanding areas in FY 2007. Taking the agency’s controls environment as a whole, including the corrective actions implemented, and based on a review of comprehensive agency-wide materials, including audit reports, and the assurances of the agency's senior managers, we conclude that our systems of management and financial controls during FY 2006 were effective and that agency resources were used consistent with the agency’s mission—in compliance with laws and regulations, and with minimal potential for waste, fraud, and mismanagement.

Financial Highlights

OMB Number A-136 was used as guidance for the preparation of the accompanying financial statements. EEOC prepares five financial statements: the Consolidated Balance Sheets, Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources, and Financing. Outlined in the following section are the purpose of each statement, an explanation of any significant amounts, and an explanation of significant fluctuations between FY 2006 and FY 2005.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

The Consolidated Balance Sheets present amounts that are owned or managed by EEOC (assets), amounts owed (liabilities), and the net position of the agency divided between the cumulative results of operations and unexpended appropriations. 

The FY 2006 cumulative result of operations shows a negative balance. This is due to amounts accumulated over the years by EEOC from financing sources less expenses and losses and an amount representing EEOC’s liabilities for such items as accrued leave and actuarial liabilities not covered by available budgetary resources. EEOC’s
FY 2006 future funded annual leave balance and actuarial FECA liability totaled $25 million.

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost

The Consolidated Statements of Net Cost present the gross cost incurred by major programs less any revenue earned. Overall, in FY 2006 EEOC’s Net Cost of Operation decreased by 3%. The allocation of costs for FY 2006 shows that resources used for Justice and Opportunity (administrative charge processing, mediation, litigation, and state and local) decreased by 2% with a decrease of 1% for Inclusive Workplace (training/technical assistance and outreach).   

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

The Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position represent the change in the net position for
FY 2006 and FY 2005 from cost of operations, appropriations received and used, net of recissions, and the financing of some costs by other government agencies. EEOC’s Net Position improved over last year with a $4.2 million increase. This favorable condition is attributed to the decrease in the net cost of operation. 

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

The Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources show how budgetary resources were made available and the status of those resources at the end of the fiscal year. In FY 2006, EEOC received the same funding amount as in its FY 2005 appropriation. The budgetary resources from collections, unobligated balances brought forward, and recoveries increased by $1.3 million; and recissions and cancelled appropriations decreased by $1.8 million. Resources that remained unobligated at year end were $7.7 million and $9.7 million in FY 2006 and FY 2005, respectively. These un-obligated amounts represent expired budget authority from prior years that are no longer available for new obligations.

Consolidated Statements of Financing

The Consolidated Statements of Financing are presented to explain the difference between budgetary and accrual-based accounting. Although total resources available to finance activities remained the same as last year, resources used to purchase assets and reduce liabilities continued to decline over the past year. This resulted in a decrease of resources used in operations of $9.9 million from
FY 2005. Net cost of operation that did not require current resources increased by
$0.5 million. The total of these changes yields a decrease in EEOC’s FY 2006 net cost of operations of $9.4 million.

Use of Resources

The chart on the preceding page displays a 6-year historical view of EEOC’s use of resources. Compensation and benefits consumes the majority of the budget at 69%. The second item that has consumed a portion of the budget is state and local at 10%. A third item is rent which consumes 9% of the budget and is included in nonpayroll costs.

The pie chart on preceding page displays EEOC’s obligations for FY 2006. As shown in the previous chart, salaries and benefits and the state and local program consumed a large portion of the budget with rent as the third item. Resources used for Information Technology as well as general operating expenses were consumed at the same rate of 5%. Other agency programs (Litigation, ADR contracts, Outreach, and the National Contact Center) were consumed at the lowest rate of 2%.

The chart below depicts EEOC’s compensation and benefits versus full-time equivalents (FTEs) over
6 years. Generally, FTEs have decreased while salaries and benefits have increased. (The current average salary is approximately $104,000, an increase of $24,000, or 30%, of the FY 2002 average salary.) The exception to the overall increases appears in FY 2006 when FTEs decreased as well as salaries and benefits. This was a result of eligible employees taking early outs and buyouts offered by the EEOC during June 2006.

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Integration of Elements in the Strategic Plan

EEOC implemented its Strategic Plan for FYs 2004 through 2009 at the beginning of FY 2004. The plan described our overall framework for 6 years, including FY 2006. As noted in the previous section of this report, the agency’s Strategic Plan has been substantially revised, including its performance measures. It was issued on October 1, 2006, and covers FY 2007 through FY 2012. This section of the report summarizes the results achieved in FY 2006 for the 24 performance measures described in the Strategic Plan in effect during FY 2006. We identify whether a measure is continued in our new Strategic Plan as currently written or with modifications.

The framework for the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006 represented an improvement in our overall strategic planning and measurement approach because it was results oriented, customer centered, and performance driven. The plan melded our strategic objectives, the Chair’s Five-Point Plan, performance measures, and important program initiatives, all of which were integral to the accomplishment of our mission. The figure here illustrates the integration of these elements that enabled us to achieve and evaluate our results, including those for FY 2006.

Our performance measures and the results achieved are organized in this report by the three overarching strategic objectives in the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006 and in the Chair’s Five-Point Plan. We briefly outline the key interrelationships using this organization.

Strategic Objective 1: Justice and Opportunity

We will serve the public interest by obtaining justice for individuals who experience employment discrimination and remove discriminatory barriers to create a level playing field. The expected outcomes are (1) remedying and deterring unlawful employment discrimination and (2) increased public confidence in the fair and prompt resolution of employment discrimination disputes.

The Commission, in its role as a law enforcement agency, is responsible for enforcing the nation’s civil rights employment laws. Our first Strategic Objective was premised on this role and 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 and enhance confidence in our ability 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 handle our workload.

Strategic Objective 1, Justice and Opportunity, relates to three of the elements of our Five-Point Plan—Proficient Resolution, Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR, and Strategic Enforcement and Litigation. A total of 13 performance measures were included under these three elements.

Five-Point Plan Element: Proficient Resolution

Charge processing in the private sector and complaint processing in the Federal sector must be accurate, appropriate, and fair. Staff and other resources must be deployed to ensure the quality and timeliness of processing. We enhanced effective quality control standards and mechanisms to measure our success in meeting this objective.

In the private sector, 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 the 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.

In our Federal sector program, the Commission has a unique role in ensuring that all employees have the freedom to compete in the Federal workplace on a fair and level playing field and to be judged on the merits 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.

Performance Measure Highlights

In the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006, there were five performance measures under the Proficient Resolution element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures ensured that a significant percentage of private sector charges, Federal sector hearings, and Federal sector appeals would be resolved in 180 days or fewer. Another measure evaluated the quality of investigative charge files. The final measure determined how the general public rates its confidence in EEOC’s enforcement of Federal equal employment laws.

All five of these measures are retained in our new Strategic Plan, although the overall framework of the Plan and the performance measures are revised. The final goals will be reassessed and extended to
FY 2012, and the annual targets will be realigned to meet the final goals established.

1.1.1. By FY 2009, ensure that at least 75% of private sector charges will be resolved in 180 days or fewer.

	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	60.0%	60.0%	65.0%	70.0%	70.0%
Result	65.6%	68.9%	67.1%	65.9%	60.7%
	Target not met

Although the FY 2009 goal is to resolve 75% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, we did not meet our FY 2006 target of 70%. The agency resolved 60.7% of the private sector charges within 180 days or fewer, 45,158 charges out of 74,308 total resolutions.

Several factors contributed to this result. While our receipts have stayed level between FY 2005 and
FY 2006, our investigator staffing levels have declined, which has resulted in a growing pending inventory that is correspondingly older. To ensure that this measure did not unduly affect older cases, we enhanced efforts to process our aging inventory in a timely way. As a result, offices had to balance the processing of its older inventory with the concurrent processing of newer charges. In addition, the agency relied on the transfer of cases between offices to address workload and staffing imbalances. All of these factors adversely affected our ability to achieve this measure.

1.1.2. By FY 2009, ensure that at least 50% of Federal sector hearings will be resolved in 180 days or fewer.

	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	20.0%	20.0%	35.0%	38.0%	50.0%
Result	24.4%	30.5%	32.8%	51.3%	43.6%
	Target not met

Like our private sector charges, this measure identifies our efforts to process a significant portion of our Federal sector hearings workload in 180 days or fewer. The goal for this measure in FY 2006 was 50%; however, we did not meet it. The agency resolved 43.6% of Federal sector hearings within 180 days; 3,788 out of 8,685 resolutions. Our goal achievement was affected by staffing imbalances in our field offices, which forced us to utilize complaint transfers to shift our workload. As a result, it took more time for these cases to be processed. Additionally, we continued to focus on resolving the oldest cases in our inventory, in addition to new complaints.

1.1.3. By FY 2009, ensure that at least 70% of Federal sector appeals will be resolved in 180 days or fewer.

	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	20.0%	20.0%	45.0%	50.0%	55.0%
Result	40.3%	44.8%	51.8%	52.0%	59.7%
	Target met

We made significant gains in processing our Federal sector appellate inventory during FY 2006 using the revised methodology for calculating the achievement of our targets and final goal for this measure. In
FY 2006, our target was to ensure that at least 55% of all appeals closed were resolved in 180 days or fewer. We surpassed this goal, resolving 59.7% of the appeals within 180 days or fewer (3,863 out of 6,465 closures). We surpassed our target through effective management of the appellate inventory and by using strategic inventory management projects and technological innovations, including the expanded use of our digital Document Management System.

We will also increase our targets levels in the future as we implement our new Strategic Plan. To ensure that the accomplishment of this goal is not at the expense of the older cases in our Federal sector appellate inventory, we are utilizing inventory management techniques to effectively strike an appropriate balance between the processing of the older and newer inventory.

1.1.4. By FY 2009, ensure that reviews of investigative files indicate that the percentage of files meeting established criteria for quality is at a maintenance level of 90% or higher.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Define criteria to evaluate quality and develop system to collect information.	Establish baseline value for FY 2005 and target values/final goal for FY 2006–2009.	87.0%
Result	Defined criteria and developed system to collect information.	Baseline: 88.5%.	88.1%
	Target met

This measure builds on one of the three key factors of charge processing—quality. Along with timeliness (captured in Measure 1.1.1) and inventory, these factors are interdependent and affect our charge processing efforts. In FY 2005, we established our baseline for this measure and the targets for subsequent fiscal years. We used a sampling methodology to select investigative files processed by our field offices, then evaluated the files on two critical quality criteria: (1) appropriate charge categorization and file documentation to support actions and (2) charge resolution.

The agency target for FY 2006 was 87.0% and we achieved a quality level of 88.1%, exceeding the target.

1.1.5. By FY 2009, the general public rates confidence in EEOC’s enforcement of Federal equal employment laws at a percentage to be determined or higher.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline of confidence. Set target values for FY 2005–2009.	Establish baseline. Future targets/goal to be determined.	Meet established target
Result	Initiated survey design to establish baseline of confidence.	Baseline: 49%.	Establishing target postponed.
	Target not met

Our Strategic Plan identifies several agency measures that involve the use of external surveys to collect information, establish baseline and target values for results expected, and determine results achieved. The agency’s survey methodology to establish our goals and measure our results for this performance measure was to survey members of the public to determine how familiar they are with our enforcement efforts and to what extent they believe that we responsibly and effectively address workplace discrimination. Our assumption is that employers, employees, attorneys, and members of the general public will have confidence in our impartial role as a law enforcement agency, come to us for assistance, and trust in our capability to handle the complaint, if we are viewed as a fair and just enforcer of the civil rights employment laws.

Results from a 2004 survey conducted by a reputable private organization were available during FY 2005, including responses to a question that the agency used to identify an FY 2005 baseline value for this measure. The results demonstrated that 49% of all of the individuals responding to the question who identified a specific confidence level have confidence in EEOC’s ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws.

Although the agency anticipated conducting a survey to establish a final goal and intermediate targets to attain, we were not able to fund the survey until the end of FY 2006. This measure does continue in our new Strategic Plan, and we anticipate obtaining critical information that will enable us to identify yearly targets and a final goal extended to FY 2012 for this measure. Also, the agency will assess whether it will be necessary to adjust the earlier baseline value because of the differences in the methodologies utilized for the new survey and the previous survey.

Five-Point Plan Element: Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is intended to settle conflicts quickly, amicably, and cost effectively. We will build on our earlier successes with ADR and use this tool in various stages of the private and Federal sector processes to address employment disputes and continue to improve our services. Through marketing, information sharing, and outreach we will further encourage the use of ADR.

Our private sector mediation program is an important tool for resolving charges quickly to the benefit of both employees and employers. Since launching it in the early 1990s, we have resolved almost 60,000 charges through the private sector mediation program—the largest workplace mediation program in the country. The program has been very successful and has contributed to our management of our charge inventory and processing time, thus enhancing our timeliness measure (1.1.1).

In our Federal sector program, 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 their resources.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are four performance measures under the Promotion and Expansion of Mediation/ADR element of our Five-Point Plan. Three measures involve EEOC’s private sector mediation/ADR program: increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in the program; maintain a high level of confidence in the program; and assess the contributions of the program toward improved workplaces. The fourth measure aims to increase the participation of Federal employees in mediation to resolve issues before a formal complaint of discrimination is filed.

Only one measure about respondent and charging party confidence in the private sector mediation program (Measure 1.2.3.) is retained in the new Strategic Plan. Aspects of the measure pertaining to improved workplaces (Measure 1.2.1.) have been substantially expanded to measure individuals benefiting from improvements in their workplaces through all of our enforcement efforts, which encompasses our private sector charges, litigation, and Federal sector hearings and appeals, including any mediation/ADR resolutions currently measured in FY 2006.

1.2.1. By FY 2009, 4.6% of all of the private sector mediation/ADR resolutions will result in improvements to an organization’s employment policies, practices, or procedures.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Establish procedures to conduct all agency program evaluations.	Establish baseline for FY 2005 and set targets for FY 2006–2009.	3.1%
Result	Program evaluation will not be used to assess this measure. Alternate Approach: Collect information in the charge database to assess contributions of the ADR program.	Baseline: 3.1% Targets and final goal established.	4.0%
	Target met

Each year, the agency resolves many charges that cover a broad range of relief—from an individual receiving a position previously denied, back pay awarded to a person to correct for lost wages, or various types of relief for multiple groups of individuals to correct for alleged acts of discrimination at an employer’s workplace. Although relief obtained in a resolved charge for one or more individuals is a vital part of our work, the agency identified Measure 1.2.1 to assess the contributions our mediation program makes to improve workplaces. This type of effect on workplaces is a critical measure of our work; however, it represents only a portion of the ADR resolutions we obtain.

For FY 2006, 4.0% of the resolutions in our private sector ADR mediation program, or 229 out of the 5,727 settlements obtained, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices, or procedures. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 52,200 individuals.

1.2.2. BY FY 2006, increase by 20% the number of private sector charges in which employers agree to participate in mediation from the FY 2003 baseline.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Maintain baseline	8.5% above baseline	20% above baseline
Result	Maintained the baseline (13,177) of FY 2003 employers accepting mediation.	12% below baseline	20% below baseline
	Target not met

The targets and final goal for this measure are percentage increases above the FY 2003 baseline level of 13,177 charges in which employers agreed to participate in the EEOC mediation program. The FY 2006 target was to increase the number of such charges in which an employer agrees to mediate by 20% above the baseline, to 15,812. The FY 2006 result was that only 12,590 employers agreed to mediate, which falls 20% below the baseline. While we continued our efforts to try to increase the acceptance level, it was a challenge to achieve the goal by the end of FY 2006 because we did not receive the additional resources that had been factored into the calculations for establishing the target.

In FY 2006, in an effort to increase the number of employers agreeing to participate in our private sector mediation program, staff continued to utilize two DVDs highlighting the benefits of mediation to employers, as well as PowerPoint presentations developed in FY 2005 addressing employer concerns about mediation and bookmarks highlighting the “Top Ten Reasons to Mediate,” which are included with charge notices to employers. We also increased the number of Universal Agreements to Mediate (UAMs) with employers to a total of 1,097, 190 more than in FY 2005. These UAMs reflect employers’ commitment to utilize our mediation process in charges that may be filed against them.

1.2.3. The percentage of respondents and charging parties that report confidence in EEOC’s private sector mediation program is 90% or higher.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Maintain 90%	Maintain 90%	Maintain 90%
Result	95.6%	96.3%	96.8%
	Target met

We obtained the result for this measure by surveying participants in EEOC’s mediation program during the year and tabulating their responses about their confidence in using the program. The FY 2006 survey result of 96.8% exceeds our target by a substantial margin and continues to demonstrate the success of our private sector mediation program once both parties elect to participate in it. We will continue to maintain the high confidence level expected for our program, because it helps with our efforts to convince participants, particularly company representatives, of the value of the mediation approach.

1.2.4. By FY 2009, increase the percentage of Federal employees who participate in ADR during the pre-complaint stage of the EEOC process by 50% or higher.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	25%	40%	42%
Result	43.3%	45.4%  (Data became available by 2nd quarter of FY 2006.)	Data not available until 2nd quarter of FY 2007.
	Target met

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. In addition, a growing number of agencies have incorporated dispute prevention techniques into their ADR programs, further increasing productivity and reducing the overall number of employment disputes. 

With Measure 1.2.4., we aimed 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 the number of formal complaints filed in FY 2005 declined by 5.3% over the previous year. 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 by FY 2009. Our FY 2005 target was 40%. FY 2005 data submitted by Federal agencies after the close of the fiscal year indicate that there were 42,412 instances of pre-complaint EEO counseling across the Federal Government. Of the parties participated in ADR in 18,634 cases, or 45.4% of the time. With this initial success, and our continued technical assistance efforts with agencies to encourage the development of effective ADR programs and promote ADR training among government managers and staff, we anticipate that this percentage will steadily increase. We have not continued this particular measure in our new Strategic Plan.

Five-Point Plan Element: Strategic Enforcement and Litigation

We approach our enforcement activities strategically, taking workplace trends, workforce dynamics, and demographic shifts into consideration. Employing our resources in ways that will achieve maximum results, while still protecting the rights of the individual, we seek to broadly influence policies and practices in the American workplace and bring justice and opportunity to all.

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

Additionally, an important mechanism to assist our Federal sector program in its efforts to get Federal agencies to improve employment policies, practices, and procedures 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 conduct assessments of agencies to help them establish model EEO programs.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are four performance measures under the Strategic Enforcement and Litigation element of our Five-Point Plan. One measure assesses how resolutions of our private sector charges result in workplace improvements. Two measures assess the ripple effect of our high impact litigation and our ability to maintain our high rate of successful litigation. A final measure assesses the results of our Federal sector evaluations and assistance efforts in improving Federal workplaces. Although we have retained only one specific measure in our new Strategic Plan (Measure 1.3.3., success rate of litigation), several of the benefits attained from the other measures will be reflected in new measures. For example, we will measure persons benefited from our enforcement efforts, which incorporates the emphasis intended with Measures 1.3.1. and 1.3.4.  

1.3.1. BY FY 2009, 19% of private sector resolutions where EEOC is a party result in improvements in employment policies, practices, or procedures.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline level for improvements.	Determine baseline value for 2005 and set target values and final goal for FY 2006–2009.	18.1%
Result	Program Evaluation will not be used to assess this measure. Alternate Approach: Collect information in charge database to assess contributions of private sector resolutions.	Baseline: 18.1% Target values and final goal established.	17.8%
	Target not met

Measure 1.3.1 includes all resolutions of a charge of discrimination obtained by a settlement or conciliation agreement in our private sector charge process, excluding settlements obtained in our mediation program that are covered by companion Measure 1.2.1. We know that these types of agreements have an impact on the workplace. It is important, however, to measure the ones that specifically improve employment policies, practices, or procedures at the workplace.

In FY 2005, we began to collect more detailed information to assess the effect these agreements have on improving workplaces. Many agreements that resolve charges of discrimination provide a broad range of relief for individuals. This work is vital to fulfilling our mission by providing relief to the identified victims of alleged acts of discrimination. The agency proposed this measure, however, to identify the types of relief that have a broader effect in the workplace. Similar to the ADR measure, this is an important part of our work, but it represents only a portion of the charge resolutions we obtain.

In FY 2006, 17.8% of the private sector charge resolutions (excluding those from our mediation program), or 697 out of 3,914 settlement/conciliation agreements, involved improvements in workplace policies, practices, or procedures. While we did not meet this target, this is likely due to the increase in mediation settlements in Measure 1.2.1., which reduced the available pool of charges that reach the settlement/conciliation stage of enforcement. The workplace improvements brought about by these resolutions benefited approximately 622,000 individuals, a 62% increase over the FY 2005 level of 384,500 individuals. Although the agency is not continuing this specific measure in its new Strategic Plan, a new measure will capture data about persons benefited by agreements obtaining workplace changes.

1.3.2. EEOC’s high impact litigation and publicity efforts subsequently change workforce status of affected groups and/or improves employment policies, practices, or procedures in affected workplaces.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Establish procedures to conduct program evaluation.	Initiate steps to measure the impact of litigation and develop approaches to improve efforts to achieve greater results.	Identify additional “high impact” cases. Collect relevant information on affected groups and improved workplaces to build database for analysis.
Result	Defined types of cases that constitute “high impact litigation” and how to measure “change in workforce status.”	Initiated steps to collect information in charge/case database on workplace impact. Addressing methodology for evaluation.	Identified additional “high impact” cases and developed refinements for collecting data. Considered ways to better capture the impact of our litigation program and developed a new measure for the 2007 Strategic Plan.
	Target met

This measure assesses the impact of the litigation and subsequent publicity of selected significant cases. In FY 2004, we defined the case types that constitute our “high impact litigation” and how we would measure any “change in workforce status.” Based on our criteria, we have been selecting significant case resolutions each year, with the goal of assessing their impact on reducing workplace discrimination through a program evaluation. This year, we identified five cases: EEOC v. John Pickle Co.; EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.; EEOC v. SPS Temporaries, Inc. et al.; EEOC v. Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education and Seafarers International Union; and EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc. Detailed descriptions of FY 2006 high impact litigation cases are located in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of this report.

In FY 2005, we modified our charge database to obtain more detailed information to help us measure the effects of our high impact litigation and to measure “changes in workforce status” occurring as a result of our litigation program. In FY 2006, we focused on improving the quality of our data collection on improvements to workplace policies, practices, and procedures and we considered ways to prepare for a planned program evaluation scheduled for FY 2008 in the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006. With the adoption of the agency’s new Systemic Initiative this year, we began to explore other ways to capture the impact of our litigation program. Ultimately, we determined that it would be better to replace this measure with an improved measure in our new Strategic Plan to identify persons benefiting from workplace changes in all of our enforcement activities.

1.3.3. The success rate of EEOC’s lawsuits is 90% or higher for the period ending in FY 2009.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	90% or higher 6-year rolling average	90% or higher 6-year rolling average	90% or higher 6-year rolling average
Result	92.2%	92.8%	92.7%
	Target met

This measure ensures that we maintain a high success rate in resolving our lawsuits. Based on an earlier 5-year study, we established the baseline value of 90% for this measure. We expect to continue to maintain at least this level of success using a 6-year rolling average of successful resolutions. In FY 2006, we successfully resolved 92.1% of our lawsuits, bringing our 6-year rolling average to 92.7%. This measure is included in our new Strategic Plan. Under the previous Strategic Plan, we concluded that the target was appropriate because some of our litigation raises developing or unsettled legal issues where there is a substantial risk of loss. Litigating these cases is part of our responsibility to interpret the laws we enforce and vindicate the public interest. The target for this measure allowed us to continue to take on challenging cases where there is substantial risk of loss. For the new Strategic Plan, the final goal will be reassessed and extended to FY 2012 and the annual targets will be realigned to meet the final goal established.

1.3.4. EEOC’s Federal sector evaluations and technical assistance efforts result in Federal agencies improving employment policies, practices, and procedures.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Conduct pilot evaluations of six agency EEO programs in preparation of techniques for Program Evaluation.	Develop steps and data needed, using pilots’ information and results, to prepare for FY 2009 program evaluation.	Evaluate 12 pilots. Design programs to enhance evaluations and technical assistance efforts for Federal agencies.
Result	Conducted pilot evaluations of six agencies’ EEO programs.	Doubling the Relationship Management Project to include an additional 6 Federal agencies for a total of 12 agencies’ EEO programs.	Pilots evaluated and programs revised to improve evaluations and assistance. Added 20 additional agencies to the pilot.
	Target met

The Commission embraced organizational transformation to better deliver services to its Federal sector customers. In implementing the mandates of MD-715 we are emphasizing consultation with agencies to enable them to achieve a barrier-free workplace, through the creation and subsequent expansion of our successful Relationship Management project during FY 2006. This proactive stance enabled us to assist agencies in focusing on the identification of problems before they escalated, as well as provide them with recommendations and practices that will enable them to prevent discrimination.

In FY 2006 we provided more than 300 outreach and technical assistance presentations before stakeholder groups. In addition to our participation at several national employee stakeholder conferences, we sponsored the FY 2006 EXCEL conference, which had nearly 1,000 EEO, labor, and employment relations professional attendees. Commission staff also responded to more than 8,240 calls regarding the EEO complaint/appeals process, providing the Federal sector EEO community and employees with timely information.

In addition, the expansion of our Relationship Management pilot in FY 2006 was a key strategy in our efforts to be more responsive to our Federal sector customers. The Relationship Management initiative was first piloted in FY 2004. It was modeled after the private sector’s approach to customer service. Relationship Management brings together EEOC Federal sector staff with EEO staffs from pilot agencies in a nonadversarial partnership to examine methods to help these agencies foster an inclusive work culture and successfully implement the essential attributes of the MD-715’s Model EEO Program. We evaluated results and received feedback from the 12 larger agencies included in the pilot during the first 2 years of the project. We used that information to apply the same principles to expand the project in
FY 2006 to include 20 small agencies. The application of the strategies and tools developed from these experiences places the agency’s Federal sector program in a position to better establish a customer-oriented organization that can deliver relevant information and solutions to other Federal agencies. We will continue to expand this program, even though this specific measure is not retained in our new Strategic Plan.

Strategic Objective 2: Inclusive Workplace

We will strengthen America’s workplaces by preventing discrimination and promoting workplace policies and practices that foster an inclusive work culture. The expected outcomes are (1) increased voluntary compliance with the Federal equal employment laws and (2) increased individual awareness and understanding of rights and responsibilities.

We believe that the best way to combat workplace discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Educating employers and workers about their rights and responsibilities under the law is the first step toward an inclusive work culture where all workers are judged on their talents and abilities without regard to race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, age, or disability. A strong prevention program helps employers comply with the law and breaks down barriers to employment opportunities.

Our Strategic Plan for FYs 2004 through 2009 links our broad strategic objectives to the agency’s Five-Point Plan. Strategic Objective 2, Inclusive Workplace, relates to one element of our Five-Point Plan: Proactive Prevention. It also identifies our long-term goals for achieving results in this area.

Five-Point Plan Element: Proactive Prevention

We will proactively prevent discrimination by educating employees and employers and by providing information that will help them identify and solve problems; enhancing outreach activities; promoting sound workplace practices; introducing new and expanded outreach activities, including outreach to small and mid-sized companies; and making better use of available technology to communicate with the public and our stakeholders.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are three performance measures under Strategic Objective 2. One measure assesses the extent to which private and Federal sector employers attending our major outreach events improve their workplaces as a result of their participation. A second measure seeks to ensure that over half of the Federal agencies will implement EEOC’s Model EEO Program attributes. Our final measure assesses individuals’ awareness of their EEO rights and responsibilities. One measure is expanded in our new Strategic Plan to identify persons benefited by workplace improvements (Measure 2.1.1.) and another is continued in the Plan (Measure 2.1.3.).

2.1.1. By FY 2009, 70% of private and Federal sector employer representatives who participate in a major outreach initiative or training and technical assistance programs indicate an improvement in an employment policy, practice, or procedure as a result of their participation.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline of improvements. Set targets for FYs 2005 through 2009.	Set target values for FYs 2005 through 2008 and a final goal for 2009.	85%
Result	Designed survey methodology and conducted survey. Baseline/target setting postponed to FY 2005.	91.2% of participants indicated that improvements had been made.	94.7%
	Target met

Based on responses on training evaluation forms from participants attending our free and fee-based outreach and training who had previously attended EEOC training or other presentations, 94.7% of the participants in FY 2006 indicated that their organization had made an improvement in their employment policies, practices, or procedures as a result of their participation in previous programs. We achieved this increase over our FY 2005 level even after adjusting our survey methodology to ensure that the time frame used by participants to link our training to workplace improvements would avoid double-counting responses in later years for the same workplace changes.

2.1.2. By FY 2009, increase to 50% the percentage of Federal agencies that successfully implement the Model EEO Program attributes described in EEOC guidance.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Issue guidance on attributes of a Model EEO Program; design measurement index.	Using Model EEO Program and measurement index, establish baseline value for FY 2005, target values for FYs 2006 through 2008, and a final goal for FY 2009.	With EPCA, establish baseline value; set target values for FY 2006–2008; and final goal for FY 2009. (Federal agencies do not report FY data until after the fiscal year has ended.)
Result	Issued guidance on Model EEO Program and designed a preliminary measurement index.	Designed the EEO Performance Compliance Assessment (EPCA) tool as measurement index. Postponed establishing baseline and target values until FY 2006.	Assessment tool not continued and goals not established.
	Target not met

Successfully implementing the six “essential elements” of a model EEO program, as described in MD-715, will provide the infrastructure necessary for a Federal agency to achieve a discrimination-free work environment characterized by an atmosphere of inclusion and the free and open competition for employment opportunities. Measure 2.1.2 established a final goal of successful implementation of these attributes of a model EEO program in 50% of the Federal agencies by FY 2009 under the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006.

In FY 2005 the agency drafted a measurement index, the EEO Performance Compliance Assessment Tool (EPCA), to assess how well a Federal agency implemented the attributes of a model EEO program under MD-715. After extensive review, the agency determined that the tool, as designed, does not accurately assess an agency’s progress in achieving a model program. Accordingly, the agency did not set baseline or target values for this measure and ultimately chose not to continue it in its new Strategic Plan.

2.1.3. By FY 2009, increase the percentage of individuals demonstrating an awareness of their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities by a percentage to be determined.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline of confidence. Set target values for FY 2005–2009	Postponed	Postponed
Result	Activities postponed	Activities postponed	Activities postponed
	Target not met

The Strategic Plan in effect in FY 2006 identified this performance measure as an indicator of the agency’s contributions toward ensuring that individuals understand their EEO rights and responsibilities. Much of our past work has provided people with information they need to understand their rights and responsibilities under the EEO laws we enforce. We believe that individuals who know both their rights and their responsibilities are more likely to properly identify discriminatory behaviors at the workplace and know what to do about them. In addition, we believe it is equally important for individuals who are responsible for workplace policies, practices, and procedures to possess the information they need to critically assess whether their workplaces are contributing to a discriminatory environment and what their responsibilities are for changing the situation.

Although the agency anticipated conducting a survey to establish a final goal and intermediate targets to attain, we were not able to fund the survey until the end of FY 2006. This measure does continue in our new Strategic Plan and we anticipate obtaining critical information that will enable us to identify yearly targets and a final goal extended to FY 2012 for this measure.

Strategic Objective 3: Organizational Excellence

We will establish our own organizational infrastructure and professional standards to obtain the highest quality standards for equal opportunity, customer service, internal efficiency, and fiscal responsibility. The expected outcomes are (1) improved organizational performance and efficiency and (2) a climate of respect, service, and responsiveness.

Achieving Organizational Excellence ensures that the principles and standards we promote are readily apparent in our own operations. Through vision, leadership, and a culture of continuous improvement, our efforts seek to improve our organizational capacity and infrastructure. This will allow us to carry out our mission more effectively through sound management of our resources—human, financial, and technological. We aim to be an organization that sets and implements the highest quality standards for equal opportunity, customer service, internal efficiencies, and fiscal responsibility, using the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) as a roadmap. The PMA addresses important enhancements to internal agency operations and improves organizational performance and efficiency.

Strategic Objective 3, Organizational Excellence, relates to one element of our Five-Point Plan: EEOC as a Model Workplace. It also identifies our long-term goals to achieve results in this area.

Five-Point Plan Element: EEOC as a Model Workplace

The principles and standards we promote to employers must be an integral part of our own operations. This integration of the Five-Point Plan and other Administration and agency initiatives builds a model workplace where we can effectively and efficiently accomplish EEOC’s goals.

Performance Measure Highlights

There are eight performance measures under Strategic Objective 3. One measure assesses the confidence our customers have in our services. Two measures address our initiatives to manage our human capital and obtain input from our employees. Another measure ensures that, when our financial systems are audited, we receive unqualified opinions from our auditors. Three measures ensure that we internally implement the Federal sector Model EEO Program attributes successfully, process our internal complaints of discrimination in a timely manner, and increase confidence in using ADR to resolve workplace disputes. Our final measure ensures that we transition toward a “paperless” environment by converting our charge and case files into electronic format to improve agency efficiency and enhance disaster recovery.

The agency decided not to continue these eight performance measures in its new Strategic Plan for several reasons. The new Plan’s overall structure is more conducive to focusing on outcome oriented measures and not ones that are predominately internally focused. The identification of these specific measures constrained the agency from being as flexible as possible in allocating its limited resources.

3.1.1. By FY 2009, customers rate their confidence in EEOC’s services at a percentage to be determined or higher.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Design survey methodology, conduct survey(s), establish baseline of confidence. Set target values for FY 2005–2009.	Postponed	Postponed
Result	Activities postponed	Activities postponed	Activities postponed
	Target not met

Our Strategic Plan identified this performance measure as an indicator of service to our customers. We are currently piloting our National Contact Center, which includes customer service measures for this portion of our work. We intended to use an additional survey approach to address some other aspects of our work in order to measure customer service. Agency resource priorities necessitated several postponements of this activity. The agency decided not to continue this measure in the new Strategic Plan.

3.1.2.  By FY 2009, EEOC will meet or exceed the Office of Personnel Management’s standards demonstrating success in managing and developing human capital.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Develop and begin implementation of comprehensive human capital strategy (2-year target).		Implement identified strategies for the fiscal year.
Result	Developed draft strategy, began to design a workforce planning strategy, developed and implemented performance measurement system and other initiatives.	Continue to develop strategies to complete planning for future human capital needs.	Implemented identified strategies (see narrative).
	Target met

It is critical that we address our future human capital needs and provide a good working environment for our employees in order to achieve our internal and external customer service goals. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed guidance to help Federal agencies evaluate their working environment and apply successful strategies to manage and develop their human capital. The agency designed this performance measure to help it track and implement OPM’s guidance with several specific strategies. The successful implementation of the FY 2006 strategies have helped us manage our human capital and apply one of the five important elements of the PMA, Strategic Human Capital Management. Although this specific measure is not continued in our new Strategic Plan, the agency will continue to implement its strategies for achieving organizational excellence.

Several cross-organizational working groups formulated strategies to address key areas of our human capital plans. For example, in FY 2006, a working group identified core job competencies for two of the agency’s three mission critical jobs. The working group also reformulated the agency’s nonsupervisory performance appraisal system, which was approved and distributed for implementation at the start of FY 2007.

One of the agency’s major human capital initiatives is the continued improvement to a systematic collection of its workforce and other human capital data. With this improved data, we will be better able to determine our performance on human capital issues and plan for and support our human capital needs. An important technology component implemented this year for this initiative was SAS’s Human Capital Module (HCM), which will help us collect and analyze our data.

Finally, in FY 2006 we implemented additional strategies outlined in our human capital plan. We modified several training courses provided by human resources based on input we received from our agency customers. We also established benchmarks in several areas of human resources and delivered those services to our customers. We initiated a collaborative effort with the OPM to address succession planning. As one of our succession planning and realignment efforts during FY 2006, we planned and simultaneously implemented two programs for employees eligible for retirement under a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and, for the first time at the agency, a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP) offer.

3.1.3.   By FY 2009, EEOC employees will rate their satisfaction in the area of human capital management at or above the overall average rating of all Federal employees collected by the Office of Personnel Management in its government-wide survey.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Survey employees and compare results to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) survey.	Based on survey results, establish baseline and begin developing actions/steps to achieve FY 2009 goal.	To be determined
Result	OPM conducted government-wide and EEOC employee surveys. (Results available in the 2nd Quarter of FY 2005.)	57% government-wide (baseline); 54% EEOC	Results not yet available from OPM
	Target met

EEOC participated in OPM’s government-wide Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) for FY 2006. OPM had not released the results of this new survey at the time this report was published; however, the agency used the results we previously obtained to identify areas warranting our attention. The survey results were communicated to management and staff in each headquarters and field office. The offices then developed and submitted action plans to address issues raised by the previous survey and held discussions with staff. The agency also implemented several human capital strategies, described in the previous measure, that addressed some of the broad areas raised in the previous survey, such as a nonsupervisory performance appraisal system, revision of training courses, alterations to the awards system, and improving human resources services. 

The previous survey results indicated that employees throughout the government answered 57% of the 78 survey questions with a positive response and that EEOC employees answered 54% of the questions with a positive response. OPM is expected to conduct the government-wide survey every 2 years, with the agency conducting its own survey in the intervening years. Since OPM just conducted its survey in FY 2006, the agency anticipates conducting its own employee survey starting in FY 2007. Although this measure will not continue in the agency’s new Strategic Plan, we will use OPM’s and our survey results to help us continue to chart progress toward improving the human capital climate at the agency.

3.1.4. EEOC will receive an “unqualified” financial audit opinion each year from FYs 2004 through 2009.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Receive an “unqualified” financial audit opinion.	Receive an “unqualified” financial audit opinion.	Receive  an “unqualified” financial audit opinion.
Result	Received an unqualified audit opinion.	Received an unqualified audit opinion.	Received an unqualified audit opinion.
	Target met

In FY 2006, the agency received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements.

3.1.5. By FY 2006, successfully implement the Federal sector Model EEO Program.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Develop action plan and EPCA tool for implementing Federal sector Model EEO Program attributes. Meet or exceed 50% of identified attributes.	Meet or exceed 75% of identified attributes.	Model EEO Program successfully implemented.
Result	79%	79%	90%
	Target not met

We adopted an accelerated time frame for this measure in order to implement the criteria for a Model EEO Program described in MD-715. A model equal employment opportunity (EEO) program supports our efforts to attain organizational excellence and be a model workplace. As noted earlier in Measure 2.1.2., we set a goal for one-half of the major Federal agencies to adopt the model program by FY 2009. We intended to reach that goal for our own agency within the first 3 years. We used a “self assessment checklist” based on the MD-715 while the EEO Performance Compliance Assessment (EPCA) tool was under development. Now that development of the tool has been curtailed, we continued to use our self-assessment to measure our results. For FY 2006, we successfully met 90% of the criteria identified in the directive. Even though this measure is not continued in the new Strategic Plan, we will seek to implement all of the criteria to achieve a model EEO program.

3.1.6. By FY 2009, reduce the average time to process internal EEO complaints by at least 40%.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Reduce average time to process internal EEO complaints by 10% below FY 2003 benchmark.	Reduce average time to process internal EEO complaints by 20% below FY 2003 benchmark.	Reduce average time to process internal EEO complaints by 25% below FY 2003 benchmark.
Result	Reduced to 17.5% below FY 2003 benchmark.	8% below FY 2003 baseline.	20% below FY 2003 baseline.
	Target not met

This measure captures the average processing time for all internal EEO complaints from the date of filing to the closure date. The complaints included in the average are those that were settled during the formal stage, withdrawn from the process, closed by a Final Decision without an Administrative Judge, and closed by a Final Action after a decision was issued by an Administrative Judge.

The average processing time for closures in FY 2003 was 510 days, which we established as our benchmark for this measure. For FY 2006, we expected to reduce the average processing time by 25% from this benchmark value. Although we made significant improvement from last year, we did not meet this goal. Our average processing time for FY 2006 was 408 days, representing a 20% reduction in overall processing time. 

There are several reasons for this result. First, we have been very successful in reducing our overall year-end inventory by 73% since FY 2003, from 56 complaints at the end of FY 2003 to 15 complaints at the end of FY 2006. As the total number of cases decreases, the calculation of the average processing time can be skewed dramatically when only a few cases exceed expected timeframes. Second, the number of formal complaints filed also decreased over the past 2 years. In FY 2003, 38 formal complaints were filed. Only 31 complaints were filed in FY 2004, 26 in FY 2005, and 21 in FY 2006. This steady reduction in cases can be attributed to the success of our alternative dispute resolution program, RESOLVE, which was implemented in the last quarter of FY 2003. More complaints are being resolved at the informal stage of the process.

We will continue to expeditiously process our internal complaint inventory, even though we are not continuing this particular measure in our new Strategic Plan.

3.1.7.  The percentage of EEOC employees reporting a willingness to participate again in EEOC’s internal EEO/conflict resolution mediation program, RESOLVE, will be 90% or greater.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	30%	90% or greater	90% or greater
Result	94%	92%	100%
	Target met

The RESOLVE Program began in July 1, 2003. Based on limited information at the time, we anticipated that it would take several years for employee confidence to build and achieve established targets. We increased our targets and final goal for this measure substantially based on the overwhelming success of the program during FY 2004. Our new targets and long-term goal at 90% or greater was established; however, even that target and goal has been markedly exceeded. For FY 2006, 100% of the employees using the program, who responded to a survey, were willing to use the program again. We intend to sustain this high level of employee confidence in our RESOLVE program but have decided not to continue this measure in our new Strategic Plan.

3.1.8. By FY 2009, EEOC will convert key documents contained in 95% of private sector charge, Federal sector complaint, and litigation case files to electronic format.

	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
Target	Build IT infrastructure required to support document management and initiate pilots with headquarters and field offices (2-year target).		3% of active files converted
Result	Installed first phase of production DMS infrastructure and began converting Federal appellate case files into electronic format.		8% converted
	Target met

By the end of FY 2006, EEOC had converted over 11,000 Federal sector appellate case files into electronic format within our Document Management System (DMS). This accounts for approximately 8% of our active charge, litigation, Federal appellate, and Federal hearings files. In order to maintain the resource flexibility to implement these types of initiatives, the agency decided not to continue this measure in our new Strategic Plan; however, we will use future opportunities to initiate the activities necessary to fully implement the DMS and convert our agency files into electronic format.

Addendum: Interim Adjustments to the Strategic Plan

Each February, the EEOC submits its performance budget to the U.S. Congress. The performance budget integrates the agency’s budget request with the Annual Performance Plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. In each performance budget, the agency made interim adjustments to its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004–2009 (Strategic Plan), which was effective on October 1, 2003. The adjustments are described below.

All of the adjustments to the Strategic Plan are included in this addendum and were in effect throughout FY 2006. The originally issued Strategic Plan and this addendum constitute the agency's complete Strategic Plan.

For the convenience of the reader, we have highlighted in bold several words in each measure to make it easier to identify the key changes made.

A) Inclusion of the 180th Day

B) Increased Agreement of Employers to Mediate

The private sector mediation program has been very successful; however, our charge data and a research study verified that employers do not agree to participate in the program to the same extent that charging parties do. This measure was developed to increase the number of charges in which employers agree to participate. The original language may incorrectly imply that we would count unique employers in order to increase those agreeing to participate. It is more appropriate, however, to try to increase the actual number of charges that are mediated, which requires that the employer agree to mediate the charge. The text change is not substantive, but it correctly states how the agency will determine the results for this measure.

C) Federal Sector Evaluations

The agency regularly uses the term “Federal sector program” when it describes EEOC’s activities, policies, processes, and procedures involving Federal agencies. One of EEOC’s activities is to evaluate the EEO programs of other Federal agencies. The use of the word “program” in this measure was intended only to indicate that our own Federal sector program would conduct the evaluation. It could be misunderstood, however, to require the type of rigor and independence expected from the Program Evaluations described in Section VII. The text of the measure has been changed to avoid any misunderstanding. The text change is not substantive.

D) Electronic Conversion of Files

The electronic document management project will electronically convert key documents in a file, but it was not the intention of the agency to count individual documents to assess the results for this measure. The original text of the measure could be misunderstood. It has been revised to convey that the agency will count the number of case files after the electronic conversion of documents occurs. In addition, the original text did not explicitly include our Federal sector files in the document conversion program. The text was changed to clearly reflect that we are also converting key documents in the Federal files. The text changes are not substantive.

Also, funding priorities in fiscal year 2007 and beyond have necessitated adjustments to our targets and the final goal for this performance measure for fiscal year 2009. At this time, we will need to reassess this measure and the final goal as we review our Strategic Plan during fiscal year 2006 for issuance in FY 2007. We have indicated the goal will be determined at that time.

E) Change in Program Evaluations Schedule

The agency twice elected to change the order of the Program Evaluations outlined in the agency’s Strategic Plan. Neither change in the schedule is a substantive change to the Strategic Plan. In FY 2004, the Program Evaluation schedule was adjusted to indicate that the agency would conduct an evaluation of the Private Sector Charge Process starting at the end of FY 2004. The previously scheduled evaluation of the Private Sector Mediation Program was postponed until FY 2006. In FY 2005, the Program Evaluation schedule was adjusted to indicate that the agency would conduct an evaluation of the Federal Sector Mediation Programs, which started at the end of FY 2005. The previously scheduled evaluation of the Private Sector Mediation Program was further postponed until FY 2007.

F) Alternate Assessment of Private Sector Mediation/ADR Program

The Strategic Plan indicates for Measure 1.2.1. that the agency would conduct a Program Evaluation in FY 2005 to assess the private sector mediation/ADR program. Because of the changed program evaluation schedule (item E above), the agency decided to assess this program using an alternative method with data it began to collect in FY 2005 from its investigative charge files and coded into the agency-wide charge database. Using this data, it established target levels for FYs 2005–2008 and a final goal for FY 2009 for this measure. The language of the measure was revised to express the results expected with this alternative approach using language similar to the format used for many of our other measures. Even though we changed the text of this measure, we consider these changes as minor alterations to our Strategic Plan because this alternative approach is consistent with our original intention to evaluate the private sector mediation/ADR program.

G) EEO/Conflict Resolution

The RESOLVE Program is EEOC’s internal ADR program launched in FY 2003. The program is another component of our efforts to become a model workplace. We decided that one aspect of its success would be the willingness of employees to participate in the program again. We established a goal for our first full year at 30%, with our intention to reach a final goal of 80% by FY 2009. We are altering the targets and goals for this measure because of the unprecedented success we have achieved. The text change increases the targets and final goal expected for this measure. We consider the change to be a minor alteration to our Strategic Plan because it does not substantively revise the intention of the measure.

H) Establishing Goals and Required Language Changes to Measures

Initially, several measures did not provide stated intermediate target values and/or a final goal in our Strategic Plan. The following measures required minor adjustments to include goals and/or revise language. The inclusion of the final goals and any text changes to accommodate the type of final goal do not substantively revise the intention of these measures in our Strategic Plan.

I) Other Revised Language in the Strategic Plan

Original text in the means and strategies section of Strategic Objective 2, Inclusive Workplace, in our Strategic Plan has been revised to remove the word “scorecard” from the text. The term did not appropriately convey the approach we intended to use to promote, monitor, and track improvements in Federal agency EEO programs. The change eliminated unnecessary confusion about how we intended to execute the initiative to implement the attributes of the Model EEO Program throughout the Federal Government.

Text Changes in the Strategic Plan

Original text on page 27, with language removed for revised text change: As part of the Model, we will develop a scorecard covering selected indicators that will help agencies measure their progress in establishing the Model EEO Program.

Original text on page 28, with language removed for revised text change: Also, develop a “scorecard” process to promote, monitor, and track improvements in managing an agency’s EEO program.

Program Evaluation

Our Strategic Plan for FYs 2004–2009 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 3 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, starting at the end of FY 2004, 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 2007 Performance Budget. (All of the cumulative interim adjustments to our Strategic Plan are described in the [Addendum: Interim Adjustments to the Strategic Plan] section.

An EEOC contractor initiated the program evaluation of our private sector charge process at the end of FY 2004. The contractor engaged in an extensive activity to identify several key areas on which to focus the evaluation, since the charge process covers a wide range of activities. After reviewing the charge process in a focus group format with over 100 EEOC employees, the initial stages of the charge process—the inquiry and intake process leading to the filing of a charge—were identified for 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. As of the end of FY 2006, the study is complete and the contractor is finalizing its report for submission early in FY 2007.

We also initiated a program evaluation of Federal Sector Mediation Programs that started at the end
FY 2005, a year earlier than the scheduled fiscal year identified in our Strategic Plan. However, after these initial efforts and the preparation of a new Strategic Plan, the agency is reviewing whether to continue this evaluation. The new Strategic Plan includes a schedule of other important program evaluations that the agency intends to pursue.

We show the adjusted program evaluation schedule under the Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2006, which includes nonsubstantive changes.

Verification and Validation of Data

Our private sector, Federal sector, and litigation programs require accurate enforcement data, as well as reliable financial and human resources information, to assess EEOC operations and performance results and make good management decisions. We have continued efforts to ensure the accuracy of our program information and any analysis of that information.

We review the information collected in our databases for accuracy through software editing programs and program reviews of a sample of records during field office technical assistance visits. In addition, headquarters offices conducting analyses regularly review the information to identify any anomalies that could indicate erroneous entries requiring correction to collection procedures.

We have also deployed approaches that enable the agency to collect information more rapidly and accurately, because the information does not require multiple entries before it can be reviewed and analyzed. For example, in a previous fiscal year, we deployed a secure, web-based application that enabled businesses to electronically submit their annual Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to EEOC. This new system reduced the need for manual entry of report data and includes automated edits to validate data, calculate totals, and compare statistics against the prior year’s submission. In another example, we implemented a secure, web-based system that enabled all Federal agencies to electronically submit annual equal employment opportunity statistics (Form 462). This system has improved the quality and timeliness of the information received. Finally, our Integrated Mission System (IMS), which consolidates our mission data on charge intake, investigation, mediation, litigation, and outreach functions into a single shared information system, includes many automated edit checks and rules to enhance data integrity. Since several of our new performance measures require us to use data to assess our achievements, it is significant that we can now obtain those data much more quickly and with greater data accuracy.

We have implemented information quality guidelines and adopted internal procedures to strengthen our ability to verify and validate the quality of our data before they are released to the public. In addition, the agency’s Office of Inspector General includes information and recommendations about aspects of the status of our data validity and verification procedures, information systems, and databases in its reports. We use this information and these recommendations to continue to improve our systems and data.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Naomi C. Earp
Chair

FROM: Aletha L. Brown
Inspector General

SUBJECT: Agency Compliance with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
(OIG Report No. 2006-09-AIC)

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), P.L. 97-255, as well as the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control, establish specific requirements with regard to management controls. Accordingly, each agency head must establish controls to reasonably ensure that: (1) obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws; (2) funds, property and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and (3) revenues and expenditures applicable to agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for, in order to permit the preparation of reliable financial and statistical reports, as well as to maintain accountability over the assets. FMFIA further requires each executive agency head, on the basis of an evaluation conducted in accordance with applicable guidelines, to prepare and submit a signed statement to the President disclosing that their agency’s system of internal accounting and administrative controls fully comply with requirements established in FMFIA.

On October 31, 2006, the Office of Research, Information and Planning (ORIP) submitted EEOC’s Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement to the President, to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for review. Agency regulation, EEOC Order 195.001, Internal Control Systems requires this office to annually provide a written advisory to the Chair on whether the management control evaluation process complied with OMB guidelines. To make this determination OIG reviewed: (1) assurance statements submitted by headquarters and district directors attesting that their systems of management accountability and control were effective and that resources under their control were used consistent with the agency’s mission and in compliance with the laws and regulations set out in the FMFIA of 1982; (2) all functional area summary tables, and functional area reports; and (3) ORIP’s Fiscal year 2006 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement and Assurance Statement Letter, with attachments. Based on our independent assessment of this year’s process, OIG is pleased to advise you that the Agency’s management control evaluation was conducted in accordance with OMB’s standards.

Further, based on the results of audits, evaluations, and investigations conducted by OIG during Fiscal Year 2006, OIG concurs with ORIP’s assertion that a material weakness was found in the Agency’s Information Security Program. This weakness resulted from our independent evaluation of the Agency’s implementation of Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA)for FY 2006 which disclosed a significant deficiency in its Information Security Program. Based upon recent revisions to the Office of Management and Budget guidance (Circular A-123), the Agency is required to identify a FISMA significant deficiency as a FMFIA material weakness.

While there were no other material weaknesses reported, it is important to note that as reported in the September 30, 2006 Semiannual Report to Congress, the OIG completed an investigation on a security breach/information loss which was not included in FY 2006 FMFIA reports.[1]

Finally, regarding the disclosure of several incidents of financial non-conformance noted in Attachment 4 of the Assurance Statement Letter, OIG concludes that these non-conformances were corrected during the fiscal year.

[1] OIG Agents conducted an investigation into the allegation that after the former New Orleans Office was vacated due to Hurricane Katrina, case files and other personal information, including confidential information, were left open to public access. OIG Agents traveled to New Orleans and secured the old office space and materials. The information and other materials were released to Agency Officials for appropriate disposal and relocation from the site. After advising Agency Officials, the Office of Information Technology (OIT) reported the alleged breach of information to the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US CERT), under the Department of Homeland Security.

FY 2006 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

A Message From the Chief Financial Officer

I am pleased to present the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s financial statements for fiscal year 2006. Our financial statements are an integral component of our Performance and Accountability Report. The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 extends to the agency a requirement to prepare and submit audited financial statements. The President's Management Agenda, Improved Financial Performance component, among other standards, requires us to obtain and sustain clean audit opinions on our financial statements. OMB issued Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, on July 24, 2006, which further consolidated and refined reporting requirements for the PAR submission.  In addition, OMB Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, on August 23, 2006, established updated minimum requirements for audits of Federal financial statements.

Our fiscal year 2006 financial statements received an unqualified opinion. This is the third consecutive year that the EEOC has received an unqualified opinion and represents another milestone in our efforts to improve the financial management of the agency. Two years ago our financial services provider, the Department of the Interior's National Business Center, notified us that the current version of our financial software was considered obsolete. We conducted a competitive acquisition among Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved shared service providers to establish a new servicing agreement. The Department of the Interior’s National Business Center won the competition with their proposal to upgrade the existing software to CGI’s Momentum® software package. The conversion and implementation will be completed on October 1, 2007, for FY 2008 operations. In addition, we plan to begin implementation of e-Travel software during FY 2008. An unstable GSA vendor environment may continue to impact the implementation date for e-Travel.

In support of the Budget and Performance Integration component of the President's Management Agenda, we completed for the first time the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment process working with the OMB. The results will be released in February 2007. Also, the agency undertook a review and update of the 6-year Strategic Plan covering FYs 2007 through 2012. The review included an update of the performance measures.  

In support of the Competitive Sourcing component of the President’s Management Agenda, we have kicked off an A-76 study for the file disclosure function throughout the agency. This study will use the standard competition methodology. The competition is expected to be completed in October 2007.

For FY 2006, the agency received  $327 million in budget authority. We completed the fiscal year within budget with improved financial management and some additional focus on cost controls and cost accounting. Compensation and benefit costs continue to consume about 70% of the budget. Some additional progress has been made to bring rising office space rent costs under control as we re-lease less office space consistent with the number of employees onboard. However, rent costs remain about 9% of our total budget. With 10% of the budget dedicated to the State and local program, only 11% of the budget is available for technology, programs, travel, and other general expenses.

As reported in the past, I have identified several critical issues for the agency to focus on to continue to improve its long-term financial health. An update on each item is provided below.

• Execute a disciplined analysis of future workforce and infrastructure requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has been unable to slow the growth of the current and future cost of compensation and benefits for current employees, which makes up 70% of the EEOC's budget each year. These costs include salary, health and life insurance, agency contributions for retirement plans, social security, Medicare, worker's compensation, reasonable accommodations, and transit subsidies. A plan to reposition the field structure for improved efficiency and customer service was implemented on January 1, 2006.  In addition to the planned repositioning of headquarters, the Commission is faced with an important decision on office space for the headquarters building.  Working with the General Services Administration on a market survey and solicitation for offers, we expect to present options and a recommendation to the Chair in January 2007.  The proposal will involve a 10-year office lease and is expected to be the largest investment decision the agency will make in the next decade.  The current lease is about 25% of the rent budget. 

  The agency contracted for a second independent top-down study of the information technology infrastructure and staffing, with a report finalized on September 12, 2006.  The report calls for substantial changes in the governance, organization, use of contracts, server and network operations, desktop management, and the skill mix of staff in order to more effectively spend the $25 million annual budget for the information technology function.

• Recognize and manage competing budget priorities. A limited hiring freeze has continued since August 2001. In addition, we have kept spending controls in place for discretionary travel, awards, and training. Nonpayroll costs also increased for homeland security, rent, facility services, and unfunded government-wide programs such as a uniform Federal Government employees’ identification card project.
• Formulate a long-term performance budget strategy.  The agency continues to develop a consistent approach to budget justifications due to a declining workload and the inventory of cases.  An updated and simplified Strategic Plan that became effective on October 1, 2006, should help focus how the agency will support future requests for budget resources.

In FY 2007, guided by our updated Strategic Plan, we will continue our focus on accountability, financial transparency, and results through improved performance metrics, budget planning, and financial management.

Jeffrey A. Smith, CPA, CGFM
Chief Financial Officer
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

MEMORANDUM

TO: Naomi C. Earp
Chair

FROM: Aletha L. Brown
Inspector General

SUBJECT: Audit of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions Fiscal Year 2006 and 2005 Financial Statements (OIG Report No. 2006-03-FIN)

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of Cotton and Company LLP to audit the financial statements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for fiscal years 2006 and 2005. The contract required that the audit be done in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards; Office of Management and Budgets Bulletin 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, and the Government Accounting Office/Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiencys Financial Audit Manual.

Cotton and Company LLP issued an unqualified opinion on EEOCs FY 2006 and 2005 financial statements. In its Report on Internal Control, Cotton and Company LLP noted no matters involving the internal control and its operation that was considered to be a reportable condition. Cotton and Company LLP also reported that EEOCs financial management systems substantially complied with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA), and found no reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations it tested.

In connection with the contract, OIG reviewed Cotton and Company LLPs report and related documentation and inquired of its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express, and we do not express, opinions on EEOCs financial statements or conclusions about the effectiveness of internal controls or on whether EEOCs financial management systems substantially complied with FFMIA; or conclusions on compliance with laws and regulations. Cotton and Company LLP is responsible for the attached auditors report dated November 2, 2006 and the conclusions expressed in the report. However, OIGs review disclosed no instances where Cotton and Company LLP did not comply, in all material respects, with generally accepted government auditing standards.

cc: Anthony Kaminski
Jeffrey A. Smith
Germaine Roseboro
Nicholas Inzeo
Peggy Mastroianni

Independent Auditor's Report

• Independent Auditor's Report

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Inspector General
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

We audited the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as of September 30, 2006, and 2005; related Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, and Financing; and Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of EEOC management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of EEOC as of September 30, 2006, and 2005, and its net costs, changes in net position, combined budgetary resources, and financing for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Two types of information in EEOCs Performance and Accountability Report are not a part of EEOCs basic financial statements: Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and other accompanying information. These are, however, required by OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Boards Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 15, Managements Discussion and Analysis. Other accompanying information consists of the full Performance and Accountability Report, except for the MD&A, basic financial statements and notes to the financial statements, and this auditors report. With respect to EEOCs MD&A, we made certain inquiries of management and compared information for consistency with EEOCs audited financial statements and against other knowledge we obtained during our audit. We did not audit the MD&A or the other accompanying information and therefore express no opinion on them.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we issued separate reports dated November 2, 2006, on EEOCs internal control and compliance with laws and regulations. Our reports on internal control and compliance are an integral part of an audit conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and, in considering results of our audits, those reports should be read together with this report.

COTTON & COMPANY LLP

Colette Y. Wilson, CPA
Partner

November 2, 2006
Alexandria, Virginia

• Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control

  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Inspector General
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL

We audited the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as of September 30, 2006, and 2005; related Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, and Financing; and the Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources for the years then ended. We have issued our report thereon dated November 2, 2006. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.

In planning and performing our audits, we considered EEOCs internal control over financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the agencys internal control, determining if internal control had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of controls to determine auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We limited internal control testing to those controls necessary to achieve objectives described in OMB Bulletin 06-03. We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982, such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our audits was not to provide assurance on internal control. Consequently, we do not provide an opinion on internal control.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be reportable conditions. Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, reportable conditions are matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect an agencys ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with management assertions in the financial statements. Material weaknesses are reportable conditions in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statement being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Because of inherent limitations in internal control, misstatements, losses, or noncompliance may nevertheless occur and may not be detected. We noted no matters involving the internal control and its operation that we considered to be reportable conditions as defined above.

With respect to internal control related to significant performance measures included in Managements Discussion and Analysis, we obtained an understanding of the design of internal control relating to existence and completeness assertions, as required by OMB Bulletin 06-03. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on internal control over reported performance measures, and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.

We noted other nonreportable matters involving internal control and its operation that we will communicate in a separate management letter.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of EEOC management, OMB, and Congress. It is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

COTTON & COMPANY LLP

Colette Y. Wilson, CPA
Partner

November 2, 2006
Alexandria, Virginia

• Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations

  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Inspector General
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

We audited the Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as of September 30, 2006, and 2005; related Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, and Financing; and Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources for the years then ended. We have issued our report thereon dated November 2, 2006. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.

EEOC management is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the agency. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the agency's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of EEOC's compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts, and certain other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin 06-03. We limited our tests of compliance to these provisions, and we did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to EEOC.

The results of our tests of compliance disclosed no instances of noncompliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations described in the preceding paragraph that we are required to report under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin 06-03.

Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an objective of our audits and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of EEOC management, OMB, and Congress. It is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

COTTON & COMPANY LLP

Colette Y. Wilson, CPA 
Partner

Limitations of the Financial Statements

EEOC has prepared its financial statements to report its financial position and results of operations, pursuant to the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements.

While the EEOC statements have been prepared from its books and records in accordance with the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources, which are prepared from the same books and records. 

These statements should be read with the understanding that they are for a component of the United States Government, a sovereign entity. Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources cannot be liquidated without the enactment of an appropriation by Congress and payment of all liabilities, other than for contracts, can be abrogated by the Federal Government.

Consolidated Statements

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

September 30, 2006 and 2005
(In Dollars)

(1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

(2) Fund Balance with Treasury

(3) Accounts Receivable, Net

(4) Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

(5) Non-Entity Assets

(6) Liabilities Owed to Other Federal Agencies

(7) Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

(8) Liabilities Analysis

(9) Contingent Liabilities

(10) Leases

(11) Earned Revenue

(12) Correction of Errors

(13) Appropriations Received

(14) Permanent Indefinite Appropriations

(15) Imputed Financing

(16) Intra-governmental Transactions

(17) Explanation of Differences Between the Statement of Budgetary Resources and the Budget of the United States Government

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Organization and Jurisdiction Appendix A: Organization and Jurisdiction

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a bipartisan Commission comprised of five presidentially appointed members, including the Chair, Vice Chair, and three Commissioners. The Chair is responsible for the administration and implementation of policy for and the financial management and organizational development of the Commission. The Vice Chair and the Commissioners participate equally in the development and approval of Commission policies, issue charges of discrimination where appropriate, and authorize the filing of suits. In addition to the Commissioners, the President appoints a General Counsel to support the Commission and provide direction, coordination, and supervision to the EEOC’s litigation program. A brief description of major program areas is provided on the following pages.

When the Commission first opened its doors in 1965, it was charged with enforcing the employment provisions of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC has jurisdiction over employment discrimination issues has since grown and now includes the following areas:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat pregnancy and pregnancy related medical conditions, as any other medical disability with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including health benefits.
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the Federal government.
• Equal Pay Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the payment of wages to men and women performing substantially equal work in the same establishment.
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects workers 40 and older from discrimination in hiring, discharge, pay, promotions, fringe benefits, and other aspects of employment. ADEA also prohibits the termination of pension contributions and accruals on account of age and governs early retirement incentive plans and other aspects of benefits planning and integration for older workers.
• Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, fringe benefits, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Through its Office of Federal Operations, the EEOC provides leadership and guidance to Federal agencies on all aspects of the Federal Government’s equal employment opportunity program. This office assures Federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to Federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates Federal agencies’ affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes Federal sector educational materials and conducts training for stakeholders, provides guidance and assistance to our Administrative Judges who conduct hearings on EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by Federal agencies on EEO complaints.

Through our Headquarters-based Office of Field Programs, the Office of General Counsel, and 53 field offices, the EEOC effectively enforces the statutory, regulatory, policy, and program responsibilities of the Commission through a variety of resolution methods tailored to each charge. The field staff is responsible for achieving a wide range of objectives, which focus on the quality, timeliness, and appropriateness of individual, class, and systemic charges and for securing relief for victims of discrimination in accordance with Commission policies. The field staff also counsel individuals about their rights under the laws enforced by the EEOC and conduct outreach and technical assistance programs.

Additionally, through the Office of Field Program’s Office of State and Local Programs, the EEOC maintains worksharing agreements and a contract services program with more than 90 state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) for the purpose of coordinating the investigation of charges dual-filed under State and local law and Federal law, as appropriate. Through our partnership with more than 60 Tribal Employment Rights Offices (TEROs), we seek to promote equal employment opportunity on or near Indian reservations.

Through our Office of Legal Counsel, we develop policy guidance, provide technical assistance to employers and employees, and coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders regarding the statutes and regulations we enforce. The Office of Legal Counsel also includes an external litigation and advice division and a Freedom of Information Act unit.

The EEOC receives a congressional appropriation to fund the necessary expenses of enforcing civil rights legislation, as well as performing the prevention, outreach, and coordination of activities within the private and public sectors. In addition, the EEOC maintains a Revolving Fund for technical assistance programs. These programs provide fee-based education and training relating to the laws administered by the Commission.

Appendix B: Organization and Jurisdiction Appendix B: Biographies of the Commissioners and the General Counse

The EEOC has five commissioners and a General Counsel appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners are appointed for 5-year, staggered terms. The term of the General Counsel is 4 years. The President designates a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Commission. The 5-member Commission makes equal employment opportunity policy and approves most litigation. The General Counsel is responsible for conducting EEOC enforcement litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Naomi Churchill Earp, Chair

Naomi Churchill Earp assumed the role of Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on August 31, 2006, after serving as Vice Chair of the Commission since April 28, 2003. On October 26, 2005, President Bush reappointed Ms. Earp for a second term. Her current term expires on July 1, 2010.

Ms. Earp serves as the chief executive officer of the Commission. In conjunction with fellow Commissioners, she also guides the development and establishment of EEO policy and approves high impact and novel litigation actions.

Ms. Earp brings to the EEOC hands-on leadership and management experience; a strong track record of promoting diversity; and expertise in the equal employment opportunity field. Her breadth of experience, spanning the private and public sectors, provides valuable insight into employment-related issues.

Ms. Earp’s work experience in promoting diversity in EEO includes a series of progressively responsible leadership positions with various Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Science and Technology, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At the NIH, Ms. Earp spearheaded the development of a world-class diversity initiative and a nationally-recognized alternative dispute resolution program. At the Department of Agriculture she headed the Equal Opportunity Program, which included minority small businesses and minority farmers. Ms. Earp also served as an Attorney Advisor at the EEOC during the mid-1980s. In addition, she has worked as an independent consultant providing services to private employers and public agencies on a variety of employment-related issues and programs.

Leslie E. Silverman, Vice Chair

Leslie E. Silverman became Vice Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on September 8, 2006, after serving as a Commissioner since March 7, 2002. She was first nominated by President George W. Bush in February 2002 and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2002. Ms. Silverman was renominated to a full term in July 2003 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in October 2003. Her current term expires on July 1, 2008.

Vice Chair Silverman led the EEOC’s Systemic Task Force which examined the EEOC’s efforts at combating systemic discrimination. In April 2006, the Commission unanimously adopted the Task Force’s major recommendations aimed at improving the EEOC’s systemic program. Ms. Silverman also is a participant on the Center for Work-Life Policy’s “Hidden Brain Drain” Task Force which focuses on the retention and advancement of women and minority employees.

Immediately prior to joining the Commission, Ms. Silverman served for five years as Labor Counsel to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. From 1990 to 1997, she was an associate specializing in employment law and litigation with Keller and Heckman, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm.

A native of Needham, Massachusetts, Ms. Silverman received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Vermont; a Juris Doctor degree from the American University, Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C.; and a Masters degree With Distinction in labor and employment law from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. Ms. Silverman’s bar memberships include the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She also is licensed to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.

Stuart Ishimaru, Commissioner

Stuart J. Ishimaru was sworn in on November 17, 2003, as a Commissioner of the EEOC to serve the remainder of a term expiring July 1, 2007. Mr. Ishimaru was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 14 and confirmed by the full U.S. Senate on October 31, 2003.

Mr. Ishimaru previously served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice between 1999 and 2001, where he served as a principal advisor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, advising on management, policy, and political issues involving the Civil Rights Division. He supervised more than 100 attorneys in high-profile litigation, including employment discrimination cases, fair housing and fair lending cases, criminal police misconduct, hate crime and slavery prosecutions, and enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Prior to this, as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division for
5 years, Mr. Ishimaru provided advice on a broad range of issues, including legislative affairs, politics and strategies. He maintained liaison between the office and Members of Congress, and supervised fair housing and fair lending, equal employment opportunity, education, and Voting Rights Act litigation. He also testified before Congressional Committees on fair housing issues.

In 1993, Mr. Ishimaru was appointed by President Clinton to be the Acting Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and from 1984-1993 served on the professional staffs of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and two House Armed Services Subcommittees of the U.S. Congress.

Christine M. Griffin, Commissioner

Christine M. Griffin was sworn in on January 3, 2006, as a Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Griffin was nominated by President George W. Bush on July 28, 2005, and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 4 to serve the remainder of a five-year term expiring July 1, 2009.

Ms. Griffin’s work experience in labor and employment law includes positions in both the public and private sectors. Most recently, she served as the Executive Director of the Disability Law Center in Boston from 1996 to 2005. The Law Center provides legal advocacy on disability issues that promote the fundamental rights of all people with disabilities to participate fully and equally in the social and economic life of Massachusetts. As Executive Director, she provided leadership for the Law Center’s 25 employees and conducted its overall management, including programmatic and fiscal planning, priority setting and implementation, and fundraising.

Prior to that, Ms. Griffin served from 1995 to 1996 as an Attorney Advisor to the former Vice Chair of the EEOC, Paul M. Igasaki, advising him on legal matters and policy issues. Ms. Griffin’s other federal work experience includes serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Army.

A native of Boston, Ms. Griffin is a graduate of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and served as its Interim President from 1993 to 1994. She is also a graduate of Boston College Law School and, upon graduation, was awarded a Skadden Arps Fellowship at the Disability Law Center. Ms. Griffin has served on many boards and task forces, including the national Social Security Administration Ticket to Work Advisory Panel, the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council, and the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. In December 2005, Ms. Griffin was selected as one of the nation’s eleven “Lawyers of the Year” by Lawyers Weekly USA newspaper.

Ronald S. Cooper, General Counsel

Ronald S. Cooper was sworn in Aug. 11, 2006, to a four-year term as General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He was nominated by the President on March 27, 2006, and unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 26.

Mr. Cooper most recently was employed as a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, where he had specialized in employment litigation for over 34 years. He primarily represented employers at the trial and appellate level in litigation throughout the country including case brought under Title VII, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, The Equal Pay Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Fair Labor Standards Act. These cases included large class actions and government enforcement matters. In addition to actions brought under federal law, he represented employers with respect to claims brought under state and local laws. Mr. Cooper also represented both employees and employers in restrictive covenant and executive compensation cases.

Mr. Cooper has been a fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers since 1997. He is a member of the ABA’s Section of Labor and Employment Law and has held a number of leadership positions in that group including service as Management Chair of its Continuing Legal Education Committee. He most recently served as Management Chair of its International Labor Law Committee.

For 13 years Mr. Cooper served on the Metropolitan Board of Directors of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Washington. He has also served on that organization’s Executive Committee, and most recently was its General Counsel.

Mr. Cooper was born and raised in Athens, Georgia. He received his AB degree in the honors program of the University of Georgia, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his JD degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. He served as law clerk to Judge Walter P. Gewin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1969-70, and as a Staff Attorney in the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Appeals Section, 1970-72.

Cari M. Dominguez, Former Chair

Cari M. Dominguez is the Nation’s 12th Chair of the EEOC. She was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Her 5-year term expired on July 1, 2006.

Ms. Dominguez served from 1989-1993 in the U.S. Department of Labor as Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards and as Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In the latter capacity, she launched and led the Labor Department’s Glass Ceiling Initiative, designed to remove unseen barriers from the workplace.

Ms. Dominguez brought to the Commission a broad perspective and a wealth of expertise in employment and workplace issues gained in a variety of settings: as a small business owner, as a consultant, and as a corporate executive. She owned Dominguez & Associates, a management consulting firm that consulted with many Fortune 500 companies in the areas of workforce preparedness assessments and employment related issues. She was a partner at Heidrick & Struggles and a director at Spencer Stuart, two globally recognized executive search firms.

Her corporate experience includes various human resources positions with Bank America Corporation, including Director of Executive Programs. Among her responsibilities were executive compensation and benefits, succession planning, executive staffing and development and diversity initiatives. She received Bank America CEO’s Eagle Award, the highest corporate recognition for excellence.

Appendix C: Glossary of Acronyms

Appendix D: Internet Links

EEOC: www.eeoc.gov/

EEOC FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report: www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/par/2005/

EEOC Strategic Plan: www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/strategic_plan_04to09.html

EEOC Performance Plan: www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/2006budget.html

EEOC Annual Report on the Federal Workforce: www.eeoc.gov/federal/fsp2003/index.html

Youth@Work Initiative: http://youth.eeoc.gov/

LEAD Initiative: www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/lead/index.html

Appendix E: EEOC Field Offices

Acknowledgements

The EEOC’s FY 2006Performance and Accountability Report is a collaborative endeavor on the part of many EEOC employees and contractors. We would like to acknowledge and thank them for their hard work and commitment in successfully preparing this report and in supporting the audit of the financial statements.

We Welcome Your Comments

Thank you for your interest in the EEOC’s FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your comments on how we can make this report more informative for our readers. Please send your comments to:

Executive Officer
Office of the Executive Secretariat
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20507
(202) 663-4900
TTY (202) 663-4494

 This page was last modified on December 7, 2006