Chapter 2

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations?

Volume II: An Evaluation of the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Transportation

The Department of Justice (the Department or DOJ) is the federal agency with predominant responsibility for protecting the constitutional, civil, and statutory rights for all Americans. In 2001, it had 38 component organizations, offices, and divisions, and employed approximately 120,000 people throughout the country. Its employees include attorneys, investigators, law enforcement personnel, civil rights analysts, policy analysts, coordinators, paralegals, statisticians, and others.[1]

It is mainly through its Civil Rights Division (Division) that DOJ protects the civil rights of all citizens in areas such as housing, education, employment, immigration, disabilities, law enforcement, and voting. The Division also carries out the Department's coordination and oversight responsibilities with respect to other federal agencies civil rights enforcement activities, including the implementation of Title VI. The Division, established in 1957, has 10 program sections that carry out civil rights enforcement and coordination.[2] Other components in the Department, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Community Relations Service, and the U.S. attorneys, also bear civil rights responsibilities. Additionally, civil rights offices within components have internal and external civil rights responsibilities. Ultimate responsibility for the Department's civil rights policies and programs rests with the U.S. attorney general.

This chapter discusses and assesses the implementation of the Commission's recommendations to the Department of Justice and five of its components over the past decade. In reports written during this period, the Commission made more than 100 recommendations to the Department of Justice, including recommendations to its Office of the Attorney General, the Civil Rights Division, two sections in the Division the Coordination and Review Section (CORS) and the Disability Rights Section (DRS) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP).

During the period, the Commission also reported on hate crimes against Asian Pacific Americans and made recommendations to strengthen the Department's enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act with respect to collecting data on acts of bigotry and violence, particularly against the Asian Pacific American community. The Department's component responsible for collecting and reporting hate crime data is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This chapter summarizes the nature of the Commission's recommendations made to the Department and certain components with emphasis on where they were strong or weak in civil rights enforcement. It also assesses how the recommendations have been addressed. For this assessment, the Commission relied heavily on the Department's information through interrogatories, interviews, and available documents.

Overall, the Commission's studies in the 1990s found the Department weak in the following areas: coordination, guidance, and technical assistance and outreach to its stakeholders; planning and evaluation of civil rights activities; and funding and resources for civil rights enforcement. The weaknesses found within the Department were mirrored in the Commission's review of the Civil Rights Division, particularly the Coordination and Review Section, as well as in the Office of Justice Programs. Two of the components, the Disability Rights Section with its responsibility for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with authority over the data collection and reporting of hate crimes, were just beginning to undertake their civil rights responsibilities at the time of the Commission's reviews in 1998 and 1992, respectively. Both entities showed strengths in some areas. For example, at the time of the review, the Disability Rights Section was strong in technical assistance and in the use of mediation (alternative dispute resolution) as an enforcement strategy. Similarly, in the fulfillment of its new responsibility, after the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, the FBI prepared and distributed guidelines and a training manual, and offered technical assistance to law enforcement agencies almost immediately.

In the 2002 review, the Commission finds that the Department, the Civil Rights Division, and the two sections reviewed have shown improvement in the following areas: coordination, guidance, technical assistance and outreach to its stakeholders; planning and evaluation of civil rights activities; and funding and resources for civil rights enforcement. The Office of Justice Programs Office for Civil Rights shows improvement in planning and technical assistance, but deficiencies in civil rights enforcement. The Department's improvement in most of these areas began in the 1990s, with new civil rights initiatives that promulgated departmental actions to address flaws. With respect to the FBI's enforcement of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the Commission's 2002 review finds little significant change in the implementation of the law since 1992.

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION

Authority for coordinating and monitoring Title VI enforcement at the federal level is held by the Civil Rights Division s Coordination and Review Section (CORS). Established in 1979, CORS has responsibility to make certain that designated federal agencies meet their responsibilities for ensuring nondiscrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[3] In 1996, the Commission issued its Title VI report,[4] which assessed the enforcement of Title VI by CORS and DOJ's Office of Justice Programs. In the Title VI report, the Commission found that the Department lacked commitment to the enforcement of Title VI.[5] DOJ's civil rights priorities shifted from Title VI to other civil rights statutes, a change that was reflected in the budget and resources available for the coordination and enforcement of Title VI.[6]

Despite plans to strengthen Title VI enforcement, DOJ transferred CORS staff to other sections and reduced drastically the resources available for Title VI enforcement activities.[7] The Commission noted that CORS lacked adequate resources and funding to support Title VI enforcement and because of the Department's poor planning could not carry out the enforcement of Title VI effectively. As a result, the Commission found CORS Title VI work inadequate and recommended changes in the organizational structure of the section.[8]

The Commission also concluded that DOJ failed to provide leadership necessary to fulfill its Title VI responsibilities. The Department had not updated regulations, and relied on policies and procedures more consistent with programs in the 1960s and 1970s.[9] The Commission urged the Department to issue a policy statement or guidance about its Title VI authority or any future changes in its authority that could have resulted from an amended Title VI statute or revised or new executive order.[10]

The Commission found that CORS did not have a formal Title VI technical assistance program. The Commission recommended that CORS establish a formal technical assistance program for agencies and other outside organizations, and produce and disseminate information on Title VI for the public and those affected by the law.

The Commission recommended that CORS strengthen its Title VI monitoring and coordinating role and provide regular technical assistance through policy guidance and training to federal agencies on their implementation of the law. The Commission suggested that CORS reassess its priorities, resources, and workload for its Title VI coordinating functions.[11]

Executive Order 12,250 requires the U.S. attorney general to evaluate the Title VI agencies implementation of the law, advise agency heads of the results of the evaluations, and provide recommendations for improving the implementation or enforcement of Title VI.[12] In 1981, DOJ issued guidelines to help agencies formulate plans for implementing their responsibilities under the executive order. By 1996, the civil rights implementation plan (CRIP) emerged as the principal DOJ document for evaluating federal Title VI enforcement. CORS relied exclusively on agencies CRIPs to evaluate the implementation of the law.[13] CORS coordinators reviewed the CRIPs and recommended plans for approval or disapproval.[14]

The Commission found the CRIPs to be insufficient in addressing the elements necessary for civil rights planning, enforcement, and evaluation.[15] The Commission recommended that CORS issue guidelines and requirements so that CRIPs would include compliance information that could be evaluated. The Commission also found that the evaluation of the plans was a cursory review of the CRIPs Title VI agencies submitted.[16] The Commission urged that CORS conduct a formal annual review of the agencies goals and accomplishments, to be included in a more comprehensive document.[17]

In 1996, CORS offered very little education and outreach to community and advocacy groups representing funding recipients about Title VI responsibilities or beneficiaries about their civil rights. The Commission recommended that CORS provide information to the public on Title VI and consult with stakeholders regularly.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) administers funds to support criminal justice initiatives at the state and local levels. Funds have been used to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, assist crime victims, and help state and local jurisdictions to better ensure public safety.[18] OJP partners with federal, state, and local agencies and national and community-based organizations, to develop, operate, and evaluate a wide range of criminal and juvenile justice programs.[19] In 1996, OJP was the largest fund-granting agency within DOJ, distributing $790 million through 20 different programs to 601 recipients.[20] In 1996, OJP described itself as a program-focused agency. Civil rights at OJP was not a priority in 1996.[21]

At the time of the Title VI report, OJP was headed by the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs and consisted of five bureaus and an Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[22] OJP's OCR was headed by a director who reported directly to the deputy assistant attorney general. OCR was responsible for ensuring that recipients of its financial assistance programs did not discriminate under various regulations and statutes, including Title VI. OCR also was responsible for monitoring compliance by recipients of financial assistance and enforcing civil rights compliance laws at OJP.

In 1996, the Commission found a lack of support from OJP management for civil rights enforcement, as well as flaws in the organizational structure of OJP.[23] As a result, the Commission concluded that OCR was unable to carry out its civil rights coordination and enforcement role effectively, and provide technical assistance to its many federally assisted program recipients. In the Title VI report, the Commission recommended an organizational structure that would strengthen OCR's coordination and oversight of its funding recipients activities.

In 1996, the Commission found that OJP did not provide OCR with the resources to enforce its civil rights responsibilities effectively.[24] Instead, the Department explored the possibility of other components assisting the small staff of three with its work.[25]

Addressing OJP's Title VI administrative efforts, the Commission found that OJP/OCR had not (1) updated its regulations and list of federal financial programs since 1981; (2) issued Title VI guidelines or policy statements for recipients; (3) prepared detailed procedures for OCR staff on compliance reviews, complaint investigations, performance evaluations, and the collection and analysis of data; and (4) provided the staff with Title VI instruction.[26] In 1996, OJP s pre-award review process for large contracts only ensured that recipients submitted assurances of nondiscrimination and did not include desk-audit pre-award or post-award reviews.[27]

In the 1996 review, the Commission found OCR s technical assistance for funding recipients to be almost nonexistent and recommended that OCR establish a regular technical assistance program about civil rights responsibilities for recipients. The Commission recommended that OJP improve by regularly offering technical assistance, by preparing and disseminating civil rights information describing its grant program, and by soliciting comments and suggestions from affected communities and funding recipients.[28] The Commission found that OJP/OCR's outreach and public education activities were limited to publishing program announcements and responding to inquiries.[29]

In 1996, OJP had not conducted a post-award review and had only proposed limited strategies for conducting pre-award reviews and investigating complaints. CORS and OJP staff later developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) whereby CORS would be responsible for some of OCR's Title VI work.[30] In the Title VI report, the Commission criticized the use of the MOU between OJP and CORS, finding that such an agreement might pose a conflict of interest with CORS Title VI oversight responsibility. The Commission concluded that to ensure that OJP carried out its Title VI responsibilities and that CORS did not oversee itself, the MOU between the two Department components should not be approved.[31]

In 1996, OCR staff received civil rights training, but it did not address Title VI.[32] Staff members indicated that they would plan for additional staff training so they could perform pre-award and post-award reviews.[33]

In the 1996 report, the Commission found that OCR did not ensure that states fulfilled their regulatory obligations with respect to Title VI. At the time, OCR did not require recipients to develop equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs); however, OCR conducted post-award reviews primarily of those plans submitted. The Commission concluded that although OCR planned to review more than 200 reviews of the EEOPs, the reviews were limited to equal employment opportunity issues and insufficient to ensure compliance with Title VI.[34]

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law on July 26, 1990.[35] In 1998, the Commission released two companion reports on the ADA, one of which assessed DOJ's enforcement of Title II of the statute.[36]

Along with its other responsibilities, DOJ s Civil Rights Division is charged with monitoring and revising ADA regulations, investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination, enforcing state and local governments compliance with the law, and coordinating Title II enforcement with other designated federal agencies.[37] In 1995, the Disability Rights Section (DRS) was established within the Division to implement these responsibilities.[38]

In the 1998 report, the Commission found DRS Title II enforcement efforts to be highly effective. [39] The Commission recommended a significant increase in DRS staff and budget to expand and improve its enforcement of the ADA.[40]

The Commission also commended DRS on its technical assistance and education and outreach programs explaining ADA requirements to its stakeholders. At the time of the Commission's report, DRS assigned staff to such activities, had a toll-free information telephone line, a Web site, and numerous technical assistance documents addressing questions about the new law.[41]

The Commission commended DRS for using mediation or alternative dispute resolution to resolve Title II complaints. However, the Commission found an overreliance on mediation to settle ADA disputes and recommended that DRS develop a more balanced enforcement strategy to ensure that more cases, especially those important for developing legal precedent, were litigated. The Commission recommended that DRS more actively initiate litigation against public entities, especially in cases involving accessibility to public buildings.[42]

The Commission faulted DRS for not adequately monitoring and coordinating the ADA Title II implementation, compliance, and enforcement efforts of the other Title II federal agencies. Because of limited resources, DRS had not assigned staff to those important functions.[43]

The Commission recommended that DRS regularly consult with and seek input from disability and minority advocacy groups about ADA issues, particularly, in developing guidance, training, and education and outreach programs.

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

In April 1990, Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which calls for the U.S. attorney general to collect nationwide data on the incidence of criminal acts that manifest prejudice based on race, religion, homosexuality or heterosexuality, ethnicity, or such other characteristics as the Attorney General considers appropriate and to publish reports analyzing the data.[44] The responsibility for collecting and disseminating hate crime data was given to DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In 1992, the Commission released the report, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s. It noted numerous acts of bigotry and violence perpetuated against members of the Asian Pacific American community, particularly against recent immigrants.[45] The Commission criticized the paucity of hate crime information and commended Congress for passing the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. However, the Commission recognized that for the act to be meaningful, there had to be action in addition to collecting and reporting statistics. In its 1992 assessment, the Commission said that the act should provide an opportunity to learn more about hate crimes and document the extent of hate-motivated violence against Asian Pacific Americans and other groups nationally, and that such information should assist in the prosecution of such offenses.[46] The report recommended that hate crime data collection be coordinated with an enforcement component in order to address the problem effectively. Currently, the collection of hate crime information, and the investigation and prosecution of such offenses are performed by different components within the Department.[47]

In the 1992 report, the Commission recommended that DOJ be provided with adequate resources to implement the act, particularly to provide training for police personnel in identifying and investigating such offenses.

Almost immediately after the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Section prepared guidelines and a training manual for police departments, which have become the major conduits for providing hate crime information. The guidelines, which have been revised, define hate crimes and give examples of such acts, require that all crimes be reviewed at two levels to determine whether they are motivated by bias, and specify the information police departments must provide about each hate crime.[48]

The FBI sponsored regional training conferences with police departments that were to be completed by October 1991.[49] In the 1992 report, the Commission recommended steps for successful implementation of the act, including outreach to victims, resources for police training on hate crimes, and formation of police units that specialize in identifying, investigating, and reporting hate crimes.[50] The Commission also recommended that in addition to hate crimes guidelines, the Department of Justice develop and disseminate a civil rights handbook to inform all groups, particularly recent immigrants, of their civil rights.[51]

The Commission urged the Department, in addition to law enforcement agencies, to encourage and include schools, organizations, churches, and state and local governments in identifying, reporting, and providing information on hate crimes in their jurisdictions.[52]

The Department remains the largest federal civil rights agency with additional responsibilities in civil rights enforcement and coordination since the 1996 report. Civil rights is a priority as evidenced by the placement of the Civil Rights Division within the Department; however, with so many statutes to enforce and ever-evolving civil rights issues, effectively carrying out all its responsibilities remains a serious challenge for the Department.

In the Department, planning and performance are incorporated into the budget process. All departmental components prepare resource allocation and annual performance plans that accompany their budget requests to the Department.[53] Budget submissions and appropriations are based on outside priorities and initiatives of the Department, the administration, and courts, and not solely on the components assessment of their needs.[54] During the 1990s, the Commission recommended increased funding and staff for the Civil Rights Division and its sections to carry out their numerous civil rights responsibilities.[55] Since fiscal year 1994, the Division's appropriations have increased. Over the past 10 years, the Civil Rights Division's budget has increased from a 1992 level of $47.6 million to its current fiscal year 2002 level of $100.6 million, which reflects a $53 million (or 112 percent) net increase.[56] However, the Commission has consistently found the Division's resources not commensurate with its expanding workload.[57] To illustrate, although $71.9 million was requested for the Division in fiscal year 1995, Congress approved only $62.2 million. Further, the fiscal year 1998 budget appropriation equaled the 1994 appropriation in real dollars.[58] With evolving civil rights issues, it is likely the Division s responsibilities will increase in the future. For example, in its reorganization, which has not been finalized, the Office of Justice Programs is considering a proposal to make its Office for Civil Rights a part of the Civil Rights Division.[59] If the proposal is implemented, the Division will need more resources.

The Commission finds it difficult to evaluate the adequacy of civil rights resources at the Department. Except for the Civil Rights Division, the components discussed in this review lack a formal document that provides detailed information about civil rights resources.[60] In addition, civil rights funding, staffing, and workload are not itemized in the Department's 2002 2003 budget reports.[61] In the Department's budget summaries, civil rights expenditures and resources are included under litigating divisions or management operations, and administration categories.

One of the major findings in the Commission s Title VI report was DOJ's lack of planning to develop goals, objectives, and strategies at the Department.[62] The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)[63] was enacted in 1993. The act requires federal agencies to set goals and prepare performance plans noting the expected progress toward achieving those goals. Partly in response to GPRA, DOJ has developed two strategic plans[64] and other planning documents.[65] All of these documents include civil rights goals and objectives.

Each fiscal year, the Civil Rights Division prepares a budget submission document that includes the previous and current funding, staffing, workload, activities, and performance measures for the Division and each section.[66] In the budget submissions, 214 indicators address the Division's 10 program areas, including measures of the workload, outcomes, and productivity and efficiency. The deputy assistant attorney general assigned to the sections determines whether objectives have been met. Four factors are used to justify objectives that are not met: whether unique cases or investigations consumed a disproportionate amount of time and resources; whether new requirements were put into place during the evaluation period; whether staff and funding allocations increased or decreased from originally planned levels; and whether workload changed from originally projected levels.[67]

The Civil Rights Division claims the performance measurement indicators for the sections, the communication from the Office of the Assistant Attorney General to the section chiefs, and the oversight and accountability of the civil rights work of the Division's sections are sufficient for effective civil rights enforcement.[68] The Division does not require sections to submit annual civil rights assessments as the Commission recommended.[69] The Division notes that it has also established a case management system into which all professional staff report the time they have worked on each case. The Division states it has had success in ensuring that the sections are aware of their responsibilities, their resource needs, and their accomplishments.[70]

In addition to the Department's and the Civil Rights Division's planning documents, several components, including the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), produce strategic plans. OJP has a fiscal year 1999 strategic plan, which is being revised.[71] The plan's civil rights focus areas include providing technical assistance to grantees on the preparation of plans, conducting on-site complaint investigations, and conducting negotiations to secure voluntary compliance with civil rights laws.[72] The plan lists goals to integrate civil rights awareness into OJP programs through technical assistance.[73] OJP acknowledges in the plan that it has worked hard to incorporate the observations and recommendations of the Commission [in its 1996 report] into its planning efforts. [74]

The FBI has a 1998 2003 strategic plan,[75] with a civil rights component that addresses hate crimes and hate crime statistics. One civil rights strategic goal, Deter Civil Rights Violations through Aggressive Investigative and Proactive Measures, notes the importance of hate crime statistics in reducing acts of bigotry and violence.[76] The strategic plan calls for community entities to report such incidents and says the FBI will develop a comprehensive outreach program to identify targeted populations, issues, and possible solutions. The plan lists critical factors to improve the reporting of hate crimes, which mirror the Commission s 1992 recommendations: the enlistment of all components in the community, including the police, in reporting such offenses, and resources for the training of police officers in identifying hate crime offenses.[77]

Since the Title VI report, CORS governmentwide coordinating responsibilities have increased with the enforcement of two additional executive orders.[78] The Commission finds that CORS increased responsibilities have not adversely affected its enforcement of Title VI. Overall, the Commission finds that Title VI enforcement has improved at the Department since 1996.

In 2002, CORS reports that it has not had any major reorganizations despite the Commission's recommendation that one be performed. Thus, it has not created the six units, including a Title VI unit, that the Commission recommended.[79] CORS states that to maximize its resources, all staff must be familiar with most of the Section's responsibilities. According to CORS, all 18 professional staff spend a substantial amount of time on Title VI-related responsibilities. There is a section chief and two deputy section chiefs. The seven coordinators and investigators report to one of the deputy section chiefs; and eight attorneys report to the other deputy. CORS regards its present organizational structure as adequate for its civil rights responsibilities.[80]

Since the 1996 report, CORS resources have increased each fiscal year.[81] For 2002, it requested three additional staff, including two attorneys and one program specialist, and it received an increase in appropriations of $3,725,000.[82] The Section was allocated three additional attorneys and sufficient travel funds to provide training on Title VI.[83] CORS officials state that its current resources are sufficient for the Section to carry out its responsibilities.[84]

Since the Commission's 1996 report, CORS has issued a policy guidance titled The Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Related Statutes in Block-Grant Type Programs. CORS attributes its development to recommendations made by the Commission and other advisory groups.[85]

Perhaps the strongest improvement of CORS work since the 1996 study has been the technical assistance and information now provided on Title VI. CORS has established a formal technical assistance program that includes informational training documents and other materials,[86] all available on its Web site.[87] For example, CORS has the Title VI Legal Manual, which includes an overview of Title VI and relevant definitions and interpretations of programs and activities. It addresses legal principles and issues regarding Title VI enforcement from a federal agency perspective.[88] The manual is used in the Section's Title VI technical assistance and training programs.[89]

The Section has also developed a training course that provides participants with information about Title VI and delivers shorter presentations that provide an overview of Title VI and the regulations.[90] In the 2002 budget submission, CORS requested additional funds to conduct technical assistance reviews of federal agencies civil rights programs.[91] CORS conducts Title VI Technical Assistance Reviews (TARs), which are assessments of selected aspects, functions, or issues concerning an agency s compliance with and enforcement of Title VI.[92] It uses a team of CORS attorneys and coordinators to review documents and make site visits to federal agency offices and funding recipients. The agencies or recipients that are visited are chosen using such criteria as substantial assistance and numbers of beneficiaries, the number of Title VI complaints filed, information obtained from CRIPs, and information obtained from organizations or agencies that indicate civil rights problems in the program.[93] TARs are designed to yield practical recommendations to strengthen Title VI enforcement.[94]

CORS primary responsibility with respect to Title VI is to coordinate the implementation of the law by monitoring the enforcement activities of the agencies covered under the law. Since 1996, CORS has established several methods to ensure the accountability of and the effective coordination among federal agencies that provide financial assistance: requiring them to submit annual implementation plans; conducting investigations where a recipient is funded by more than one agency; developing delegation agreements to avoid duplicative investigations; providing investigative assistance to agencies; conducting ongoing Title VI technical assistance; providing policy and legal advice; and conducting advisory meetings with federal agencies.[95]

In 1996, the Commission found the civil rights implementation plans (CRIPs) inadequate for evaluating federal agencies civil rights compliance activities and performance. It recommended revising the CRIPs so that they can be used as a civil rights enforcement plan to measure compliance activities of the federal agencies. In 2002, CORS is still using CRIPs to measure the agencies Title VI performance.[96] However, CORS indicates that several years ago, it revised the guidelines for the CRIP to make them less burdensome, and to require more succinct information to be evaluated by the Section. [97] A CORS coordinator is assigned to the agency to review the CRIP, and a legal advisor is assigned to each agency to answer legal questions. If deficiencies are found, the coordinator communicates the concerns to the agency and makes recommendations that are sent to the head of the civil rights office at the agency. The review's findings and recommendations are sent to the agency when the review is completed, approximately three to six months after the CRIP is received.[98]

In developing guidance, CORS states it consults with community and advocacy groups, as well as organizations representing recipients of financial assistance.[99] Additionally, a departmental brochure, Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination, is produced in 16 languages, including Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Hmong, Punjabi, and Cambodian. It resembles a civil rights handbook like that recommended by the Commission in 1992.[100]

In the 1996 review, the Commission found a lack of support from OJP management for civil rights enforcement. Civil rights was not a focus or a priority at the agency. The OJP organizational structure minimized the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) authority and hindered OCR's ability to fulfill its external civil rights responsibilities.[101] In 2002, the Commission finds the same problems.

In 1997, Congress directed OJP to develop an organizational structure to address its significant increase in grants and responsibilities, streamline and coordinate agency programs and activities, and improve its coordination with funding recipients.[102] Between 1995 and 1998, appropriations for OJP grew from $1.1 billion to over $3.4 billion,[103] increasing the number of funding recipients and promulgating the need for stronger civil rights enforcement at OJP.[104]

The reorganization plan was approved by Congress and the previous administration in fiscal year 1999. The plan included three components with civil rights implications: a central information center for receiving and disseminating OJP information on technical assistance; an office to provide geographically based contact with recipients; and offices that would better address program policy, model program implementation, pre-award activities (including grantee selection) related to discretionary and formula grants, training and technical assistance, publications, and other support activities.[105] These initiatives addressed some of the Commission's recommendations in the Title VI report.

Although the 1999 reorganization plan was approved,[106] it was never implemented.[107] The new administration decided not to implement it because they wanted a plan that reflected their new initiatives. Consequently, OJP is preparing an alternative plan, in which OJP would become a collaborative, coordinated set of programs that provides for the most efficient use of resources. The attorney general's position is that the reorganization of OJP should be more than just streamlining, and creating efficiencies and coordination. [108] Although nothing in the plan is final, an OJP official, involved in the development of the reorganization plan, states any reorganization will not change OJP's responsibilities or compliance with Title VI.[109]

Because the approved reorganization was not implemented and the proposed plan has not been completed, OJP's organizational structure has not significantly changed since the Commission's 1996 review.[110] The responsibility for external civil rights enforcement at OJP remains with OCR. OCR is charged with monitoring civil rights compliance by recipients of financial assistance from OJP, its bureaus, and other offices. OCR investigates complaints that allege violation of Title VI and other applicable laws and conducts reviews to ensure compliance with them.[111] OCR's responsibilities, including the enforcement of Title VI, have not changed since 1996.[112]

For nearly two years, an acting director has headed OCR who reports to the principal deputy assistant attorney general at OJP.[113] The principal deputy assistant attorney general, who reports to OJP s assistant attorney general, reviews the work of OCR to ensure the quality of civil rights enforcement activities.[114] The acting director has no policy- or decision-making roles at OJP.[115] The principal assistant attorney general states that although OJP would like to have a permanent director in OCR, it is unlikely that a permanent person will be hired before the new reorganization is approved.[116] Currently, there are several proposals for reorganization. OCR could remain a separate office with a director, or it could become a division within OJP s Office of General Counsel.[117] A third proposal is to make OCR a part of the Civil Rights Division.[118] Details have not been formulated for any of these proposals. The principal assistant attorney general states it is difficult to hire someone in a permanent position until the issues are resolved.[119]

OCR has had an increase in funding and staffing since the Commission's 1996 report. In fiscal year 1997, the annual budget for OCR was $378,241.[120] In fiscal year 2001, the OCR budget had increased to $911,793.[121] In 1996, three OCR staff members were assigned external civil rights enforcement responsibilities, including the director of OCR, a civil rights compliance specialist, and a secretary.[122] Currently, OCR has 10 full-time employees. Five full-time attorneys and one part-time attorney investigate civil rights complaints, conduct compliance reviews, and provide technical assistance to recipients.[123] One full-time legal technician reviews equal employment opportunity plans (EEOP) that major public recipients (awards of $500,000 or more) must submit to OCR for review.[124] OCR also has a writer-editor, a legal program technician, and paralegals. In 2002, as a result of the increase in resources since 1996, OJP officials state that OCR has the appropriate staff and funding to meet its responsibilities under law and existing departmental policy.[125] However, OCR's increase in resources from 1996 to 2001 is misleading. Since the Commission's 1996 review, the number of OJP's federal financial assistance recipients has reached the thousands, which must have affected OCR's Title VI workload.

An important responsibility of any Title VI agency is to provide updated guidance and regulations to its recipients concerning their civil rights responsibilities. OJP reports that no civil rights regulations have been published since the Commission's 1996 report.[126] In 1997, OCR created in-house guidance for investigating compliance reviews and complaint investigations titled Procedures for Investigating Civil Rights Cases. [127]

Since the Commission's Title VI report, OCR has improved in technical assistance and outreach initiatives. OJP reports that in fiscal year 1998, OCR designed a technical assistance program for the administrative staff of state agencies and subgrantees.[128] The technical assistance program offers on-site training programs, a civil rights briefing to state program officers, and a one-day training session to subgrantees in which OCR explains the federal civil rights laws that apply to recipients of federal financial assistance.[129] To date, OCR has not developed formal selection criteria to identify states for technical assistance, but uses informal criteria such as requests for training, the amount of the awards, and the number and nature of discrimination complaints that OCR has received.[130]

OCR has published a brochure for general distribution providing a general overview of the civil rights protections for employees and beneficiaries of OJP-funded programs and activities.[131] OCR has posted public information on OJP's Web site, with information in languages other than English available on request. OCR also has made presentations on civil rights enforcement issues at conferences sponsored by such groups as the National Black Prosecutors, the Hispanic Bar Association, and the National Center for Women and Policing.[132]

In 1996, the Commission reviewed OCR's civil rights implementation plans (CRIPs). Although the CRIPs followed the Department's outline, they revealed that OJP did little to enforce civil rights laws, including Title VI.[133] In its plans, OCR proposed limited strategies for conducting pre-award reviews and investigating complaints, and no strategies for conducting post-award reviews, collecting data from recipients, or improving education and outreach.[134] OCR did not propose to initiate a post-award compliance review until its 1994 plan,[135] and did not conduct its first one until fiscal year 1997.[136] OCR states it has received sufficient funding to conduct three or four compliance reviews each year.[137]

In its fiscal year 1996 CRIP, OCR stated it used the findings and recommendations of the Commission's Title VI report as a management tool for setting goals and priorities in improving its CRIPs.[138] OCR has followed the same framework for preparing CRIPs since then.[139] These plans follow the outline provided by the Department. The fiscal year 1996 2000 CRIPs contain compliance goals and activities, including on-site complaint investigations, compliance reviews, technical assistance programs, and administrative projects.[140] However, OCR's information on its enforcement activities, such as the extremely low number of planned post-award and pre-award reviews, continues to concern the Commission.

In 1996, the Commission raised concern over a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OJP and CRD, which authorized the sharing of some Title VI responsibilities. CORS is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the Title VI work of the federal agencies that are covered under the law. Its major responsibility is to monitor and evaluate the civil rights activities of those agencies, not to do their work. Under the MOU, CORS was to be responsible for conducting post-award compliance reviews and investigating complaints on the bases of race, national origin, color, sex, age, and religion in service programs funded by OJP.[141] The Commission saw the possibility of a conflict of interest with respect to CORS role in the agreement,[142] questioning how CORS could objectively evaluate OJP's Title VI enforcement when it performed some of the responsibilities. In 2002, CORS indicates that its responsibilities have changed in the final MOU. Under the approved MOU, both CORS and OCR investigate individual complaints of services discrimination. CORS indicates that it has decreased the number of administrative complaints it was investigating pursuant to the final MOU. Currently, CORS only shares nonemployment services complaints with OCR for implementation of Title VI.[143] OCR shares responsibility with other sections in the Civil Rights Division for disability-related complaints and administrative complaints alleging pattern or practice of discrimination by a law enforcement agency.[144] Both CORS and OJP justify the use of the MOU and conclude it has been working effectively.[145] The principal deputy assistant attorney general states the MOU gives OCR an opportunity to use departmental resources efficiently and effectively, including resources and staff with expertise, and to ensure that overlap and duplication in OCR activities do not occur.[146] The Commission finds that the conflict of interest issue with respect to CORS involvement in the MOU has been addressed. However, CORS involvement in OCR's complaint processing raises the concern that OCR's current staff may not be able to handle its Title VI workload adequately and will not be able to perform the responsibilities if CORS, because of its workload, cannot continue to assist in OCR's Title VI work.[147]

In fiscal year 1999, OJP awarded 11,117 federally assisted grants. There were 14,808 recipients.[148] In fiscal year 1999, OCR conducted one pre-award on-site review and 291 desk audits.[149]

At OCR, the review of the recipients equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs) functions as a form of a pre-award compliance review. [150] Since 1996, OCR has reviewed more than 1,000 EEOPs. However, the use of an EEOP as a pre-award compliance review addresses discrimination only in funded employment programs and not with regard to services.[151] OCR has established minimum standards for an acceptable EEOP and notifies recipients of the consequences, but agency standards apply to the preparation, submission, or implementation of an EEOP, and not to any other program.[152] Currently, only one staff member (a legal technician) reviews the EEOPs.[153]

OCR reports that the goal for the number of on-site reviews it plans to conduct varies each year.[154] It has conducted more than a dozen on-site compliance reviews since 1996.[155] In fiscal year 2000, OCR reported that it planned to conduct at least three post-award compliance reviews during the fiscal year.[156] However, in fiscal year 2000, OCR conducted only one post-award review.[157]

OCR's procedures for selecting which funding recipients will receive on-site investigations include gathering preliminary data, reviewing the data in the light of the regulatory selection criteria,[158] and then presenting a justification memorandum to the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for approval to initiate the investigation.

The review includes staffing patterns of the facility, information on group participation rates and applicants, and interview materials that could reveal possible barriers to participation. The recipient provides information on its civil rights policies and practices.[159] The director of OCR reviews the compliance review reports and sends them to other components of the Department for comment before the results are sent to the recipient.[160]

In this assessment, the Commission is concerned not only about the small number of OCR staff assigned to external civil rights responsibilities, but also the training and expertise that may be necessary to carry out the many different compliance activities. Currently, OCR relies on in-house training for staff, which means utilizing the expertise and knowledge within the office and the Department. For Title VI staff training, OCR relies heavily on CORS. However, the staff who carry out compliance responsibilities, such as reviews, investigations, coordination, and monitoring, may need other training to perform these kinds of tasks.[161] Another consideration would be to hire staff with different job classifications and expertise, such as investigators and compliance officers, to perform specialized tasks.[162]

One important responsibility of the Title VI agencies is to monitor and oversee the compliance activities of their recipients. OCR views its technical assistance program as an informal method for monitoring and overseeing compliance of state and local governments. OCR believes that technical assistance, outreach, and training work to review how the state monitors its subgrantees. However, the monitoring and oversight focus has often been on the recipient's employment practices rather than on the delivery of services and benefits.[163] In an interview with OJP, staff said efforts are underway to improve monitoring. OCR is networking with program managers in different OJP offices and bureaus to keep OCR abreast of recipients activities. There also is financial monitoring whereby financial managers make site visits and notify OCR of any irregularities in the programs. However, staff members said there must be guidance to these grant and financial managers because they are not experts in the area of civil rights and compliance.[164]

The Disability Rights Section's (DRS) authority to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act has remained the same since the Commission's 1998 report. In the 1998 review, the Commission concluded that the new section needed sufficient resources and an organizational structure that would enhance its ability to enforce the ADA.

Since the earlier assessment, the Section has added another deputy section chief to manage an Investigations Unit, which is responsible for investigating and resolving Title II and Title III ADA complaints and conducting major compliance reviews. Currently, 14 professional staff are assigned to the Investigations Unit.

Before DRS was established and immediately after its inception, resources for ADA, Title II, enforcement were shifted from other CRD components, mainly from CORS.[165] In fiscal year 2001, DRS received over $14 million in appropriations, and in fiscal year 2002, nearly $16 million in appropriations. In fiscal year 1994, 48 staff members were assigned ADA responsibilities. Currently, the Section has 99 permanent positions.[166] DRS states its resources are sufficient to carry out its current responsibilities.[167]

Technical assistance and education and outreach are still major parts of the DRS ADA activities, an emphasis demonstrated by an increase in the number and scope of ADA documents on the Web site. Many of these documents have been translated into different languages.[168] DRS uses census data as a guide when selecting languages for translations and when targeting materials to attendees at events held in different areas.[169]

In its 1998 study, the Commission applauded DRS use of mediation and technical assistance in the enforcement of the ADA, but cautioned against an overreliance on alternative dispute resolution (or mediation) as the enforcement tool. In 2002, DRS uses a multifaceted approach to achieving compliance with the ADA that combines mediation with regulatory, coordination, and technical assistance activities, all required by law.[170] The Section's litigation activities include cases filed in response to an individual complaint; cases that allege a pattern or practice violation; and participation (as amicus or intervener) in cases filed by other parties. The Section has identified litigation priorities, uses other Department attorneys for investigations, and trains U.S. attorneys and their staff on ADA matters.[171] DRS officials believe that the Section's multifaceted approach for ADA enforcement is effective.[172]

DRS emphasizes the use of mediation as its primary enforcement mechanism for ADA.[173] DRS representatives state that its criteria for mediation result in the best outcomes for individuals and the most return for resources invested.[174] Indeed, the Department cites DRS use of mediation as one of the agency s most effective enforcement tools.[175]

In 1996, DRS did not have the resources to implement a strong coordination program involving the other federal agencies and state and local governments with ADA responsibilities. In 2002, the Section has doubled the size of its Certification and Coordination Unit, which has 16 professional staff members. Seven professional staff members, including a supervising attorney, are dedicated to encouraging state and local governments to revise building codes to meet ADA standards.[176] Eleven DRS staff members spend most of their time on interagency coordination. [177] Other staff members participate in coordination activities as needed. DRS attributes the improvement in its coordination activities to its increase in resources.[178]

In the 1998 ADA report, the Commission found that DRS developed policy guidance and other initiatives without consulting disability and minority advocacy groups and strongly recommended that the Section regularly contact these groups about ADA issues and when developing outreach, training, and education programs.[179] DRS now communicates with these organizations and maintains ongoing dialogue with several disability and minority groups about their concerns.[180]

The FBI's implementation of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act has not changed significantly since the Commission's review in 1992.[181] In this review, the Commission concludes that the FBI has not implemented the recommendations made in 1992, which called for comprehensive networking with many different entities in the community, including police departments, advocacy organizations, and victims; resources to carry out the act; and extensive training for the collection, reporting, and dissemination of hate crime information. However, the FBI reports future initiatives that will address some of the Commission's earlier concerns.

At the FBI, there is a Civil Rights Unit within the Criminal Investigative Division located at the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Civil Rights Unit is responsible for enforcing federal criminal civil rights laws, and investigations are conducted by the FBI's 56 field offices.[182] The reporting and collection of hate crime data are assigned to the FBI s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where all crime information is reported.[183] The collection of hate crime data is not viewed as a civil rights function. The UCR program's focus is to improve the overall quality of crime data collected by the FBI, including hate crime data.[184]

The FBI provided the Commission with information on funding allocated for civil rights enforcement, including fiscal year 2001 funding and staffing for the UCR program. In fiscal year 2001, the FBI spent approximately $8 million on the program, which employs 108 employees. However, the implementation of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act is not a separate unit or division with funding and staffing levels established by Congress. Thus, a funded position and resource level is not available for hate crime data collection activities.[185] Currently, no individual is assigned to the hate crime program full time.[186] The UCR program has designated a full-time coordinator to organize and lead training sessions, provide technical assistance, and publicize the benefits of reporting hate crimes to law enforcement agencies.[187] There is currently a request for additional senior statisticians for the UCR program, which would improve the program's ability to provide guidance to the contributors and users of hate crime statistics.[188]

In this evaluation, the Commission reviewed the FBI's revised hate crimes collection and reporting guidelines and training documents. The guidelines minimize both the importance of collecting and reporting hate crime data and the need for additional resources to implement the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. For example, the guidelines state:

This guidance would not result in any extra efforts by police departments to collect information or train personnel to identify and analyze hate crimes.

The Commission also finds that the lack of training in identifying, analyzing, and reporting hate crimes contributes to the underreporting. For the most part, law enforcement officials, particularly police officers, receive FBI hate crime training and technical assistance. The information, however, focuses on indicators prevalent more than 10 years ago.[190] The training manual presents indicators usually found in obvious bias-related offenses, such as the race of the victim and offender, and signs and symbols of hate.[191] Today, hate crimes may not be so obvious if there are no identifiable indicators to distinguish the act from just another criminal offense.[192] For example, the burning or beating of a person may on the surface appear to have been a murder. A further investigation may reveal other factors, such as the person attacked happened to be in a neighborhood where such persons of his race are not welcomed.[193] Another example is the burning, desecration, and vandalism of nonreligious establishments such as minority-owned stores, landmarks, and cemeteries.[194] These offenses, which may be hate crimes, are usually reported or classified as arson or vandalism.[195] Police departments are not receiving the technical assistance or training necessary to investigate and identify offenses that on the surface may not appear to be hate crimes, but, in fact, are.[196]

In 2000, the Department sponsored a one-day Hate Crimes Summit in Washington, D.C., which brought together about 300 representatives from the law enforcement community, including members of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Secret Service, the District of Columbia and suburban police departments, and security guards from area colleges.[197] Attendees were told of identifiable clues that may be signs of a hate crime, such as hateful symbols, hateful speeches or literature, and the race of the victim and perpetrator. These are obvious, distinguishable hate crime indicators or signs, but many hate crimes may not have these obvious clues or indicators.[198]

In November 2001, the FBI released its annual report on bias-motivated incidents.[199] During 2000, law enforcement agencies reported 8,063 incidents, which involved a total of 9,430 offenses, 9,924 victims, and 7,530 known (distinguishable) offenders.[200] However, a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report, also released in November 2001, found a large discrepancy between the number of hate crimes it received and the FBI s figures. The SPLC attributed the discrepancy in numbers to the underreporting of such incidents to the FBI.[201]

Since the FBI began collecting and reporting hate crime data under the act,[202] it has reported about 8,000 hate crimes each year in the United States.[203] The SPLC contends that the number is closer to 50,000.[204] The SPLC's report attributes the underreporting of such incidents to several factors. One is that participation in the FBI's annual Hate Crime Statistics Report is voluntary and that several states have not participated or have not reported fully.[205] This has generated inconsistent and inaccurate reporting.[206] SPLC states that another reason for the discrepancy is that minimal resources have been allocated to train police officers to determine whether a crime is due to bias.[207] SPLC's report also states that victims are reluctant to come forward to report such incidents to police departments, and that other community organizations must be included in hate crime data collection.[208]

According to an SPLC spokesperson, the underreporting of hate crimes means that the overall numbers are virtually useless, and we will not get a complete picture of what happened in the wake of September 11th and attacks against members of the Arab community. [209] The FBI states it is aware of the weaknesses in the data collection process and is working with law enforcement agencies as well as organizations such as the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League to find solutions to these problems.[210] The FBI also acknowledges that its hate crimes reports are insufficient to allow a valid national or regional measure of the volume and types of crimes motivated by hate, but contends that the numbers offer perspectives on the general nature of hate crime occurrence. [211]

The FBI is encouraging state and local agencies to submit data via the Internet. The UCR program is also beginning to work closely with criminal justice information technology industry representatives to provide law enforcement agencies with software and system support for their records management systems.[212] The UCR program is in the process of revising the forms used by local law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes. The FBI's goal is to increase the number of law enforcement agencies reporting UCR data by 10 percent by fiscal year 2004, which should result in an increase in agencies submitting hate crime data.[213]

The FBI's hate crime training curriculum recommends to law enforcement agencies that they canvass many components, including schools, churches, and community groups, to get an accurate account of hate crimes nationwide. Trainers stress that such entities are invaluable resources in support of hate crime victims, prevention of hate crimes, and in promoting hate crime awareness and recommend that state and local enforcement agencies work closely with local groups and organizations to build relationships with minority communities to improve and increase the information on hate crimes.[214] However, the final decision of reporting hate crimes is left to the local reporting law enforcement agency.[215]

The UCR program staff has been working closely with community organizations through a working group that will provide guidance through recommendations on such new issues as gender-based bias crimes. The FBI has not received the working group's final recommendations.[216]

The FBI states it is initiating efforts to improve the reporting of hate crimes. Currently, the FBI's hate crime training program is being studied to determine its efficacy. The FBI plans to include Web-based training as an option to traditional face-to-face training. The new module is being tested.[217] The hate crime data collection has been incorporated into the UCR Quality Assurance Reviews (QAR). The UCR program uses the QAR to provide feedback to agencies on their problem reporting areas. Additionally, the UCR program has conducted studies of issues that may contribute to better reporting from the states.[218]

The FBI's priority is to provide easier reporting for participating law enforcement agencies through automation and modernization of the UCR program. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the FBI plans to implement a prototype system to handle online

electronic receipt of UCR data. [219] By 2003, the FBI plans to test the electronic distribution of UCR data, and by fiscal year 2004, the goal is to decrease the time it takes to publish annual crime reports from seven months to approximately two months.[220]

[1] See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, April 2001, pp. iii, 7 (hereafter cited as DOJ, Performance Report and Plan); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination in State and Local Governments, September 2001, p. 79 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination).

[2] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Financial Operations Staff, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission, p. G-2 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission). The 10 program sections are the Employment Litigation Section, the Appellate Section, the Coordination and Review Section, the Criminal Section, the Disability Rights Section, the Educational Opportunities Section, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, the Special Litigation Section, and the Voting Rights Section. In addition to the program sections, the Division also includes the Administrative Management Section and the Office of Redress Administration.

[3] CORS enforces Executive Order 12,250, which gives the U.S. attorney general authority and leadership responsibility for coordinating Title VI enforcement efforts. See Exec. Order No. 12,250, 3 C.F.R. 298 (1981), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 (1988). Pursuant to Executive Order 12,250, the Department of Justice is responsible for coordinating the implementation of Section 504 by the various federal agencies. 28 C.F.R. 41.1 (1999). In addition to monitoring and coordinating federal Title VI activities, CORS also enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally assisted education programs, and coordinates the enforcement of the nondiscrimination provisions of more than 60 program-specific statutes and three executive orders. 20 U.S.C. 1681 1688 (1994). DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Congressional Budget Submission, p. G-42; Department of Justice's Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Coordination and Review Section, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response). Since the Commission's 1996 report, CORS became responsible for the enforcement and governmentwide coordination of two additional executive orders. Executive Order 13,166, which was issued in August 2000, is titled Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited Proficiency. Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000). The purpose of the executive order is to eliminate limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and meaningful participation in all federally assisted and federally conducted programs. Executive Order 13,160, which was issued in June 2000, prohibits discrimination in federal education and training programs on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, or status as a parent. Exec. Order No. 13,160, 65 Fed. Reg. 39,775 (June 27, 2000). U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Purpose of Coordination and Review Section, n.d., <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/purpose.htm>.

[4] See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement).

[5] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 129.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., pp. 132 33.

[9] Ibid., pp. 141 42.

[10] Ibid., p. 131.

[11] Ibid., pp. 133 39.

[12] Ibid., p. 89.

[13] For the history and purpose of the civil rights implementation plan, see USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 89 92.

[14] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 93.

[15] Ibid., pp. 150 51.

[16] Ibid., pp. 93 98, 150.

[17] Ibid., p. 150.

[18] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Report, p. 1, <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/annualreport/chapter1.htm> (hereafter cited as DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report).

[19] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (n.d., circa 2002), p. 4 (hereafter cited as DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization).

[20] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 478.

[21] Ibid., pp. 478 80.

[22] The five bureaus included the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office for Victims and Crimes, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 478. OJP is still headed by an assistant attorney general, who is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP, and has the same five bureaus, as well as five program offices and an Office for Civil Rights. See DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, p. 1; OJP, Organizational Chart, updated Oct. 1, 2001, <http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/or.htm>. On the Web site, this document is also called the OJP FY 2000 Program Plan.

[23] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 490 500.

[24] Ibid., pp. 479 81, 490 500. In fiscal year 1994, OCR had four full-time employees who divided their time between internal and external civil responsibilities. By 1996, it had increased its staff to eight, but only three performed external civil rights work. Ibid., p. 484.

[25] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 481.

[26] Ibid., pp. 491 94.

[27] Ibid., pp. 484 85.

[28] Ibid., p. 497.

[29] Ibid., p. 487.

[30] Ibid., p. 481.

[31] Ibid., pp. 490 91.

[32] Ibid., p. 488.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 12101 12213 (1994)).

[36] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA, September 1998, pp. 1, 5 (hereafter cited as USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I ). Note that before the ADA state and local government programs and activities that received federal financial assistance were prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Pub. L. No. 93-112 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (1973) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 794 (1994)). Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in, or shall be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity. 42 U.S.C. 12131 12165 (1994). See 42 U.S.C. 12131 12134 (1994); 28 C.F.R. 35.101 .35.190 (1997).

[37] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, p. 5.

[38] Ibid., pp. 5 6, 9 10.

[39] Ibid., p. 133.

[40] Ibid., p. 134. At the time of the report, DRS had a staff of 15 investigators, 23 staff attorneys, and six architects. The Commission found this to be insufficient considering the thousands of ADA complaints it had received each year.

[41] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, p. 132.

[42] Ibid., p. 136.

[43] Ibid., p. 133.

[44] Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 534 (1994). This act requires the Department of Justice to collect data on hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined as manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. These statistics are compiled by the FBI using the Uniform Crime Reporting system. In 1994, Congress expanded coverage of the act to require FBI reporting on crimes based on disability.

[45] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, 1992, pp. 22 45 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans).

[46] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 192.

[47] Since the Commission s 1992 report, there have been numerous hate crimes-related acts, amendments, and provisions. For example, in 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The act provides for the prosecution of hate crimes and expands the definition of a hate crime as an offense in which the defendant intentionally selects the victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 280003 (1994) (codified in part at 28 U.S.C. 994 (1994)). The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing all of the hate crimes legislation. However, the implementation of the laws is the responsibility of different components. The prosecution of hate crimes is primarily the responsibility of the Civil Rights Division's Civil Prosecution Section. In recent years, the prosecution of hate crime offenses has been a priority civil rights area that is provided enhanced enforcement resources. See DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 Budget Request to Congress, p. G-9 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, 2003 Budget Request); DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget Submission, pp. G-18, G-20 21; DOJ/CRD, FY 2000 Budget Submission, pp. G-19 20. The collection of hate crime data and the investigation of such crimes are the responsibility of the FBI. The FBI states that in 2002, the national priority within its civil rights program is the investigation of hate crimes. However, the Bureau does not indicate in its budget report how it uses the information collected from the hate crime data in its investigations, even though it is responsible for gathering and reporting the information. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 2003 Authorization and Budget Request for the Congress, pp. 1-24 25 (hereafter cited as FBI, 2003 Authorization and Budget Request).

[48] The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Section prepared a pamphlet titled Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and developed the Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection. The guidelines included the type of offense, location, type of bias (race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.), type of victim or establishment, the number of offenders, and the race of the offenders. See USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 47 48.

[49] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 48.

[50] Ibid., p. 192.

[51] Ibid., p. 205.

[52] Ibid., p. 192.

[53] DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, p. iv. Each DOJ component submits a performance plan that is reviewed at the departmental level. This plan influences budget allocations and priorities for the component.

[54] USCCR, Federal Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination, p. 80.

[55] See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement, June 1995, pp. 23 35; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001, pp. 27 39; USCCR, Efforts to Eradicate Employment Discrimination, pp. 10, 63.

[56] Department of Justice s Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Civil Rights Division, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter cited as DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response).

[57] For example, between fiscal years 1994 and 2000, the Division's budget increased by 22 percent, and in real terms the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Division was 24 percent higher than the fiscal year 1994 request. However, over the same period, while appropriations increased, the Division experienced enormous growth in its workload and responsibilities. In addition, although the Division's budget increased during this period, congressional appropriations for the Division declined in real spending power. USCCR, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, pp. xi xii, 30.

[58] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Funding Civil Rights Enforcement: 2002 2003, April 2002, p. 10.

[59] Tracy Henke, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Michael Alston, acting director, Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, DOJ, interview in Washington, D.C., May 6, 2002, p. 13 (hereafter cited as Henke and Alston interview). Also present was Loretta King, deputy assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. Ms. King is the DOJ liaison and coordinator for this study.

[60] Each fiscal year, the Civil Rights Division prepares a budget submission that includes funding, staffing, and workload information. The Commission requested civil rights budget and staffing information from OJP and the FBI from 1995 to 2002. The Commission received some of the information from OJP in a separate information request.

[61] See DOJ, 2003 Budget Summary, pp. 3 4, 7, 83 95, 128 47; U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, FY 2002 Budget Summary, pp. 76 86, 126 47. See also FBI, 2003 Authorization and Budget Request, pp. 11-4 11-19; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 2002 Authorization and Budget Request for the Congress.

[62] See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 140.

[63] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 197 Stat. 285 (codified at 31 U.S.C. 1101 (Supp. V 2002)).

[64] U.S. Department of Justice, Strategic Plan, 1997 2002, September 1997 (Revision 1 Oct. 20, 1997), updated Oct. 14, 1997, <http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/mps/cover.htm>; U.S. Department of Justice, Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2000 2005.

[65] See U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, FY 2000 Summary Performance Plan, March 1999; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, FY 2000 Summary Performance Plan, Government Performance and Results Act, Report No. 00-11, March 2000, Executive Summary; DOJ, Performance Report and Plan.

[66] See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Financial Operations Staff, FY 1993 2003 Budget Submissions; DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response, p. 4.

[67] DOJ/CRD, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4 5.

[68] Ibid., pp. 3 5.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid., p. 4.

[71] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 1999, Apr. 30, 1999 (hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan). In a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on OJP's reorganization, the Department stated that OJP will prepare an overall strategic plan that reflects statutory requirements, as well as the mission and goals of the present administration. DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, p. 8. An OJP official said OJP hopes to have the new strategic plan by the 2004 budget submission. Some goals and principles that will be included will address OJP's need to be more responsive to its customers, more streamlined, and more cost efficient. She indicates that OJP's strategic plan will fit into the Department s strategic plan and goals, and will include stuff for civil rights. However, to date, it is unknown whether the revised strategic plan will have specific civil rights goals, objectives, or performance measures. See Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 6, 8 9.

[72] OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 1.

[73] Ibid., pp. 2, 4, 6.

[74] Ibid., p. 2.

[75] U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Draft FBI Strategic Plan: 1998 2003, Keeping Tomorrow Safe, May 8, 1998 (hereafter cited as FBI, 1998 2003 Strategic Plan). Although the document is titled Draft, the DOJ liaison for information for this report indicated that it is the FBI s final strategic plan. See Loretta King, deputy attorney general for civil rights, Civil Rights Division, DOJ, letter to Terri A. Dickerson, assistant staff director for civil rights evaluation, USCCR, Apr. 5, 2002.

[76] FBI, 1998 2003 Strategic Plan, p. 26; Department of Justice's Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, May 10, 2002, p. 4 (hereafter cited as DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response).

[77] FBI, 1998 2003 Strategic Plan, pp. 20, 25 27. The strategic plan does not contain specific performance measures for the civil rights program. The FBI reports that the hate crime data collection efforts to improve training, data quality, participation, and implement procedures to trend hate crime data are ongoing. DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 5.

[78] See Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000); Exec. Order No. 13,160, 65 Fed. Reg. 39,775 (June 17, 2000).

[79] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 3; see Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, Organizational Chart, n.d.

[80] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2 3; Coordination and Review, Organizational Chart, n.d.

[81] See DOJ/CRD, FY 1995 2003 Budget Submissions.

[82] DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 Budget Submission, p. G-3.

[83] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 2.

[84] Ibid.

[85] See Bill Lann Lee, former assistant attorney general for civil rights, DOJ, memorandum to executive agency civil rights directors, Policy Guidance Document: Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes in Block Grant-Type Programs, Jan. 28, 1999, pp. 1 2, <http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs/blkgrnt.htm>.

[86] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6 8, 10 11. Documents include an investigation procedures manual, a Title VI legal manual, Title VI guidance documents, and other legal memoranda. See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, Publications Related to Activities of the Coordination and Review Section, <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs.htm>; U.S. Department of Justice, Coordination and Review Section, Index of Training Materials, Nov. 13, 2001, <http://www.usdoj. gov/crt/cor/coord/train.htm>. The index includes available Title VI training materials, including the Title VI Statute, Title VI Regulations, and Procedures for Complaints Filed Against Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance.

[87] CORS first posted its Web site in April 1999 and considers the Internet to be one of its most effective outreach tools and research sources. DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 11.

[88] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, Title VI Legal Manual, Jan. 11, 2001, <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/vimanual.htm>.

[89] According to CORS, Title VI training is held monthly for federal agencies. The training lasts two or two and a half days and includes an overview of Title VI, discussion of Title VI investigation procedures, and short vignettes involving the trainees programs. See U.S. Department of Justice, Coordination and Review Section, Index of Training Materials, n.d., <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/train.htm>.

[90] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 6.

[91] Ibid., p. 8.

[92] Ibid.

[93] Ibid., pp. 8 9.

[94] See ibid., p. 8.

[95] Ibid., p. 4.

[96] Ibid., p. 14.

[97] Ibid.

[98] Ibid., p. 15.

[99] Ibid., p. 13.

[100] Ibid., pp. 11 12; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 205; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination, October 2000, <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/nordwg_brochure.html>.

[101] See USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 490 500.

[102] DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, chap. 1, p. 4.

[103] Report of the U.S. House of Representatives, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1999, Report No. 105-636 (July 20, 1998) as incorporated by reference in U.S. Congress, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999: Conference Report to Accompany HR 4328, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1999, Report No. 105-825 (Oct. 19, 1999) as cited in DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, footnote 1, p. 2. See also DOJ, 2003 Budget Summary, p. 127. The number and funding of grants and programs at OJP are still growing. In 2000, the OJP administered $4 billion in grants and programs. DOJ/OJP, FY 2000 Annual Report, p. 4. In 2002, OJP's budget totaled nearly $5 billion targeted for the administration of its grants and programs, and funding in response to September 11 and terrorism initiatives. DOJ, 2003 Budget Summary, pp. 127 49.

[104] Most of OJP's funds are statutorily directed to states or units of government. However, certain grant programs have statutory requirements that direct a percentage of funding to underserved populations, such as American Indians, Alaska Natives, and battered immigrant women. In addition, all OJP grantees are required to certify compliance with equal employment opportunity laws, and OCR must investigate any reported civil rights violations that involve recipients. Department of Justice's Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Office of Justice Programs, Apr. 10, 2002, p. 14 (hereafter cited as DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response).

[105] See DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, p. 7.

[106] Ibid., p. 2.

[107] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 3; OJP, Henke and Alston interview, p. 6.

[108] DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, p. 7. The attorney general stated that there will be a new mission at OJP and that the proposed reorganization will incorporate the old and new missions. Under the old mission, OJP will continue to assist state and local law enforcement with more traditional crimes. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft, The attacks of September 11th have redefined the mission of the Department of Justice. Defending our nation and defending the citizens of America against terrorist attacks is now our first and overriding priority. The statement reflects the number one priority of the OJP, which is to assist state and local public safety officers and citizens across the country in maintaining our liberties and safeguarding our nation's internal security. Attorney General Ashcroft also stated, The Department's Office of Justice Programs and grant management system also will be fundamentally restructured to meet our new antiterrorism mission. DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, pp. 1, 7.

[109] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 12, 46.

[110] DOJ/OJP, Report to the Appropriations Committees on the Reorganization, p. 5; Office of Justice Programs, Organizational Chart, Dec. 10, 2001.

[111] OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 1.

[112] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 1.

[113] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, pp. 14 15. Mr. Alston has been the acting director since November 2000. Ms. Henke explained that Mr. Alston is one of the few staff members still in an acting capacity because the new reorganization plan has not been finalized and approved.

[114] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 33 34. As principal deputy assistant attorney general, Ms. Henke is the assistant attorney general's alter ego. Ms. Henke briefs the assistant attorney general on personnel, resources, and other issues.

[115] When the interview with OJP was requested, the Commission submitted subject matters that would be discussed and the need for an OJP official who could discuss policy-related issues. DOJ staff recommended Ms. Henke for policy-related issues and the acting director concerning issues related to OCR staff.

[116] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 15 16. Ms. Henke said it would be unfair to advertise for a position that is uncertain.

[117] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 12, 16.

[118] Ibid., p. 13.

[119] Ibid., pp. 15 16.

[120] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2.

[121] Ibid.

[122] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 480.

[123] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2 3. Currently, OCR has one full-time attorney on detail. In fiscal year 2001, OCR lost three full-time attorneys and a full-time paralegal through attrition. A hiring freeze has prevented their replacement.

[124] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2 3. The purpose of the equal employment opportunity plans (EEOPs) is to ensure full and equal participation of men and women regardless of race or national origin in the workforce of the recipient agency. The EEOP analyzes the agency s workforce according to race, sex, or national origin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Seven-Step Guide to the Design and Development of an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan.

[125] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2; Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, pp. 26 27. Ms. Henke said that although there has been an increase in funding and staff, a review of resources can still be done to see if the resources are adequate to do OCR's kind of work.

[126] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. OCR's senior staff works on policy issues. OJP reports that in January 2001, a moratorium was placed on the publication of new regulations until the President named new leadership at OJP. With the appointment of a new assistant attorney general in September 2001, OCR has returned to the task of proposing regulations for publication. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9.

[127] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 9. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Procedures for Investigation: Data Collection and Information Gathering, April 1997.

[128] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 5.

[129] Ibid., pp. 5 7. In planning technical assistance programs for fiscal year 2002, OCR formalized a system for evaluating the effectiveness of the training programs in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

[130] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 6.

[131] Ibid., p. 7; see U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Laws Prohibit Discrimination by Agencies that Receive Federal Financial Assistance.

[132] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 8.

[133] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 489.

[134] Ibid.

[135] Ibid.

[136] OJP/OCR, FY 1999 Strategic Plan, p. 4; DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 11.

[137] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 11.

[138] OJP/OCR, FY 1996 CRIP, p. 1. The other CRIPs that OJP submitted for this review (the 1998 2000 CRIPs) are updates to the FY 1996 CRIP and closely model that document in information.

[139] See DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4 5, citing the framework given in OJP's fiscal year 1999 strategic plan.

[140] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4 5. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, FY 1996 Civil Rights Implementation Plan, p. 1 (hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 1996 CRIP); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Implementation Plan, Update, Fiscal Year 2000, pp. 1 12 (hereafter cited as OJP/OCR, FY 2000 Implementation Plan (Update)).

[141] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 481.

[142] Ibid., pp. 481, 490 91.

[143] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 1.

[144] Ibid. The Disability Rights Section handles disability-related complaints against any OJP grant recipient. The Special Litigation Section is sent administrative complaints alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination by a law enforcement agency. CORS has decreased the number of administrative complaints it was investigating in order to devote more time to the three executive orders it currently coordinates and implements. See also OJP/Civil Rights Division, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Office of Justice Programs and the Civil Rights Division, n.d., pp. 3 7.

[145] DOJ/CORS, Interrogatory Response, p. 1.

[146] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, p. 23.

[147] Ibid., pp. 23 26, 33 34.

[148] Some recipients receive more than one award. OJP/OCR, FY 2000 CRIP, pp. 10 11. In the interview with OJP, OCR's acting director said the number of federal financial assistance recipients has decreased since the fiscal year 1999 report. He reports that currently there are between 7,000 and 14,000 such recipients. The acting director confirmed that the amount of OCR's compliance work has not changed significantly since the fiscal year 1999 CRIP. He acknowledged that components within the Civil Rights Division were also performing Title VI enforcement work. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Alston, pp. 19, 21 22, 48.

[149] OJP/OCR, FY 2000 CRIP, p. 10. A desk audit is a structured review of compliance information obtained before or without going on site. Desk audits do not include routine reviews of assurance forms or other documents to ensure that they have been properly completed.

[150] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 10.

[151] Ibid.

[152] Ibid. OCR has developed an electronic tracking system for monitoring delinquent EEOP reports and established procedures for notifying recipients of deficient EEOPs and the consequences of noncompliance.

[153] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 2.

[154] Ibid., p. 11.

[155] Ibid.

[156] OJP/OCR, FY 2000 CRIP, pp. 1 2.

[157] Ibid., p. 11.

[158] An EEOP that shows a significant underutilization of minorities in a recipient's workforce may prompt OCR to investigate whether the recipient is providing adequate services to minority populations. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 11 12.

[159] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 11 12.

[160] Ibid., p. 12.

[161] For the most part, OCR staff training is in-house. According to OCR, it guides and trains its own staff. OCR also uses the services of the Coordination and Review Section of the Civil Rights Division to train junior attorneys. OCR encourages its staff to attend professional training programs provided by the Department of Justice. DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, pp. 2, 14. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, p. 32.

[162] As part of developing the reorganization plan, Ms. Henke stated that OJP may conduct a desk audit of OCR staff to ensure that the workload is fairly distributed and appropriate for the level of activity. OJP, Henke and Alston interview, Statement of Henke, p. 47.

[163] DOJ/OJP, Interrogatory Response, p. 13.

[164] OJP, Henke and Alston interview, pp. 38 41, 43.

[165] See USCCR, Funding Civil Rights Enforcement, pp. 33 34.

[166] DOJ/CRD, FY 2003 Budget Submission, p. G-3.

[167] Department of Justice's Interrogatory Response to the United States Commission on Civil Rights Ten-Year Review of Civil Rights Enforcement, Disability Rights Section, Mar. 15, 2002, p. 1 (hereafter cited as DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response).

[168] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, p. 4.

[169] Ibid., pp. 4 5.

[170] DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, p. 114.

[171] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 8 9.

[172] To illustrate, over the past four fiscal years (1998 2001), DRS has participated in 168 cases and achieved successful results in 100 of them; of the individual complaints investigated, DRS obtained favorable outcomes in the resolution of 1,147 complaints; and DRS achieved successful results in 583 of 757 completed mediations. DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, p. 6.

[173] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6 7; DOJ/CRD, FY 2001 Budget Submission, p. G-53; DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, pp. 114 15.

[174] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 6 7.

[175] DOJ, Performance Report and Plan, pp. 114 15.

[176] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1 2.

[177] Ibid., p. 10.

[178] Ibid.

[179] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 133, 143.

[180] DOJ/DRS, Interrogatory Response, pp. 4 5.

[181] The FBI's interrogatory response indicates that there are future initiatives to improve the data collection program. If these initiatives are implemented, some of the Commission's 1992 recommendations and concerns would be addressed. The initiatives are discussed later in the section. See DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1 10.

[182] DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 2.

[183] The UCR program is charged with providing a national view of crime based on data submitted by city, county, and state law enforcement agencies. The statistics are used primarily by law enforcement administrators for strategic planning of resource allocation and as a tool to address crime as a social problem. Hate crime statistics can be used by law enforcement to enforce laws against crimes based on bias and prejudice only in the development of a reasonable response to a community's situation. As part of the UCR Program, the hate crime statistics are viewed as any other crime data collected by the FBI. DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1, 6.

[184] DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, pp. 1, 6.

[185] Loretta King, deputy assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, DOJ, letter to Terri A. Dickerson, assistant staff director for civil rights evaluation, USCCR, July 12, 2002, FBI Responses and Comments to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, p. 4 (hereafter cited as King July 12 letter, FBI response).

[186] King July 12 letter, FBI response, p. 7.

[187] DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 9.

[188] Ibid.

[189] U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, revised October 1999, pp. 1 2.

[190] See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection, n.d.

[191] See FBI, Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection.

[192] King July 12 letter, FBI response, p. 8. The FBI explains that the collection of hate crime information occurs within the already existing operational context of law enforcement. The UCR program was created to collect crime data within this law enforcement context, and not created to see hate crimes as a separate substantive offense.

[193] See Southern Poverty Law Center, The Hate Crime Statistics Act: Ten Years Later, the Numbers Don't Add Up: Discounting Hate, Intelligence Report, Issue 104, Winter 2001, pp. 12 13 (hereafter cited as SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up ). The SPLC is a watchdog organization in Montgomery, Alabama, that monitors and reports on hate crimes nationwide.

[194] For example, in Arkansas, authorities are investigating the vandalism of a Civil War-era cemetery as a hate crime. Over one-fourth of the headstones were spray-painted with racial slurs in the predominantly African American cemetery. Across the USA, Arkansas, USA Today, May 30, 2002.

[195] SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, p. 12. See also Across the USA, New Mexico: Albuquerque, USA Today, May 6, 2002. In its national coverage of news events, the newspaper reports that a task force has been established to probe nearly 60 suspicious fires in a forest near and around the Mascalero Apache Reservation. The tribe has posted a monetary reward for information leading to a conviction.

[196] The FBI reports that the subtle indicators in identifying hate crimes today are now taught in its UCR course. The current training to law enforcement officers is to encourage them to thoroughly examine all aspects of a crime before identifying it as bias motivated. For example, the FBI explains that a swastika painted on the side of a building may be the result of a prank more than destruction or vandalism of property based on hate. King July 12 letter, FBI response, pp. 7 8.

[197] See Stacey Pamela Patton, Hate Crime Clues Shared at Summit, The Washington Post, June 29, 2000, p. A5 (hereafter cited as Patton, Hate Crime Summit ).

[198] Patton, Hate Crime Summit, p. A5; The summit was part of the Department's nationwide response to several high profile hate-related incidents that occurred during the year. High-profile hate crimes usually receive national media attention and have obvious indicators for being hate crimes. The high-profile incidents in 2000 included the dragging death of an African American male in Jasper, Texas, by white perpetrators; a deadly attack on a gay college student in Wyoming by persons who did not like gays; and the shootings of minorities and Jewish children in Chicago and Los Angeles, respectively, by white perpetrators who belonged to bias-related organizations. Even the Department acknowledged that high-profile hate crimes are not the majority of such offenses.

[199] U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2000 (Clarksburg, WVA: Uniform Crime Reports), November 2001 (hereafter cited as FBI, Hate Crime Statistics 2000).

[200] FBI, Hate Crime Statistics 2000, p. 5. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 2000, press release, Nov. 19, 2001.

[201] See SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, pp. 6 15. See also Darryl Fears, FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes, Watchdog Group Says; Analysis Finds 50,000 a Year in U.S.; Some States Do Not Participate Fully in Reporting, The Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2001, p. A2 (hereafter cited as Fears, FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes ).

[202] The Hate Crimes Statistics Act was amended in 1996 to extend the data collection from the original five years to each calendar year, making hate crimes statistics a permanent component of the FBI data collection program.

[203] See SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, p. 7; FBI, 1998 2003 Strategic Plan, p. 26; Patton, Hate Crime Summit, p. A5; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes 1995 (Clarksburg, WVA: Uniform Crime Reports), p. 1, n.d., <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm>.

[204] SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, p. 7; Fears, FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes, p. A2.

[205] In 2000, 48 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data Collection Program. The 1,690 reporting agencies represented 84.2 percent of the nation's population. See FBI, Hate Crime Statistics, press release, p. 2; SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, p. 7; FBI, Hate Crime Statistics 2000, p. 5.

[206] SPLC, The Numbers Don't Add Up, pp. 8 10.

[207] Ibid., p. 8.

[208] Ibid., pp. 8 10.

[209] Fears, FBI Data Miss Hate Crimes, p. A2.

[210] DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 7.

[211] FBI, Hate Crime Statistics, press release, p. 2. See also FBI, FY 2003 Authorization and Budget Request, pp. 1 25. The budget report states that while the FBI's collection of hate crime data may be the most comprehensive hate crime data technique in existence today, it is insufficient to allow valid measures of the volume and types of hate crimes. Its shortcomings result in the fact that participation by law enforcement agencies is voluntary and all hate crimes are not reported.

[212] DOJ/FBI, Interrogatory Response, p. 9.

[213] Ibid., pp. 8 9.

[214] Ibid., pp. 5 6.

[215] Ibid., p. 5.

[216] Ibid., pp. 7 8.

[217] Ibid.

[218] Ibid., p. 7.

[219] Ibid., p. 9.

[220] Ibid., p. 10.