Chapter 2

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

A review of the Commission's 16 volumes of enforcement reports written over the past decade revealed that the Commission had set broad civil rights goals as well as others more narrowly focused on achieving a more effective federal system of civil rights enforcement. Establishing equal treatment of all parties was among broad civil rights goals the Commission asked federal agencies to pursue in their civil rights enforcement efforts.[1] Still other Commission recommendations encouraged federal agencies to interpret how civil rights laws apply to their specialized programs. This chapter addresses the themes embodied in the Commission's recommendations to all agencies, despite any unique aspects of the programs they operate.

The subject matter of recommendations fell in several categories: the priority given to civil rights enforcement; the dissemination of policy through guidance, regulations, technical assistance, outreach, education, and publicity; the complaint processing and litigation system; the compliance review system for funding recipients; and certain managerial aspects such as staff training and coordination with other agencies.

One-third of the Commission's more than 1,100 recommendations pertained to policy dissemination. Roughly 20 to 25 percent of the recommendations related to the priority of civil rights enforcement.[2] About 12 percent of the recommendations dealt with the system of ensuring compliance among funding recipients. Recommendations about complaint processing made up 7 percent. Recommendations about substantive issues such as limited English proficiency or diversity accounted for 4 to 6 percent. Together, recommendations about staff training, coordination, and interaction with other federal agencies, advocacy groups, and community organizations, and the need for additional research on substantive areas of enforcement were 12 percent of the whole. Finally, 8 percent of the recommendations were directed at organizations other than federal agencies (e.g., professional associations and advocacy groups) or dealt with unique matters not readily categorized here and are not included in the summary that follows.

In prior studies of federal agencies, the Commission often found a lack of commitment to civil rights enforcement, which was evident in the failure to issue policy guidance and to conduct compliance reviews.[3] It repeatedly recommended renewing commitment to, or revitalizing, civil rights compliance and enforcement programs, whether they were concerned with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or another civil rights law. In numerous instances, the Commission indicated that any revitalization of one aspect of enforcement should not occur at the expense of other civil rights programs. Agencies should seek ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of civil rights enforcement, possibly even by consolidating efforts with other federal agencies.[4] The Commission also asked that civil rights enforcement activities be integrated into the activities of all other agency offices to ensure that civil rights goals and objectives would be met.[5]

Apart from this general complacency about civil rights enforcement, the priority given to it is expressed in the lack of vigor with which agencies seek funds and how they allocate them to enforcement functions; the organization and line of authority for civil rights staff within agencies; the formal establishment of procedures for accountability and oversight of civil rights enforcement; agencies strategic planning to accomplish civil rights goals and objectives; and the management of enforcement through tracking of civil rights activities. All of these are important; however, the need for additional funding and resources devoted to civil rights enforcement is the most prevalent recommendation with respect to the priority of civil rights.

Nearly 10 percent of the Commission's recommendations to agencies between 1992 and 2000 sought to increase funding and resources.[6] In some instances, the need for more funding arose because new statutes had expanded agencies civil rights jurisdictions.[7] In other instances, the Commission recommended that Congress provide more funds for specific enforcement functions (e.g., for litigation or mediation,[8] outreach,[9] and improved computer technology to support civil rights enforcement[10]) or for social programs designed to address particular civil rights issues.[11]

Similarly, many recommendations suggested that agency officials request more funds from Congress or allocate more of the agency resources, either funding or staff, to civil rights enforcement.[12] Recommendations encouraged agency officials, including the U.S. attorney general and departmental secretaries, to request or allocate more resources for or to specific civil rights enforcement activities.[13]

The Commission also found need for additional staff. Some departments had only implemented effective Title VI enforcement within some administrations or programs and needed more civil rights staff to expand these efforts throughout the entire agency.[14] Additional staff was recommended for many activities related to civil rights enforcement. Among these were developing civil rights enforcement plans and Title VI regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures;[15] conducting pre- and post-award compliance reviews and complaint investigations; coordinating regional and states civil rights enforcement activities;[16] collecting and analyzing data on program participants or beneficiaries;[17] providing community outreach, public education, and Title VI staff training;[18] and conducting social science research on issues concerning women and minorities.[19]

Agencies were asked to develop an inventory of the functions and activities needed to sustain civil rights enforcement and to focus on the deficiencies in the overall enforcement program when identifying areas that need staff increases.[20] However, because assigning additional staff to civil rights enforcement is often unfeasible, the Commission often recommended that staff be reallocated for greater effectiveness of civil rights enforcement activities or that more efficient methods of enforcing civil rights be found.[21] For example, among the Title VI enforcement activities the Commission viewed as more efficient were the following: conducting pre-award desk audits of funding recipients civil rights compliance, which might prevent an agency from awarding funds to a discriminating organization; providing technical assistance to aid recipients in complying; requiring recipients to conduct self-evaluations as part of their grant or contract obligations; and delegating implementation and enforcement activities to states for state-administered assistance programs, so that the federal agency was responsible only for oversight and monitoring.[22] In some instances, the Commission recommended that a study be done to identify the enforcement activities that most needed additional resources or that proved most effective for achieving civil rights goals.[23]

The Commission has been concerned about whether federal agencies have organizational structures that foster effective civil rights enforcement.[24] It recommended that civil rights enforcement be integrated into all parts of an agency.[25] Yet how federal agencies achieved this integration differed. The Commission s studies of federal enforcement revealed three distinct structures, which will be referred to as the centralized, oversight, and decentralized models (see figure 1). In the centralized model, agencies have headquarters civil rights offices that conduct all civil rights enforcement activities.[26] In the oversight model, agencies have a headquarters office directing civil rights enforcement, while regional or local offices conduct most of the day-to-day enforcement activities.[27] The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) fit this model. In the decentralized model, federal agencies have delegated most of the responsibility for civil rights enforcement to operating administrations.[28] The Department of Agriculture has decentralized civil rights enforcement.

Civil rights responsibilities are carried out under each of the models with varying degrees of success. The Commission identified several key elements that must be achieved with each model in order for Title VI implementation, compliance, and enforcement to be effective. These are discussed below. Notably, only one of the federal agencies reviewed in the Commission s Title VI report the Department of Education (DOEd) had an organizational structure meeting all of the elements the Commission identified.[29] The Commission commended EEOC for its organizational structure, too.[30]

The first element to foster civil rights enforcement is a primary civil rights office organizationally placed to ensure primacy within the agency.[31] One way to achieve this primacy is for the civil rights unit to have a direct line of authority to the departmental Secretary or the agency head.[32] The Commission recommended organizational changes to have the head of the Department's Office for Civil Rights report directly to the Secretary in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of the Interior (DOI).[33] Within various administrations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and USDA, the Commission recommended that organizational charts be revised so that the directors of the offices of civil rights report directly to their respective administrators.[34] Further, all staff engaged in civil rights enforcement, including those in regional and local offices, should report to a director of an office for civil rights who, in turn, reports directly to the agency head (i.e., the Secretary or administrator).[35]

The civil rights office must have sufficient authority to enforce civil rights within the agency programs.[36] Here, HUD and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had faults. At HUD, the Commission found that responsibility for administering a civil rights statute was divided among executive staff, with no one below the secretarial level having sole responsibility for implementing the law. The Commission recommended that a single independent administrative agency be formed at an appropriate level to carry out the enforcement responsibilities.[37] At HHS, some operating divisions had minority and women's health coordinators in an advisory role, but without a budget or status to implement civil rights policies.[38]

Internal civil rights functions should be separated from external civil rights functions and non-Title VI enforcement responsibilities.[39] Several agencies had offices for civil rights with responsibility for the agency's internal equal employment opportunity programs along with external civil rights functions. The external civil rights responsibilities of some offices included other responsibilities along with the Title VI requirements to ensure that funding recipients comply with civil rights laws. Agencies in which the Commission recommended that separate offices be established for Title VI enforcement included USDA, HUD, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOT, and HHS operating divisions.[40] Similarly, the Commission recommended that staff assigned to external civil rights functions be full time and specialized in that area.[41]

Other elements for fostering civil rights enforcement stressed the importance of coordination between the primary civil rights office and program offices and the organizational and managerial links that primary civil rights offices must have with regional and field offices.[42] For example, recommendations stated that for administrations or operating divisions to carry out external civil rights responsibilities, the regional staff and structure must be in place, with channels of regular communication and interaction with headquarters staff.[43] HHS needed improvement in the communication between its headquarters and regional staff.[44]

The Commission's recommendations about the link between offices that carry out civil rights enforcement activities revealed a preference for the oversight and centralized models over a decentralized enforcement system. Some agencies had decentralized civil rights efforts by assigning enforcement responsibilities to programmatic staff in an effort to fully integrate civil rights enforcement into all parts of the agency. Although the Commission often commended such strategies as an effective means of overcoming limited resources, it recommended that an office of civil rights be established, independent of, and in a watchdog capacity over, other offices. This office should oversee, monitor, and coordinate civil rights enforcement and should have a separate unit to develop and disseminate policy and provide programmatic guidance.[45] The Commission further recommended that watchdog offices delegate civil rights responsibilities and hold others accountable for performing the delegated civil rights activities.

In a number of instances, the Commission recommended that an agency consider centralizing its external civil rights activities, particularly where the links among offices were ineffective.[46] For example, the Commission suggested that HUD consider centralizing field and regional staff to establish more direct reporting to headquarters and better oversight and monitoring of the field and regional staff responsible for Title VI enforcement.[47] DOT needed funding to consolidate its external civil rights activities into a headquarters office that would coordinate and oversee regional offices activities.[48] Perhaps most important of all, the Commission asked agencies to evaluate whether their organizational structures were hampering their ability to enforce civil rights.[49]

The primary civil rights office should have units devoted exclusively to certain enforcement activities. Policy development was the activity most often named as deserving exclusive staff. Other activities named included enforcement planning; quality assurance; compliance; litigation; public education and outreach; federal, state, and local government coordination; analysis; and systems services.[50]

The Commission recommended a number of actions that might flow from having established the authority and lines of communication for civil rights offices, such as receiving a priority response to the need for resources. For example, in one instance the Commission recommended that the director of the office of civil rights be actively involved in the budget process in order to secure more funds for civil rights enforcement.[51]

The Commission's recommendations addressed concerns about oversight and accountability of the civil rights enforcement programs at many levels. These were (1) the Department of Justice's (DOJ) oversight responsibilities for the Title VI enforcement of all other federal agencies; (2) intradepartmental allocation of civil rights responsibilities from headquarters to operating divisions or administrations and to regional or field offices; (3) departmental responsibilities with respect to contracting organizations such as agencies under the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAPs), Federal Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs), and Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs); and (4) agencies promulgation of Title VI enforcement among federal funding recipients with subrecipients, particularly states.

DOJ's Coordination and Review Section (CORS) of the Department's Civil Rights Division oversees the Title VI enforcement of all federal agencies. To strengthen oversight, the Commission recommended that CORS, first, must enforce coordination regulations requiring that federal agencies prepare annual Title VI enforcement plans. The unit should define procedures for developing enforcement plans.[52] Second, CORS must ensure that all agencies submit the required civil rights implementation plans and that the plans conform to DOJ's Guidelines on Agency Implementation Plans. Any plans that do not meet minimum standards should be returned to the agencies for revision.[53] Third, DOJ/CORS should hold agencies accountable for the activities promised in their civil rights implementation plans.[54] To ensure that agencies set realistic goals for conducting enforcement activities, CORS should require a demonstration of the relationship between the program expenditures and resources and the enforcement activities accomplished in order to support budget requests for additional resources.[55] CORS should also require justifications or explanations for shortfalls in the completed work relative to that which was planned, and should provide assistance to remedy any agency's repeated deficiencies.[56]

In addition, DOJ/CORS should reinstate regularly administered agency surveys to oversee Title VI enforcement programs,[57] use on-site reviews of the programs to identify deficiencies, and correct any deficiencies through training and technical assistance.[58] DOJ/CORS should monitor all federal agencies delegation agreements and require that the agencies, organizations, or contractors with delegated authority provide information on their civil rights activities to the delegating agency and CORS.[59]

Federal agencies may distribute the responsibilities for civil rights enforcement among various divisions, administrations, or bureaus and among regional, district, or field offices. The agency divisions and regional or field offices may appear at different levels in an agency's organizational structure. Nonetheless, the Commission directed similar recommendations toward all levels.

The Commission strongly supported the delegation of civil rights enforcement responsibilities to both operational and regional staff.[60] HHS, DOJ's Office of Justice Programs, DOI, and EPA were agencies to which the Commission recommended delegation of responsibility or improvement in the existing method of delegation.

The Commission made many recommendations for how the responsibilities for civil rights enforcement should be delegated. First, departments that delegate civil rights responsibilities must clearly define the roles of the civil rights office and the units to which responsibilities are delegated.[61] Furthermore, the delegation should occur in a formal agreement, regulation, or internal order supported by the Department's Secretary or other agency head.[62] Second, an agency should institute an oversight mechanism to ensure that the divisions with delegated authority fulfill their civil rights enforcement responsibilities.[63] For example, to ensure close supervision and implementation of direction from headquarters civil rights offices, staff, including area or regional directors, should be held accountable for the civil rights compliance and enforcement activities that are performed.[64]

The Commission also specified what role the headquarters unit with oversight responsibilities should have. The overseeing office should:

The Commission further recommended that the headquarters office with oversight responsibilities have units charged with carrying out these functions. Thus, the office should have units for planning, evaluation, policy development, and data collection.[67] In one instance, the Commission suggested forming a review team to examine the agency's civil rights enforcement activities, examine and determine appropriate staffing levels in each enforcement component, and monitor the quality of compliance activities.[68]

The Commission also provided the model specifications for nature and content of the evaluations any office with oversight responsibilities should conduct. Offices with oversight responsibilities should conduct both document reviews (for example, of any self-assessments of civil rights enforcement) and site visits. During site visits, staff should examine complaint intake procedures and files of complaints and compliance reviews, evaluate data collection, and interview staff, program beneficiaries, and people from affected communities.[69] For complaint processing, headquarters civil rights offices should conduct systematic quality assurance reviews of letters of finding and other case closure documents to ensure sound investigations and findings.[70] Evaluations of complaint processing or compliance review systems should result in written reports with findings and recommendations for improving the programs.[71]

Site visits were a key part of monitoring programs. The Commission noted that the functions of district offices must be monitored and evaluated through routine visits.[72] Furthermore, such visits should ensure that regional, field, or district offices have consistency in their available resources and procedures for civil rights enforcement.[73]

Some federal agencies carry out part of their civil rights enforcement activities through contractual arrangements with other organizations. These include EEOC and HUD, which use state or local human rights organizations to investigate complaints of discrimination. Some of these organizations are known as Federal Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs), substantially equivalent agencies under the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAPs), and Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs). In addition, DOT's Federal Transit Authority (FTA) was in the early stages of acquiring a contractor to perform Title VI compliance reviews of funding recipients.

In 1996, with DOT/FTA poised to establish a contractual arrangement for carrying out civil rights enforcement, the Commission recommended that the operating administration select its contractor with care, closely review and evaluate any procedural manuals the contractor prepares, closely monitor the contractor's performance of on-site compliance reviews, and have federal staff accompany the contractor on several reviews.[74] This recommendation partly reflects DOT/FTA's early stage of implementing the contractual arrangement.

EEOC and HUD had well-established contractual arrangements for civil rights enforcement with existing procedural guidance.[75] Thus, the Commission recommended more monitoring of the contractors. For EEOC, the Commission suggested conducting more frequent on-site visits to promote a greater exchange of information with the FEPAs, and providing larger travel budgets to district offices that have broad geographical oversight responsibilities to facilitate more frequent visits to the FEPAs.[76] For HUD, the Commission suggested a cost analysis of state and local agencies complaint processing in order to identify ways to save funds.[77] In general, procedures must be established to ensure that different contractors handle cases or charges consistently.[78]

Oversight of Title VI Enforcement Among Subrecipients, Particularly by States

In studies over the past decade, the Commission concluded that civil rights enforcement was weak in oversight of state recipients. States often receive block grants that are then disbursed to subrecipients. DOEd and DOT and many of its operating administrations were remiss in the oversight of state recipients. The Federal Highway Administration (DOT/FHWA) was an exception and had an enforcement program that could serve as a model for other parts of DOT.[79]

To ensure that states operating block grant programs comply with Title VI, the Commission's recommendations asked the agency or operational division to:

Commission recommendations directed the departments as well as their operating divisions and regional offices to take responsibility for ensuring that periodic on-site reviews are conducted and to provide technical assistance to states so that civil rights provisions are implemented in recipients programs. However, the task of performing on-site reviews was to be delegated. The Commission suggested to one agency that it delegate on-site investigations of subrecipients to states and strengthen requirements for states methods of administration and technical assistance so that they can be monitored.[89] Elsewhere, the Commission directed the Department or headquarters office to require its operating divisions (e.g., DOT's operating administrations) to perform on-site reviews of states and other recipients.[90] At the same time, in conducting oversight and monitoring reviews of its operating divisions, a federal agency should monitor the Title VI activities of state recipients, visit and evaluate state recipients Title VI programs, provide any necessary technical assistance, and ensure that the operating units take steps to correct any deficiencies in states compliance.[91] Thus, all recipients and subrecipients should receive periodic on-site reviews, but not necessarily by headquarters staff.

The Commission, thus, charges states with responsibility for overseeing the civil rights compliance of their subrecipients. It suggested, first, that the federal government, states, and state subrecipients work together to ensure that civil rights are protected. Second, states, in turn, must establish quality assurance measures to ensure that minorities and women benefit equally from state recipients programs.[92]

The Commission gave examples of ways states could meet their responsibilities. First, better coordination among federal agencies, states, and state recipients may occur if, as a requirement of receiving funds, the federal agency required all recipients to designate a civil rights coordinator. The federal agency could train, certify, and periodically recertify the recipients coordinators. The Commission suggested that the federal agency could designate the civil rights responsibilities for the coordinators, which would include ensuring that the recipients employees are knowledgeable of applicable civil rights laws.[93]

Two general themes on planning permeate the Commission's Title VI report, among other reports. The first establishes that planning documents must be developed and specifies appropriate civil rights content to be contained in them. The second sets forth that a management information system must be developed or used to support budget requests and other planning.

These themes were expressed in Commission recommendations referencing various types of planning documents. They included (1) strategic plans that all agencies are required to develop in response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA);[94] (2) civil rights enforcement plans that every agency should have; (3) the civil rights implementation plans that DOJ requires when overseeing Title VI enforcement; and (4) work plans that the Commission suggested should be used to link the workload to staff and budget resources.

The Commission specified qualities that all planning documents should have, whether they are strategic plans, civil rights implementation plans, or work plans. The qualities include (1) specific short-term goals and long-term objectives, (2) timeframes for meeting goals and objectives, and (3) consideration of both available and projected resources and budget constraints. In addition, planning documents should be regularly re-evaluated and updated to reflect changes in responsibilities. The Commission suggested this updating should occur every three or six months.[95]

Commission recommendations for strategic plans emerged in reports published later in the decade, following the implementation of GPRA. Notably, GPRA requires that federal agencies develop strategic plans defining goals and objectives. The need for each agency to have civil rights goals and objectives was not articulated in the law. Thus, the Commission recommended that agencies include civil rights goals and objectives in their strategic planning. This recommendation was directed to DOEd and HHS.[96]

The Commission also asked that agencies integrate civil rights planning with other planning procedures. The agency's overall management and strategic planning processes should be related to the civil rights enforcement plan, the DOJ-required civil rights implementation plan, and the work plan for civil rights enforcement.[97]

Finally, because GPRA requires agencies to establish performance measures to track progress in reaching the plan's goals, the Commission asked that agencies determine the best measures of civil rights outcomes. For example, the Commission suggested that indicators of completed work, such as the number of Title VI compliance reviews, might not be the best measures of progress in eliminating discrimination. A better measure would be the diversity of a recipient's program beneficiaries, which the recipient should be required to report.[98]

The Commission advocated that agencies develop comprehensive civil rights enforcement plans.[99] The civil rights implementation plans that the Department of Justice requires, discussed in more detail below, concern Title VI and therefore cover only a part of the civil rights responsibilities that many agencies have. The Commission identified numerous desirable qualities for such plans. Comprehensive civil rights enforcement plans should:

The Commission directed recommendations for developing civil rights enforcement plans generally to all federal agencies. Among those singled out for such recommendations were USDA's Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), DOEd, and DOJ. In some instances, the Commission recommended that agencies establish specific priority civil rights issues. For example, it asked DOJ to plan strategies and goals to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities[110] and DOEd to create a plan to address the unique challenges of children with disabilities and with limited English proficiency.[111]

Two agencies EEOC and HHS had regional or local civil rights enforcement plans that needed improvement. The Commission recommended that these plans be developed from a comprehensive headquarters plan. Furthermore, a headquarters office should assist regional and local offices in developing their enforcement plans to ensure uniform format and effectiveness of those plans. The district and regional office plans should contain measurable goals and objectives that headquarters can use to evaluate success in achieving the goals and objectives.[112]

Commission recommendations for planning civil rights enforcement urged the following: the budget and resources must be tied to the strategic plan;[113] monies must be earmarked separately for different statutory authorities (i.e., external vs. internal, or Title VI vs. Title IX enforcement) or enforcement activities (e.g., technical assistance and outreach);[114] the funds and staff needed for civil rights enforcement must be realistically assessed;[115] and requests for additional resources must be justified with anticipated increases in enforcement activities or workload.[116] The Commission further suggested a need for studies of effective allocation of budget and staff resources.[117]

Strategic planning and budget studies should also be used to find ways to streamline the civil rights enforcement program.[118] As ways of making civil rights enforcement more effective the Commission suggested that agencies consider (1) increasing education and outreach to secure voluntary compliance with civil rights laws and enhance the public's knowledge of how to safeguard its rights,[119] (2) organizing offices on programmatic lines with specialized staff who serve as subject-matter experts or issue coordinators,[120] and (3) promoting information-sharing projects among agency components and state and local recipients.[121]

For the required Title VI civil rights implementation plans, the Commission recommended that federal agencies develop these plans in conformance with Department of Justice guidelines. The agencies should describe more fully the structure of civil rights enforcement in their plans, specifying the scope, organization, budget, staffing, and the extent they conduct various civil rights activities. The implementation plan should include the qualities mentioned earlier precise civil rights goals and objectives and timeframes for accomplishing them. The goals and objectives should be based on realistic assessment of resources budget and staff available for civil rights enforcement. Finally, the implementation plan should be used as a management tool. It should be updated quarterly and include a report of program accomplishments and progress made toward each of the goals and objectives.[122] And, in addition to these qualities, the Commission suggested that, with respect to Title VI civil rights enforcement, planning documents should (1) consider increases in workload, such as the expected numbers of civil rights complaints; and (2) apply civil rights priorities and plans to (a) each type of funding program administered and (b) the particular enforcement mechanism for block grant and continuing state programs.[123]

As suggested by the recommendation to apply civil rights priorities and plans to each type of funding program administered, the Commission asked that planning documents fully integrate civil rights enforcement into all aspects of the agency.[124] The Commission explained that priority civil rights issues should be identified through input from staff in operating divisions and civil rights advocacy groups and community organizations.[125] The Commission further stipulated that with some agencies, such as HHS with its numerous operating divisions, the Secretary must promote cohesiveness among its many and varied offices and components, and require them to work together with an office of civil rights to show the relationship between the agency's civil rights enforcement and its initiatives and strategic goals, and to ensure that civil rights concerns are comprehensively and uniformly integrated among all agency initiatives and strategic objectives.[126] Because of the need for such coordination and integration, the Commission recommended that all departments and agencies form a division within the primary civil rights office that is exclusively dedicated to strategic planning of the agency's enforcement efforts.[127]

The Commission directed recommendations to develop work plans to a number of agencies. Resources are often shifted between competing civil rights responsibilities without formal accountability to statutory obligations. This concern arose with DOJ's Civil Rights Division (CRD) and its Coordination and Review Section (CORS), which has oversight for federal agencies with civil rights enforcement responsibilities, for example. The Commission asked CRD to create a formal planning process detailing the activities of each section and their relationship to the mission and goals of the Division; to require each section to prepare a section work plan; to review the section work plans; and to submit a management plan to DOJ for review.[128]

Federal agencies should develop and implement management information systems (MIS) to support strategic planning. The Commission suggested such systems should track expenditures and workload for various civil rights statutes and activities, such as compliance reviews, complaint processing, and technical assistance and outreach. The MIS should be used to prepare annual civil rights enforcement plans that have goals and objectives in each program area and that assign specific resources to accomplish them. Staff should use the MIS to analyze and/or change the allocation of resources, to prepare budget submissions, and to justify requests for additional resources.[129]

At the time of these reports, all but DOEd were in the early stages of developing or implementing such systems. DOEd had an information management system in place that the Commission recommended be expanded to track resources devoted to civil rights activities such as pre-award reviews, post-award reviews, and data collection and analysis.[130] The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), a USDA component that provides supervised credit assistance through loan and grant programs to rural residents, had a separate budget allotment for Title VI enforcement, and thus was able to track Title VI expenditures separately from expenditures on other civil rights activities. Still, the annual Title VI enforcement plan did not contain goals and objectives based on the work to be accomplished and the resources available for Title VI activities, and the Commission recommended that it should. Furthermore, the FmHA plan should have specified which offices and which staff were responsible for meeting civil rights goals and objectives.[131] In short, FmHA should use its information system to demonstrate that its budget is not sufficient to enforce Title VI and other civil rights statutes effectively, the Commission said.[132]

Justifying requests for additional resources for civil rights enforcement activities was a key reason, but not the only one, for having a well-developed information database. Other recommendations directed agencies to develop features of their databases to monitor the quality of their enforcement efforts and to aid in identifying civil rights noncompliance. Recommendations addressed the databases ability to track and analyze trends with complaints,[133] to identify investigations of complaints ended through alternative dispute resolution,[134] to measure the amounts and types of outreach and technical assistance,[135] and to better identify the sources of funding for recipients and subrecipients of block grants.[136] The Commission was also concerned about the quality of the database system. Agencies must have a quality control system to ensure that data entered are complete and accurate.[137]

DISSEMINATION OF POLICY THROUGH GUIDANCE, REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLICITY

The Commission issued numerous recommendations throughout the past decade concerning the dissemination or publicity of information about civil rights, to agencies enforcing civil rights, potential violators of civil rights laws, and victims of discrimination. Depending on the audience, dissemination can be accomplished through policy guidance and regulations; technical assistance intended to bring about compliance; education and outreach to potential victims, violators, and the public; and general publicity of successful enforcement efforts.

In its recommendations on policy guidance, the Commission called for federal agencies to establish policy units dedicated to developing and disseminating such guidance; to develop new internal and external procedural guidance and policy, and regulations and interpretations of laws; to seek the involvement of community and advocacy groups when developing policy guidance; and to develop or issue policy guidance on specific substantive issues such as state recipients, block grants, disabilities, and limited English proficiency.

The Commission called for federal agencies to establish policy units so that staff and resources were committed to developing and disseminating civil rights policy guidance, and not encumbered with civil rights compliance and enforcement responsibilities.[138] The Commission also explained the role of the policy unit. The policy unit should:

The lack of updated and clear policy guidance, and the inadequate resources devoted to it, are among the primary reasons for poor civil rights enforcement. In its report on Title VI enforcement, the Commission recommended that federal agencies, including DOJ with its oversight responsibilities, keep civil rights enforcement staff abreast of Title VI policy development. The Commission recommended that DOJ's Coordination and Review Section issue guidance clarifying DOJ authority and explaining its responsibilities to monitor federal funding agencies Title VI enforcement activities.[140] DOJ was also counseled to adopt new pre-award requirements and provide guidelines to federal agencies for enforcing Title VI.[141] At the same time, the Commission issued a blanket recommendation to all federal agencies calling for them to regularly distribute comprehensive Title VI policy guidance to all of their civil rights staff.[142] Some recommendations directed agencies to provide policy and legal guidance to staff involved in Title VI implementation and enforcement activities and to clarify the application of Title VI generally.[143]

The Commission advised federal funding agencies with decentralized enforcement programs to begin issuing detailed procedural manuals on Title VI and to maintain an active and comprehensive policy program, keeping subagencies informed of new developments regarding Title VI.[144] Parts of USDA were asked to revise, clarify, or implement departmental regulations and procedural manuals and instructions for the benefit of their civil rights enforcement staff.[145] HHS and HUD's FHEO were asked to develop policies for staff and funding recipients to use in assessing civil rights compliance.[146] Another general recommendation called for federal agencies to regularly update and issue procedural manuals tailored to their specific programs.[147] For example, DOEd s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was asked to develop formal investigative guidance, compliance standards, and manuals addressing specific educational concepts such as the least restrictive environment. [148] EPA was asked to develop procedures on how to evaluate environmental justice risks in recipient compliance activities and complaint investigations.[149] DOT's Federal Aviation Administration was asked to develop Title VI compliance standards guidelines for its staff on each of its programs recipients.[150]

Despite numerous concerns about the oversight, implementation, and enforcement of Title VI, the Commission's review revealed satisfactory Title VI efforts. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service and DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had internal Title VI policy guidance that could be models for other agencies.[151] Although needing improvement, HUD's FHEO was asked to maintain its practice of issuing technical guidance memorandum, manuals, and handbooks on program-specific procedures as new programs were developed.[152]

Other issue areas in which the Commission examined the development of policy and internal procedural guidance concerned people with disabilities, employment, health care, education, housing, and transportation. In studying these areas, the Commission made numerous recommendations for improvements in the internal civil rights processes of federal funding agencies. Regarding health care, for example, HHS was asked to develop civil rights policy on proper negotiating methods for HHS civil rights staff to use;[153] collection and use of data in compliance reviews and investigations; the provision of training for operating division staff on civil rights matters; investigating provisions to ensure equal access to, and quality health care for, all individuals;[154] how to integrate women's perspectives and minority concerns in the agency s agenda;[155] and nondiscrimination in medical school admissions, managed care, and clinical trials.[156]

Similarly, EEOC was asked to review and revise compliance manuals and investigative resource guidance; develop mandatory review procedures and monitoring and program evaluation policy for district offices; use subject-matter experts in ADA case handling and policy development; and review and revise Indian preference policy guidance.[157] DOEd's OCR was asked to use the Section 504 policy development effort as a model for Title VI and Title IX programs[158] and to include guidelines and a checklist in its finalized investigative guidance.[159] HUD was asked to develop written guidelines and instructions on agencies with interim referral agreements for staff that monitors their activities and progress.[160]

Recommendations to the EEOC requested that the agency update and expand its guidance on employer retaliation against employees and the Equal Pay Act, and reinstitute a practice of issuing brief policy statements on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[161] In 2000, the Commission commended EEOC for its exemplary regulatory guidance.[162]

The regular development and dissemination of external policy guidance and interpretation of laws are critical for civil rights enforcement.[163] Federal agencies sophistication in policy development varied, yet the Commission found that all needed to develop further policy, whether to address particular civil rights statutes or provisions, or to tailor policies to specific programs.

Agencies were sometimes asked to provide external policy on particular civil rights statutes, for example, DOEd on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; HHS OCR on Title IX and the Hill-Burton Act; and EEOC on the Equal Pay Act.[164] Many agencies were asked to develop policy concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Requests for policy development on Title VI were directed to DOJ in its oversight capacity as well as the agencies that DOJ oversees. The Commission asked DOJ to develop external policy for other agencies on state-administered and block grant programs and other Title VI areas.[165] Because of changes the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made in the definition of program or activity covered by Title VI, the Commission urged DOJ to clarify the scope of Title VI and require federal agencies to revise their regulations and provide guidelines on Title VI coverage and fund termination.[166] The Commission also asked DOJ/CORS to adopt new Title VI pre-award requirements and provide such guidelines to state and local government recipients.[167] The federal agencies that DOJ oversees were asked in many different recommendations to develop or revise external policy guidance on recent changes in Title VI, such as from the Civil Rights Restoration Act;[168] the responsibilities of state programs in civil rights compliance and enforcement;[169] block grant programs;[170] and compliance and enforcement generally.[171]

In numerous recommendations, the Commission requested that DOJ's Disability Rights Section, EEOC, DOEd, and HUD develop further policy on disability issues related to employment, education, and housing.[172] DOJ was asked to assist states and local government officials in complying with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[173] As the Commission recommended generally, it found that the EEOC should involve the public in developing policy guidance on the ADA.[174]

The Commission issued recommendations to develop external policy guidance concerned with discrimination, cultural competency, limited English proficiency, and other issues common to many agencies. For example, HHS was asked to develop policy to address the effect of culture and language on access to and quality of health care received.[175] The Commission issued 18 recommendations for policy on limited English proficiency to DOEd.[176] EEOC received recommendations concerning religion and racial harassment.[177] At the same time, some agencies were asked to develop policy guidance on civil rights compliance tailored to their specific programs, most often to clarify definitions used in their programs.[178]

Involving Community Organizations and Advocacy Groups in Policy Development

The Commission asked federal agencies to seek public involvement in developing external policy guidance.[179] For example, the EEOC was asked to involve the public and community groups and other organizations in the planning and prerelease stages of policy development.[180] Similarly, HHS was asked to include local researchers, and media, advocacy, and community groups in external policy development.[181] DOEd's OCR was advised to survey advocacy groups, customers, and affected groups to identify areas of concern that may require policy guidance from OCR.[182]

The Commission's reports during the past decade have included numerous recommendations about civil rights policies pertaining to specific programs. Although many policy issues are unique to particular programs or statutes, others echo across agencies and programs and represent approaches to ensuring equal opportunity. Recommendations for promoting diversity and cultural competency, overcoming limited English proficiency, combating sex discrimination and sexual harassment, and other substantive issues are found in many of the Commission's reports.

The Commission has promoted diversity and cultural competency throughout its reports. It broadly asked DOEd and other federal agencies to defuse racial and ethnic tensions in public schools and promote mutual tolerance and understanding among racial and ethnic groups. [183] At the same time, a concern about cultural competency was at the heart of many of the Commission's recommendations for diversity.

The issue of the cultural competency of those rendering services, specifically their ability to provide equal opportunities to program participants and beneficiaries from diverse cultures, arose in Commission reviews of civil rights enforcement, particularly in the health care industry. The Commission said cultural differences should not hinder the delivery of social services, such as quality health care, to people of color.[184] The Commission advised federal funding agencies to:

The broad application of these recommendations is obvious from the Commission s recommendations regarding health care. To increase the number of culturally aware health care professionals, for example, the Commission made many suggestions. It directed DOEd's OCR to ensure that medical school administrators and other decision-making personnel understand the objectives in encouraging efforts to include minorities and women among medical student populations.[190] It also directed HHS to develop guidelines requiring an adequate number of minority-serving providers in health care plans;[191] and to begin requiring medical training programs, especially those in racially and ethnically diverse areas, to recruit minority students.[192]

To increase research and data collection on women and differences among minority populations, the Commission urged HHS operating divisions to provide technical assistance on the available grants and research funds and the grant application and review process, so as to increase the number of people of color and female applicants applying for and successfully receiving federal funds.[193] Other Commission recommendations directed HHS to do more to identify resources and strategies to help ethnic Americans remain healthy, to combat health care providers myths and stereotypes about the health of racial and ethnic minorities, and to address the issue of culturally competent care in technical assistance to health care facilities.[194]

Achieving equal opportunity by overcoming the barrier of limited English proficiency was the subject of many Commission recommendations. Most were directed toward improving educational opportunities and health care for national origin minorities, particularly Asian Pacific Americans.[195] They urged that federal agencies require that service providers take all appropriate steps to ensure equal access to quality services for language minority individuals.[196]

The Commission's suggestions for limited English proficiency were often similar to those for cultural competency. The Commission asked federal agencies to fund social service programs that meet the specific language needs of language minority individuals;[197] increase the number of qualified professionals who work within ethnic and immigrant communities; and to collect data and conduct research on the needs of those with limited English proficiency.

Recommendations asked federal agencies to increase the number of qualified professionals who have appropriate language skills to provide services to these communities;[198] bilingual and English-as-a-second-language instructors for underserved languages, such as Southeast Asian languages;[199] programs to recruit and train bilingual and English-as-a second-language teachers for underserved languages;[200] and multilingual investigators and program analysts to facilitate interaction with limited-English-proficient individuals seeking civil rights enforcement.[201] Recommendations on data collection and research concerned education and asked for information on the numbers, national origins, and achievement of limited-English-proficient students in the nation's schools;[202] the distinction between language minority students who speak English very well and those who speak it with difficulty and how this relates to reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English;[203] how these students needs have been met;[204] and how DOEd can best serve them while allowing state and local education agencies latitude in suiting programs to the needs of their students.[205]

The Commission's recommendations regarding limited English proficiency also asked federal agencies to conduct more compliance reviews[206] and to provide regulations,[207] guidance, and training. Recommendations asked agencies to issue guidance on the objectives and methods of monitoring compliance with respect to limited English proficiency;[208] the definition of terms and examples of variations in recipients noncompliance that might assist investigative staff in compliance activities;[209] how to reach people with language barriers;[210] and various education issues.[211]

Recommendations on training largely concerned the use of interpreters to overcome language barriers. The Commission asked federal agencies to give service providers the necessary training, such as training in how to certify and work with interpreters.[212] The quality assurance standards for interpreter services, the need for interpreters to have technical expertise, for example in interpreting medical terminology, and acceptable alternatives to interpreter services were other areas in which federal agencies needed to provide training to ensure recipient compliance with civil rights laws.[213]

Concerns about sex discrimination and sexual harassment arose in the areas of employment, education, and health care. The Commission urged that EEOC, DOEd, and HHS conduct more compliance reviews on these issues. It asked HHS to provide resources for compliance reviews on whether sex discrimination was occurring in health programs and to develop comprehensive policy guidance for investigative staff and funding recipients on the topic.[214]

The Commission asked DOEd to combat hindrances to women's and girls educational opportunities. The agency should develop programs to eliminate the gender stereotypes attached to certain careers. Compliance reviews and investigations of Title IX issues should examine (1) the context of specific sexual harassment incidents and whether the harassment dampens the academic performance of female students; (2) girls access to advanced math and science courses; (3) whether tests contain gender bias; and (4) the usefulness of single-sex programs, whether they serve their intended purpose, and if comparable programs are available for the other sex.[215]

EEOC was not handling sex discrimination as well as it was sexual harassment. The Commission said EEOC must address the sex discrimination issues that the Glass Ceiling Commission raised during investigations and when initiating commissioner charges.[216] But, because the Commission regarded the agency's enforcement of sexual harassment as a model program other agencies might follow, it merely asked EEOC to continue its efforts to identify sexual harassment in the workplace and litigate such cases and to continue widely disseminating its technical assistance materials on the subject.[217]

In other recommendations, the Commission raised concerns about reaching people in underserved areas and communities. The Commission asked federal agencies to ensure that their programs reached participants and beneficiaries in rural and inner-city areas as well as underserved populations, such as African Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farm workers and their children, and women. It asked federal agencies to find alternate or innovative methods of reaching such areas and groups.[218] Federal agencies should also initiate or increase technical assistance, outreach, and education in small or minority communities and regions with large migrant populations to inform these individuals about the available services.[219] Other recommendations asked federal agencies to better serve these underserved populations by replicating local initiatives more widely[220] and reviewing or reporting the available services and their effectiveness.[221]

The Commission raised the issue of disability access with the Department of Education. To improve Section 504 enforcement, the Commission asked DOEd to continue encouraging school districts to focus on student needs rather than disability definitions in providing appropriate services to students with disabilities.[222] The Commission also requested that DOEd, through OCR, its Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and state and local education agencies, ensure that students with learning and behavioral disabilities, emotional disturbance, and mental retardation can participate in strategies such as counseling for successful transitions to regular classrooms[223] and partake of extracurricular services and activities.[224] The Commission also recommended that DOEd ask local school districts to allow regular education teachers to receive special education in-service training.[225]

The Commission asked some federal funding agencies to develop new regulations and others to update existing ones. It often said that federal agencies must keep their civil rights regulations current to reflect legislative developments.

The Commission asked DOJ/CRD/CORS to assume a leadership role in reviewing and, where needed, providing updated Title VI regulations to all federal funding agencies.[226] DOJ's CORS was also invoked to improve its process of reviewing proposed legislation involving civil rights or federal financial assistance programs to inform Congress of any civil rights consequences.[227] In some instances, the Commission asked CORS to develop additional regulations that would apply to the federal agencies enforcing Title VI.[228]

The Commission was particularly concerned that DOJ/CRD/CORS ensure that regulations were updated to reflect legislation, such as the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which extended Title VI coverage to prohibit discrimination in an entire institution even if only part of that institution receives funds. It asked that DOJ and federal funding agencies update all Title VI regulations based on this act.[229] DOEd, DOL, DOI, EPA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and HHS were agencies specifically asked to consider the impact of this act on civil rights.[230] Agencies asked to review the effects of other legislative changes were HHS and DOT and one of its operating administrations, the Federal Aviation Administration.[231]

The Commission also requested that agencies consider adopting nondiscrimination regulations similar to those for DOL's main job-training program (then the Job Training Partnership Act) to ensure that states are enforcing Title VI in state and locally administered programs.[232] The Commission further encouraged federal funding agencies to develop model regulations that prohibit discrimination not just in employment but also when employment practices result in discrimination against program beneficiaries or others.[233] It directed agencies with decentralized enforcement programs to ensure that their subagencies have regulatory guidance in addition to Title VI regulations.[234] Finally, the Commission asked federal agencies to update Title VI regulations to incorporate a comprehensive list of specifically prohibited discriminatory practices.[235]

DOT s National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration had yet to develop Title VI regulations.[236] Other agencies needed to revise existing ones, for example, to clarify terms or the application of civil rights statutes to the assisted programs, or to modify the enforcement process. These agencies included DOEd,[237] EEOC,[238] HUD,[239] SBA,[240] DOL,[241] EPA,[242] and HHS.[243]

Technical assistance consists of educational forums, advice, or written policy documents offered to agencies responsible for enforcing civil rights laws or potential violators to improve their ability to meet civil rights obligations.[244] Many agencies were asked to provide or improve technical assistance to funding recipients.[245] The Commission asked all federal agencies to implement active Title VI technical assistance programs because it found most lacking in this area.[246]

The Commission also asked some federal funding agencies to provide or improve technical assistance to their own civil rights enforcement components, including field offices and contracting agencies, and to parallel agencies and offices sharing civil rights jurisdiction with them.[247] The Commission's recommendations for technical assistance sometimes emphasized principles such as ensuring that uniform enforcement procedures are used throughout the agency.[248] Another principle the Commission supported was assigning full-time education and outreach coordinators to headquarters to monitor and coordinate technical assistance, education, and outreach activities in regional offices throughout the agency.[249] Other recommendations were specific to particular agencies or issues.[250]

The Commission concluded that federal agencies had to implement or improve education and outreach programs and make clear the agency components responsibilities for conducting education and outreach.[251] The improvements requested varied. Several recommendations asked for regular education and outreach,[252] while others asked that education and outreach be targeted to special audiences such as attorneys[253] or small businesses.[254] The Commission also recommended new or innovative venues for education and outreach such as the Internet[255] or publicity of an agency's successes in defending the public's civil rights.[256]

A number of recommendations requested that federal agencies mount inter-agency coordinated outreach.[257] In particular, the Commission suggested campaigns aimed at educating all U.S. residents on Title VI[258] and workplace violence,[259] and at informing recent Asian American immigrants about their civil rights.[260] Similarly, the Commission recognized EEOC and its Office of Field Programs for acknowledging the importance of sharing information with other agencies about the innovative approaches to education and outreach that its field offices were developing.[261]

Another frequent recommendation was that information concerning civil rights issues be readily available to recipients and subrecipients, potential and actual victims of civil rights violations, violators, and the public.[262] In ensuring that education and outreach materials reach all populations, the Commission stressed that they must be disseminated in languages other than English. Agencies were asked to disseminate information in other languages to accommodate the populations they served.[263]

The Commission reviewed the complaint processing procedures of several agencies over the past 10 years. Out of these reviews emerged several common findings, including areas that have continued to present challenges to these enforcement agencies and in which efforts have been insufficient. The Commission has thus made many recommendations for charge processing and complaint resolution. Generally, the recommendations have focused on ensuring that agencies have a comprehensive process to resolve complaints efficiently and expeditiously to achieve maximum results. Another key theme has been improving customer service by creating systems that are easy to navigate for potential charging parties and publicizing policies and procedures.

The intake process is an agency's first communication with potential complainants and provides valuable information on the enforcement process. It must be organized to promote efficiency yet easy for complainants to navigate. The Commission's recommendations for the intake process have generally concerned streamlining the intake process and formalizing intake procedures to ensure consistency across offices. Several Commission reports emphasized that internal procedures must ensure that every part of an agency (such as a district office) has the same standards for charge intake.[264]

Improving customer service goes hand in hand with the intake process, but also extends beyond that to include better communication with complainants throughout the investigation and resolution stages of charge handling. Recommendations for improving customer service include:

Expediting the intake process while conducting a thorough first assessment of an individual complaint is often a difficult balance to achieve. Intake staff should be provided with questionnaires to be used when caseloads are large. This will not only ensure that the correct information is collected, but will also promote uniformity within and across offices.[273] In addition, intake staff should begin the initial stages of investigation to ensure that charges are fully developed before being referred to other enforcement or legal staff.[274]

Because civil rights enforcement agencies have limited resources, agencies should have procedures to prioritize charges and select cases that identify a high percentage of actionable complaints and cases able to affect the most people. Agencies must have clearly defined prioritization methods, use them systematically in determining which cases to pursue, and be able to justify the resources expended on any one complaint. The prioritization process extends to many levels of charge development, including determinations as to which complaints to investigate, which to resolve through mediation or other settlement procedures, and which warrant litigation.

Even with prioritization procedures, enforcement agencies often lack resources to give adequate attention to all meritorious complaints. Under such circumstances, the Commission has often recommended that agencies emphasize systemic cases, which can provide relief for a large number of victims, although these cases are also the most resource intensive.[275]

Case selection also includes the proactive identification of discrimination absent the filing of a specific complaint. Most enforcement agencies have the authority to investigate self-initiated charges, as is the case with commissioner charges filed by the EEOC and secretary-initiated charges filed by HUD. Although such agencies have the discretion to choose which charges to file, they do not always exercise such discretion to its fullest, so the Commission has made recommendations for ensuring that they take full advantage of this option.

The Commission has found agency-initiated charges useful for identifying systemic discrimination. It has recommended that agencies use statistical and research tools to identify instances of potential systemic discrimination. With respect to EEOC, the agency's Office of Research and Information Planning should provide EEOC commissioners with regular reports identifying areas with discriminatory trends in the employment data the agency collects to determine if a charge or systematic investigation should be initiated.[276] District office enforcement and legal staff should also regularly analyze employment data to determine areas of potential charges.[277]

The Commission also recommended that HUD intensify efforts to develop secretary-initiated complaints, specifically that the agency should target cases not easily corrected through individual complaints, issue guidance or regulations on the subjects that might be pursued through this method, and increase resources for agency-initiated complaints.[278]

Some agencies identify discrimination through testing, and the Commission has occasionally recommended that efforts in this area be heightened. For example, the Commission recommended that HUD fund testing for law enforcement purposes whenever there are grounds to believe discrimination may be occurring.[279] Areas to proceed with testing can also be identified through statistical disparities, media reports, or substantive anecdotal evidence.

Over the years, the Commission has found many deficiencies in the way enforcement agencies conduct investigations. The Commission found inconsistencies across offices, inadequate probing of facts, and failure to conduct thorough investigations such as through on-site visits. The Commission's recommendations asked agencies to provide guidance to investigative staff during and after an investigation. Agencies need to develop complaint processing and investigation procedures that delineate the process of handling complaints and indicate the types of information needed to support a finding.[280] Following are specific recommendations made to various agencies:

The Commission suggested ways to improve the efficiency of enforcement staff and streamline the investigative process. For example, district office management staff should regularly evaluate the caseloads of investigators to determine whether any investigator has a disproportionate number of difficult charges on his or her docket. The distribution of charges should be based on investigative experience and difficulty of the charge.[292]

Enforcement agencies have been criticized for taking too long to process discrimination charges. Increases in responsibilities, and hence in the number of charges filed, and decreases in resources have exacerbated the problem.[293] As a result, agencies have needed to develop ways to reduce their growing backlogs and process charges more efficiently.[294] Some agencies have done so by prioritizing the charges they would spend time investigating and resolving, as has been discussed.

Complaints can be resolved in several ways through dismissal, voluntary agreement between the parties involved, adjudication, or litigation. The Commission has made many recommendations specific to the vehicles commonly used by each agency.

The Commission's evaluations of enforcement agencies suggest that a large percentage of complaints are dismissed for administrative reasons or closed with a no cause determination. This fact is disturbing to many charging parties who may not understand the charge processing procedures and requirements or the legal provisions that validate a complaint. EEOC is one agency in which the number of no cause findings and administrative closures continues to be large. The Commission has recommended that the agency study the reason for this trend. EEOC should try to improve education and outreach efforts so that the public is better informed about what types of charges have merit under EEOC jurisdiction.[295]

Upon closure of a complaint, enforcement agencies must notify the parties involved of the outcome of the complaint in a letter of determination or letter of finding. The Commission found that many such letters lack sufficient information to inform the parties of the reasons for the finding. For example, the Commission recommended that EEOC require that enforcement staff conduct predetermination interviews with charging parties, giving them a chance to provide any additional information before having their cases dismissed.[296] In addition, staff should ensure that the determination letters sent to charging parties clearly explain why no cause was found, or why a charge was dismissed.[297]

Similar recommendations were made to benefit the respondent to a complaint. For instance, the Commission recommended that HHS/OCR fully inform every recipient that has been the subject of a complaint investigation of OCR's investigative activities. OCR's Office of Program Operations should conduct a large-scale quality assurance review of all letters of finding and case closure documents, and should prepare a report with recommendations to upgrade the overall quality of these documents.[298] OCR should develop a compendium of model letters of finding and corrective action agreements for each of the statutes it enforces. This will enable investigative staff to develop thorough case closure documents.[299]

To conserve resources, there has been a move toward settling complaints early in the charge handling process. While the Commission has generally supported methods such as mediation and conciliation, some concerns about the implementation of these methods have prompted a series of recommendations.[300] For example, the Commission recognizes that for effective enforcement, remedies must address the root of discrimination. Mediation or other settlement negotiations, if not performed carefully, may ignore the larger picture in the interest of resolving the complaint at hand. To avoid this, the Commission recommended that mediation only be used when it is appropriate to the nature of the complaint, and mediation staff should ensure that settlements include provisions for changes in employer practices or policies that might have a discriminatory effect.[301]

A recurring theme in recommendations regarding settlement of complaints is improving communication of rights and procedures to the parties involved. For instance, the Commission recommended to HUD that complainants be informed about the consequences of resolving complaints outside conciliation.[302] In addition, HUD should establish standards for conciliation to ensure that parties rights are respected[303] and should notify parties of their right to object to administrative law judges decisions before the Secretary's review.[304]

Many agencies consider litigation a last resort to resolve complaints of discrimination. While the Commission recognizes the resource demands involved in litigating cases, it also recognizes the importance of doing so to develop case law, to obtain appropriate relief and to send a message to potential violators about the strength of an agency's enforcement program. Thus, many of the Commission's recommendations in this area have centered on stepping up litigation in areas of law that are relatively undeveloped.[305]

Because few complaints result in litigation, enforcement agencies must have strong litigation strategies. The Commission recommended that litigation be central to an enforcement strategy, but advised agencies to seek and litigate cases that set legal precedent and to mediate other cases.[306] It also advised agencies to seek input from stakeholders in developing the litigation strategy. Agencies should obtain the affected community's views on which issues need to be litigated.[307]

One example of an efficient litigation strategy is EEOC s delegation of litigation authority to regional attorneys, allowing them to identify and pursue cases for litigation within the constraints of clearly established local and national priorities. The Commission supported this practice of delegating constrained authority as long as district offices select the most appropriate and diverse cases, and headquarters monitors district office dockets and rescinds authority when regional attorney discretion fails to maintain a successful litigation program.[308]

Further recognizing the limitations of enforcement agencies litigation programs, the Commission has made recommendations for using external resources. For instance, some EEOC district offices have developed attorney-referral programs for cases exceeding the agency's budget or not defined as priorities. The Commission recommended that this practice continue and that EEOC's legal staff be available to offer guidance to private attorneys and to collaborate with organizations such as the American Bar Association. However, not all individual cases should be referred to the private bar, including class cases and those that might further define the law, that have potential for broader impact, or that will aid an individual the private bar cannot or will not assist.[309]

As was mentioned earlier, not all agencies have the authority to litigate the charges that fall within their enforcement jurisdiction. HUD is one such agency. The Commission views this as a detriment to full enforcement of fair housing laws and therefore has recommended that DOJ authorize HUD attorneys to pursue charges when DOJ disagrees with the substantive issue of the HUD charge. HUD attorneys should be authorized to handle litigation of elected charges, where appropriate.[310]

Monitoring compliance with settlement agreements and court rulings is critical to ensure enforcement. In its more recent reports, the Commission emphasized the need for systematic monitoring. It recommended that HHS OCR require monitoring for every complaint case resolved through early complaint resolution or predetermination settlement.[311] OCR should conduct on-site monitoring of all cases resulting in findings of noncompliance and all cases ending in a resolution in which a recipient agrees to undertake corrective action. OCR should use testers in monitoring voluntary compliance agreements to ensure recipients are implementing the terms of these agreements.[312] HHS should provide enforcement staff specific examples of monitoring activities appropriate for different kinds of compliance agreements.[313] Similar recommendations were made to the Office for Civil Rights at DOEd.[314]

The Commission often found agencies lacking in their processes for conducting compliance reviews. Recommendations were issued that addressed pre-award reviews, post-award reviews, and sometimes both. Recommendations also addressed desk audits and on-site reviews. Note that either desk audits or site visits, or both, can be part of a pre-award or a post-award review.

Major themes in the recommendations called for (1) implementing systems for thorough pre- and post-award reviews; (2) establishing strategies to streamline the review process; (3) imposing reporting requirements on recipients and analyzing recipients reported information for possible discrimination; (4) identifying recipients to receive on-site reviews; and (5) monitoring the quality of enforcement efforts.

Commission studies have asked federal agencies to initiate compliance review systems for their funding recipients. In its review of Title VI enforcement, the Commission invoked all federal agencies to do so.[315] Agencies must conduct thorough, in-depth pre-award[316] and post-award[317] reviews for all programs and recipients receiving federal funds.[318]

Pre- and post-award reviews must determine whether funding applicants and recipients are in compliance with Title VI.[319] The Commission indicated that pre-award reviews must encompass more than merely checking to see that the recipient has submitted a signed assurance of nondiscrimination.[320] Furthermore, post-award reviews must be a broad investigation of the recipient's programs and practices.[321] Desk audits should be capable of identifying for on-site reviews any recipients with questionable compliance.[322] The information collected and reviewed in desk audits should include:

For state recipients, the Commission recommended that, before granting funds, federal agencies assess states methods of administration as well as their annual reports or self-assessments of their recent Title VI enforcement.[324] Agencies should assess whether the state conducted a pre-award review of all subrecipients, the information considered in the reviews, the state s letter of finding for any reviews, and any required corrective actions and whether the funding applicant or recipient agreed to implement them.[325]

In contrast to a desk audit, an on-site compliance review should involve interviews of funding recipient officials, the communities affected by the recipient s programs or activities, and program participants or beneficiaries;[326] review recipients , particularly states , data collection and analysis programs used to assess civil rights compliance;[327] and provide written results with findings and recommendations for achieving compliance for the entity that was reviewed.[328] It should identify deficiencies in recipients delivery of program services, investigate allegations of discriminatory barriers to participation, evaluate recipients public education about program accessibility, and identify recipients needing technical assistance or further on-site investigation.[329] The Commission did not regard a compliance review system as fully implemented if it did not have established procedures for conducting pre-award, post-award, and on-site compliance reviews or if the procedures were not applied.[330]

While the Commission was urging agencies to review all recipients, it recognized the tension between the need to complete compliance reviews for all recipients and the additional resources that these reviews would require to have more depth and meaning. The Commission proposed that agencies find strategies that will promote a meaningful and efficient pre-award process on as many applicants and recipients as possible . [331] Suggestions included increased (but not exclusive) reliance on desk audits rather than on-site reviews,[332] delegating pre-award review responsibilities to more local agency components such as operating divisions,[333] ensuring that at least recipients of major amounts of funding were reviewed,[334] or reviewing every recipient periodically, say, once every three years.[335]

Federal agencies should acquire a large portion of the information for their reviews of funding recipients by imposing annual (or even quarterly) reporting requirements that allow an evaluation of the equality among the recipients program participants and beneficiaries.[336] These requirements should be imposed as a precondition to receiving grants[337] and as support for post-award compliance reviews.[338] The agencies must then analyze and use this information to improve enforcement or select recipients for on-site reviews.[339] Better still, federal agencies should require recipients to submit annual self-assessments of their civil rights compliance that the federal agency can evaluate.[340] The Commission said that state recipients should be required to submit details of how they will ensure compliance with Title VI and that federal agencies should collect data that allow them to assess the administration of state programs and implement an active state monitoring system.[341]

Because federal agencies have limited resources for conducting on-site compliance reviews of funding recipients, the Commission urged that they have methods of selecting recipients with potential civil rights violations to receive the on-site reviews.[342] Thus, recipients should be selected for on-site reviews using desk audits,[343] input from advocacy groups and community organizations, and results from ongoing research.[344] Other criteria the Commission suggested using were amount of funding or the size or complexity of the project.[345] Recipients for on-site reviews could also be identified using priority civil rights issues,[346] but the review should assess the recipient's entire operation, not just compliance with respect to the priority issue.[347]

In at least some agencies, the Commission called for regional offices to conduct on-site compliance reviews because of their greater knowledge of, and proximity to, recipients in their areas. These agencies should annually plan the number of on-site reviews for regional offices to perform and ensure that they conduct them.[348]

The Commission found that some agencies were devoting insufficient resources to on-site reviews. It stressed that agencies should ensure sufficient resources for on-site reviews of funding recipients and states that perform civil rights enforcement activities. In some agencies, more funds, staff, or both should be provided to regional offices, to ensure that a lack of travel or other resources do not inhibit the completion of on-site reviews.[349] However, where on-site reviews were conducted with insufficient detail, the Commission asked that resources be reallocated to conduct more desk audits so that all recipients would receive some review.[350]

The Commission issued recommendations concerned with monitoring the quality of the civil rights enforcement system. Agencies were advised to monitor the quality of their pre-award reviews in order to ensure recipient compliance,[351] to evaluate the post-award compliance review process,[352] and to periodically evaluate the quality of on-site reviews conducted by regional offices and states and to offer them any needed assistance.[353] Recommendations charged agency headquarters offices with the responsibility of assessing the enforcement activities of their operating divisions and administrations.[354]

When deficiencies have been found, federal agencies are required to offer technical assistance to recipients to correct their deficiencies and obtain recipients agreement to voluntarily comply. The Commission asked that agencies monitor these agreements and urged the use of on-site investigations to do so. Thus, agencies were called upon to establish systems of regularly and uniformly monitoring all recipients commitments to corrective action to ensure that compliance is fully achieved.[355] At the same time, the Commission asked the Department of Justice to require that federal agencies develop mechanisms to monitor voluntary compliance agreements; and to ensure that these follow-up mechanisms are in place and that the agencies offer recipients the needed technical assistance.[356]

Should voluntary compliance not be achieved, the Commission recommended that federal agencies make use of all enforcement options, such as fund termination and suspension, and notify DOJ/CRD/CORS of all such decisions so that CORS can assist the federal agencies with voluntary compliance efforts and prevent a termination action.[357] Furthermore, it asked CORS to provide guidelines and examples for when an agency should seek fund termination or temporary suspension for noncomplying recipients.[358] It also asked federal agencies to request additional resources to augment administrative sanctions in Title VI enforcement.[359]

The Commission made several recommendations for improving staff training. It asked federal agencies to train new staff, and periodically retrain old staff, to establish, update, and deepen their knowledge of civil rights statutes and emerging issues. Every federal funding agency the Commission reviewed received a recommendation to regularly train staff on Title VI issues.[360]

The Commission also called for training, particularly advanced training, on other civil rights statutes, including the ADA and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. EEOC,[361] DOJ,[362] and DOEd[363] were asked to provide advanced training on the statutes they enforce. Commenting on Title IX enforcement, the Commission found that DOEd could improve its civil rights staff training by instructing staff on what constitutes a Title IX violation and how compliance may be effected in specific circumstances.[364]

Some recommendations asked that regular and appropriate training be directed to certain types of staff or functions, such as training for investigative staff on investigative procedures and legal issues. EEOC, HHS, and HUD received such recommendations.[365] For the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Commission suggested EEOC provide training for investigators,[366] charge intake personnel,[367] staff of state and local contractors that conduct enforcement activities (i.e., the Fair Employment Practices Agencies),[368] and federal judges.[369] The Commission asked DOJ to provide more advanced ADA training to trial attorneys to enhance their litigation skills.[370]

The Commission recommended that agencies develop training on civil rights enforcement generally[371] and on specific topics, such as how to establish or carry out a memorandum of understanding with another agency for shared or delegated enforcement responsibilities, develop a voluntary compliance agreement,[372] prioritize charges of discrimination for processing,[373] apply principles of case resolution,[374] perform analyses to identify discrimination,[375] provide technical assistance to recipients,[376] and coordinate outreach.[377]

Finally, some recommendations directed agencies, particularly DOJ/CRD/CORS, to assume a leadership role in offering training and providing training resources. Because of DOJ's oversight responsibilities of other federal agencies civil rights programs, the Commission asked CORS to establish (1) a civil rights training center at which a governmentwide approach to Title VI civil rights training could be developed[378] and (2) a civil rights reference library where federal agencies could obtain information for developing their own civil rights training programs.[379] Similarly, the federal agencies were asked to assume leadership of civil rights staff instruction for their own staff as well as those of their administrations or operating divisions.[380] In turn, the administrations or operating divisions were asked to schedule more frequent training on civil rights activities with their headquarters agencies[381] and to seek headquarters assistance in developing formal training modules to use in training civil rights staff.[382]

Commission recommendations asked federal agencies to start or enhance working relationships with their own internal offices and components, professional organizations involved in the enforcement process, other federal agencies, affected communities and advocacy groups, and state and local organizations and contractual organizations performing enforcement responsibilities on their behalf.[383]

The Commission asked for better coordination and communication within agencies among units charged with different enforcement activities and between headquarters offices and administrations, operating divisions, and regional and field offices.[384] For example, the Commission urged agency components to share or consolidate their efforts in developing training programs[385] and technical assistance,[386] and to coordinate in the development of policy and guidance[387] and data collection and analysis systems[388] that identify discrimination or determine inequalities in service. Coordination with other internal offices was particularly important for developing memoranda of understanding with operating divisions or administrations detailing the roles and responsibilities for enforcement activities.[389]

Federal agencies also need strong relationships with professional organizations and research groups.[390] For example, through a relationship with the American Bar Association, EEOC staff was able to offer guidance to private attorneys handling employment litigation and enhance its training on emerging civil rights issues.[391] The Commission suggested relationships could be improved through staff exchange programs.[392]

The Commission noted that civil rights enforcement could be enhanced through better communication among federal agencies, perhaps through an interagency coordinating council.[393] Federal agencies should coordinate with one another, first because of overlapping jurisdictions for civil rights enforcement. When jurisdictions overlap, federal agencies need to coordinate with each other on all types of compliance activities, such as by developing policy and performing compliance reviews[394] and on education and outreach and developing litigation strategies.[395] To facilitate coordination among federal agencies, the Commission invoked agencies to maintain a centralized database on their Title VI enforcement efforts and responsibilities concerning recipients, thus allowing them to know when overlap exists that is, when recipients were receiving funds from more than one federal agency.[396] A second reason the Commission asked federal agencies to establish better communication was so that they could take advantage of the exemplary aspects of one another's enforcement programs in improving their own efforts.[397]

The Commission asked for increased involvement of community organizations and advocacy groups in enforcement programs.[398] As part of this effort, it asked federal agencies to regularly solicit comments and suggestions on Title VI enforcement efforts from the affected communities and recipients.[399] Underserved populations,[400] including rural and immigrant communities[401] and Native Americans and Alaskan Natives,[402] were groups that should be consulted.

State and local organizations were other groups with which federal agencies should form partnerships to obtain information and enhance data collection on programs, program modifications, and services that are needed as well as on state and local initiatives that may prove effective in providing more equitable opportunities and benefits to minority groups and women.[403]

EEOC and HUD contract with state and local organizations to perform enforcement activities such as complaint investigations. The Commission asked both agencies to coordinate more with those that perform complaint investigations under contract. Training needs, the prioritization of charges, and the quality of investigations were areas in which EEOC needed more communication.[404] HUD needed greater involvement with state and local organizations to ensure that they were certified to perform enforcement functions.[405] At the same time, HUD was asked to expand its outreach by having state and local agencies that are not under contract to the agency inform tenants of their civil rights and remedies under federal law, including the option of filing a complaint to HUD.[406]

The collection of additional data and further research on enforcement, such as disparities in educational opportunities, in job patterns, and in health services, was a concern of the Commission expressed throughout its reports. In education, additional data collection and research were needed on the disparate participation of different groups in various education programs,[407] achieving a gender-neutral education system,[408] gender differences in course selection[409] and the use of technology,[410] students with disabilities and their needs,[411] and children with limited English proficiency.[412]

[1] See, e.g., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. I, December 1996, pp. 10 16, 20 27, 42, 247 48 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. I, September 1999, pp. 64 69, 198 99 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I).

[2] Note that the 16 volumes of reports had 1,130 headers labeled Recommendation. However, many recommendations were broad, covering a range of issues, or directed to more than one agency or entity. The percentage of recommendations of each type varies depending on whether each recommendation is counted once based on the primary subject matter or whether each is counted multiple times to reflect all the different issues addressed by the recommendation.

[3] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Title VI Enforcement to Ensure Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, June 1996, pp. 223, 252, 258, 268, 356 58, 387, 421, 455, 592, 612 13 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s, February, 1992, pp. 130 56, 201 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity Laws and Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects, January 1993, pp. 1 3, 6 8, 13, 14 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Transportation Report); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Girls in Advanced Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education: Federal Enforcement of Title IX, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. V, July 2000, pp. 121 22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V); U.S. Commission Civil Rights, The Health Care Challenge; Acknowledging Disparity, Confronting Discrimination, and Ensuring Equality, Vol. II, September 1999, pp. 1 15, 275 77, 279 80, and chaps. 3 and 4 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II).

[4] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186, 219, 405, 617; USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1 3, 6 8, 13, 14.

[5] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 220 22, 296 97, 311, 389 90, 395 96, 540 41, 599, 626.

[6] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Prospects and Impact of Losing State and Local Agencies from the Federal Fair Housing System, September 1992, p. 32 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report, pp. 221 22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Employment Rights for Federal Employees, August 1993, pp. 21 22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Federal Employee Report); USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 178 79, 189 90, 204 05, 222 23, 232, 257 58, 260, 278, 285 86, 297, 303, 312, 316 18, 330, 356, 359, 366 68, 391 92, 424 25, 435, 455 56, 466, 480, 488, 513, 525, 540, 542 43, 549 50, 556 57, 560, 569 70, 572 74, 582 83, 585, 593, 603, 631, 633, 665 66; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 183 84, 252 53; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Disabilities: Federal Enforcement of Section 504, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. II, pp. 192 94, 381 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Students with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Enforcement of Title VI and Lau v. Nichols, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. III, November 1997, pp. 138 44, 221 22 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III); USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 83 84, 92 94, 141 43; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping State and Local Governments Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How the U.S. Department of Justice Is Enforcing Title II, Subpart A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, September 1998, pp. 11 13, 19 22, 134 35 (hereafter cited as USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Helping Employers Comply with the ADA: An Assessment of How the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Is Enforcing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, September 1998, pp. 62 65, 202 07, 211 13, 247, 265 66 (hereafter cited as USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II); USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60 63, 196; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 44, 280 81, 294; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Overcoming the Past, Focusing on the Future: An Assessment of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Enforcement Efforts, September 2000, pp. 66 69, 121 39, 178 79, 210, 221 23, 229 30, 241 45, 251, 259, 263 64, 270, 277, 283 84, 288 89, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298 99 (hereafter cited as USCCR, EEOC Report).

[7] See, e.g., USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 221 22; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 32.

[8] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 121 39, 178 79, 210, 277, 283 84, 288 89; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 202 07, 265; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 11 13, 134.

[9] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 221 23, 229 30, 241 45, 251, 259, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298 99.

[10] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 211 13, 266.

[11] Special programs for which the Commission recommended funding included, for example, special language instruction programs for students with limited English proficiency (see USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 138 44, 221 22) and financial assistance to health care professionals providing services to underserved populations (see USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60 63, 196).

[12] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 213 14, 261 62; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 49, 130; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 73, 135 38, 202, 217 18; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41 44, 229, 239 56, 292 93, 356 58; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 55 57, 61, 66 68, 70 71, 75, 98, 100, 131 32, 138 40, 151 52, 190, 388 89, 405 07, 418 19, 439, 509, 511 12, 518 19, 558 59, 564, 616 17.

[13] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 11 13, 134, 136; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 211, 265 66; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 466 67, 475 76, 560 62, 565 66; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 201, 214 17, 201, 208 09, 287, 286 90; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 215 16, 263 64; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 197 200, 230 31; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 192 94, 381; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 52, 131 32; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Educational Opportunity and Nondiscrimination for Minority Students: Federal Enforcement of Title VI in Ability Grouping Practices, Equal Educational Opportunity Project Series, Vol. IV, September 1999, pp. 84, 127 (hereafter cited as USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV); USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42 43, 46, 48 49, 218 19, 294 96, 352.

[14] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 355 58, 375, 525 26, 537, 572 73, 581, 585 86, 590 92, 595, 598.

[15] Ibid., pp. 238, 585 86, 590 92, 595, 598; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 27 29, 287 88.

[16] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 18 19, 27 29, 282 83, 287 88; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 282 83, 290, 592.

[17] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 592.

[18] Ibid., pp. 354 55, 373, 525 26, 537, 592; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 27 29, 287 88.

[19] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 141, 155 56, 161 62, 213, 220 22.

[20] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 424 25, 441; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 33, 290 91.

[21] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 190, 211, 572 73, 581.

[22] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 480, 491; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41 42, 293.

[23] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 68, 70 71, 139 40, 256 58, 269; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 183 84, 252 53.

[24] See, e.g., the Commission's recommendation that DOEd's OCR, which reorganized in 1996, should monitor the efficiency of the structure. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 188, 253.

[25] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 278, and chaps. 1 4.

[26] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 38 51. Note that the EEOC was not reviewed in the Title VI report because it does not have any responsibilities under Title VI. Its civil rights enforcement authority falls under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[31] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6.

[32] Ibid., pp. 14 20, 186, 219, 253, 256 58, 278, 312, 326, 355 59, 391 92, 418, 453 54, 479 82, 507, 523 24, 539 40, 549, 562, 582, 591, 622.

[33] Ibid., pp. 253 56, 268, 355, 373, 387 88, 405 06.

[34] Ibid., pp. 275 78, 288, 310 11, 322, 558, 564, 584, 590, 601 02, 607.

[35] Ibid., pp. 186 88, 219 20, 276, 295 97, 305, 311, 419 21, 525, 536, 599, 623; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224. In the fair housing study, the Commission recommended that regional attorneys be required to report both to the general counsel and the assistant secretary. USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224.

[36] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6.

[37] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 224.

[38] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 155 58, 221.

[39] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 6.

[40] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 234 54, 359 60; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186 87, 219 22, 239 40, 253, 255 56, 268, 295, 311, 328, 336, 344, 355 58, 387, 420 01, 424 25, 439 41, 454, 481, 501 02, 505, 518, 523 25, 536, 539 46, 555 57, 567 71, 580, 591 92, 599, 625 26. USDA's Soil Conservation Service was reorganizing when the Commission reviewed the agency and was directed to guard against ill effects on Title VI enforcement in the process of transferring internal civil rights responsibilities to another office (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 312 13, 322). Similarly, DOT/OCR was asked to ensure that DOT reorganization did not impede civil rights enforcement activities (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 502 05, 517). DOEd and DOJ/OJP, which had separate internal and external civil rights offices, were directed to maintain the separateness (USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 187, 209 10, 478 80, 491).

[41] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 311, 322.

[42] Ibid., p. 6.

[43] Ibid., pp. 329, 343, 389 90, 398 99, 407, 627; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 231 54, 286, 359 60, 364 65.

[44] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 49, 285.

[45] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 219, 253 55, 296, 300 01, 311, 387 90, 405 06, 501 05, 537 40, 624; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 155 56, 221; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 229, 239 56, 356 58. Within agency operating administrations, the Commission recommended creating an office concerned with minority or women's issues to more effectively address, evaluate, and resolve civil rights issues, and to provide leadership and coordination for programs throughout the agency. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 163, 222.

[46] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 219 20, 260 63, 387 96, 401, 501 02, 509, 511, 513 14, 664.

[47] Ibid., pp. 329, 344.

[48] Ibid., pp. 505, 518.

[49] Ibid., pp. 326 30, 343, 345.

[50] Ibid., pp. 6, 186 88, 219, 254, 326 27, 503, 624 25, 628; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 376 77.

[51] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 479 80, 490.

[52] Ibid., pp. 90, 150 51.

[53] Ibid., pp. 90 91, 95, 98, 151.

[54] Ibid., pp. 151 52.

[55] Ibid., pp. 90, 150 51.

[56] Ibid., pp. 151 52.

[57] Ibid., pp. 101 03, 152.

[58] Ibid., pp. 104, 152.

[59] Ibid., pp. 106 07, 109, 153.

[60] Ibid., pp. 218 23, 238 40, 389 90, 407.

[61] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 26, 35 36, 240 43, 250, 287, 291, 358 59, 367.

[62] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 238 39; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 240 42, 367.

[63] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 238 39, 388, 395 96, 406, 410 11, 478 80, 491.

[64] Ibid., pp. 419 20, 439, 478 80, 491.

[65] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 135 38, 213, 217 18; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 35 36, 291.

[66] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 239, 388, 406, 510, 519 20; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 218 19, 235 55, 286, 352, 363 64; USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 265, and see chaps. 4 7.

[67] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 254, 503, 624 25.

[68] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 29 31, 288 89.

[69] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 395 96, 410 11, 510, 519 20; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 106, 274.

[70] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 22, 284 85.

[71] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 395 96, 410 11, 510, 519 20.

[72] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 273 74, and see chap. 5; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 49, 285.

[73] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 223 24; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 191 93, 262 63; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 49, 285, 377; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 125 26, 205 06, 288.

[74] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 575, 581.

[75] See, e.g., EEOC, EEOC's FY 1995 Contracting Principles for State and Local FEP Agencies, Aug. 4, 1994.

[76] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 214, 288.

[77] USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34.

[78] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 205 06, 288.

[79] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 204, 215, 551 52, 557.

[80] Ibid., pp. 576 77, 582.

[81] Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 338 39, 350, 587 88, 591, pp. 665 66, 668 69; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 179 84, 199 203, 228 29, 231 32; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 198 99; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 205 15, 242 43, 346 49, 368 69.

[82] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 534, 539, 587 88, 591, 636, 665 66, 668 69.

[83] Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 364, 366 68, 380 82, 401 04, 413, 488, 497 98, 534, 539, 587 88, 591, 665 66, 668 69; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 198 99; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 205 15, 242 43, 346 49, 368 69.

[84] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 204, 215.

[85] Ibid., pp. 59, 204, 215, 285 86, 291, 364, 366 68, 380 82, 534, 539, 576 77, 582, 587 88.

[86] Ibid., pp. 488, 497 98.

[87] Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 364, 366 68, 380 82, 488, 497 98, 587 88, 591, 665 66, 668 69.

[88] Ibid., pp. 323, 499; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 155 71, 283 84, 333 34.

[89] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 364, 366 68, 380 82.

[90] Ibid., pp. 534, 539, 576 77, 582; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 106 09, 210.

[91] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 514, 511.

[92] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 198 99.

[93] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 245 48, 365.

[94] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified at 31 U.S.C. 1101 (Supp. V 2002)).

[95] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 372, 384; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 34, 290. See also USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251.

[96] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 33, 290 91; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 48 49, 129.

[97] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 208, 217, 340 42, 352, 372, 384; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 56 59, 246.

[98] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 35 36, 291; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 56 59, 246.

[99] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53 56, 246; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 1 15, 275 77.

[100] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 297, 306; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53 56, 246.

[101] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 43, 245; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 36, 257, 289 90, 362; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 79 80, 270.

[102] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 16 17, 135.

[103] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223 24, 258 59, 331 32, 358 61, 636.

[104] Ibid., pp. 297, 306; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 1 15, 275 77.

[105] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 213.|

[106] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65 67, 210 11; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 118, 213; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 36, 257, 289 90, 362. For example, the Commission suggested that DOEd's OCR should include its interaction with the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs in its strategic plans and establish goals and timetables for interaction between the two offices. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65 67, 210 11.

[107] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53 56, 246; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 36, 257, 289 90, 362.

[108] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 257, 362.

[109] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 181 82, 207 09, 235 36, 238, 287 88, 304 05, 320 21, 340 41, 371 72, 404 05, 437 38, 468 69, 514, 533 34, 551 52, 561 62, 576 78, 586 87, 603 04, 670 71.

[110] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 16 17, 135.

[111] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 255 57, 390; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 85 88, 214.

[112] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53 56, 246; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36 39, 291 92.

[113] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, p. 130; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42, 293 94.

[114] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 330, 345, 355, 374; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, p. 130.

[115] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 514 15, 520 21.

[116] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 59 62, 247; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42, 293 94.

[117] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 256 58, 269; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 51 53, 59 62, 245, 247.

[118] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 186 88, 219 20, 276, 295 96, 311, 419 21, 599, 623; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 30, 346. Although many agencies were asked to initiate such studies, HHS was asked to reconvene a review team to follow-up on recommendations that had not been implemented from a 1993 study. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 30, 346.

[119] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 217 18, 350 51.

[120] Ibid., pp. 24, 285 86; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 188 89, 253 54.

[121] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24, 285 86.

[122] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 89 93, 208, 217, 235 37, 249, 287 88, 291, 304 05, 308, 340 42, 352, 404 05, 414, 437, 451, 468 69, 476 77, 489 90, 499, 514 15, 520 21, 540, 553 54, 557, 563 64, 567, 579 80, 582 83, 588 89, 592, 598, 600, 606 07, 610; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 36, 289 90.

[123] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 372, 384; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 34, 290. See also USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 175, 251.

[124] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 31 33, 290 91.

[125] Ibid., pp. 31 36, 289 90.

[126] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 119 22, 215.

[127] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 187, 628 29.

[128] Ibid., pp. 71 72, 140 41.

[129] Ibid., pp. 187 90, 207 08, 216 17, 222 23, 240, 256 58, 269, 275, 278, 288 89, 297, 312, 322, 330 31, 335, 345, 391, 408, 424, 440, 455 56, 470 71, 479 80, 509, 518, 523 26, 537, 542 46, 551, 555 58, 565, 567 72, 580 83, 592 93, 600, 602, 608, 629 30; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 42, 293.

[130] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 188, 210 11.

[131] Ibid., pp. 292, 297, 306.

[132] Ibid., pp. 297, 306.

[133] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30 31, 137.

[134] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 195 96, 342 43.

[135] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 234 35, 240 41, 293 94.

[136] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 209 15, 349.

[137] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30 31, 137.

[138] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 354 56, 373 74, 388, 406, 453 55, 459 60, 470, 472, 512, 519.

[139] Ibid., pp. 406, 472.

[140] Ibid., pp. 55 57, 74, 131 32, 141 42.

[141] Ibid., p. 146.

[142] Ibid., pp. 72 75, 165, 193 96, 224 26, 241 42, 259, 269 70, 332 34, 346, 360 61, 377 78, 393 95, 409 10, 428, 445 46, 538, 573, 581, 602 03, 608, 643 44.

[143] Ibid., pp. 218 23, 238, 240, 243, 333, 347, 377, 427, 442, 455, 459 60, 461 62, 472 73, 483, 492 93, 511 12, 518 19.

[144] Ibid., pp. 258 59, 278 79, 378 79, 298 300, 313 14, 510 11, 528, 545 46, 601, 646 47.

[145] Ibid., pp. 258 59, 269, 299 300, 306, 313 15, 323.

[146] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 67 68, 75 76, 78 79, 298, 303 04; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 332 34, 347.

[147] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 196, 225 26, 258 59, 279, 332 33, 394, 428, 460 61, 484, 645.

[148] Ibid., pp. 60 64, 133, 187 89, 383.

[149] Ibid., pp. 428, 445 46.

[150] Ibid., pp. 72 75, 538.

[151] Ibid., pp. 278 79, 289; 546 48, 555 56.

[152] Ibid., pp. 333, 347.

[153] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 155 78, 326 27, 329.

[154] Ibid., pp. 68 75, 80 83, 92 100, 137 38, 160, 196 97, 261 62, 299, 300, 304 05, 307, 311, 320 21, 327, 343 44, 364.

[155] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84 91, 119 26, 205, 216.

[156] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 280.

[157] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 4, 75, 117 18, 128 31, 196, 250, 259, 277 79, 286, 298.

[158] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200 04, 257 59.

[159] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 69 70, 125.

[160] USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34.

[161] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 85 86, 92, 271 72.

[162] Ibid., pp. 84 92, 271.

[163] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 193, 331 32, 359 60, 426 28, 457 59, 526 28, 636.

[164] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 85 88, 109 15, 195 96, 298 99, 320 22, 343 47, 360 62, 376, 384, 396, 398, 403, 406; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 64 65, 132 33; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 199; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 105 11, 127 33, 312 14, 318 19; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 81 82, 85 86, 92, 270 72.

[165] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 80 81, 88, 143, 145, 149, 483 84, 493 94.

[166] Ibid., pp. 76, 143 44.

[167] Ibid., pp. 146, 159 84.

[168] Ibid., pp. 269, 482 83, 492, 602 03, 608; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 101 05, 311 12.

[169] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 211, 348; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 393, 409 10.

[170] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 55 57, 74, 131 32, 141 42, 146, 159 84, 269, 393, 409 10; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 199; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 65 66, 75 76, 206 15, 301, 347 48.

[171] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223 24, 240 41, 360 61, 377 78, 426, 428, 443 44.

[172] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 22, 45, 53 54, 65 73, 77 78, 109 12, 127, 137 38, 140 42, 144 48, 162 72, 257 58, 260; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 72 76, 79 80, 85, 87 91, 108 15, 128 36, 140 44, 148 57, 249, 250 52, 255, 257 58, 259 60; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 126 27, 192 94, 211 12, 214 16, 221 23, 333 35, 378, 383, 387 88, 402; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 227 28. For example, EEOC needed to clarify standards for identifying and diagnosing mental disorders and the definition of a substantial limitation. USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 119 21, 124 27, 256 57.

[173] For example, DOJ and its Disability Rights Section were asked to promote uniform policies and procedures among state supreme courts and to produce and disseminate a guide for local government officials on their responsibilities under Title II of the ADA. See USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 22, 40 43, 109 15, 137 38, 142.

[174] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 83, 271.

[175] More than a half dozen recommendations asked HHS to issue policy addressing discrimination in the health care system generally as well as in the health care received by individuals with limited English proficiency or with less formal education. See USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 77 78, 195; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77 78, 92 98, 111 15, 137 38, 252 53, 302, 309 10, 314 15, 320 21, 366 67, 465, 555; USCCR Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 224 26, 241 42, 264 70, 371 72.

[176] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 39 42, 69 71, 73 77, 84, 92 96, 98 99, 113 17, 124 27, 135 36, 144 54, 154 61, 168 72, 206, 209 20, 222 28; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 214 15, 386.

[177] On religion, see USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 41, 267; on racial harassment, see pp. 87 88, 271.

[178] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 104 29, 197; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 21 24, 26 27, 32, 79 82, 108 12, 121, 125, 127, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 60 65, pp. 102 04, 109 14, 132, 147, 149; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 21 22, 103 04, 130, 146 47, 155 57, 196 98, 204, 211 14, 291 92, 366 67, 374, 379, 382, 384 85, 395, 408; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 77 78, 195; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 68 76, 88 92, 101 05, 115 27, 299, 301, 303 04, 308, 311 12, 315 16; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 224 26, 241 42; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 81 82, 85 86, 92, 270 72; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, pp. 32, 34.

[179] See, e.g., USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, p. 251, and USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 121 22.

[180] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 83, 271.

[181] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60 69, 78 91, 196 97, 199, 203 04.

[182] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200 04, 257 59.

[183] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 68 103, 195.

[184] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 53 55, 194.

[185] Ibid., pp. 47 50, 170, 177, 192 93, 223, 225.

[186] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 130 56, 198.

[187] Ibid., pp. 163 68, 174 80, 202, 204; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 193 94.

[188] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 163 68, 203, 208; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 253 54, 296.

[189] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 23 28, 29 55, 77 78, 193, 195; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 249 50.

[190] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 118 19, 317 18.

[191] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 199.

[192] Ibid., pp. 60 63, 197.

[193] Ibid., pp. 62, 197.

[194] Ibid., pp. 52 55, 193 94.

[195] See, e.g., USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 83 84, 213; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 68 103, 194.

[196] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 179 84, 199 203, 228 29, 231 32; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 264 70, 371 72.

[197] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 174 80, 204.

[198] Ibid., pp. 163 68, 203.

[199] Ibid., pp. 68 103, 194.

[200] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 167 68, 172 73, 225 28.

[201] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 253 54, 296.

[202] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 18 19, 27 30, 207 09, 250.

[203] Ibid., pp. 15 17, 158 61, 208, 225.

[204] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 68 103, 194.

[205] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 39 42, 69 71, 73 75, 83 84, 92 96, 117 21, 148 57, 179 84, 192, 206, 208 13, 219, 222 24, 228 30.

[206] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 63 103, 194.

[207] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92 98, 310 11.

[208] Ibid., pp. 92 98, 310.
|

[209] Ibid., pp. 92 98, 309.

[210] Ibid., pp. 252 53, 366 67.

[211] Schools need guidance on their legal obligations toward national origin minorities and students with disabilities who are limited English proficient; teacher training and certification for teaching limited-English-proficient (LEP) students; and on developing strategies that all school districts can use, regardless of the size of their LEP student population. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 200 04, 257 59; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 211 12, 214 16, 387; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 85 88, 169 72, 214, 226 27. The Commission further asked DOEd to work with state and local education agencies to rely on educational approaches that benefit LEP students and incorporate program evaluations to periodically reassess and appropriately reassign students who are in alternative language programs. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 131 37, 220 21.

[212] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 193 94; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 168 74, 203.

[213] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92 98, 310.

[214] Ibid., pp. 137 38, 166, 320 21, 332.

[215] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 26, 25 26, 65 68, 70 74, 109 10, 121 25, 134, 137 38, 148 49.

[216] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 42, 267.

[217] Ibid., pp. 41 42, 46 47, 266 67, 286.

[218] Ibid., pp. 32 38, 250 54, 266, 296; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60 63, 175 76, 182 84, 196, 224, 226.

[219] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 60 69, 175 76, 182 84, 196, 199, 224 26; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 32 38, 250 54, 266, 296.

[220] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 64 69, 175 76, 182, 199, 224 26.

[221] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 242 43, 368 69; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 206.

[222] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 187 89, 347 54, 362 66, 381, 404 05, 407.

[223] Ibid., pp. 347 52, 404.

[224] Ibid., pp. 335 42, 402 03.

[225] Ibid., pp. 187 89, 347 54, 362 66, 381 404 05, 407.

[226] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 75, 87, 142, 149, 223, 251 53, 331, 356 61, 392, 457 59, 482, 633.

[227] Ibid., pp. 112 13, 155.

[228] For example, the Commission asked that regulations require federal agencies with funding assistance programs to provide a program of technical assistance to their recipients. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 75, 87, 142, 149.

[229] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 36 40, 635.

[230] Ibid., pp. 192, 211 12, 359 60, 376, 392 93, 409, 442, 457 59, 471; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77 78, 302, 377 465, 555.

[231] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 77 78, 302, 377 465, 555; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 505 07, 517, 527 28, 537.

[232] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 198, 258 59, 359 60, 383, 639, 665 67.

[233] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 163 64, 191, 223 24, 258 59, 331, 359 60, 393, 426 27, 457 58, 482 83, 510, 638.

[234] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 164 65, 220, 258 59, 278 79, 298 99, 313 18, 508, 526 28, 544 46, 557 58, 571, 584, 593, 600 01, 640 41.

[235] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 162, 191, 223 24, 259, 267, 331, 359, 392 94, 427, 459, 482, 507, 510 11, 637.

[236] Ibid., pp. 586, 590 91.

[237] For example, the Commission called upon DOEd to update Section 504 regulations to, among other things, allow parents to be used in interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions concerning students with disabilities. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 234 36, 254 55, 389. It also asked the agency to address affirmative action provisions in the context of State run institutions and medical schools receiving federal funding. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 122 25, 316 17. See also USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 190 97, 254 57.

[238] For example, a recommendation asked EEOC for stronger guidance on the issue of mitigating measures as related to the ADA. USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 91 99, 253. Another asked the agency to extend the time period for filing a civil rights complaint. USCCR, Federal Employees Report, p. 21. See also USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 84 92, 271.

[239] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 225; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 331 32, 346.

[240] The SBA was asked to retain the language currently used in Title VI regulations addressing employment discrimination. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 459, 472.

[241] The Commission requested that existing regulations for the job-training program be extended to all DOL programs. USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 366 69, 376, 382 83.

[242] One of several recommendations asked EPA to clarify that discrimination is not permissible at a facility built with federal funds. USCCR, pp. 425 27, 435, 441 41, 449.

[243] HHS was asked to draft regulations concerning LEP. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 92 98, 310 11.

[244] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 116 17.

[245] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 53 61, 71 82, 90, 94 104, 112 15, 119, 126 27, 130, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 83 84, 92, 105 07, 117 21, 135 36, 144 48, 158 61, 169 73, 197 200, 206, 213, 215 16, 219, 222, 225 28, 230 31; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 32, 64 65, 70 74, 78 79, 92 99, 102 04, 123 26, 134 35, 137 39, 142 47; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 192 94, 221 23, 318 22, 263 66, 333 35, 354 59, 366 67, 383, 388, 391, 397 98, 402, 405 06, 408; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 128 30, 133 35, 148 57, 230 31, 239 41, 257 58, 260, 268 69; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13, 45 46, 77 83, 108, 119, 123 27, 134, 138 42, 143, 160 61; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 2, 32 38, 224 27, 231 33, 245 46, 250, 255 56, 265 66, 291 92, 295 97; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, pp. 33, 223; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 28 36, 53 55, 62 63, 159 60, 170, 194, 197 98, 222 23; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 88, 146 50, 216 26, 235 39, 249 55, 307, 324 25, 350, 352 53, 361, 363 64, 376 77; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 228 30, 243 45, 303, 307, 317 18, 324, 401, 412 13, 427, 433, 442, 448 49, 466, 475, 497, 533 34, 539, 561 62, 566, 576, 582, 586 87, 591, 597, 599, 605, 609.

[246] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 177 78, 204, 231 32, 262, 285, 303, 313, 317, 337 38, 366, 401, 433 35, 466, 487, 512 13, 531 32, 549, 559 60, 573 74, 594, 602 03, 661.

[247] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 117 19, 123 31, 139, 143, 160 61; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 24 25, 49, 186 87, 219 21, 231 55, 242 43, 249 62, 280, 285 86, 340, 351 53, 361 65, 368 69. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 69, 125; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 197 200, 230 31; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 26, 94, 124, 143. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 220 26, 229, 234 35, 290 93; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 236 41, 268 69; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 259, 269, 401, 412 13, 513, 519, 592.

[248] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 249 55, 361.

[249] Ibid., pp. 218 19, 352.

[250] For example, the Commission asked DOEd s OCR to cite the sources for the propositions it was advancing pertaining to ability grouping practices when developing resource guidance materials. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 69, 125.

[251] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 26, 80 82, 123 24, 140; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 112 15, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 191 95, 223 27, 384, 388; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 59 61, 139; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 133 35, 236 39, 258, 268; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 137 38, 224 26, 235 36, 279, 291, 293; USCCR, Health Care Report Vol. I, pp. 165 67, 223; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 19 25, 216 26, 284, 286, 350; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 87, 114 16, 149, 156 58, 218 23, 231 32, 240, 245 46, pp. 252, 268, 284, 290, 400 01, 412, 513, 519, 533, 538 39, 576, 582, 586 87, 590 92.

[252] See USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 63, 198.

[253] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 238 39, 293.

[254] Ibid., p. 295.

[255] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 259.

[256] See USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 229 30.

[257] See, e.g., USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1 12, 13, 15; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 94, 130.

[258] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 659 60.

[259] The Commission asked DOL, DOJ, and EEOC to coordinate this effort. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 40 41, 52 53, 266 67, 269.

[260] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 205.

[261] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 236 39, 268.

[262] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 26 28, 40 42, 53 54, 59 61, 119, 123 31, 136 39, 143; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 148 57, 195, 215, 239 41, 260, 264, 266, 269; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 31 32, 113, 220 27, 238 39, 241 46, 255 59, 265 66, 276, 290 91, 293, 294 95, 297 99; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 28 36, 52 55, 63, 77 78, 102 03, 120, 134, 138, 140 41, 170 86, 192, 195, 198, 209, 216, 220, 224; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 13, 19 23, 175, 216 26, 242 43, 249 55, 261 62, 264 70, 278 79, 284, 337, 350 52, 361, 368 69, 364, 371 74; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 114 15, 144, 156 57, 192 93, 212, 218 23, 231 32, 240, 245 46, 261 62, 271, 284, 290, 302 03, 307, 315 17, 323, 336 38, 349 50, 364 65, 380 81, 400 01, 412, 463 66, 474 75, 487, 497, 550 51, 556, 561, 566, 596 97, 599, 604, 609; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 22 48, 192, 205; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 53 61, 71 78, 94 102, 112 15, 119, 126, 130 32; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 67 68, 80 82, 86 88, 102 04, 134 35, 140 41, 147 46; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 83 84, 92 96, 117 21, 126 27, 135 36, 144 48, 158 61 169 73, 206, 213, 219 20, 222, 225 28; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 211 16, 221 23, 255 57, 263 66, 285 87, 333 35, 347 52, 354 58, 386 88, 390 91, 394, 402, 404 05; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 205, 209 14, 251 52, 259, 261 62.

[263] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 77 78, 138, 195, 220; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 19 23, 261 62, 284, 364; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 433, 448 49, 513, 519, 586, 590 91; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 213 14, 261 62; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 92 96, 206; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 257, 259 60, 297 99; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 239 41, 269.

[264] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 154 56, 274; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 191 92, 262.

[265] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 105, 275 76.

[266] Ibid., pp. 105, 275 76.

[267] Ibid., pp. 105, 154 56, 274 76.

[268] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 173 74, 337.

[269] Ibid.

[270] Ibid., pp. 172 74, 328.

[271] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 154 56, 274.

[272] Ibid.

[273] Ibid., pp. 109 10, 276.

[274] Ibid., pp. 105, 275.

[275] Ibid., pp. 178 79, 283 84.

[276] Employers with more than 100 employees are required to submit annual reports to the EEOC on the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of their employees. These are referred to as EEO-1 reports.

[277] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 164 65, 282.

[278] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 229.

[279] Ibid., p. 227.

[280] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 561, 565 66.

[281] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 184, 339.

[282] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 212, 260 61.

[283] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 144, 280.

[284] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 399, 412.

[285] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62 63, 247.

[286] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 117 18, 277.

[287] Ibid., pp. 143, 279 80.

[288] Ibid., pp. 145 46, 280.

[289] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 222; USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 28, 148 49.

[290] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 430 31, 447.

[291] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 151, 281.

[292] Ibid., pp. 143, 279 80.

[293] See, e.g., USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 66. See also USCCR, Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond, February 2001.

[294] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 153 54, 156 57, 174, 283, 281 82; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 217 20, 267; USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 32; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 178 80, 189, 336, 341; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229 30, 245 32, 657.

[295] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 215, 266.

[296] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 172, 283.

[297] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 201 02, 265.

[298] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 187 88, 340 41.

[299] Ibid., pp. 184, 338 39.

[300] The Commission also warns that mediation is not a solution for all charges or a substitute for investigation and litigation. It should only be seen and used as one of the strategies to eliminate unfair employment practices. USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 121 39, 277.

[301] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 135 36, 277 78.

[302] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 223.

[303] Ibid.

[304] Ibid., p. 229.

[305] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 30, 56, 77 78, 136, 139 40; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 231.

[306] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 204 05, 346; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 202, 265; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 29, 136.

[307] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 29, 136.

[308] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 177, 284.

[309] Ibid., pp. 180 81, 284 85.

[310] USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, pp. 231 32.

[311] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 176 77, 337 38.

[312] Ibid., pp. 191 93, 342.

[313] Ibid., pp. 175 78, 327 28.

[314] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 206 07, 259 60.

[315] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 650 56.

[316] Ibid., pp. 301, 306, 323, 362, 378 79, 396 97, 411, 429 30, 446, 529 30, 531 32, 538; Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41 42, 159, 239 45, 293, 329 30, 360.

[317] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 301, 307, 335, 348, 363, 379, 397 98, 411, 495 97, 603 04, 608. The Commission advised certain agencies to establish a joint post-award compliance review process. USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1 12, 13, 15.

[318] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 362, 378 79, 429 30, 446.

[319] Ibid., pp. 396 97, 411, 603, 608.

[320] Ibid., pp. 226 28, 242 43, 362, 378 79, 396 97, 411, 450, 484 85, 494 95.

[321] Ibid., pp. 398 99, 411 12.

[322] Ibid., pp. 198, 214, 228, 281 82, 301 02, 315, 335, 363, 379, 397, 430, 462, 485, 530 31, 535, 538 40, 547, 558, 572, 584, 588, 591, 594, 601 02, 654 55.

[323] Ibid., pp. 226 29, 233 34, 242 45, 248, 281 82, 289, 323, 436 37, 450, 473, 499, 562 63, 567; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 62, 64 69, 78 91, 197 99, 203.

[324] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 362, 378 79.

[325] Ibid., pp. 280 82, 289.

[326] Ibid., pp. 229, 244 45, 336, 349, 398 99, 411 12, 430, 432, 447 48, 495 96, 532, 538, 560 61, 565.

[327] Ibid., pp. 232, 246 47, 488, 497 98.

[328] Ibid., pp. 363, 379 80, 485, 495 96; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 269 70, 374 75.

[329] Ibid., pp. 485, 495 96.

[330] Ibid., pp. 196, 213, 301, 307, 397 98, 411, pp. 531, 538, 595, 598, 603, 608; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41 42, 159, 293, 329 30; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 65 68, 134.

[331] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 485, 495. See also USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 162, 330 31.

[332] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 363, 379.

[333] Ibid., pp. 218 23, 240.

[334] Ibid., pp. 529 30, 538.

[335] Ibid., pp. 336, 349, 532, 538; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 78 91, 203.

[336] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 280 82, 289, 450, 484 85, 494 95, 588, 591, 595, 598; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 159, 162, 239 45, 329 31, 360.

[337] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 484 85, 494 95.

[338] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 531, 538.

[339] USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 104 29, 197; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 198, 213, 233 34, 247 48, 308, 398 99, 411 12, 467 68, 476, 499, 514, 520, 531 32, 538, 588, 591, 605 06, 609.

[340] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 603 04, 608.

[341] Ibid., pp. 25, 87, 148, 178 81, 202 07, 215 16, 218 23, 230 34, 240, 246 48, 260, 263, 272, 280 81, 283 87, 289, 291, 303 05, 308, 315 22, 324, 336 37 339 40, 351, 364 68, 380, 400 04, 413 14, 432, 435 37, 450, 464 65, 467 68, 476, 484 85, 487 89, 494 95, 497 99, 513, 531, 535, 538 40, 549 50, 560 63, 567, 572 76, 577 78, 582, 585, 588, 591, 595, 597 98, 600, 603, 605 06, 609, 658, 665 66, 668 69.

[342] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 65 68, 134; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, p. 334; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229, 244 45, 301, 306, 430, 447, 531 32, 538, 588, 591.

[343] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 603 04, 608.

[344] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 155 71, 283 84, 333 34.

[345] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 229, 244 45, 301, 306, 430, 447, 495 96, 532, 538. See also USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 159, 162, 329 31.

[346] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 33 41, 127.

[347] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 201, 214.

[348] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36 39, 155 71, 190 91, 283 84, 291 92, 341; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 531 32, 538.

[349] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 354 56, 374, 549, 556; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 165, 332.

[350] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 463, 473 74.

[351] Ibid., pp. 334 35, 347, 450, 529 30, 538; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 41 42, 162, 293, 330 31.

[352] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 336 37, 349.

[353] Ibid., pp. 281 82, 289 90, 531 32, 538. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 36 39, 155 71, 190 91, 283 84, 291 92, 341.

[354] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 324, 514, 520.

[355] Ibid., pp. 230 31, 245, 364 65, 380, 487, 496.

[356] Ibid., pp. 87, 148.

[357] Ibid., pp. 87, 114, 148, 156, 202 03, 215, 432, 448.

[358] Ibid., pp. 87, 114, 148, 156.

[359] Ibid., pp. 550, 556.

[360] Ibid., pp. 119, 120 22, 157 58, 185 86, 193, 198, 203 06, 213, 215 16, 218, 220 22, 224, 232 33, 239 40, 247, 262 63, 272 75, 278 79, 285, 290, 292 94, 303 04, 308, 319, 324, 325, 337 39, 350 51, 353, 359 61, 366, 368 69, 371 72, 381, 383, 383, 385 86, 389 91, 393, 402 03, 407 09, 413 14, 436 37, 450, 453, 466 67, 475 76, 478 80, 487 88, 491, 497 98, 509 10, 513, 550, 586, 595 96, 597, 599, 614, 627, 662; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 82 84, 127; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32 33, 44 47, 50 51, 81 83, 167, 236 37, 255 62, 291, 294 95, 305, 333, 362 64, 367 68.

[361] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 7 8, 52 53, 76, 81 83, 91 99, 125 26, 246, 191 92, 262. Despite asking for more training, the Commission found that EEOC had an excellent ADA training manual. Ibid., pp. 62 65, 187 88, 217 20, 247, 261, 267.

[362] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13 14, 134.

[363] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 26, 124. See also USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 133 37, 320.

[364] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 133 37, 320.

[365] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 159, 282; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32 33, 44 47, 175 78, 184, 236 37, 249 55, 291, 295, 327 28, 339, 361, 367 68, 378. USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 33.

[366] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62 63, 247.

[367] Ibid., pp. 191 92, 217 20, 262, 267.

[368] Ibid., pp. 52 53, 246.

[369] Ibid., pp. 7 8, 76, 81 83, 91 99, 125 26.

[370] USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. I, pp. 13 14, 134.

[371] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 220 22, 239 40; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 44 47, 295.

[372] Ibid., pp. 236 37, 239 55, 363, 367 68.

[373] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 117, 276.

[374] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 206 07, 259 60.

[375] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 187 88, 340 41.

[376] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 401, 412 13.

[377] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 229 30, 292.

[378] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 119, 157 58.

[379] Ibid., pp. 120 22, 158.

[380] HHS Indian Health Service and the Administration on Aging were particularly in need of training. USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 32 33, 235 39, 291, 363 64, 367 68. See also ibid., pp. 44 47, 50 51, 167, 255 62, 294 95, 333, 362 63; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 232 33, 247.

[381] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 231 35, 364 65.

[382] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 534, 539.

[383] USCCR, EEOC Report, p. 264; see chaps. 4 7.

[384] See, e.g., USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84 91, 205; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 81 83, 242 43, 306, 368 69.

[385] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 206, 232 33, 262 63, 285, 303, 319, 339, 368 69, 402, 466 67, 488, 513, 550, 552, 557, 586, 595 96, 662; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 7 8, 76, 81 83, 91 99, 125 26; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65 67, 210 11.

[386] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65 67, 210 11.

[387] This included policy and guidance for compliance procedures as well as interpretations of discrimination in the context of specific programs. For the former, see, e.g., USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 53 56, 246; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 105 07, 312 13; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 165 68, 248 49; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 50 54, 130 31. For the latter, see USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 65 67, 210 11; USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, p. 206; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. IV, pp. 72 74; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 324 31, 400 01.

[388] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, p. 451.

[389] See, e.g., USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 261, 271.

[390] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 48 49 81 83, 305; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 84 91, 170, 206 07, 224; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 14 26, 60 65, 124, 132; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 255 57, 390. Note that DOEd had established a good working relationship with the National Academy of Sciences, Board on Testing and Assessment concerned with the validation of tests, and with other professional groups regarding standard definitions for disabilities. USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 157, 380, 382.

[391] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 180 81, 284 85; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 62 65, 247.

[392] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 249.

[393] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 223, 251 53, 331, 356 61, 392, 457 59, 482, 633; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 154, 250.

[394] USCCR, Transportation Report, pp. 1 12, 13, 15; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 17 18, 48 49, 60 62, 115 27, 133 37, 279 80, 283, 317 20; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 77 78, 194 95.

[395] The named agencies included DOEd, DOL, DOJ, EEOC, HHS, HUD, and SBA. See USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 94, 143, USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 32 38, 40 41, 52 53, 267, 269; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 6 7, 121, 202 07, 243, 265; USCCR, Fair Housing Enforcement Report, p. 231; USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 465, 474 75.

[396] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 465, 575, 617 18.

[397] Ibid., pp. 198, 203 04, 215, 258 59, 359 60, 383, 639, 665 67.

[398] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 38 40, 239 40, 266, 293 94; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, p. 268, and chap. 7; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, pp. 208 09, 260; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 169 70, 335 36; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 52 55, 77 78, 194 95.

[399] USCCR, Federal Title VI Enforcement, pp. 231 32, 245 46; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 269 70, 374 75.

[400] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 250 52, 296.

[401] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 102 03, 209.

[402] USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. II, pp. 242 43, 368 69.

[403] Ibid., pp. 153 55, 325 26; USCCR, Health Care Report, Vol. I, pp. 170, 181 84, 224, 225 26; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 122 23, 134, 255 57, 269 83, 285 87, 320 22, 377, 380, 390, 392 94, 398; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 192, 229 30.

[404] USCCR, EEOC Report, pp. 201 02, 286 87; USCCR, ADA Report, Vol. II, pp. 52 53, 246.

[405] USCCR, Federal Fair Housing System, p. 34.

[406] Ibid., p. 33.

[407] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. V, pp. 34 44, 128.

[408] Ibid., pp. 33 41, 52, 70 74, 127, 131 32, 137.

[409] Ibid., pp. 23 26, 123, 128.

[410] Ibid., pp. 96 99, 144.

[411] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. II, pp. 67 91, 370 72.

[412] USCCR, Education Report, Vol. I, p. 250; USCCR, Education Report, Vol. III, pp. 27 30, 209, USCCR, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans, pp. 68 103, 194.




	Headquarters
	Civil Rights Office


(a) "Centralized" Model. Example: SBA

	Headquarters
	Civil Rights Office
	I
I	I	I
Division	Division	Division
Civil Rights Office	Civil Rights Office	Civil Rights Office


(b) "Oversight" Model. Examples: HUD, EEOC




	Headquarters
	I
I	I	I
Division	Division	Division
Civil Rights Office	Civil Rights Office	Civil Rights Office


(c) "Decentralized" Model. Example: USDA