U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: 2000 and Beyond

Chapter 1

Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

In 1979, Congress enacted the Department of Education Organization Act,[1] which established the U.S. Department of Education (DOEd) in the executive branch of the government, separating the former U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) into two agencies: DOEd and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The act also transferred all education-related civil rights functions to DOEd.[2] DOEd's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces antidiscrimination provisions relating to the dispensing of federal financial assistance under a variety of education programs and activities. OCR's primary responsibility is to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age.

ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

OCR's enforcement responsibilities are rooted in five statutes containing antidiscrimination provisions:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;[3]

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;[4]

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;[5]

• the Age Discrimination Act of 1975;[6] and

• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[7]

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DOEd is the designated agency for civil rights enforcement with respect to all programs, services, and activities relative to elementary and secondary education systems and institutions, institutions of higher education and vocational education, and libraries.[8] OCR also implements the civil rights provisions in several DOEd programs, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,[9] the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act,[10] and the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.[11]

OCR's enforcement authority covers all institutions receiving financial assistance from the Department of Education. These recipients include all state education and rehabilitation agencies and their subrecipients; education and rehabilitation agencies of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and the territories and possessions of the United States; virtually every school district and postsecondary institution; and thousands of proprietary schools, libraries, museums, and correctional facilities.

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

The majority of OCR staff and resources are devoted to complaint investigations and compliance reviews. OCR's enforcement activities also include monitoring corrective action plans, enforcement litigation, policy development and dissemination, complainant appeals, reviewing higher education desegregation plans, and conducting technical assistance activities.[12] If OCR determines that a violation has occurred, an attempt is made to achieve voluntary compliance by the recipient. If OCR cannot obtain voluntary compliance, it proceeds in one of two ways: it initiates an administrative enforcement proceeding seeking to terminate federal financial assistance, or it refers the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice to seek injunctive relief in federal court.[13]

BUDGET ANALYSIS

In 1998, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Norma V. Cant , underscored the importance of funding to OCR when she stated, There is a direct relationship between the level of funding and [OCR s] ability to serve customers and resolve real civil rights problems. [14] Nonetheless, OCR's budget remained relatively stable between FY 1994 and FY 1997 (see table 1.1) before increasing in FY 1999. Unfortunately, between FY 1994 and FY 2000 the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions in OCR decreased overall.

Budgets

FY 1994 to FY 1998. Although President Clinton requested small increases in OCR's budget for FY 1995 and FY 1996 (compared with the FY 1994 request and appropriation), the budget requests for FY 1997 and FY 1998 were lower than the FY 1996 request in both actual and constant dollars (see tables 1.1 and 1.2). However, between FY 1994 and FY 1997 Congressional appropriations for OCR gradually decreased, from $56.6 million to $54.9 million (see table 1.1). The next year, Congress met the President's request of $61.5 million, which increased OCR's budget by 12 percent over its FY 1997 appropriation.

FY 1999 to FY 2001. For FY 1999, the President requested 10.6 percent more funding than what was appropriated for OCR in FY 1998. Although Congress did not grant the President's request, OCR's appropriation of $66 million for FY 1999 was 7.3 percent higher than that in FY 1998 (see table 1.1). In real terms, the appropriation represented a 5.4 percent increase between FY 1998 and FY 1999 (see table 1.2). In FY 2000, OCR received another increase from Congress, raising its budget to $71.2 million. However, in real spending power the FY 2000 increase was only 5.5 percent above the FY 1999 appropriation (see figure 1.1). Similarly, in real terms, the President's request for FY 2001 represents only a 4 percent increase over the previous year's appropriation.

Overall, between FY 1994 and FY 2000, despite the decline in appropriations between FY 1994 and FY 1997, OCR's budget has increased by $14.6 million a 25.9 percent increase. In real spending power, however, the budget has increased by only 12 percent. In the meantime, FTE staff levels have decreased as the workload has fluctuated throughout this period.

FIGURE 1.1
DOEd/OCR Funding History (in constant 1994 dollars)

Note: Estimates based on table 1.1.

Staffing and Workload

OCR's work is labor intensive, and approximately 80 percent of its budget is applied toward staffing expenses.[15] As a result of the reductions in the spending power of appropriations from FY 1994 to FY 1997, OCR's FTE level decreased significantly (by 17 percent), from 821 to 681 (see table 1.3). Although staff levels at OCR have since risen, the FY 1999 FTE level of 737 represented a 10 percent reduction from FY 1994 (see figure 1.2).

FIGURE 1.2
DOEd/OCR Staffing History

*estimated

Source: OCR/DOEd, Annual Report to Congress, FY 1999, p. 18.

Although staff levels have been decreasing overall since FY 1994, OCR's workload has increased (see table 1.4). The number of complaints received at OCR was relatively stable between FY 1994 and FY 1999; however, these numbers are dramatically higher than they were during the 1980s when OCR averaged approximately 2,500 complaints annually.[16] Over the past six years, OCR has received an average of 5,000 complaints annually, resulting in more than a 100 percent increase in the average number of complaints received compared with the 1980s.[17] As of August 2000, OCR had already received 5,394 complaints.[18]

In response to this staggering workload, OCR was forced to modify its complaint resolution process in FY 1993 to rely more heavily on mediation. OCR created case resolution teams made up of attorneys, investigators, and support staff as a means to resolve complaints more quickly. In order to accomplish this, the agency now works to resolve complaints through mediation before conducting an investigation.[19]

In 1996, the Commission noted that the decline in OCR's budget and staffing, combined with its increased workload, had strained OCR's ability to carry out its mission.[20] Despite the Commission's findings, OCR continued to receive inadequate funding after FY 1996. Thus, in real spending terms, the OCR budget remained below the already low FY 1994 appropriation. Correspondingly, as stated above, FTE levels dramatically dropped between FY 1994 and FY 1997 (see table 1.3 and figure 1.2).

Compliance enforcement has suffered due to funding and staffing constraints. In FY 1994, OCR initiated 144 compliance reviews (see table 1.5). The following year, the number of reviews initiated fell by 33 percent. After increasing in FY 1996 and FY 1997, the number of compliance reviews initiated decreased again in FY 1998 and FY 1999 (see table 1.5). In FY 1999, OCR commenced only 76 reviews, a reduction of 47 percent from FY 1994. Further, the number of compliance reviews initiated by OCR in the 1980s was significantly and consistently higher than the number of compliance reviews initiated in the 1990s.[21] In 1996, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that OCR simply does not have sufficient civil rights staff to execute other enforcement activities than complaint investigations. [22]

Reductions in compliance activity can undermine OCR's effectiveness. For example, in FY 1997, although OCR received 17 percent more Title IX complaints than it had in the previous year, it initiated only two compliance reviews that addressed discrimination based on sex. Yet, between FY 1986 and FY 1997, Title IX complaints increased 335 percent.[23] In its analysis of OCR, the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights pointed out that proactive measures are necessary in order to have an effect on serious and recurring civil rights violations such as discrimination based on gender. The report asserted that compliance reviews are necessary to make clear to educational institutions across the board that OCR takes [civil rights violations] seriously. [24]

Summary

As of August 2000, OCR was staffed with approximately 707 FTEs, a 4 percent reduction from FY 1999. The President's FY 2001 budget request asks for $76 million and an additional 17 FTEs. The FY 2001 request also includes increases in expenses for equipment.[25]