Thank you for providing the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) with a copy
of the draft report for comment. Our response is below.
BACKGROUND
As stated in my August 19, 2005 comments to your office’s preliminary audit results, the primary
purpose of the EEO complaint tracking system is to enable the FDIC to meet its external
reporting requirements. Specifically, to report complaint processing activity as required by the
U.S. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) using the Form 462, Annual
Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (462
Report) and now the No Fear Act. Both EEOMAS and its successor complaints tracking
system, EEONet, were designed to meet the EEOC’s reporting requirements. The FDIC has
modified its off-the-shelf complaint tracking systems to enable more detailed tracking of
complaints of discrimination and to meet its internal reporting requirements.
DRAFT REPORT
Recommendation #1. Recommend that the Director, ODEO, develop a formal remediation
plan to address data reliability of the case tracking system that establishes milestones and
identifies appropriate and sufficient resources to complete the remediation in a timely and
effective manner.
ODEO Response to Recommendation #1. We concur with the recommendation. We have
developed a remediation plan that will address the data reliability of the case tracking system. The plan addresses:
- backfiling of the unique and new data fields, and
- validation of data entered into EEONet.
In order to expedite the data transferal and verification process required for full implementation
of EEONet, we contracted with Human Resources Technologies (HRT), the software vendor, to
complete an additional conversion for specific data elements from EEOMAS to EEONet. This
additional data conversion was required for those data fields in EEOMAS that did not directly
correlate with the data fields in EEONet as a result of changes in EEOC regulations and the 462
Report requirements. This conversion was also required because of user customizations made
to EEOMAS after it was installed. We have developed a two-phase Action Plan for the data
transferal and verification process and established timeframes for completion of the plan:
Phase I of the conversion was completed on September 30, 2005. We identified specific
data fields to be added to EEONets formal complaints report. HRT provided us with an
analysis of the records in EEONet that have unpopulated data fields needed to generate
reports. HRT has already populated some of the new data fields using information currently
in EEONet.
Phase II establishes data input and validation for the remaining unpopulated data fields. We
reviewed the HRT analysis of the EEONet data fields to determine those that must be
populated. Based on this review, we determined that we were able to input the unpopulated
data fields internally, without contractor assistance in a timely manner. Phase II is being
completed in two parts, based on the timelines below:
The data input for complaints filed in FY 2000 - 2005 was completed on October 19,
2005, to allow for timely completion of mandatory reports to EEOC, Congress, and
internal FDIC statistical reports using specific Fiscal Year (FY) data.
My staff prepared case summary reports for each complaint of discrimination filed with
ODEO from the beginning of FY 2000 to date. These reports identified all key data fields
for each complaint in EEONet. The reports were attached to the appropriate
administrative file, and the EEO Specialists compared the reports to the actual
information on the source documents for those files. The Specialists filled in blank fields
and corrected data where necessary. Upon completion of this step, the case summary
reports were signed and dated by the assigned Specialist. Staff initially verified changes
before the data input was completed, however, the Complaint Processing Branch
managers determined they would serve as reviewers to ensure consistency of review.
The managers verified by signing and dating the changes for each complaint before the
data was entered into EEONet. New case summary reports were prepared and
managers compared them to the prior case summary reports to validate the reliability of
the data in EEONet. Upon completion of the validation, these final case summary
reports were also signed and dated.
The targeted completion date for data input and verification for complaints filed in FY
1995 - 1999 is January 31, 2006, to ensure historical records are up-to-date. This
historical data is not necessary for us to meet our current reporting requirements;
however, it may be necessary for future class action cases.
Additionally, HRT has been contracted to create additional customized reports, which will
enable us to more quickly respond to internal and external reporting requests. A “Master
Complaint Tracking Report,” was created to allow us to efficiently measure the processing times
for each stage of complaints of discrimination.
As new complaints are received, we will continue to validate data as it is entered into EEONet
by reviewing the printed case summaries for individual complaints, as data is input for those
complaints. The case summaries will be signed, dated, and attached to the administrative file.
The EEO Specialist assigned to process a complaint will perform a weekly review of the final
case summary for each assigned complaint to verify all new data entries that were made during
the respective week.
We are confident of the reliability of the data in EEONet and that we can generate all required
and requested statistical reports in a timely manner.
Recommendation #2. Recommend that the Director, ODEO, arrange for an independent,
follow-up review of ODEO’s compliance with EEO case processing timeframes following
remediation of the case tracking data reliability issues.
ODEO Response to Recommendation #2. We concur with the recommendation that we
arrange for an independent follow-up review following the remediation of the case tracking data
reliability issues of EEONet. We have completed Phase II - Part A and are in the process of
completing Phase II - Part B of our Action Plan. We have requested that the Office of
Enterprise Risk Management (OERM), conduct a follow-up review of our compliance with case
processing timeframes. In addition to this, OERM will also validate the quality of the data and
review the accuracy and integrity of reports. This review is scheduled for mid-November 2005.
EVALUATION RESULTS
Increase in Case Processing Time Frames
You noted that the average case processing times increased by 39 percent since 1996, from
707 days in 1996 to 986 days in 2004, despite a substantial decrease in the caseload and the
number of complaints filed. Your office commented that “[l]engthy case processing time frames
result in an FDIC process that is not efficient and effective in resolving employee discrimination
complaints and potential FDIC noncompliance with EEOC policies.”
ODEO Response
The increase in processing time for complaints must be viewed in context. We previously
advised you of a number of reasons for the increase in processing times, most significantly the
processing of Class Action complaints.
In September 2005, the EEOC issued clarifying guidance for reporting on the processing of
class action and subsumed complaints. This guidance stated that Federal agencies were not
required to report information on the processing of such complaints when the class complaint is
certified. This is an indication that the EEOC recognized that many agencies were concerned
about the class action complaints processing time. This reporting change will significantly
improve our complaint processing times as it will provide a more accurate picture of actual
processing.
The FDIC’s class action complaints (one of which has been pending for over 10 years) and
subsumed cases have significantly impacted processing times. As of September 30, 2005,
excluding those class action and subsumed complaints, the average processing time for all
open cases is 521 days. The average processing time excluding class action and subsumed
cases, and cases pending an EEOC hearing is 182 days.
In spite of the fact that there are circumstances that have adversely affected our processing
times, we have instituted the following measures to improve our processing times to the extent
that they are within our control:
- We streamlined our Investigative Plan review process and now routinely review the
Plans in five business days or less.
- Our Investigation Contract Oversight Manager and EEO Specialists take a more
proactive role with investigators and witnesses to promote the timely completion of
affidavits and the production of documents.
- Our staff assists with the gathering of relevant documents earlier in the investigative
process to prevent delays with completion of Reports of Investigation.
CONCLUSION
We have implemented an Action Plan to address our remediation efforts. Phase I was
completed on September 30, 2005. Phase II - Part A was completed on October 19, 2005.
Consequently as a result of these changes, we can efficiently and reliably generate all required
reports.
Additionally, OERM will conduct the follow-up review of ODEO’s compliance with EEO case
processing timeframes, validate the quality of the data and review the accuracy and integrity of
reports. This review is scheduled for mid-November 2005.
I trust this response clarifies the issues raised in your report. Please contact Deputy Director
Vincent L. Johnson at (202) 416-2136, if you have questions.
