12

State and local governments in several complementary ways. One of these was to assure equal employment opportunity in the design and operation of the public sector personnel systems.

Secondly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended through the Equal Employment Act of 1972.14 The revised act:

• extended the ban on discrimination to all employers and unions with 15 or more employees, and included not only State and local governments but also educational institutions,

gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement authority,

• altered reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and

• created a Coordinating Council for EEO programs. These two laws-the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and the Equal Employment Act-extended the Federal Government's interest in EEO activities on a general basis. In the years since 1972, however, EEO requirements have been placed in more specific, program legislation, e.g.:

• The State and Local Fiscal Assistance (revenue sharing) Act of 197215

• The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 197316

• The Crime Control Act of 197317

In each case the legislation forbids discrimination in program participation or denial of benefits because of race, color, national origin or sex.

With the Rehabilitation Act of 197318 nondiscrimination in Federal employment, and in Federal contracts and subcontracts, was extended to the physically or mentally handicapped.

In short, public policy now holds that employers may not discriminate on account of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex and/or handicapped conditions, and they need records to prove it. If they are Federal

14 Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103.

15 State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act, 86 Stat. 931 (1972).

16 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 839. 17 Crime Control Act of 1973, amending Title I of the Crime Control Act of 1968, 87 Stat. 197.

18 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 393.

contractors, most employers must develop affirmative action plans to redress earlier inequities and improve EEO practices and results in the future. And, again, employers need records to prove it.

Key Themes and Findings

The Commission's examination of paperwork problems in
EEO programs disclosed some new findings and con-
firmed others. 19 The Commission finds that, in general,
EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements conform
to legislative intent and pertinent executive orders, but
that, in particular, substantial remediable steps can be
taken to reduce the paperwork burden on employers, cut
Government costs and improve program performance.
More specifically, the fundamental causes of excessive,
and therefore remediable paperwork can be summarized
as follows:

• The Federal Government currently lacks the
capability to plan, organize, execute and evaluate
EEO programs mandated by law and/or executive
order. (See Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15,
17, 20, 23, 25, and 26)

• Multiple laws and numerous executive orders,
reflecting the piecemeal and erratic history of the
national government with EEO, have contributed to
confusing and redundant paperwork require-
ments. (See Recommendations 3, 4, 15, 20, 21, 22,
and 26)

• Fragmented EEO responsibilities do not permit the
most effective use of limited EEO resources. (See
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,
and 26)

• EEO agencies have been inattentive to sound
management and technical practices in almost all
phases of developing information requirements.
(See Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13,
14, 18, and 23)

• Employers often have limited knowledge or under-
standing as to why specific information is request-
ed from them, who uses it and for what purpose(s).
(See Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 24)
• EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements do
not distinguish between those employers with

19 GAO Report MWD - 75-63 - The Equal Employment Opportunity Program For Federal Nonconstruction Contractors Can Be Improved, April 29, 1975.

13

14

effective programs and tangible results, and those
employers with a less supportable performance
record. (See Recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11,
and 13)

• Managers of EEO programs, both within and
outside the Federal Government, pay inadequate
attention to paperwork problems and costs and
usually receive poor training in this area. (See
Recommendations 1, 4, 7, 8, 14, 18, 19, and 20)
• Information and data standards are weak, giving
rise to poorly designed forms, ambiguous instruc-
tions and unrealistic timeframes within which
respondents must comply. (See Recommenda-
tions 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, and 18)

The recommendations in this report do not presume to be
a panacea for all EEO paperwork problems. They do,
however, enable responsible Federal managers to develop
a cooperative and disciplined strategy, with specific
action steps, to eliminate the most pressing problems.
We believe that the recommendations contained herein
will allow for a focusing of resources, and thus a
strengthening of EEO enforcement,

During the course of this study more than four hundred individuals and groups were interviewed. In addition, we received full cooperation and participation on the part of EEO agencies. In some cases, agencies provided us with information which amounted to self-criticism. We believe that they did so in the interest of bringing about a better understanding of EEO enforcement problems, as well as a focusing on the need for better EEO program management.

Organization of This Report

This report is in three parts. The first part (Sections II and III) concentrates on the Federal Government's involvement in and operation of EEO programs. It also examines the statutory and regulatory base for EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the distribution of EEO authority among Federal agencies.

The second part (Sections IV-VI) discusses EEO paperwork from the perspectives of three types of employers: private business, State and local governments and educational institutions.

The third part of the report discusses the Government's need for information and the need for a coordinated approach to EEO management (Sections VII and VIII).

Sources of Authority

EEO reporting requirements stem primarily from statutes and executive orders. Agency regulations and court decisions have expanded recordkeeping activities and provided specificity.

Statutory Requirements

Statutory language in major civil rights legislation is the source of general paperwork requirements. Civil rights and EEO-related laws not only establish programs to be implemented by Federal agencies, but also address such matters as data collection, surveys and reports, pre-grant reviews, affirmative action plans, and compliance reviews. It is the responsibility of the designated agency to ensure that the provisions of the statutes are properly and efficiently administered. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are addressed in several major civil rights statutes.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-This Title deals only secondarily with nondiscrimination in employment in federally assisted programs. It authorized granting agencies to issue rules, regulations or orders of general applicability to achieve the statute's objective.1

As a result of this language, more than 25 agencies administering Federal financial assistance programs have established their individual rules to implement this responsibility.

Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964-This Title addresses itself to equal employment opportunity. It requires employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations subject to the title to keep and make reports from relevant employment records, as prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).2 This provision authorized the EEOC to formulate regulations concerning data collection and recordkeeping. These regulations provide the basis for the EEOC survey forms. The reporting and recordkeeping proceedures for EEO surveys are found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

• Subpart B - Employer Information Report (EEO-1)

'Title VI Civil Rights Act 1964.

2 Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 as amended, Sec. 709(c).

15

• Subpart D - Apprenticeship Information Report (EEO-2)

• Subpart F - Local Union Equal Employment Opportunity Report (EEO-3)

• Subpart J - State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4)

Information Report (EEO-5)

• Subpart P - Higher Education Staff Information Report (EEO-6).

The Equal Pay Act of 1963-This amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a national standard of equal pay for equal work, prohibiting employers from discriminating in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938-Investigations, inspections, records, and regulations imposed on employers are addressed in Chapter 8, Section 211.3

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967-Prohibits age discrimination in employment. The Department of Labor is also responsible for implementing this law. Section 7(a) gives the Secretary the power to make investigations and require the "necessary or appropriate" recordkeeping by employers for the administration of the

Act.4

In addition to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of these statutes, several other specific statutes require the filing or maintaining of EEP reports and records.

Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970-This act strengthens the personnel resources of State and local governments. One major consideration of this act is equal employment opportunity in State and local government. Section 504 of the act concerns itself with reporting requirements and authorizes the Civil Service Commission to develop forms and gather data from grant recipients.5

Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968-The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created to assist State and local governments in strengthening and

3 Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, Chapter 8, Sec. 211. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sect. 7(a). 16 5 Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, Section 504(a).