82

In early 1973, to ensure that its grantees were complying with this requirement, the Dallas Regional Office of SRS asked the U. S. Civil Service Commission (CSC) to develop a model affirmative action plan for use by its grantees. CSC responded to the request by offering to develop, in cooperation with SRS and DHEW's Office for Civil Rights and Public Health Service, guidelines to demonstrate how grantees could develop AAP's to conform to the merit system standards.

At or about the same time that CSC and DHEW were
developing guidelines geared towards agencies
covered by the merit system standards, the South-
west Federal Regional Councill's (SWFRC) Govern-
ment Wide Annual Arrangements (GWAA) Task
Force asked the CSC to prepare an affirmative action
policy statement for the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, to
enable the City to receive funds under the GWAA.
Howard McMahan, then Regional Director of HEW
and chairman of the SWFRC, learned of both events
and suggested to the FRC Secretariat that the
SWFRC develop guidelines that grant-in-aid juris-
dictions in the Region could use to meet the
affirmative action requirements of the Federal
grantor agencies.

The CSC was asked to serve as lead agency for the
task force that was formed after the Secretariat
agreed to McMahan's proposal. The task force
invited the other Federal grantor agencies to review
the CSC-DHEW developed guidelines and submit
comments or suggestions on how the guidelines
should be written to cover the grantor agencies'
affirmative action rules and requirements. These
comments were reviewed and incorporated into the
"SWFRC Uniform Interagency Guidelines for EEO
Affirmative Action Plans" ("Guidelines"). This edi-
tion, approved in February 1974, was expanded from
the SRS-DHEW guidelines which were developed
primarily for those agencies subject to the merit
system affirmative action requirements to include
the requirements of all Federal grantor agencies.
In FY 1975, the SWFRC adopted revision of the
"Guidelines" as a formal work objective, with the
CSC again serving as lead agency for the seven-
agency member task force. During the fiscal year,
the Federal grantor agencies in the Region were
again afforded an opportunity to comment on the

"Guidelines" and did so either at meetings of the AAP
task force or through correspondence to the task
force. In May 1975, the SWFRC member agencies
adopted the current edition of the Guidelines, which
is designed to recognize the additional EEO/AAP
requirements for Federal contractors.

In FY 76, the SWFRC established an ad hoc committee to attempt to address and resolve conflicts in the interpretation of EEO laws and regulations as they affect State and local governments. This effort, chaired by the CSC, is considered to be another achievement towarde coordinating and strengthening intergovernmental relations. Uniform guidelines have greatly reduced duplication within the EEO compliance effort. The guidelines, however, only constitute a beginning. The other seven Federal regions through the regional Civil Service Commission and Federal Regional Councils should work together towards the establishment of Uniform Guidelines for AAP reporting similar to those in RegionsIII, IV, and VI. Through EEO and Affirmative Action Plan Guidelines, minimal standards for AAP content oay be established along with agreed upon criteria for employment availability, recruitment, and other relevant EEO areas. Such guidelines are needed and could reduce the confusion and diversity of present Federal agency interpretations. Most States and localities feel that guidelines for Uniform EEO and AAP reporting will eliminate many onerous reporting difficulties.5

Recommendation No. 17

The Civil Service Commission should develop uniform guidelines in those regions where they are not yet in place for Affirmative Action Plans for State and local governments. Such guidelines should be used by any designated lead agency to the greatest extent possible.

Filing the EEO-4 Form

"The State and Local Government Information Survey" (EEO-4) was first required of respondents in 1973. Within the United States there are approximately 59,000 State and local units of government exclusive of school districts and schools. Those governments with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII. The EEO-4 is staggered so that only the larger governments file annually.

5 Field trips Philadelphia and Atlanta; Phone Survey of State Civil Service Commissions; Letters to Southwest Federal Regional Council from State and Local Governments

83

84

Of the 59,000 units of government the total number of State and local governments filing the survey in any one year is 5,400. The total number of forms submitted is 44,000. The number of forms exceeds the respondent figure in that a form is filed for each of a possible 15 governmental functions performed by the jurisdiction. EEOC estimates that an average of 8 hours is required to file the EEO-4, and the estimated annual cost to respondents is $5.3 million.

EEOC uses this survey to determine trends of systematic employment discrimination in State and local government. The survey is also utlized by the CSC and various other Federal agencies as a means to determine a State's workforce profile. In the interests of consistency, uniformity, and economy, State and local government report EEO-4 is being utilized by Federal Government agencies that have responsibilities with respect to equal employment opportunity. A joint State and local reporting committee represents these various agencies.6

Although the forms are to be received by respondents by June 30, some jurisdictions report that forms are often received as late as the end of September.

In addition to late receipt of EEO-4 forms, representatives from State and local government have stated that changes in EEO-4 format also constituted a reporting burden. One EEO State coordinator put it this way, "The instructional change which occurs in regard to EEOC forms costs the state a great deal of money in that computers must be reprogrammed. There should be a rule established that once the form is implemented, it remains unchanged for a minimum of three years." It is important ot note here that EEOC itself suggests that States and localities automate their reporting systems whenever possible. When there is a change in format, however, much of the utility of automated reporting systems is lost. Our investigation of State civil service commissions indicated that changes in EEOC form resulted in reporting burdens due to changes in programming. EEOC states that the EEO-4 has only been altered once since its inception in 1973, although it will undergo category changes in 1977. We believe that the new form should remain constant for a minimum of three years in order to reduce programming costs.

The EEO-4 forms often are received near the end or after the filing deadline. When this occurs, the respondents must rush to ensure data is collected and returned to

EEO-4 Instructions (Complete list to be sent by EEOC).

EEOC within 30 days after receipt of the form if it is received after deadline. The annual report is to be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission no later than September 30. Employment figures are to cover the payroll period which includes June 30.

Recommendation No. 18

EEOC should provide States and localities with EEO-4 reporting forms at least three months prior to the submission deadline.

Recommendation No. 19

The EEO-4 format should remain constant for a minimal period of three years in order to reduce necessary reprogramming of computers and to provide States with sufficient time to budget for programming costs.

Technical Assistance

States and localities receive very little technical assistance from Federal agencies imposing reporting requirements apart from the Civil Service Commission's Intergovernmental Personnel Programs. Many respondents believe the Federal Government is more concerned with the filing of paper than assurance of EEO compliance. This is illustrative of the frustration born out of EEO paper burdens. Through the course of this investigation it has been ascertained there is a genuine need for more technical assistance on the part of EEO administering agencies to respondents.

Small localities are particularly troubled by affirmative actions plans required in order to obtain Federal financial assistance. One of the local officials who attended a Commission field meeting put it this way: "LEAA Equal Employment Opportunity Plans, and other agency affirmative action plans instituted when a unit of government is applying for funds is discriminatory against small units of government in that it is hard for them to comply with AAP formulation."7

When asked why they do not provide more technical assistance to respondents, most Federal agencies have replied they do not have adequate staff to provide technical assistance similar to that given by the CSC. It is suggested that a greater effort be made to ensure that respondents understand how to comply with Federal reporting requirements. The additional staff required would certainly provide an important service to State and local governments, and to the general concept of EEO. Recommendation No. 20

The President should designate a lead agency to provide technical assistance to State and local governments to help them comply with EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements.