This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-79 
entitled 'Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and 
Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough' which was released 
on December 1, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

October 2005: 

Fair Housing: 

HUD Needs Better Assurance That Intake and Investigation Processes Are 
Consistently Thorough: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-79]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-79, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related state 
and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies receive and 
investigate several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. 
These activities, including required conciliation attempts, are 
directed by HUD’s standards, which are based on law, regulation, and 
best practices. GAO’s 2004 report examining trends in case outcomes 
raised questions about the quality and consistency of the intake (the 
receipt of initial inquiries) and investigation processes. This follow-
up report assesses the thoroughness of fair housing intake and 
investigation (including conciliation) processes, and complainant 
satisfaction with the process.

What GAO Found: 

Evidence from several sources raises questions about the timeliness and 
thoroughness of the intake process. Thirty percent of complainants GAO 
surveyed noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach a 
live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency. GAO 
experienced similar difficulty in test calls it made to each of the 10 
FHEO and 36 state FHAP agency intake centers. For example, 5 locations 
did not respond to the test calls. Further, FHEO and FHAP agencies do 
not consistently record in their automated information system contacts 
they receive that they consider potential fair housing inquiries and 
timeliness data are unreliable, limiting the system’s effectiveness as 
a management control.

GAO’s review of a national random sample of 197 investigative case 
files for investigations completed within the last 6 months of 2004 
found varying levels of documentation that FHEO and FHAP investigators 
met investigative standards and followed recommended procedures. 
Further, though the Fair Housing Act requires that agencies always 
attempt conciliation to the extent feasible, only about a third of the 
files showed evidence of such attempts. FHEO officials stated that the 
required investigation and conciliation actions may have been taken but 
not documented as required in case files. 

According to GAO’s survey of a national random sample of 575 
complainants whose complaint investigations were recently completed, 
about half were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the outcome 
of the fair housing complaint process, and almost 40 percent would be 
unlikely to file a complaint in the future. Although GAO and survey 
respondents found that FHEO and FHAP agency staff were generally 
courteous and helpful, important lapses remain in the complaint process 
that may affect not only how complainants feel about the process but 
also how thoroughly and promptly their cases are handled.

Survey Respondents’ Overall Satisfaction with the Fair Housing 
Complaint Process 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
“don’t know” or “neither” responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate.

[End of section] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes recommendations to the HUD Secretary for improving the 
thoroughness and timeliness of the fair housing complaint process, 
including establishing standards and benchmarks for initial intake 
activities, improving data needed to monitor timeliness of intake, and 
improving planning and documentation of investigations. 

HUD generally agreed with the report’s conclusions and stated that it 
would work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and 
procedures.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-79.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at (202) 
512-6878 or woodd@gao.gov.

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about Thoroughness 
of Intake Process and Effectiveness of Controls: 

Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met Required 
Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures: 

Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate 
Complaints: 

Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint Process, 
Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and Investigation: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Intake: 

Investigation and Conciliation: 

Complainant Satisfaction: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files Sampled: 

Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from July 1, 
2004, through December 31, 2004, by Organization and Closure Type: 

Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and 
Response Rates: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD's 10 Regions

Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during 
Calendar Year 2004, FHAP vs. HUD

Figure 3: HUD's Fair Housing Complaint Process

Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls

Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level

Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing 
Agencies

Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition

Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction Addressed

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint Notification 
Letters Addressed to Complainants and Respondents and Evidence of 
Receipt

Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure Notices 
Addressed to Complainants and Respondents (No Reasonable Cause)

Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for 
Investigations Lasting over 100 Days

Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases with 
Specific Content in Investigative Plans

Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, by 
Investigating Agency and Closure Type

Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and 
Respondent Interviews, by Closure Type

Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative 
Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits

Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure Information 
Requests, by Closure Type

Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff 
Conciliation Assistance

Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type

Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case

Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not Satisfied 
with the Overall Complaint Process and the Outcome (Percentage of all 
Complainants)

Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and the 
Intake and Investigative Stages

Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure Type

Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided 
Understandable Information and Satisfactory Explanation on Whether the 
Complaint Would Be Investigated

Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake 
Activities, by Closure Type

Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff

Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out 
Certain Activities

Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, Overall 
and by Closure Type

Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact

Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Investigative 
Activities, by Closure Type

Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative Staff: 

Abbreviations: 

Act: Fair Housing Act: 

ALJ: Administrative Law Judge: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program: 

FHEO: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity: 

FIR: Final Investigative Report: 

FTE: full-time equivalent: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

OGC: Office of General Counsel: 

TEAPOTS: Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking Office System: 

Letter October 31, 2005: 

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jack Reed: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 
100 state and local agencies it has certified through its Fair Housing 
Assistance Program (FHAP agencies) handled over 9,000 complaints of 
housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended).[Footnote 1] The act generally 
prohibits discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, 
and other protected groups in the sale and rental of residential 
dwellings. The act as amended provides HUD with enforcement powers and 
establishes a 100-day benchmark for completing investigations of 
complaints.[Footnote 2] HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity (FHEO) administers the program and handles complaints of 
housing discrimination. FHAP agencies also handle complaints that 
allege violations of substantially similar state and local laws. 

To meet the Fair Housing Act's (Act) requirements, FHEO has developed a 
process for receiving, investigating, and resolving housing 
discrimination complaints. This process has three stages: 

* intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive inquiries 
from individuals (complainants), determine whether the inquiries 
involve a potential violation of the Fair Housing Act (or equivalent 
state law), and file fair housing complaints for those that 
do;[Footnote 3] 

* investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect 
evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a 
discriminatory housing practice occurred or is about to occur and 
simultaneously work with parties to conciliate, or reach a mutually 
acceptable solution; and: 

* adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another 
administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines 
whether a violation of the Act has occurred. 

The Act requires that efforts be made to conciliate complaints--that 
is, to reach a resolution acceptable to all parties--throughout the 
complaint process, beginning with the intake stage. FHEO and FHAP 
agencies use an automated case tracking system, the Title Eight 
Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) to record 
information about complaints and key steps in the investigative 
process. 

HUD reported in 2002, that the incidence of consistent adverse 
treatment against minority home seekers had declined over the last 
decade. Nonetheless, a series of reports using paired testing to 
measure the level of discrimination in the U. S. housing market found 
that about 20 percent of the time a member of a protected group will 
experience discrimination when attempting to rent an apartment. 

This report, which focuses on intake, investigation, and conciliation 
(the complaint process), is the second in a series on HUD's handling of 
housing discrimination complaints. GAO's earlier report on fair housing 
found, among other things, that as of September 2003 more than a third 
(39 percent) of open housing discrimination investigations had passed 
the 100-day benchmark.[Footnote 4] GAO noted at the time that FHEO and 
the FHAP agencies were trying to speed their efforts to resolve these 
cases. Further, GAO reported that FHEO hub directors cited tension 
between the need to meet the 100-day benchmark and the need to conduct 
a thorough investigation, stating that at times one goal cannot be 
achieved without some cost to the other. The report also found that 
increasingly the most common outcome of housing discrimination 
investigations was a finding of "no reasonable cause" to indicate 
discrimination occurred. In 2004, almost half of all investigations 
closed had a finding of no-cause and less than 7 percent had a finding 
of reasonable cause. About one third were conciliated. 

This report addresses the thoroughness of the process for resolving 
housing discrimination complaints--that is, the extent to which FHEO 
and FHAP agencies meet HUD standards, policies, and best practices in a 
timely manner. GAO reviewed: 

* the thoroughness and timeliness of FHEO and FHAP agencies' efforts 
during the intake process; 

* the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies ensure the thoroughness of 
investigations, regardless of the outcome; 

* the extent to which FHEO and FHAP agencies attempt to conciliate fair 
housing complaints; and: 

* complainants' satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, and 
outcomes of the fair housing process. 

To assess the thoroughness of the intake process, we asked FHEO offices 
and FHAP agencies around the country to keep logs of inquiries they 
received during a 4-week period and measured (1) the extent to which 
these inquiries were in FHEO's information system and resulted in fair 
housing complaints and (2) the timeliness of the responses. The centers 
that participated in the log exercise represented 78 percent of 
investigations in 2004. We also made "test" telephone calls to 46 
selected intake centers (one FHEO office in each of HUD's 10 regions 
and all 36 statewide FHAP agencies) during which GAO analysts posing as 
complainants contacted intake staff to file a mock complaint. We used 
these calls to measure the time it took to ultimately reach a staff 
person or to receive a return call. We also determined the extent to 
which, during the initial contact, intake staff gathered necessary 
information for deciding whether to undertake a full investigation, 
including whether Title VIII appeared to cover the alleged incident. 
Because of the limitations of this sample, the results are not 
generalizable to all potential complainants of housing discrimination. 
To assess the thoroughness of investigations and efforts to conciliate 
complaints, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly selected case 
files of housing discrimination cases from around the country that were 
completed during the second half of calendar year 2004 with outcomes of 
no-cause or that were closed administratively or conciliated. We used a 
structured data collection instrument to record whether the files 
contained specific evidence of investigation steps and their timing. We 
sampled a sufficient number of case files to permit national estimates-
-that is, to permit statistical generalization to all cases closed with 
these outcomes during the second half of 2004. Using the same data 
collection instrument, we also reviewed 12 of the 15 FHEO cases with 
reasonable cause outcomes that completed the adjudication process 
during this period.[Footnote 5] In addition, for each case we compared 
selected file contents with TEAPOTS records used to track the case. We 
did not assess whether investigations reached an appropriate decision 
regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation. To 
measure complainants' satisfaction with the complaint process, we 
conducted a nationwide telephone survey of a random sample of 575 
complainants in housing discrimination cases that were investigated and 
closed between July 2004 and December 2004. The survey had an overall 
38 percent response rate.[Footnote 6] Appendix I contains a detailed 
description of our methodology. In addition, our detailed survey 
results can be found on GAO's Web site at , www.gao.gov. We conducted 
our work from September 2004 to October 2005 in Atlanta; Chicago; San 
Francisco and Oakland; Kansas City, Kansas; Baltimore; Columbia, South 
Carolina; and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

While often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and 
information, FHEO and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely 
in carrying out intake activities; moreover, missing or inconsistent 
data suggests that TEAPOTS may be of limited usefulness as a management 
control over the intake process. First, we found that potential 
complainants may encounter difficulty in making initial contact with a 
FHEO or FHAP agency staff person. For example, although fair housing 
agencies receive allegations of discrimination principally via 
telephone, in five locations we called, the agency did not return our 
test calls, even after three attempts. Similarly, about 30 percent of 
complainants we surveyed--while generally expressing satisfaction with 
aspects of the intake phase--reported that it was somewhat or very 
difficult to reach someone the first time they contacted a fair housing 
agency. Second, the agencies did not consistently obtain information in 
a way that was expeditious for complainants or that met recommended 
guidelines, as can be seen in the following examples: 

* The intake centers to which we placed test calls did not consistently 
collect information that would help them recontact the complainant or 
assess the urgency of the situation. 

* Among our test calls, none of the intake centers collected all of the 
information during the initial contact considered by HUD policy to be 
critical to collect at intake, including the name and telephone number 
of the respondent (the person or persons who allegedly committed the 
prohibited discriminatory act). Rather, most of the agencies we 
contacted used as their primary means of collecting information a 
written intake form, which must be mailed to the complainant, filled 
out, and mailed back to the agency, adding to the time required to act 
on the inquiry. 

* Of the 306 inquiries that the centers, during the period of our 
review, found met HUD's initial criteria for filing a complaint, only 
half of the time did FHEO and FHAP agencies complete this process 
within the 20-day benchmark period. 

Our comparison of logged contacts with TEAPOTS data indicates that the 
system's usefulness as a management control may be limited. While the 
intake centers logged 2,000 unique new potential Title VIII violations, 
only 631 (32 percent) were entered into TEAPOTS during the period of 
our review.[Footnote 7] Further, because the initial contact dates 
shown in the logs were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of 
first contact shown in TEAPOTS, HUD's use of TEAPOTS data overstates 
its performance in meeting the 20-day intake timeliness benchmark. 
About 40 percent of inquiries that completed the intake process took 
more than 20 days to complete. 

Evidence demonstrating the thoroughness of investigations--that is, the 
extent to which investigative standards were met, recommended 
procedures were followed or were timely, or internal control measures 
were used and documented--varied among the 197 case files and 
corresponding TEAPOTS records. First, some files lacked documentation 
showing that investigators had carried out certain required actions, 
such as sending complaint notices, or copies of amended complaints, to 
both complainants and respondents; sending copies of final closure 
notices; preparing final investigative reports; and obtaining 
supervisory approval of final investigative reports and letters 
describing the agency's final determination. Second, an estimated 62 
percent of the complaint files did not contain detailed investigative 
plans that HUD guidance strongly encourages.[Footnote 8] Further, while 
HUD has recommended procedures for interviewing complainants and 
respondents or making on-site visits, an estimated 28 percent of the 
files did not include evidence of interviews with respondents, while an 
estimated 73 percent showed no evidence of on-site visits. Third, we 
found that while HUD relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that 
investigations meet statutory and regulatory requirements, some FHEO 
and FHAP agencies did not include detailed information about cases that 
would permit effective monitoring in the system. Among complainants we 
surveyed, about one-third stated that they believed their 
investigations had not been very thorough or at all thorough. FHEO and 
FHAP agency officials and staff said that resource shortages often 
presented a challenge in meeting program guidelines and noted that 
investigative and management review steps that actually occurred may 
not have been documented. 

Complainants whose cases were closed through conciliation were the most 
satisfied with their case outcomes; however, our review of case files 
and corresponding TEAPOTS records found inconsistent documentation of 
conciliation attempts. HUD requires FHEO and FHAP agencies to document 
conciliation attempts with each party and record in writing the terms 
and conditions of any agreement. The written agreements must be signed 
by all parties and approved by HUD or the FHAP agency. Our review of 
the case files and TEAPOTS records disclosed the following: 

* In an estimated 36 percent of the cases, the files contained no 
evidence that complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation, 
and an estimated 32 percent of the files contained no evidence that 
respondents had been contacted. 

* Among those cases that HUD closed with an outcome of conciliation, an 
estimated 9 percent did not have written agreements in the case 
file.[Footnote 9] Among those that did contain written agreements, 
about 5 percent did not contain signatures of all parties, and about 10 
percent showed no evidence of approval by HUD or the FHAP 
agency.[Footnote 10] 

* Information in TEAPOTS regarding conciliation efforts varied widely, 
from a citation of "conciliation discussed" to the inclusion of 
significant details. 

Some surveyed complainants reported experiencing at least some pressure 
to conciliate their complaints, most commonly because they feared 
losing their cases. Others reported that they were not offered help in 
resolving their complaints. HUD officials said that the statutory 
mandate inherently creates some pressure to conciliate complaints and 
that such pressure is not attributable to HUD's administration of the 
statute. 

While survey respondents reported a number of positive impressions, 
particularly with the intake phase of their complaints, they generally 
expressed more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with both the overall 
process and the case outcome. About 71 percent of complainants were 
somewhat or very satisfied with the intake process, citing clarity of 
information about steps in the process and generally professional and 
courteous treatment. Nevertheless, we estimate that about half of all 
complainants in cases closed during our survey period were either 
somewhat or very dissatisfied with the fair housing complaint process 
overall. Similarly, nearly 60 percent were dissatisfied with the 
outcome of the process, and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file 
a complaint in the future. Complainants' satisfaction varied among 
stages of the complaint process and outcomes. 

* Some complainants viewed the intake process favorably. Although 
complainants rated the investigation stage less favorable than intake, 
over half were satisfied with the investigation stage. However, a 
substantial number rated poorly certain aspects of intake and 
investigation. 

* Complainants whose cases ended with a finding of no-cause were the 
most dissatisfied with the complaint process (72 percent dissatisfied, 
23 percent satisfied) and with specific aspects of investigations. 
Complainants whose cases were conciliated were the most satisfied (75 
percent versus 25 percent, respectively). 

Complainants' satisfaction was not linked to the type of agency 
conducting the investigation (FHEO or FHAP). 

We are recommending that HUD consider a number of strategies to help 
assure that the fair housing complaint process is thorough and timely, 
including steps to facilitate complainants' initial inquiries, improve 
data needed to monitor timeliness of intake activities, improve 
planning and documentation of investigations, and help ensure that 
conciliation is available to all complaints. 

HUD's General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity provided written comments on a draft of this report 
indicating general agreement with our findings and recommendations. The 
comments also included technical clarifications, which we have 
incorporated into this report as appropriate. The General Deputy 
Assistant Secretary's letter is reprinted in appendix II. 

Background: 

The Fair Housing Act is the most comprehensive of the federal statutes 
that prohibit discrimination in the rental and sale of 
housing.[Footnote 11] Passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, the Act 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, family status, 
handicap, national origin, race, religion, and sex.[Footnote 12] It 
applies to a number of what are termed "issues," including 
discrimination in the sale, rental, advertising, and financing of 
housing; in the provision of brokerage services; and in other 
activities related to residential real estate transactions.[Footnote 
13] Generally, the Act covers all dwellings--that is, buildings 
designed to be used wholly or in part as residences and land where a 
dwelling will be located.[Footnote 14] When first enacted in 1968, the 
Fair Housing Act's administrative enforcement process was limited 
principally to conciliation. In 1988, Congress strengthened HUD's 
authority and established a comprehensive administrative process to 
enforce the law, but conciliation remained a primary feature.[Footnote 
15] 

The Act gives HUD, private persons, and the U.S. Attorney General tools 
and remedies to enforce the antidiscrimination provisions. Using HUD's 
administrative process, individuals who believe they have experienced 
discrimination in a housing-related situation can file a complaint that 
HUD may then investigate and resolve. Individuals may also elect to 
file suit in civil court rather than using the administrative procedure 
set out in the act. The Attorney General can bring a civil action in 
cases that show a pattern of discriminatory practices. 

The Act Is Administered by FHEO and FHAP Agencies: 

FHEO has staff in each of HUD's 10 regional offices, or hubs, who 
respond to complaints (see fig. 1). Agencies certified to participate 
in HUD's Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and receive funding 
from HUD for handling fair housing complaints are obligated to comply 
with FHEO's reporting and record maintenance requirements, must agree 
to on-site technical assistance provided by HUD, and are obligated to 
implement certain policies and procedures. FHAP agencies must be in 
states or localities whose laws provide rights and remedies that are 
substantially similar to those in the Act--for example, local laws must 
provide for the same 100-day benchmark for investigations that is 
stipulated in the Act. FHEO offices refer complaints alleging 
violations of state and local fair housing laws to FHAP agencies--for 
example, a certified state office of civil rights. Currently, there are 
100 of these agencies around the country. 

Figure 1: FHAP Agencies within HUD's 10 Regions: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

FHEO staff has responsibility for the intake, investigation, and 
resolution of some of these complaints. Aggrieved persons may also go 
directly to FHAP agencies, which then perform the intake process. If an 
aggrieved party contacts a FHEO office regarding discrimination that 
allegedly occurred in a state or locality that has a FHEO-certified 
"substantially equivalent" state or local agency (that is, a FHAP 
agency), FHEO will complete the intake process and refer the complaint 
to that agency for enforcement. 

In 2004, FHEO and the FHAP agencies received approximately 9,500 filed 
complaints (see fig. 2). For this same period, only 5 percent of the 
closed case files resulted in reasonable cause outcomes.[Footnote 16] 
HUD reimburses FHAP agencies for carrying out investigations once FHEO 
has reviewed the completed cases. Along with reviewing cases to 
determine whether HUD should pay for services rendered, FHEO monitors 
FHAP agencies and provides technical assistance.[Footnote 17] FHEO 
monitors the fair housing enforcement efforts through TEAPOTS. 

Our last report identified a number of human capital challenges facing 
FHEO, including the number and skill level of FHEO staff, the quality 
and effectiveness of training, and other issues. An FHEO official noted 
that the staff shortage affected not only enforcement of the Act, but 
also FHEO's other responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier 
caseloads and professional staff to perform administrative duties 
rather than concentrating on the complaint process. The total number of 
full-time equivalents (FTE)[Footnote 18] in FHEO has fluctuated over 
the last 10 years, falling from a high of 750 in fiscal year 1994 to a 
low of 579 in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2004, FHEO had 650 FTEs. 

Figure 2: Number of Complaints Filed in Each FHEO Region during 
Calendar Year 2004, FHAP vs. HUD: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Complaint Process Includes Intake and Investigation Phases: 

The complaint process beginning at intake represents the initial 
contact a complainant has with an agency responsible for enforcing the 
Act or equivalent state law. Figure 3 describes the complaint process 
for HUD-investigated complaints. FHAP agencies would follow a similar 
process. In the intake stage, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies receive 
inquiries by telephone, fax, mail, in person, or over the Internet. 
Intake staff record inquiries in TEAPOTS, interview complainants, and 
may do other research--for example, searches of public records--to see 
if enough information exists to support filing a formal complaint. This 
process is known as "perfecting" a complaint. In order to be perfected, 
a complaint must: 

* contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the 
names and addresses of the person alleging the discriminatory practice 
and the respondent, a description and the address of the dwelling 
involved, and a statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and: 

* satisfy the Act's jurisdictional requirements that the complainant 
has standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling, 
subject matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or sell) and 
the basis (e.g., race, color, or familial status) for the alleged 
discrimination are covered by the Act; and that the complaint has been 
filed within a year of the last occurrence of the alleged 
discriminatory practice. 

Hub directors decide which complaints meet these criteria and become 
perfected complaints. Complaints that do not meet the criteria are 
dismissed. Intake staff record information about perfected complaints 
in TEAPOTS, have complainants sign the complaints, send letters 
notifying complainants and respondents about the complaint and the 
process that will be used to address it, and send the complaint file to 
an investigator.[Footnote 19] FHEO's Title VIII Intake, Investigation, 
and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) sets a 20-day benchmark for 
completing the intake stage for these cases, but a 5-day benchmark for 
cases that it first takes in and then refers to FHAP agencies. 

Complaints that are perfected proceed to an investigation. During this 
stage, FHEO and FHAP agencies gather evidence to determine whether a 
violation of the Act or a state or local housing law has occurred or is 
about to occur. The Handbook provides guidance for investigators but 
notes that investigations may vary. Agency guidance directs that 
directors of FHEO's hub offices review the results of completed 
investigations to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe 
that a discriminatory housing practice has taken place or could take 
place. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD regional counsel, the 
hub director issues a determination and directs the regional counsel to 
issue a charge, or short written statement of facts, that led to the 
decision. In a March 6, 2003 memorandum, HUD's Office of General 
Counsel (OGC) in headquarters requested that regional counsels send 
OGC's Office of Fair Housing the final draft of any charge that they 
propose to file and that they not file charges until they have received 
a response from OGC's Office of Fair Housing. Figure 3 provides an 
overview of HUD's basic fair housing complaint process, including 
timeliness benchmarks established by the Act or agency guidance. 

Figure 3: HUD's Fair Housing Complaint Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

An investigation can be closed at any point for administrative reasons 
or through conciliation. Cases are closed administratively for several 
reasons--for instance, when a complainant withdraws from the case or 
cannot be located. The Act requires HUD to make conciliation efforts 
throughout the complaint process, beginning when the complaint is filed 
and continuing until the charge is filed or the case dismissed. The 
Handbook and federal regulations allow investigators to make 
conciliation efforts, but the regulations also state that generally 
officers, employees, and agents not associated with the case will 
attempt conciliation. Conciliation agreements are intended to protect 
the public interest through provisions such as requiring respondents to 
file periodic reports with HUD. When a conciliation agreement is 
reached, the Act authorizes the Department of Justice to enforce the 
agreement in the event of a breach. In 2004, FHEO hubs and FHAP 
agencies closed about one-third of their cases via conciliation. 

The Act set a deadline of 100 days from the date the complaint is filed 
for completing an investigation or conciliating or otherwise closing a 
case, unless doing so is "impracticable." If the investigation cannot 
be completed within this time frame, FHEO or the FHAP agency must 
notify the complainant and respondent in writing in what is called the 
"100-day letter."[Footnote 20] In our previous report, we found that 
the number of investigations completed within 100 days by the FHEO or 
FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001, partly in response to 
FHEO's initiative to reduce aged cases. 

Test Calls and Analysis of Log Data Raise Questions about Thoroughness 
of Intake Process and Effectiveness of Controls: 

Although often responding promptly and providing useful guidance and 
information, our test calls and analysis of contact logs found that 
FHEO and FHAP agencies were not always thorough or timely in carrying 
out intake activities. Our test calls, while not generalizable, suggest 
that potential complainants may have difficulty in making initial 
contact with an intake staff person; moreover, 30 percent of the 
complainants we surveyed reported such difficulty. Our test calls also 
showed that FHEO and FHAP agency staff sometimes did not seek 
information needed to determine whether a potential violation of the 
Act had taken place and to file a formal complaint, or gather limited 
information that might help the agency recontact the complainant or 
assess the urgency of the situation. Among the logged contacts that the 
agencies determined were potential violations of the Act and were 
recorded in TEAPOTS, half resulted in formal complaints. However, only 
57 percent of these completed the process within the 20-day benchmark. 
Additionally, missing or inconsistent data suggests that TEAPOTS may be 
of limited usefulness as a management control over the intake process. 

Agency Staff Did Not Always Return Test Calls or Collect Initial Intake 
Information Promptly: 

The intake process is the first contact prospective complainants have 
with the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act or an equivalent 
state law. Depending on the quality of intake, potential complainants 
may or may not feel comfortable continuing the process, and those who 
do not may give up on pursuing their complaints. Thus, the agency's 
initial response to complainants plays an important role in the fair 
housing complaint process. However, our test calls revealed some 
potentially serious lapses in agencies' responses to complainants' 
inquiries. 

First, we found that agencies did not always respond promptly to 
initial attempts to contact them to file a complaint and that because 
of requirements that some agencies imposed, trying to file a complaint 
could be a challenging process. In 5 of the 46 calls, the agency did 
not return the test call, even after 3 attempts.[Footnote 21] In 
another 2 cases, the intake organization required that the caller 
provide intake information via the Internet or in person. As shown in 
figure 4, in 20 of the remaining 39 test cases, the caller spoke with a 
live person on initial contact. Of the 9 calls requiring a callback, 6 
were not returned within 1 business day, and 3 were not returned for 3 
or more days. Our survey of complainants suggests that they experienced 
similar difficulties to ours in contacting intake staff. An estimated 
30 percent noted that it was either somewhat or very difficult to reach 
a live person the first time they contacted a fair housing agency, and 
34 percent said they had difficulty contacting staff after the initial 
contact. These percentages were relatively constant regardless of 
whether FHEO or a FHAP agency handled the case or its outcome, with one 
exception. Complainants whose cases were conciliated reported that they 
had less difficulty contacting staff than complainants whose cases were 
closed with other outcomes. 

Figure 4: Selected Results of Test Calls: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

We also found that intake staff did not seem to display a sense of 
urgency in dealing with complaints. Over half of the agencies (23 of 
39) relied primarily on a form that the complainant must fill out (HUD-
903 or state equivalent) to collect the information needed to begin an 
investigation, and in the initial phone call requested little more than 
the complainant's name and mailing address. Using such a form to gather 
information for a potential complaint could take a week or more--during 
which the caller could lose a housing opportunity. Two other agencies 
would not mail a complaint form, insisting that the caller come in to 
the office to file a complaint. However, information from contact logs 
that the FHAP agencies and FHEO offices maintained for 4 weeks, at our 
request, showed that the most prevalent mode of contact is telephone, 
and that walk-in and Internet contacts represented less than 5 percent. 
Given this situation, requiring potential complainants to appear in 
person added an additional challenge that could potentially make it 
difficult for a complainant to continue with the process. Further, a 
test caller to one of these agencies, stressing the urgency of her 
situation, was informed that filing a complaint was a "slow process" 
and that her complaint would not be acted on for some time, whether 
intake was done over the phone or via the organization's form. FHEO's 
annual performance goals do not include goals for the time it takes to 
return initial contacts from complainants. However, FHEO has 
established a 20-day benchmark for completing the intake process, 
starting with the date that the initial inquiry is recorded in TEAPOTS. 
In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD's General Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that the agency 
tracks the time it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial 
contact, and that a new initiative, the FHEO-OGC Case Processing 
Research Project, is expected to assist with decision making during the 
intake process since it uses a triage system to determine case 
complexity.[Footnote 22] 

Despite any inconveniences, when our test callers did reach the 
agencies, the staff treated them well. In none of our test cases did 
hold time exceed 3 minutes, and staff at several agencies spoke 
extensively with test callers, answering questions and providing 
guidance and information on the process. Our survey of former 
complainants that completed the investigation process showed similar 
findings. While complainants had difficulty reaching an agency, once 
they did, more than half said that agency staff did either a good or an 
excellent job of explaining the process and timing of each step. 

FHEO and FHAP Agencies Collected Limited Information during Initial 
Intake Contacts: 

When collecting intake information during our test calls, FHEO and FHAP 
agency staff focused primarily on collecting the complainant's name, 
address, and protected class, as well as a description of the 
discriminatory act. Staff sometimes did not ask for other information 
that would be helpful in recontacting the complainant or assessing the 
urgency of the situation. To systematically assess the thoroughness of 
the intake test calls, we identified criteria from the Act (the minimum 
elements of information needed to proceed with the complaint), HUD's 
Title VIII Handbook, and training materials from the National Fair 
Housing Training Academy. Additionally, we obtained information on best 
practices from a fair housing advocacy group as well as HUD's training 
materials and interviews with agency officials. We categorized these 
criteria at four levels: 

* Level 1--information that, according to HUD policy, should always be 
collected during intake, though not necessarily during the first 
contact, regardless of the basis of the complaint or the protected 
class. 

* Level 2--information that is potentially applicable to all complaints 
and that should be collected during the intake process. 

* Level 3--information that is relevant to a particular basis or 
protected class--that is, information necessary to determine, for 
example, whether the complainant met a certain protected class (e.g., 
handicap or familial status). 

* Level 4--information that is considered to be a best practice--for 
example, information that may be used for testing. 

We also discussed these criteria and the designated levels with agency 
officials. 

We measured the percentage of information elements collected at each of 
these levels during our test calls. The elements associated with each 
level, and the results we observed during our test calls, are shown in 
figure 5. 

While level 1 information should always be collected in order to 
proceed with a complaint, some of this information may not always need 
to be collected during the initial contact. However, HUD policy 
recommends that staff obtain as much information as possible during the 
initial intake interview. We also believe that level 1 items should, 
with little exception, be collected as part of the initial contact in 
order to have information necessary to recontact the complainant and 
determine the urgency of the situation. 

Figure 5: Percentage of Questions Asked, by Level: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Cases in which the test caller volunteered the information item 
are included in the count of the number of cases in which intake staff 
asked for the information. The total number of cases is 39. 

[End of figure] 

On average, intake staff collected approximately 44 percent of level 1 
information, which is identified by HUD policy as critical to collect 
during intake.[Footnote 23] For example, 21 agencies did not ask for 
the respondent's first and last name, and 15 did not ask for the 
respondent's organization. As indicated in figure 5, in only 8 agency 
test cases did intake staff ask the complainant for the name of an 
alternate contact person and in only 7 agency test cases did the intake 
staff request a work number--an important piece of information because, 
according to FHEO officials, many complainants are in the process of 
moving and are difficult to recontact. Also, intake staff about half of 
the time asked for the respondent's telephone number. Further, the 
agencies collected little information beyond level 1. On average, they 
gathered 8 percent of level 2, 11 percent of level 3, and 9 percent of 
level 4 information. Some level 4 (best practice) information that was 
most often collected during our case study includes the respondent's 
gender (13 test calls), respondent's race (9 test calls), and what the 
complainant hoped to see as a result of filing a complaint (8 test 
calls). (See fig. 5.) 

Although HUD policy recommends that intake staff obtain as much 
information as possible regarding the aggrieved person's allegations 
during the initial intake interview, the amount of information 
collected on initial contact varied significantly by agency. One 
location collected nothing beyond the complainant's name and mailing 
address, while another collected up to 80 percent of the level 1 data. 
However, in none of the test calls did intake staff collect 100 percent 
of the level 1 information. While most agencies appeared to collect the 
remainder of the critical information through their intake forms 
(either the HUD-903 form or state equivalent), this practice prevents 
the agency from taking any further action on the complaint until a 
signed form is received.[Footnote 24] According to HUD officials, the 
revised Title VIII Handbook contains standards for information that HUD 
will collect during initial contact with a complainant. However, these 
and other standards may not apply to FHAP agencies since their 
certification by HUD does not ensure that they follow identical 
procedures. 

The time it takes to receive the form can delay the enforcement 
process, potentially resulting not only in the loss of a housing 
opportunity but also in complainants becoming frustrated with the 
process and deciding not to pursue their complaint. In particular, some 
complainants may need urgent attention, such as when they are about to 
become homeless because they are being evicted from their rental home 
or apartment, or are losing the home they own in a foreclosure. HUD has 
authority under the Act in such urgent circumstances to take prompt 
judicial action by authorizing the Attorney General to initiate a civil 
action seeking appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending 
final disposition of the complaint. HUD's Title VIII Handbook 
establishes that intake staff has a critical role in identifying when a 
complaint may involve a situation warranting prompt judicial action. 
Time is critical, and the efforts of the intake staff are helpful in 
gathering sufficient information for determining when prompt judicial 
action may be necessary. This is also important for intake by the FHAP 
agencies, since they must have substantially equivalent authority to 
seek prompt judicial action. 

Intake Log Data Indicate That TEAPOTS Is of Limited Effectiveness as 
Management Control of Intake Process: 

Our prior report noted that while FHEO offices kept records of 
potentially Title VIII-related contacts, it had not required FHAP 
agencies to do so. (For that reason, when preparing our prior report, 
we were unable to determine the extent to which FHAP agencies met the 
goal of perfecting complaints within 20 days of initial contacts.) FHAP 
agencies typically entered information only for perfected complaints. 
Accordingly, we recommended that HUD ensure that the automated case-
tracking system (TEAPOTS) include complete, reliable data on key dates 
in the intake stage for FHAP agencies. The latest version of HUD's 
Title VIII Handbook (issued in May 2005) requires FHEO intake staff to 
record in TEAPOTS each inquiry that is potentially Title VIII-related, 
regardless of whether it results in a perfected complaint. 

Our comparison of information from the logs--that intake centers kept, 
at our request, during February and March 2005--with TEAPOTS data 
highlights the need for reliable information regarding potentially 
Title VIII-related contacts and the dates of their occurrence. First, 
the analysis showed that a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-
related contacts (68 percent) were not entered in TEAPOTS, and of those 
that were, about half resulted in perfected complaints. While there are 
valid reasons for this "attrition," our results suggest that staff are 
not recording in TEAPOTS a substantial number of potentially Title VIII-
related contacts (inquiries in which the caller alleges housing 
discrimination and intake staff believe the call represents a potential 
Title VIII violation). Further, we found that, for those contacts that 
were entered into TEAPOTS, the initial contact dates shown in the logs 
were sometimes earlier than the corresponding date of first contact 
shown in TEAPOTS. Thus, HUD's use of TEAPOTS data is likely overstating 
its performance in meeting its 20-day intake timeliness benchmark. 
Without assurance that TEAPOTS is being used consistently, HUD is 
unable to account for potentially Title VIII-related contacts that do 
not appear in the system or accurately measure timeliness of those that 
are recorded in the TEAPOTS system, thus limiting TEAPOTS' utility as a 
management control. 

Many Logged Contacts Did Not Appear in TEAPOTS: 

To determine the volume of intake-related contacts received by fair 
housing agencies and the proportion of these contacts that resulted in 
perfected complaints, we had 47 sites record all incoming contacts--
telephone calls, walk-ins, and Internet queries--that were related to 
fair housing over a 4-week period (February 22 through March 21, 
2005).[Footnote 25] The 32 state FHAP agencies, 5 local FHAP agencies, 
and 10 FHEO offices that participated in the log exercise represented 
78 percent of the volume of investigations in 2004. Specifically, we 
asked the sites to record the date, method, and purpose of each 
contact; the name of the person making the contact; whether the contact 
alleged having experienced housing discrimination; and whether the 
intake staff agreed that the matter pertained to a potentially Title 
VIII-related complaint. 

During our tracking period, the sites recorded a total of 9,655 
contacts. As shown in figure 6, the majority (80 percent) of contacts 
for which we had complete data was by telephone, and 42 percent were 
new potential complaints. Furthermore, a sizable number of initial 
contacts (approximately 24 percent) did not pertain to fair housing 
(confirming, as our prior report noted, that intake analysts receive 
numerous contacts that are not related to fair housing.) The time 
necessary for handling the calls can place an additional burden on 
FHEO's limited resources. 

Figure 6: Nature and Method of Contacts Received by Fair Housing 
Agencies: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: The "nature of contact" pie chart does not include data for the 
1,274 contacts from one agency, where staff did not record the nature 
of contact. In addition, totals do not equal 100 percent due to 
rounding and missing data. 

[End of figure] 

Our review of the log also showed that a sizable number of new 
potential complaints that intake staff believed could involve a Title 
VIII violation did not result in perfected complaints in TEAPOTS (see 
fig. 7): 

* Agency staff coded 2,000 contacts as coming from a named individual 
whose allegations they believed both involved a new potential complaint 
and pertained to a potentially Title VIII-related violation.[Footnote 
26] 

* Of these 2,000 individuals, we were able to match 631 to a new 
inquiry shown in TEAPOTS. 

* Of the 631 inquiries, 306 are shown in TEAPOTS as perfected 
complaints. 

Figure 7: Intake Process Attrition: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

We sorted these data into two groups: contacts recorded by FHEO offices 
and contacts recorded by FHAP agencies. We found that the attrition 
rates differed somewhat between these groups. At FHEO sites, intake 
staff identified 1,347 unique individuals as having potentially valid 
new Title VIII complaints. Of these, 506, or 38 percent, were shown as 
unique inquiries in TEAPOTS, and 216 of those--16 percent of the 
original 1,347--resulted in perfected complaints shown in the automated 
system at the time of our analysis. At the same time, FHAP sites 
identified 620 unique individuals[Footnote 27] with potential new Title 
VIII violations, of which 92, or 15 percent, were shown as unique 
inquiries in TEAPOTS and 66, or 11 percent, became perfected 
complaints.[Footnote 28] 

Attrition can occur for a number of reasons. For example, because some 
state laws contain additional protected classes, some calls that FHEO 
offices receive may be for matters that are covered under a FHAP 
agency's jurisdiction. Also, intake staff may believe that a contact 
pertains to a valid Title VIII violation at the outset but may later 
find out that the respondent is exempt from Title VIII or that the 1-
year statute of limitations has expired. Furthermore, the intake 
process is sometimes terminated because a complainant either does not 
cooperate with agency staff or resolves the issue with the respondent 
and voluntarily discontinues the complaint process. Finally, it is 
possible that, during our process of matching names in the log to 
TEAPOTS records, a small number of matches were not made, either due to 
misspellings of names or timings of entry into the system. Information 
in TEAPOTS provides some insight as to the reasons why inquiries were 
not perfected during this time period. In 20 percent of all inquiries 
for which TEAPOTS had data, the complainant failed to respond; in 13 
percent of the cases, the intake staff found no valid basis for 
complaint; and in 8 percent of the cases, the intake staff found no 
valid issue. However, TEAPOTS shows that 43 percent of the inquiries 
that were not perfected were coded as "Other Disposition," which means 
that no further information is available to indicate why the contact 
did not result in a perfected complaint. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD's General Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity stated that while HUD 
considered requiring FHAP agencies to record initial inquiry dates for 
all potential complaints, it has not done so because of the way HUD 
funds FHAP agencies. Specifically, HUD reimburses the FHAP agencies for 
each (actual) complaint that they investigate, and does not reimburse 
them for their consideration of inquiries that do not result in 
complaints. However, this continues to leave HUD without data or 
knowledge of a significant number of potential Title VIII-related 
inquiries or a means of assessing the FHAP agencies' response to such 
inquiries. 

Some Logged Contact Dates Differed from TEAPOTS' 'Date of First 
Inquiry': 

Our prior report questioned the reliability of initial inquiry dates 
shown in TEAPOTS. Our analysis for this report raises further 
questions, because we found differences in the dates recorded in the 
contact logs and those in TEAPOTS for the same contacts. HUD policy 
requires that FHEO offices perfect or close all inquiries within 20 
days of initial contact. Statistics generated by HUD show an 
approximate 95 percent compliance with this policy. However, for 
internal measurement and benchmarking purposes, HUD begins counting the 
20 days on the day the inquiry is entered into TEAPOTS. Because HUD 
does not track the actual initial contact dates, it can not use them to 
begin measuring the 20-day period. Our analysis of the contacts 
recorded in the logs leading to the 306 perfected complaints noted 
above indicates that 57 percent of the complaints were perfected within 
20 days of initial contact, based on the earliest contact date in the 
log. However, using the inquiry date in TEAPOTS as the starting point 
for the 20-day benchmark, as HUD does, indicates that 79 percent of the 
complaints were perfected within 20 days. In fact, the median number of 
days to perfect complaints was 11 using TEAPOTS inquiries, but 18 using 
the data recorded in our log. These results indicate that HUD lacks an 
accurate picture of how much time individuals face from the day they 
make an inquiry to the day they learn the outcome of their cases, and 
that HUD's reliance on TEAPOTS data leads to an inaccurate assessment 
of performance in meeting its timeliness benchmark. 

Case Files and TEAPOTS Lacked Evidence That Investigations Met Required 
Standards or Followed Recommended Procedures: 

In reviewing investigative case files and associated TEAPOTS records, 
we found that some lacked evidence that required investigative 
standards were met, investigators followed recommended planning and 
procedure guidelines, or that internal control measures were used and 
documented. Throughout this section, we present estimates of agency 
compliance with certain requirements and recommended practices based on 
our review of a random sample of 197 FHAP agency and FHEO 
investigations that were closed during the last half of 2004 either 
administratively, through conciliation, or with a finding of no 
reasonable cause. Unless otherwise noted, these estimates are 
surrounded by a confidence interval, due to sampling error, of plus or 
minus 8 percentage points or smaller. We also present results from our 
review of 12 of the 15 FHEO cases that completed the adjudication 
process and subsequent monitoring during the same period.[Footnote 29] 
Our review of each case was limited to reviewing the contents of case 
files and the associated TEAPOTS records (that is, we did not interview 
case investigators, other officials involved in the case, complainants, 
or respondents), and it is important to note that the lack of evidence 
we found does not necessarily indicate that required or recommended 
steps were not taken. However, the lack of evidence does raise 
questions about HUD's ability to assure that investigations are as 
thorough as they need to be. 

Some Files Lacked Evidence of Adherence to Investigative Standards: 

The Act sets several standards for investigators to follow during the 
complaint process. First, investigators must establish and document 
four jurisdictional elements to ensure that the complaint is covered 
under the Act.[Footnote 30] Second, certain notifications to the 
complainants and respondents must be sent and received.[Footnote 31] 
Third, a Final Investigative Report (FIR) must be prepared at the end 
of each investigation.[Footnote 32] As a practical matter, this means a 
FIR is required for investigations that conclude with a determination 
of reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, and for 
investigations closed with a determination of no reasonable cause 
(i.e., there is no reasonable cause to believe a violation has 
occurred). Investigators must also meet a 100-day deadline for 
completing an investigation unless it is impracticable to do 
so.[Footnote 33] If the investigation is not completed in 100 days, 
complainants and respondents should be notified in writing of the 
reasons.[Footnote 34] 

Elements of Jurisdiction: 

Our review of investigative case files completed during the last half 
of 2004 showed that the elements of jurisdiction we measured were 
addressed in nearly all of the no-cause cases(see fig. 8).[Footnote 35] 
Similarly, we observed that with one exception, all of the cause case 
files we reviewed addressed the elements of jurisdiction we reviewed. 
The high incidence of documentation addressing jurisdiction may be 
explained by the fact that jurisdiction should be verified throughout 
the complaint process. Consequently, there is more than one opportunity 
to identify deficiencies. FHEO officials at one location said that in 
addition to an intake analyst, the intake and enforcement or compliance 
branch chiefs also reviewed complaints before investigations began. 
However, they also said that in some instances, complaints for which 
jurisdiction had not been established had been inadvertently accepted 
and later found to lack a required jurisdictional element. For example, 
one case we reviewed showed that as the investigation proceeded, 
investigators determined that the respondent was exempt as a result of 
not owning more than one rental property. The Act provides that certain 
properties and property owners are exempt, and owners who do not have 
an interest in more than three single-family homes or condominium units 
meet the guidelines for exemption.[Footnote 36] 

Figure 8: Percentage of Cases with Elements of Jurisdiction Addressed: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Notification: 

Although most files contained evidence that jurisdictional elements had 
been addressed, we did not always find evidence that complainants and 
respondents received required notifications. As noted above, the Act 
requires the fair housing agency handling the complaint to send 
complainants an initial notice acknowledging the filing of the 
complaint. Further, HUD's complaint notification letter advises 
complainants of certain guidelines of the complaint process.[Footnote 
37] Respondents must be served by certified mail or personal service 
with an initial notice of the original complaint no later than 10 days 
after the complaint is filed or when the respondent is identified. 
Respondents must also be notified whenever a complaint is amended 
(complaints may be amended at any time during an investigation to add 
or remove parties, and complainants must sign the new 
complaints).[Footnote 38] Complainants and respondents should also be 
notified when an investigation is closed. We therefore looked for 
evidence indicating that these requirements were followed in all cases. 

HUD regulations require that complainants be notified by certified mail 
or personal service, but FHEO officials said that some FHAP agency 
procedures do not require this. While we found initial notification 
letters addressed to complainants in 97 percent of the files and 
letters to respondents in 91 percent for closure types other than 
reasonable cause, we frequently did not find evidence that the letters 
had been received (see fig. 9). The lack of evidence in case files that 
complainants and respondents had received initial notifications does 
not necessarily mean that they did not in fact receive the notices. 
Some FHEO officials told us that certified mail receipts were sometimes 
maintained in separate files. We looked not only for evidence such as 
return receipts from certified mail or certificates of personal 
service, but also for correspondence indicating receipt or knowledge of 
the complaint notification. Fifty-nine percent of these cases contained 
evidence that complainants had received initial notifications, and 67 
percent contained evidence that respondents had received initial 
notifications. Our survey of complainants that completed the 
investigation process also indicates that some may not have received 
initial notifications. Specifically, 86 percent said they received a 
letter informing them whether an investigation would be conducted. We 
did not observe a significant difference in documentation between 
organizations. For the cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, 
we found initial notification letters addressed to complainants in 9 of 
the 12 files, and letters to respondents were found in 10. Evidence of 
receipt was greater for reasonable cause cases than for other closure 
types--8 and 9 of the 12 files, respectively, had evidence that 
complainants and respondents received initial notification letters. 

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Files with Initial Complaint Notification 
Letters Addressed to Complainants and Respondents and Evidence of 
Receipt: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Some cases did not contain evidence that final closure notices had been 
addressed to complainants and respondents (see fig. 10). For closure 
types other than reasonable cause, 10 percent and 21 percent of the 
files, respectively, did not include copies of closure letters 
addressed to complainants and all named respondents. Investigations 
conducted by FHAP agencies were more likely not to have closure notices 
addressed to respondents (26 percent) compared with FHEO-investigated 
cases (8 percent).[Footnote 39] Similarly, FHAP agency-investigated 
cases did not have evidence of closure notices addressed to 
complainants 14 percent of the time, compared with 2 percent for FHEO-
investigated cases.[Footnote 40] Our survey of complainants revealed 
that about 9 percent said they did not receive notification of the case 
being closed. We found that for the cases where HUD had determined 
reasonable cause, there were more notices of reasonable cause 
determination addressed to respondents than complainants. Specifically, 
5 of the 12 files did not include notices addressed to complainants 
informing them that the FHEO investigation was completed, and of the 
reasonable cause finding. Two of the files did not include such notices 
addressed to respondents. 

For reasonable cause determinations, HUD's regulations require that all 
parties to a complaint be notified of the reasonable cause 
determination by certified mail or personal service.[Footnote 41] For 
no reasonable cause determinations, the parties must be notified by 
mail and the notification must include a written statement of the facts 
upon which the determination was based.[Footnote 42] HUD guidance also 
states that for administrative closures, all parties and their 
designated representatives must be notified by regular or certified 
mail. 

Figure 10: Percentage of Case Files with and without Closure Notices 
Addressed to Complainants and Respondents (No Reasonable Cause): 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Fifteen percent of the case files for closure types other than 
reasonable cause had evidence that the complaint had been amended. We 
also could not find evidence in all cases that copies of the amended 
complaints had been received by all respondents even though the statute 
requires that all respondents receive them.[Footnote 43] Finally, not 
all of the cases, where applicable, contained evidence that new 
respondents received a copy of the complaint.[Footnote 44] 

As stated, FHEO officials noted that not all FHAP agency procedures 
require certified mail notices, while HUD notifications are sent by 
certified mail. As with initial notifications, we looked not only for 
evidence of certified mail or personal service, but also other forms of 
evidence that a notification was made, including response letters or 
subsequent correspondence that indicated the parties' knowledge. FHEO 
officials noted that the absence of notices in FHEO case files is more 
likely a clerical omission than a failure to follow procedure. 

Final Investigative Reports: 

Our file review showed that the Final Investigative Report (FIR) 
required for reasonable cause and no reasonable cause outcomes and the 
Determination showing the outcome of cases were not always present. The 
documents are intended to demonstrate that investigations were thorough 
and that the investigator's conclusions were founded in fact and 
evidence. FIRs, which HUD guidance states fulfill the statutory 
requirement to document investigations, are used as a basis for 
preparing the charge for reasonable cause cases. FIRs should summarize 
the allegation and evidence, including such things as dates and 
summaries of contacts with parties, witness statements, descriptions of 
pertinent records, and answers to interrogatories.[Footnote 45] The Act 
requires FHEO, following the completion of the investigation, to make 
information derived from the investigation--including the FIR--
available upon request to the parties to the complaint.[Footnote 46] 
The Determination includes the elements of jurisdiction as well as a 
summary of the complainant's allegations, the respondents' defenses, 
and the investigator's findings and conclusions. 

For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found the FIR 
and Determination in all 12 of the files. However, for cases closed 
with a Determination of no reasonable cause, we found the FIR missing 
in 5 percent of the files, and a Determination missing from 8 
percent.[Footnote 47] The percentage of FIRs for no reasonable cause 
cases was similar for FHAP agency and FHEO files. 

HUD requires that FIRs and Determinations of reasonable cause and no 
reasonable cause be approved by the FHEO regional director. FHAP agency 
managers approve and sign these documents for FHAP agency investigated 
cases. For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found 
that 11 FIRs and 10 Determinations had been signed. For cases with no 
reasonable cause outcomes, 71 percent of Determinations were signed, 
compared with only 45 percent of FIRs.[Footnote 48] For no reasonable 
cause outcomes, FHEO files showed more evidence of Determination 
approval--100 percent compared with 60 percent of FHAP agency 
Determinations.[Footnote 49] FHEO noted that missing signatures for 
FIRs and Determinations are more likely an oversight rather than a 
question of thoroughness or lack of review. They also noted that case 
files will not document informal means of review. 

Adherence to 100-Day Notice Requirement: 

As noted above, the Act requires that fair housing investigations be 
completed within 100 days from the date the complaint was filed, unless 
it is impracticable to do so. An investigation is completed when a 
Determination or charge is issued, a conciliation agreement is 
executed, or the complaint is otherwise closed.[Footnote 50] We 
estimate that 98 percent of all cases with closure types other than 
reasonable cause--including relatively more no reasonable cause cases-
-took more than 100 days to complete. If investigators do not meet the 
100-day deadline, the investigating agency is required to notify both 
complainants and respondents in writing, 

explaining why the investigation is not complete.[Footnote 51] We found 
100-day letters in each file for these closure types with 
investigations that took more than 100 days to complete. We found that 
in about two-thirds of these cases, the 100-day letter was sent after 
100 days had passed.[Footnote 52] Moreover, about 14 percent of the 
notices we found were dated more than 130 days after the HUD filing 
date (see fig. 11).[Footnote 53] For cases where HUD had determined 
reasonable cause, all 12 investigations lasted longer than 100 days, 
but 2 of the files did not have copies of 100-day letters. 

Figure 11: Timing of 100-Day Notices Sent to Complainants for 
Investigations Lasting over 100 Days: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percent. 

[End of figure] 

According to FHEO officials in one location, for cases with complex 
issues, it was often difficult to meet the 100-day investigative 
requirement and conduct a thorough investigation. Officials in another 
FHEO location said that the 100-day time frame is a critical factor at 
day one, and a new initiative had been implemented to track and focus 
on cases at the 50-day mark. The FHAP agencies' record of meeting the 
100-day requirement is directly tied to their performance ratings and 
to the reimbursement they receive for completed cases. Officials at one 
FHAP agency stated that the 100-day requirement was a priority for each 
new investigation and their agency had established shorter 
investigative deadlines internally, using their own streamlined process 
to assist them in meeting the 100-day requirement. In our last report, 
we observed that the percentage of investigations completed within 100 
days increased between 2001 and 2003, particularly for FHEO cases. 
Specifically, the percentage of FHEO investigations completed within 
100 days increased from 17 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 50 percent in 
fiscal year 2003. We also noted that FHEO hub directors reported that 
the 100-day benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough 
investigation were sometimes competing goals. 

Some Files Lacked Evidence That Investigators Followed Recommended 
Procedures: 

In addition to the statutory requirements, HUD guidance recommends a 
number of activities that contribute to a more complete investigation. 
Among these are preparing investigative plans, conducting on-site 
visits and interviews, and requesting policy and procedure information 
from respondents.[Footnote 54] The guidance also recommends that 
investigators follow certain procedures before closing a case 
administratively. HUD officials said that an investigation may be 
thorough without following each recommended practice; moreover, as 
noted above, a lack of evidence does not necessarily indicate that a 
procedure was not followed. However, the relative infrequency with 
which some practices were used, according to documentation in the case 
files, raises questions about investigation thoroughness. 

Investigative Plans: 

HUD guidance states that investigative plans are critical to efficient 
and effective investigation. The guidance also provides extensive 
instruction on preparing plans, and adds that, in developing 
investigative plans, investigators and their supervisors should consult 
with Regional Counsel. According to HUD's revised Title VIII Handbook, 
investigative planning allows supervisors and investigators to ensure 
that the scope of the investigation is carefully tailored for adequate 
investigation of all claims made in the complaint, and careful planning 
should also prevent "over-investigation" of claims. However, FHEO 
officials stated that most experienced investigators do not prepare 
investigative plans for any except technical and very complex cases 
since investigators are familiar with the procedures for more common 
discrimination cases. 

Our file reviews showed that 62 percent of the cases with closure types 
other than reasonable cause did not include investigative plans. 
Further, the plans we found were not as detailed as the guidance 
suggests. For example, while the type of discrimination was identified 
in 93 percent of plans, the theory of discrimination was identified in 
65 percent.[Footnote 55],[Footnote 56] Also, planned interviews with 
complainants and respondents were specified in 59 percent and 62 
percent of plans, respectively, and a list and sequence of interview 
questions was present in 27 percent of plans (see fig. 12).[Footnote 
57] For cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we found an 
investigative plan in 10 of the 12 files, but these also contained 
little detail. For example, the type of discrimination was identified 
in all 10 of the plans, but the theory of discrimination was identified 
in only 3. Additionally, only 2 and 3 of the plans, respectively, 
specified interviews with complainants and respondents, and a list and 
sequence of interview questions was present in only 2 of the plans. 
With regard to supervisory review, officials at the agencies we visited 
stated that there was no established procedure for documenting review 
of investigative plans. 

Figure 12: Percentage of Cases with Investigative Plans and Cases with 
Specific Content in Investigative Plans: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

We found substantially more investigative plans in FHEO case files (74 
percent) than in FHAP files (24 percent). There was little variation in 
the percentage of cases with investigative plans across closure types 
(see fig. 13). 

Figure 13: Percentage of Cases with and without Investigative Plans, by 
Investigating Agency and Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Interviews with Complainants and Respondents: 

HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators states that 
interviews are a vital part of collecting evidence, and that they allow 
an investigator to probe for additional information that otherwise 
might not be provided. The manual recommends that investigators 
interview not only complainants and respondents, but also other 
individuals, such as witnesses for the parties and independent 
witnesses. FHEO officials noted that there are circumstances where 
complainant or respondent interviews are not necessary, such as when a 
case is conciliated before the investigation has begun or when an 
investigator determines that a respondent is exempt under the Act. 

The majority of cases with closure types other than reasonable cause 
included interviews with the parties to the complaint, but 28 percent 
did not include interviews with respondents. Cases with no reasonable 
cause outcomes were more likely to include interviews with complainants 
and respondents (see fig. 14). FHEO cases for these closure types were 
more likely than FHAP cases to include interviews with complainants. 
Specifically, we estimate that FHEO cases did not include interviews 
with complainants 8 percent of the time, compared with 21 percent of 
the time for FHAP cases.[Footnote 58] We found at least one respondent 
interview for all cases where HUD had determined reasonable cause. By 
contrast, only seven of these cases included interviews with 
complainants. 

Figure 14: Percentage of Cases with and without Complainant and 
Respondent Interviews, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

In a number of cases, investigators interviewed complainants and 
respondents once or twice. Forty-seven percent of cases with closure 
types other than reasonable cause showed one or two complainant 
interviews, and 40 percent showed one or two interviews with a 
respondent or representative. We found that the content of interviews 
recorded in the TEAPOTS database varied widely. 

We looked specifically for evidence explaining why interviews were not 
conducted or whether it was apparent why interviews were not conducted. 
While we often could not find documentation as to why complainants and 
respondents were not interviewed, the reason was apparent in a number 
of cases. 

We also looked at the time frame within which the parties were 
interviewed for the first time following the official HUD filing date. 
The 100 days that HUD allocates for conducting fair housing 
investigations begins on the date a complaint is officially filed with 
HUD. HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators suggests that 
investigators interview complainants first to clarify the details of 
the allegation and to evaluate the viability of the complaint. We found 
that complainants were typically interviewed first, but that in a 
number of cases, initial investigative interviews were conducted weeks 
and even months after the complaint had been filed.[Footnote 59] For 
closure types other than reasonable cause, 65 percent of cases with 
complainant interviews showed the first investigative interview 
occurring more than 2 weeks after the complaint was filed; this was 
also the case for 67 percent of respondent interviews.[Footnote 60] 
Further, 52 percent of cases with complainant interviews showed the 
first investigative interview occurring more than 1 month after the 
complaint was filed; this was also the case for 46 percent of 
respondent interviews.[Footnote 61] 

FHEO officials noted that it may be appropriate to conduct a 
respondent's initial interview after first receiving documentation. 
Respondents have 10 days to provide a response to the complaint. FHEO 
officials noted that in addition to caseload, the time involved in mail 
delivery and the difficulty of locating people who have moved are 
factors that can impact the initial interview with the parties. 
Officials at some of the FHAP agencies we visited indicated that time 
may be of the essence in housing discrimination cases since housing 
opportunities may be lost during the initial filing period. For pending 
evictions, one agency's practice was to request an eviction abeyance 
through the court or to petition the landlord to postpone eviction 
pending a speedy investigation. To expedite the filing process, the 
intake coordinator at another agency may go on site to have the 
complaint form completed and signed in order to begin the 
investigation. 

On-Site Visits: 

HUD's guidance does not require that an investigator visit the site of 
the alleged discriminatory act, such as the subject dwelling and 
respondent's place of business, and FHEO officials stated that many 
cases do not require an on-site visit. However, the guidance also 
states that an on-site visit is the most efficient way to conduct an 
investigation in most situations involving fair housing complaints. 
Additionally, it states that while such a visit may not appear 
necessary at the beginning of an investigation, issues may develop as a 
case progresses that support the necessity of an on-site investigation. 
One FHAP agency we visited had a policy of conducting on-site 
interviews or inspections for each investigation, and officials there 
reported that 95 percent of their cases included visits to the property 
in question to conduct interviews and to obtain supporting 
documentation. In contrast, officials at FHEO offices and other 
agencies said that limited financial resources and time constraints may 
prevent investigators from including on-site visits as a routine part 
of their investigations. 

About three-quarters of the cases we reviewed with closure types other 
than reasonable cause showed no evidence that investigators made on-
site visits. For non-cause cases that included an on-site visit, we 
found that investigators toured the property in question, collected 
physical evidence such as photographs, and interviewed complainants and 
respondents (see fig. 15). We saw no statistically significant 
difference in use of on-site visits among the non-cause closure types, 
but we found substantially more on-site visits documented for cases 
where HUD had determined reasonable cause. Ten of these cases included 
on-site visits, and investigators generally carried out more activities 
while on site. The investigator toured the property in 4 cases, 
physical evidence was collected in 9, and both complainants and 
respondents were interviewed in 7 of the 10 cases. 

Figure 15: Percentage of Cases with On-Site Visits and Investigative 
Activities Conducted during On-Site Visits: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Information Requests: 

HUD's training manual for fair housing investigators recommends that 
investigators request information on respondents' policies and 
procedures to compare the established policies and procedures with the 
alleged discriminatory practice. Policy and procedure documents may 
take a variety of forms, including lease agreements and housing 
covenants. We found that 74 percent of cases for closure types other 
than reasonable cause contained evidence that investigators requested 
policy and procedure information from respondents. Although policy and 
procedure documents are not always necessary to establish reasonable 
cause, we found that such documents were requested in all of the cases 
where HUD had determined reasonable cause. 

The manual also suggests that investigators request comparative 
information, especially in cases alleging unequal treatment, about 
persons in the same protected class as the complainant and persons not 
in the complainant's protected class.[Footnote 62] We found that the 
files for 58 percent of cases for closure types other than reasonable 
cause showed that comparative information was requested. FHEO officials 
noted that for cases involving refusal to rent, they generally would 
expect that investigators collect such information. However, in cases 
involving design and construction for access by persons with 
disabilities, such information typically is not necessary. For cases 
with closure types other than reasonable cause, we found that 30 
percent of cases where refusal to rent was at least one issue did not 
show evidence that comparative information was requested. For cases 
where HUD had determined reasonable cause, we saw evidence in 10 of the 
12 files that comparative information was requested. 

Comparative information was requested most often for cases with a 
finding of no reasonable cause (see fig. 16).[Footnote 63] 
Specifically, we estimate that 82 percent of no reasonable cause cases 
had comparative information requests.[Footnote 64] FHEO officials 
believe that recommended practices for planning investigations, 
interviewing complainants and respondents, conducting on-site visits, 
and seeking policy information need not be carried out in every case. 
They believe that every case is unique and each investigation should be 
tailored to the case. Our prior report noted that at least one FHAP 
agency had developed software that automatically generated a list of 
critical documents that were usually needed for certain types of 
investigations. According to officials of this FHAP agency, this system 
improved the quality of investigations and decreased the length of 
cases. 

Figure 16: Percentage of Cases with Policy and Procedure Information 
Requests, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Attempts to Reach Complainants Prior to Administrative Closure: 

Finally, we found that investigators documented multiple attempts to 
reach complainants before closing complaints administratively. Twenty-
one percent of the cases we reviewed had been closed administratively, 
most of them because complainants withdrew their complaints. Relatively 
few of the cases closed administratively resulted because a complainant 
could not be located or was uncooperative with the investigator. 
Nonetheless, investigators documented as many as 11 attempts to contact 
uncooperative complainants by telephone, certified mail, and regular 
mail. The investigating agency is required to notify the parties of 
administrative closures as with other closure types, and 82 percent of 
administrative closures had evidence that such notices had been 
addressed to the parties.[Footnote 65] 

TEAPOTS Was Used Inconsistently to Record Investigation Activity: 

Selected information entered in TEAPOTS was generally consistent with 
the information found in source documents in the case files, but use of 
the system varied considerably among agencies conducting fair housing 
investigations. Complete and reliable TEAPOTS information is important 
for each case since the database is used to record activities and 
information throughout the investigation and subsequently as a resource 
for preparing investigative reports. In addition, HUD officials point 
to TEAPOTS as a control to determine that investigations are conducted 
in accordance with statute and regulation. Without including evidence 
as an investigation is completed, TEAPOTS cannot provide an accurate 
representation of the evidence. 

As part of our review of case files, we traced information in TEAPOTS 
relating to the basis and issue of discrimination, the date of the last 
alleged violation, and the HUD filing date and found that it generally 
matched source document information, with some exceptions. We found 
that for more common complaint issues--discriminatory terms and refusal 
to rent--the information matched 83 percent and 81 percent of the time, 
respectively.[Footnote 66] Similarly with regard to the discrimination 
basis, the information matched 92 percent and 84 percent for race and 
national origin, respectively, but the evidence is less clear for 
color.[Footnote 67] For familial status, the information matched 86 
percent of the time.[Footnote 68] When we compared the date of the last 
alleged violation and the HUD filing date in TEAPOTS with the same 
dates in the source documents, we found that these matched 91 percent 
and 84 percent of the time, respectively.[Footnote 69] Also, an 
estimated 91 percent of the last alleged violation dates in TEAPOTS 
matched the source documents. Finally, filing dates in TEAPOTS matched 
those in the source documents in 84 percent of cases. 

In reviewing TEAPOTS reports for investigation details, we saw that the 
amount of information varied a great deal depending on which agency had 
investigated the case and entered the information. In some instances, 
entire sections such as those for recording interviews, case 
chronology, and the investigator's findings and conclusion had not been 
completed. Without a complete record of an investigation, investigators 
may be unable to utilize TEAPOTS functions for preparing investigative 
reports. Further, because the statute requires that information derived 
from investigations, including the FIR, be made available to 
complainants and respondents upon request, it is pertinent that all 
appropriate details be included. 

Evidence Indicates a Lack of Consistent Efforts to Conciliate 
Complaints: 

Although HUD requires fair housing agencies to attempt conciliation 
throughout the complaint process, our review of case files, survey of 
complainants, and test calls revealed that FHEO and FHAP agencies did 
not always attempt to conciliate complaints, made limited efforts to do 
so, or did not meet HUD's requirement that they document these efforts. 
While having the fair housing specialists act as both investigators and 
conciliators is permitted, investigators faced with pursuing 
conciliation as well may focus on investigative activities, 
particularly considering FHEO's emphasis on completing investigations 
within 100 days. 

Conciliation Was Not Always Discussed during Intake: 

FHEO's Title VIII Handbook states that conciliation should be discussed 
during the initial intake interview and should be noted in the standard 
notification letters to the complainant and respondent. Further, the 
statute requires that conciliation must be attempted to the extent 
feasible commencing with the filing of the complaint and concluding 
with the issuance of a charge on behalf of the complainant, or upon 
dismissal of the complaint. For time-sensitive complaints, conciliation 
may be the most effective procedure and, given that the resources of 
FHEO and FHAP agencies are limited, an effective means of reducing 
staff workloads. FHEO's General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity noted that conciliation is an integral 
part of the complaint process. He noted that FHEO officials have 
"confidence that every party is informed during the initial interview 
or contact of HUD's statutory obligation to attempt conciliation and is 
asked about the possibility of conciliating the complaint and what it 
might take to effect conciliation." 

According to our survey of complainants, fewer than half (42 percent) 
were offered assistance with conciliation (see fig. 17).[Footnote 70] 
In 26 percent of the cases, complainants said staff suggested that the 
parties work out their differences on their own. 

Figure 17: Complainant Views on Fair Housing Complaint Staff 
Conciliation Assistance: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Further, during the test calls we placed to FHEO and FHAP agencies, we 
found the possibility of conciliation was discussed in only 18 percent 
of the locations we called. FHAP agencies mentioned conciliation 23 
percent of the time, and FHEO did not mention conciliation at all. 

Based on our survey of complainants, we estimate that nearly 90 percent 
of complainants who were offered conciliation accepted it. About 12 
percent of complainants said they sought help with conciliation through 
other organizations. The percentages did not vary among cases depending 
on whether they were investigated by FHEO or a FHAP agency, but did 
vary based on closure type, with approximately half of the complainants 
who were offered conciliation far more likely to have their case end 
with a conciliation outcome. We estimate that complainants with 
conciliation outcomes were offered conciliation 67 percent of the time, 
while those with no-cause outcomes were offered conciliation just 27 
percent of the time. 

Overall, we estimate that parties involved in fair housing complaints 
were more likely to reach conciliation agreements when FHEO or a FHAP 
agency was involved. For example, we estimate that complainants reached 
agreement 64 percent of the time when FHEO or a FHAP agency assisted 
with conciliation, but only about 35 percent of the time when another 
organization did the conciliation. Complainants who worked with FHEO or 
a FHAP agency were satisfied with the outcome about 81 percent of the 
time and with the other party's compliance with the agreement more than 
90 percent of the time, compared with 47 percent and 90 percent, 
respectively, for complainants working with other organizations. 

Our previous report noted that one FHAP agency was experimenting with a 
separate "mediation track" when handling complaints. At this agency, 
mediation attempts occurred early in the process during intake and 
involved a professional private-sector mediator. The mediation had 
usually pleased the parties, resulting in timely resolutions of cases 
and beneficial results. Two FHAP agencies we visited for this study 
offered mediation. Further, other FHAP agencies had begun offering 
mediation during the intake stage, and the complainants' decision to 
participate or not participate in mediation was almost always 
documented. One FHAP in its notification letter to the complainant 
offered the complainant the choice of two options--either conciliation 
or investigation. Staff from one FHEO regional office noted the use of 
mediation by a FHAP agency in their region reduced complaints by 
approximately one-third. 

Case Files Often Contained No Documentation of Conciliation Attempts: 

During our file review of no-cause cases, we found no documentation of 
conciliation attempts around a third of the time and often no 
documentation of contacts with either party to attempt conciliation. 
Specifically, an estimated 36 percent of the files contained no 
evidence that complainants had been contacted to attempt conciliation, 
while 30 percent of files lacked evidence that respondents had been 
contacted to attempt conciliation. For the 12 cases with outcomes of 
reasonable cause that we reviewed, we found documentation that 
conciliation was attempted in 11 of them. 

When an agency contacted parties to a complaint, they often did so once 
or twice. For example, we estimate that 21 percent of complainants in 
cases with no-cause outcomes were contacted only once.[Footnote 71] As 
indicated in figure 18, we also found that conciliation attempts varied 
somewhat by closure type. Conciliation was attempted with complainants 
less often for cases that were closed administratively. However, for 
all cases, we found that information on conciliation contained in the 
case file varied tremendously, with some cases noting "conciliation 
discussed," while others included significant details. 

Figure 18: Documented Conciliation Attempt, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

As is the case with other aspects of our file review, the lack of 
evidence of conciliation attempts does not necessarily indicate that 
such attempts did not occur; attempts may not have been documented. 
However, according to FHEO's Title VIII Handbook, the lack of detailed 
documentation of conciliation attempts could be problematic. For 
example, the Handbook noted that FHEO Headquarters or the Office of 
General Counsel occasionally questioned the sufficiency of conciliation 
efforts for cases forwarded to FHEO Headquarters with recommendations 
of a Determination of reasonable cause. Further, it stated that when 
these questions were asked, the case was often remanded to the agency 
handling the case with instructions to undertake additional late-stage 
conciliation efforts. The Title VIII Handbook noted that a number of 
these remands result not from a lack of initial conciliation attempts, 
but rather from a lack of documentation of conciliation attempts in the 
case file. 

Conciliation attempts should be documented in TEAPOTS before a case can 
be closed. TEAPOTS includes a separate section that allows the intake 
specialist and investigator to document conciliation efforts. While HUD 
relies on TEAPOTS as a control to assure that investigations, including 
conciliation attempts, are performed in accordance with statute and 
regulation, information that we obtained from TEAPOTS shows that its 
use varied from one location to another. For example, the descriptions 
of conciliation attempts varied in detail, and the case information 
recoded by some FHEO and FHAP offices did not include a chronological 
listing of conciliation attempts as suggested by the Title VIII 
Handbook. 

Finally, we found that conciliation agreements were generally well-
documented. Specifically, an estimated 91 percent of cases closed with 
conciliation included copies of conciliation agreements in the case 
file.[Footnote 72] A HUD conciliation agreement is a written, binding 
agreement to resolve the disputed issues in a Title VIII housing 
discrimination complaint. The HUD conciliation agreement must contain 
provisions to protect the public interest in furthering fair 
housing.[Footnote 73] According to the Act, a conciliation agreement 
requires HUD approval.[Footnote 74] Approximately ninety-five percent 
of these agreements were signed by all parties and approximately 90 
percent were approved by FHEO or the FHAP agency.[Footnote 75] 

Complainants Viewed Conciliation as a Case Outcome More Favorably Than 
Other Possible Outcomes: 

Based on our survey, complainants whose cases were conciliated were 
more positive with this outcome than those who experienced 
administrative closure or a finding of no-cause, but complainants felt 
at least some pressure to conciliate their complaints, most commonly 
because they felt their cases would not be handled otherwise. As shown 
in figure 19, 52 percent of the complainants surveyed indicated that 
they felt a little to great pressure to resolve their cases. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, the General Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity noted that the Fair 
Housing Act mandates attempts at conciliation and that this statutory 
construct may result in what complainants perceive to be pressure to 
resolve their case. 

Figure 19: Most Commonly Cited Pressures to Resolve Case: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Brackets on each bar represent the sampling error (confidence 
interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Our survey of complainants indicated that conciliation seemed to work 
when an agency such as FHEO or FHAP agencies were involved (over 64 
percent resulted in a conciliation). However, a significant number of 
survey complainants indicated that this opportunity was not presented 
to them. Moreover, those who sought conciliation assistance from any 
other organization were less likely to reach a satisfactory outcome; 47 
percent did not realize a satisfactory agreement. 

Emphasis Given to Conciliation May Be Affected in Cases of Dual 
Investigator/Conciliator Role: 

Our previous report noted that investigators at some FHEO locations and 
FHAP agencies customarily conciliated their own cases, while other 
locations usually used separate investigators and 
conciliators.[Footnote 76] Also, our previous report noted that 
officials were divided on the impact of this practice. Some officials 
told us that having the same person performing both tasks had not 
caused problems. Other officials--including some at locations where 
investigators conciliated their own cases--indicated a preference to 
have different people perform these tasks. One official said that 
separating these tasks enabled simultaneous conciliation and 
investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up the process. 
Another official noted that parties might share information with a 
conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that a 
conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The 
same official said that although investigators were not allowed to use 
information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the 
information could still influence the questions conciliators posed--and 
thus the information they learned--as investigators. Similarly, at one 
FHEO location hub, an OGC official told us that information learned as 
a result of conciliation efforts should not be included in 
investigative findings. A few enforcement officials at locations that 
did not separate the functions said they did not have enough staff to 
have separate conciliators. We recommended in our previous report that 
FHEO establish a way to identify and share information on effective 
practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies. 

According to the Title VIII Handbook, conciliation may be a fertile 
source of information regarding a respondent's housing practices. 
However, the Handbook notes that nothing said or done during the course 
of conciliation can be used in the investigator's reasonable cause 
recommendation, in the final investigative report, or in any subsequent 
Title VIII enforcement proceeding. Information discovered during 
conciliation should not be made public without the written consent of 
the persons concerned. Although information discovered during the 
conciliation process cannot be factored into the investigator's 
recommendation, if this same information is discovered outside of the 
conciliation process, it is permissible for investigators to use this 
information in their recommendations. For example, if respondents make 
an admission during conciliation negotiations, investigators cannot use 
this admission in their recommendations. However, if respondents make 
this same admission in a later deposition, the investigator can use 
this admission in their recommendations. 

In our previous report, we also noted that some HUD locations we 
visited put investigations on hold when conciliation looked likely, 
while others did not.[Footnote 77] Some fair housing officials at the 
locations that simultaneously investigated and conciliated cases told 
us that doing so not only expedited the enforcement process but could 
also facilitate conciliation. Because the parties were aware that the 
investigation was ongoing, two FHEO hub directors told us, they were 
sometimes more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some officials at 
the offices that delayed the investigation while attempting 
conciliation told us that this practice increased the number of 
calendar days necessary to investigate a case. However, one FHEO hub 
official told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation could 
waste resources, as it might not be necessary to obtain further 
evidence in a case that would be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10 hub 
directors told us that simultaneous investigation and conciliation had 
a great or very great impact on the length of the complaint process, 
and all 6 said that the practice decreased the length. 

During our current review, officials from one FHEO regional office 
noted that using separate conciliators would definitely assist in 
making their investigative process more effective. However due to 
staffing constraints, they believed it was impractical to do so without 
a significant increase in staff. These officials noted that they needed 
additional staff to speed up the investigative process, separate 
investigation from conciliation, conduct more thorough investigations, 
and more effectively monitor compliance with conciliation agreements. 

Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Fair Housing Complaint Process, 
Its Outcome, and Certain Aspects of Intake and Investigation: 

While an estimated 44 percent of complainants were somewhat or very 
satisfied with the fair housing complaint process, based on our survey, 
we estimate that about half of all complainants were either somewhat or 
very dissatisfied.[Footnote 78] Similarly, nearly 60 percent were 
dissatisfied with the outcome of the fair housing complaint process, 
and almost 40 percent would be unlikely to file a complaint in the 
future. Complainants' dissatisfaction varied for each stage of the 
complaint process, as well as by type of complaint closure 
(administrative, conciliation, and no-cause finding), with complainants 
in no-cause cases expressing the least satisfaction with various 
aspects of investigations. However, according to FHEO, the low 
satisfaction levels of complainants with a no-cause finding is not 
wholly unexpected given that they failed to receive the desired outcome 
and thus question the process that produced the outcome. 

Many Complainants Were Dissatisfied with the Complaint Process, but 
Satisfaction Varied According to the Stage of the Process and Case 
Outcome: 

Overall, about 34 percent of all complainants were satisfied with both 
the process and the outcome; conversely, 48 percent of all complainants 
were dissatisfied with both the process and the complaint outcome (see 
fig. 20). When looking at complainants' overall satisfaction level, we 
found no significant differences when we sorted by type of agency--that 
is, between cases investigated by FHEO and those investigated by FHAP 
agencies. However, variations by closure type existed. For example, 
over two-thirds of those with a no-cause finding were dissatisfied with 
both the process and the outcome of their complaint (about 68 percent). 
In contrast, over two-thirds of those closed through conciliation were 
satisfied with both the process for handling their complaint and its 
outcome (about 68 percent). Also, just under half of the complainants 
with administrative closures were dissatisfied with both the process 
and outcome (about 43 percent). 

Figure 20: Proportion of Complainants Who Were or Were Not Satisfied 
with the Overall Complaint Process and the Outcome (Percentage of all 
Complainants): 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" responses. 

[End of figure] 

While an estimated one-half of all complainants--regardless of their 
case outcomes--were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with their 
experience with the overall complaint process, the percentages 
expressing dissatisfaction with the intake and investigative stages 
were smaller (see fig. 21). Specifically, about 71 percent of 
complainants were somewhat to very satisfied with the intake stage and 
nearly 55 percent with the investigative stage. 

Figure 21: Complainant Satisfaction with the Overall Process and the 
Intake and Investigative Stages: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, we found that complainants who were dissatisfied with the 
outcome of the complaint process were also likely to express 
dissatisfaction with the process itself. These results were consistent 
across FHEO offices and FHAP agencies. Further, complainants with a no-
cause finding were more likely to be dissatisfied with both the process 
and outcome than complainants whose complaints were conciliated or 
closed administratively. For example, complainants with a no-cause 
outcome were somewhat to very dissatisfied with the process 72 percent 
of the time (23 percent were satisfied) and with the outcome of their 
cases 84 percent of the time, while those with a conciliation outcome 
reported dissatisfaction levels of 21 percent with the process (75 
percent were satisfied) and 25 percent with the outcome. 

About 40 percent of complainants said they would be somewhat to very 
unlikely to file any future complaint with the same fair housing 
agency. These results did not differ significantly by type of agency 
but did differ by closure type. For example, complainants with a no-
cause outcome said they would be somewhat to very unlikely to file 
another complaint about 56 percent of the time, compared with 14 
percent of those whose cases were conciliated. 

Generally, complainants' level of satisfaction with the process and its 
outcome did not vary with the expectations they had before talking to 
anyone at a fair housing organization. There were a few important 
exceptions, however. About 20 percent of complainants reported that 
they expected that the fair housing organization would not help both 
sides equally. These complainants were significantly more dissatisfied 
with the overall process and its outcome. The same was true for the 
approximately 30 percent of complainants that expected the fair housing 
organization would get the complainant a financial award. Half of all 
complainants had expectations that were not listed in our 
survey.[Footnote 79] Those complainants that had expectations other 
than those we listed were significantly more dissatisfied with each 
stage of the process, the overall process, and its outcome. These 
results may indicate that some complainants have different or greater 
expectations than others. 

Complainants Viewed the Overall Intake Process Positively but Expressed 
Concern about Specific Intake Activities: 

According to our survey, about 71 percent of complainants were somewhat 
or very satisfied with the intake process (see fig. 22). More than half 
of the complainants reported that they received clear information 
during the intake process and that intake staff were courteous and 
mostly acted promptly. Yet, a substantial number of complainants gave 
poor ratings to specific aspects of the process, citing difficulty 
contacting intake staff and the lack of timeliness of some intake 
activities. These opinions were generally true across agency type and 
closure types. 

Figure 22: Complainant Satisfaction with Intake Stage, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Complainants reported that intake staff at both FHEO and FHAP agencies 
provided understandable information more than half of the time, 
including satisfactory explanations about an agency's decision on 
whether to pursue an investigation. In general, about 60 percent of the 
time complainants told us that they received clear information on the 
likely length of each step in the process and explanations of the 
complaint and investigative process. Moreover, an estimated 66 percent 
of complainants were very or somewhat satisfied with the way the 
organizations explained their decision to pursue or not pursue a case 
(see fig. 23). The results varied by closure type with the exception of 
the organization's explanation of their decision whether to 
investigate. For example, fewer complainants with no-cause outcomes, 
relative to complainants with conciliation outcomes, felt that they had 
received understandable information on the time involved or felt that 
they had received explanations of the complaint and investigative 
processes. 

Figure 23: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Provided 
Understandable Information and Satisfactory Explanation on Whether the 
Complaint Would Be Investigated: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Complainants Reported That Intake Staff Took Prompt Action Most of the 
Time and Were Generally Professional and Courteous: 

Based on survey results, complainants believe intake staff took action 
in a timely manner more than half the time on the intake activities we 
reviewed. Specifically, we estimate that about 70 percent of the time 
intake staff sought the complainant's signature somewhat to very 
quickly after the initial contact and that 62 percent of the time 
intake staff acted somewhat to very quickly in deciding whether to 
pursue an investigation (see fig. 24). Staff performance in getting 
back to complainants was apparently less satisfying, with just 55 
percent of complainants responding that intake staff acted somewhat to 
very quickly, a result that complements our findings on the difficulty 
of contacting intake staff. In general, these results were true 
regardless of whether FHEO or FHAP agencies had handled the 
complainants' cases. Complainants with no-cause outcomes cited the 
slowest response time, saying that staff responded somewhat or very 
quickly only about 40 percent of the time. On the other hand, 
complainants whose cases were conciliated reported the fastest agency 
action for certain actions. 

Figure 24: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Intake 
Activities, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

In general, complainants felt that intake staff provided services in an 
acceptable and professional way (see fig. 25). We estimate that intake 
staff at both FHEO and FHAP offices treated complainants with courtesy 
and respect about 85 percent of the time and were helpful and impartial 
more than 70 percent of the time, according to complainants we 
surveyed. Complainants with no-cause outcomes reported positive 
treatment less often. For example, these complainants said that intake 
staff were helpful and interested in their complaint about 60 percent 
of the time and thorough about half of the time. 

Figure 25: Complainant Views on Treatment by Intake Staff: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling 
error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Complainants Reported That Intake Staff Performed Some Activities More 
Often and More Quickly Than Others: 

We asked complainants whether intake staff carried out a variety of 
activities that were either required or that could be considered best 
practices--for example, did intake staff notify complainants whether 
the fair housing organization would pursue the case? According to 
survey results, FHEO and FHAP agency staff carried out some intake-
related activities, such as seeking signatures for a complaint, more 
frequently and more quickly than others, such as taking action to 
prevent the loss of a housing opportunity. Among other things, our 
survey showed the following: 

* Intake staff very often asked complainants to sign a complaint. This 
was true for about 90 percent of complainants who were working with a 
single fair housing agency. In contrast, only about 48 percent of those 
complainants who were working with two or more fair housing agencies 
were asked to sign a complaint.[Footnote 80] We did not observe any 
significant differences by type of agency (FHEO or FHAP) or closure 
type. Because we surveyed only complainants that had filed complaints, 
we would expect that all would have been asked to sign the complaint. 
According to the Title VIII Handbook, a complaint should generally be 
signed before it can be considered as filed, so as to provide 
protection against frivolous or false claims or inadvertent erroneous 
statements on the intake form. 

* Complainants stated by a large margin--about 81 percent--that intake 
staff asked questions that would help the agency understand what led to 
the complaint, and 86 percent stated that the agency notified them with 
a decision on whether an investigation would be undertaken. Again, all 
complainants should be asked questions about their allegation, 
including information needed to satisfy the required elements of 
jurisdiction. In general, these results were similar across FHEO, the 
FHAP agencies, and the closure outcomes. 

* Complainants reported that intake staff were less likely to take some 
actions or to ask certain questions (see fig. 26). For example, 
according to complainants we surveyed, about 69 percent of the time 
both FHEO and FHAP intake staff did not attempt to prevent the loss of 
a housing opportunity when asked to do so, although the percentage 
varied across outcome types. Complainants with administrative closures 
or conciliated cases were slightly more likely to report that staff 
took action for them than those with a no-cause outcome. 

* Complainants also said that intake staff did not offer to resolve 
differences between parties about 45 percent of the time. Again, the 
results differed according to case outcome, with complainants who 
conciliated reporting the most offers (76 percent) and those with a no-
cause outcome the least (37 percent). As previously discussed, the Act 
requires the fair housing organization to offer conciliation to the 
extent feasible in all cases. 

Figure 26: Complainant Views on Whether Intake Staff Carried Out 
Certain Activities: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling 
error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Most Complainants Reported Being Satisfied with the Investigative 
Stage, but Substantial Numbers Rated Poorly Certain Aspects of the 
Investigation Process: 

Although most complainants were satisfied with the investigative stage 
of the complaint process, they were generally less positive than they 
were about the intake stage. Further, a substantial number of 
complainants expressed dissatisfaction and concern about certain 
aspects of investigations. 

We estimate that about 40 percent of complainants were dissatisfied 
with the conduct of investigations, whether it was conducted by FHEO or 
a FHAP agency (see fig. 27). As they were with other activities, 
complainants whose cases were closed with a no-cause outcome were the 
most dissatisfied with the conduct of investigations, with nearly two-
thirds reporting dissatisfaction. The concerns that led to this 
dissatisfaction included problems contacting staff, concern that staff 
did not perform actions such as informing complainants about options 
after their case was closed, and difficulty obtaining clear 
information. However, those whose cases were conciliated very often 
reported being satisfied with the investigation. Despite the concerns 
cited, complainants in general believed that staff treated them 
professionally and with respect and courtesy. 

Figure 27: Complainant Satisfaction with Investigative Stage, Overall 
and by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

We estimate that a quarter to a third of complainants had problems 
reaching investigators, believed that investigators performed poorly in 
providing case updates, and were dissatisfied with the amount of 
contact they had with investigators. An estimated one-quarter of the 
complainants found it hard or somewhat hard to reach investigators, and 
more than 30 percent of the complainants noted dissatisfaction with the 
amount of contact they had with investigators (see fig. 28). These 
results did not vary significantly depending on whether cases had been 
investigated by FHEO or FHAP agencies, but did differ according to the 
closure type. For example, more than one-third of complainants whose 
cases were closed with a finding of no-cause reported difficulties in 
contacting the investigators, compared with 22 percent and 17 percent, 
respectively, of complainants whose cases were closed administratively 
or conciliated. Complainants with a no-cause finding were most 
dissatisfied with the amount of contact they had with the investigator; 
49 percent reported dissatisfaction, compared with 18 percent and 14 
percent, respectively, for those having administrative or conciliation 
outcomes. 

Figure 28: Complainant Views on Investigative Contact: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Significant numbers of complainants reported that investigative staff 
performed administrative functions acceptably and in a timely manner 
but did only a fair or poor job on others. For example, complainants 
reported that they were told their investigator's name about 83 percent 
of the time, and 92 percent said they received their closure 
notifications. But about 59 percent of complainants whose cases were 
administratively closed reported that they were not told about any 
options they might have had for pursuing a complaint. Further, overall 
many complainants believed that staff did a fair to poor job of 
listening to them (nearly 40 percent), explaining the investigative 
process (about 36 percent), investigating the evidence (about 44 
percent), interviewing their witnesses (nearly 40 percent), and asking 
for documents related to their cases (about 32 percent). These 
percentages were generally similar whether complainants' cases had been 
handled by FHEO or a FHAP agency, with one exception: Complainants 
indicated that FHAP agencies were slightly better at interviewing 
witnesses (33 percent excellent or good) than FHEO (23 percent). We 
found more differences among complainants' experiences based on their 
closure outcomes. Complainants with no-cause outcomes were more likely 
to perceive difficulties in a variety of areas than complainants with 
administrative closures or conciliated cases. Specifically, 
complainants with no-cause outcomes: 

* more frequently reported problems receiving case updates (62 percent 
of the time, compared with 34 percent for administrative closures and 
23 percent for conciliations); 

* were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of 
investigating the evidence (68 percent of the time, compared with 37 
percent for administrative closures and 20 percent for conciliations); 
and: 

* were more likely to believe that investigators did a poor job of 
interviewing witnesses (58 percent of the time, compared with 35 
percent for administrative closures and 14 percent for conciliations). 

Despite these views, most complainants reported that staff moved 
quickly in conducting the investigation. About three-fifths of 
complainants said that both FHEO and FHAP investigators were prompt in 
contacting them to start an investigation, responding to questions, and 
completing an investigation. However, complainants with no-cause 
outcomes typically reported problems with timeliness at twice the rate 
of complainants with different outcomes (see fig. 29). 

Figure 29: Complainant Views on Timeliness for Certain Investigative 
Activities, by Closure Type: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" or "neither" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the 
sampling error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Finally, we found that complainants generally felt they were treated 
well by investigators (see fig. 30), regardless of the type of agency 
that investigated the complaint or the closure type, with one 
exception: Complainants whose cases ended in a no-cause outcome usually 
felt less well treated by staff. For example, an estimated 83 percent 
said that investigators treated them with respect and courtesy, 74 
percent said that staff were interested in their complaint, about 72 
percent believed that staff were impartial, and around 71 percent found 
staff helpful. In general, complainants had similar responses for FHEO 
and FHAP investigations. As noted, those with a no-cause outcome were 
less complimentary, and only 53 percent of them believed that the 
investigator had been helpful, versus 78 percent and 90 percent, 
respectively, for those with administrative or conciliation closures. 

Figure 30: Complainant Views on Treatment by Investigative Staff: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent because figure does not include 
"don't know" responses. Brackets on each bar represent the sampling 
error (confidence interval) for that estimate. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusions: 

In our April 2004 report, we found that persons who have experienced 
alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a lengthy wait 
before their complaint is resolved. In preparing this current report, 
the results of the test calls even though they are not generalizable to 
all potential complainants and our survey of complainants that is 
generalizable--suggest that some complainants may also face 
difficulties from the outset--that is, during the intake phase--in 
contacting staff and presenting their initial allegations. We also 
previously reported that without comprehensive, reliable data on the 
dates when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot judge how long 
complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes an 
investigation. For this report, our analysis of logged contacts 
indicates that FHAP agencies and FHEO hubs did not enter into TEAPOTS 
all contacts alleging Title VIII violations. Moreover, the 
discrepancies we observed between the dates of logged initial contacts 
and the corresponding dates entered into TEAPOTS as the beginning of 
the inquiries indicate that FHEO does not have reliable data for 
measuring the extent to which its offices and FHAP agencies meet the 
benchmark of 20 days for completing the intake process. 

Our review of case files and TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence 
that investigations are consistently as thorough or expeditious as FHEO 
guidance requires or recommends. HUD officials have noted their 
reliance on TEAPOTS for assurance that cases are investigated in 
accordance with applicable requirements and guidance. While the lack of 
evidence we observed may be the result of not documenting certain 
actions, rather than not carrying them out, the very lack of 
documentation or detailed TEAPOTS records raises questions about HUD's 
ability to assure that investigations are as thorough as they need to 
be. 

The Fair Housing Act has from the outset mandated that persons alleging 
housing discrimination be offered the opportunity to conciliate their 
complaint with the other party. However, our review of case files and 
TEAPOTS data showed a lack of evidence that conciliation attempts were 
consistently made throughout the process, despite HUD's requirements 
that these attempts be documented. The lack of documentation that 
conciliation is offered raises questions about HUD's ability to assure 
that such attempts are made as appropriate throughout the fair housing 
process. Further, this lack of documentation, along with complainants' 
first-hand experience and our observation during mock complaint calls 
that conciliation was not discussed, suggest that FHEO and FHAP 
agencies are not consistently offering conciliation, as required by the 
Act. We recommended in our previous study that FHEO establish a way to 
identify and share information on effective practices among its 
regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies. We observed during our 
previous study and this study that some FHAP agencies have used 
independent mediators and had staff not involved in a particular case 
attempt conciliation. Officials who use these techniques point to their 
benefits in speeding up the resolution of complaints, while offering 
the parties a satisfactory outcome. In our last report, we concluded 
that FHEO's human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge 
of improving enforcement practices. However, the identification and use 
of best practices may help FHEO, as well as FHAP agencies, more 
effectively utilize their limited resources. 

Our work does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate 
decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation. 
Further, our review of case files shows that many investigative 
requirements were met, and former complainants we surveyed expressed 
satisfaction with some aspects of their experience. Nevertheless, we 
believe that our findings are cause for concern. Individuals who 
believe they have experienced discrimination and make the effort to 
contact a fair housing agency, but are unable to easily reach an intake 
staff person or to expeditiously convey needed information, may simply 
give up and cease cooperating. Further, our survey of former 
complainants shows that some who successfully filed complaints have a 
sufficiently negative view of the process that they would be unlikely 
to file a complaint again--even if they were satisfied with the outcome 
of their case. Events of either type diminish the Act's effectiveness 
in deterring acts of housing discrimination or otherwise promoting fair 
housing practices. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that complainants are able to readily contact a fair housing 
agency and file a complaint, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct 
the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to ensure that intake activities are 
conducted consistently. Specific actions may include: 

* establishing clear standards for information that should be collected 
with the initial contact; 

* creating benchmarks and performance goals for the treatment of 
complainants during the initial contact, including measures of 
responsiveness, such as hold times and call-back timeliness, as well as 
measures of completeness of initial information collection; 

* developing special procedures for identifying and responding to time-
sensitive inquiries; and: 

* establishing means (including automation, where appropriate) of 
assuring that standards, benchmarks, and special procedures are 
followed. 

To improve the usefulness of TEAPOTS as a management control in 
assuring that potential Title VIII-related contacts are identified and 
assessing performance in meeting timeliness guidelines, we recommend 
that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take 
the following two actions: 

* Specify that FHAP agencies use TEAPOTS for recording initial inquiry 
dates for all inquiries, as defined in the Title VIII Handbook, that 
allege housing discrimination. 

* Require that the initial inquiry date reflect the first contact made 
by the complainant, regardless of whether that contact was with FHEO or 
a FHAP agency. 

To enhance FHEO and FHAP agency ability to assess the thoroughness of 
investigations, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the 
Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions: 

* Establish documentation standards and appropriate controls to ensure 
that required notifications of complaint, amendment, and closure are 
made and received, and that 100-day letters are sent before an 
investigation has reached 100 days. 

* Clarify requirements for planning investigations, including 
specifying when plans must be prepared, their content, and review and 
approval. 

To ensure that some form of conciliation is made available for all 
complainants, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct the Assistant 
Secretary of FHEO to take the following two actions: 

* Work with FHAP agencies and others to develop best practices for 
offering conciliation throughout the complaint process, including at 
its outset. 

* Ensure that investigators comply with requirements to document 
conciliation attempts, and complainants' or respondents' declination of 
conciliation assistance. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. 
We received written comments from the department's General Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The letter, 
which is included in appendix II, indicated a general agreement with 
our conclusions and recommendations. The General Deputy Assistant 
Secretary noted that FHEO conducts analyses of its programs and strives 
to continually improve its operations and those of FHAP agencies in 
order to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are handled 
in an effective and efficient manner. The letter also expressed 
confidence based on the extensive internal reviews, final 
determinations, and requests for reconsideration, in the integrity of 
the fair housing process, the soundness of decisions and the competent 
professional service accorded every party to the process. The letter 
noted a variety of initiatives that have been implemented to improve 
the quality of investigations, including: 

* establishing the National Fair Housing Training Academy, which trains 
fair housing professionals on fair housing law, critical thinking, and 
interview techniques; 

* completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and Conciliation 
sections of the Title VIII Handbook, which provides guidance to 
investigators on case processing standards and sets nationwide policy; 

* developing the FHEO-OGC Case processing Research Project, which 
focuses on early interaction and continuous consultation between FHEO 
and OGC; and: 

* undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify best 
practices in the field among the FHAP agencies, as well as codifying 
operations and procedures in headquarters. 

The General Deputy Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO would, as 
feasible, work to incorporate the recommendations into its policies and 
procedures. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chair of 
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Chair, 
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested 
congressional members and committees. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at , 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-6878 or [Hyperlink, woodd@gao.gov]. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

David G. Wood: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

[End of section] 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations 
conducted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. 
We did not address fair housing activities under Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
For certain analyses of the fair housing complaint process, we relied 
on national samples of complaints closed during the last half of 2004-
-enabling us to provide national estimates. 

Intake: 

To determine the thoroughness of efforts by the Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) 
agencies during the intake process, we conducted two activities. First, 
we asked intake staff to keep a log of the contacts they had with 
potential complainants over a 4-week period and to note the proportion 
of contacts alleging housing discrimination. 

We designed an Intake Contact Log for staff to use that enabled us to 
obtain never-before-collected data consistently across agencies for a 
set time period. We asked the 10 FHEO offices, 36 state FHAP agencies, 
and 5 local FHAP agencies with the highest volume (based on number of 
complaints filed during fiscal year 2004) to maintain the log over the 
4-week period from February 21 through March 21, 2005.[Footnote 81] All 
of the FHEO offices, local FHAP agencies, and all but 4 of the state 
FHAP agencies agreed to maintain our contact log. These offices 
represented 78 percent of the volume of investigations in 2004. The log 
required intake staff to document: 

* the date each contact was received; 

* the method of each contact (such as telephone, mail, e-mail); 

* whether the contact involved a new potential complaint or a 
previously existing complaint, or was a referral from another agency; 

* whether the callers claimed that they had experienced housing 
discrimination; 

* whether the intake staff or supervisor believed the contact 
potentially involved a jurisdictional Title VIII violation; and: 

* the name of the individual making the contact.[Footnote 82] 

Once we received the data, we reviewed them for consistency and logic. 
Where we identified coding that was apparently not consistent with our 
instruction, we called the staff that prepared the log for 
clarification. In some cases, we needed to recode the log based on 
these conversations. 

We focused our analysis on entries that the intake staff indicated 
pertained to a potentially valid Title VIII issue, that included names, 
and that they coded as new potential complaints. Using entries with 
names allowed us to eliminate multiple contacts from the same person 
and report statistics on people rather than on contacts. Once we 
identified the unique names that met these criteria, we matched the 
names to records in a TEAPOTS extract to determine how many of the new 
potential complaints during the 4-week recording period were perfected. 
Specifically, we requested an extract of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's TEAPOTS database for the time period coinciding 
with the contact log reporting period, plus 5 additional weeks to allow 
sufficient time for perfecting complaints. We did not evaluate the 
judgments of the intake staff in determining whether a contact should 
have been pursued. Since FHAP agencies tended not to enter inquiries 
into TEAPOTS until the complaint was ready to be perfected, the results 
of our name matching are reported both in aggregate and separately for 
FHEO office and FHAP agencies. We also reported on the total number of 
intake-related contacts received during the reporting period, the 
proportion of contacts alleging housing discrimination that the intake 
staff determined did not constitute a valid Title VIII complaint, and 
percentages for each contact method (telephone, e-mail, and walk-in). 

In order to assess the degree to which intake staff obtained sufficient 
and appropriate information to determine whether a contact should 
become a Title VIII complaint, we designed a telephone "test call" 
program of intake staff at the 10 HUD hubs and 36 state FHAP agencies. 
GAO analysts posing as complainants contacted intake staff to file a 
mock complaint. We excluded local FHAP agencies from telephone testing 
because these agencies tend to have a low volume of investigations, 
compared with state FHAP agencies. We placed one test call to each site 
using the same case scenario with different identifying information, 
such as names and addresses. Testers were trained to consistently 
volunteer only certain information such as the "name" and description 
of what happened, and to respond in standardized ways to questions 
asked by intake staff. The calls were recorded and later coded against 
a list of information that might be sought as part of the intake 
process. We developed this list of information based on requirements 
and recommended practices derived from multiple sources. Among these 
were requirements of the Fair Housing Act, guidance provided by HUD in 
the form of policy and training manuals, and training materials from 
the National Fair Housing Alliance, as well as discussions with HUD and 
FHAP agency officials. We categorized the information into four levels: 
information that (1) should always be gathered at intake, (2) is 
potentially applicable to all complaints and should be collected, (3) 
is relevant to a particular basis or protected class, and (4) is 
considered by officials we spoke with and training materials as a best 
practice. 

We placed one pretest call to each of the 46 sites we planned to 
contact to get a sense of how each location conducts intake. We 
adjusted the design to account for differences in the intake process to 
the fullest extent possible. For example, we allowed for scheduled 
intake interviews for locations that only conducted intake calls on a 
scheduled basis. We found that approximately 25 percent of the time we 
could expect to speak with a person on initial contact who could 
complete the intake process. In many cases, an agency staff member 
would perform an initial screening before forwarding the call to the 
intake staff, and in other cases, the call was forwarded to a voice 
mailbox. Based on our findings during the pretest, we decided to 
evaluate not only the information collected by intake staff, but also 
the number of attempts required to speak with a live person, hold 
times, and the length of time that elapsed before staff responded to 
voice-mail messages by returning calls. We included information that 
callers volunteered and obvious items such as gender. Because of the 
limitations of our sample--only one call to each site--the results of 
our analysis are not generalizable to the entire population of 
potential complainants in housing discrimination cases. 

Investigation and Conciliation: 

To address the thoroughness of investigation procedures, including 
conciliation attempts, we reviewed the documentation in 197 randomly 
selected case files of housing discrimination cases completed during 
the last 6 months of 2004 around the country (see table 1). We 
originally sampled 205 cases, but we were unable to locate files or 
matching TEAPOTS data records for 8 cases. The sample files included 58 
cases closed administratively, 63 cases that were conciliated without a 
finding of reasonable cause, and 90 that were closed with a finding of 
no reasonable cause. We oversampled administrative closures to ensure 
that we had a sufficient number of files to permit estimates for this 
subpopulation. The population of complaints and the sample we used are 
enumerated in tables 1 and 2. Because we followed a probability 
procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large 
number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could 
have provided different estimates (sampling error), our results have 
confidence intervals of plus or minus 8 percentage points or smaller, 
unless otherwise noted, at a 95 percent level of confidence. In other 
words, this interval would contain the true value for the actual 
population for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. 

We also reviewed files for 12 of the 15 complaint investigations FHEO 
concluded with a finding of "cause," and for which the adjudication 
process, including any agency monitoring, had been completed during the 
last 6 months of 2004. We could not locate files for the remaining 
cases. All 12 files were identified by the Department of Justice as 
having met these criteria. We did not review files for which a FHAP 
agency found "cause" and that completed the adjudication because these 
could not be identified. 

Table 1: Location of FHEO and FHAP Agency Case Files Sampled: 

FHEO region: Boston; 
FHEO file: 16; 
FHAP agency file: 0; 
Total: 16. 

FHEO region: New York; 
FHEO file: 17; 
FHAP agency file: 3; 
Total: 20. 

FHEO region: Philadelphia; 
FHEO file: 17; 
FHAP agency file: 0; 
Total: 17. 

FHEO region: Atlanta; 
FHEO file: 24; 
FHAP agency file: 10; 
Total: 34. 

FHEO region: Chicago; 
FHEO file: 23; 
FHAP agency file: 11; 
Total: 34. 

FHEO region: Fort Worth; 
FHEO file: 9; 
FHAP agency file: 8; 
Total: 17. 

FHEO region: Kansas City, Kansas; 
FHEO file: 12; 
FHAP agency file: 14; 
Total: 26. 

FHEO region: Denver; 
FHEO file: 1; 
FHAP agency file: 4; 
Total: 5. 

FHEO region: San Francisco; 
FHEO file: 23; 
FHAP agency file: 5; 
Total: 28. 

FHEO region: Seattle; 
FHEO file: 2; 
FHAP agency file: 6; 
Total: 8. 

FHEO region: Total; 
FHEO file: 144; 
FHAP agency file: 61; 
Total: 205. 

Source: GAO analysis of FHEO data. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Population and Sample Size of Complaints Closed from July 1, 
2004, through December 31, 2004, by Organization and Closure Type: 

Closure type: Administrative; 
FHEO: Population: 208; 
FHEO: Sample: 19; 
FHAP agency: Population: 335; 
FHAP agency: Sample: 33; 
Total: Population: 543; 
Total: Sample: 52. 

Closure type: Conciliation; 
FHEO: Population: 480; 
FHEO: Sample: 19; 
FHAP agency: Population: 1,090; 
FHAP agency: Sample: 44; 
Total: Population: 1,570; 
Total: Sample: 63. 

Closure type: No cause; 
FHEO: Population: 563; 
FHEO: Sample: 23; 
FHAP agency: Population: 1,657; 
FHAP agency: Sample: 67; 
Total: Population: 2,220; 
Total: Sample: 90. 

Closure type: Total; 
FHEO: Population: 1,251; 
FHEO: Sample: 61; 
FHAP agency: Population: 3,082; 
FHAP agency: Sample: 144; 
Total: Population: 4,333; 
Total: Sample: 205. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. 

[End of table] 

We examined the documentation in the files, as well as the full TEAPOTS 
case summary for each case, to determine whether it demonstrated that 
the investigator had met certain requirements and best practices for 
conducting fair housing investigations. We identified these 
requirements and best practices through reviewing the Fair Housing Act, 
implementing regulations, FHEO's Title VIII Handbook and training 
material, and other guidance. In addition, we interviewed FHEO 
officials at both HUD headquarters and field offices in Atlanta, 
Chicago, and San Francisco. We also interviewed FHAP agency officials 
in California, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. We met 
with the National Fair Housing Alliance and attended training at the 
John Marshall Law School on Fair Housing enforcement and at HUD's 
National Fair Housing Training Academy. We provided a draft summary of 
our criteria to FHEO officials and made technical corrections based on 
their comments. To ensure the consistency of our file review, we 
developed a structured data collection instrument. We anchored each 
item on the instrument to the criteria identified above. We pretested 
the instrument with several team members, and based upon this test, 
modified the instrument to ensure clarity. For 10 percent of all files 
reviewed, another team member reviewed the coding, to ensure its 
accuracy. 

Complainant Satisfaction: 

We surveyed a sample of complainants whose cases had been investigated 
and closed by FHEO and FHAP agencies from July 1 to December 31, 2004, 
to determine levels of satisfaction with the thoroughness, fairness, 
timeliness, and outcomes of the intake and investigation process. We 
did not include cases that proceeded to the adjudication process owing 
to a finding of reasonable cause to avoid surveying complainants that 
may still be involved in the adjudication process. The survey also 
provided supplemental evidence for our analysis of the thoroughness of 
the intake and investigation stages of the complaint process and the 
frequency of conciliation. 

We determined that there was a population of 4,327 fair housing 
complaints (contact information was not provided for 6 of the original 
4,333 cases) that had ended in administrative closure, conciliation 
without determination of cause, or a determination of no-cause for the 
6-month period between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. The 
complainants of record were mostly private individuals, but some were 
fair housing organizations acting on their own behalf or on that of one 
or more individuals. From a list obtained from HUD's TEAPOTS database, 
the PA Consulting Group, a survey firm under contract to GAO, called 
the complainants of record selected in the sample. The total sample of 
1,675 was parceled out in seven individual waves over the field period, 
in an attempt to use the smallest possible sample to achieve the quota 
of 575 completed interviews. The sample was allocated across six 
categories--two agency types by three closure types--to ensure that 
enough interviews were conducted in each category to allow 
statistically valid comparisons between them. (See table 4 for the 
distribution of the population, sample, responses, and response rates 
across these categories.) With this probability sample, each member of 
the population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that 
probability could be computed for any member. Each sampled complaint 
for which an interview was obtained was subsequently weighted in the 
analysis to account statistically for all the members of the 
population, including those who were not selected and those who were 
selected but did not respond to the survey. 

Beginning in early May 2005, GAO mailed letters notifying those sampled 
complainants with valid mailing addresses of the upcoming survey and 
encouraging them to participate. Calling to those complainants 
typically began several days after the letters were mailed. The advance 
letters also included an address correction form. Recipients were asked 
to revise any incorrect information and return the form. A toll-free 
number also was provided for recipients to ask any questions or to 
correct information such as names and phone numbers. Calling began in 
early May and continued for 7 weeks, ending on June 20, 2005. 

For institutional complaints drawn into our sample, the interviewer 
helped the organization's representative identify the specific 
complaint by describing the issue, basis, and respondent name. Multiple 
interviews could be conducted with the same institutional informant if 
more than one complaint from that organization was randomly drawn. 
Thirty-three interviews were completed on institutional complaints. 
Proxies (typically family members, guardians, or other representatives) 
for the named complainant were interviewed for 19 of the sampled 
complaints. Not all sampled complaints met GAO's eligibility 
requirements for the survey: Some complainants indicated that their 
cases were still open and experiencing legal activity. GAO could not 
have any involvement with such complaints. For the same reason, other 
complainants who said they had an ongoing agreement with the other 
party resolving the complaint were also not interviewed. Some complaint 
cases also became ineligible for the survey due to the death of the 
complainant, a complainant's insistence that a case was not a fair 
housing discrimination case, and complaints sampled multiple times 
(more than four for institutional complainants and one for individuals-
-see table 3). 

Complainants with an issue or basis alleging racial discrimination 
because the complainant was Hispanic received letters printed in both 
English and Spanish. The survey was also administered by Spanish-
speaking interviewers when the complainant indicated a preference for 
speaking Spanish. 

When named complainants could not be found using records provided by 
HUD, interviewers used a variety of search techniques to try to locate 
complainants, including calling alternate contacts named in the 
complaint record and using directory assistance and online tracking 
services. For example, if an address was available but no working phone 
number could be found, interviewers used reverse directories and 
contacted neighbors by phone to ask about the whereabouts of the named 
complainant. Once during the fieldwork period, 547 noncontactable 
records were submitted to Lorton Data's National Change of Address and 
Telephone Append services, resulting in some updated phone numbers and 
mailing addresses. To maximize the possibility of reaching 
complainants, multiple attempts were made over a period of time on 
different days of the week and at different hours. The number of 
attempts required to reach subjects ranged from 1 to 34, with an 
average of 12. 

Results from sample questionnaire surveys are subject to several types 
of errors: failure of the sample frame to cover the study population, 
measurement errors in administering the questionnaire, sampling errors, 
nonresponse errors from failing to collect information from part of the 
sample, and data processing error. To limit coverage errors, we used 
the most recent available data from TEAPOTS to identify eligible 
complainants. At the beginning of the interview, we also confirmed that 
the complainant of record had lodged an actual fair housing 
discrimination complaint and that the complaint had been closed as 
TEAPOTS indicated. 

To limit measurement errors, we first took steps in the development of 
the questionnaire to ensure that our questions gathered the information 
intended. GAO asked knowledgeable representatives of fair housing 
organizations and other government agencies to review early versions of 
the instrument. We also conducted a pilot test of an early version of 
the questionnaire with 26 complainants in December 2004 and seven 
pretests with complainants in the study population during March 2005. 
Finally, the telephone survey contractor completed nine pretests of the 
final instrument in late April 2005. Interviewers were trained using 
materials developed by GAO before the survey began and were routinely 
monitored during interviews. 

The survey is also subject to sampling error--our results have 
confidence intervals of plus or minus 6 percentage points or smaller at 
a 95 percent level of confidence. 

Our survey received a low response rate, with only 38 percent of those 
known or assumed to be eligible in our survey participating. If those 
who did not respond might have answered our survey questions 
differently from those who did, our estimates would be biased because 
we would have missed the answers from a set of people with 
fundamentally different views. In fact, response rates varied widely 
across the three different closure types, which were associated with 
key variables in the survey such as satisfaction with the complaint 
process and outcome. We tended to get relatively more responses from 
complainants in conciliation cases than from complainants in no-cause 
cases, and those whose cases were conciliated tended to be more 
satisfied. However, we could address this potential bias because we 
controlled the allocation of our sample across the closure types. We 
could statistically adjust, or weight, responses by closure type to 
bring them into proportion with the population and thus account for the 
different nonresponse rate across those types, which should compensate 
for the nonresponse bias. Nevertheless, the possibility of bias in the 
results still remains. Our weighting adjustment only compensates for 
differences in opinion between those with different closure types and 
agency responsibility, not other characteristics that may have been 
over-or under-represented in our responses and that may be related to 
our survey questions. 

To limit the possibility of data processing errors, the survey firm 
used a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system that recorded 
electronic data directly from the telephone interviewers' answers, and 
also checked for missing data, inconsistencies, and unlikely answer 
patterns. Data analysis programming was also independently verified. 

Table 3: Distribution of the Population, Sample, Responses, and 
Response Rates: 

Population; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 480; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 562; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 208; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 1,086; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 1,656; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 335; 
Total: 4,327. 

Original sample; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 198; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 308; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 208; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 288; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 338; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 335; 
Total: 1,675. 

Ineligible; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 20; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 36; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 26; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 26; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 25; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 25; 
Total: 158. 

Adjusted sample; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 178; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 272; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 182; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 262; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 313; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 310; 
Total: 1,517. 

Refused; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 4; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 13; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 9; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 13; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 10; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 8; 
Total: 57. 

Incapable; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 1; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 3; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 2; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 1; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 2; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 3; 
Total: 12. 

Not contacted; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 75; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 157; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 109; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 139; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 187; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 206; 
Total: 873. 

Complete interviews; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 98; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 99; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 62; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 109; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 114; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 93; 
Total: 575. 

Response rate; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Conciliation: 55%; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: No cause: 36%; 
Organization and closure type: HUD: Admin closure: 34%; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Conciliation: 42%; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: No cause: 36%; 
Organization and closure type: FHAP: Admin closure: 30%; 
Total: 38%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: 
OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-2000: 

Mr. David G. Wood: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investments: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

October 13, 2005: 

Dear Mr. Wood, 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft 
report, on HUD's fair housing programs (GAO-06-79). 

The report analyzes consistency in intake and complaint processing by 
HUD and our state and local partners in the Fair Housing Assistance 
Program (FHAP). We, too, conduct such analyses of our programs and 
strive to continually improve our operations and those of FHAP agencies 
in order to ensure that complaints of housing discrimination are 
handled in an effective and efficient manner. 

The report findings must be considered in light of the statement that 
the review does not demonstrate that HUD failed to reach appropriate 
decisions regarding any specific fair housing inquiry or investigation. 
Based on the extensive internal reviews, final determinations, and 
requests for reconsideration, we are confident in the integrity of our 
process, the soundness of decisions, and the competent professional 
service accorded every party to that process. 

For the past five years, HUD has worked to reduce the amount of time it 
takes to process our cases. As a result, in FY 2005 we completed 77.2 
percent of our cases within 100 days or less. We established a similar 
goal for FHAP agencies and are proud to report that in FY 2005, FHAP 
agencies completed 61.4 percent of their investigations in 100 days or 
less. 

As a result of our internal reviews of the enforcement process, we have 
undertaken a variety of initiatives to improve the quality of our 
investigations. To this end, HUD established the National Fair Housing 
Training Academy, which trains fair housing professionals on fair 
housing law, critical thinking, and interview techniques. Successful 
completion of the training curriculum will improve investigation 
procedures and raise the skill level of fair housing investigators. 
Further, HUD is completing revisions of its Intake, Investigation and 
Conciliation Handbook (Title VIII Handbook), which provides guidance to 
investigators on case-processing standards and sets forth nationwide 
policy with respect to the investigation of complaints filed pursuant 
to the Fair Housing Act and other statutes enforced by HUD. This year, 
the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and Office of 
General Counsel (OGC) conducted joint training to fair housing field 
staff and fair housing enforcement attorneys on Intake, Conciliation, 
Planning and Conducting the Investigation, and Preparation of the Case 
File. 

In order to ensure seamless case processing, FHEO and OGC, with the 
assistance of the Office of Policy, Development and Research (PDR), 
developed the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research Project, which focuses 
on early interaction and continuous consultation between FHEO and OGC. 
The project uses a triage methodology to determine the complexity of 
cases to more effectively utilize human and fiscal resources. Over the 
next nine months FHEO's Fort Worth, Atlanta and Seattle Regional 
Offices will participate in testing the methodology. If the project is 
deemed successful, FHEO will implement it nationwide. 

FHEO is undergoing a business process re-engineering (BPR) to identify 
best practices in the field and among the FHAP agencies, as well as 
codifying operations and procedures in headquarters. The work in 
headquarters is nearing completion and FHEO expects the field effort to 
begin by the end of October. The identification of best practices will 
allow FHAP agencies to emulate other organizations that have better 
defined processes in particular areas. In addition, for the Regional 
Offices this process will memorialize the practices that work best in 
different size regions. 

Quality Management Reviews (QMRs) are an important part of ensuring 
consistency and quality in case processing. During these QMRs, HUD 
reviews procedures and policies to ensure accountability and recommends 
best practices for program activities and customer service. 
Additionally, HUD Government Technical Representatives monitors FHAP 
agency performance on a continuous basis. Further, the staff conducts 
yearly performance assessments of FHAP agencies in order to ensure that 
all complaints brought to a FHAP agency receives a quality 
investigation and that funds are being used in accordance with 
statutory and regulatory standards. 

In order to encourage better and more efficient case processing among 
FHAP agencies, HUD recently introduced performance-based funding. 
Previously, FHAP agencies received a flat rate for each investigation 
if that investigation satisfied HUD's criteria for processing. Under 
performance-based funding, payment is on a graduated scale that takes 
into account not only the criteria for processing, but also the length, 
type, and outcome of the investigation. In addition, to further ensure 
thorough complaint processing by FHAP agencies, FHEO has recently 
developed three additional FHAP performance standards. (See performance 
standards in the proposed FHAP regulation, which was published in the 
Federal Register on May 18, 2005). One new performance standard 
requires a FHAP agency to demonstrate that it receives a reasonable 
number of complaints cognizable under both the Fair Housing Act and the 
agency's fair housing law. Another new performance standard places an 
affirmative duty on FHAP agencies to report to HUD on the final status 
of complaints following reasonable cause findings. The final new 
performance standard requires FHAP agencies to conform their 
performance to the provisions of any written agreements executed by the 
agencies and HUD, related to participation in the FHAP. 

Prior to the realignment, the Office of Field Oversight (OFO) was 
restructured to ensure greater oversight with regard to the field. In 
addition to reviewing and analyzing monthly performance reports, the 
office is also responsible for quality control. In response to the 
results of the GAO survey, OFO has begun to survey our field offices on 
a regular basis to determine whether intake procedures are followed in 
each region. FHEO is also considering employing a new methodology 
whereby the OFO staff would randomly look at files and processes to 
assess any problems or inconsistencies and make recommendations for 
improving enforcement. 

The report contains several recommendations to improve fair housing 
enforcement by FHEO and FHAP agencies. As feasible, HUD will work to 
incorporate the recommendations into its policies and procedures. It is 
important to bear in mind that there are 103 different agencies within 
the Fair Housing Assistance Program. These agencies are state and local 
government entities, governed by their own state statutes or municipal 
ordinances and operating under their own procedures. HUD's 
certification of a FHAP agency as a "substantially equivalent" agency 
does not mean that its procedures are, or need to be, identical to 
those of HUD or any other FHAP agency. Still, certification by our 
National Fair Housing Training Academy encourages these practices and 
promotes consistency. 

HUD agrees with GAO that intake should be thorough and that 
complainants should always be able to reach a live person who can 
immediately respond to their complaint. With respect to GAO's specific 
recommendations on how HUD might improve the intake process, HUD has 
already taken some of these reforms and plans to take others. The FHEO-
OGC Case Processing Research Project should assist the decision-making 
in this area. HUD has established clear standards for what information 
HUD will collect during initial contact in our revised chapter on 
Intake in the Title VIII Handbook. HUD also currently tracks the time 
it takes to file a complaint from the point of initial contact with the 
complainant. Further, we have put procedures in place for processing 
time-sensitive inquiries. In addition, we will establish standards of 
customer service to ensure that staff is available and responsive to 
persons filing complaints. 

In keeping with your recommendation, FHEO will ensure that intake staff 
records the initial "inquiry" date in TEAPOTS as the date of the first 
contact with the complainant. GAO's report recommends that HUD also 
require that FHAP agencies record the initial "inquiry" dates for all 
potential complaints. While HUD has considered such a requirement for 
the FHAP agencies, HUD has never mandated that FHAP agencies record 
"inquiry' information for a number of reasons. First, FHAP is a 
reimbursement program that is tied to the number of complaints a FHAP 
agency files and resolves. HUD does not reimburse FHAP agencies for 
their consideration of inquiries from the public that do not result in 
formal complaints. Without such a financial arrangement with the FHAP 
agencies, it is difficult for HUD to mandate how FHAP agencies 
administratively handle all the calls they receive. Second, HUD would 
consider that FHAP agencies record "inquiry" information for the 
matters they ultimately process as complaints, but it would prove 
difficult for the FHAP to predict at the point of initial contact which 
"inquiries" will result in a complaint and which will be dismissed as 
non jurisdictional. While HUD finds it useful to track and set 
standards for its administrative action on complaints in this early 
stage, our funding arrangement with the FHAP agencies makes it 
unfeasible and burdensome to extend these standards to the FHAP 
agencies. We will, however, work to incorporate the principles of this 
recommendation into our guidance and contractual agreements with FHAP 
agencies. 

HUD agrees that it is important to document that parties receive the 
required notifications and that investigators send 100-day letters 
before a complaint reaches 100 days. We believe that any absence of 
documentation in some of the HUD Fair Housing investigation files that 
required notices have been issued reflect clerical omissions rather 
than a failure to follow procedure. Nonetheless, HUD will, through the 
National Fair Housing Training Academy and the Title VIII Handbook 
training, explore ways of developing an institutional approach to 
address this and other process-oriented matters identified in the 
report. In the short term, we will issue technical guidance memoranda 
to all FHEO field offices to reinforce the importance of the case file 
checklist to assure documentation of receipt of all notices and require 
strict adherence to its required notations. 

As required by the Fair Housing Act and the substantially equivalent 
laws of FHAP agencies, HUD and FHAP agencies attempt conciliation 
during every fair housing investigation. HUD is developing new 
procedures to make sure that all case files reflect the offers of 
conciliation and conciliation attempts, including identifying in the 
Title VIII Handbook Chapter on Preparation of the Case File that a 
separate section on conciliation should be tabbed and appropriately 
marked within the Deliberative Section to include all conciliation 
documentation. 

FHAP agencies and FHEO offices continue to use different styles of 
conciliation (i.e., suspending the investigation to conduct 
conciliation versus pursuing both on parallel tracks). In keeping with 
your recommendation, HUD will share the advantages and disadvantages of 
these and other approaches with FHAP agencies and others. 

Should you or your staff have any questions or require additional 
information please contact Jon L. Gant, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Programs at (202) 619-8046. 

Sincerely, 

Floyd O. May: 
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity: 

Attachment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David G. Wood, (202) 512-6878: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to Mathew J. Scirè (Assistant Director), Nicholas 
Alexander, Carl Barden, Johnnie Barnes, Bernice Benta, Emily Chalmers, 
Arielle Cohen, Paul Desaulniers, Grace Haskins, Robert Lowthian, 
Alexandra Martin-Arseneau, Amanda Miller, Marc Molino, Jeff Pokras, 
Linda Rego, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, Paige Smith, Anita Visser, and 
Joan Vogel made key contributions to this report. 

(250204): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (Apr. 11, 1968) (codified as 
amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619). 

[2] Persons alleging housing discrimination also have up to 2 years 
after the discriminatory housing practice occurred or was terminated to 
file a civil action in United States district court or in state court. 
42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A). 

[3] An inquiry is an allegation of a discriminatory housing practice 
that has not yet been determined to meet the standards for an 
investigation. 

[4] GAO, Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and 
Enforcement Process, GAO-04-463 (Washington, D.C. Apr. 24, 2000). 

[5] Three of the 15 cases with reasonable cause outcomes could not be 
located. According to FHEO officials, these files had been transferred 
to DOJ pursuant to an election by one of the parties to proceed in 
federal court. FHEO officials also stated that in recent years FHEO and 
DOJ have made efforts to better track the election case files. 

[6] Despite the low response rate, we concluded that the survey allowed 
us to make estimates that are generalizable to the population of 
complainants--those whose cases were closed during the last 6 months of 
calendar year 2004. Unless otherwise noted, the confidence intervals 
due to sampling error for all survey estimates are plus or minus 6 
percentage points or smaller. 

[7] We collected TEAPOTS data from February 21, 2005, through May 1, 
2005. 

[8] Since each sample could have provided different estimates (sampling 
error) our results have confidence intervals of plus or minus 8 
percentage points or smaller, unless otherwise noted, at a 95 percent 
level of confidence. In other words, this interval would contain the 
true value for the actual population for 95 percent of the samples we 
could have drawn. 

[9] The confidence interval for this estimate is 3 percent to 20 
percent. 

[10] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 1 percent to 16 
percent and 3 percent to 22 percent, respectively. 

[11] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., prohibit 
discrimination in housing that receives federal funds. 

[12] For a detailed discussion of the provisions of the 1968 Act and 
the 1988 amendments, see GAO-04-463, 6-7. 

[13] FHEO uses the terms "issue," "type," and "subject matter" of 
discrimination interchangeably. 

[14] The Act does not apply to transactions involving private homes 
sold without a broker and advertising unless the owner owns more than 
three single-family dwellings at any one time or to transactions 
involving units in some owner-occupied dwellings. Also not covered in 
some circumstances are religious organizations and private clubs, and 
the familial status provision does not apply to housing for older 
persons. Finally, the Act does not supersede local, state, and federal 
restrictions on how many people may occupy a dwelling. 

[15] H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 34 (1988). 

[16] Reasonable cause outcomes have remained around 5 percent since 
1996. 

[17] FHEO offices have other responsibilities, such as assessing 
compliance with fair housing regulations for entities receiving federal 
funds, providing community education and outreach on fair housing 
issues, and managing grants for HUD. 

[18] A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the number of regular hours a full-
time equivalent would work during a given year. For most years, an FTE 
equals 2,080 hours. 

[19] Procedures differ for certain cases, including those that require 
assistance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), those that may involve 
free speech protected by the First Amendment, and those that name HUD 
as a respondent. 

[20] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) and (C). 

[21] Our experiences with the intake test calls constituted a case 
study, and the results cannot be generalized to the entire population 
of potential complainants or other program locations. 

[22] HUD's Office of Policy, Development, and Research (PDR) assisted 
FHEO and OGC in developing the FHEO-OGC Case Processing Research 
Project, which is aimed at early and continuous interaction between 
FHEO and OGC, and the methodology will be tested in selected FHEO 
regional offices before implementation. 

[23] This figure represents the average percent of level 1 data 
elements that were collected on each call. 

[24] According to HUD, some states' laws prevent FHAP agencies from 
pursuing a complaint until a signed complaint form is received. 

[25] The Chicago FHEO office maintained their contact log from March 1 
through March 28, 2005. 

[26] Where individuals made more than one contact, we included them 
only once in our count of individuals. We also excluded contacts where 
a name was not provided or where a complainant was identified, but the 
intake staff believed the allegation was not a new potential complaint 
or was not a potentially Title VIII-related violation. 

[27] The numbers of contacts at FHEO and FHAP sites do not add to 2,000 
because 33 individuals filed at both HUD and FHAP locations (24 of 
which resulted in perfected complaints). These 33 cases are not 
included in our analysis of attrition by type of agency. 

[28] The number of FHAP contacts alleging discrimination that result in 
a TEAPOTS inquiry is less reliable, as we have found that FHAP agencies 
vary in their use of TEAPOTS. 

[29] The remaining three files we did not review could not be located. 
We did not review files where a FHAP agency had found reasonable cause 
because we could not identify FHAP agency cases that had completed the 
adjudication process in the last 6 months of 2004. 

[30] The four elements of jurisdiction require that: (1) the complaint 
is timely (filed within one year of the most recent act of alleged 
discrimination); (2) the complainant has standing--that is, the 
complainants claim that they have been injured or will be injured by a 
discriminatory housing practice; (3) neither the dwelling nor the 
respondents are exempt; and (4) the complaint alleges a violation of 
the Act, and there is a prohibited basis for the alleged discriminatory 
conduct. 

[31] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(i) requires notice to be served on 
complainants acknowledging such filing and advising the person of the 
time limits and choice of forums. Section 3610(a)(1)(B)(ii) of title 42 
of the United States Code requires notice to be served on respondents 
not later than 10 days after the filing of the complaint or the 
identification of the respondent. (This notice advises respondents of 
their procedural rights and obligations.) HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. §§ 
103.201 and 103.202) require these notifications to be done by 
certified mail or personal service. 

[32] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A). 

[33] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv). 

[34] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(C). 

[35] We considered an element of jurisdiction as "addressed" if the HUD 
903 or equivalent form included information on that element. We did not 
verify that the information on HUD 903 was accurate. 

[36] 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(2). 

[37] These guidelines include: (1) the complainant's rights during the 
processing of the complaint; (2) the rights of each respondent in 
responding to the complaint; and (3) the steps that HUD (or the 
investigating agency) will take to determine whether the complaint has 
merit. 

[38] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a). 

[39] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 19 percent to 34 
percent and 2 percent to 19 percent, respectively. 

[40] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 8 percent to 21 
percent and 0 percent to 6 percent, respectively. 

[41] 24 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(2)(i). 

[42] 24 C.F.R. § 103.400(a)(1) and (2)(ii). 

[43] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a)(1)(B) and (D). HUD regulations require FHAP 
agencies to serve notice on both complainants and respondents upon the 
filing of a complaint. 24 C.F.R. § 115.202(a)(1)(ii) and (iii). 

[44] Estimates were unreliable for the percentage of cases that did not 
contain evidence that new respondents received a copy of the complaint. 

[45] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(b)(5)(A). 

[46] 42 U.S.C. § 3610(d)(2). 

[47] The confidence interval for the second estimate is 4 percent to 17 
percent. 

[48] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 60 percent to 80 
percent and 34 percent to 55 percent, respectively. 

[49] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 86 percent to 100 
percent and 47 percent to 73 percent, respectively. 

[50] The Secretary of HUD will issue a charge on behalf of the 
aggrieved person to a complaint if there is a determination of 
reasonable cause. The charge consists of a short statement of the facts 
upon which the Secretary has found reasonable cause of a discriminatory 
housing practice, and is based on the FIR. 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2). 

[51] We were told that 100-day notices, when appropriate, are 
automatically generated by TEAPOTS, and the investigator inserts the 
data indicating the reasons or circumstances causing delay. TEAPOTS 
identifies 13 reasons investigations may not be completed on time 
including a need to "complete interviews with parties and/or 
witnesses." 

[52] The combined estimates are 60 percent and 10 percent with 
confidence intervals of 48 percent to 72 percent and 4 percent to 20 
percent, respectively. 

[53] The confidence interval for this estimate is 7 percent to 26 
percent. 

[54] Policy and procedure requests seek information on the respondent's 
practices in dealing with the alleged discriminatory matter. 

[55] According to HUD's Title VIII Handbook, violations of illegal 
discrimination of the Fair Housing Act may be established under either 
(1) a disparate treatment theory, which is also known as 
"discriminatory intent" or (2) a discriminatory impact theory, which is 
also known as "discriminatory effect." The disparate treatment theory 
includes overt discrimination cases where there is direct evidence of 
intentional discrimination and other cases where there is only 
circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of a discriminatory 
motive. Further, there are single motive cases and mixed motive cases. 
The particular theory of the case determines the evidence needed to 
prove or rebut the allegations. These theories developed in federal 
employment discrimination cases, but they are generally applied by the 
courts to cases brought under the Fair Housing Act. 

[56] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 98 
percent and 54 percent to 76 percent, respectively. 

[57] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 48 percent to 70 
percent, 51 percent to 74 percent, and 17 percent to 39 percent, 
respectively. 

[58] The confidence interval for the first estimate is 3 percent to 17 
percent. 

[59] The estimate is 60 percent with a confidence interval of 51 
percent to 69 percent. 

[60] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 55 percent to 74 
percent and 59 percent to 75 percent, respectively. 

[61] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 42 percent to 63 
percent and 37 percent to 55 percent, respectively. 

[62] Comparative information may include documentation for persons 
being compared with the complainant in terms of general qualifications 
for the housing opportunity, location relative to the property in 
question, and timing relative to the allegation date. 

[63] The confidence interval for this estimate is 18 percent to 44 
percent. 

[64] The confidence interval for this estimate is 63 percent to 94 
percent. 

[65] The confidence interval for this estimate is 70 percent to 90 
percent. 

[66] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 75 percent to 90 
percent and 68 percent to 90 percent, respectively. 

[67] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 97 
percent and 66 percent to 95 percent, respectively. 

[68] The confidence interval for this estimate is 68 percent to 96 
percent. 

[69] The confidence interval for the second estimate is 78 percent to 
89 percent. 

[70] We asked, "Did anyone from a fair housing organization offer to 
work with you and the other party to find a way to resolve your 
differences?" However, in FHEO's view, intake staff should not tell 
complainants that they could help resolve differences with the other 
party. Rather, intake staff should explain that HUD will assist the 
complainants by trying to conciliate or settle their complaint. 

[71] The confidence interval for this estimate is 13 percent to 31 
percent. 

[72] The confidence interval for this estimate is 80 percent to 97 
percent. 

[73] 24 C.F.R. § 103.310(a). 

[74] 42 U.S.C. § 3610((b)(2). 

[75] The confidence intervals for these estimates are 84 percent to 99 
percent and 78 percent to 97 percent, respectively. 

[76] Federal regulations implementing the Act state that generally 
investigators will not participate in or advise in the conciliation of 
their own cases. 24 C.F.R. § 103.300(c). Nevertheless, the regulations 
allow an individual to act as investigator and conciliator on the same 
case when the rights of the parties "can be protected and the 
prohibitions with respect to the disclosure of information can be 
observed." Id. 

[77] 24 C.F.R. § 103.300(c) states that an investigator "may suspend 
fact finding" and engage in conciliation efforts. 

[78] The estimates provided are based on our survey of a national 
random sample of 575 complainants whose complaints were closed by 
either FHEO or a FHAP agency during the last half of Calendar year 2004 
either through conciliation, administrative closure, or a finding of no 
cause. As noted earlier, the confidence intervals due to sampling error 
for all survey estimates are plus or minus 6 percentage points or 
smaller. 

[79] We specifically listed the following expectations in our survey--
the organization would: (1) take your side in pursuing the complaint, 
(2) prevent the other party from taking immediate action against you 
while investigating the complaint, (3) conduct an investigation, (4) 
help you and the other party resolve your differences, (5) help both 
sides equally, (6) punish the violator, (7) get you a financial award, 
and (8) other. 

[80] This difference may be due to the fact that these agencies did not 
investigate the complaint and deferred to the agency that conducted the 
investigation. However we have no definitive evidence on this issue. In 
addition, if complainants dealt with more than one agency, they may 
have been confused as to which organization took which actions; this 
confusion could extend to being asked to sign a complaint. Further, it 
should be noted the information provided is the complainants' best 
recollection and does not mean that a complaint signing did not occur. 

[81] The Chicago FHEO hub maintained the log from March 1 through March 
28. 

[82] Due to confidentiality concerns and the inability of some agencies 
to dedicate the resources involved with tracking all of the requested 
contact information, not all locations agreed to provide us with caller 
names. Approximately 20 percent of the entries were provided without 
names. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: