In FY 1987, the Department achieved net savings of $584 million The Department has expedited Federal payments to program Proposed Technical Changes We are requesting a change in the generic, often confusing title of the "Salaries and Expenses" account to "Program Administration," which better distinguishes the activities funded in the account from those in the Office for Civil Rights and Office of the Inspector General accounts. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present our request. My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Statement by LeGree S. Daniels Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights on Office for Civil Rights Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to present the 1989 budget request for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). For the Office for Civil Rights, a budget of $41.3 million is requested that will support a full-time equivalent (FTE) staff of 820. Of this request, $33.5 million, or 81 percent, is needed for salaries and benefits and $7.8 million, or 19 percent, is for expenses that include travel, contracts, supplies, printing, mailing, ADP equipment, and services. The requested FTE level of 820 is based on our current estimate of annualized FY 1988 FTE usage. I believe this staff level in 1989 will permit us to enforce effectively the civil rights laws for which we are responsible. Investigation and Enforcement Activities In FY 1987, we received 1,976 complaints, and closed 2,195 complaints. Some of the complaints closed were received in previous years. During FY 1987, we received 371 complaints regarding race, color, and national origin, 95 alleging sex discrimination, 1,069 alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap, 53 alleging age discrimination, and 251 complaints alleging discrimination on multiple bases. Of the 1,976 complaints received in FY 1987, 137 concerned cases over which OCR has no jurisdiction, such as religion. We had 677 complaints pending as of September 30, 1987, down 58 percent since the end of FY 1981. OCR also initiated 240 compliance reviews and closed 278, some of which were started in previous years. We had 83 compliance reviews pending at the end of FY 1987. Enforcement In FY 1987, complaints under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, preventing discrimination on the basis of handicap, constituted the largest proportion--54 percent--of all complaints, continuing a trend started in FY 1979. I would like to emphasize some of our activities in enforcing Section 504. During FY 1987, 27 cases were in active administrative litigation. Of these cases, 13 involved violations of Section 504. Four of these administrative enforcement cases were against one State board of education. The issues under litigation include failure to conduct a reevaluation prior to a change in the placement of a handicapped child; failure to provide an impartial appeals-level review of placement determinations made by due process hearing officers; and failure to provide various groups of handicapped children with an appropriate education. As of March 31, 1988, we had 18 cases in administrative litigation. Eleven of these cases alleged discrimination on the basis of a handicap. At last year's hearing we notified the Committee that OCR had commenced fund termination proceedings against a large school district. Our investigation found widespread violations that are estimated to affect as many as 5,000 children. The Administrative Hearing was completed three months ago, and we are awaiting the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Most cases do not go to hearing or result in fund termination, but I will not hesitate to take enforcement action if voluntary compliance cannot be obtained. Case Processing Procedures OCR, in certain limited circumstances, employs a process known as Early Complaint Resolution (ECR). The Office for Civil Rights acts as a mediator between the complainant and the recipient when a complaint is filed. In FY 1987, 86 cases were resolved under ECR. If Early Complaint Resolution is not appropriate or is unsuccessful, we conduct an investigation. If a violation is found, whether as a result of a complaint investigation or compliance review, OCR is by law required to negotiate voluntary compliance. Our success in negotiating voluntary compliance is reflected in the fact that remedies are obtained in all but a small number of such cases prior to the Federal government's investment of significant resources to litigate these cases. However, if voluntary efforts to negotiate fail, we can and do enforce the civil rights laws either by initiating administrative enforcement proceedings or by referring the cases to the Department of Justice. State Higher Education Desegregation In late 1969 and early 1970, we notified a number of States that they were in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for having failed to dismantle their formerly de jure dual systems of higher education. The Department informed the States that they were required to file statewide plans to eliminate all "vestiges" of segregation in their public systems of higher education. In 1977, as part of the Adams case, the Federal District Court ordered the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to establish new, uniform criteria for statewide desegregation. These revised criteria were published in final form by the Department on February 15, 1978. By April 1979, the Department accepted new multi-year plans from six States. It accepted plans from another four States in 1981. These 10 plans expired in the academic year 1985-1986. Four additional State plans were accepted during 1982-1985 and expire during the period 19871990. As part of these remedial action plans, the States agreed to undertake specific activities to end the remaining vestiges of segregation. On February 10, 1988, we issued Letters of Evaluation to the 10 States whose plans had expired. Although each of the 10 States complied with the majority of their commitments, 6 States--Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia--will be required to implement some measures that remain incomplete. The Office for Civil Rights is requiring each of the six States to submit, by May 10, 1988, a Letter of Assurance that these commitments will be fulfilled by December 31, 1988. We do not anticipate that any State will be unable to implement the remaining important measures by next December. Arkansas, North Carolina (Community College System), South Carolina and West Virginia were found in compliance with Title VI. We are continuing to monitor the higher education desegregation plans in Pennsylvania, Texas and Maryland. The Kentucky plan has expired and we expect to issue an evaluation of its plan during 1988. The Department of Education will continue to monitor vigorously compliance with civil rights laws and regulations and investigate all complaints. Effect of Civil Rights Restoration Act The Supreme Court's 1984 Grove City decision held that an entire educational institution was not subject to civil rights laws because one program within that institution received Departmental aid. The Grove City decision added an additional step to our investigations. We had to determine whether the discrimination alleged took place in a program or activity that received Departmental financial assistance. Notwithstanding this additional step in the investigative process, at the end of FY 1987 the number of complaints pending decreased 26 percent from the number pending at the end of FY 1986. Pending cases are now at the lowest level since we began automating our reports. On March 22, 1988, the Civil Rights Restoration Bill was enacted. The next day I issued a memorandum to all regional offices establishing interim procedures for compliance with the new law. This memorandum includes specific instructions regarding the handling of open complaints at the time of the law's enactment. We will modify our regulations to carry out any changes mandated by the law. Naturally, we will be carefully assessing the impact of the new law on all aspects of OCR's activities. One factor we will have to consider is the possible reduction in investigation time. Under the new law OCR no longer has to obtain detailed financial information prior to conducting an investigation on the complainant's allegation. Other possible changes may include the number of complaints and the types of discrimination allegations we receive. Since the new law has been in effect for less than a month, it is still too early to tell what the full impact of the new law will be on our operations. Adams Dismissal The most important factor influencing our operations in the immediate past has been the application of the court's decree which resulted from lawsuits brought by civil rights groups during the past 17 years alleging inadequate enforcement of the civil rights laws. The decree is commonly known as the Adams Order. The Adams Order established fixed timetables for OCR's handling of complaints and compliance reviews and required OCR to obtain desegregation plans in States that were found to have vestiges of de jure segregation in their higher education systems. On December 11, 1987, Federal District Court Judge John H. Pratt granted the Government's motion to dismiss Adams v. Bennett. Judge Pratt held that all of the plaintiffs and intervenors in Adams lack standing to continue the litigation and that his prior order establishing timeframes for OCR's enforcement violated the Constitution's principle of Separation of Powers. The court recognized that the Office for Civil Rights has independent authority to administer the Nation's civil rights laws under its jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal. We will continue to investigate thoroughly alleged violations of these laws in all programs or activities receiving Departmental financial assistance. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that at the end of each of the past four years, the average age of pending cases has been below the 225 day time frame permitted by the court order for each complaint received by OCR. In addition, OCR's Adams compliance rate for complaints has been above that required by the court order for the past four years. After 17 years, we welcome this opportunity to resume full responsibility for the affairs of the Office for Civil Rights. We will follow prompt case processing procedures similar to those required by the Adams Order and will continue careful handling of every complaint we receive. Technical Assistance In addition to complaint investigations and compliance reviews, OCR provides technical assistance on the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of recipients of Federal funds under the civil rights laws. In 1987, we received 1,374 requests for technical assistance (TA), initiated 364 outreach efforts, and conducted 2,003 TA activities. Most requests for TA from ED recipients and beneficiaries addressed Section 504 concerns, while outreach activities addressed all the statutes enforced by OCR. More than 248,000 copies of OCR publications were distributed during 1987 through direct mailings to recipients and beneficiaries, attendance at meetings, on-site distribution to recipients, and information booths at various civil rights conventions. 577 |