Field Enforcement Task Force Final Report

.,.

u.s. Department of Labor

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Employment Standards Administration Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Washington, D.C. 20210

ESA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS ESA ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS FOR OFCCP NATIONAL OFFICE DIVISION DIRECTORS AND BRANCH CHIEFS·'· ~

E~LEN

FROM:

M. SHONG _.~ iV(\"~

D1rectorl

SUBJECT:

l~\

~Y -

D

Final Report - Field Enforcement Task Force

Attached is the final report of the Field Enforcement Task Force. The Task Force has now fulfilled its mission. As you know, that mission was to review and evaluate compliance documents generated by field offices during the compliance review process to ensure consistent and uniform application of OFCCP regulations and procedures. The report states the findings of the Task Force during its review, provides a brief discussion of problem areas found and recommends specific actions to resolve the problem. I endorse the recommended actions and ask that all ARAs take the following actions upon receipt of the report: 1. Distribute the report to regional staff and all area and field offices with instructions that all professional staff read the entire report carefully.

2.

Instruct all offices to implement the recommended actions immediately, to the extent they are applicable to that office.

3.

If not already in place, establish a system for monitoring by the regional office/to ensure that area and field offices have modified their procedures accordingly.

•

-2­

The recommendations that require action at the National Office will also be implemented at the earliest possible time. The "Desk Officer" concept is in place and will be strengthened to ensure a timely and effective response to your requests. Other program offices have been directed to provide complete and accurate information in response to field requests in a timely manner. (Performance ap­ praisals of National Office managers will consider this element.) Policy directives will also be prepared and issued as the need arises. . ., I wish to thank you again for your participation in this important effort. The Task Force, with your cooperation, has made a valuable contribution to the significant improve­ ment that is already evident in the effectiveness and efficiency of the complaince 'review process. Let u,s continue our efforts to do a better job for the people we serve. .\

J6

u.s. Department of Labor

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Employment Standards Administration Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Washington. D.C. 20210

ELLEN M. SHONG

Dir ctor

I

FROM:

SUBJECT:

:

11_

(

.h,p

HN • Fdx xecutive Assistant to the Director

Final Report:

.4 0

Field Enforcement Task Force

Background This report is divided into three parts as follows: Page(s)

I. II.

Introduction.................................. Problem Areas A. General................................... B. Conciliation Agreements................... C. Letters of Commitment ••••••••••••••••••••• D. Notices to Show Cause ••••••••••••••••••••• E. Letters of Deficiency ••••••••••••••••••••• F. Administrative Complaints ••••••••••••••••• G. Standardization of Field Enforcement

Process ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• III. Specific Recommended Changes to Policies and Procedures •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Attachments ••••••.•••••••••••••• 0

I.

1

3

5

11

12

13

14

15

15

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Introduction

On November 23, 1981, Interim Correspondence Procedures described in your November 16, 1981, memorandum to the Assistant Regional Administrators (ARAs) took effect (Attachment 1). Specifically, I formed a Task Force for 120 days to review all Conciliation Agreements, Letters of Commitment, Letters of Deficiency, Notices to Show Cause, and Recommendations for Enforcement generated during

J6

-2­

compliance reviews after December 1, 1981. The purpose of the Task Force was to determine the extent to which OFCCP demonstrates consistency and uniformity in the application of our policies and procedures during the investigation and conciliation process under­ taken duri~g compliance reviews. Jack Bluestein, formerly Acting Director of the Division of Program Operations,· was the first Direc~or o£ the Task Force until his departure for Chicago as Acting Assistant Regional Administrator in mid-January 1982. Since that time, Dwight Lawrence, who replaced Jack as Acting Director, Program Operations, has served as the Task Force Director. Using a "desk officer" assignment p~ocess, the Task Force members were as follows: . Region(s) I

& II

III

& IV

V

VI & VIII

VII

IX & X

Task Force Member Responsible Elaine Lynn Gerry Lowe "Joe DuBray Geri Banfield Charles Christian Bernie Michaels

Between December 1, 1981, and COB March 12, 1982, the Task Force reviewed 239 proposed or executed Conciliation Agreements, 170 Letters of Commitment, 70 Letters of Deficiency and 66 Notices to Show Cause. In addition, approximately one dozen administrative complaints were evaluated and 4 Notices of Alleged Noncompliance. . All documents were received at the National Office ("N.O.") and immediately forwarded to the appropriate Task Force members. Each document was logged and analyzed. (A sample log is included as Attachment 2.)· . Proposed Conciliation Agreements or Letters of Commitment were forwarded to the Task Force Director with a recom­ mendation for clearance or rejection. Conciliation Agreements or Letters of Commitment that had already been formally accepted at the regional level were forwarded to the Task Force Director with a recommendation for approval or disapproval within'45 days of receipt at the N.O.

Jt

-3­

When the Task Force Director either cleared or approved a document, this info~ation was immediately telephoned to the region which generated the document. If a document was rejected or disapproved, the same procedure was followed, but instruc­ tions for amending the document were provided. Th~

Task Force addressed two basic types· of problems: (a) those problems which were so critical that correction was necessary -immediately and (b) those problems which it~ould be wise to correct but not necessary to change at that point. All clearances were to be accomplished as quickly as possible, but in no case to exceed 7 working days from receipt of a document. The vast majority of all documents were processed within this timeframe. This report contains our conclusions about the quality and con­ sistency of the field work product we reviewed and contains recommendations for ~anagementchanges to further ensure the consistent and uniform application of the.regulations. An interim report was prepared and distributed to the field on February 16, 1982 (Attachment 3). This final report is a cumulative listing of all major or repetitious problem areas noted by the Task Force. The Task Force has concluded from its review of almost 600- enforce­ ment documents during this 4-month period that the field is, in general, consistently and professionally performing its job. The great majority of the documents reviewed contained few, if any, critical errors. Inconsistencies identified by the Task Force are set forth below. II.

Problem Areas

A.

General 1.

Reading Regulations

The most common substantive general problem we found was the failure of the enforcement document to follow the language or intent of OFCCP regulations. We believe this stems from a very basic failing of Equal Opportunity Specialists (ItEOS's") drafting agreements and reviewing officers to read and reread the precise regulation all~ged to have been violated. For example, we found that some conciliation agreements (hereafter fICA 'os ") noted deficiencies -- while citing the proper regulation section -- but did not accurately, fully or properly paraphrase the prohibition or require­ ment contained in the regulation. This was a particular­ ly acute and repetitious problem in those regions which allowed EOS's to "hand craft" the deficiency portions of

CAts in lieu of "canned" deficiency language used in

most

r~gions

for the commonly found deficiencies.

-4­ Second, we found that some CA's imposed remedies not required by the regulation the contractor was all~ged to have violated.' In some of these cases, it 'would have been more appropriate to cite other portions of our regulations as the basis of violation. We believe this problem evinces a lower standard· of professional care than is acceptable but takes root again from the EOS's failure to have recently reviewed the precise language of the regulation before determining that a violation had occurred. . Third, we found numerous inaccurate citations to regulations evincing the need to demonstrate greater attention to detail, especially on the part of re­ viewers. While this is a technical problem, it 'is our opinion that it undermines the public's percep­ ~ion of our professionalism.

Recommended procedures for addressing these problems is set forth in Section III, item 3a., b. and c. 2.

National Office Contact Point Our review revealed a very large degree of frustration in the field regarding the location of field documents in the National Office. Regional· Office contact officers find it very. difficult to locate and track documents in the National Office given the 'number of divisions, and the hierarchical review structure. Members of the Task Force were repeatedly surprised to find that the regions took the opportunity to establish ·the Task Force as their regional "contact point" to locate documents in the National Office and with whom to lodge requests for guidance. . recommended procedure for addressing this problem is set forth in Section III, item 4.

A

3.

Policy Feedback Mechanism Our experience was that Regional Offices are eager to pose questions regarding current policy and have numerous such questions. They often took the oppor­ tuni~y to request policy quidance from the T~sk Force. Our experience was that once informed of National Office policy, the field quickly and easily imple­ mented it. There was, however, a strong desire in the field and need to reduce such policy guidance quickly to writi~g so that all EOS's could be equally informed

-5­

of policy without delay and without on "institutional knowle~qe".

havi~9

to rely

Recommended Procedures for addressing this problem are set forth in Section III, item Sa. and b. 4.

Effective Date of CAts Our review revealed that there "is much consternation and confusion in the field about the date a CA becomes effective. The existing compliance manual procedure, of course, calls for the Assistant Regional Administrator to sign the CA and thereafter forward" for approval those" necessary for National Office review. As noted in Part III (b), infra, CAts contain language which state that "This Agreement will be deemed to have been accepted by the Government on the date of signa­ ture unless it has been disapproved by the Director, OFCCP, within 45 days of the Director's receipt of the agreement." (emphasis supplied). In addition, the practice of the National Office (Enforcement Division, Branch of Conciliation Review), historically has been to notify the field only regardi~g those CA's disapproved. No notices of approval are called in to the Region or mailed to the R~gion or contractor. Accordingly, neither the Region nor the contractor know the date of receipt by the Director and beyond that as a practical matter must wait until the 45th "day following the Director's receipt in" all cases, including those approved immediately, before assuming that the " Agreement is effective. We note that this often has the effect of delaying implementation of corrective action, leaves all concerned personnel in doubt about the precise status of. the CA and spawns needless "status check" telephone traffic. Resolution: This problem has been corrected since the issuance of OFCCP Order No. 650c4 on April 21, 1982.

B.

Conciliation Agreements. The following minor deficiency was identified in several Conciliation Agreements.

-6­

1. Finding: Part I, General Provisions of a Conciliation Agreement are unclear on acceptance dates. Discussion: This Part of some Agreements contains language which states that: "This Agreement will be' deemed to have been accepted by the Government on the date of signature'u~les~~it has been disapproved by the Director,'OFCCP, within 45 days of the Director's receipt of the Agreement." This language is not ac­ ceptable, since it is not" certain whose signature is being referred to. If the contractor interprets this to mean the signature of the 'AOD, the ARA may be barred from amending or disapprovi~g the Agreement. Resolution: This particular sentence should, in all Agreements, read: This ••• signature by the Assistant Regional Administrator unless ••• Agreement." A pro­ posed Manual change is set forth in Section III of this report. The following major deficiencies have been identified in several Conciliatiqn Agreements. 2. Finding: Conciliation Agreements have contained requirements that the contractor distribute a sum of money, either the balance of back pay monies or a straight "contribution," directly to an OFCCP Area Office for distribution or to a Church or local community o~ganization. Discussion: Back pay is a make-whole remedy belonging solely to victims of discrimination. OFCCP has no . authority to .serve as a fiduciary, or to require or permit contributions to special interest groups as a remedy for discrimination or evidence of "good faith effort" to provide equal employment opportunity. No provision is made for any of the activity described above in the Execu ti ve Order', in our regula tions, or in our Compliance Manual or Directives. Resolution: Conciliation Agreements shall not contain such provisions. All Conciliation Agreements which

-7­ provide for retrospective relief shall include a

requirement that OFCCP monitor final results of the

contractor" s distribution to victims.

Conciliation Agreement identifies adverse impact in some employment processes for protected classes 'as a deficiency. The remedy calls for in­ creased affirmative action efforts.

3. Finding:

Discussion: Where there is~statJ..stical adverse impact as defined in theUniforrn Guidelines on Employee Selection, further investigation of contractor records must lead either to a finding of at least, a prima facie case of discrimination or a finding that there is no such de­ ficiency. In ei ther case', the on-si te review of records should enable the EOS to clearl'y and concisely state, in the on-site narrative, his/her conclusions concern~ ing each statistical adverse impact. 41 CFR Part 60-3.3A clearly states that "Procedur'es having adverse, impact constitute discrimination unless justified". Where a contractor's records are such that no meaningful analysis can be undertaken on-site, and there is no evidence of validity for the procedure producing the advers'e impact, disc'rimination mU,s't be identified and appropriate remedi.es for d~scrimination so~ght. Do not, identify statistical adverse impact as a problem per see If there is a statistical adverse impact which cannot be shown to have a nondiscriminatory cause through our analysis of contractor employment records, an affected class must be identified. The burden is then shifted to the contractor for rebuttal. ·Where the contractor's rebuttal is either not forthcoming 'or is without merit and conciliation fails, prepare the case for enforcement. , .

Resolution:

4.

Finding: Some Conciliation Agreements particularly those which include retrospective relief, contain language in Part I, General Provisions, which indicates that an agreement can be considered accepted by OFCCP prior to' a full 45-day period after receipt by the Director, OFCCP. Discussion: In Chapter 8 of the OFCCP Compliance Manual, pages 8-13 through 8-15, it is clear that a clause must be included in the General Provisions of any Conciliation Agreement that gives the Director, OFCCP 45 days from his/her receipt of the Agreement to approve or disap­ 'prove. This provision cannot bearnended or excluded

-8­

without the express approval of the Director, OFCCP. If we are to be consistent and avoid misunderstandings that can breed confrontation, clauses such as this must be included as required.• Resolution: All Conciliation Agreements must contain this clause, unless amendments have been expressly approv~d by the Director. S..

Finding: Some Conciliation Agr~ements contain language in the mandatory enforcement clause that was modified without the prior approval of the Director. This, of course, is in violation of procedures set forth in the OFCCP Compliance Manual and could be embarrassing to the agency if litigation were later contemplated. Resolution: All Conciliation Agreements must contain the mandatory enforcement language verbatim, unless the Director has given prior approval for amendments (Chapter 8, Section 8-130.3 •

6 • Finding:

'Conci lia tion Agreements have frequen tly been with remedies for major deficiencies de­ scribed in the past tense, and containing no commitment for the future. sUbrni~ted

Discussion: A Conciliation Agreement is a document used by OFCCP to ensure that major violations cor­ rected through the conciliation process are not repeated by the contrac,tor without swift governmental intervention. A remedy stating that a problem has been "corrected" but without a commitme'nt concerning future conduct is unacceptable. In such a case, repetition of the same violation ,during tpe term of the Agreement might not subject the contractor to the provisions of the enforcement clause. Resolution; Each deficiency cited in a Conciliation Agreement must include an appropriately worded commit­ ment which would preclude repetition of the violation. 7. Finding: a term.

Some Conciliation Agreements do not contain

Discussion: OFCCP will no longer require open-ended Conciliation Agreements. There are certain provisions

-9­

of most Conciliation Agreements, usually reporti~g requirements, which, if extended beyond two years, can become unnecessarily burdensome to contractors. The federal courts have also struck down open-ended Consent Decrees formerly negotiated by the EEOC under Title VI~.' In addition, it is not a wise use of sources and does not further program ends to evaluate all reports submitted for more than two years and to respond to the reporti~g contractor. Resolution: In the very near future, a new directive will be issued formally communicating the guidance set forth in this paragraph'. Each Conciliation Agreement must contain language setting forth the termination date for the Agreement. The duration must be the minimum period of time necessary to permanently correct all de­ ficiencies. This time, in most cases, will not exceed two years. AODs may only extend the two-year termination date when they can demonstrate circumstances to the ARA which would make it impossible for the contractor to correct all deficiencies within the maximum two-year period. (Examples of such occurrences might be remedies for deficiencies which 'may require more than a two-year period to implement.) 8. Finding: Action-oriented programs are often too vague and lack the specificity to be enforceable. Discussion~

Action~oriented programs are an important ingredient of an Affirmative Action Program (AAP). Ultimately, a contractor's compliance status is judged by the "good faith" efforts taken comply with the" Executi,ve Order. Action-oriented programs represent ,the contractual agreement between the contractor and the government as to what constitutes "good faith" effort. Adherence to these steps is by definition compliance with the AAP irrespective of any ,enhanced opportunities for minorities and women. It is, therefore, very im­ portant to secure a commitment that is designed to produce results in response to a particular problem area . and is specific 'enough so that both the OFCCP and the contractor .know precisely wha~'s expected. Action-oriented programs that are too general in terms of content, time frames or persons responsible may be unenforceable.

Resolution: Action-oriented programs must be tailored to resolve problems resulting from specified employment practices. They must be·adapted to local conditions and include a description of what actions will be taken, how each action will be taken, who will accomplish each

aCtion and when each action will be accomplished.

3t

-10­

9. Finding: . On occasion, modifications have been made

to Conciliation Agreement general provisions, or

specific provisions have been drafted, by which an

Area Office unwittingly waived government rights

without authority to do so or,'.similarly, granted

a contractor special extra-legal r~ghts. ­ Discussion-: Language requiring "mutual agreement" and related language regarding certain government review and enforcement· activities, public statements and release of information, etc., must be avoided because it gives a private party a veto over government actions. Such actions are already regulated by law, and varying degrees of discretion are granted to govern­ ment officials which cannot be waived or abrogated in this fashion.

Resolution: All proposed deletions of language to the general provisions .0£ Conciliation Agreements must be approved in advance by the Director, OFCCP. 10. Finding: Many references "to adverse impact·" demonstrate serious misunderstandings of that term as it is used in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures published at 41 CFR 60-3. In particular, numerous Conciliation Agreements identified concentrations of minorities-or women and concluded that "adverse.impact" under the Selection Guidelines existed, without resort to an analysis of select~on rates. Resolution:· We recommend that the Systemic Discrimination Task Force address a separate section to use of the Selection Guidelines. The Systemic, Task Force should develop written materials which explain that "(a) selection rate for any race, sex or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group wi·th the highest rate will . generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact." 41 CFR 60-3.4(D). EOS's should be'reminded

-ll~

that "adverse impact" is a technical term of art which should not be used in a lay sense alleging concentrationS-Of minorities or women. I

11. Finding:' Several Conci1iation Agreements improperly applied the Selection Guidelines to employment policies or practices (such as compensation) not covered by the Guidelines. See 41.CFR 60-3.2(b). Resolution: 'We recommend that the Systemic Task Force Identify the employment practices to which the Guidelines 'apply and identify systemic d~scrimination analytical p~ocedures to be employed for employment practices not covered by the Selection Guidenlines.

c.

Letters of Commitment The following minor deficiency ·has been identified in

several Letters of' Commitment.

1.

Finding: The Letter of Commitment lists only the corrective actions, but fails to itemize the defi­ ciencies as well •. Discussion: Some Letters of Commitment contain merely the corrective action agreed to by the contrac­ tor. It is often unclear as to exactly what problem the corrective action is ~ntended to rectify •. Resolution: All Letters of Commitment must briefly itemize identified ~eficiencies as well as setting forth actions necessary' 'to correct them. There must bea clear record of the problems in existence at the tim~ the contractor was reviewed, to determine if the commitments were sufficient to resolve the problems.

The following major deficiency has been identified in several Letters of Commitment. 2. Finding: On several occasions, .in some regions, Letters of Commitment have been accepted in lieu of Conciliation Agreements where reviews uncovered major deficiencies. Resolution: The OFCCP Manual clearly B.ets ·forth in Chapter 8, page 8-12 paragraph 8-110.1 those situations in which a Conciliation Agreement is required. Regions are hereby instructed to adhere to this policy in all future compliance reviews. There can be no exceptions.

-12­ D.

Notices to Show Cause The following minor deficiencies .have been identified in several Notices to Show Cause as well as several Letters of Deficiency. 1. Finding:

Incorrect citations for violations of the

r~gulations.

Resolution: Review all proposed Notices to Show Cause prior to signature to ensure that citations for violations are correct. Some regions ·cite contractors for failure ·to follow the requirements of Subpart C of 41 CFR Part 60-2 to the letter. .

2. Finding:

Discussion: Subpart C is a comprehensive listing of methods of implementing the requirements of Subpart B. However, contractor adherence to Subpart C is neither mandatory nor enforceable. Its provisions are merely suggestions of possible approaches available to ·a contrac­ tor. Resolution: Do not cite a contractor for failure to implement Subpart C or require it to comply with the provisions set out in that. Subpart. The following major deficiency has been identified in several Notices to Show Cause. 3. Finding: Notice to Show Cause cited' the contractor for systemic discrimination. Subsequent Conciliation. Agreement eliminated or modified the deficiency. Discussion: Substantive Notices to Show Cause alleging systemic discrimination are usually prepared after a desk audit, on-site review and extensive off-site analysis. Systemic discrimination violations (and all other violations) shall not be alleged unless an.EOS

-13­ has specific evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination. Compliance officers shall not allege the existence of a discrimination violation (or' any other violation for that matter) absent facts to support such a finding. Attempting to bolster a negotiating position by reference to unfounded allega­ tions only brings the program into disrepute and causes members of ~e public to' question your professionalism and eventually that of the entire program. ~

Resolution: Ensure a thorough case' file "review prior to issuance of a Notice to Show Cause alleging systemic discrimination. E.

Letters of Deficiency There were no minor deficiencies identified in Letters of Deficiency except for incorrect citations (previously mentioned). The following major deficiencies were identi~ fied in several Letters of Deficiency. 1. Finding=- Letters of Deficiency (or Conciliation Agreements) arising out of construction reviews in particular have cited the contractor solely for failure to meet a goal without" considering whether the contrac­ tor.has exercised. good faith efforts.

Corrective action/sanctions for affirmative action deficiencies are only appropriate and enforceable if good faith efforts 'have not been attempted. Where a contractor has" made good faith efforts but affirmative action has nonetheless failed, no corrective action/ sanction is required.

Discussion~

Resolution: Ensure that if a company has a deficiency in this area, the Letter of Commitment should recite that the company has failed to take good faith efforts to meet the goal. 2. Finding: Area Office issued a Letter of Deficiency giving the contractor 15 days to remedy the problem area~ or face enforcement proceedi~gs.

Discussion: ·OFCCP has no authority to issue any notice to a contractor, except for a Notice of Alleged Non­ compliance (with a previous Conciliation Agreement), stating that the company has 15 days to remedy deficien­ .cies, or face enforcement.

-14­ Resolution: All .Letters'ofDeficiency should invite the contractor to immediately resolve or conciliate the resolution of identified problems. A reasonable time frame for a response should be includ~d as well as a small description of the next step of the process (i.e. Notice to Show ·Cause) if the contractor does not respond or conciliation otherwise fails. 3. Finding: Some Letters of Deficiency have cited con­ tractors with federally-assisted construction contracts for failure to develop and maintain AAP's under the. 402(503

pr~grams.

Resolution: Only contractors with 50 or more employees and a direct Federal contract or subcontract of $50,000 or mo~e are required to pre~are AAP's under the 402/503 programs. F. Administrative Complaints 1. Assembly of case files did present minor problems. The Task Force reminded the Regions to follow the OFCCP Manual, Chapter 8, pp.• 8-22 through 8-26 for case file assembly. ~o further action is recommended.

2. The Task Force discovered a more serious problem at the Regional Office level in that ARA's had failed to attempt conciliation at their level, choosing instead to review and prepare a recommendation ·for enforcement. This was particularly disappointing with regard to several cases posing relatively minor issues which were easily and successfully negotiated with the contractors over the telephone from ~ashington. Resolution: We strongly recommend that you prepare and transmit a Directive to ARAts requiring them to personally attempt conciliation before preparing a recommendation for enforcement.· 3. The most serious problem presented in enforcement cases was the development of discrimination cases, particularly those involving alleged systemic discrimination. This is understandable that "this is the most complex and demandi~g area of responsibility.

in

-15­ Our review confirms the need and utility of the Systemic Discrimination Task Force to develop state of the art systemic discrimination invest~gation and analytic methodologies. G.

Standardization of Field Enforcement Process .'

~

Due to the flexibility provided in the OFCCP Compliance Manual, (Chapter 3, Section 3-230), there are a number of ways in which a case can be closed. As a result, different regions are using different case closing procedures despite the fact that the circumstances of particular cases might be almost identical. For example, some r~gions issue Letters of Deficiency for even minor deficiencies, others do not. Some regions always issue a Letter of Deficiency prior to issuing a substantive Notice to Show Cause, others do not. Some regions send·a contractor a proposed Conciliation Agreement for signature in lieu of a Letter of Deficiency, immediately upon completion of a desk audit others only issue such letters after completion of the on-site review and off-site analysis, where necessary. These are process problems which can only be resolved through cleare~ policy direction for field offices. . III.

Specific Recommended Changes to Po·licies and Procedures

There are two minor changes to the OFCCP Manual which we believe are necessary to avoid further confusion. 1. Revise paragraph 7 of Figure 8-12 (Sample Format for Conciliation Agreement)~n page 8-57 to conform with the wording of par~graph 8-130.2h on page 8-15. .The revision would place the phrase "by the Assistant Regional Administrator" ·between the words "signature" and "unless" on the Sample Format. 2.

Revise the wording for the first deficiency in Figure 8-10 on page 8-54. The revision would place the phrase "take good faith efforts to" between the words "to~ and "utilize" in the second line of the deficiency.

The major changes we recommend to policies and procedures are set forth below.

-16­

Recommendations for General Problems 3.

Readi~g R~gulations

a. We strongly recommend that you commission the Operations Division to prepare a directive re­ quiring each EOS or reviewe~ to~reread the precise regulation section before alleging a violation or approving work product citing' a regulation. The

Task Force standard procedure was to make resort to the regulations each and every time a regulation was cite~. As a result, we quickly identified these problems. b.

In addition, we recommend that you instruct the Operations Division to survey the area offices to determine the type of system used to draft CAts and to explore the feasibility of developing in each area office standardized deficiencies formats, mag card or "deficiency bible" listings which could be used to increase uniformity of language and citation. .

c. We further recommend that you direct the Branch of Technical Support to make further recommendations to you about options available to develop and maintain an ongoing "regulations refresher" training course for OFCCP personnel. Although the publica­ tion of new regulations from time to time offers the opportunity for new training, our review suggests the utility of an on-going system of regulations refresher, week in and week out'. We have wi thheld specific recom­ mendations in this area since training is beyond the mandate or experience of the Field Task Force. 4.

National O£fice Contact Point We recommend that you consider adoption of the "Desk Officer" approach within the Branch of Field Liaison. Desk Officers could then serve as a central source of contact for the region and help shepherd field documents

through the National Office.

-17­ 5. Policy Feedback Mechanism a. Much more policy and enforcement.. guidance is necessary. We recommend that you request the Operations Division to identify options to develop· a capability to intake, draft and quickly dissemi­ nat~ directives to the field regarding enforcement· policies. Our recommendation is that any question that arises twice should be considered for written policy. guidance. b. We recommend that you request the Policy Division' to develop a "quick ~ritten response" capability to intake inquiries and return program policy direc­ tives to the field. You may want to explore the concept of a "program policy hotline" or contact , point to heighten the visibility of this program to EOS'Si to further encourage the field to bring policy questions to the National Office for resolu- . tion, and to restore the faith of the field that policy guidance is available on a timely basis in the National Office.

Attachments (3)