Some More Thoughts on Backlogs
I wanted to say one thing about this week's column about the impact of large inventories of unresolved cases at agencies like the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Backlogs like these don't build up out of nowhere. They're the product of circumstances and resource allocations, most definitely not of negligence, or ill-will.
For example, the EEOC projects that more than 100,000 private-sector complaints will get filed by the end of fiscal 2010, and that the total number of public- and private-sector complaints that have yet to get resolved will rise from 73,951 at the end of fiscal 2008 to 87,807 by the end of fiscal 2010, an increase of almost 14,000 cases. In fiscal 2009, the agency got to hire 155 new employees, and hopes to hire an additional 140 this fiscal year. The agency estimates that those new hires mean the agency will be able to process 15,000 more cases each year, an impressive rate. And EEOC's also going to target new training and guidelines at reducing the backlog.
Clearly, the agency has good intentions, and is putting its resources towards getting cases resolved. But situations like this also reveal the limits of both the appropriations process, and the market. In an ideal world, of course, EEOC would be able to hire staff based on demand: when complaints spiked, they'd have the authority and the money to hire exactly the number of staff they need to resolve complaints as quickly as they'd like. But of course they--and every other federal agency--don't have that luxury (or depending on how you put it, that basic freedom). They're dependent on a glacial appropriations process that appears to have no sense of urgency about agency needs, and requires them to think not just about what they need, but what they can make do with. And the truth is, EEOC workers aren't low-level service workers. They're highly educated and trained professionals; you need lead time to get them ready to do their jobs, so you can't count on hiring folks one day, putting them to work immediately, and then getting rid of them when you (think) you don't need them any more.
And really, ultimately, case loads are about the atmosphere in American workplaces, both public and private. Ideally, it would be great to have a full roster of closed-out cases, not just because it would make things easier for the EEOC, but because it would mean we'd have a workplace with less bias and discrimination.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
I could only dream of an 87,000 case backlog. The agency I work for, the Office of Hearings ahnd Appeals, which hears the appeals of unfavorable determinations made by the Social Security Administration on disability applications, has a backlog of over 700,000 individual cases.
cfw
cfw Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 8:13 AMA Federal workplace free of discrimination will only happen when the Fed Govt, led by EEOC, gets serious about punishing offenders and enforcing affirmative employment guidelines. Alas, the EEOC does not put much emphasis on this - it is all lipservice, no accountability.
Old Timer Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 8:23 AM"...ultimately, case loads are about the atmosphere in American workplaces." That's only partially true, because it's also about the work ethic and entitlement posture of the American worker. The article concentrates on workload, and speaks to the "supply side" of the equation only in terms of its size indicating the level of "bias and discrimination" extant.
Although there exists great legitimacy for the purpose of EEOC, it is also "gamed" by many as a last refuge for scoundrels. Poor work record finally caught up with you? File an EEO complaint. Caught spending more time looking at porno on your work computer than actually doing work? File an EEO complaint. Defending against such complaints is a costly and often no-win proposition. Complainants know this, and the probabilty of walking away with a $$ settlement is much greater than winning at the lottery, so, hey, ka-ching!
The subject of the article presents a microcosm of why so much of the population is of the opinion that government is ineffectual or outright harmful. You have many highly-trained, highly-paid, highly-competent people performing work that in many cases should never have wound up in their in-box, but for expanded classes of victimhood, relaxed definitions of what constitutes victimhood, and a burgeoning entitlement ethos among the citizenry.
EJC in ATL Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 8:29 AMYou are wrong on the statement about why backlogs do not occur. Believe me, it is often because of ill-will. I am absolutely convinced that the reasons appropriations and resources are diverted from agencies such as EEOC is to INTENTIONALLY reduce their effectiveness. The Bush administration worked hard to use this approach all over government to advance their agenda. It was not an accident or bad circumstances; it was carefully planned with ill-will.
ILL WILL Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 9:46 AM"... so you can't count on hiring folks one day, putting them to work immediately, and then getting rid of them when you (think) you don't need them any more."
Not to mention that many of those you "got rid of" might have EEOC complaints of their own, if the firing/laying-off weren't handled "just right." Quite a headache, for sure.
Robert Clayton Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 10:58 AMYou are right-workplace conditions and social trends may influence the case inflow, but the EEOC can't be looked at as some sort of heroic, opaque box of managed government function. Your article, like the underlying EEOC docs., skirts the central issue of individual productivity of the investigators and attorneys involved in each case. You (EEOC) say the incremental case closure production with the added staff is "impressive." Compared to what? Is the productivity, measured by labor hours or some other consistent measure, trending up or down? (Yes, each case is different, but with tends of thousands and a lot of history, investigative and attorney and admin labor is readily susceptible to this kind of analysis.) Has anyone at EEOC measured it? Feds always tend to want to pour more labor on the problem, but they don't look/don't want to look at how well they are managing productivity. Hold their feet to the fire.
ObserverIV Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 11:43 AMYesterday at a Senate hearing intended to be about pay equity, Sen. Mikulski questioned acting EEOC Chairman Ishimaru how it is that the agency's backlog is anticipated to grow to 100,000 this year. Ishimaru correctly pointed out that EEOC lost 25% of its staff from 2001-2008. Other causes have to do with working smarter. EEOC's leadership has failed to change the way the work is managed. Micromanagement is killing EEOC employees and adversely impacting the public. Also, in September of 2009, the Union provided a proposal to management which would provide for having EEOC's Investigators focus almost exclusively on investigations, rather than on clerical and administrative functions as currently happens. As of March 2010, the Union has heard only that the plan is still being studied. Meanwhile, the current system is structured so that the public waits.
As for the federal sector side of the equation, one factor that results in the creep in backlogs and processing times is that EEOC's management tells its Administrative Judges (AJs) that they are fungible, almost encouraging them to leave for higher graded Administrative Law Judge positions if they are unhappy with the work. After the AJs leave, EEOC makes little, if any effort to replace them. Again, there is a waiting public.
Gabrielle Martin, President AFGE Council 216 (EEOC Locals) Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 5:47 PMBacklogs at EEOC are actually outpacing the record high number of complaints that come in the door. The point about backlogs is that people suffer in the face of them - complainants (employees/applicants), employers and EEOC staff.
As to the Federal Sector EEOC and their backlog, it exists at every step of the process. Worse yet is the success rate for federal employees who have been discriminated against. 2.5% of findings in favor of complainants? Oh, my. A lot of money is spent on a system where federal employees will lose 97.5% of the time. Ask yourself why the batting average of complainants is so much better in the private sector EEOC.
Could it be that Federal Sector EEOC Administrative "Judges" are actually GS-14 General Attorneys, who receive little if any training and are not bound by the Judicial Code of ethics, who have been given the honorary title of "judge" by the Federal Sector EEOC? (Please note that the EEOC does not disclose this fact on their web site, which does not comport with "transparancy in government, given that federal employees have the right to remove their cases to Federal Court after 180 days. Federal employees seeking redress have the right to know who will be hearing their case, because it is important, given that the EEOC gives the hearing judge wide latitude during the hearing process (which includes Discovery). That latitude extends even to not necessarily having to follow the EEOC federal sector judicial handbook.
It is time to clean this up or shut it down because even federal employees have the right to equal access to justice.
Lane Posted Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:46 AM