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. In  2004, FHEO hubs and FHAP agencies closed about one-third of their cases  via conciliation. 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. 5.) 10). However, the  relative infrequency with which some practices were used, according to  documentation in the case files, raises questions about investigation  thoroughness. 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. 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. 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. In general, complainants had similar  responses for FHEO and FHAP investigations. 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. 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. 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). 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.
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.