	Background

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established to serve as an  independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency whose mission is to  investigate and report on the status of civil rights in the United States. The Commission has established 51 state advisory committees composed  of private citizens appointed by the Commission who volunteer to assist  the agency by identifying local civil rights issues, some of which may  become important at the national level. The primary written product  produced by the Commission’s national office is a statutorily required  annual report on federal civil rights enforcement efforts. The Commission has also conducted public hearings with  witnesses as part of its investigative and fact-finding mission. The  Commission’s professional staff researches and writes its national office  reports and organizes Commission briefings and fact-finding hearings. To carry out their mission to gather information and to advise the  Commission on state and local civil rights issues, state advisory  committees are authorized to hold fact-finding meetings and invite  government officials and private persons to provide information and their  views on various subjects. However, it does not have policies for ensuring an objective  examination of the issues or ensuring accountability for the decisions  made on its products. The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring the Objectivity of National Office Products

The Commission does not have a policy requiring the representation of  varied perspectives in its national office reports, in contrast to its policies  for state advisory committee reports, which are required to “represent a  variety of different and opposing views.” For example, the initial draft of  the Commission’s 2005 report, Federal Procurement after Adarand (the  Adarand report)—the most significant report recently issued by the  Commission because it was the statutorily required annual report— reflected a range of research and perspectives on a controversial issue  involving the application of racial considerations in federal contracting. Commission Policies for State Advisory Committee Products Are More Comprehensive than Those for Its National Office Products

For state advisory committee products, which are researched and written  principally by the Commission’s regional office staff, the Commission has  quality assurance policies that are generally more comprehensive than its  policies for its national office products. State Advisory Committees Have Played a Key Role in the Commission’s Work, but Most of Their Operations Have Been Suspended

The state advisory committees have played a key role in accomplishing the  work of the Commission, but most committees cannot currently conduct  any work because the Commission has not renewed their charters. Since 1980, the state advisory committee  issued 200 of the 254 reports published by the Commission. According to the Commission’s Chair, the new membership criteria were  developed in order to, among other things, move away from racially and  ethnically based representation toward greater diversity in expertise and  ideas. Reports that have satisfied these criteria will be printed with a disclaimer  stating: “The views expressed in this report and the findings and  recommendations contained herein are those of a majority of the members  of the state advisory committee and do not necessarily represent the views  of the Commission, its individual members, or the policies of the United  States government.” According to two Commissioners in their comments  on our draft report, the Commission will be reviewing project procedures  for state advisory committee products as it did previously for national  office products. According to the Staff Director, the  Commission is now working to include goals that incorporate the role of  the state advisory committees in its strategic plan, including obtaining the  views of the state advisory committees on the Commission’s goals and  their role in accomplishing these goals. In addition, only  22 percent of state committee chairs who responded to our survey  reported that they were satisfied with the quality of their communication  with the national office. The Commission has not provided for independent oversight of its policies  and practices for state advisory committees, despite the long-standing  nature of many of the issues we identified regarding the Commission’s  lack of consultation and communication with the state advisory  committees, delays in renewing charter applications, and lack of  timeliness and other issues in approving state advisory committee reports. Conclusions

Without having policies in place for ensuring the objectivity of its reports,  briefings, and hearings, the Commission cannot provide adequate  assurance that it is achieving its mission as an independent, bipartisan  fact-finding agency by informing often controversial debates over civil  rights issues for the public’s benefit. (3) In order to ensure that the Commission can provide advice to Congress  and make the most effective use of the state advisory committees, it  should    develop and implement a formal process for approving state advisory  committee charters with specific timetables to ensure their approval in a  timely manner and for appointing and seating advisory committee  members promptly after charter approval; renew its practice of separately identifying funds for the regional offices  and state advisory committees to better evaluate the adequacy of funding  for supporting the committees, given budgetary constraints;   establish required time frames for Staff Director reviews in order to ensure  that state advisory committee reports are published in a timely manner;  and integrate the state advisory committees’ mission and work in its strategic  planning and decision-making processes, including articulating how the  national office will use the state advisory committees’ findings on state  and local civil rights issues to inform the Commission’s national goals and  strategies. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives in this study were to assess (1) the adequacy of the  Commission’s policies for ensuring the quality of its products and (2) the  role of the state advisory committees in contributing to the Commission’s  work. For example, we noted that, after  the arrival of new leadership, the Commission began to reevaluate its  policies on product development and state advisory committee matters  and, in discussing the Commission’s quality assurance policies for its  products, we reported on the increased involvement of the  Commissioners in product development, describing it as a “significant  improvement over previous Commission policy.” In addition, we  devoted a considerable portion of two appendixes to the Commission’s  process for developing and approving national and state advisory  committee products, including policy changes. However, the Commissioners are not asked to accept or reject the  committee reports.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the Commission) was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to serve as an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency whose mission is to investigate and report on the status of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception, the Commission has conducted hearings and issued reports highlighting critical, controversial civil rights issues, including racial segregation, impediments to voting rights, and affirmative action. To carry out its fact-finding and reporting mission, the Commission is required to submit at least one report annually to the President and Congress on federal civil rights enforcement efforts, among other requirements. Because the Commission has no enforcement power, the key means for achieving its mission lies in its credibility as an independent and impartial fact-finding and reporting organization. To complement this national fact-finding and reporting effort, separate state advisory committees were also authorized in 1957 to advise the Commission and serve as its "eyes and ears" on state and local civil rights issues. State advisory committees are composed of volunteers appointed by the Commission in every state who conduct public hearings on state and local civil rights issues and issue reports to the Commission on their findings. The Commission's national office reports are researched and written by national office staff and approved by the Commissioners, and the state advisory committee reports are researched and drafted by the Commission's regional office staff under the direction of the state advisory committees. We were asked to assess the Commission's quality assurance policies for its national and state advisory committee reports and other products and the role of the state advisory committees in fulfilling the Commission's fact-finding and reporting mission. More specifically, our objectives were to assess (1) the adequacy of the Commission's policies for ensuring the quality of its products and (2) the role of the state advisory committees in contributing to the Commission's work.

What GAO Found

The Commission has some policies that provide adequate quality assurance for its products; however, it lacks policies for ensuring the objectivity of its national office reports, briefings, and hearings and providing accountability for decisions made on its national office products. Among its key policies, the Commission requires its national office products to be reviewed for legal sufficiency and provides affected agencies an opportunity to comment on the accuracy of information in its draft reports. In addition, under new Commission policies, Commissioners have an increased role in the development of its products, as we previously recommended. However, the Commission lacks several key policies that could help ensure objectivity in its national office products. The state advisory committees have played a key role in the Commission's work by identifying and reporting on local civil rights issues, but most committees do not have current charters giving them authorization to operate, and the Commission has not fully integrated the committees into the accomplishment of its mission. Traditionally, the committees have gathered data on state and local civil rights issues by holding hearings, forums, and briefings and communicated their findings to the Commission and the public through reports. Since 1980, the state advisory committees have accounted for 200 of the 254 reports published by the Commission. Currently, however, 38 of the 51 state advisory committees cannot conduct any work because they do not have approved charters. In late 2005, the Commission began revising the criteria for state advisory committee membership in order to, among other things, move away from racially and ethnically based representation toward great diversity in expertise and ideas. It also decided that the committees' applications for new charters would not be accepted until they had been redrafted to include only members who meet the new criteria. Several other actions by the Commission have limited the activities of the state advisory committees. First, since the 1990s, because of budgetary constraints, the Commission has significantly reduced the number of regional office staff, who provide extensive support to the state committees in conducting their activities and producing reports. In addition, the Commission has reduced funding for the state advisory committees, including money needed to hold public meetings. Furthermore, draft reports prepared by the state advisory committees are often not reviewed or published by the Commission in a timely manner. For example, most of the state advisory committees we visited told us the national office had not reviewed and accepted their reports in a timely manner, and less than a quarter of the state advisory committee chairs who responded to our survey reported that they were satisfied with the national office's timeliness in processing their reports. The Commission has also not incorporated the work of the state advisory committees into its strategic planning and decision-making processes, including articulating how the national office will use the state advisory committees' findings on state and local civil rights issues to inform the Commission's national goals and strategies. For example, the Commission did not obtain input from the state advisory committees in developing its new draft strategic plan, although the committees play an important role in accomplishing the agency's goals. Finally, although many of these are long-standing issues, the Commission has not provided for independent oversight of its policies and practices for the state advisory committees.