Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

Keypoints
Findings and Recommendations
December 16, 1999

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
Keypoints

• Tremendous management change has occurred at CHRO in the last 18 months with five out of nine new commissioners and a new executive director.

• The challenge for legislative oversight purposes is to determine, at this time, whether the solutions to CHRO problems call for further statutory change or whether the focus should be on giving the new management a chance to work within the current statutory framework.
  
• Over the years, the role of the commissioners in CHRO’s original function -- enforcement -- has grown smaller.
  
• Commission authority was strengthened, or at least clarified, regarding its authority over the executive director.
  
• Overall, CHRO's commission structure is similar to other CT commission structures except appointed members are not approved by the legislature.
  
• The early merit assessment review (MAR) enacted in 1994 was a considerable change to the complaint process, with significant implications for intake and the standards used for MAR decisions.
  
• CHRO statutes have always contemplated both investigation and voluntary resolution of complaints. Specifically, conciliation has long been a required step by the investigator after a reasonable cause finding. The concept of active investigator involvement in settlement attempts prior to a cause finding has evolved at CHRO.
  
• The combination of mediation and investigation functions in one CHRO investigator at minimum can create a perception of conflict for the parties. Also, different skills and training are needed because the two activities are so different.
  
• Policies and regulations related to several aspects of the complaint enforcement process are unclear, outdated, or nonexistent, and need further development.
  
• The use of a quantitative production standard for enforcement staff carries some risks. In light of time frame standards, production standards may be irrelevant.
  
• CHRO must seek ways to increase production, including but not limited to, appropriate employee training, proper oversight on the part of managers, and if necessary, shifting of resources in case processing.
  
• CHRO does not have a formally structured training program or a cohesive training manual for its enforcement workers.
  
• Training opportunities have varied for existing employees suggesting variable levels of skills and knowledge. The agency has not conducted a formal training needs assessment for its staff.
  
• The existing case tracking system has a number of deficiencies, including poor documentation and insufficient checks on data entry.
  
• The agency needs to take full advantage of its current information system and re-examine its information system to better utilize its ability to monitor agency operations, assure quality, and report its activities to the legislature.
  
• It is too soon to measure effectiveness of recent legislative changes along with significant management changes. It is imperative the legislature be kept fully informed about CHRO activities.
  
• The current CHRO administration has begun many initiatives to address agency problems in the areas of technology, equipment, and staff resources.
  
• The internal CHRO staff discrimination complaint process is reasonable.

Return to Year 1999 Studies