Bureaucratic Effectiveness and Civil Rights Enforcement

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Author: Charles M. Lamb,Charles S. Bullock,Eric M. Wilk
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17730107
• Date: 01 June 2017
• Subject Matter: General Interest

General Interest

Bureaucratic Effectiveness

and Civil Rights Enforcement

Charles S. Bullock, III

1

, Eric M. Wilk

2

and Charles M. Lamb

3

Abstract

This article compares federal, state, and local civil rights agencies’ effectiveness in enforcing the Fair

Housing Act. Two factors primarily define effective enforcement: whether agencies’ conciliation

efforts are more likely to lead to agreements between the parties involved in complaints and

whether agencies are more likely to provide remedies to complainants in cases in which there is

cause to believe discrimination occurred. The analysis shows that state and local agencies are

generally more effective than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) both

at conciliating complaints and at providing remedies. HUD does appear to be more effective than

state and local agencies in terms of the dollar amount of monetary relief awarded when successful

conciliations occur, but HUD’s remedial effectiveness disappears after controlling for the likelihood

of successful conciliations.

Keywords

federalism, bureaucratic effectiveness, fair housing, HUD

Discrimination and segregation have long char-

acterized the American housing market. In

recent years, although the most flagra nt forms

of discrimination have decreased, substantial

levels have continued in housing rentals and

sales (Turner et al. 2002; Turner et al. 2013).

In addition, residential segregation persists

despite declines since the 1980s (e.g., Li chter,

Parisi, and Taquino 2015; Logan and Stults

2011; Massey and Tannen 2015). Because

these problems continue, scholars have recom-

mended improvements in fair housing enforce-

ment (Lamb 2005; Massey and Denton 1993;

Oliver 2010). One important improvement

would be to increase the effectiveness with

which civil rights agencies at all levels of gov-

ernment resolve housing discrimination com-

plaints and provide remedies for victims of

discrimination.

Scholars have explored numerous aspects of

governmental effectiveness (e.g., Carpenter

2001; Scholz 1991; Scholz and Wei 1986; Wil-

son 2000), even though defining and measuring

the concept has posed problems (Cameron and

Whetten 1983; Lee and Whitford 2009). Con-

ceptions of effectiveness often emphasize the

1

Department of Political Science, University of Georgia,

Athens, GA, USA

2

Department of Social Science, Perimeter College of

Georgia State University, Alpharetta, GA, USA

3

Department of Political Science, University at Buffalo,

SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Charles S. Bullock III, Department of Political Science,

University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Email: csbullock57@hotmail.com

State and Local GovernmentReview

2017, Vol. 49(2) 87-104

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17730107

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg

success or competence of government actors or

institutions in achieving their most fund amen-

tal objectives (Gilmour and Lewis 2006; Mac-

Donald and Franko 2007; Wolf 1993),

recognizing that bureaucratic effectiveness var-

ies across government agencies and levels of

government (Carpenter 2001; Ingraham, Joyce,

and Donahue 2003; MacDonald and Franko

2007; Wolf 1993). Taking these ideas into

account, this article focuses on bureaucratic

effectiveness in enforcing the Fair Housing Act

of 1968, commonly known as Title VIII. The

approach is unique in providing a longitudinal

comparison of federal, state, and local agen-

cies’ success in enforcing the same policy in

contrast with research th at typically compares

federal versus state success in policy imple-

mentation. This article examines a basic ques-

tion in federalism: when a national program

can be enforced by federal, state, and local gov-

ernments, does the level of government at

which the remedy is pursued result in different

outcomes? This research here compares civil

rights agencies at each level of government to

determine which operates most effectively.

This leads to the fundamental question of how

to define effectiveness within this intergovern-

mental context.

According to the U.S. Department of Hous-

ing and Urban Development (HUD 1998), “The

critical measure of the effectiveness of a [fair

housing enforcement] program is how much it

actually helps the people it is designed to

assist” based on “the number of cases that it

conciliates and efforts to get compensation for

housing discrimination victims” (p. B-24; see

also HUD 2009). This article focuses on two

key variables in order to conceptualize and

measure bureaucratic effectiveness in Title

VIII enforcement: whether civil rights agen-

cies’ conciliation efforts lead to an agreement

or settlement between the parties involved in

a complaint and whether a remedy is provided.

A rich comprehensive Title VIII data set

obtained from HUD through a Freedom of

Information Act request (HUD 2005) permits

an analysis of this cooperative federalism pro-

gram (e.g., Agranoff 2001; Elazar 1962). These

data allow conceptualization of the notion of

effectiveness as defined by HUD and measure

it in terms of how well federal, state, and local

civil rights agencies carry out their conciliation

and remediation responsibilities. For example,

because effectiveness may be evaluated by

determining which level of government is

most successful at conciliating Title VIII com-

plaints, first-attempt success rates provide a

basic measure of how effective agencies are

at conciliating complaints. Agencies that con-

ciliate in their first attempt are more effective

than agencies needing multiple attempts.

The article proceeds as follows. The first

section describes fair housing enforcement in

the American federal system and the concept

of substantial equivalency followed by theory,

hypothesis, and data for measuring effective-

ness in Title VIII enforcement at the federal,

state, and local levels. Bureaucratic effective-

ness will be evaluated in terms of con ciliation

success and remedies provided in Title VIII

enforcement. The final section states conclu-

sions and suggests implications.

Intergovernmental Enforcement

Various states and localities passed fair housing

laws before and during the 1960s (Collins

2006). Yet the most pathbreaking changes

came at the federal level in the Fair Housing

Act of 1968 and, two decades later, the Fair

Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The 1968

Fair Housing Act forbids all of the following

on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and

national origin: (1) discrimination by refusing

to rent or sell housing after a bona fide offer

is made; (2) discrimination in the terms, condi-

tions, or privileges of rentals or sales in hous-

ing; (3) advertising for the rental or sale of

housing that indicates a preference, limitation,

or discrimination; (4) misrepresenting the

availability of housing for rent or sale; (5) dis-

crimination in loans for purchasing, construct-

ing, improving, or repairing housing; and (6)

discrimination in access to or membership in

multiple listing services or organizations for

real estate brokers. The Fa ir Housing Amend-

ments Act of 1988 expanded fair housing pro-

tections to include persons with disabilities

88 State and Local Government Review 49(2)