Forest Service Business Services
Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated Costs
Gao ID: GAO-11-769 August 25, 2011
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, centralized the operations of three major business services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and (3) information technology. The agency's goals in centralizing these services, which were previously delivered by staff in field units throughout the country, were to streamline and improve operations and reduce costs. Congressional committees directed GAO to independently analyze whether centralization had achieved intended efficiencies and cost savings. Accordingly, this report examines the (1) types of effects centralization has had on the Forest Service and its employees, particularly in field units; (2) actions the agency has taken to assess its delivery of its centralized business services and to address identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which the agency can demonstrate that it achieved intended cost savings. GAO examined agency reports, performance studies, cost estimates, and other documentation and interviewed and conducted focus groups with employees across the agency.
The Forest Service's centralization of business services contributed to several agencywide improvements, but it has also had widespread, largely negative effects on field-unit employees. For example, centralization consolidated and standardized agency financial systems and procedures, which helped alleviate some of the agency's long-standing problems with financial accountability, and helped it sustain clean financial statement audit opinions more easily, according to agency officials. Nevertheless, GAO found that centralization of human resources management and information technology services had many negative repercussions for field-unit employees. Under centralization, the agency relies on a self-service approach whereby employees are generally responsible for independently initiating or carrying out many related business service tasks. According to field-unit employees, these increased administrative responsibilities, coupled with problems with automated systems and customer support, have negatively affected their ability to carry out their mission work and have led to widespread employee frustration. The Forest Service has undertaken a number of actions to assess its delivery of centralized business services, but it is unclear whether proposed remedies will fully address identified shortcomings. For example, the agency established a customer service board to continually monitor service delivery and recommend improvements. The agency has also undertaken initiatives to redesign and reorganize its human resources management and information technology services to improve service delivery in these areas. For example, human resources management hired additional staff and established regional service teams, and information technology developed a strategic framework and is in the early stages of a significant reorganization. Nevertheless, the agency has not yet systematically assessed which types of services are best suited to a self-service approach, and because many of the agency's other initiatives are in their early stages, it is unclear to what extent they will address identified shortcomings. The Forest Service could not reliably demonstrate cost savings resulting from centralization, but the agency estimated that anticipated savings may have been achieved in budget and finance. Achieving significant cost savings was one of the key goals of the agency's centralization effort, and the agency estimated it would save about $100 million annually across the three business services. (This estimate applied to budget and finance, human resources management, and a component within information technology known as the Information Solutions Organization, which was established to provide technology support services.) But because of limitations with the agency's documentation supporting the data, assumptions, and methods used in developing its cost information both before and after centralization, GAO was unable to fully ascertain the reliability of the cost estimates for (1) baseline costs of providing each of the business services before centralization, (2) projected costs for delivering those same business services after centralization was complete, or (3) actual costs of providing the business services after centralization. Nevertheless, the Forest Service estimated that anticipated annual savings through fiscal year 2010 may have been achieved in budget and finance but not in human resources management or the Information Solutions Organization, where the agency estimated that savings fell far short of its cost-savings goals. GAO recommends that the Forest Service systematically examine business service tasks to determine which ones can best be carried out under a self-service approach, take related steps to improve service delivery, and adequately document and assess the costs of current initiatives and business service delivery. The Forest Service generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Anu K. Mittal
Team:
Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment
Phone:
(202) 512-9846
GAO-11-769, Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-769
entitled 'Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to
Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated
Costs' which was released on August 25, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
August 2011:
Forest Service Business Services:
Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to
Better Document Associated Costs:
GAO-11-769:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-769, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service, within the Department of
Agriculture, centralized the operations of three major business
services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and
(3) information technology. The agency‘s goals in centralizing these
services, which were previously delivered by staff in field units
throughout the country, were to streamline and improve operations and
reduce costs. Congressional committees directed GAO to independently
analyze whether centralization had achieved intended efficiencies and
cost savings. Accordingly, this report examines the (1) types of
effects centralization has had on the Forest Service and its
employees, particularly in field units; (2) actions the agency has
taken to assess its delivery of its centralized business services and
to address identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which the agency
can demonstrate that it achieved intended cost savings. GAO examined
agency reports, performance studies, cost estimates, and other
documentation and interviewed and conducted focus groups with
employees across the agency.
What GAO Found:
The Forest Service‘s centralization of business services contributed
to several agencywide improvements, but it has also had widespread,
largely negative effects on field-unit employees. For example,
centralization consolidated and standardized agency financial systems
and procedures, which helped alleviate some of the agency‘s long-
standing problems with financial accountability, and helped it sustain
clean financial statement audit opinions more easily, according to
agency officials. Nevertheless, GAO found that centralization of human
resources management and information technology services had many
negative repercussions for field-unit employees. Under centralization,
the agency relies on a self-service approach whereby employees are
generally responsible for independently initiating or carrying out
many related business service tasks. According to field-unit
employees, these increased administrative responsibilities, coupled
with problems with automated systems and customer support, have
negatively affected their ability to carry out their mission work and
have led to widespread employee frustration.
The Forest Service has undertaken a number of actions to assess its
delivery of centralized business services, but it is unclear whether
proposed remedies will fully address identified shortcomings. For
example, the agency established a customer service board to
continually monitor service delivery and recommend improvements. The
agency has also undertaken initiatives to redesign and reorganize its
human resources management and information technology services to
improve service delivery in these areas. For example, human resources
management hired additional staff and established regional service
teams, and information technology developed a strategic framework and
is in the early stages of a significant reorganization. Nevertheless,
the agency has not yet systematically assessed which types of services
are best suited to a self-service approach, and because many of the
agency‘s other initiatives are in their early stages, it is unclear to
what extent they will address identified shortcomings.
The Forest Service could not reliably demonstrate cost savings
resulting from centralization, but the agency estimated that
anticipated savings may have been achieved in budget and finance.
Achieving significant cost savings was one of the key goals of the
agency‘s centralization effort, and the agency estimated it would save
about $100 million annually across the three business services. (This
estimate applied to budget and finance, human resources management,
and a component within information technology known as the Information
Solutions Organization, which was established to provide technology
support services.) But because of limitations with the agency‘s
documentation supporting the data, assumptions, and methods used in
developing its cost information both before and after centralization,
GAO was unable to fully ascertain the reliability of the cost
estimates for (1) baseline costs of providing each of the business
services before centralization, (2) projected costs for delivering
those same business services after centralization was complete, or (3)
actual costs of providing the business services after centralization.
Nevertheless, the Forest Service estimated that anticipated annual
savings through fiscal year 2010 may have been achieved in budget and
finance but not in human resources management or the Information
Solutions Organization, where the agency estimated that savings fell
far short of its cost-savings goals.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Forest Service systematically examine business
service tasks to determine which ones can best be carried out under a
self-service approach, take related steps to improve service delivery,
and adequately document and assess the costs of current initiatives
and business service delivery. The Forest Service generally agreed
with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-769] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841
or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Centralization of Business Services Has Had Mixed Results, Including
Mostly Negative Effects on Field-Unit Employees:
The Forest Service Assesses Its Delivery of Centralized Business
Services in Multiple Ways, but It Is Unclear Whether Proposed Remedies
Will Fully Address Identified Shortcomings:
The Forest Service Could Not Reliably Demonstrate Cost Savings
Resulting from Centralization but Estimated That Anticipated Savings
May Have Been Achieved by One Business Service:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Major Business Service Activities:
Table 2: Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents and Operating Budgets, by
Business Service, Fiscal Year 2011:
Table 3: Forest Service Baseline Cost Estimates and Projected Annual
Cost Savings from Centralization:
Abbreviations:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
GS: general schedule:
ISO: Information Solutions Organization:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 25, 2011:
The Honorable Jack Reed:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Michael K. Simpson:
Chairman:
The Honorable James P. Moran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
As steward of 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands, the
Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, performs tasks
as varied as fighting wildland fires, restoring forest landscapes and
rivers, and patrolling and maintaining the national forests' remote
recreational trails. This work is carried out at hundreds of national
forests, grasslands, and research sites located across the country.
With such geographically widespread units and such a diverse portfolio
of work--much of it requiring specialized knowledge and skills--
maintaining efficient business services, such as providing computer
support or processing employee benefits, is especially critical to
enable all agency employees to accomplish their work effectively and
efficiently.
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service began a major effort to
transform how it provided many of the business services needed to
support its mission activities. Over several years, the agency
centralized three major business services: (1) budget and finance, (2)
human resources management, and (3) information technology. These
business services, which were previously carried out by specialized
staff located in Forest Service offices throughout the country, were
largely consolidated into one location in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
known as the Albuquerque Service Center. According to Forest Service
documents, the goals of centralization were to improve service,
streamline business processes and modernize procedures, and reduce
costs by about $100 million per year. Since centralization began,
however, concerns have been raised by agency officials and others
about its financial costs and its effects on the workload and morale
of Forest Service staff in field units such as national forests and
research sites. In this context, the Committee on Appropriations of
the U.S. Senate and of the House of Representatives directed GAO to
conduct an independent analysis of the Forest Service's centralization
of its business services to determine whether centralization has
achieved intended efficiencies and cost savings.[Footnote 1]
Accordingly, this report examines the (1) types of effects
centralization has had on the Forest Service and its employees,
particularly in field units; (2) actions the Forest Service has taken
to assess its delivery of centralized business services and to address
identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which the Forest Service
can demonstrate that it achieved centralization's intended cost
savings.
To examine the effects of centralization on the Forest Service and its
employees, particularly in field units, we reviewed reports on
centralization completed by the Forest Service and others, including
contractors hired by the Forest Service, as well as policy documents
and guidance related to each of the three centralized business
services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and
(3) information technology. We reviewed the results of various surveys
and focus groups of Forest Service employees, conducted by Forest
Service teams during 2010, as well as all customer comments provided
through each of the business service help desks during 2010. We also
interviewed--through site visits and by telephone--more than 200
agency officials from Forest Service headquarters, the three business
services housed in the Albuquerque Service Center, all nine regional
offices, 12 national forests, 11 ranger districts, four research
stations, four science laboratories, and the State and Private
Forestry program. In addition, to systematically gather information
from a geographically diverse and broad cross-section of field-unit
employees, we conducted 10 focus groups with a total of 68 randomly
selected Forest Service employees. Ground rules were established so
that participants limited their comments to their personal experiences
with the business services over the previous 12 months (focus groups
were held during February and March 2011). We used a set of
consistent, probing questions designed to ensure that all participants
had an opportunity to share their views and to react to the views of
the other participants. Although the results of the focus groups are
not statistically generalizable, they reflect in-depth information
from a cross-section of randomly selected employees, which was
consistent with the information we obtained through our reviews of
formal and informal assessments of centralization and our interviews
and site visits with field-unit employees. To examine actions the
Forest Service has taken to assess its delivery of centralized
services and to address identified shortcomings, we reviewed Forest
Service reports and other documentation describing ongoing and one-
time business service delivery assessments. We also reviewed
documentation describing actions the agency has undertaken or plans to
undertake to remedy identified shortcomings and improve its delivery
of business services. In addition, we interviewed agency officials at
Forest Service headquarters and the three business services, and
several members of the agency's Operations Customer Service Board,
which monitors the performance of the three centralized business
services. To examine the extent to which the Forest Service could
demonstrate that it achieved centralization's intended cost savings,
we reviewed available agency documentation summarizing original
baseline costs, cost projections, actual costs, and financial analyses
comparing pre-and postcentralization costs for budget and finance,
human resources management, and the component within information
technology established to provide technology support services. We took
steps to determine the reliability of the data contained in these
documents, including reviewing background documentation and
interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We found that agency
officials could not always provide sufficient data supporting the
information contained in the documentation they made available to us,
or re-create the methods used to calculate cost savings or resolve
inconsistencies in reported results. We were therefore unable to
verify the reliability of all cost data the agency provided. Appendix
I presents a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through August
2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Forest Service's mission includes sustaining the nation's forests
and grasslands; managing the productivity of those lands for the
benefit of citizens; conserving open space; enhancing outdoor
recreation opportunities; and conducting research and development in
the biological, physical, and social sciences. The agency carries out
its responsibilities in three main program areas: (1) managing public
lands, known collectively as the National Forest System, through nine
regional offices, 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and
over 600 ranger districts; (2) conducting research through its network
of seven research stations, multiple associated research laboratories,
and 81 experimental forests and ranges; and (3) working with state and
local governments, forest industries, and other private landowners and
forest users in the management, protection, and development of forest
land in nonfederal ownership, largely through its regional offices.
The nine regional offices, each led by a regional forester, oversee
the national forests and grasslands located in their respective
regions, and each national forest or grassland is headed by a
supervisor; the seven research stations are each led by a station
director. These offices, which we collectively refer to as field
units, are overseen by a Washington, D.C., headquarters office, led by
the Chief of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service has a workforce of approximately 30,000 employees,
although this number grows by thousands in the summer months, when the
agency brings on seasonal employees to conduct fieldwork, respond to
fires, and meet the visiting public's additional needs for services.
Forest Service employees work in geographically dispersed and often
remote locations throughout the continental United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Agency employees carry out a variety of field-
based activities--including fire prevention and management, monitoring
and maintenance of recreational trails, biological research, and
habitat restoration--and have diverse skills, backgrounds, and
experiences. Forest Service employees include a wide range of
specialists, such as foresters, biologists, firefighters,
administrative staff, research scientists, recreation specialists, and
many others, all of whom play an important role in carrying out the
agency's mission.
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service began efforts to centralize
many of the business services needed to support its mission
activities, including (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources
management, and (3) information technology. Before centralization,
according to the agency, more than 3,500 employees located in field
units throughout the nation carried out business service tasks in
these three areas for their respective field units. These business
service employees were part of the field-unit organizational structure
and typically reported directly to the managers of those field units.
Each region or forest often had unique processes or systems for
completing business-related tasks, such as varied processes for
financial accounting and budgeting, personnel actions, and computer
support. Faced with a number of internal and external pressures to
change the way these business services were delivered, and to address
growing costs of service delivery as well as operational problems, the
agency began efforts to centralize its business services. For budget
and finance and human resources management, the agency began re-
engineering efforts for its business processes, which included
preparing business cases outlining the agency's intended approach to
centralization, such as how the centralized structure would be
organized and how it would provide services to its field-unit
customers, as well as estimating the one-time investment costs and
future costs of providing services each year once centralization was
complete.[Footnote 2] Centralization of information technology, on the
other hand, consisted of several efforts to consolidate servers and
data centers, among other things, and was driven largely by
competitive sourcing, whereby the agency and its employees competed
with private-sector organizations to deliver certain information
technology services.[Footnote 3] The Forest Service won this
competition, and, beginning in 2004, the agency transferred some of
its information technology employees to an "Information Solutions
Organization" (ISO)--a separate information technology component
established within the agency to provide technology support services,
including computers, radios, and telecommunications to all employees.
[Footnote 4] During 2008, however, the Forest Service terminated its
competitive-sourcing arrangement with ISO, folding these services back
into a single information technology organization.[Footnote 5]
Centralization activities were carried out separately for each of the
three business services over several years and--given the magnitude of
its efforts and potential for significant cost savings--the agency
undertook efforts to monitor and report on its results during this
time. For example, centralization of budget and finance was
implemented in 2005 and 2006 and involved the physical relocation of
most finance-related positions to the Albuquerque Service Center, with
these positions now reporting to the new centralized budget and
finance organization. Some budget-related positions and tasks,
however, such as budget formulation and execution, generally remained
in the field units, and those positions continued to report to field-
unit management.[Footnote 6] Similarly, centralization of human
resources management began in 2006 and proceeded through a staged
implementation over a period of several years, in which most human
resources management positions were relocated to the Albuquerque
Service Center (although some human resources liaison positions were
developed to provide advice and counsel to managers across multiple
field units). Under the new centralized organization, all human
resources employees reported to human resources management rather than
field-unit management. In contrast, although aspects of information
technology centralization began as early as 2001, those related to
transferring services to the agency's new ISO occurred in 2004 and
2005. Some information technology positions were relocated to the
Albuquerque Service Center, but many employees remained at field-unit
locations and became "virtually centralized" employees, reporting to
centralized management in Albuquerque. For each of the three business
services, the Forest Service predicted that the transition from its
largely decentralized field-based structure to the new centralized
organization would take about 3 years, although full integration in
some cases could take longer, given the significance of the changes.
During this transition period, the agency took steps to assess and
report on the status of, and results being achieved through,
centralization and provided executive briefings to congressional
stakeholders and agency leaders. These briefings provided an overview
of implementation timelines, key milestones, and achievements, as well
as agency estimates of projected and achieved cost savings resulting
from centralization. For information technology, these estimates
specifically focused on savings related to the agency's ISO.
The three centralized business services encompass a wide variety of
activities to support field units' mission work, ranging from making
payments to partners for trail maintenance, to repairing radios used
for communication in the field, to processing the paperwork to bring
new employees on board (see table 1).
Table 1: Major Business Service Activities:
Budget and finance:
Payments;
Claims processing;
Real property accounting;
Financial statement reporting;
Accounting adjustments.
Human resources management:
Hiring;
Pay and benefits;
Employee and labor relations;
Training;
Workers' compensation;
Performance and awards;
Information technology:
Networks and servers;
Computers;
Radios;
Telecommunications;
Printers and plotters.
Source: Forest Service.
[End of table]
Collectively, the budgets for the three business services were
approximately $440 million in fiscal year 2011, which represents about
7 percent of the agency's annual operating budget of more than $6.1
billion. There were 2,150 budgeted full-time equivalents (FTE) for the
three services, or about 6 percent of the agency total of more than
35,000 FTEs.[Footnote 7] Table 2 shows the 2011 staffing and budget
levels for each of the three business services.
Table 2: Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents and Operating Budgets, by
Business Service, Fiscal Year 2011:
Business service: Budget and finance;
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 400;
Operating budget: $50.0 million.
Business service: Human resources management;
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 970;
Operating budget: $83.6 million.
Business service: Information technology;
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 780;
Operating budget: $307.0 million.
Business service: Total;
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 2,150;
Operating budget: $440.6 million.
Source: Forest Service.
[A] FTEs represent authorized levels within each of the respective
business services, not all of which were filled at the time of our
review.
[End of table]
Centralization of Business Services Has Had Mixed Results, Including
Mostly Negative Effects on Field-Unit Employees:
Centralization of Forest Service business services contributed to
several agencywide improvements, such as improved financial
accountability, standardization of information technology and human
resources processes, and consistent development and implementation of
related policies. Nevertheless, we found that the shift in how
business services were delivered resulted in significant negative
repercussions for field-unit employees, including increased
responsibility for business service tasks. Although the effects of
centralization on employees varied, cumulatively they have negatively
affected the ability of these employees to carry out their mission
work.
Centralization Has Improved Financial Accountability and Led to More-
Informed Management Decisions and More-Consistent Policy
Implementation:
By consolidating and standardizing the Forest Service's financial
systems and procedures, centralization helped alleviate some of the
agency's long-standing problems with financial accountability. For
example, before centralization, the agency had difficulty reconciling
data produced by the numerous financial systems used in field units
across the agency. Throughout the 1990s, the Forest Service was unable
to achieve clean financial statement audit opinions, and in 1999, we
added financial management at the agency to our list of federal
programs and operations at "high risk" for waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement.[Footnote 8] While the agency was able to achieve clean
opinions during the early 2000s, doing so required substantial year-
end financial adjustments involving significant time and resources. By
consolidating and standardizing its finance, accounting, and budget
processes through the centralization of budget and finance, the agency
was able to improve its financial management and sustain clean
financial statement audit opinions more easily and at a lower cost
than before centralization, according to agency officials.
Accordingly, in 2005, we removed the Forest Service from our high-risk
list, citing the agency's centralization efforts.[Footnote 9]
Similarly, centralization made it easier to standardize and automate
other business processes, which improved the agency's ability to
collect and review more-reliable agencywide data and make more-
informed management decisions. For example, according to information
technology officials, centralization has allowed them to more easily
track major technology equipment and infrastructure issues and address
them holistically, as well as to provide a more even distribution of
technology services, among other benefits. According to agency
officials, centralizing the three business services has also made it
easier to monitor and assess the performance of business service
delivery to field-unit customers, such as the timeliness of processing
requests for service. Officials told us that this type of information
is closely tracked, analyzed, and used to hold managers accountable
for ensuring successful program delivery. Further, data collected
through automated systems are now generally more reliable, according
to agency officials, in part because they collect more-standardized
information, have more built-in controls, and require fewer people to
enter data.
In addition, centralization of the three business services has allowed
for more-consistent policy development and implementation, according
to agency officials. Before centralization, for example, business
services staff were located at hundreds of sites across the country
and reported to individual field units, making it difficult to ensure
consistent policy implementation. Now, with business service employees
under a single management structure, agency officials told us, it is
easier to develop and communicate policy procedures to help ensure
their consistent implementation, as well as to provide field-unit
employees with consistent access to services across the agency.
Similarly, information technology officials told us that
centralization has also benefited the agency in the face of increasing
complexity and sophistication regarding information management needs,
allowing for more coordinated and timely responses to continually
changing needs. For example, officials said that centralization
facilitated the implementation of security requirements across the
multiple field units and improved the agency's ability to ensure that
all employees use compatible hardware and software. Further, under
centralization, business service staff have been able to more easily
specialize in certain areas, which has improved consistency and
overall service quality, according to agency officials. For example,
agency officials told us that before centralization, field-unit staff
might process requests for specific services, such as retirements or
transfers, only occasionally, and therefore might be unfamiliar with
the correct procedures to follow or guidance to give to employees. Now
there are dedicated groups of employees at the centralized business
service centers who have specialized knowledge of each process, which
has led to consistent implementation of policies and overall
improvements, according to agency officials we spoke with.
Centralization Shifted How Business Services Were Delivered in Ways
That Largely Increased Responsibilities for Field-Unit Staff:
Even with these improvements, we found that centralization--
particularly of human resources management and information technology--
has had significant and widespread negative repercussions for field-
unit employees. Centralization changed many processes for completing
administrative tasks, placing greater responsibility on field-unit
employees. From our interviews, site visits, and focus groups with a
broad cross-section of Forest Service employees--as well as our
reviews of multiple internal agency assessments--we found that
centralization of budget and finance generally affected fewer
employees and is viewed by employees as now working reasonably well,
whereas changes in human resources management and information
technology affected more employees and created more problems for them
in carrying out daily tasks. This section describes the effects that
centralization had on employees; the agency's actions to address
employee concerns are discussed in detail later in this report.
Centralization changed the processes for completing most
administrative tasks associated with the three business services,
shifting a larger portion of the responsibility for these tasks to
field-unit employees. This shift occurred because employees previously
responsible for the task were eliminated, relocated, or reassigned,
leaving the task itself behind, and because certain tasks became "self-
service"--that is, field-unit staff were generally expected to
initiate or carry out certain tasks that were previously handled by
local business service specialists. Under the centralized self-service
model, to complete many business service tasks, field-unit employees
are generally responsible for accessing automated systems, locating
and filling out automated forms, submitting information through these
systems, and calling one of the three business services' centralized
help desks for assistance when they are not able to complete an action
on their own.[Footnote 10] For example, before centralization, to
complete retirement, health benefits, pay-related, or other personnel
paperwork, field-unit employees would receive assistance from field-
unit-based human resources specialists, who would also be responsible
for processing the actions. Now, under the centralized self-service
model, field-unit employees are to initiate or implement these actions
directly through automated systems, with a centralized help desk
available to offer advice on how to complete the action when questions
arise. Similarly, for information technology-related tasks, before
centralization, a field-unit employee would rely on a local field-unit-
based technician to troubleshoot a computer problem, whereas under the
self-service model, the employee is expected to seek self-help tools,
such as guidance on the agency's Web site, or to call or e-mail a help-
desk representative to troubleshoot the problem.
Among the three services that were centralized, we found generally
fewer negative effects from centralizing budget and finance. Because
many field-unit employees do not regularly perform tasks related to
budget and finance, we found that difficulties associated with this
centralization effort were not as widely felt as those associated with
centralization of the other two business services. We consistently
found that changes to budget and finance resulting from centralization
were generally perceived positively after some early problems--such as
the lack of clearly written policies and procedures, unclear or
untimely communications to field units, and delayed payment
processing--were corrected. Further, once it became clear to field-
unit staff what tasks were not centralized, many of those duties were
reassigned to budget or administrative staff in the field units. These
tasks--such as overseeing the collection and tracking of campground
fees--often required local presence or knowledge. A few field units
also hired additional administrative staff: for example, one regional
office established five new positions to carry out remaining budget
and finance-related work, such as assisting individual field units
within the region with tracking, managing, and overseeing various
financial accounts. One of the crucial factors often cited for the
success of the budget and finance centralization effort was the fact
that the budget staff in the field units were not centralized and
therefore continued to carry out budget and some finance-related
responsibilities for the field units. They also often became liaisons
with the budget and finance center in Albuquerque, providing critical
information to the center and communicating information back to the
employees who worked in their local field unit.
Nevertheless, we found continuing concern about several aspects of
budget and finance centralization. For example, a few field-unit
officials told us they have lost the flexibility to efficiently deal
with unique circumstances, such as the need for telephone service in
certain field units that are active during only part of the year or
paying for shared utilities in a building jointly occupied with
another agency. Before centralization, officials said they had the
authority to easily make needed arrangements. Under centralization, in
contrast, because these circumstances are atypical and therefore
standard processes or procedures may not be applicable, working with
centralized budget and finance staff to make appropriate arrangements
has proven cumbersome and time-consuming, according to the officials.
In addition, according to many field-unit employees, natural resource
project managers who manage agreements with external partners, such as
other federal agencies and nonprofit organizations, have also had to
take on significant additional administrative tasks. These managers
have always been responsible for managing and overseeing agreements,
but project managers are now also directly responsible for the steps
associated with tracking and confirming agreement payments in an
automated system. Many project managers we spoke with said they find
these tasks confusing and very time-consuming to carry out, in part
because the managers use the system infrequently and in part because
the system is not intuitive or easy to use.
In contrast to centralization of budget and finance, changes resulting
from centralizing human resources management and information
technology touched nearly all Forest Service employees and were often
perceived as overwhelmingly negative, although the extent of the
negative perception varied according to the task being performed and
the employee performing it. Many employees we spoke with said that
when these services were first centralized, significant and extreme
breakdowns occurred, affecting a large number of employees, and while
they have seen some improvements over time, significant concerns
remain. Through our interviews and focus groups, as well as our
reviews of recent internal agency assessments, including agency-led
surveys and focus groups, we found that field-unit employees across
all agency levels have continuing concerns with the increased
administrative workload resulting from centralization of these two
business services and with the tools available to carry out those
tasks, including limitations with the automated systems and help-desk
customer support or guidance available on service center Web sites.
Employee Concerns over Increased Administrative Workload:
Field-unit employees consistently expressed frustration through agency
feedback mechanisms and through our interviews and focus groups about
the increased number of largely self-service tasks they are now
responsible for as a result of centralization of human resources
management and information technology--tasks often requiring a
significant amount of time or expertise to complete. Several field-
unit staff told us that this self-service approach has in fact
resulted in a form of decentralization, as now all employees are
expected to have the knowledge or expertise to carry out those
specific self-service tasks themselves. Even carrying out simple tasks
can prove to be difficult and time-consuming, according to many field-
unit employees whom we spoke with. Because staff might do such tasks
infrequently, and because the processes or procedures for carrying
them out may change often, field-unit employees told us they must
spend time relearning how to perform certain tasks every time they
carry them out. For example, field-unit staff told us that before
centralization, to put a seasonal employee on nonpay status they would
simply inform their local human resources specialist, and the
specialist would then make the necessary change. After centralization,
field-unit supervisors became responsible for directly entering
information into an automated system to initiate the change or calling
the help desk for assistance. Because a supervisor may carry out such
an action only once a year--and the procedure for doing it might have
changed in the meantime--completing this action or other apparently
simple actions can be difficult and time-consuming, according to
officials.
Further, many field-unit employees told us that many other tasks are
not simple and in fact require detailed technical knowledge. As a
result, they believe they have had to become specialists to complete
work they were not hired or trained to do, putting them beyond their
level of expertise and making it difficult for them to efficiently or
effectively complete some tasks. For example, many staff expressed
frustration that they do not have the knowledge or skills to quickly
complete specialized tasks, such as updating or repairing computers or
other office equipment like telephones or printers. Yet under the self-
service model, all agency staff are expected to do so--requiring them
to read, understand, and implement technical instructions or contact
the help desk, which can take hours or days, depending on the nature
of the issue, whereas a specialized technician might be able to carry
out the task in minutes. Moreover, many field-unit staff told us that
their lack of familiarity with completing such tasks makes them prone
to making errors, requiring rework, and adding to the time-consuming
and frustrating nature of the process.
Dependence on Automated Systems That Are Not User Friendly or
Intuitive:
Centralization of human resources management and information
technology entailed greater reliance on numerous automated systems,
yet through our interviews, focus groups, and reviews of recent
internal agency assessments, we found widespread agreement among field-
unit staff that many of the agency's systems are not user-friendly and
have not helped employees carry out their work. In the case of human
resources management, for example, centralization was predicated on
successful deployment of an automated system that was to process
multiple human resources-related actions, such as pay, benefits, and
personnel actions. When it became clear that this system--known as
EmpowHR--did not work as intended, the agency implemented several
separate systems to perform its functions, including one for tracking
personnel actions, called 52 Tracker. However, we heard from staff
across the field units who have to process these kinds of personnel
actions, that the 52 Tracker system has been slow, cumbersome to use,
and counterintuitive, often leading to mistakes and delays in
processing important personnel actions like pay raises. We also found
that the automated system used to carry out various steps in hiring--
known as AVUE--has been difficult to use and navigate by both field-
unit managers and external candidates trying to apply for a position
within the agency. Although AVUE was in use by the agency before
centralization, field-unit managers previously relied on human
resources specialists who used the system frequently and were
therefore familiar with it, according to managers we spoke with. In
contrast, under centralization, field-unit managers are expected to
undertake more hiring-related tasks in addition to their other duties,
and managers repeatedly told us that creating appropriately targeted
job postings within AVUE was an arduous process, frequently resulting
in situations where highly qualified candidates were wrongly
eliminated from consideration or unqualified candidates were listed
along with qualified candidates.
Dissatisfaction with Help Desk Customer Support and Web Sites:
We found consistent widespread dissatisfaction, through the interviews
and focus groups we conducted, as well as documentation of reviews
conducted by the agency, with the responsiveness and support provided
by the help desks and Web sites operated by human resources management
and information technology. Specifically, field-unit staff identified
the lack of timely and quality assistance from the help desks, which
has hindered their ability to complete tasks correctly or on time,
although many field-unit employees said they recognized that help desk
agents were courteous and were trying to be as helpful as possible. We
repeatedly heard that interactions with the help desks were often time-
consuming because staff were passed from one customer support agent to
another, needed to make several calls before a knowledgeable agent
could be reached, or had to wait hours or days for a return call. Many
employees told us they often found themselves talking to two or three
agents about a given problem, and with each new agent, they had to
explain the problem and its context from the beginning. Even with
significant explanation, many staff noted that a lack of understanding
and context on the part of the help desk customer service agents has
been a problem. For example, one employee told us that when he called
the help desk for assistance with a failed radio component, the help
desk agent had a difficult time understanding that the radio system
did not have an actual address where the agent could send a
replacement part but was instead located on a remote mountain, where a
technician would be needed to install the new component. In contrast,
when information technology-related computer problems were simple or
routine, many employees we spoke with said the information technology
help desk was responsive and generally able to resolve their problems.
In fact, we spoke with several employees who said that it was very
helpful when a help desk agent could remotely access and control their
computers to fix certain software problems.
Conversely, field-unit staff seeking help may be unfamiliar with the
concepts, language, or forms related to human resources management or
information technology--such as knowing what form to submit to acquire
hand-held radios or the various technical aspects of computers or
radios--that help desk staff expect them to be familiar with. Thus,
field-unit staff may not know what questions to ask or may be unable
to frame their questions in a way that elicits the correct or most
helpful response from the help desks. Many employees we spoke with
indicated that because they have little confidence in the information
help desk agents provide, they instead often seek help first from
local co-workers or sometimes simply ignore problems such as
nonfunctioning computer software or hardware components. Many told us
they call the help desks only as a last resort. Many field-unit staff
were also unhappy with the business services' Web sites because it was
often difficult and time-consuming to find needed information, and in
some cases the information on the Web site was outdated, conflicted
with guidance acquired elsewhere, or was inaccessible because the Web
links did not work.
The Effects of Centralization Have Varied by Individual Employee but,
Cumulatively, Have Affected Employees' Ability to Carry Out Their Work:
Changes resulting from centralization of human resources management
and information technology were consistently perceived negatively by
field-unit staff across the Forest Service, according to our
interviews, focus groups, and documented agency assessments, but we
also found that employees' experience, skill levels, and
responsibilities within the agency--such as whether their work was
primarily field based or office based or the extent to which they
supervised others--often factored into the severity of the problems
they described. In general, we found that employees of different
experience and skill sets frequently had different abilities or
willingness to carry out self-service tasks, navigate automated
systems, or communicate with help desks. For example, some field-unit
employees told us they could easily and independently carry out some
computer-related tasks, such as updating computer software with remote
guidance, while others said they did not feel comfortable carrying out
such tasks independently. We also found that field-unit staff whose
work requires them to spend significant portions of their time
outdoors rather than in the office (field-going staff)--appeared to be
more severely affected by centralization than primarily office-based
staff. For example, office-based employees may not have lost
productivity waiting for a help-desk agent to call back, but a field-
going employee may have had to choose between going into the field--
potentially missing a help-desk return call--and forgoing fieldwork to
wait, sometimes several days, for such a call. Also, because under
centralization many tasks rely on the use of automated systems
accessed through computers and some field-going staff are not issued
computers by the agency, finding an available computer to carry out
the task can present an added challenge. We also found that staff in
supervisory positions were particularly affected by centralization.
Under centralization, for example, supervisors are now responsible for
completing multiple administrative actions for the staff they
supervise, such as processing personnel actions; calling the help desk
to resolve issues on behalf of their field-going staff (enabling field
staff to go into the field); or ensuring that new staff have working
computers, telephones, and access to agency systems and that they take
key training upon their arrival. Before centralization, on the other
hand, local human resources staff or other support staff would have
provided direct assistance with these tasks, according to officials.
Taken individually, changes associated with centralization may seem no
more than minor inconveniences or inefficiencies. Cumulatively,
however, they have had widespread negative effects on employees and on
the agency as a whole, including a reduced amount of time employees
can devote to their mission work, increased reliance on workarounds to
complete work, increased frustration and lowered morale, and increased
safety concerns, as follows:
* Less time for mission work. The substantial time and effort needed
to complete administrative tasks has in many cases limited the ability
of field units to conduct mission work, in many instances fieldwork,
according to many field-unit employees. For example, because some
field-based activities, such as trail maintenance or river restoration
activities can be done only during relatively short seasons dictated
by biology and weather, delays may make it difficult to accomplish
mission goals in any one year. Delays of a few weeks in hiring, for
example, could result in much longer delays in getting the work done,
and we heard numerous examples of work being delayed or scaled back
because of hiring complications attributed to centralization. In one
instance, a manager told us that after spending significant time and
effort to hire a fuels specialist to carry out fuels management work
(such as thinning potentially flammable vegetation that could feed a
wildland fire), he was unable to hire anyone who qualified because of
problems encountered working with human resources management staff--
and, as a result, essentially a year's worth of work was lost. Many
senior field-unit managers, including regional foresters and forest
supervisors, reported that because the help desks generally follow a
first-come, first-served priority scheme, they often feel powerless to
set a high priority for certain actions that may be critical to staff
at the forest level. For example, before centralization, managers
could influence which positions might be advertised or filled most
quickly, but now hiring actions go through the centralized
organization, generally without regard for how quickly a manager
believes he or she needs to fill a position.
* Increased reliance on workarounds. Perceived or actual problems
associated with completing administrative tasks and reluctance to rely
on support from the help desks have resulted in employees' increased
reliance on the use of workarounds, which in some cases may not fully
comply with agency policy or procedures, to accomplish their work. For
example, we commonly heard that employees rely on local, knowledgeable
co-workers to help them with their computer problems or provide advice
on completing human resources-related actions. Although this practice
may greatly benefit the employees in need of assistance, it could take
time away from the other employees' regular work duties, and if
accurate and up-to-date information is not given, it could also result
in unintentional errors. We also often heard from field-unit employees
that given repeated problems with accessing network drives or other
databases, they may store agency data on their hard drives, rather
than on central servers, or may share their computers or passwords
with others who lack ready access, such as seasonal field staff or
visiting research fellows. Such workarounds, however, may result in
the loss of information if a hard drive fails, and they are in
violation of the agency's computer security policies.
* Increased frustration and lowered morale. Field-unit employees'
frustrations over their perceived loss in productivity, as well as
problems that have directly affected employees' careers with the
agency, have often lowered employees' morale. We commonly heard that
spending more time on administrative tasks that are often confusing
and complex, and spending less time on mission work, has resulted in
significant employee frustration and has often directly lowered
employee morale. We also heard numerous examples where employees'
benefits, pay, position, or other personnel-related actions were
negatively affected as a result of a mistake made by or a
miscommunication with, a help-desk agent or other business service
staff, which has often greatly affected employee morale, according to
those we spoke with. For example, problems cited ranged from confusion
over leave balances and appropriate pay levels to promotions that were
initially approved by human resources management officials but then
later rescinded. Several employees told us that such errors have
become so frequent that an "expectation of failure" has generally
taken root with many employees, which also contributes to their low
morale.
* Increased safety concerns. In some cases, field-unit employees told
us that problems or delays in getting business service tasks
accomplished have increased safety risks for Forest Service employees
or the public, for example by distracting employees from important
safety work or by delaying needed equipment repair or replacement. We
commonly heard concerns that centralization has caused employees to,
as one senior official put it, "take their eye off the ball"--that is,
reduce their focus on efficiently and safely carrying out their
assigned tasks--because of the increased workload and distractions
associated with centralization. We also frequently heard about delays
or problems with technical assistance for radios--a key communication
tool for firefighting and fieldwork. For example, before
centralization, field units would have relied on local technicians to
conduct needed repairs, but under centralization, the field-unit staff
now first contact the help desk to make such a request. In one case a
field-unit official told us that he needed a simple repair on a radio
but had to wait for a technician to drive from a neighboring state to
make the 10-minute repair. In a few other cases, field-unit staff told
us they were without full use of their radio system for a significant
amount of time while waiting for requests for repair to be addressed
by the help desk. For example, one forest-unit official told us that,
in place of their radios, the unit had to use cell phones with limited
service to communicate for multiple days during the summer, when fire
danger was particularly high, putting the staff at increased risk.
The Forest Service Assesses Its Delivery of Centralized Business
Services in Multiple Ways, but It Is Unclear Whether Proposed Remedies
Will Fully Address Identified Shortcomings:
The Forest Service has undertaken a number of actions to assess its
delivery of centralized business services, in part because of the
significant change centralization brought to employees across the
Forest Service. These actions, however, have focused largely on
assessing the quality of service provided through the service delivery
framework established by the agency and have not included a more
fundamental assessment of the extent to which, and for which tasks,
the self-service approach taken by the agency may be most effective
and efficient. Recognizing the concerns raised by many employees of
the negative consequences resulting from centralization, the agency
has also made significant efforts to address identified shortcomings
in the business services provided to field-unit employees. In
particular, human resources management and information technology
managers are undertaking initiatives to change their overall approach
to delivering business services. As a part of these efforts, agency
officials told us they are reviewing the experiences of other agencies
that have undertaken similar organizational changes for lessons
learned and best practices that might apply to the Forest Service. The
impact of human resources management's and information technology's
initiatives, however--including the extent to which these business
services will modify their largely self-service-based delivery
approach--is not yet clear because many of the changes are still in
progress.
The Forest Service's Assessment Actions Have Included Multiple Ongoing
Efforts, Focused Largely on Service Delivery by Each Centralized
Business Service:
Recognizing the significant change centralization brought to employees
across the Forest Service, the agency has undertaken multiple actions
to assess business service delivery. These actions include ongoing
efforts such as the monitoring of service delivery by a customer
service board, service level agreements outlining services to be
delivered and specific performance measures to be tracked, and various
mechanisms to capture feedback from customers and assess business
service delivery. The agency has also conducted targeted reviews and
established several short-term review teams to assess particular
aspects of its centralized business services. These actions have
mainly aimed to assess the quality of service provided by each of the
centralized business services and have generally not included a more
fundamental assessment of those aspects of business service delivery
typically carried out in a self-service manner--including an
assessment of how effectively and efficiently self-service tasks are
completed by field-unit staff--and therefore the extent to which a
self-service approach may be most appropriate.
Customer Service Board:
In 2006, the Forest Service established a 15-member Operations
Customer Service Board--chaired by a regional forester and composed of
employees representing varied levels and geographic locations within
the agency--to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the three
centralized business services. The board carries out a number of
activities to assess business service delivery. For instance, it meets
on a monthly basis to, among other things, discuss current issues and
projects, hear from board members on detailed oversight activities
they are doing, and interact with representatives of the business
services to learn about the status of efforts aimed at improving
service delivery. The board has also established specific teams to
evaluate particular aspects of business service delivery. For example,
a budget team annually reviews detailed budget information from the
three business services to identify any concerns, questions, or
issues, which the board may then discuss with the business service
managers or agency leadership. Similarly, another team annually
reviews service-level agreements--contracts established by each
business service to define the services they are to deliver and
performance measures associated with doing so--to ensure that the
performance measures are meaningful and achievable within established
budgets. In addition, in 2010 the board established a radio review
team to, among other things, assess current and future customer needs
regarding radios because of its concerns that the lack of an updated
radio plan was seriously affecting employee safety and productivity.
The customer service board also holds annual meetings with managers
from the three business services to learn about improvements and
challenges in business service delivery and to make recommendations
for further improvements. During these meetings, the board assesses
detailed information developed by the budget team and reviews the
service-level agreements proposed by each business service for the
coming year.
On the basis of its reviews, including the information presented and
discussed throughout the year and during annual meetings with the
three business services, the board develops recommendations for the
managers of the business services and the Chief of the Forest Service,
generally aimed at improving service delivery to field-unit employees.
Specific recommendations from the board have often centered on
improving or clarifying business service budget information and
service-level agreements. The board's chair told us the board has not
directly examined or recommended that the business services
systematically examine or modify the extent to which they rely on a
self-service delivery approach for completing tasks, but she did say
the board recognizes that the approach has resulted in a significant
shifting of responsibility for completing business service tasks to
field-unit employees. The business services are not required to
implement recommendations made by the board, but several board members
we spoke with, including the current chair, told us the business
services have generally been responsive to the board's
recommendations; they also acknowledged that the business services
have been slow to respond in some instances. For example, in 2007 the
board recommended that each business service develop or update
business plans to contain accurate budget information, including its
linkage to program goals and priorities and performance measures, for
board assessment. By 2009, budget and finance had prepared budget
information that allowed the board to track costs and budget proposals
from year to year. In contrast, according to the board, the business
plan submitted by information technology in 2009 needed better
linkages between budget requests and stated priorities and discussions
of trade-offs under various budget alternatives; information
technology submitted an updated business plan in June 2011. Human
resources management submitted its first business plan to the board in
March 2011.
Service-Level Agreements:
Each business service has developed service-level agreements, which
are reviewed by, and often developed in collaboration with, customer
service board members. These agreements outline services to be
delivered and specific performance measures to be tracked, including
defining acceptable levels of performance. In general, the business
services' performance measures capture operational aspects of their
service delivery, such as the length of time to process specific
actions, and customer satisfaction with service delivery. Few of the
measures capture the performance of actions completed by field-unit
employees when those employees are responsible for completing a
portion of certain tasks, such as initiating a payment to a partner.
Monthly or quarterly scorecards indicate the extent to which each
business service is achieving acceptable levels of performance across
its performance measures. However, the three business services have
varied considerably in their development of performance measures that
fully and accurately capture their performance, as well as their
ability to achieve acceptable levels of performance consistently, with
budget and finance generally outperforming the other two services.
Specifically:
* Budget and finance. Budget and finance has 17 performance measures
to capture critical elements of its service delivery. Although small
adjustments to the measures have been made over the past several
years, the measures have largely remained the same since they were
developed in 2006. Metrics have focused on the performance of business
service operations, the budget and finance help desk, and actions
taken in conjunction with field units. For example, one performance
measure tracks the number of days to approve certain travel
authorizations, one tracks how quickly customer service agents respond
to and resolve customer calls, and another monitors customer
satisfaction with the support provided by the help desk. Several
performance measures track the timeliness of actions completed by
field-unit staff, because some budget and finance processes depend
upon actions that must be initiated in a field unit. For example, one
performance measure tracks the percentage of certain invoices received
from field units on a timely basis (so that these invoices can then be
processed by budget and finance staff). Over the last few years,
budget and finance has consistently achieved mostly acceptable levels
of performance (as defined in the service-level agreements), with the
exception of customer satisfaction with its internal Web site and the
actions that must first be completed by field-unit staff. Budget and
finance officials told us that several changes have been implemented
recently to improve performance in these areas, such as increasing the
training provided to field-unit managers and monitoring invoices to
better identify trends and problems. Budget and finance officials
further told us they will assess the effects of these changes in the
future, as well as continue their collaborative efforts with the board
to regularly assess the strength of their performance measures in
capturing how well services are delivered.
* Human resources management. Human resources management officials,
and board members we spoke with about human resources management,
agreed that performance measures in place over the past several years
have not fully or accurately captured all important aspects of service
delivery performance. For fiscal year 2010, human resources management
had 20 performance measures intended to capture various aspects of
internal operational performance, including its responsiveness to
requests for customer service, how quickly specific actions such as
retirement applications were processed, and customer satisfaction when
a service was completed. Monthly scorecards produced for fiscal year
2010 indicated that human resources management was not achieving
acceptable levels of performance for most of its measures, but human
resources management officials told us the measures did not accurately
reflect the service being provided and that in some cases performance
data could not be easily measured or validated. Because of such
problems, during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, human resources
management staff gradually stopped reporting results for almost half
their performance measures. In fiscal year 2011, the staff began
working with board members to re-examine and revise the human
resources performance measures. In March 2011, human resources
management submitted to the board eight draft performance measures,
recognizing that several more may need to be developed in the future.
* Information technology. Information technology officials, and board
members we spoke with about information technology, likewise told us
they recognize the need to continue to revise and develop measures to
better capture the quality of service delivery to customers. For
fiscal year 2011, information technology had more than 30 performance
measures, with almost half tracking internal processes, such as the
percentage of internal plans or invoices completed and submitted in a
timely manner, and the remainder tracking aspects of service delivery
to customers or customer satisfaction. Service delivery measures
include the time frames for resolving customer requests for
assistance, such as computer software or hardware problems submitted
to the help desk, and the number of days to create computer accounts
for new hires. Customer satisfaction measures include some
incorporating the results of an annual customer satisfaction survey
sent to all agency employees and one capturing customer satisfaction
upon completion of a service requested from the help desk. Across the
performance measures, quarterly scorecards for fiscal year 2010
indicated mixed results: information technology consistently met its
target for customer satisfaction upon completion of a service but was
consistently unable to achieve acceptable levels of performance in
several other areas, including resolving customer incidents within
targeted time frames. Information technology officials said they plan
to continue developing additional measures to better capture the value
and quality of service they are providing to customers.
Mechanisms for Capturing Customer Feedback:
Officials from all three business services also told us they use
customer feedback obtained through various mechanisms to assess their
business service delivery. For example, each of the three business
service help desks offers customers the opportunity to give direct
feedback about their experience with each request for service. Each
business service also provides opportunities for staff to send
electronic comments through links on its Web site. In some instances,
according to agency officials, focus groups have been put together to
solicit feedback from employees. For example, in 2010, an internal
team conducted 20 focus groups with small groups of field-unit
employees to obtain their perspectives on ways the three business
services could improve the support they provide to customers.
Officials from each service said they closely monitor the feedback
that comes in through these various mechanisms to identify issues and
trends they may need to address. For instance, human resources
management officials told us that feedback they received from field-
unit employees has led them, among other actions, to hold specific,
online training sessions before the general hiring period for seasonal
staff, to improve the information they make available to field-unit
employees.
Reviews for Assessing the Business Services:
The Forest Service has also conducted targeted reviews to help
identify the causes of continuing problems with human resources
management and delivery of information technology services and to help
develop recommendations or potential approaches for improvement. In
2008, for example, Forest Service leadership commissioned a review by
a private consultant to assess problems in delivering human resources
management services, underlying causes of those problems, and
potential solutions. The consultant identified a number of factors
contributing to problems, including flawed assumptions about the types
of human resources-related transactions that could easily be automated
or made self-service; inadequate information systems that either did
not work as designed or were not intuitive or user-friendly; and the
significant loss of human resources expertise, resulting in skill gaps
at the centralized business service center. The consultant concluded
that efforts undertaken to date would not resolve all underlying
problems and that, instead, a fundamental redesign of the service
delivery model was needed to fully address deficiencies. The
consultant recommended that the agency set up two project teams, one
to identify ways to improve existing human resources management
processes and one to examine longer-term service delivery options. On
the basis of this recommendation, agency leadership developed two such
teams to identify priority issues and options for action. The results
of the teams' work were presented to Forest Service leadership in
December 2009, and actions the Forest Service has taken in response
are discussed in greater detail later in this section.
Similarly, in 2009, on the basis of a recommendation by the customer
service board, an internal agency review team was developed to assess
the effectiveness of information technology in managing the agency's
information resources. The review team, led by a regional forester and
composed mostly of senior managers, concluded that there were several
fundamental problems with the service delivery model in place and that
aggressive action to address these problems was warranted. The review
team found widespread confusion about the information technology
organization's relationship to the Forest Service's mission. For
instance, the review team found that agency executives were not fully
engaged in defining and managing the information technology function
as a vital part of the agency's mission and that the connections among
the organization, agency leadership, and the field units were limited.
In response, the review team recommended that the agency develop a
strategic framework to clearly identify and explain how the
information technology organization is linked to the agency's mission.
The review team also found confusion surrounding information
technology's system for setting priorities and allocating funding, and
it recommended improvements to clarify and provide more transparency
to these areas. In addition, the review team recommended changes to
the organizational structure of information technology to improve
customer support, concluding that increased service in some areas may
be needed. The recommendations of the review team are being considered
by the Forest Service as part of the ongoing reorganization efforts
discussed below.
Efforts to Address Shortcomings Include Initiatives to Improve Human
Resources Management and Information Technology, but It Is Unclear to
What Extent Problems Will Be Resolved:
In part following recommendations made in various assessments of its
business services, the Forest Service has taken, and continues to
take, steps to improve performance in each of these services. Budget
and finance has efforts under way aimed at continuous improvement, but
human resources management and information technology are making more-
significant changes to their overall service delivery approach. It is
unclear, however, to what extent additional changes will correct
remaining shortcomings--or to what extent changes will alter the
agency's reliance on a self-service delivery approach for many tasks--
in part because these changes are still in progress.
Budget and Finance:
Although its centralization efforts have largely been considered
successful by agency leadership, budget and finance continues to make
efforts to improve its business service delivery. For instance, budget
and finance recently implemented an automated tool to allow employees
to electronically submit requests for miscellaneous obligations, which
will eliminate manual data entry into the financial system--thereby
reducing the potential for error, improving processing times, and
allowing employees to check the status of their requests in real time.
Officials reported they are also working to streamline processes and
information sharing for tracking unspent monies and closing out some
partner agreements. To improve communication and collaboration with
field-unit staff, budget and finance officials reported they have
begun placing their monthly conference notes--which contain
information about such things as new systems, processes, or procedures
being put in place--on their Web site for relevant staff to review. In
addition, to be more responsive to customers, officials said they are
currently working toward electronic tracking of help-desk requests, so
that customers can easily see the status of these requests in real
time as well.
Human Resources Management:
Over time, human resources management has undertaken various efforts
to improve specific aspects of its services in response to identified
shortcomings--for example, by improving the operations of its help
desk and payroll system. More broadly, recognizing that centralization
has continued to pose serious and persistent problems, the Forest
Service began a substantial effort to more comprehensively address
performance shortcomings. This effort includes (1) an initiative to
redesign human resources management's structure, (2) replacement of
several key automated systems, and (3) improvements to the customer
service provided by the help desk.
Regarding structural redesign, Forest Service leadership in December
2009 decided, after examining several options, on an approach aimed
at, among other things, restoring relationships between field-unit
management and the human resources management program by establishing
regional service teams to assist field-unit managers with certain
functions. Under this approach, the Forest Service's regions would be
assigned teams of 9 to 64 human resources management staff, depending
on the size of the region. To this end, Forest Service leadership gave
human resources management the authority to hire up to 208 additional
full-time staff to make up the regional service teams; these staff
members may be physically located in the regions or at the Albuquerque
Service Center. During 2010 and early 2011, the agency established
these teams, which are to assist managers in field units with four
specific services: position classification, hiring, employee
relations, and labor relations. The service teams remain within the
human resources management organization, and, according to the agency,
the goal is that the service teams will develop a relationship of
shared accountability with regional leadership, so that regional
leadership will have more influence on certain aspects of human
resources management work. Human resources management officials
explained that the redesign was being implemented using an "adaptive
management approach," under which field-unit leadership will have the
flexibility to influence the work carried out by the service team
assigned to their region.
Many Forest Service field-unit staff we spoke with expressed optimism
about changes being made under the human resources management redesign
initiative, but it remains uncertain to what extent such changes will
result in significant improvements. Because regional service teams
were established only recently, and because some aspects of the
service teams' roles and responsibilities have yet to be clearly
defined, staff said it was too early to comment on resulting
improvements. For example, while certain aspects of position
classification will be the responsibility of regional service teams,
it is not clear to what extent service teams will directly assist
supervisors with completing technical and procedural tasks associated
with position classification. According to human resources management
officials, classification specialists have been assigned to the
regional service teams to work more closely with regional managers on
several tasks related to position classification, but initiating and
completing a classification action request generally remain with field-
unit supervisors. Several field-unit staff we spoke with expressed
concern that if supervisors continue to be responsible for carrying
out classification work requiring detailed technical and procedural
knowledge, then redesign will do little to reduce the burden placed on
supervisors for completing these tasks.
Further, many field-unit staff we spoke with remained concerned that,
even after the redesign initiative is fully implemented, they may not
see a reduction in the time needed to complete human resources-related
tasks, especially self-service tasks, because processes and
responsibilities for those tasks have stayed unchanged under redesign.
Human resources management officials told us that many of the field-
unit staff's frustrations stem from increased responsibilities placed
on supervisors. They explained that before centralization, local
administrative staff sometimes assisted with certain supervisory-
related tasks, such as helping track employee performance, but that
under centralization, that support may no longer be there. Human
resources management officials said that tasks that are supervisory in
nature should be the responsibility of supervisors, although they also
acknowledged that no clear agreement prevails across agency leadership
on what types of administrative tasks supervisors should be
responsible for, and they recognized the need to more clearly identify
and define supervisory tasks. One agency official added that a 2010
presidential memorandum directs supervisors with responsibility for
hiring to be more fully involved in the hiring process, including
engaging actively in identifying the skills required for the job and
participating in the interviewing process when applicable.[Footnote
11] Human resources management officials told us they also recognize
the need to re-examine which business service tasks best lend
themselves to self-service and which tasks may need greater expertise
or direct support by human resources specialists; they told us they
plan to revisit this issue after the regional service teams are fully
established. They could not, however, provide us with any concrete
plans or target time frames for this effort. Without a systematic re-
examination, the agency risks continuing to burden its field-unit
staff with tasks they cannot perform efficiently.
In addition to the organizational redesign initiative, human resources
management officials told us, they have efforts under way to replace
and make more integrated, flexible, and user-friendly several key
automated systems that both human resources management staff and field
units rely on to carry out human resources-related tasks. In
particular, human resources management is embarking on a long-term
effort to develop an integrated workforce system that ultimately is to
consolidate and streamline human resources processing for all
Department of Agriculture agencies, including the Forest Service. The
effort to develop this system, called OneUSDA, is currently being co-
led by the Forest Service. Human resources management officials said
initial efforts are focused on the development of a system for
benefits and pay processing; eventually they expect the system to be
expanded to other actions, such as hiring. By aligning efforts across
the department, human resources management officials said, they will
be better positioned to standardize and share information across
agencies. This initiative is still in early stages of development, and
agency officials said that, although they recently determined all
necessary requirements across the department's agencies, it could take
at least 5 years to establish basic system functionalities.
In the meantime, human resources management has had efforts in
progress to improve several of its current systems--many of which were
put in place after the EmpowHR system, deployed when the agency first
centralized, proved inadequate--but these efforts have themselves been
problematic. For instance, human resources management has been working
to replace 52 Tracker, one of the personnel tracking systems it put in
place of EmpowHR, which has been widely cited as slow and difficult to
use. According to agency officials, the Forest Service hired a
contractor to develop a replacement system for 52 Tracker, which was
expected to provide improvements such as automatically populating
certain fields. In January 2011, however, after 2 years of work, the
agency discontinued the effort, concluding that what the contractor
developed would not meet the agency's needs. Instead, human resources
management officials said they are now building an in-house system,
which they expect to be deployed in 2012. In addition, human resources
management officials said they have taken steps to mitigate known
weaknesses with their AVUE hiring system, such as manually going
through some candidate lists to make sure candidates are not
inadvertently put on an incorrect list; the officials told us they
will be revisiting the use of AVUE altogether over the next year.
Human resources management has also undertaken several actions to
improve customer service provided to employees through its help desk.
For example, human resources management staff conduct monthly focus
groups with 40 field-unit employees, representing a diverse range of
positions, to seek input on help-desk initiatives and other
performance issues or concerns raised by customers in field units.
Also, during 2010, human resources management made enhancements to its
help-desk ticketing system, which allowed employees to track the
status of their requests in real time and identified help-desk staff
assigned to employees' cases, so employees could call the help-desk
person directly if needed. It is also developing a comprehensive
training program to enhance the technical knowledge and skills of its
service providers, has added specialists to handle certain issues and
developed troubleshooting guides to assist help-desk staff in
diagnosing issues brought to their attention, and has reported
reducing telephone wait times significantly for employees calling the
help desk. In addition, human resources management recently developed
or updated its standard operating procedures for a number of human
resources-related areas, including benefits, pay and leave,
performance and awards, labor relations, hiring, and temporary
employment. These operating procedures have been made available on
human resources management's Web site, and managers are hopeful the
procedures will improve the consistency of information provided to and
used by field-unit employees. Because some of these initiatives are
relatively new, their impact on field-unit employees has not yet been
assessed.
Information Technology:
Information technology managers have recently undertaken several
actions to improve service delivery to field-unit employees and, for
some tasks, provide more direct assistance to those field-unit
employees who might need it. For example, in 2010 information
technology developed "strike teams" consisting of information
technology specialists who traveled to sites across the agency giving
employees hands-on help with transferring their electronic files to
new servers. Information technology also recently provided customer
service training to the majority of its staff and has been working to
raise awareness among field-unit staff--through efforts such as
posting additional information on its Web site--of the existence of
customer relations specialists who serve as local liaisons and are
available as local resources for field-unit employees. Nevertheless,
it is unclear to what extent these efforts have been effective,
because they were not mentioned by the employees we interviewed or
those who participated in our focus groups.
In addition, after the Forest Service folded its technology support
services back into a single organization when its competitive sourcing
arrangement was terminated in 2008, the information technology service
began a reorganization initiative to significantly modify to its
service delivery approach. Forest Service leadership, however, put the
reorganization initiative on hold in 2009 until the agency could
develop a strategic framework establishing high-level goals and
objectives for managing its information resources and clarifying
information technology's role in decision making. Agency officials
told us that, given the problems surrounding decision making and
priority setting under the centralized model, the agency also needed
to clarify its processes for making information technology resource
decisions, including creating a system for setting priorities and
allocating funding for new technology investments. With these efforts
completed in 2010, a team led by senior Forest Service managers has
been formed to assess the current organization and recommend changes
by December 2011, according to agency officials. As part of these
efforts, the agency has stated that improving customer service, and
specifically addressing the level of self-service that will be
expected of employees, will be a key focal area for the reorganization
team. Information technology managers told us they recognize that
under centralization they relied too extensively on a self-service
approach and saw the need to seek alternatives to improve service
delivery to employees, but they also recognize the need to be mindful
of the higher costs that come with increased service. Given that the
reorganization initiative is still in early stages, and specific plans
and targets have yet to be documented, the extent to which the agency
will alter its self-service approach--and whether the revisions will
address identified shortcomings--remains unclear.
The Forest Service Could Not Reliably Demonstrate Cost Savings
Resulting from Centralization but Estimated That Anticipated Savings
May Have Been Achieved by One Business Service:
Achieving significant cost savings was one of the key goals of the
Forest Service's centralization effort, with the agency estimating it
would save about $100 million annually across the three business
services--budget and finance, human resources management, and the ISO
component within information technology. But because of limitations
with the agency's documentation supporting the data, assumptions, and
methods used in developing its cost information both before and after
centralization, we were unable to fully ascertain the reliability of
its cost estimates for (1) baseline costs of providing each of the
business services before centralization, (2) projected costs for
providing those same business services after centralization was
complete, or (3) actual costs of providing the business services after
centralization. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the Forest
Service estimated that projected annual savings through fiscal year
2010 may have been achieved in budget and finance but in for the other
two business services.
Savings Achieved from Centralization Could Not Be Conclusively
Determined Because of Limited Supporting Documentation and Cost-
Estimating Methods:
With its centralization efforts, the agency projected it would achieve
significant cost savings--about $100 million annually across the three
business services--generally after a transition period, lasting around
3 years, in which it would incur one-time investment costs (see table
3).[Footnote 12] Investment costs generally comprised those to acquire
and establish business service offices at the Albuquerque Service
Center, transfer business service employees located in various field
units to the new center, train these employees, and pay management and
project consulting fees. Overall, projected annual cost savings were
largely based on anticipated staff reductions for all three business
services. For example, for budget and finance, the agency projected it
would be able to eliminate 830 of the 1,975 FTEs it estimated went
toward budget and finance-related activities before centralization,
accounting for a significant portion of the projected annual cost
savings. In addition, for information technology, the agency's cost-
savings estimates were tied specifically to savings it estimated it
would achieve by shifting the support services portion of its business
service to ISO. Information technology officials told us they expected
to achieve additional savings related to other centralization efforts
outside ISO, but these savings were not included in the agency's
projections.
Table 3: Forest Service Baseline Cost Estimates and Projected Annual
Cost Savings from Centralization:
Estimate of baseline annual costs:
Business service: Budget and finance: $139.9 million;
Business service: Human resources management: $86.9 million;
Business service: Information technology[A]: $76.3 million;
Total: $303.1 million.
Projected ongoing annual costs after centralization:
Business service: Budget and finance: $101.2 million;
Business service: Human resources management: $56.3 million;
Business service: Information technology[A]: $46.8 million;
Total: $204.3 million.
Projected annual cost savings:
Business service: Budget and finance: $38.7 million;
Business service: Human resources management: $30.6 million;
Business service: Information technology[A]: $29.5 million;
Total: $98.8 million.
Projected one-time investment costs:
Business service: Budget and finance: $45.2 million;
Business service: Human resources management: $60.5 million;
Business service: Information technology[A]: $12.0 million;
Total: $117.7 million.
Source: Forest Service estimates as of September 30, 2007.
[A] These amounts reflect only the portion of information technology
services included in ISO.
[End of table]
We found several limitations with the Forest Service's estimates of
its baseline costs, which calls into question whether the agency had
an accurate starting point from which to measure any savings achieved
from centralization. For example, the agency's baseline costs for
budget and finance and human resources management relied largely on
estimates developed with the help of contractors during the
centralization-planning process, because the agency otherwise did not
have a means to readily distinguish and capture actual costs
associated with the business service activities being done by staff
located at hundreds of field units across the country. The Forest
Service, however, did not maintain sufficient supporting documentation
to indicate what data, assumptions, or methods were used to develop
its baseline cost estimates, and therefore we were unable to determine
what types of costs may have been included or excluded or to assess
the reasonableness of the assumptions and methods behind the
estimates. Without clear information on what baseline cost estimates
consisted of, or on the reliability of such information, we are unable
to assess whether the estimates serve as an accurate basis for
comparing postcentralization costs to determine achieved savings.
Similarly, although the agency took steps to measure savings achieved
from centralization for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, agency
officials could not provide supporting documentation, which limited
our ability to assess the agency's methods or determine the
reliability of the underlying data. For example, according to its
September 2007 estimate, the agency estimated that it achieved a
savings of $85 million for fiscal year 2007 across the three business
services, attributing the savings largely to staffing reductions.
Agency officials, however, were unable to provide documentation on the
information or methods used to determine reported staff reductions or
the associated impact on operational costs. In addition, although the
agency's September 2007 estimate indicated that one-time investment
costs for fiscal year 2006 totaled $68.6 million for budget and
finance and human resources management, we found that an earlier
estimate developed for that same period showed one-time costs of $34.3
million. After further review of the documentation, agency officials
acknowledged that the September 2007 estimates appeared to reflect a
double counting of costs contained in the earlier estimate. Potential
errors such as this one raise questions about the accuracy of the
data, but without supporting documentation detailing the agency's
specific methods and estimates, we were unable to assess the data's
reasonableness or reliability.
The Forest Service terminated its efforts to measure the cost savings
associated with centralization at the end of fiscal year 2007,
although at our request it developed updated estimates through fiscal
year 2010--but with those estimates, too, we were limited in our
ability to assess the reasonableness or reliability of much of the
information. Specifically, since limited information was available to
understand the assumptions and methods the agency used to develop both
its baseline cost estimates and its estimates of savings achieved
through 2007, agency officials acknowledged they were unsure whether
the methods used to produce the updated estimates were consistent with
those used previously. For example, Forest Service officials were
unable to confirm whether or to what extent certain technology and
associated implementation costs were accounted for consistently across
the agency's various estimates of baseline costs, projected costs, or
achieved savings. Similarly, it was unclear to what extent changes in
the scope of work to be done by the centralized business services or
unanticipated significant new requirements--such as new mandated
information technology security requirements or an agencywide travel
system--were incorporated into the agency's estimates of cost savings.
In addition, several field-unit officials we spoke with said that some
of the projected cost savings relying on a reduction in field-unit
facility costs may not have materialized because the facility costs
did not decrease (e.g., because of long-term lease agreements or
because space could not easily be configured to accommodate reducing
just a few positions). Given the lack of detailed information
supporting the Forest Service's estimates, however, it is not possible
to determine the extent to which the agency may have factored in
updated information into its calculations of cost savings.
Further, the estimates of savings for the business services likely do
not account for the time now spent by field-unit employees on the
whole range of business service-related tasks that these employees did
not perform before centralization. Given the substantial shifting of
responsibility to field-unit employees for many business service tasks
after centralization, even a small amount of time that the agency's
more than 30,000 employees spend on such tasks could add up to
significant associated costs that the agency's estimates likely do not
account for. If the agency estimated cost savings by, in part,
calculating the number of business service-related staff it reduced
but did not factor in the time spent by employees who picked up
portions of the business service-related work, then the agency's cost-
savings estimates for the business services may be overstated.
Complete and accurate information for pre-and postcentralization costs
is essential to accurately determine the extent of achieved cost
savings and the reasonableness of key assumptions used to develop cost
estimates. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
highlights the importance of comparing actual performance data with
expected results to determine whether goals are met for accountability
for effective and efficient use of resources. It also calls for
agencies to clearly document significant events, such as those
involving major organizational changes, and to maintain documentation
so it is readily available for examination.[Footnote 13] In addition,
in March 2009, we issued a cost-estimating guide, which compiles cost-
estimating best practices drawn from across industry and government.
[Footnote 14] This guide notes the importance of sound cost-
estimating practices, including to develop in-depth cost-estimating
models that actively address risks by estimating costs associated with
potential delays, workarounds, or other key risks and to properly
document cost estimates so they can be independently validated,
updated, or re-created. Specifically, the guide explains that
documentation describing the methods and data behind estimates not
only allows others to understand how an estimate was developed and to
replicate it, but also facilitates updating the estimate as key
assumptions change or more information becomes available. In addition,
the guide indicates that well-supported and well-documented cost
estimates can serve as a reference to support future estimates. As the
Forest Service moves forward with its initiatives to redesign and
reorganize its human resources management and information technology
services, neither it nor others will be able to fully assess the cost-
effectiveness of these initiatives or track updates as assumptions or
other information changes without complete and accurate cost-
estimating information.
The Forest Service Estimated That Centralization Achieved Intended
Cost Savings in One of the Three Business Services:
Despite limitations in the information it provided, the Forest Service
estimated that, through fiscal year 2010, it achieved intended annual
savings in budget and finance but was not able to achieve intended
savings for human resources management or the ISO component within
information technology. Selected aspects of the agency's estimates of
achieved savings for the three business services are described below,
along with limitations that raise further questions about their
reliability.
Budget and Finance:
The Forest Service estimated that from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
year 2010, it reduced its annual budget and finance costs by about $47
million per year, on average--exceeding its cost-savings goal by more
than $8 million annually. According to agency documents, it incurred
one-time investment costs totaling $54 million, about $9 million more
than the initially projected amount of $45 million. According to
agency estimates, a large portion of the cost savings was attributable
to staff reductions. For example, agency data suggest that in 2010,
377 fewer FTEs than before centralization were assigned to positions
most closely associated with budget and finance work.
We found, however, that the agency's estimate of postcentralization
costs was based in large part on estimates of the costs of field-based
budget and finance activity that agency officials told us had not been
validated--raising questions about the reliability of these cost
estimates and therefore about the agency's reported cost savings.
Specifically, estimates of postcentralization costs included costs for
both the centralized budget and finance organization and the budget
and finance activities that largely remained in the field units. Over
half these estimated annual costs, however, were for field-based
activities, and they were derived from estimates stemming back to the
agency's centralization planning documents. According to agency
officials, cost estimates developed for the field-based activities
were based on the number of field-based FTEs that the agency projected
would continue to do budget and finance-related work after
centralization. The officials said they have not taken steps to assess
the accuracy of this portion of their cost estimates because they lack
readily available data on these specific costs from the agency's
accounting system and because the additional steps to validate actual
FTEs and associated costs would take significant time and resources.
Many field-unit staff we spoke with said they continue to devote
significant resources to performing budget and finance activities, and
in some cases field units have hired additional staff to carry out the
work. Regardless, without sufficient data to compare the agency's
initial projections of field-based budget and finance costs before
centralization with actual postcentralization costs, the ability to
assess the extent of achieved cost savings is limited.
Human Resources Management:
The Forest Service estimated that from fiscal years 2006 through 2010,
it reduced its annual human resources management costs by about $11
million per year, on average--falling far short of its projection of
$31 million in annual savings. In fact, by fiscal year 2010, the
Forest Service estimated that annual human resources management costs
were almost $1 million more than the agency estimated they would have
been without centralization. The agency estimated that one-time
investment costs totaled $76 million, $15 million more than projected.
According to agency officials, higher-than-expected annual costs were
largely due to increases in staffing and technology costs for new
automated systems. By 2010, for example, the agency reported that
staffing exceeded 650 FTEs, compared with the fewer than 400 FTEs
estimated in its initial projections. In addition, agency officials
also stated that in fiscal year 2008, the Forest Service retained a
contractor to assist in processing the extensive seasonal hiring the
agency undertakes each year. They explained that the contractor was
necessary to process personnel actions for the approximately 15,000 to
18,000 staff temporarily hired each year because human resources
management does not have the staff to process these transactions in a
timely fashion.
The agency's current redesign initiatives and other efforts are likely
to further significantly affect the costs of providing human resources
management services, but the nature and extent of those effects are
unclear because the Forest Service has not evaluated the long-term
financial impacts of its planned changes. In the short term, costs are
likely to rise substantially, given the agency's planned increases in
staffing in connection with redesign of human resources management.
Specifically, during fiscal year 2011 human resources management
planned to increase staff by up to 208 additional positions over
fiscal year 2010, according to agency documents, which would bring the
new total to 970 positions--more than twice the number of FTEs
estimated in initial agency projections. Agency officials attributed
some of the increases to additional unanticipated work requirements,
such as activities related to time-and-attendance reporting and
unemployment compensation, which human resources management continued
to perform after centralization. In addition, although the agency is
actively pursuing OneUSDA to serve as its comprehensive human
resources management system, it has not yet projected the costs to
develop and implement this system. The agency developed a business
plan for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, which estimated some costs
for its human resources management service for those years, but this
plan did not specify costs, if any, related to its OneUSDA effort. The
plan also did not clearly explain how future staffing would change to
achieve a forecasted 10 percent reduction in salary costs by fiscal
year 2013, especially in light of current redesign efforts and their
associated increase in staffing levels. Furthermore, the plan did not
contain any discussion of the potential long-term financial impact of
these efforts on future human resources management costs.
Information Technology:
The Forest Service's estimates of cost savings for centralization of
information technology generally focused on its ISO, which, according
to the agency, resulted in annual savings of about $22 million from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008--falling short of the
agency's goal of $30 million in annual savings. The agency estimated
that it also incurred about $12 million in investment costs as part of
these centralization efforts. As part of its savings estimate, the
agency reported that it had reduced information technology-related
staffing by 554 positions. Agency officials also stated that,
anticipating significant savings resulting from centralization, the
Forest Service in fiscal year 2005 dissolved the portion of its
working capital fund related to computer hardware and software,
allowing it to spend the approximately $60 million balance elsewhere
in the agency.[Footnote 15] The agency, however, did not provide
sufficient documentation for us to determine how this action
specifically related to, or may have affected, the agency's estimates
of the savings that resulted from ISO centralization. In addition,
because the Forest Service's efforts to measure cost savings focused
on ISO, any savings associated with centralizing information
technology services outside of ISO (such as those related to replacing
computing and telecommunications hardware, software, and radio
systems) were not included in agency estimates.[Footnote 16] During
fiscal year 2008, the Forest Service terminated its competitive
sourcing arrangement with ISO, folding these service activities back
into one information technology organization, which limited the
agency's ability to consistently measure cost savings because ISO-
specific costs were no longer tracked separately.[Footnote 17]
Regardless, the cost of providing information technology services
overall has grown steadily over the last several years: the agency
estimated that total costs have increased about 8 percent per year, on
average, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010.
The agency's lack of supporting documentation for several of its
information technology cost estimates raises questions about the
reliability of this information. Specifically, a business case was not
prepared for the information technology centralization effort, and,
although agency officials indicated that projected annual cost savings
were derived from competitive sourcing documentation (i.e., from the
agency's bid under the competition for providing services using agency
employees), they were unable to demonstrate how such documentation
supported the estimate of baseline costs or projected yearly costs
after centralization. Also, agency officials were unable to specify
how their estimates of achieved savings, including those attributed to
reported staffing reductions, were derived, noting, among other
things, that they were unable to locate documentation supporting their
estimates because many information technology employees who may have
been familiar with these efforts had left the agency. These
limitations echo concerns we raised in 2008 about the reliability of
Forest Service efforts to measure information technology-related cost
savings. Specifically, in January 2008 we reported that the agency was
unable to provide sufficient information to substantiate the
approximately $35.2 million in savings it reported to Congress as part
of its ISO competitive sourcing arrangement for fiscal years 2005
through 2006.[Footnote 18] We noted that, in addition to the lack of
complete and reliable cost data, the agency had failed to include in
its report $40 million in transition costs.
As with human resources management, the reorganization effort within
information technology is likely to significantly affect the future
costs of providing information technology services, but the nature and
extent of those effects are unclear because the long-term financial
impacts and other aspects of this initiative have yet to be fully
evaluated. Although the agency has taken steps to assess information
technology costs, a March 2009 internal assessment of ISO performance
and cost results highlighted the need for an in-depth, realistic cost
model among its recommendations for additional analysis in connection
with future information technology reorganization. For both human
resources management and information technology, information on the
future costs and intended benefits associated with efforts to
reorganize and improve service delivery will be important in assessing
the overall impact of these key initiatives, as well as trade-offs
that may be necessary if resources are not available to fully
implement the initiatives. Further, evaluating the initiatives'
success will depend, in part, on the agency's ability to develop
appropriate measures of cost-effectiveness and a methodologically
sound approach for measuring and documenting results, which includes a
realistic, in-depth cost-estimating model and appropriate, reliable
cost data that takes into account the initiatives' potential long-term
impact. Without such an approach, the Forest Service risks being
unable to demonstrate, or even to determine, the cost-effectiveness of
future efforts to deliver business services.
Conclusions:
The need for effective and efficient government operations has grown
more acute in light of the federal deficit and the long-term fiscal
challenges facing the nation, prompting government agencies, including
the Forest Service, to consider new models for accomplishing their
missions. For the Forest Service, consolidating business services
formerly located across the nation, and increasing the reliance on
sophisticated automated technologies, offered the promise of providing
key business services in a more coordinated and streamlined fashion
and at a lower overall cost to the agency. Although centralization of
budget and finance services had to overcome short-term obstacles
typical of institutional changes of this magnitude, centralizing these
services generally worked well to bring greater coordination and
consistency to many financial activities. But poor implementation
hampered human resources management and information technology
services over a longer period. For these services in particular,
overreliance on a self-service model for tasks requiring specialized
knowledge, automated systems that did not work as intended or were not
user-friendly, and inconsistent support from customer-service help
desks had unintended consequences, particularly on field-unit
employees--with resulting impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness
with which they could perform their mission-related activities. As the
agency moves forward with its initiatives to redesign and reorganize
its approach to delivering human resources management and information
technology services, it will be critical for the agency to re-examine
the extent to which a self-service approach is most efficient and
effective for providing needed services. In doing so, the agency will
need to better understand both the benefits and the investment
required under alternative approaches for delivering business
services. For those tasks and services where a self-service approach
is discontinued in favor of direct provision by specialists, higher
levels of service are likely to mean higher costs; for those tasks and
services where a self-service approach is continued, potential cost
savings may be partially offset by investment in more-effective and
more user-friendly automated systems, help-desk support, and other
tools essential to carrying out self-service tasks.
In addition, although the Forest Service reported cost savings from
centralization (albeit less than expected in the case of human
resources management and ISO), the agency was unable to clearly
demonstrate how its reported savings were determined and whether they
were in fact fully realized. The agency is now devoting significant
resources to its redesign and reorganization initiatives. The extent
of additional resources needed to fully implement these initiatives
remains unclear, however, in part because selected aspects of the
initiatives--including their costs--have not been fully developed.
Moreover, without complete and accurately prepared and maintained cost
information to allow the agency to assess the cost-effectiveness of
its efforts, including measures to be used to monitor actual results
achieved, neither the Forest Service nor Congress can be assured that
the initiatives' costs can be objectively monitored or that decisions
about how to provide business services in the future will produce cost-
effective solutions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To maintain and strengthen the Forest Service's delivery of business
services and help ensure customer satisfaction and cost-effectiveness,
and in conjunction with its current initiatives to redesign and
reorganize the agency's approach to delivering human resources
management and information technology services, we recommend that the
Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to
take the following three actions:
* Complete a systematic examination of the tasks associated with these
two business services to determine (1) which tasks can be efficiently
and effectively carried out under a self-service approach and (2)
which tasks may require more direct support by specialists. In doing
so, officials should assess the costs and benefits associated with
each approach and consider the views of field-unit employees.
* On the basis of the results of this systematic examination, (1)
document actions and implementation time frames for providing these
business services in the most appropriate manner, and (2) ensure that
the tools essential to carrying out any self-service tasks--including
automated systems and help-desk support--are effective and user-
friendly.
* Prepare and maintain complete and accurate cost-estimating
information to (1) thoroughly assess the potential short-and long-term
agencywide costs of implementing the current redesign and
reorganization initiatives, and (2) develop and document
methodologically sound measures to monitor the initiatives' cost-
effectiveness, so that results can be conclusively determined and
objectively evaluated.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Secretary of Agriculture with a draft of this report
for review and comment. In response, the Forest Service generally
agreed with the report's findings and recommendations and stated that
the agency is committed to the continual improvement of its business
services delivery and recognizes that changes may be needed to improve
performance. The Forest Service did not, however, specify the steps it
will take to address our recommendations or the time frames for doing
so. The Forest Service also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. The agency's written comments are
reproduced in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest
Service, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report examines the (1) types of effects centralization has had
on the Forest Service and its employees, particularly in field units;
(2) actions the Forest Service has taken to assess its delivery of
centralized business services and to address identified shortcomings;
and (3) extent to which the Forest Service can demonstrate that it
achieved centralization's intended cost savings.
To examine the effects of centralization on the Forest Service and its
employees, we reviewed guidance and policy documents, including early
planning documents prepared before centralization for each of the
three centralized business services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human
resources management, and (3) information technology. We also examined
numerous formal and informal reviews and assessments of centralization
prepared by Forest Service staff and contractors, as well as past GAO
reports on Forest Service operations, including reports on Forest
Service budget and finance operations. In addition, we reviewed the
results of various surveys and focus groups of Forest Service
employees, conducted by Forest Service teams during 2010, as well as
all customer comments provided through each of the business service
help desks during 2010. We interviewed officials from Forest Service
headquarters and the three business services at the Albuquerque
Service Center to determine how centralization changed business
service delivery, as well as to obtain their perspectives on positive
and negative outcomes resulting from centralization. To gain field-
unit perspectives, we interviewed--through site visits and by
telephone--more than 200 agency officials from all nine regional
offices, 12 national forests, 11 ranger districts, four research
stations, four science laboratories, and the State and Private
Forestry program. Our interviews included employees in a wide range of
positions within the Forest Service, including forest supervisors,
district rangers, fire management officers, budget officers, staff
scientists, administrative officers, biologists, and recreation
specialists, among many others. During these interviews, we obtained
both general views and perspectives on the effects of centralization
and specific examples, for which, in some instances, we also obtained
supporting documentation.
In addition, to systematically obtain information on the experiences
of a geographically diverse and broad cross-section of Forest Service
field-unit employees, we conducted 10 focus groups with a total of 68
randomly selected employees. These focus groups were structured small-
group discussions, which were designed to gain in-depth information on
the effects of centralization more systematically than is possible
during traditional single interviews. The focus groups ranged from 4
to 11 participants in size, and all were conducted by telephone. To
select participants, we drew a random sample of individuals from a
database of all full-time Forest Service employees. We excluded
employees with less than 5 years of Forest Service experience to
ensure that the focus groups were composed of employees with pre-and
postcentralization experience. We then stratified this population into
six groups according to supervisory status (nonsupervisory and
supervisory) and general schedule (GS) levels (GS-2 through GS-
15),[Footnote 19] so that each focus group consisted of employees with
broadly similar levels of experience; we drew a total of 10 random
samples from these six groups. For representation in approximate
proportion to the total number of full-time employees in the agency,
our 10 focus groups consisted of the following categories:
* one focus group of supervisory GS-2 through GS-8 employees,
* two focus groups of supervisory GS-9 through GS-11 employees,
* two focus groups of supervisory GS-12 though GS-15 employees,
* two focus groups of nonsupervisory GS-2 through GS-8 employees,
* two focus groups of nonsupervisory GS-9 through GS-11 employees, and:
* one focus group of nonsupervisory GS-12 through GS-15 employees.
Focus group discussions lasted 90 minutes to 2 hours and were guided
by a trained moderator, who used a structured set of questions,
generally asking participants to share their experiences regarding how
centralization of each business service affected their work. In
addition to the moderator, two GAO analysts recorded the information
provided during the discussions. Ground rules were established so that
participants limited their comments to experiences they had had
personally, and we asked them to limit their discussion to experiences
with business service delivery over the previous 12 months (the focus
groups took place during February and March 2011). The moderator used
a set of consistent, probing questions designed to ensure that all
participants had an opportunity to share their views and to react to
the views of the others. These questions also helped ensure that
topics were covered comprehensively; for instance, separate questions
were asked about both positive and negative aspects of centralization
for each business service. We also asked for specific examples and
details to increase our confidence that the participants' broader
assessments of the effects were well founded.
Our focus groups generated in-depth information that was consistent
with the information we obtained through our reviews of formal and
informal assessments of centralization and our interviews with field-
unit employees. Although participants were randomly selected and
represented a broad cross-section of employees, the results are not
statistically generalizable. To systematically assess the information
we obtained during the focus groups, we analyzed its content using
content-analysis software, which allowed us to categorize the
information into various categories and themes. From this content
analysis, we developed a model of employee experiences with
centralized business services based on categories of participant
responses. All information was initially coded by one GAO analyst and
then reviewed separately by a second GAO analyst. We coded
participants' responses by splitting them into a series of categories,
including categories corresponding to current conditions, perceived
causes, and effects on day-to-day work. We established these
categories by identifying natural clusters of employee responses. Our
model of the employees' experiences with centralization thus
highlights the most common elements identified by employees in our
focus groups, with each element in the model distinct from the other
elements. The specific elements resulting from our content analysis of
participants' responses included the following:
* Characteristics of systems and processes included comments regarding
the ease or difficulty of using automated systems, the clarity of
forms, and the complexity of processes under centralization.
* Quality of customer support included comments regarding help-desk
support, online guidance, or other support.
* Characteristics of individuals included comments regarding the
nature of individual employees, including their prior experience,
training, and job responsibilities.
* Characteristics of tasks included comments regarding the nature of
the tasks being carried out, including the complexity and technical
nature of the tasks.
* Quality of solutions included comments regarding the accuracy or
completeness of the service provided by customer service help desks.
* Timeliness of solutions included comments regarding the speed with
which tasks are completed.
* Effect on mission work included comments regarding what the changes
have meant for on-the-ground work, such as firefighting, stream
restoration, and research activities.
* Morale included comments regarding what the changes have meant for
employees' job satisfaction.
* Policies and procedures included comments regarding what the changes
have meant for how well policies and procedures are being followed for
carrying out business service tasks under centralization.
To determine what actions the Forest Service has taken to assess its
delivery of centralized services and address identified shortcomings,
we interviewed senior agency officials responsible for managing and
overseeing the business services, including the Deputy Chief and
Associate Deputy Chief of Business Operations, and senior officials
from each of the three business services. We reviewed documentation
prepared by Forest Service staff and contractors assessing various
aspects of business service delivery, including one-time program
reviews, surveys of field-unit employees, and results of employee
focus groups. We also reviewed a variety of ongoing assessment
mechanisms developed by the business services, including service-level
agreements and performance measures established for each business
service and methods to solicit feedback from field-unit employees,
such as customer help desks and business service Web sites. In
addition, we interviewed several members of the agency's Operations
Customer Service Board, which monitors the performance of the
Albuquerque Service Center, including the board's chair and several
members serving on specific board review teams, such as those tasked
with overseeing service-level agreements and business service budgets.
We reviewed documentation developed by the board, including its
monthly meeting notes for 2010, annual meeting notes and related
documentation for 2010 and 2011, and recommendation letters provided
to the Chief of the Forest Service and the business service directors
from 2006 through May 2011.
To further assess steps the Forest Service is taking to address
identified shortcomings, we reviewed documentation prepared by each
business service, such as annual accomplishment reports and
information developed and submitted to the Operations Customer Service
Board. We also interviewed officials on the human resources management
redesign and information technology reorganization teams and reviewed
documentation related to those efforts, such as implementation plans.
In addition, during our interviews with field-unit staff, we learned
about agency efforts to address identified shortcomings and the
results of steps taken to date.
To examine the extent to which the Forest Service could demonstrate
that it achieved centralization's intended cost savings, we reviewed
available documentation on the baseline costs of providing each of the
business services before centralization, the projected costs for
providing those same business services after centralization was
complete, the actual costs of providing the business services after
centralization, and estimates of cost savings contained in financial
analyses comparing these data; we also reviewed internal and external
assessments of the financial impact of centralization. Specifically,
we reviewed the following:
* Available Forest Service documentation on the underlying data,
assumptions, and methodologies for developing estimates of baseline
costs and projected annual cost savings. For budget and finance and
human resources management, these estimates generally came from
business cases prepared as a part of early centralization-planning
efforts; for information technology, from documentation developed
through its competitive sourcing effort.[Footnote 20]
* Agency estimates of cost savings contained in congressional and
agency leadership briefings on the status and results of
centralization efforts from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007.
* Updated estimates of cost savings from fiscal year 2006 through
fiscal year 2010, prepared by the agency at our request.
* Available documentation on actual costs, staffing changes, and other
factors used by the agency to support its estimates of cost savings.
* Budget reviews by the agency's Operations Customer Service Board.
* Status reports, business plans, strategy documents, and other
related information prepared by each of the three business services.
* Assessments performed by Forest Service staff and external
organizations, such as the National Academy of Public Administration,
assessing human resources management and information technology
centralization efforts.
* Prior GAO reports.
In addition, to gain further information on the Forest Service's
efforts to measure cost savings associated with business service
centralization and to assess their reliability, we interviewed senior
officials responsible for managing and overseeing the business
services, including the Deputy Chief and Associate Deputy Chief of
Business Operations, the Chief Financial Officer, and the directors of
each of the three business services, as well as others from Forest
Service headquarters, the three business services, and select field-
unit offices. Agency officials, however, could not always provide
sufficient documentation supporting the estimates contained in the
information they made available to us, re-create or substantiate the
methods used to calculate cost savings, or resolve inconsistencies in
reported results. Because of these limitations, we were unable to
verify the reliability of all cost estimates the agency provided to
us. Moreover, given these limitations, we were unable to determine
what steps, if any, the agency took to adjust its estimates for
inflation. As a result, we were unable to consistently adjust all
dollar values to constant dollars, and we therefore report all dollar
amounts as provided to us by the agency.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to August 2011, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1420:
Date: July 29, 2011:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, GA0-11-769,
"Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Reexamine
Approach and Better Document Costs Associated with Centralization."
The Forest Service has reviewed the report in great detail and
generally agrees with the report's observations and recommendations.
The agency's comments, regarding the Human Resources Management (HRM)
and Chief Information Office (CIO) business services. are enclosed.
The Forest Service is committed to the continual improvement of HRM
and CIO organizational performance and effectiveness. Like any
process, models periodically need to be tweaked to ensure maximum
efficiency while taking into account the needs of Forest Service
managers and employees. Thank you for identifying potential process
improvements that can help bring success to our evolving Human
Resources and Information Resources enterprises. Cost accountability
and effectiveness is a key to Forest Service mission success.
If you have any questions, please contact Donna M. Carmical, Chief
Financial Officer, at 202-205-1321 or dearmical@fs.fed.us.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Thomas L. Tidwell:
Chief:
Enclosures:
cc: Donna M Carmical, Lenise Lago, Kathleen Atkinson, Robin Bailey,
Douglas Nash, Jennifer McGuire, Shirley Bridges, Elizabeth Donnelly,
Samantha C. Weinhold, Sam Graham, Elizabeth K. Caban.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual name above, Steve Gaty (Assistant
Director), Mark A. Braza, Ellen W. Chu, Elizabeth Curda, Kay Daly,
Sandra Davis, Alyssa M. Hundrup, James Kernen, Michael Krafve, Michael
LaForge, Mehrzad Nadji, Jackie Nowicki, David Powner, Jeanette Soares,
and William Woods made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] H.R. Rep. No. 111-180, at 139 (2009); H.R. Rep. No. 111-316, at
140 (2009) (Conf. Rep.).
[2] Business process re-engineering refers to an approach for
redesigning the way work is done to better support an organization's
mission and reduce costs. See GAO, Business Process Reengineering
Assessment Guide, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-10.1.15] (Washington, D.C.: May
1997).
[3] Competitive sourcing refers to a governmentwide initiative that
intended to improve government efficiency and reduce the costs of
programs by promoting competition between federal entities and the
private sector to determine who should perform certain activities. For
more information on the Forest Service's competitive sourcing
activities, see GAO, Forest Service: Better Planning, Guidance, and
Data Are Needed to Improve Management of the Competitive Sourcing
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2008).
[4] The ISO component did not include those activities the agency
considered inherently governmental, such as overseeing and managing
ISO and making decisions about information resources.
[5] The Forest Service's annual appropriations law for fiscal years
2008 and 2009 prohibited the use of any appropriated funds for
competitive sourcing studies and any related activities involving
Forest Service personnel. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2010 prohibited the use of appropriated funds to begin or
announce a study or public-private competition regarding the
conversion to contractor performance of any function performed by
federal employees throughout government. The Forest Service declined
to ask for funding in fiscal year 2011 for competitive sourcing.
[6] The budget component of budget and finance is mainly responsible
for formulating, reviewing, and executing the agency's budget. The
finance component of budget and finance, in contrast, is responsible
for payments, claims processing, travel, accounting, and financial
statement reporting, among other payment-related activities.
[7] An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who
collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. For example,
both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one FTE.
[8] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OCG-99-2]
(Washington, D.C.: January 1999).
[9] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January
2005). Although we removed the Forest Service from our high- risk
list, we also reported that significant challenges for the agency
remained, including internal control weaknesses related to its
financial reporting, and stated that it would be critical for the
agency to continue to place a high priority on addressing its
remaining financial management problems.
[10] Assistance may be provided by multiple levels of staff, including
agents who accept inbound calls from employees seeking help, as well
as higher-level specialists trained to address specific issues. In
this report we use the phrase "help desk" to refer to these staff
collectively.
[11] Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process: Memorandum
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 75 Fed. Reg.
27157 (May 14, 2010).
[12] All dollar values are as provided by the Forest Service and are
not adjusted to constant dollars.
[13] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[14] GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[15] A working capital fund is a type of intragovernmental revolving
fund that operates as a self-supporting entity that conducts a regular
cycle of businesslike activities. These funds function entirely from
the fees charged for the services they provide, consistent with the
funds' statutory authority. The Forest Service's working capital fund
provides services to national forests; research stations; other
federal agencies; and, as provided by law, to state and private
cooperators.
[16] To establish benchmarks for comparison with other entities, the
Forest Service engaged a consulting firm to study its costs of
providing selected information technology services in fiscal years
2001 and 2007. These studies showed substantial declines in the costs
of delivering the information technology services that were measured,
including a 45 percent decline in the "per user" cost of these
services. Agency officials cited these studies, in addition to the ISO-
specific information the agency provided, as useful to compare costs
over time. We acknowledge the studies' potential usefulness for
understanding the aspects of the agency's information technology
efforts that were studied, but we focused our evaluation on cost
savings specific to the agency's ISO-related centralization effort
that began in 2004. These estimated savings were the focus of the
agency's projections and related estimates of cost savings from
centralization and the estimates that were reported to Congress.
Further, the costs included in the study for fiscal year 2007 were
almost $100 million less than total information technology costs for
that year, in part because the study did not include all functional
information technology areas.
[17] By March 2008, the Forest Service had terminated its competitive
sourcing arrangement with ISO. According to agency officials, however,
the agency continued to track ISO-related costs through the end of
fiscal year 2008.
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195].
[19] GS levels refer to the "general schedule" pay grades used for
many federal employees, including most full-time Forest Service
employees. General schedule pay grade levels correspond roughly to the
level of difficulty, responsibility, and qualifications required of
the person who fills a given job.
[20] Information technology centralization efforts extended beyond
those specifically attributable to competitive sourcing and related
transition of certain information technology activities to the
Information Services Organization (ISO). Although centralization
efforts not specifically related to ISO may have resulted in
additional information technology savings, we focused our evaluation
on ISO-related cost savings, which were the focus of the agency's
projections and related estimates of cost savings from centralization,
and the estimates reported to Congress.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: