**[ASSESSMENT OF]{.underline}**

**[THE FLEXIBLE WORKPLACE PILOT PROGRAM]{.underline}**

**[AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE]{.underline}**

## INTRODUCTION

The Administrative Appeals Office (the AAO) has taken the lead in
\"Reinventing Government\" at the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(the Service) by developing, proposing, instituting and assessing the
value of telecommuting with the Flexible Workplace Pilot Program (FWPP).

The term telecommuting, as used in this report, refers to a means of
performing official work functions at home, away from the principal
office. Telecommuting, in other words, is an alternative office
arrangement that substitutes computing and telecommunications technology
for the commute to a traditional office. The type of work performed by
Adjudications Officers and their Editors at the AAO provides the Service
with an ideal environment for such a flexible workplace program.

The AAO implemented the FWPP on April 1, 1998. The program has run
continuously since that time. This assessment provides a two-year view
of the AAO and the FWPP.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following are the findings of the Flexiplace Workplace Pilot Program
conducted at the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) from April 1, 1998
until September 30, 1999:

-   Productivity has increased by approximately 71% when comparing the
    first six months of FY 98 and the last six months of FY 99.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The program has improved the quality of life for participating
    employees at the AAO.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The pilot program has been ecologically sound, saving more than
    212,000 commuting miles per year, amounting to an estimated annual
    savings of \$14,400 in gasoline costs alone.

-   For the 25 employees enrolled in the FWPP, this amounts to average
    savings of over \$575 in gasoline costs per year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Leave usage has increased.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   AAO employees are satisfied with the program, although many express
    a feeling of disconnection from the office.

# BACKGROUND

In 1998, the Gallup Poll reported 10 million Americans, approximately
4.5% of the work force, worked at least one day per week from their
homes. The Stanford Institute for Quantitative Study of Society predicts
that at least 25% of the U.S. workforce \-- 32.3 million people \-- will
telecommute or work from home by 2005. Information technology consultant
JALA forecasts 51 million U.S. workers telecommuting by 2030.

For several primary reasons, namely quality of life, the environment and
economics, the Federal Government aggressively promotes telecommuting.
President Clinton has issued two memoranda on creating a family friendly
workplace. Both memoranda directed each executive department and agency
to support the expansion of flexible family friendly work arrangements,
including greater use of home-based telecommuting.

Likewise, the President\'s Management Council endorsed a National
Telecommuting Initiative in January 1996. The plan calls for increasing
the number of Federal employees who telecommute to 160,000 by the end of
Fiscal Year 2002.

Perhaps more than any other driving force**,** changing social values
and more diverse and flexible life style preferences are having an
impact on the American workplace. Two- and three-hour daily commutes
added to an eight- or nine-hour workday keep family members apart too
long for quality relationships to flourish. There is little time to talk
about the day\'s upcoming events at breakfast, to discuss problems after
school, to help children with homework, or to explore ideas for the
family\'s summer trip around the dinner table.

Similarly, there is less and less time or personal energy available to
devote to community projects, volunteerism, and other civic activities.
Here again, telecommuting holds the potential for tipping the scales
back in the direction of more quality time with family and community.

Telecommuting can also improve customer satisfaction. The National
Performance Review provides insight into the link between employee
empowerment and customer service. The report notes that \"the federal
government must \... create a workplace culture in which employees are
trusted to do their best.\" It also quotes the Director of Marketing for
General Motors as saying, \"\... there\'s a strong correlation between
employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. If your employees are
unhappy \... about \... the quality of worklife, they won\'t worry about
customers.\"[^1]

In terms of the environment, traditional commuting by automobile
introduces large amounts of pollutants and toxic emissions into the air
we breathe. Many of the nation\'s metropolitan centers have significant
problems meeting requirements of the Clean Air Act. Other locations face
more moderate air quality hurdles, but current growth trends pose
potential troubles.

Beyond its degrading effect on the environment, over-reliance on the
automobile for daily commuting also takes its toll on the earth\'s
fossil fuel reserves. One way to improve air quality, reduce future
environmental risks, and conserve energy resources is for employers to
adopt telecommuting as part of an areawide transportation strategy.
Increasingly, employers are relocating to less congested areas to avoid
the high cost of doing business in downtown settings.

Given the innovations in telecommunications technologies, it is now
possible to distribute certain work to suburban and rural locations and
reduce facilities costs with no loss of productivity. The work at the
AAO of issuing appellate decisions is ideally suited for telecommuting.
Telecommuting is one approach to a more cost-efficient distributed
workforce and often provides the additional benefit of increased worker
productivity.

There is concern among some in the central cities that telecommuting and
other forms of distributed work will take jobs and economic activity
away from downtown areas. Some maintain that this sort of movement
simply exacerbates urban decay and further separates large segments of
our society. Experience shows that telecommuting programs usually
benefit those who commute from suburban and rural areas, rather than
workers who reside in central city areas.

On its Telecommuting Homepage, the United States Office of Personnel
Management summarizes the following benefits to Federal employees
working at home:

-   Improves the quality of worklife and job performance and increases
    productivity, e.g., reduces office overcrowding and provides a
    distraction free environment for reading, thinking, and writing;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improves morale and reduces stress by giving employees more options
    to balance work and family demands;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Extends employment opportunities to people with disabilities,
    including employees who have partially recovered from work related
    injuries who can do the job from an off site location;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Accommodates employees who have temporary or continuing health
    problems or who might otherwise have to retire on disability;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Potentially enhances recruitment and promotes diversity by expanding
    the geographic recruitment pool; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Decreases traffic and parking congestion, energy consumption, and
    air pollution.

According to *Government Executive* in an article published April 1997,
the outcomes of the Federal telecommuting efforts are expected to bring:

-   Increased quality of life (160 hours per year saved if a person
    telecommutes only one and half days per pay period);

-   Transportation savings (\$500-\$1,000 annually per person);

-   Increased productivity;

-   Improvement in customer service; and

-   Savings to the Federal Government of \$1 billion if the goal is
    reached by 2002.

Economic forces are no less compelling. In the greater metropolitan
Washington, D.C. area, peak-hour traffic is bumper-to-bumper for hours
every weekday morning and evening. When traffic is snarled, all economic
activity is forced to downshift.

The Federal Government has been experimenting with flexible workplace
arrangements and telecommuting for almost a decade.

The Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot developed in response to a
recommendation by the President\'s Council on Management Improvement.
Between June 1990 and June 1992, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) and the Government Services Administration (GSA) operated and
evaluated the home-based flexiplace pilot program that included 15
separate agencies and 1000 participating employees nationwide. The
overwhelming majority of employees and supervisors judged flexiplace
arrangements to be a desirable workplace option.

As a result of this pilot effort, OPM has since written all Federal
agencies assuring them of their authority to establish telecommuting
programs and encouraging them to do so. Both GSA and the Department of
Transportation have publicly promoted Federal agency use of
telecommuting as a means of reducing traffic and improving air quality.
Agencies that participated in the two-year pilot project as well as
others have developed and implemented formal home-based telecommuting
programs.

The Department of Justice Flexiplace Program began in December 1990.
Employees who have been participating since that time continue to report
positive results for themselves and their components. They occupy such
positions as attorneys, budget analysts, personnel specialists,
correctional program officers, social science research analysts, health
services examiners, and in the Service, Adjudications Officers and their
Editors. They have both supervisory and non-supervisory responsibilities
and span grades GS-7 through GS-15. Experience within the Department has
been consistently positive and reflects flexibility, cooperation,
creativity and initiative on the part of both managers and employees.

The Department\'s plan also requires a Flexiplace Work Agreement
covering the terms and conditions of the Flexiplace Workplace Pilot
Program for all participants. The work agreement signals the willingness
of the supervisor and employee to adhere to applicable guidelines and
policies. It covers such items as:

-   The voluntary nature of the arrangement;

-   Length of flexiplace assignment;

-   Hours and days of duty;

-   Responsibilities for timekeeping, leave approval, and requests for
    overtime and compensatory time;

-   Performance requirements;

-   Proper use and safeguard of Government property and records;

-   Standards of conduct; and

-   Completion of required pilot evaluation material.

Participation in the Department\'s Flexiplace Program, as in the
Flexible Workplace Pilot Program at the AAO, is clearly not a right.
Supervisors at both the Department and the AAO are responsible for not
only determining the work to be completed and acceptable levels of
performance, but also for selecting eligible participants in their
respective programs.

## THE AAO PLAN

After a review of the Department's Flexiplace Program, the management at
the AAO felt that the guidelines established by the Department were far
too restrictive for the program that they wished to implement at the
AAO. The management of the AAO developed it's own fleixplace pilot
program.[^2] Included in the plan were an implementation strategy,
performance measures, and employee/management contract.

Once developed and packaged, management of the AAO forwarded the plan
through proper channels requesting approval to approach the program on a
pilot basis. Approval was received from the Acting Associate
Commissioner, Examinations, the Executive Associate Commissioner,
Programs, Assistant Commissioner, Human Resource Division, and the
Executive Associate Commissioner, Management.

Once these approvals were received, the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE) was notified of the intentions of the
management of the AAO to implement a Flexiplace Pilot Program.

Working together with the local union representative and management at
INS, the program was implemented on April 1, 1998.

Located within the AAO are the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) and the
Legalization Appeals Unit (LAU), two sub-units with divergent
subject-matter jurisdiction over appeals, motions and certifications in
numerous Service matters. Of the 38 Adjudications Officers including
Editors assigned to the AAO, 13 officers from the AAU and 12 officers
from the LAU volunteered to participate in the pilot program. The
initial 18-month period of the Flexible Workplace Pilot Program lasted
from April 1, 1998 until September 30, 1999.

**[ELIGIBILITY FOR FLEXIBLE WORKPLACE PILOT PROGRAM]{.underline}**

It should be initially emphasized that telecommuting is not for
everyone. Studies as well as experience have shown that certain
individuals need the day-to-day contact of an office environment, while
others thrive working at home. Although research revealed that these
factors would ultimately determine who would be successful in a program
such as this, all AAO officers were offered the opportunity to
participate in the pilot.

Management encouraged all to participate in the program, for a variety
of reasons, not the least of which was to collect the broadest range of
data possible. Although all volunteers for the pilot were allowed to
participate, the following factors were seen as the skills required to
be successful in the program:

-   The employee must demonstrate self-motivation, independence and
    dependability in accomplishing work assignments;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The employee is not averse to working in relative isolation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The employee has good time-management skills; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The employee is fully aware of both the general mission of the
    Service as well as the specific role of the AAO.

While these criteria were considered extremely important for a fully
implemented program, the criteria for the pilot program were less
restrictive. During the 18-month period of the pilot, all professional
employees at the AAO (adjudicators and editors) were afforded the
opportunity to voluntarily participate in order to rigorously test the
concept. Volunteers committed themselves to participation in the pilot
program for a period of not fewer than 30 days.

**[HOW THE PILOT PROGRAM WORKED]{.underline}**

Each of the 22 Adjudications Officers who volunteered for participation
in the pilot program were provided with:

-   A computer to take home loaded with WordPerfect and all necessary
    adjudication software as well as formatted 3.5" diskettes for
    storing decisions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   One-week\'s worth of case assignments, based on the standards and
    goals established in the AAO work plans. All cases were
    electronically assigned to the pilot program participant in order to
    preserve the integrity of the Service's case-tracking system.

These officers wrote their decisions at home on the computer's hard
drive and ultimately, moved completed decisions to a diskette. They
spent at least one full workday in the office per week, conducting any
necessary research and meeting with supervisors as needed. Officers also
transferred decisions from diskettes to the Local Area Network and then
printed the decisions for editorial review during their on-site workday.

The three Editors participating in the pilot program usually spent more
than one full workday per week in the office and brought completed
decisions along with the corresponding Service files home for review.
Any changes or corrections to the decisions were indicated by the
Editors on the hardcopy and made by the appropriate Adjudications
Officer. Final decisions were signed and closed out by Management and
the support staff, respectively.

**[MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES]{.underline}**

-   To ensure that the pilot project proceeded in a fair and unbiased
    manner, Management continued to closely monitor the performance of
    those working in the office and carefully scrutinized the
    performance of those choosing to work at home. Management utilized
    the performance standards established in the employees Performance
    Work Plan (PWP).

Over the past two years, the AAO has closely monitored and tracked the
performance of all officers. The statistical data compiled provides the
analytical tools by which the success of the Flexible Workplace Pilot
Program can be measured.[^3]

# 

# ANALYSIS

![](media/image1.wmf)ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE (AAO) PRODUCTION

Close attention has always been paid to production statistics at the
AAO. During the first half of Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98)[^4], the six-month
period prior to initiating the Flexible Workplace Project, the AAO
completed 6,591 cases. During the second half of FY98[^5], the first six
months of the pilot program, production increased to 7,769 cases
completed. This represents an increase of 1,178 cases completed or a
17.9% increase in overall office production.

Office production again increased during the first half of Fiscal Year
1999 (FY99)[^6] to 9,209 cases completed. This represents an additional
1,440 cases completed or a further increase of 18.5% in overall office
production.

Similarly, AAO production increased substantially yet again during the
second half of FY99[^7] to 11,271 cases completed. This represents an
additional 2,062 cases completed, which calculates to a 22.4% increase
in overall AAO production over the previous six-month period.

A comparison of the completion figures between the first half of FY 98
and the second half of FY 99 shows an astounding production increase of
71%. This increase is somewhat inflated due to a managerial decision to
review and adjudicate a specific segment of the legalization casework.
This will be discussed further at LAU analysis section.

Figure 1[^8] illustrates the number of cases completed for AAO during
FY98 and FY99. It also graphically compares the number of cases
completed by Adjudications Officers working in the office with those
completed by their counterparts in the Flexiplace Workplace Project
working at home. It should be noted that at-home production did not
begin until the second half of FY98 on April 1, 1998.

![](media/image2.wmf)More specifically speaking, during the first half
of FY98, the AAU completed 2,301 cases. During the second half of FY98,
the first six months of the pilot program, production increased to 2,685
AAU cases completed. This represents an increase of 384 cases completed
or approximately a 16.7% increase in AAU production.

Production decreased by 600 cases at the AAU, however, during the first
half of FY99. Officer participation in a six-week training program at
GLYNCO reduced AAU production by 22.3% to 2,085 cases

completed. Nonetheless, AAU production rebounded dramatically with
relatively full-staff levels during the second half of FY99 to 2,781
cases completed. This increase is greater than 33% over the previous
six-month period.

Like Figure 1, Figure 2[^9] depicts the number of cases completed for
AAU during FY98 and FY99 and compares the number of cases completed by
Adjudications Officers working in the office with those completed by
their counterparts in the Flexiplace Workplace Project working at home.

![](media/image3.wmf)

Finally, during the first half of FY98, the LAU completed 4,290 cases.
During the second half of FY98, the first six months of the pilot
program, production increased to 5,084 LAU cases completed. This
represents an additional 794 cases completed, an increase of 18.5% in
LAU production.

Production increased by 2,040 cases at the LAU during the first half of
FY99, despite officer participation at GLYNCO for six weeks. LAU
production shot up by over 40% during this period to a total of 7,124
cases completed. LAU case completions for the second half of FY99
numbered 8,369. This increase measures approximately 17.5% over the
previous six-month period.

As with Figures 1 and 2, Figure 3[^10] displays the number of cases
completed at the LAU during FY98 and FY99 and compares the number of
completions by Adjudications Officers working in the office with those
completed by counterparts in the Flexiplace Workplace Project working at
home. The significant increase in LAU completion in FY 99 can be
attributed to management's determination that the LAU should concentrate
adjudicative efforts on cases in which late appeals had been filed.
Through this decision, these applicants would no longer be eligible for
employment authorization and would free up field office resources.

Each individual Adjudicator has experienced his or her peaks and valleys
during the pilot program.[^11] The first two charts show the dramatic
improvement in officer production while working at home. Interestingly,
these two individuals also display personal satisfaction with the
program. The third chart graphically represents a fully successful
employee prior to the FWPP. Working at home, however, he struggled to
achieve acceptable production levels. Management ultimately required
this employee to return to the office.

**Figure 4: Fiscal 1998 AAO Overall Production**

**15,359 Cases Completed**

![](media/image4.wmf)

### 

### Figure 5: Fiscal 1999 AAO Overall Production

![](media/image5.wmf)**20,480 Cases Completed**

As can be seen by the charts above, the majority of the cases handled at
the AAO are now adjudicated in the at-home setting.[^12] With this shift
in the bulk of adjudications now being performed by officers working at
home, the AAO has been able to relinquish more

than 2,000 square feet of valuable office space to the Office of
International Affairs.

**[QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECOLOGICAL ISSUES: SAVED TIME AND
MILEAGE]{.underline}**

The Texas Transportation Institute\'s annual mobility study, released
November 16, 1999, had discouraging news for the nation\'s commuters.
The study tracks traffic in 68 urban areas and has compiled statistics
since 1982. Among their findings:

-   The national average spent in unmoving traffic is 34 hours a year
    per person, up about 30 percent since 1992.

-   In 1997 (the most recent data year), traffic congestion cost the
    nation 4.3 billion hours in delay, \$72 billion in time and an
    estimated 6.6 billion gallons of wasted fuel.

-   Nationwide, the average driver in the 35 most-congested areas wastes
    four extra tanks of gasoline a year sitting in traffic.

-   In a third of the cities studied drivers on average pay more for
    congestion than they do for auto insurance.

The Washington D.C. metropolitan area ranked fourth among the nation's
top ten most snarled cities, just behind Los Angeles, Seattle-Everett,
and San Francisco-Oakland.

Improving both the environment and the quality of life for the employees
of the AAO have been desired goals of the flexiplace pilot project. Both
of these goals appear to have been achieved.

To some degree, the program has undoubtedly reduced the levels of toxic
emissions from automobiles and relieved traffic congestion in the
Washington metropolitan area. Similarly, this program has lessened the
potential for traffic accidents by allowing FWPP participants to simply
stay off the roads and work at home. By allowing the 25 employees to
come to the office only one day a week and assuming that each employee
commutes one hour each way, the AAO's FWPP saves over two hundred hours
of commuting time per week alone.

A survey of the employees involved in the FWPP reveals that over 17,672
miles are saved each month. With the average cost of gasoline at
approximately \$1.35 per gallon, this amounts to savings of nearly
\$1,200 per month or nearly \$14,400 per year for the FWPP employees.
Such an employee realizes average savings of nearly \$575.00 per year.

Likewise, there have been clear improvements in respect to the quality
of life for the employees participating in the pilot. The following are
representative comments made by the employees in their surveys:

-   "I have much greater control over my time. . .I save \$100 and 48
    hours in commuting each month. I have three meals a day with my
    family . . . Words cannot describe how happy I am with my work
    situation."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "I liked being able to work without interruptions. I appreciate the
    trust placed in employees by permitting this program."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "It freed my afternoons to be with my son after school. . . . It was
    similar to leaving home and going to college. You didn't have your
    parents checking on your homework, but you still had to get the work
    done."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "It saves me three hours of commuting time each day. I have more
    energy to do my work. I have fewer interruptions at home. . . I am
    much happier with my job, my morale has improved, I'm not physically
    exhausted from a long stressful commute. . ."

Not only has the pilot provided employees with the flexibility to spend
more time with their families, but it has also given them the ability to
become involved in outside activities. Employees are now involved in
civic groups, in local theater activities, and athletic pursuits.

Overall, it appears that the FWPP has been a gratifying success in
improving the ecological and quality of life aspects of the
participants.

![](media/image6.wmf)

It had been anticipated, at least at the developmental stages of

the FWPP, that allowing employees to work at home would reduce the usage
of both annual and sick leave. Further, it had also been anticipated
that through this reduction, employees would have more leave available
and consequently, would improve their overall leave balances. A
reduction in leave usage has not resulted. In fact, the opposite is true
with a significant increase having been realized.[^13] Annual leave
usage at the AAO during the two-year program has increased by 32.4%.
Sick leave usage also increased during the same period by 29.7%.

Basing this analysis purely on leave usage, however, does not accurately
portray the AAO. During this period, a number of employees had major
medical concerns. There have been two pregnancies, two heart attacks,
four major surgeries and three major family emergencies, all of which
required employees to use significant amounts of leave.

Currently, the only clear conclusion concerning leave usage is that the
present figures are inconclusive. The original assumptions regarding
leave available for employees by virtue of the FWPP may have been
realized. Therefore, the increases in annual leave usage may be
commensurate with availability. Further study, over a lengthier period
will be required to provide a more in-depth analysis.

[LIABILITIES OF A FLEXIPLACE PROGRAM]{.underline}

The virtues of a flexiplace program have been extolled throughout this
report. The FWPP, however, just as any new program, involves a number of
performance issues, logistical problems and agonizing managerial
concerns.

During the research and development phase, it became increasingly
evident that such a program was not the panacea for all the ills
inherent to running an office. Of the 25 adjudicators who volunteered
for the pilot, three requested to return to the office because they
missed the daily social interaction of an office environment. Three
others were required by management to return to work in the office for
failing to meet previously established performance levels. AAO
management resolved both matters promptly.

All volunteers expressly understood that management would remain
flexible with regard to employees who wanted to return to the office.
Management followed a more rigid approach concerning performance issues.
All volunteers were made keenly aware of acceptable levels of
performance prior to their working at home. An unacceptable level of
performance led to notification from management of its intent to revoke
flexiplace privileges. Management then provided the employee with 30
days in which to improve production or to return to work in the office.
Performance did not improve in three instances and the employees
returned to adjudicating cases in the office. Flexiplace is simply not
for everyone.

Logistical issues within any program can be problematic. Nonetheless, a
fleixplace program exacerbates such problems as a result of its
fundamental nature. Tracking the whereabouts of administrative files,
for example, became considerably more difficult with the advent of yet
another possible file location: the adjudicator's home. Similarly, the
logistics of moving, repairing and replacing computers became a
particularly formidable issue during the FWPP. Only one computer
technician is assigned to the AAO. As soon as that technician would
leave the office in order to deliver, repair, or replace a computer at
an adjudicator's home, anything that could possibly go wrong with the
office computer system invariably would go wrong.

Another logistical issue within the fleixplace environment that must be
noted is the subject of Time and Attendance (T&A) Reports. Like the
computer technician, only one T&A clerk is currently assigned to the
AAO. Approved leave requests should be properly submitted to this clerk
prior to the close of the pay period in which the leave is taken. This
simply does not occur with any sense of regularity in an office where
employees report only one day per week. Consequently, amended T&A
Reports as well as the resulting additional work for the clerk continues
to be a vexing problem invariably addressed at every staff meeting.

Finally, the most significant problem during the FWPP is the apparent
disassociation between management and some employees. During the first
six months of the program, employees were cooperative, responsive and
appeared to be enjoying the novel experience of adjudicating
administrative appeals at home. As time progressed, however, an
unexplained rift developed between management and some employees. Some
employees seemed to view themselves no longer as Service employees, but
rather as independent contractors. The lack of commitment to the AAO,
the lack of respect toward management, and the lack of support for
managerial needs is disheartening. Moreover, this lack of commitment has
eroded support for this program by management.

It should be stressed that not all employees within the FWPP conduct
themselves in such an unprofessional manner. Nevertheless, the concerns
escalated to such a level that AAO management, working with the Employee
Assistance Program, hired an outside consultant to address the issue.
Unfortunately, the team-building exercise developed by the consultant
amounted to little more than an issue-driven complaint session. The
consultant's approach resolved nothing from management's prospective,
although a number of valid issues raised by employees became apparent
and are currently being addressed by management.

As part of an attempt to lessen the divide separating management and
some employees, new computers were ordered and installed at each
volunteer's home. These computers include an internal modem as well as a
software package that connects all employees who work at home with
virtually the entire Service. Further, management has agreed to holding
regular and more frequent staff meetings. This affords all employees the
opportunity to interact with co-workers not seen on a daily basis.

# CONCLUSION

The FWPP has yielded benefits for both the AAO and for its employees.
Participants in the pilot program state an overwhelming amount of
positive reasons to telecommute. These include reduced commuting time,
nominal transportation costs and improved quality of life. Societal
contributions include environmental and energy conservation, less
traffic congestion on area highways and increased civic involvement in
local communities.

The flexibility of the program allows family needs to be better
accommodated with work. Such flexibility has allowed employees with
medical concerns to continue providing valuable work contributions with
little interruption to the office. Telecommuting has also diminished
levels of employee stress and its related health problems.

The flexible workplace arrangements of telecommuting have demonstrated
they can help recruit and retain key personnel. Supervisors likewise
relate benefits with many employees taking more responsibility for
ensuring that office coverage and quality of work is maintained or
improved. Moreover, office productivity has dramatically increased.
Since inception of the FWPP, office production has increased by a
staggering 71%.

This program, however, has its disadvantages. The FWPP is clearly not
for everyone. The much-heralded strengthening of office morale,
reportedly brought about by telecommuting, is evolving at the AAO.
Management will direct its efforts toward increasing office morale and
shaping a cohesive team in a flexiplace environment.

Undoubtedly, the FWPP is a vital program that should be continued at the
AAO. A thorough review and reevaluation of the program should be
completed on an annual basis. This is a profound representation of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's dedication to reinventing
government.

[^1]: *Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less*, p.85.

[^2]: *See* Flexible Workplace Project Plan for AAO at A-1.

[^3]: *See* AAO Annual Production Analysis for FY 1998 & 1999 attached
    at A-2.

[^4]: October 1, 1997 -- March 31, 1998.

[^5]: April 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1998.

[^6]: October 1, 1998 -- March 31, 1999.

[^7]: April 1, 1999 -- September 30, 1999.

[^8]: Full-Page Reproduction in Appendix at A-3.

[^9]: Full-Page Reproduction in Appendix at A-4.

[^10]: Full-Page Reproduction in Appendix at A-5.

[^11]: A graphic illustration of both at-home successes and failures can
    be seen at A-6.

[^12]: Full-Page Reproduction in Appendix at A-7.

[^13]: Full-Page Reproduction in Appendix at A-8.