- .
OOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE .

SUPPORT 
PROGRAM 
UNIT 
TECHNICAL REPORT I 
USER ASSEMENT OF SERVICES 
f.t.ICES' 
'0 
+-lIi"d3U 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF 

OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
JUNE 1989  INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF 

The mission of the Offce of Inspector General (OIG) is to promote the efficiency, effective
ness, and integrty of progrms in the United States Deparent of Health and HumanSer- . 
. vices (HS). It does this by developing methods to detect and prevent fraud, waste and 
abuse. Created by statute in 1976, thelnspector General keeps both the Secreta and the Con
gress fully and curently informed about programs or management problems. and recomme 
corrective action. The OIG performs its mission by conducting audits, investigations and in
spections with approximately 1 200 staff strategically located around the countr. 
INSPECTIONS 
OFFICE OF  ANALYSIS AND 

This report is produced by the Offce of Analysis and Inspections (OAl), one of the three 
major offces within the OIG. The other two are the Office of Audit and the Offce of Investi
gations. Inspections are conducted in accordance with professional standards developed by 
OAL These inspections are typically short-tenn studies designed to determine program effec
tiveness, effciency, and vulnerability to fraud or abuse.

Theis report was prepared as par of a study designed to 1) provide a user assessment of 
CASU services in operational CASUs; 2) give the National CASU Board an overview of the 
Progr 
CASU  from a user or customer perspective; and 3) identify the generic strengths and 
weakesses that affect the program s workabilty and success. This report is the fIrst of three 
technical reports resulting from the study. 

The report was prepared under the direction of Ralph Tunnell, the Regional Inspector General 
of Region VI, Offce of Analysis and Inspections. Participating in this project were the follow
ing people: . 
Chester Slaughter  National Project Director, Region VI 
George De Luna  National Lead Analyst, Region VI 
Frank Almendarez  Support Analyst, Region VI 
Suzanne Murrin  Program Analyst, Central Offce  COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL REPORT I

USER ASSESSMENT OF SERVICES 
RICHARD P. KUSSEROW

INSPECTOR GENERAL

OAI-06-89-00861  JUNE 1989  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purose of this study was to conduct a qualitative user evaluation of the Cooperative 
Admnistrative Support Unit (CASU) Program. 
Overal inspection ais were to: 1) conduct a user assessment of CASU services in opera
tional CASUs; 2) provide the national CASU board with an overview of the CASU Program 
from a user or customer perspective; and 3) identify the generic strengths and weakesses that 
afect the program s workabilty and success. This report was prepared at the reuest of the 
national CASU board and staff. 
BACKGROUND 
The CASU Program is a Government-wide program, sponsored by the President s Council on 
Management Improvement (PCMI), which operates under authority of Section 601 of the 
Economy Act of 1932. At the national level, the PCMI established a CASU Program National 
Board of Directors which sets policy, provides guidance, approves lead agencies and charers 
CASUs. In addition, an interagency staff has also been organized to serve as a focal point for 
day-to-day operations of the national CASU Program. The local CASU support strcture in
cludes policy diection from a tenant board of directors, and managerial direction from a lead 
agency. The day-to-day operations of the local CASU are supervised by a local CASU direc
tor. 
The CASU Program was established under the concept that local Federal agencies could coop
eratively combine their resources to share common administrative services at reduced costs 
and with better service quality. Under the CASU concept, building tenants jointly shar in es
tablishing and managing an administrative support unit that provides, on a reimbursable basis, 
administrative services commonly needed by its members. 
FINDINGS 
OVERAL, CURRENT USERS ARE VERY SATISFIED WITH CASU SERVICES AND 
PARTICIPATION 
CASU User Satisfaction Is High. 
A strong majority (86 percent) rate overall service quality as excellent to good. 
Most users feel they are getting their money s worth from the CASU.  Users Are Generally Pleased With CASU Participation. 
Most users (89 percent) say they would stil opt to join the CASU if they had it to 
do over agai. 

Further, 92 percent say their agency wil likely continue with the CASU in the fu
ture. 
CASU Service Effectiveness Indicators Are Positive. 
Overall, 91 percent of users say the CASU has effectively handled their service 
needs. 
Most users (4 of 5) say the CASU promptly handles and effectively resolves any 
service issues or complaints that arse. 
Since the CASU establishment, service accessibilty has either improved or re
mained the same for most users. 
The CASU staf are suffciently skiled and 
trained to deliver services effectively, 
say 90 percent of users. 
Forty-five percent of users say existing services were modifIed or new services 
were added (34 percent) to better serve their needs. 
TH EXTENT OF CASU COST SAVINGS IS UNCERTAIN 
User perceptions var widely about the CASU effect on the costs of services delivered: 
27 percent see costs as decreased;

27 percent think costs are about the same;

38 percent say costs have increased.

Somewhat higher service costs are the top concern users express in rating the specifIc 
CASU services they receive. 
Very few users report achieving dollar savings (14 percent) or full time equivalent
(F) 
staf savings (8 percent). 
Most CASU directors were unable or chose not to provide CASU cost saving esti
mates. 
Only 4 of the 10 operational CASUs supplied savings estimates.  These 4 reported modest cumulative total savings of $1 278,000 and 15 FTs. 
Most users (52 percent) felt that initial CASU savings were "about the same as 
expected. " 
It appears that lead agency and CASU indiect costs are sometimes absorbed rather 
than biled to users, as is the reported common practice. 
The CASU users view cost savings as very important, though not the sole program 
priority. 
Many potential users (62 percent) say hard evidence on cost savings potential would 
be the top factor that might convince them to join the CASU. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Recovery of Operating Costs 
The CASU Program should adopt a policy of full recovery of all operating costs , including in
diect costs, through charges to users. 
Cost Savings 
The CASU staff should seek to 1) quickly identify veriiable savings being achieved in exist
ing CASUs, 2) assure that an accurate and complete cost baseline is established when any new 
CASU s are added to the program, 3) establish an effective mechanism to track cost saving ac
complishments over time, and 4) move to the fullest application of unit cost pricing of ser
vices in all existing and new CASUs. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shared the draft of our Executive Report on the CASU Program, and the three supporting 
technical reports, with the CASU National Board of Directors and the CASU national staff. 
They addressed their comments to the recommendations in the Executive Report since these 
are compiled from our three supportng technical reports. They generally agree with the re
port findings and concur, with only minor qualifications, with all our recommendations. The 
full text of their comments is included in the appendix of the Executive Report. 
. 111
 ..  ..  ..   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..   ...   ...   ...   ...   ....... . . .......... ....... ............................................. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE

BACKGROUND

METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OVERALL, CURRENT USERS ARE VERY SATISFIED WITH CASU

SERVICESAND PARTICIPATION  ................................................. 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CASU user satisfaction is high. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Users are generally pleased with CASU participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CASU service effectiveness indicators are positive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

THE EXTENT OF CASU COST SAVINGS IS UNCERTAIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

User perceptions vary widely about the CASU effect on the costs

of services delivered  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Somewhat higher service costs are the top concern users express

in rating the specific CASU services they receive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Very few users report achieving dollar or FTE staff savings through 
CASU participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Most CASU directors were unable or chose not to provide overall 
estimates of dollar and FTE staff savings achieved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 8

CASU users view cost savings as very important, though not the

sole program priority

RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT. . . . .  . . . . 10
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative user evaluation of the Cooperative 
Admnistrative Support Unit (CASU) Program. 
Overal inspection aims were to: 1) conduct a user assessment of CASU services in opera
Progr 
tional CASUs; 2) provide the national CASU board with an overview of the CASU 
from a user or customer perspective; and 3) identify the generic strengths and weakesses that 
affect the program s workabilty and success. This report was prepared at the request of the na
tional CASU board and staff. 
BACKGROUND 
The CASU Program is a Government-wide program, sponsored by the President s Council on 
Management Improvement (PCMI), which operates under authority of Section 601 of the 
Economy Act of 1932. Under the CASU concept, agencies in multi-tenant, federally occupied 
buildigs jointly share in establishing and managing an administrative support unit that pro
vides, on a reimbursable basis, administrative services commonly needed by its members. 
In October 1985, as par of a shared services initiative, the heads of the General Services Ad
ministration, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Manage
ment, issued a joint memorandum to the heads of all Federal agencies introducing and 
encouraging support for the CASU Program. 
To ensure strong policy support at the national level, the PCMI established a CASU Program 
National Board of Directors. The national board sets policy and provides program guidance, 
approves lead agencies and charers CASUs. A national interagency staff has also been organ
ized to serve as a focal point for day-to-day operation of the national CASU Program. The 
staff advises the CASU board on policy and program issues and provides technical assistance 
in organizing and operating CASUs. 
The national board has established a prototype strcture for local CASUs which includes pol
icy control and direction from a tenant board comprised of CASU service users or potential 
users. A lead agency, selected by the tenant board of directors, provides administrative man
agement support to the CASU in such areas as fInancial management, 
stafing, personnel ser
vices, etc. The day-to-day diection and management of the CASU staff is provided by a 
CASU diector.  Through marketing and intervention by the national CASU staf, the CASU Program recruits 
Federal agencies located in a single building or cluster of buildings to become members of a 
local CASU and to parcipate in its development, organization, and management. Recruited 
CASU sites underte a feasibilty study to determine if a CASU could successfully operate at 
their site, what administrative services their CASU should provide, and how a CASU could 
most effectively supply these services. 
Once the decision to establish a CASU has been made, its prospective members establish its 
operating plans through a series of interagency memorandums of understanding. The national 
CASU board reviews these plans and, if appropriate, grants a CASU charer to the local site. 
Curent CASUs provide such services as mail, moving and labor, physical fItness, shipping 
and receiving, photcopying, personal property management, conference and training room 
scheduling, child care, imprest fund and employee assistance programs. These services may 
be provided directly by the CASU staff, through shared services arangements from the lead 
agency or other CASU paricipating agency or secured through private contracts. By consoli
dating services, the CASUs expect to provide less expensive, more accessible, and better qual
ity services. The CASUs also expect to standardize and share administrative systems, 
accelerate use of automation, and to improve management information systems. 
CASUs exist at the following locations: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, 
Currntly, operational 
Georgia; Chicago, llinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Fort Worth 
Texas; Jackson, Mississippi; Indianapolis, Indiana; Kansas City (12th Street), Missouri; Los 
Angeles, California; New York City (Javits Building), New York; and, Seattle, Washington. 
Additionally, fIve CASUs have been charered at these locations: Boston, Massachusetts; 
Fresno, Calfornia; Kansas City (South), Missouri; New York City (Varck Street), New York; 
and, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
METHODOLOGY 
This inspection is based on a mail survey, on site strctured interviews and review of selected 
background and informational materials provided by the national CASU staff. Our findings 
are based on the responses of 80 curent and former CASU users at 13 of the 14 currently char
tered CASUs which were operational or projected to be operational by the end of the second 
quarer of Fiscal Year (FY) 1989.  ..... 
FINDINGS

This is one of three technical reports prepard in conjunction with our Executive Report on 
the CASU Program. The Executive Report, "An Assessment by Users and Loal Offcials, 
summarzes the chief findings of our study. The technical reports provide details on our study 
fmdings as they relate to thee separte aspects of the CASU Program. This technical report is 
User Assessment of Services." The other two are "User and Governing Offcial Perceptions 
of Loal Management" and "Loal Offcial Perceptions of Policies and Implementation. 
OVERALL, CURRENT USERS ARE VERY SATISFIED WITH C1\StJ SERVICES 
AND PARTICIPATION. 
CASU USER SATISFACTION IS HIGH. 
A. 
1. CASU service quality is rated high. 
a. Most users (86 percent) rate the overall quality of CASU services as goo to 
excellent. 
HOW DO YOU RATE 
THE OVERALL QUALI

OF CASU SERVICES?

EXCELlNT (30)-- 45. 
VERY POOR (1)
POOR (1)-- 1. 
fr-1" Jwing positive ratings for the specifIc ser
b. A strong majority report the 

vices they receive:

high satisfaction with the CASU service;

better service responsiveness or

timeliness under the CASU;

better service quality under the CASU;

improved customer convenience due to the CASU;

- goo customer control over service delivery under the CASU;  improved overall service availability under the CASU. 
Any user negative ratings for these indicators were very small as a percentage 
of all negative comments, ranging from only 2 to 8 percent of tota. 
2. Most users feel they are getting their money s wonh from the CASU. 
ARE YOU GE1TING YOUR 
MONEY' S WORTH FROM THE CASU? 
DEFINrTLY (27)-39. 
USERS ARE GENERALLY PLEASED WITH CASU PARTICIPATION. 
B. 
1. Most users (89 percent) would stil opt to participate in the CASU if they had it 
to do over again. 
2. Most users (92 percent) say their agency wil likely continue parcipating in the 
CASU in the future. 
ARE USERS PLEASED WITH 
CASU PARTICIPATION? 
DEFINETLY (44)--63.  DEFINETLY (48)-69. 
PROBABLY NOT (1)--1.4% 
DEFINITL Y NOT (4)-
. PROBABLY NOT (8)--11.  DONT KNOW (1)--1. 
PROBABLY (17)--24.  PROBABLY (15)-21. 
WOULD YOU DO IT AGAIN?  WILL YOU STAY IN? 
3. Among the benefits of CASU paricipation most frequently mentioned by cur
rent users are:
 a. Improved availabilty of admnistrative services. (12) 
b. Better concentrtion of sta resources on program needs rather than admis
trative support. (9) 
c. Improved service quality and delivery. (7) 
4. 
Current users say the main strengths of the CASU concept are: 
a. Economies of scale (savings in providing services to multiple users). (42) 
b. Improved and more convenient services. (28) 
c. Increased availabilty of services. (26) 
5. 
Curent users say the main weakesses of the CASU concept are: 
a. Lack of control over the services. (16) 
b. The voluntar nature of the program makes it difficult to recruit users. (8) 
c. High costs of CASU services. (7) 
6. 
Current CASU users offer two main recommendations to the national board and 
staff. 
a. Encourage parent agency support for the CASU program at the national level. 
(11) 
b. Continue to alow for flexibilty in the CASU program strcture. (5) 
CASU SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS ARE POSITIVE. 
C. 
1. Overall, 91 percent of the users say the CASU has effectively handled their ser
vice needs. Only fIve users indicated their agency s service needs have not been 
met by the CASU. 
2. Most users (about 4 of 5) report that when service issues or complainst arse, the 
CASU generally handles them promptly and resolves them effectively. 
ARE SERVICE ISSUES AND COMPLANTS 
HANDLED PROMPTLY AND RESOLVED EFFECTIVELY? 
YES (49)--79. 1 %  YES (47)-78.4% 
cg 
KN  QDON'T 
DON'T  (10)- '6.  KNOW (11)-'8.
NO (3)- 4.  NO (2)- 3. 
HANDLED PROMPTLY?  RESOLVED EFFECTIVELY?
 Since the establishment of CASUs, service accessibility has improved (57 per
cent) or remained the same (37 percent) for most users, with only 6 percent say
ing accessibilty has worsened. 
SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY UNDER THE CASU 
MUCH WORSE 1 - 18. 
SOEWT WOE 3 - 4. 
a. Due to the CASU's establishment, new or additional services became avail
able to 68 percent of the users. 
b. The CASU services are equally available to both large and smal tenants, ac
cording to 90 percent of the users. 
The CASU staf generally have suffcient skils and training to deliver services 
effectively, according to 90 percent of the users. 
Service delivery methods and technology have improved for services delivered 
by the CASU, according to 56 percent of users. 
a. Among the key improvements noted by users are: 
new and better facilities; 
better equipment and procedures; 
trned 
more competent and better  staff; 
a CASU commitment to continuing service improvement. 
While 37 percent of users say service delivery methods and technology ar not 
improved, very few cite specifIc problems. This could indicate that CASU ser
vice technology is basically unchanged in many of these cases. 
As indicators of CASU servce responsiveness: 
services 
a. Forty-five percent of the users say their CASU has modfIed  existing 
to better serve their needs. Examples of such modifcations include:  Mail - method of delivery or frequency or time of delivery was accommo
dated. 
Labor/moving - degree or type of service needed was accommodated. 
Copi r - cost per copy contracting was introduced and capacity was in
creased. 
b. Thiry-four percent of the users report their CASU has added  new  services to
better meet their needs. 
7. As an indicator of CASU service expansion potential, 41 percent of the users list 
additional services they need, and, in the majority of cases, state a preference for 
the CASU, rather than their own agency, to provide services. 
THE EXTENT OF CASU COST SAVINGS IS UNCERTAIN. 
II. 
USER PERCEPTIONS VARY WIDELY ABOUT THE CASU EFFECT ON THE 
A. 
COSTS OF SERVICES DEUVERED 
For example: 1) 27 percent report costs decreased; 2) 27 percent report no changes 
in costs; and, 3) 38 percent repon costs increased under the CASU. 
CASU EFFECT ON SERVICE COSTS 
GRET INCREE (5)- 8. 
SOMEWHAT HIGHER SERVICE COSTS ARE THE TOP CONCERN USERS EX
B. 
PRESS IN RATING THE SPECIFIC CASU SERVICES THEY RECENE. 
1. 
Eighty current and former CASU users rated the 164 services they ar receiving 
or have received from the CASU. Their concerns in rating these services in
clude: 
a. Twenty-four percent of users, or 40 of the 164 service ratings, say service 
costs ar somewhat to much higher under the CASU.  b. Thirteen percent of users, or 21 of the 164 service ratings, say cost effective
ness is somewhat to much worse under the CASU. 
2. 
These two cost concerns comprise half of all user negative ratings of specifIc 
CASU services. 
3. 
. It should be kept in mind, however, that most users think costs are reduced and 
cost effectiveness is improved for the individual services they get from the 
CASU. 
VERY FEW USERS REPORT ACHIEVING DOLLR OR FULL TIME EQUIVA
C. 
LENT (FTE) STAFF SAVINGS THROUGH CASU PARTICIPATION. 
1. Only 11 users (14 percent) indicate some dollar savings, ranging from $1 000 to 
$97,444, with an average of about $18,313. 
2. 
Twenty users (26 percent) report no savings have been achieved. Forty-fIve (45) 
users or 59 percent did not respond regarding dollar savings. 
FT 
3. Only 6 users (8 percent) say that some  savings were achieved. However, 
FT 
21 (28 percent) say no  savings have been realized. Forty-nine (64 percent) 
FT 
did not respond regarding  savings. 
4. Most of the dollar or FTE savings reported were classifIed as "best estimates 
not based on actual data. 
MOST CASU DIRECTORS WERE UNABLE OR CHOSE NOT TO PROVIDE OVER-
D. 
Al 
ESTIMATES OF DOLLR AND FTE SAVINGS ACHIEVED BY THE CASU 
FROM INCEPTION TO THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 1989. 
1. Only 4 of the 10 operational CASUs were able to provide rough estimates. 
(These were best estimates, extrapolations, and sometimes contained a mix of 
tangible and intangible savings.) None of the CASUs said their estimates were 
based on actual data. 
2. 
FT 
Reported total cumulative dollar and  savings realized at these 4 CASUs: 
Dollar Savings $ 1 278,000 
FT 
Savings 15  PERCENT) FELT THAT INITIAL CASU SAVINGS WERE 
E.  MOST USERS  (52 
ABOUT THE SAME AS EXPECTED. 
Compared with their agency s initial savings expectations, users say achieved savings 
are:

about the same as expected (52 percent);

lower than expected (17 percent);

higher than expected (10 percent);

don t know (21 percent).

IT APPEARS THAT LEAD AGENCY AND CASU INDIRECT COSTS ARE SOME
F. 
TIMES ABSORBED RATHER THAN BILLED TO USERS, AS IS THE REPORTED 
COMMON PRACTICE. 
While most users (62 percent) think users get biled for lead agency and CASU indi
rect costs, 11 percent of users say the lead agency or CASU sometimes absorb these 
costs and 24 percent do not know. 
CASU USERS VIEW COST SAVINGS AS VERY IMPORTANT, THOUGH NOT THE 
G. 
SOLE PROGRAM PRIORIT: 
1. A slight majority (54 percent) of the users say the CASU Program should give 
1) achieving cost savings through consolidated service de
equal priority  to  both 
livery, and 2) improving the delivery of administrative services. 
2. However, 29 percent of the users say the program s top priority should be im
proved delivery of administrative services, while 16 percent say the program 
top priority should be achieving cost savings. 
MAN  PERCENT) SAY HARD EVIDENCE ON COST SAV
H.  POTENTIAL USERS  (62 
INGS POTENTIAL WOULD BE THE TOP FACTOR THAT MIGHT CONVINCE 
THEM TO JOIN THE CASU. 
. 9
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
Recovery of Operating Costs 
The CASU Program should adopt a policy of full recovery of all operating costs, including in
diect costs, though charges to users. 
It would appear to serve the best long-term interests of both users and the CASU Program to 
seek a full identifIcation and recovery of the total costs of CASU operations through user bil
ings. 
Cost Savings 
The CASU staf should seek to 1) quickly identify veriiable savings being achieved in exist
ing CASUs, 2) assure that an accurate and complete cost baseline is established when any 
new CASUs are added to the program, 3) establish an effective mechanism to track cost sav
ing accomplishments over time, and 4) move to the fullest application of unit cost pricing of 
services in al existing and new CASUs. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shared the draft of our Executive Report on the CASU Program, and the three supporting 
technical reports, with the CASU National Board of Directors and the CASU national staff. 
They addressed their comments to the recommendations in the Executive Report since these 
are compiled from our three supporting technical reports. They generally agree with the re
port findings and concur, with only minor qualifications, with all our recommendations. The 
full text of their comments is included in the appendix of the Executive Report.