COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL REPORT III

LOCAL OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL 
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 
t.llVICE$. 
CI.r 
'0 
lr"cf3a 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
JUNE 1989  COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL REPORT III

LOCAL OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL POLICIES 
AND IMPLEMENTATION

RICHARD P. KUSSEROW 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OAI-89003 
JUNE 1989
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purose of this study was to conduct a qualtative user evaluation of the Cooperative Ad
miistrative Suppon Unit (CASU) Prgram. 
Overal inspection ais were to: 1) conduct a user assessment of CASU servces in operation
al CASUs; 2) provide the national CASU board with an overview of the CASU Prgram frm 
a user or customer perspective; and 3) identify the generic strngths and weakesses that af
fect the progr s workabilty and success. This repon was prepar at the request of the na
sta. 
tional CASU board and 
BACKGROUND 
Progr  progr, 
The CASU  is a Government-wide  sponsored by the President s Council on 
Management Improvement (PCMI, which operates under authority of Section 601 of the 
Progr 
Economy Act of 1932. At the national level, the PCMI established a CASU  Nation
al Boar of Directors which sets policy, provides guidance, approves lead agencies and 
charrs CASUs. In addition, a national interagency staf was organize to serve as a focal 
Prgr. 
point for day-to-y operation of the national CASU  The local CASU suppon strc
tu 
dition frm a 
includes policy  tenant board of dictors, and managerial diection from 
a lead agency. The day-to-day operations of the local CASU ar supervsed by a local CASU 
ditor. 
Progr 
The CASU  was established under the concept that local Federa agencies could 
cooperatively combine their resoures to shar common administrtive services at reuced 
costs and with better service quality. Under the CASU concept, building tenants jointly shar 
in establishing and managig an admnistrtive suppon unit that provides, on a reimburable 
basis, adnistrtive servces commonly needed by its members. 
FINDINGS 
LOCAL OFFCIAS GENERALY BELIEVE CASU POLICIES, GUIDELINS AND PRO
GRAM ASSUMONS ARE SOUND AND WORKBLE 
A slight majority (55 percent) of officials think steady program growth wil occur under 
volunta pancipation rules (45 percent disagree). 
offcials favor maintaning the current strong emphasis on local tenant board contrl. 
All 
agr 
A majority of offcials  with basic CASU chanering policies; however, there is some 
question on whether the national boar and staff enforce these provisions.  Most offcials (84 percent) think the national board should not promote a consistent 
model in chanering CASUs but allow flexibilty to explore alternatives. 
TI  STRUCf 
LOCAL OFFCIAS VIW  NATIONAL CASU MANAGEMENT 
GENERALY EFFCTVE, BUT TIY DESIR SOME CHANGES 
Offcials rate the national board as effective. They suggest the board: 1) strngthen the 
sta' s capacity to assist CASUs after chanering, both before and durng operational sta
Progr 
to educate the agencies about the CASU  at the 
up; and 2) redouble their effort 
national level. 
Overa, most officials assess the leadership provided by the national CASU sta as effec
tive. 
CASU staf leadership can improve by developing a more 
Offcials suggest national 
stable and specializ sta that would focus more effon on operational assistace and l 
on chanerig more CASUs. 
Offcials prefer the program management strcture to reman flexible, rather than to be
progr 
come more institutionalizd, as the  evolves. 
progr 
Offcials believe the national board and sta playa vital role in  expansion and in 
how well CASUs will surve or thve. 
The aduacy of national CASU reportng mechanisms should be reassessed. 
LOCAL OFFCIAS LIST SEVERA KEYS TO SUCCESSFU CASU IMLEMENTA
TION. AMONG TI MOST CRICAL FACTORS ARE: 
fill top leadership positions. 
Selecting very carfully the personnel to 
Developing open and fruent communications with national sta and potential users. 
Securg the commtment and suppon of national parnt agencies of the lead agency and 
potenti users. 
Conductig thorough, realistic feasibilty studies before stan up. 
OVERA, LOAL OFFCIAS SEE TH CASU PROGRAM AS SUCCESSFU, 
DESPIT ITS NUROUS IMLEMENTATION ISSUES 
Offcials ar somewhat uncenain about the curent implementation pace and goals of the 
CASU Progr.

progr 
Ofcials say the  is successful and has significant cost savings potential.  Offcials think moderate to major cost savings wil be realzed by local CASUs and the 
tota program over the next 2 years. 
However, few offcials (17 percent) view savings in excess of $1 () milion by the end 
Fiscal Year 1992 as realistic. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Assistance in Achieving Operatonal Stats 
The national CASU board should: 
1. Encourge the National sta to provide more assistace to CASUs in achievig operational 
status and in solvig implementation problems. 
2. Incrase its maretig and educational effons at the national level durg this crcial transi
tion period. 
Technical ASfl;dnrtce Guides 
The national CASU sta should begi developing generic tehnical assistance guides to aid 
CASUs in achievig operational status. They should also develop "How To
" guidelies on im
plementing the most common CASU core servces. 
Natonal CASU Reportng Mechanisms

The national CASU board and sta should re-examne and revise as necessar the Prgram 
Activity Repon content and schedule. They should also correct any implementation bugs in 
CASULIN and promote its effective usage by CASU offcials. 
Selection Criteri and Guidelines 
The national CASU sta should develop crteria and guidelines to assist local tenant boards 
and lead agencies in selecting personnel or organizations to fill key CASU positions and roles. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shar the draf of this report and the supportg technical report, with the CASU Pro
gram National Boar of Dirctors and the CASU national staff. They generaly agree with the 
repon fmdigs and concur, with only minor qualifcations, with all our recommendations. 
fhe full text of their comments is included in the appendix of the Executive Repon.  .
  
 ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. ..  .. .  .. ..   ...   ....  .   .....     .....     ..... .     .....     .....     . ......     .. ...    . .......       ......    . ......       ........       .......       .......       . .....    .  ........        ........     .  ........        ........        ........       ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........       ........        ........        ........        ........        .......       .......       .......       .......       ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      .......       ......      ......      ......      ......      .....     ....    ....    ....    ....    .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     ..  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
BACKGROUND  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  ..  ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FINDINGS. 
CASU POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS ARE 
SOUND AND WORKABLE  . . . . . . . . . . 3
All loal officials favor maintaining strong loal tenant board control . . . . . . 3
Most local officials agree with the basic policies governing CASU char
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
tering policies 
LOCAL OFFICIALS VIEW THE NATIONAL CASU MANAGEMENT 
STRUCTURE AS GENERALLY EFFECTIVE, BUT THEY DESIRE SOME 
CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Oficials rate the national CASU board as effective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Most assess CASU staff leadership as effective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Oficials prefer a flexible CASU management structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CASU reporting mechanisms should be reassessed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CASUs FACE MANY PROBLEMS AND PITFALLS DURING DEVELOPMENT. . . . 
LOCAL OFFICIALS LIST SEVERAL KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CASU 
IMPLEMENTATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Selecting carefully the personnel for leadership positions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Developing open and frequent cvmmunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Securing parent agency commitment and support. . . . 
Conducting thorough feasibility studies 
OVERALL, LOCAL OFFICIALS SEE THE CASU PROGRAM AS 
SUCCESSFUL DESPITE ITS NUMEROUS IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. . . . . . . 
There is uncertainty about the pace of implementation and CASU 
program goals. . . . . . . . 
Overall , officials say the program is successful  . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
. .. . . . . . . . 15
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT....................................... 16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
APPENDIX. 
A. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR KEY POSITIONS 
B. LEAD AGENCY IMPACTS  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The purose of this study was to conduct a qualtative user evaluation of the Cooperative Ad
miistrative Suppon Unit (CASU) Prgram. 
ai 
Overa inspetion  were to: I) conduct a user assessment of CASU services in operation
al CASUs; 2) provide the national CASU board with an overview of the CASU Prgr frm 
a user or customer perspective; and 3) identify the generic strngths and weakesses that af
fect the progr s workabilty and success. This repon was prepared at the request of the na
sta. 
tional CASU board and 
BACKGROUND 
Progr  progr, 
The CASU  is a Government-wide  sponsore by the Prsident 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, federaly occupied 
buildigs jointly shar in establishing and maaging an admnistrative suppon unit that 
provides, on a reimburable basis, admnistrtive services commonly needed by its members. 
In October 1985, as pan of a shard services initiative, the heads of the Genera Services Ad
mitration (GSA), the Offce of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Offce of Person
nel Management (OPM), issued a joint memorandum to the heads of all Federa agencies 
Prgr. 
intrucing and encourgig suppon for the CASU 
Progr 
To ensur strng policy suppon at the national level, the PCMI established a CASU 
progr 
National Board of Dirtors. The national board determines policy and 
guidace, ap
proves lead agencies and chaners CASUs. A national interagency sta has also ben or
ganize to serve as a focal point for day-to-day operation of the national CASU Progr. The 
sta advises the CASU board on policy and progr issues and provides tehnical assistace 
in organizing and operating CASUs. 
The national boar has established a prototye strcture for local CASUs which includes 
policy contrl and diction frm a tenant board comprised of CASU service users or potential 
users. A lead agency, selecte by the tenant boar of dictors, provides admnistrtive 
management suppon to the CASU in such aras as financial management, stafmg, personnel 
servces, etc. The day-today diction and management of the CASU sta is provided by a 
CASU diector. 
Progi 
Thugh maketig and intervention by the national CASU staf, the CASU  recruits 
Federa 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 maagement. Recruited  CASU sites undenae a feasibilty study to determine if a CASU could successfully operate at 
their site, what admnistrtive 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 thugh a series of interagency memoradums of understading. The national 
CASU boar reviews these plans and, if appropriate, grts a CASU chaner to the local site. 
Cunt CASUs provide such servces as mai, moving and labor, physical fitness, shipping 
and receiving, photcopyig, personal propeny management, conference and training rom 
progrs. 
scheduling, child car, imprest fund and employee assistance  These servces may 
be provide diectly by the CASU staff, through shared servces argements from the lead 
agency or other CASU pancipating agency or secured through private contrcts. By con
CASUs expect to provide less expensive, more accessible, and better 
solidatig servces, the 
qualty servces. The CASUs also expect to standaze and share admnistrative systems, ac
celerate use of automation, and to improve maagement information systems. 
Curntly, operational CASUs exist at the following locations: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, 
Georgia; Chicago, Dlinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Fon Wort, 
Texas; Jackson, Mississippi; Indianapolis, Indiana; Kansas City (12th Stret), Missour; Los 
Angeles, Caiforna; New York City (Javits Buildig), New York; and, Seatte, Washington. 
Addtionally, five CASUs have ben charred at these locations: Boston, Massachusetts; 
Fresno, Calforna; Kansas City (South), Missouri; New York City (Varck Stret), New York; 
and, Pittburgh, Pennsylvania.

METHODOLOGY 
strctu 
Ths insption is based on a mail survey, onsite  interviews, and review of selected 
background and inormational materials provided by the national CASU staf. Our findings 
ar based on the responses of 34 CASU management and governing offcials at 13 of the 14 
curntly charred CASUs which were operational or projected to be operational by the end 
(F) 
of the second quarer of Fiscal Year  1989.  FINDINGS

th 
This is one of  technical report prepard in conjunction with our Executive Repon on 
Progr. 
the CASU  The Executive Report "An Assessment by Users Loal Offcials," sum-
mazes the chief fidings tohf o ur study. The technical report provide detas on our study 
fidings as they relate to  separte aspects of the CASU Prgram This technical repon is 
'Lal Ofcial Perceptions of National Policies and Implementation." The other two are 
User Assessment of Servces" and "User and Governing Official Perceptions of Loal 
Maagement. 
LOCAL OFFICIALS GENERALLY BELIEVE CASU POLICIES, GUIELINES 
AN PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS ARE SOUND AND WORKABLE. 
WCAL OFFICIAL VIEWS SPLI ON WHETHER CONTINUED REUANCE ON
A. 
VOLUNARY INITIATION AND PARTICIPATION IN CASUs WIU PRODUCE THE 
STEAY CASU PROGRAM GROWTH DESIRED. 
1. A slight majority (55 percent) think steady program grwth wil result under 
volunta pancipation rules. (45 
percent disagre. 
2. Most (12 of 13) of those indicatig that continued reliance on volunta initia
Progr grwt 
tion and parcipation in  prouce steady CASU 
CASUs  wil not
 nee 
said moe centr diction frm the national board and staf is  because: 
- Many agencies cannot make a decision to pancipate in the CASU without 
regional or headquaner s approval. 
- The CASUs need more guidace for achieving operational status, i.e., not just 
in the chanering process, and in the selection of the local CASU leadership. 
There is some question in the minds of the inspection team as to whether the rate of 
growt desir by the national CASU boar and staf wil be realized. under volunta par
ticipation rules. 
However, a strategy of mandating CASU pancipation from the top down could lead to 
local resistace and il will. It appear the board wil need to maintain a judicious balance 
between the principle of local autonomy and the goal of program expansion. 
AI 
WCAL OFFICIALS FAVOR MAINTAINING THE CURRENT STRONG 
B. 
EMPHASIS ON WCAL TENANT BOARD CONTROL AND FLEXIBILI  LOCAL OFFICIALS FEEL STRONGLY THAT WCAL CASU PARTICIPANS
C. 
SHOUW CONTINUE TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SELECT THEIR OWN LEAD 
AGENCIES. 
1. 
con
Eighty-eight percent of officials say that local CASU pancipants  should 
tinue to select their lead agencies. 
2. The few offcials indicatig that  continue to 
local CASU panicipants  should not

select their lead agencies, say that a narwer range of "best suited" agencies 
should lead the CASUs because: 
- Some agencies do not have the resources requird to be a lead agency. 
- Some tenant boards may not know which agency is best qualified to be the 
lead agency. 
- Some agencies may not be interested in being the lead agency, or have the 
necessar knowledge to take the lead. 
A MAJORIT OF LOCAL OFFICIAL AGREE WITH THE BASIC POliCIES
D. 
GOVERNING CASU CHARTERING, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SIGNIFICAN 
MINORI OPINIONS. 
Yes 
Requirg a minimum servce 
th 
package of  core servces 
plus other servces  50%  31%  19% 
Prhibitig the lead agency from 
also chaing the tenant board  56%  28%  16% 
Requirg that interagency 
memoradums of agrment be 
in place to govern provision 
and paymnt for CASU services  78%  13% 
Requirig CASU regular performance 
evaluations and fiscal audits, 
includig maitenance of discrete 
and auditable records on CASU 
operations  91%  THERE IS SOME QUESTION AMONG LOCAL OFFICIAL ABOUT WHETHER 
THE NATIONAL BOARD AND STAFF ENFORCE THESE CHARTERING 
PROVISIONS: 
Yes 
Minimum servce package  28%  22%  50% 
Lead agency not to chai 
tenant board  34%  31%  34% 
Memorandums of agreement 
approved before chanering  28%  41%  31% 
Requirg performance 
evaluations and fiscal audits  34%  19%  47% 
MAJORI OF  PERCEN/) SAY THE NATIONAL
F.  WCAL OFFICIAL  (84 
BOAR SHOUW NOT PROMOTE A CONSISTEN/ CASU MODEL IN 
ALW 
CHARTERING PROJECTS, BUT  FLEXIBILI TO EXPWRE 
ALTERNATWES. 
1. A parcularly sensitive issue is the extent sta should push local CASUs to offer 
services most liely to generate savings (photocopy, mail) versus more popular 
or convenient servces (fitness and child care centers, employee counseling) that 
users might prefer. 
2. 
In the rush to chaner more CASUs, it is importnt to allow potential CASUs the 
time necessar for conductig thorough, objective and carful feasibilty studies 
of candidate services and for negotiating the basic provisions, if not the formal
ize agrments, that wil govern provider and customer relations. 
II. 
LOCAL OFFICIALS VIEW THE NATIONAL CASU MANAGEMENT STRUC
TURE AS GENERALLY EFFECTIVE, BUT THEY DESIRE SOME CHANGES. 
LOCAL OFFICIAL RATE THE NATIONAL CASU BOAR AS EFFECTWE IN 1) 
A. 
SEIING SOUND  OBTAINING CENTRAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 
POLICY,  2) 
ASSURING LEAD AGENCY COMMIT MEN/
SUPPORT (OMB, GSA, QPM),  3) 
AND CAPACIT TO  PROMOTING 
MANAGE THE CASU PROJECTS, AND  4) 
AND MARKETING THE CASU PROGRAM.  Some offcials suggest the national board can improve by: 
1. Prviding an interagency staff large enough and properly equipped to help 
CASUs  after  they arechanere, both  before  and  during  the tie they begin 
operations. 
2. Takg steps to assur that all field opinions, comments, plans, etc., whether pro 
or con, are sent to them (Le., board may not be gettig al field information from 
sta. 
the national 
incras 
3. Workig more diectly with agencies at the national level to  their 
knowledge of the CASU concept so they wil provide more supportve guidace
to their field offces. 
OVERA, MOST WCAL OFFICIAL ASSESS THE LEADERSHIP PROVIDED 
B. 
BY THE NATIONAL CASU STAFF AS EFFECIIVE.

CASU STAFF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS 
Very effective-0% 
t -
Don 
knw-3. 
Somewhat 
ineffecive-20% 
.. Somewhat

effective-6% 
Numer of Responses: Very Effective-12
Somehat efective-ll  Somehat inefective-. 
Don t knw-l. 
Several offcials suggested ways in which national CASU staff leadership can 
improve: 
1. Speialze the sta on ways to keep the CASUs running once operational (Le., 
once the CASU is operational, .sta often has little furter contact). 
2. Add more permanent staff; for instance, hampered by having too many people 
on detal. (Note: This may have been a bigger problem in the past. Curntly 
there ar seven permanent CASU staff members.  3. 
commitments so they can gain knowledge of 
Stabilze the staf with longer term 
overall sites and operations. Incrasing their expertse in the varous CASU 
operations would improve the staf' s abilty to bring up new sites. 
4. Prvide more suppon and nunurng to existing CASUs and give less emphasis 
to adding more and more new CASUs. Offer more practical help on operational 
issues, not just verbal encouragement. 
SOME NATIONAL CASU STAFF SERVICES ARE SEEN AS MORE HELPFUL 
C. 
THAN OTHERS.

1. Marketig informtion and aids are viewed as somewhat (53 percent) to very (23 
percent) helpful. 
2. 
Site intervention tools and visits ar viewed as very (41 percent) to somewhat 
(17 percent) helpful. (However, 24 percent stated these were somewhat unhelp
ful. )

3. Only 46 percent rated other staff technical assistance helpful. 
A SliGHT MAJORIT OF WCAL OFFICIALS HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED
D. 
PROBLEMS WITH THE NATIONAL CASU STAFF. 
1. 
Fifty-seven percent say they have experienced no problems. 
2. However, 43 percent repon encountering some diffcult.es: 
a. Once the CASU is operational, thereis insuffcient national staf to respond 
to questions from the field. 
b. Lack of sufficient national sta or their extensive travel results in delayed 
responses to CASU requests for assistance. 
c. National sta have not always fully understoo problems at the local level. 
(Note: This may have been a bigger problem in the past. Some respondents 
stated that curnt staf is more receptive to requests for assistace. 
WCAL OFFICIAL PREFER THE CASU MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE TO
E. 
REMAIN FLEXIBLE, RATHER THAN BECOMING MORE INSTITUTIONAlED 
AS THE PROGRAM EVOLVES. 
1. Most offcials (81 percent) prefer a flexible management strctur because all 
CASU sites dier, as do the service needs of each CASU.  2. 
Nineteen percent desir a more institutionalized management strctu. Their 
reasons include the need for: 1) a more permanent staff famliar with 
al aspects 
progr 
of the  rather than tempora staf who are available for shon periods of 
time, and 2) better responsiveness to the specific needs and problems of opera
tional CASUs. 
LOCAL MANAGEMEN AND GOVERNING OFFICIALS BEliEVE THE 
F. 
NATIONAL BOAR AND STAFF PLA A VITAL ROLE IN HOW WELL WCAL 
CASUs WIlL SURVWE OR THRIE. 
1. Most offcials say the national CASU staf is very (81 percent) to somewhat 
impottt 
(10 percent)  for program expansion and adding new CASUs. 
2. A majority (65 percent) say the national CASU board and  necessar for
sta  are 
the surval of operational CASUs. (32 percent felt CASUs would 
surive with
out them. 
THE ADEQUACY OF NATIONAL CASU REPORTING MECHANISMS SHOUW
G. 
BE RE-ASSESSED. 
The extent of information neeed by the National sta on local CASU operations has 
been an issue in the past, with some CASUs opposed to reportng more than minimal in
formtion. 
The twi) basic inormtion reportg systems now in place are the Prgram Activity Re
pon approved by the boar in June of 1988 and CASULINK, an electronic telecommuni
cations system, also implemented in 1988. 
Severa indicators from local CASU offcials suggest the need to consider reportg im
provement options: 
We hear varing responses concerning what is to be reponed, how and when, 
which perhaps indicate some confusion among local offcials. 
There is some evidence that reponig could be less ad hoc with fewer urgent up
dates and more periodic and systematic reponing dates. 
Many offcials (63 percent) say they do not know if curnt reportng mecha
nisms  to satisfy the progr 
ar suffcient  s needs. 
There ar some indications of problems with usage of CASULINK, Le., few offi
cials mentioned it or indicate using it and others noted this evolving new sys
tem has had problems, such as delayed response tie and/or system down time.  II. 
LOCAL OFFICIALS SAY CASUs FACE MANY PROBLEMS AND PITFALLS 
DURING THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE. 
PERCENT) OF WCAL OFFICIALS SAY THE FOLWWING
A.  A MAJORIT  (97 
MAIN PROBLEMS CONFRONT CASUs DURING IMPLEMENTATION: 
1. Lack of goo communications with agencies. 
(Agencies sometimes see the CASU as a threat.) (9) 
2. Lack of "clear signals" frm their parent agencies as to whether they should par
progr. 
(7) 
ticipate in the 
3. Not doing your homework before attempting to set up the CASU, and trng 
do too much too fast. (7) 
4. 
Reluctace of agency 
heads to give up resources or space. (4) 
5. Not enough knowledgeable people to conduct feasibility studies. (1) 
BEST PRACI'CES SUGGESTED BY LOCAL OFFICIALS TO AVOID OR
B. 
OVERCOME CASU DEVELOPMENTAL OBSTACLES INCLUDE: 
1. 
Establish a goo and strong marketing effon; review mareting packages frm 
other CASUs. (1) 
2.  priar 
Achieve goo communications, including identifying a  contact at each 
user for day-to-day operations. (12) 
3. Work with top agency offcials, Le., people that can make decisions for the agen
cy regarding CASU. (2) 
4. 
Establish clear policies, pricing strcture and cost mechanisms before operations 
begin. (2) 
5. 
Begin with a faily modest number of services that are needed by most of the 
user agencies. (1) 
WCAL OFFICIAL OFFER SEVERAL EXPLAATIONS OF WHY AGENCIES
C. 
MAY CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CASU: 
1. Don t realy understad the CASU Progr. (4) 
2. Lack suppon frm their parnt agency. (5)  3. 
Reluctat to give up control of services, space and personnel, Le., "tur protec
tion." (9) 
4. 
Feel agency pancipation would not be cost effective. (5) 
5. Don t see a need for offere services. (3) 
Very  Somewhat 
Important  Important 
CASU Director  100% 
Site Facilitator  94% 
Lead Agency  90%  10% 
Tenant Board Chairman  84%  16% 
Tenant Board Member  69%  28% 
IV. LOCAL OFFICIAS LIST SEVERAL KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CASU IMPLE
MENTATION. 
chaien agr 
The CASU diectors, lead agency heads and tenant board  that the follow
impottt 
ing ar very  factors in establishing a successful CASU. 
CASU GOVERNING OFFICIAL SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE CRITICAL ROLES
A. 
PLAED BY TOP LEADERSHIP POSITIONS AND VERY CAREFULLY SELEC/ 
CANDIDATES TO FILL THEM. 
1. 
site faciltators, tenant board chaian and members, 
Offcials say the choices of 
ditor  impottt. 
the lead agency and CASU  are all very 
2. 
Ofcials list severa crteria to guide the personnel selection: for these key posi
tions. (See appendi A. 
3. 
Governing officials should tae account of the positive and negative impacts that 
the CASU lead agency is apt to experience. (See appendix B. 
DEVEWP OPEN AND FREQUENT COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH ARE
B. 
CRIICAL DURING START-UP. 
1. 
Officials say open and  between the potential CASU 
fruent communications 
and the national CASU sta ar either very imponant (81 percent) or somewhat 
impottt 
(19 percent).  2. 
offcials say that open and frequent communications between the CASU and 
All 
its potential users are very imponant. 
SECURE A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF THE COMMITMENT AND SUPPORT 
C. 
OF THE NATIONAL PARENT AGENCIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY AND 
PERCENT OF THE OFFICIAL SAY IS VERY 
POTENTIAL USERS, WHICH  97 
IMPORTANT. 
CONDUcrTHOROUGH FEASIBILI STUDIES AND REPORTS THAT: 
D. 
1. 
Realisticaly assess the services to be provided and the cost savings potential; 
2. 
Qearly descrbe the CASU concept; 
3. 
Communicate the roles of all involved panes; and 
4. 
Result in goo marketing tools. 
OBTAIN THE STRONG BACKING AND SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL CASU 
E. 
BOARD AND STAFF. 
HIRE AND TRAN COMPEIENT LOCAL CASU STAFF WHO HAVE A 
F. 
CUSTOMER SERVICE ORIENTATION. 
v. OVERALL, LOCAL OFFICIALS SEE THE CASU PROGRAM AS SUCCESS
FUL, DESPITE ITS NUMEROUS IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. 
WCAL OFFICIAL ARE SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE CURRENT 
A. 
IMPLEMENTATION PACE AND GOAL OF THE CASU PROGRAM. 
1. Many offcials (40 percent) do not know if the current pace at which CASUs 
being charered and becoming operational is about right, too slow, or too fast. 
ar 
The views of others  divergent: 
- 34 percent say the pace is about right; 
13 percent say the pace is too slow; 
13 percent say the pace is too fast. 
2. A majority of offcials do not consider the national staff FY 1989 goal ofincreas
ing the number of chanered CASUs frm 14 to 36 as realistic and feasible: 
- 25 percent say the goal is realistic and feasible; 
- 50  realistic and feasible;
percent say the goal is  not 
- 25 percent don t know.  3. 
Offcials split on whether the CASU sta FY 1989 goal of increasing the num
ber of operational CASUs from 8 to 26 is realstic and feasible: 
- 37.5 percent say the goal is realistic and feasible; 
- 37. realistic and feasible; 
5 percent say the goal is  not 
- 25 percent don t know. 
4. A majority of offcials don t know (60 percent) if it is realstic to expect the 
Progr 
CASU  to yield cost savings in excess of $100 millon by the end of 
1992. (Only 17 percent say yes; whie 23 percent say no. 
LOCAL CASU OFFICIAL MADE SEVERA SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE CASU
B. 
IMPLEMENTATION. 
Most suggestions focus on increasing the capabilty and expertse of the national 
CASU sta, settg realstic dates for CASU charerig and operational sta-up, fo
cusing more effon on helping CASUs beome operational and more national level ed
ucation on the benefits of CASUs. 
1. Incrase national CASU staf knowledge of CASU intrcacies and operations. 
By doing so they would be able to get CASUs chanered more effectively; de
velop overall proedures; and insUr CASUs become operational before remov
ing national sta support (1 Dir) 
2. Keep interagency sta from using a "shotgun" approach, i.e., "go to 100 sites 
just to reach their numbers." Staf "stuck" so much on theory that when they get 
ta 
to "practical application" they can t do it, i.e., can  about dollar and full 
tie equivalents (F' s). As a result, some offcials asked if more national staf 
intervention might have helped at sites where CASUs are no longer functioning. 
3. Spend as much tie as neeed on gettng CASUs operational, with services that 
the parcular CASU needs, rather than to just get more CASUs chanered. Focus 
(2 Dir 2 LA) 
on few locations at a time. 
4. 
Place more emphasis on helping sites become operational. Increase national 
sta to establish teams to help CASUs, i.e., teams with financial and personnel 
other technical people to establish procedures to help CASUs get
expertse  and  progr, 
stan. To assess commitment and interest in the  the team could meet 
with the potential lead agency and users before chanering. (2 Dir 1 LA; 1 TB) 
5. 
Contact operational CASUs to see how they can help. Assess what has/has not 
worked at the operational sites. (2 LA; 2 TB)  6. 
Assist and plan for each CASU on an individual basis, i.e., it should not be char
tered unti it has a realistic date for becomig operational. (1 Dir 1 LA; 1 TB) 
7. Prvide more education at agencies ' headquaners to gain their suppon for the 
CASU Progr. Demonstrate that CASUs can save money and incrase the 
Progr 
avaiabilty of services. Too many individuals see the CASU  as a "pass
ing fancy" that wil disappear with the new admistration. (1 Dir 1 LA; 2 TB) 
MANAGING AND GOVERNING OFFICIAL SAY SEVERA IMPORTAN
C. 
MANAGEMENT OR POllCY ISSUES CURRENTLY FACE THE CASU NATIONAL 
BOARD AND STAFF: 
makg 
1. Gettg CASUs operational, and  sure that, once operational, they con
tiue to function effectively. 
2. 
Persuadig the new adnistrtion to suppon the program. 
3. Enlstig non-PCMI agency suppon for the CASU concept. 
4. Determning whether CASU pancipation wil count towars the agency s OMB 
Circular A-76 requiments. 
5. 
Deciding whether the space used by the CASU operation wil be classified and 
biled as joint use space or not. 
Note: These last two issues have both reently been resolved afatively accordg 
to the CASU 1988 Anual Repon. 
OVERA, WCAL OFFICIAL SAY THE CASU PROGRAM IS SUCCESSFUL
D. 
AND HAS SIGNIFICAN COST SAVING POTENTIAL. 
1.  Progr 
Regarding CASU  priorities: 
Progr 
A majority (61 percent) say the CASU  should give  equal  priority to 
both cost savings and improved services. 
Thiny-six percent say that improving delivery of administrative services should 
be the top priority. 
Only one offcial states that savings should be the progr s top priority.  2. 
Offcials characterize as moderate to major the potential cost savings that wil be 
Progr 
realzed by the individual CASUs and the overall CASU  over the next 
2 year. 
SAVINGS 
Major  Moderate  Minor 
Locl CASU  41%  45%  14% 
Total CASU 
Program  48%  52% 
3. 
Offcials believe the CASU Prgram is successfully achieving its two basic 
aims, although they perceive  improving servce delivery and 
grater success in 
quality than in achieving cost savings. 
Very  Somewhat 
Successful  Successful 
Improving the Delivery 
64%  32% 
and Qualit of Services 
Achieving Significant 
Cost Savings  25%  64%  RECOMMENDATIONS 
CASU Chartering Requirements 
str
The national CASU board and staf should not enforce CASU chanering requirments so 
cur 
gently as to  their flexibilty to explore alternatives. 
Assistance in Achieving Operatonal Status 
The national CASU board should: 
1. Reserve more sta time for assistace to CASUs in achieving operational status after 
charring and in solving operational problems that inevitably arse during their early 
phases of development 
2. Redouble their national level CASU marketing and educational effort with new admnistr
tion and agency offcials durng this crucial trsition period. 
Implementaton Assistance 
The national CASU sta should provide more CASU assistace for achieving successful 
operational status and overcomig implementation problems. To this end, the staf should 
develop: 
1. Generic technical assistace guides to aid developing CASUs in achieving operational
status in such aras as: 
Organizing, stang and trning CASU personnel 
Forecasting workloads and developing. budgets, 
Alternative techniques for pricing CASU services; and 
2. "How To" guidelines for implementing the most common CASU core services, such as 
mail, photocopy and personal propeny. These guidelines could include key functional re
quirments and specifications, "Dos and Don ts," and commonly encountered obstacles, 
with suggestions for overcoming them.  National CASU Reportng Mechanisms 
The national CASU board and staff should: 
Progr 
1. Re-exame and revise, as necessar, the  Activity Repon content and schedule to 
assur that it adequately serves the needs of the national board and sta by providing an ac
curate pictue of CASU services, users, operational status and problems and savings 
achievements. 
2. Corrct implementation bugs in CASULINK and promote its effective utiliztion by local 
CASU offcias. 
Selection Criteri and Guidelines 
The national sta should develop selection crteria and guidelines to assist local tenant boards 
and lead agencies covering: 
- Desir  CASU diectors and site 
skis, attrbutes and experience of 
faciltators. 
Crteria that a lead agency should satisfy. 
chain 
Guidelies for pickig the  and members of the local tenant board. 
Natona CASU Goals 
curnt 
The national CASU board and sta should re-examne the feasibility of  CASU goals 
for 1) new CASUs to be chanere, 2) CASUs to become operational, and 3) long term poten
tial savings to be achieved. Respondent feeback and experience to date suggest these goals 
may be overly optimistic. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shar the draft of our Executive Repon on the CASU Prgram, and the three supportg 
sta. 
technical repons, with the CASU National Board of Directors and the CASU national 
They addssed their comments to the reommendations in the Executive Repon since these 
the 
are compiled from our  supportng technical repons. They generaly agree with repon 
fmdings and concur, with only minor qualifications, in all our reommendations. The full text 
of their comments is included in the appendi of the Executive Repon.  APPENDIX 
COOPERATIVE ADMIISTRATIVE SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM 
TECHNICAL REPORT In

LOCAL OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL POLICIES AND 
IMPLEMENTATION  APPENDIX A

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR KEY POSITIONS
 CASU Director: 
1. 
a. Goo interpersonal communicator. (11) 
b. Goo  and 
adnistrtor with 
strong fmancial and administrative background, 
experience in service delivery and budget prepartion. (6) 
committed to the CASU objective. (2) 
c. Hard worker dedicated and 
2. Site Facilitator:
a. Strng in communications skils. (8) 
b. Goo 
analytical abilty. (9) 
c. Some knowledge and experience in functjonal areas that CASU wil adss, e.g., in 
settg up admstrtive units, budgeting, organizational planning and stamg. (5) 
d. Goo 
team leader skils. (4) 
progr 
and commtment to makng it work. (4) 
e. Belief in the 
3. Lead Agency:
a. Lare enough to tae on the CASU-related work, e.g., big enough and well equipped to 
provide the suppon needed (financial and accountig systems, personnel management, 
have the full suppon of its national 
admistrtive and technical knowledge),  and 
headuarrs and national CASU board. (14) 
4. Tenant Board Chairman:
a. Someone interested in seeing the progr  wiling and able to devote 
work,  and
s activities. (13) 
suffcient time to board'
b. Someone who can effectively chair the board and provide t  e .leadership needed to get 
the CASU established, Le., have goo communications and interprsonal skils and 
goo maagement background. (8)  5. Tenant Board Members:
spectrm of different size agencies. (1) 
a. The tenant board should include a broad 
progr, 
b. Broad representation of tenant agencies that suppon the  but voting rights 
should be restrcted to CASU users. (6) 
C. Members should be able to represent their agencies effectively and be able to make
decisions for the agencies, Le., usually need to be agency heads/administrators. (7) 
Nwners in parentheses are the nwner nf offcials providing the responses.
NOTE:  APPENDIX B

LEAD AGENCY IMPACTS
 LEAD AGENCY IMPACTS 
Positive Impacts;
1. 
a. Satisfaction in developing a successful CASU that can provide more effective and 
save money for it, as well as for users. (7)
effcient servces  and 
b. Opportnity to bring about positive changes within the building, Le., recognition as a 
contrbutor to goo economy, effectiveness and goo management. (8) 
sta hirg 
for 
c. Have the most contrl over program services  and  diect control over 
tang 
positions with own people (thus, knowing how they work results in
CASU, Le., 

a smoother transition). (2) 
d. In some instaces no real loss of space, staff or money. (4) 
2. Negatve Impacts:
a. Don t get money and staffing to do the extra work. Higher percentage of resoures 
initialy expended on project as compard to other agencies. Absorption of 
miscellaneous sta-up costs, e.g., travel, equipment, and supplies not charged back to 
users. At times left "holding bag" for many initial sta-up costs. (12) 
Underestiatig what the CASU Prgram is. Initial stan-up is sometimes done without 
sufcient planning, Le., no specific guidelines ar established for program 
implementation. (2) 
c. Have a project that don t have tota contrl over. Could end up with some servces it 
doesn t lie, but is stuck with. Prblems in making all services work for al users. (3) 
TlI 
d.  reuired lOr management and direction of the CASU by senior agency offcials. 
(4) 
Numers in parentheses are the numer of offcials providing the responses.
NOTE: