1 ,0,

COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL REPORT II

USER AND GOVERNING OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF

LOCAL MANAGEMENT

f,lIVICE$O 
'0 
lii'd:m 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
JUNE 1989  COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL REPORT II

USER AND GOVERNING OFFICIAL PERCEPTIONS OF

LOCAL MANAGEMENT

RICHARD P. KUSSEROW 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Q69.
OAI. 00862  JUNE 1989
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purose of this study was to conduct a qualitative user evaluation of the Cooperative Ad
ministrative Suppon Unit (CASU) Program. 
Overal inspection ais were to: 1) conduct a user assessment of CASU services in opera
CASU Program 
tional CASUs; 2) provide the national CASU board with an overview of the 

frm 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 request of the 
national CASU board and staff. 
BACKGROUND 
Progr 
The CASU  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, approved lead agencies and chaners 
CASUs. In addition, a national interagency staff was organized to serve as a focal point for 
day-to-day operations of the national CASU Program. The local CASU suppon strcture in-
eludes policy direction 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 dic
tor. 
Progr 
The CASU  was established under the concept that local Federa agencies could C90P
eratively combine their resources to share common administrtive services at reduced costs 
and with better service quality. Under the CASU concept, building tenants jointly shar in es
tablishing and managing an administrative suppon unit that provides, on a reimbursable basis, 
adnistrative services commonly needed by its members. 
FINDINGS 
CASU SERVICE PATTERNS VARY CONSIDERABLY 
The CASUs offer a broad varety 
of services. 
The numbers of offered services and panicipating users var widely among CASUs. 
There is grat varation in the growth and extent of service utilization among CASUs. 
The CASUs provide their services in several modes, with most delivered directly by the 
CASU staf, but a significant number are provided by private contrctors.  Most CASUs say they attempt to assess the best method of delivery for services they 
offer. 
BOTH USERS AND GOVERNING OFFICIALS SEE LOCAL CASU MANAGEMENT AS 
EFFECTIVE 
Curnt users and local offcials rate high the general management and direction

provided by CASU diectors, lead agencies and tenant boards.

Improved understandig of CASU governing entity roles and responsibilties is needed.

ar 
In genera, CASUs  effectively marketing their services to potential users and 

addig, or planning to add, new services. 
The CASU and customer communications are generally effective, with 83 percent of

users ratig them goo to excellent.

The CASU biling procedures ar fair, equitable and generally understoo by users.

Most users say billng procedures are fair and that they generally understand both the 
procedurs. 
services biled and the biling 
A majority of users (75 percent) say they have experienced no 
biling problems. 
While a majority of users (70 percent) say their CASU prices its services on a unit 
cost basis, a substantial minority (30 percent) either indicate this is not the case or do 
not know. 
The CASU evaluations and audits deserve incredsed emphasis. 
There is some confusion among users and local offcials about the policy reuir

ments for these management tools.

Relatively few CASU evaluations and audits have been conducted or planned.

RECOMMENDATIONS 
Comparative Assessments of Service Delivery Sources 
The National CASU Board and staff should promote compartive assessments of the most 
practical and cost-effective means of delivering CASU services, both among existing CASUs 
and in new CASUs to be formed.  Standard Role Descriptins for CASU Governing Officials 
To enhance cooperation and shared expectations, all CASUs should be encourged to adopt 
stadard description of the roles and responsibilities of key CASU governing offcials, such as 
that developed as par of the Seattle evaluation. 
Unit Cost Pricing 
The CASU staf should encourge the broadest, appropriate application of unit cost pricing of 
services in al new and existing CASUs. This should enhance user understaiding and aid in 
analysis of service cost trnds and cost comparsons of alternative service sources. 
Annual User Evaluations and Periodic Fiscal Audits 
The national CASU 
staf and board should: 
1. 
Formalize CASU policy to require 1) annual user evaluations of CASU service delivery 
and user satisfaction, and 2) periodc fiscal audits by the lead agency inspector general or 
audit agency. 
2. 
Develop, cooperatively with operational CASUs, suggested practical protocols for con
ducting CASU evaluations and audits. Regarding the evaluation protocol, we suggest use 
of simple evaluation tools, such as the form in the appendix to this report 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shard the draft of our Executive Repon on the CASU Program, and the three supponing 
technical repons, with the CASU National Board of Directors and the CASU national staff. 
They adessed their comments to the recommendations in the Executive Repon since these 
are compiled from the thee supportg technical repons in the OIG study. They generaly 
agree with the findigs of the repons. The full text of the CASU offcials ' comments is in-
eluded in the appendix of the Executive Report. 
iii  . . . ..  ...    .
....    .. ..  . . . . . . . .  .. . . . . ..  .  ... .   . ... .   . ....  .  . ... .   . ... .   . ...  . . . .  .. ..   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   .  .....     .....     .....     .....     ... ..  .  . ... .    .....     .....     .....    ...  ...  . .  .  ...  . ...   ...   ... .   ..  ...   . ...  ...    ...   ..   ....   ....   ..   ...   ....  .. .  ..    ..  . ..  ....  ...   ..   ...   .....  ....  ...     ...  ....  ....   ...  ... .  .. .. .. ... ...  ...  ...  ...   ..  .....   .....    ....     .....     .... .   .....    .....    .....     .......      .......      .......       ......      .......      .......      ....... .     .......      .... ..      ........    .   .......        ........       . ...... .     . ...... .     ' .......  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE

BACKGROUND

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

3
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FIN DI.NG S. . .. . .  . . .. . .  . . . .. . .  . . .. . . .  . . .. . .  . . . .. . .  . . .. 
  .
CASU SERVICE PATTERNS VARY CONSIDERABLY

CASUs offer a wide variety of services. . .  . . . 3

The number of offered services and users vary widely among CASUs  . 3

There is wide variation in the growth and extent of service utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

BOTH USERS AND GOVERNING OFFICIALS SEE LOCAL CASU

MANAGEMENT AS EFFECTIVE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CASU general management and direction are rated high. . . . 

Improved understanding of CASU roles and responsibilties is needed

CASUs are effectively marketing their services. . . . . . 

CASU and customer communications are effective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
CASU billng procdures are fair, equitable and generally understoo by users. . . 

CASU evaluations and audits deserve increased emphasis

RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT... 

APPENDIX Service Evaluation Too . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 14
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The purose of this study was to conduct a qualitative user evaluation of the Cooperative Ad
ministrative Suppon Unit (CASU) Program. 
Overal inspection aims 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 workability and success. This repon was prepared at the request of the na
tional CASU board and staff. 
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 
Economy Act of 1932. Under the CASU concept, agencies in multi-tenant, federally occupied 
buildigs jointly shar in establishing and managing an admnistrative suppon unit that pro
vides, on a reimbursable 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
ministration, the Offce of Management and Budget, and the Offce of Personnel Manage
ment, issued a joint memorandum to the heads of all Federa agencies introducing and 
encouragig suppon for the CASU Program. 
To ensur strong policy suppon at the national level, the PCMI established a CASU Progrm 
National Board of Directors. The national board sets policy and provides program guidance, 
approves lead agencies and chaners 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 Progr. The 
staf advises the CASU board on policy ,and progrm issues and provides technical assistance 
in organizing and operating CASUs. 
The national board has established a prototye 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 admnistrtive man-
agement suppon to the CASU in such areas as fmancial management, stang, personnel ser
vices, etc. The day-to-day diection and management of the CASU staff is provided by a 
CASU diector.  Thugh maketig and intervention by the national CASU staf, the CASU Progr recrits 
Federa agencies located in a single buildig or cluster of buildings to become members of a 
local CASU and to panicipate in its development, organization, and management. Recruited 
CASU sites underte a  determine if a CASU could successfully operate at 
feasibilty study to 
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 though a series of interagency memoradums of understandig. The national 
CASU board reviews these plans and, if appropriate, grants a CASU chanerto the local site. 
Current CASUs provide such services as mail, moving and labor, physical fitness, shipping 
and receiving, photcopying, personal propeny 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 parcipating 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. 
Curntly, operational CASUs exist at the following locations: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, 
Georgia; Chicago, llinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Fort Wonh 
Texas; Jackson, Mississippi; Indianapolis, Indiana; Kansas City (12th Stret), Missouri; Los 
Angeles, California; New York City (Javits Building), New York; and, Seattle, Washington. 
Additionally, five CASUs have been chanered at these locations: Boston, Massachusetts; 
Fresno, Calfornia; Kansas City (South), Missouri; New York City (Varck Stret), New York; 
and, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
METHODOLOGY 
This inspetion is based on a mail survey, onsite strctured interviews and selected back
ground and informational materials p ovided by the national CASU staff. Our findings are 
based on a tota of 155 respondents, including 34 CASU management and governing offcials, 
80 current and former CASU users and 41 potential users at 13 of the 14 currently chanered 
CASUs which were operational or projected to be operational by the end of the second quarr 
of Fiscal Year (FY) 1989.  g. 

FINDINGS

the 
This is one of  technical repons prepard in conjunction with our Executive Repon on 
the CASU Progrm. The Executive Report, "An Assessment by Users and Loal Offcials, 
summarzes the chief findings of our study. The technical repons provide details on our study 
fmdings as they relate to three separte aspects of the CASU Program. This technical repon is 
User and Governing Offcial Perceptions of Local Management." The other two ar "User 
Assessment of Services" and "Local Offcial Perceptions of Policies and Implementation. 
CASU SERVICE PATTERNS VARY CONSIDERABLY. 
CASUs OFFER A WIDE VARET OF SERVICES. 
A. 
1. Of the 28 different services provided, 61 percent are offered by only 1 CASU. 
2. Only 4 services are offered by 5 or more CASUs. 
3. The top 10 services offered by the 10 operational CASUs are: 
a. Mail (8) 
b. Moving/abor (7) 
c. 
Physical Fitness (7) 
d. 
Shipping/eceiving (5) 
e. Photocopy (4) 
f. Excess Personal Propeny (4) 
Conferenceffraining Room Scheduling (4) 
Car 
h. Child  (3)
i. 
Imprest Fund (2) 
Progrs 
j. Employee Assistance  (2) 
THE NUMBER OF SERVICES EACH CASU OFFERS VARIES WIDELY, RAGING 
B. 
OFFERED SERVICES. 
FROM  TO  13  SERVICES, WITH AN AVERAGE OF 
THE NUMBER OF USERS AT EACH CASU VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY, RANGING 
C. 
USERS.
FROM A LOW OF  TO A HIGH OF  35,  WITH AN AVERAGE OF  17 
UTIli-
THERE IS SIGNIFICAN VARATION IN THE GROWTH OF SERVICE 
D. 
TION AMONG CASU USERS. 
1. 
Five of the 10 operational CASUs repon that some of their users have added to 
the number of services they use since joining the CASU.  2. Among these 5 CASUs the percentage of users who have added services ranges 
from 25 to 100 percent. 
THE EXTENT OF UTIliZATION OF CASU SERVICES ALSO VARIES CONSIDER
E. 
ABLY. 
1. In none of the CASUs do all users panicipate in all services. 
2. A majority of users panicipate in al offered services in only two CASUs. 
3. 
In three CASUs 40 percent or more of the users panicipate.in all offered services. 
4. 
However, in six CASUs a strong majority of users (77 to 100%) utiize at least 
half of the offered services. 
one-
5. The percentage of CASU parcipants who use only one service is relatively 
small, raging from 0 to 14 percent. 
6. 
Users at two sites say the CASU attempts to require all users to parcipate in all 
offered services. 
CASUs PROVIDE THEIR SERVICES IN SEVERA MODES, WITH MOST DELI
F. 
ERED DIRECTLY BY THE CASU STAFF, BUT A SIGNIFICAN NUMBER ARE 
PROVIDED BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS. 
CASU SERVICE DELIVERY METHOD 
CAU STAFF-4 - 63, 
COCTi8 - 26. 
PRATE 
OF 10) SAY THEY ATTEMPT TO ASSESS THE BEST METHOD 
G.  MOST CASUs  (9 
OF SERVICE DELIERY, I.E., DIRECT, CONTRACT OR SHARED SERVICE, FOR 
THE SERVICES THEY OFFER.  '" ..r  .'... - ,----'.... -. ' - ...,. ,......+_... .,- ,, ,,"".'--.u-.,-.-...,._ .., . .-,. - -""-----' -, , _. ,.. --....  .._-..".... ..,......._.._... "..-...-_-'-. .....- .-_ '........'..'..''..-...'-'-.-.-...'.-.-''.''........."',..,..-'..-..-.."".", .-........._.-;'.. -'.....'.  '_....., ...---..,,u  ,,..-.....".-.-...... .._.-,... ,... =..", ....-'-. .--
II. 
BOTH USERS AND GOVERNING OFFICIALS SEE LOCAL CASU MANAGE. 
MENT AS EFFECTIVE. 
CASU GENERA MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION ARE RATED HIGH. 
A. 
1. Curnt users give high marks to the general management and diction provided 
by CASU dictors, lead agencies and tenant boards. 
USER EVALUATIONS OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND

DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE

CASU DIRECTOR, LEAD AGENCY, AND THE TENANT BOARD

. EXCELLNT

m GOD
060 
,. B FAIR 
o POR

en  UU..w..U..U.""_.....  .. 0 DON'T KNOW 
u. 40
 "UU"'. 
W 30  UU,,-,.U..'U"-'.. ""H'... 
",17 "" 
a: 0
 TE 
CA  LE 
DIRECTOR  AGENCY  BOAR 
RATED GROUPS 
TOTAL REPO: CLAEU  DIRECTOR"", Ie, 4, 2, 2

AGECY-30, 24, 8, 0, 10

lENNAT BOAR23, :!, 8, 0, 13

2. The CASU management and governing offcials rate CASU dictors, lead agen
cies and tenant boards faily high on the general management and diection they 
give the CASU. 
GOVERNING OFFICIAL'S EVALUATIONS OF GENERAL 
MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE 
CASU DIRECTOR, LEAD AGENCY, AND THE TENANT BOARD 
en 80  """'HR"'H"""'-""''H..  d.....  . EXCELLENT 
II GOOD 
EJ FAIR 
"'W...  h._......  ." tJ POOR 
40 
20 
ff 0

CASU DIRECTOR LED AGENCY TENANT BOARD

RE:  RATED GROUPS

TOTAL  CAU DlRECTOfHe, 5, 0, 0 
LTEE NAGAN CB-O1A8R,1 2.2 .113, 4, 0  3. 
Overal, it is noteworty that: 
Both respondent groups reserve their highest ratings for CASU dictor per

formance.

None of the management or governing entities is given a combined excellent

and good rating of less than 72 percent.

IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF CASU GOVERNING ENTIT ROLES AND RE
B. 
SPONSIBILIIES IS NEEDED. 
Asked if CASU tenant board and lead agency roles and respons 
bilties are clearly 
defmed and corrctly understoo, local off ials say: 
Yes 
Clearly Defined?  87%  13% 
Clearly Understoo?  74%  26% 
IN GENERA, THE CASUs ARE EFFECTIVELY MARKETING THEIR SERVICES. 
C. 
Current User Perceptions

1. The CASUs do a goo to excellent job of marketig, according to 82 percent of 
the curent users. Few curnt users rate marketing effons as 
fai (8 percent) or 
poor (6 percent). 
2. 
Users also repon CASUs are faily effective in enlisting the maketig suppon 
of: 
Yes 
Tenant Boards  75%  19% 
Federa Executive 
Boards  61%  32% 
Potential User Perceptions 
3. A majority of potential users (83 percent) say they have received an explanation 
of the local CASU concept, and 77 percent say this explanation was effective to 
very effective. 
a. Most potential users (92 percent) know what a CASU is. 
b. A large majority (88 percent) of potential users are famliar with some of the 
services offered by the CASU.  "-........" .."'.,-",...._'- ,,....:-.....---  " "'- " ",,, ,,,,- ,,,,-,-,,,.,,,,, ,,,,,,"'.' ''' ''W  - -'',..., , - ".. .' - ...".,""''''' - .._,,,- - '''- '-'-'"'' -''_. -_.:'_'-- ''-'''''' -''' "".'''-''.""''' ''''-'_ ''V  _._-r-'",'-'"," 
c. Most potential users repon they have been invited to CASU meetings (77 per
cent) or received CASU newsletter, progrss repons or other wrtten informa
tion (83 percent). 
d. Overal, potential users tend to have a more positive than negative image of

the CASU:

Fifty-four percent say they hear positive feedback and supportive com

ments about the CASU.

Only two say curnt users are experiencing problems. 

A majority (52 percent) say the CASU is most likely to either expand and

grow in the future (43 percent) or remain the same (9 percent). 
potential users say their agencies parcipated in

e. A majority (74 percent) of 
the CASU feasibilty study, with a majority saying it was thorough (73 per

cent), timely (60 percent) and objective (68 percent).

4. 
Potential users say they would be more likely to paricipate in CASU services if 
they had:

a. Good cost savings data (62 percent). 
b. Reliable information on the quality and responsiveness of CASU services

(44 percent).

c. A dictive to parcipate from their parent agency (24 percent) or if they

could persuade their national headquaners that CASU is a goo concept

(8 percent). 
d. Assurace they could return to the way they were if the CASU proved too

costly, inefficient or ineffective.

About one-half of the potential users say they either don t know (34 
Nore: 
percent) if their national parent agency suppons the CASUs or feel 
(14 percent).
their agency is very to somewhat  unsupporrive 
5. 
Regarding the likelihoo of their agency panicipating in the CASU in the futue, 
most potential users say: 
a. They wil probably or definitely use  some  CASU services (57 percent).

(30 percent ar unsure; 13 percent probably wil not.)

b. They wil probably or definitely nor use  all  CASU services (78 percent). 
progr 
6. The main incentives to parcipate in the CASU  mentioned by potential 
ar 
users  to: 
a. Achieve potential cost savings. (24) 
b. Receive better 
quality services. (8)  ... -_..- ... --_w-. -_.- .-...--- w ..--"..-- '""_n _r__
c. Receive the same quality of service at lower cost. (6) 
d. Obtain services not previously available. (5) 
7. The main disincentives to parcipating in the CASU listed by potential users are: 
a. Fear losing control over services. (12)

b. Fear losing staff to the CASU. (6) 
c. Risk that parcipation may increase rather than decrease co 
ts. (5) 
d. The requirement that users parcipate in all CASU services. (4) 
e. The user agency is too smal to have need for all CASU services. (4) 
Local Official Perceptions 
8. Most local officials say CASUs are actively marketing their services. 
a. The CASUs ar marketing their services using a wide varety of methods: 
Meeting with potential users to explain the CASU and its services.

Makng special presentations (both group and solo).

Sharng status repons and CASU newsletters with potential users.

b. Local offcials agree with users that CASUs are faily effective in enlisting 
the suppon of their tenant boards and local Federal Executive Boards in mar
keting effons. 
9. The CASUs are adding, or planning to add, new services. This is an indication 
of their perceived effectiveness and user support. 
a. Five of the 10 operating CASUs indicate increasing the number of avaiable 
services from those offered at the program s inception. 
b. Seven of the 10 operating CASUs plan to increase the number of offered ser
vices. 
c. The top 5 additional services CASUs plan to add are: 
Service  Number of CASUs 
Photocopying

Records Storage

Excess Ptopeny/Warhousing

Labor & Moving

Typing/Clerical
 CASU AND CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS ARE EFFECTWE. 
D. 
1. The CASU communications are rated as good to excellent by 83 percent of the 
users. 
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS 
EXceUENT (29)- 40. 
, VERY POR (1)- 1, 
POR (1)- 1. 
2. Most users say the CASU keeps them informed though regular repons, periodic 
meetigs or other means: 
Yes 
Repons  68%  30% 
Meetings  86%  11% 
3. 
ar 
Local CASU offcials agre that customer communications  effective. 
a. Offcials rate communications as excellent (53 percent) to goo 
(40 percent). 
b. They say users are kept informed on CASU operations mostly through peri
odc meetings, regular status 
report, and newsletters. 
c. User service issues or complaints are handled promptly and resolved effec
tively, accordig to the vast majority of CASU officials. 
CASU BILUG PROCEDURES ARE FAIR, EQUITABLE AND GENERALY UN
E. 
DERSTOOD BY USERS. 
1. Most users say CASU biling procedures ar fair and equitable and that they gen
eraly understand both the services biled and the biling procedures.  '" 
"", 
" ""':":""'"'' ,	 ....:.:.::.:.:::.::.:.:.::.!:.:.:.:'... , " '"'''''''''''"  "::.: ::'
7% 
FUU.Y(42)_ 63'
FAlR(52)- 81. 
1% " 
" OO KNOW (2)- 3. 
!::( 00 NOT (8)- 1 
NOT FAIR (10)- 15,
SOEWT 
(16)- 24, 
UNDERSTAND BILLING PROCEDURES?  ARE BILLING FAIR AND EQUITABLE 
a. Most users (83 percent) say they fully understand which specifc services are 
being biled by the CASU. 
b. Most users (88 percent) say they understand the CASU biling computation 
procedures. 
c. Most users  with 
(75 percent) say they have experienced  no biling problems 
the CASU (67 percent) or are unaware of any biling problems (8 percent). 
A few users (25 percent) repon having experienced such billing problems as 
, d. ,	
delays, incolTect bils (miscalculation, wrong agency) lack of itemization or 
supportg documentation, and risk of funds lapsing in the four quaner 
when credits for unused advance quanerly billngs ar not made timely. 
In most cases respondents indicated problems had been satisfactorily resolved 
by working with CASU staff. 
e. Most users (74 percent) say the CASU bils their agency for actual services re
cei ved. 
f. While a majority of users (70 percent) say their CASU prices its services on a 
unit cost basis, a substantial minority (30 percent) either indicate this is not 
the case or do not know. 
2. 
Responses of local offcials generally milTor those of users regarding CASU bil
ing procedurs. 
a. The CASU offcials say users fully understand both the services they 
biled for (100 percent) and the biling computation methods (96 percent). 
b. Dirctors at 9 of the 10 operational CASUs view their 
biling methods as fai 
and equitable. 
c. At 9 of the 10 operational CASUs, dictors say billngs normally are based 
on actual services received and usually are priced on a unit cost basis, when
ever appropqate.  CASU EVALUATIONS AND AUDITS DESERVE INCREASED EMPHASIS. 
1. Both users and local CASU offcials appear to be somewhat confused or unin
formed about whether their CASU' s chaner requires 1) an independent annual 
evaluation of CASU service delivery and user satisfaction, or 2) an annual fiscal 
audit. 
a. Only 40 percent of users sayan evaluation is required (5 percent say one is 
required, and 55 percent do not know).
not 
b. While 63 percent of local CASU offcials sayan evaluation is 
reuired, 15 
required, and 22 percent do not know. 
percent say one is  not 
c. Fully 63 percent of users do not know if an annual audit is required (25 per
cent think one is require, and 12 percent do not think an audit is requird). 
d. Only 39 percent of local CASU officials sayan annual audit is 
requird (32 
required, and 29 percent do not know). 
percent say one is  not 
2. Only 32 percent of users and 44 percent of the local CASU offCials report an 
evaluation has been conducted at their CASU. Of course, in the case of newly 
operational CASUs, an evaluation might be premature. 
Some local officials sayan evaluation has not been conducted because: 
The CASU is so new an evaluation would be premature. (4 CASUs)

The CASU is waiting until all services ar operational before an evaluation

is done. (1 CASU)

4. Only 4 users (6 percent) and the local officials at 1 CASU say their CASU' s fis
cal records have been audited. 
5. Some local offcials sayan audit has not been conducted because: 
The CASU is so new an audit would be prematur. (5 CASUs)

The lead agency looks at the CASU as its own operation and subject to its

own internal controls. (2 CASUs)

They haven t needed one, i.e., looking at the budget and other specific areas

shows everything is fine. (1 CASU)
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
Do Not Require Use of All Services 
var 
Since parcipant needs  widely, CASUs should not require users to utilize all offered ser
vices as a condition of parcipation. 
Comparative Assessments of Service Delivery Sources 
The national CASU board and staff should promote comparative assessments of the most prac
tical and cost-effective means of delivering CASU services, both among 'existing CASUs and 
in new CASUs to be formed. 
Standard Role Descriptions for CASU Governing Officials 
To enhance cooperation and shared expectations, all CASUs should be encouraged to adopt a 
stadard description of the roles and responsibilties of key CASU governing officials, such as 
that developed as pan of the Seattle evaluation. 
Unit Cost Pricing 
The national CASU staf should 
1. Encourge the broadest, appropriate application of unit cost pricing of services in all new 
and existing CASUs. This should enhance user understanding and aid in analysis of ser
vice cost trnds and cost comparsons of alternative service sources. 
2. 
Stress the imponance of clear, specific and timely user service bilings and assist new and 
existing CASUs in achieving this end. 
Annual User Evaluations and Periodic Fiscal Audits 
The national CASU 
staf and board should: 
1 . Formalize CASU policy to require a) annual user evaluations of CASU service delivery 
and user satisfaction, and b) periodic fiscal audits by the lead agency inspector general or 
audit agency. 
2. 
Develop, cooperatively with operational CASUs, suggested practical protocols for con
ducting CASU evaluations and audits. Regarding the evaluation protocol, we suggest use 
of simple evaluation tool , such as the form in the appendix.  COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
We shared the draft of our Executive Report on the CASU Program, and the three supporting 
technical repons, 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 
generaly 
are compiled from the three supporting technical reports in the GIG study. They 
agree with the findigs of the repons. The full text of the CASU officials' comments is in
cluded in the appendix of the Executive Repon.  APPENDIX 
COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT UNITS 
SERVICE EVALUATION TOOL  . '
n n  n n
K K K K
ent  Dan I t KI1:
 I)n I t  I)n I t Don I t  Do't  Do I t  Do't  Don't  Do't  't Don 
r
'le rer  les Much Rensive  Les Much COlWenent  Ver EOr  Much Wors  les CoistMlch  M. Wors  Mu Wors  Mu Wors  Cots Mu High 
n. d 
ens opo Les Reive les COlWenent  EOr  Wors  les COnsist: Sart Wors  Somt Wors  Sant Wors  Cots Sant  Ver Dissatistie. 
e
r
e approriate ved.  Sam As Before  Sam As Before  Fair  Sam As Before sa Before  Sam As Before  Sam As Before  Don't  Mxt Sam  Cots Sam As Beore  Sat: Distisfied we relvm 
:
cirlir thy repreiOJly  fore Rensive Sant colWenent  Bett  More COnsist: Sart: IDraed  Sart IDraed  Bett  Sart Sat Satisfied  the prolehe 
RF r ircators b reives or  Much fore Rensive Mu Mo Coenen Exent  Bett Much  Ckist Much fore  Grtly IDraed  Grtly IDraed  Yes  Bette Much  Gretly  Ver satified  seice am  
it s
wi h
e  t
foll eice e  ro  ice  e  e  ty    with 
Plea ific seice th for each of therate this CA sCClete shOOd form for each of the Coen 1uiberice 1. iUtv am th reivseice exen is rore tiy To wht or uner th c:r iJconven exen ha To wht due to the a.1S contl sed yo rate aver th C1 Hewdeliver uner  of ser ex 2. th seicquity of To wht is the bett urer th CA th ext: seicquity of un To wht is the coiste the JOre seice deive Jlthod or Hew have urer the telog iJra  of ser ilabili Ava3. affec ha the CA th aveIall availabiliHew seice? of th ex? Was available to spific seice agen before the CA  co 4. of serice th cc-effecvens seice of un Is the the bette or Wors  yo age' s cots for Hew have affec seice be by the  ovl yo th CAsatifacton with 5. Wht is seice? des exien 6. Plea briefly an prolem