THE EVOLUTION OF TELEWORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Wendell Joice, PhD

Office of Governmentwide Policy

US General Services Administration

February 2000
CONTENTS

PART ONE: GENERAL EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION 5

The Semantics of ‘Telework’: Telework = Telecommuting = Flexiplace 5

Overview 6

THE EARLY DAYS 7

Jack Nilles: Originator of Telecommuting 7

Frank Schiff: Originator of Flexiplace 8

Other Early Federal Work-at-Home Activity 9

An Early Example of Telework as Emergency Response 10

The Oldest Flexiplace Program 11

THE GOVERNMENTWIDE FLEXIPLACE YEARS 11

The Motivation for a Governmentwide Flexiplace

 Program 11

A Fascinating Occurrence 12

The PCMI Governmentwide Flexiplace Project 13

Flexiplace Implementation - Early Results

The First Federal Personnel Manual Letter on

 Flexiplace 13

The Final Report on the Work-at-Home Component

of Flexiplace 13

Initial White House and Congressional Support 14

The Telephone Bill 14

Initial Congressional Requirement To Assess

Telework Impact 14

National Performance Review 15
GSA/DOT LEADERSHIP ERA 15

The Clinton Family Friendly Workplace Memo #1 15

The National Information Infrastructure 16

GSA and DOT Team Up to Lead Federal Telework 17

The National Telecommuting Initiative 17

The Clinton Family-Friendly Workplace Memo #2 18

Research From DOT 18

Congressional Coalition Letter 18

National Performance Review and the NTI 19

OPM Publications and Teleworker Count 19

Congressional Hearings 20

GSA/OPM Telework Policy Review 20

The OSHA Controversy and Information Age

Workplace Policy 20

Conclusion of Part One 21

PART TWO: SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL TELEWORK

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES/WORKERS COMPENSATION 22

DOD Program for People With Disabilities 22

DOD CAP Program 22

Workers Compensation Activity 23

THE EMERGENCE OF FEDERAL TELECOMMUTING CENTERS

 (TELECENTERS) 24

Congressional Support for Federal Telecenters 25

Official Opening of Federal Telecenters 26

Emergency Response: The Northridge Earthquake 26

The Telecenter Lesson 27

Other California Partnerships 29

Other Special Response Telecenters: Oklahoma

City and Atlanta 29

The National Guard Bureau Distance Learning/

Telecenter Initiative 29

More Congressional Telecenter Activity 30

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 31

Climate Change Action Plan 31

Environmental Impact Research 32

Traffic Congestion and a Proposed Executive Order 32

Congressional Environmental Credit Plan 33
ALTERNATIVE OFFICING 33

The Federal Railroad Administration Alternative

 Officing Activity 34

Alternative Officing at the Department of Education

 and Other Agencies 35

THE INTERNATIONAL TELEWORK ASSOCIATION (ITAC) 35

Telecommute America! 35

A SPECIAL PARTNER: WMCOG 36

CONCLUSION: TODAY
THE EVOLUTION OF TELEWORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PART ONE: GENERAL EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

This paper documents the evolution of the Telework movement in

the Federal government. This movement, which has spanned the last

quarter century, is still unfolding and has yet to reach its

zenith.

AN EVOLUTION OF WORKPLACE CHANGE

The history of Federal telework reflects the evolution of one of

the most significant and progressive changes in work conditions

for Federal employees. Beginning during the last decade of the

20th century, the Federal telework movement reflected that

period’s interest in workforce impact on family, environment, and

general quality of life. It was also one of the most important

barometers of the transition from industrial age to information

age human resources and workplace management. It is a classic

study of the struggle for change in a 20th century bureaucracy.

Interestingly enough, it also shows how the efforts of a

relatively few resulted in a potential impact on the worklives of

1.8 million Federal workers.

THE SEMANTICS OF ‘TELEWORK’: TELEWORK = TELECOMMUTING = FLEXIPLACE

Since the inception of telework, there has been a continuing

controversy over terminology. Terms such as telework,

telecommuting, and Flexiplace have been widely used and confused.

There has been a lack of consensus as to (1) what each of these

terms means and (2) the difference between their definitions. For

ease of communication, we will sidestep this issue as follows:

for the purposes of discussion in this paper, we will treat the

terms telework, telecommuting, and Flexiplace as synonyms that

refer to the following:
A work arrangement

A work arrangement in which an employee regularly works at

an alternate worksite such as the employee's home, a

telecommuting center (Telecenter), or other alternate

worksite. A telecommuting alternate worksite is any

facility, in which the employee works, which saves that

employee a more lengthy commute (distance-wise and/or

time-wise) to a main worksite.

A main worksite is any facility where the employee would

normally perform work if there were no alternate worksite.

To be considered telecommuting, the work done must be in

paid status. Thus, for example, working at home extra hours

for which the employee is not paid is not telecommuting.

OVERVIEW

The evolution of Federal telework can be viewed as occurring in

several stages. An initial spurt of activity occurred in the late

70's and early 80's and appeared to fade out by the mid 80's.

This activity consisted of small scale pilots and experiments

conducted separately by individual agencies. A second stage,

featuring the first governmentwide Flexiplace pilot, began in

1989. This pilot focused on work-at-home arrangements. A third

stage introduced Federal telecommuting centers (telecenters) and

began in 1993. The activity levels of stages two and three began

to diminish somewhat and, in 1996, stage four, the National

Telecommuting Initiative (NTI), was implemented. This

governmentwide initiative contained ambitious goals (such as

60,000 Federal teleworkers by September of 1998). NTI activity

waned considerably by mid-1998 and plans were undertaken for a

reenergized NTI. The re-energized NTI, when implemented, will

represent a fifth stage. As of this writing, the latter activity

is still being defined and planned.

To provide an accurate context for this history, the reader

should note the following:

- This paper focuses on the development of formal Federal

telework programs which are characterized by formal policies,

procedures, and regular telework work schedules. This discussion

does not focus on the continuing use of informal work-at-home

practices utilized by many agencies [In a study conducted in 1989
(Cowley & Joice, 1989), it was found that a substantial number of

Federal agencies were already utilizing informal, as-needed

telework arrangements that were established typically on a caseby-case (individual employee) basis].

- Preceding and paralleling the history of formal Federal

Flexiplace is telework activity related to employees with

disabilities. Federal agencies such as DOD, Labor, GSA, and HHS

all played active roles in this arena. The history of telework

and physically challenged employees is a saga of its own, and

while it will be discussed briefly below, the interested reader

should see other sources (such as Hesse (1995) or Joice (1991))

for more detail.

THE EARLY DAYS

JACK NILLES: ORIGINATOR OF TELECOMMUTING

One of the earliest governmentwide policies relating to Federal

telework was in 1957 when the Comptroller General approved

payment of salaries, on a case-by-case basis, to Federal

employees for work done at home (see historical reference in GAO,

1992). The earliest effort to generate a Federal telework

program, however, appears to have occurred in the early 60's when

Jack Nilles, commonly considered to be the father of telework,

began teleworking from Los Angeles to Washington, DC while

working as a consulting rocket scientist to the US Air Force

Space Program. Inspired by this experience, Nilles coined both

the words “telecommuting” and “teleworking” in 1973. He began

promoting the value and importance of the concept and thus gave

birth to the telework movement.

Nilles (Nilles, 1999) suggests some irony in the fact that

although he coined ‘telecommuting/telework’ in conjunction with

research that was largely funded by the Federal government

(National Science Foundation), he was unable to generate Federal

interest in telework. This early lack of Federal interest enabled

the state government of California to earn the distinction of

being the first major public sector entity to adopt telework:

“... after completing the NSF project in 1974, I was

unsuccessful in inducing any other federal agency to test

telework or support further research on it (it was no one's

"mission"). So I ended up talking the state of California

into it a decade later in order to have a platform for

making the impact results public.” (Nilles, 1999)
FRANK SCHIFF: ORIGINATOR OF FLEXIPLACE

The first person to generate Federal experimentation with

telework was Frank Schiff. At the time, Schiff was Vice President

and Chief Economist for the Committee for Economic Development.

In 1979, Schiff published an article in the Washington Post in

which he challenged the Federal Government to look at management

practices, union rules, and Federal laws and regulations in an

effort to facilitate working at home as a means of improving

productivity, saving costs, and saving energy (this was at the

height of the energy crisis during that period). During that same

time, Schiff coined the term “Flexiplace” to “encompass not only

work-at-home but also such other flexible location arrangements

as satellite work centers. Flexiplace would be regarded as a

natural complement to the already existing Federal ‘Flexitime’

program. Moreover, in contrast to such terms as ‘telecommuting’,

it stressed increased flexibility in the location of work,

whether or not this is based on the use of telecommunications

equipment.” (Schiff, 1993)

Schiff’s coining of the term ‘Flexiplace’ is all the more

noteworthy since, eventually, the first governmentwide telework

program would be called Flexiplace for the reasons provided above

by Schiff. In fact, as of this writing (more than a decade after

the initial implementation of governmentwide Flexiplace), many

Federal agencies still refer to their telework programs as

‘Flexiplace’.

Schiff’s efforts led to a study conducted by the US Office of

Personnel Management, “Flexiplace: An Emerging Issue in Federal

Employment”:

The OPM paper first described the basic rationale for

Flexiplace. It cited a 1973 legal opinion by the Civil

Service Commission (OPM) which stated that there were no

laws which required Federal employees to perform their work

at a particular site. The paper then described various

existing or planned experiments with Flexiplace in the

private sector as well as the Federal Government....The

paper did not make any formal recommendations but was

clearly favorable to the Flexiplace concept. Unfortunately,

the report came out just five days before the 1980

Presidential election and the entire effort was apparently

discontinued when the new Administration took over (Schiff,

1993) 
According to Schiff, the OPM report detailed a group of smallscale Federal agency efforts: General Services Administration

(individual teleworker), Department of Labor (disabled employee),

Railroad Retirement Board (satellite work station), NASA

(neighborhood office center), and IRS (revenue agents).

OTHER EARLY FEDERAL WORK-AT-HOME ACTIVITY

Two additional early work-at-home experiments were conducted at

the National Institutes of Health and the Department of the Army.

The Army experiment, conducted at an Army facility in St. Louis,

was an 18 month activity implemented in 1980 to overcome work

scheduling difficulties. Despite the fact that the program

performed successfully (project manager evaluations), an army

audit team concluded that the potential benefits were exceeded by

the risks of fraud and abuse. As a result, the project was

discontinued. (Schiff, 1993)

Interestingly enough, I have learned that the Army auditors

privately admitted they would have approved the project if

it had been sponsored by a private firm. They were simply

afraid that with all the talk about fraud and abuse, the

Army would expose itself to too much criticism if it allowed

people to work at home!

This experience helps to illustrate why ... Flexiplace

programs petered out by the early 1980's. The emphasis of

the new Administration was on reductions in force and on

eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, and this was not

conducive to experimentation with Flexiplace. The lesson is

that if Flexiplace is to prosper, it needs the active,

visible, and sustained support of the people at the

top.(Schiff, 1993)

Despite the fact that the trend of single agency experimentation

with Flexiplace was fading out by the end of the 80's, there was

still some noteworthy activity. In July of 1989, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented a six month

Flexiplace pilot study at its Research Triangle Park facility in

North Carolina. This small pilot began with 11 participants and

was eventually extended. While the final report indicated some

significant problems, it was generally positive about the

feasibility of Flexiplace arrangements. The following year, the
Department of the Air Force implemented a six-month pilot at

several of its facilities.

AN EARLY EXAMPLE OF TELEWORK AS EMERGENCY RESPONSE

October, 17 1989, brought the Government an early experience with

telework as an emergency response strategy. At 5:04 pm that day,

the Loma Prieta earthquake severely damaged the EPA Region 9

office building in San Francisco, displacing nearly 800

employees. EPA responded by establishing an auxiliary command

post for 80 employees and work-at-home arrangements for the

remaining 700+ workers. By March, 1990, 60% of the displaced

employees were back in traditional (temporary) workstations while

the other 40% continued in Flexiplace awaiting the opening of a

new office building. EPA conducted several studies of this

experience, learned quite a bit about the feasibility and utility

of Flexiplace as both a general workplace strategy as well as an

emergency response strategy, and continues to use Flexiplace.

Following are a sample of findings from one of the EPA studies

(National Analysts, 1991):

- One long-term effect from the earthquake experience about which

there was a great deal of agreement was that there should be some

kind of work-at-home policy.

- Most of the interviewed managers and staff favored continuation

of the work-at-home program.

- While noting that this unplanned and suddenly-implemented

program was not an indication of the performance of a normally

implemented program, the study pointed out problems such as

getting supplies and services, inadequate home

environments/space, and psychological discomforts for some of the

workers.
THE OLDEST FLEXIPLACE PROGRAM

Finally, one agency, the National Credit Union Administration

(NCUA), probably has the distinction of having the longest

running formal Federal telework program. As early as 1934 when

the NCUA was the Federal Credit Union Bureau, credit union

examiners conducted their examinations at credit union sites and

then completed their reports at home. Neither the NCUA nor its

predecessor provided office space for credit union examiners.

Without much fanfare, the NCUA implemented a work-at-home program

for its auditors that is still operating successfully.

THE GOVERNMENTWIDE FLEXIPLACE YEARS

THE MOTIVATION FOR A GOVERNMENTWIDE FLEXIPLACE PROGRAM

In the late 1980's, there was an intense public focus on an

anticipated drop in the quality of the workforce entering the

21st century. This focus, which was especially pronounced among

the nation’s employers, was in part instigated by dire

predictions stemming from a Department of Labor report entitled

Work Force 2000 (Hudson, 1988). In response, the US Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) published a similar report, Civil

Service 2000 (Hudson, 1988), which focused on the Federal

employment picture. The following captures the essence of this

report:

“The Federal government faces a slowly emerging crisis of

competence. For years, many Federal agencies have been able

to hire and retain highly-educated, highly-skilled

workforces, even though their wages, incentives and working

conditions have not been fully competitive with those

offered by private employers. But as labor markets become

tighter during the early 1990's, hiring qualified workers

will become much more difficult. Unless steps are taken now

to address the problem, the average qualifications and

competence of many segments of the Federal workforce will

deteriorate, perhaps so much as to impair the ability of

some agencies to function.” (Hudson, 1988, p. 29)
This report and increasing concerns resulted in a Federal push

for solutions, especially non-salary incentives to enhance

Federal recruiting and retention. One such solution, adopted by

OPM, was to conduct a small telework pilot based on research and

recommendations on home-based employment (Joice, 1989).

A FASCINATING OCCURRENCE

Before OPM could implement its Flexiplace pilot, a fascinating

chain of events took place. A reporter scouring a Federal

management report (over 200 pages) (OMB, 1990), discovered and

became interested in the following one-liner:

Federal agencies will also begin pilot testing of employees

“working at home.“(p. 2-32)

This was the only mention of Flexiplace in the entire report.

Pursuing this, the reporter discovered and publicized the

aforementioned OPM plans. This publicity drew the attention of

the President’s Council on Management Improvement (an umbrella

group of agency associate directors for administration)(PCMI).

After some brief discussions between OPM and the PCMI, an

interagency PCMI task force led by OPM and GSA was established to

plan and implement the first governmentwide Flexiplace project.

Thus, the development of this landmark initiative was facilitated

by the aforementioned work of an enterprising reporter from the

Federal Times newspaper.

THE PCMI GOVERNMENTWIDE FLEXIPLACE PROJECT

In January of 1990, the PCMI approved and implemented its task

force plans and guidelines for a governmentwide Flexiplace pilot.

The “Guidelines for Pilot Flexible Workplace Arrangements” (PCMI,

1990) was a comprehensive document that eventually served as the

primary boilerplate for Federal agency Flexiplace policies as

well as for numerous private sector and state/local telework

programs. The basic tenets of these guidelines are still being

used today.
FLEXIPLACE IMPLEMENTATION - EARLY RESULTS

Flexiplace implementation plans called for one-year pilot tests

to be conducted by participating agencies and evaluated by OPM.

The tests, which were to be conducted over an 18 month period

ending in October 1991, were expected to cover between 1500 to

2000 participants.

The First Year:

Getting Flexiplace off the ground was a challenge. While

30 agencies initially expressed interest in participating,

only six agencies actually implemented programs during the

first year. In fact, six months after the official

implementation, Flexiplace had no participants and some very

worried project managers. By September of 1990, however, the

first three agencies,

- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Department of

Agriculture),

- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and

- Department of Interior, had implemented Flexiplace

programs. Other agencies followed and by the end of 1990

there were about 200 total participants.

THE FIRST FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL LETTER ON FLEXIPLACE

In March of 1991, OPM issued the first Federal Personnel Manual

letter (OPM, 1991) on Flexiplace. This letter, FPM letter 368-1,

encouraged agencies to participate in the pilot project and

provided, as an attachment, the initial Flexiplace FAQ’s.

THE FINAL REPORT ON THE WORK-AT-HOME COMPONENT OF FLEXIPLACE

In January, 1993, OPM published a final report (OPM, 1993) on the

work-at-home component of Flexiplace. At that time, approximately

700 Federal employees from 13 agencies were participating in

Flexiplace. The report was positive and recommended that the PCMI

endorse Flexiplace for use by Federal agencies. In October, 1993,

OPM sent a memorandum to Federal personnel directors confirming

agency authority to utilize Flexiplace arrangements, encouraging

agencies to use Flexiplace, and providing guidance on its use.

INITIAL WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT
Beginning as early as 1990 and continuing throughout the

evolution of Federal telework, the program has enjoyed bipartisan political support from both the executive and

legislative branches of government. In 1990, President Bush

endorsed telecommuting on several occasions:

“Telecommuting means saving energy, improving air quality and

quality of life. Not a bad deal” (Wheeler, 1990). During the same

year, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) included

telecommuting in its Statement of National Transportation Policy

which cited the rapid advancement of telecommunications

technology as providing for a “wide variety of options” in the

way people perform their work. Moreover, the Policy stated that

such technology would allow the decentralization of business

operations and thus permit more employees to work at home.

THE TELEPHONE BILL

The year 1990 also marked the beginning of a long and significant

track record of Federal telework support and involvement by Rep.

Frank Wolf (R, Va). Working collaboratively at that time with

Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska), Rep. Wolf introduced a bill that

would allow Federal agencies to pay for extra telephone lines,

related equipment, and fees needed in the homes of Federal

telecommuters. This bill, which was signed into law by President

Bush in November of 1990, removed one of the early barriers to

Federal telecommuting. Initially, this legislation was in the

form of a temporary exemption that was re-issued by Congress on

an annual basis. In 1996, however, the legislation was made

permanent.

INITIAL CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS TELEWORK IMPACT

In September, Congress passed an amendment (Wheeler, 1991) to the

DOT appropriations bill that required DOT and the Department of

Energy to evaluate “the economic, social, and public interest

impact of the practice of telecommuting.” Senator Conrad Burns

(R, Montana), the sponsor of the amendment presented the

amendment to President Bush, who eventually signed the package

into law.

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

In 1993, the Clinton administration began a series of actions

designed to encourage the growth of Federal telework. That year,

the National Performance Review (NPR) recommended that GSA and
OPM develop a legislative proposal to enable Flexiplace and

telecommuting arrangements for more Federal employees. It

further recommended that DOT create and evaluate telecommuting

programs (NPR, 1993).

GSA/DOT LEADERSHIP ERA

In 1994, there was a slight changing of the guard for

governmentwide telework leadership. GSA and DOT began working

together to lead the movement. Both agencies had been charged

with telework development responsibilities and realized that

collaborative leadership was in their best interests. OPM

continued to play an important and supportive role. During this

period, telework drivers such as ‘family friendly workplaces’ and

the ‘national information infrastructure’ (information highway,

etc.) arrived on the scene. The chronology for this is as

follows.

THE CLINTON FAMILY FRIENDLY WORKPLACE MEMO #1

In a July 1994 memorandum to all Federal agencies, President

Clinton adopted the National Performance Review's recommendation

that a more family-friendly workplace be created by expanding

opportunities for Federal workers to participate in flexible work

arrangements.

“in order to recruit and retain a Federal work force that

will provide the highest quality of service to the American

people, the executive branch must implement flexible work

arrangements to create a "family-friendly" workplace.”

The memo further directed that

- The head of each agency (1) establish a program to

encourage and support the expansion of flexible

family-friendly work arrangements, including telecommuting

and satellite work locations and (2) identify barriers and

recommendations for addressing such barriers to the

President's Management Council.

- OPM and GSA (1) work with agencies to support and expand

implementation of flexible work arrangements, (2) promptly

review and revise regulations that are barriers to such work

arrangements, and (3) develop legislative proposals, as

needed, to achieve the goals laid out in the memo.

- The President's Management Council (PMC) and the Office of

Management and Budget provide any necessary guidance.
In response to the above memo, OPM and GSA collaborated on a

Telework Workshop for Federal managers and OPM (OPM, 1995)

published a report on Federal government progress in helping

employees meet their work and family responsibilities.

THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

In 1994, the Clinton Administration established a priority

partnership with the private sector to develop an advanced

information infrastructure for the US: the National Information

Infrastructure (NII) (NIST, 1994). An interagency and

public/private task force, led by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (US Department of Commerce)

was established to shape the vision of the NII. Participating on

that task force and focusing on how the NII could impact both

work and personal life, GSA (Master and Joice, 1994) put together

a white paper detailing how telecommuting can be an NII

application that can improve the quality of life. Along with

seven other papers on NII applications, the telecommuting paper

was published with quite a bit of fanfare by the Administration’s

NII task force in the fall of 1994.

This event signaled a new and stronger appreciation and

utilization of the role of technology in Federal telecommuting.

Prior to this activity, Federal telework had been, perhaps,

overly cautious in stressing that telecommuting was not

technology-dependent. In fact, as mentioned above, Federal use of

the term ‘Flexiplace’ was based on a desire to demonstrate the

independence of telework from technology.
GSA AND DOT TEAM UP TO LEAD FEDERAL TELEWORK

As mentioned earlier, by 1994 it became very clear that given the

telework assignments given to DOT and GSA, the two agencies

should collaborate in leading the Federal telework movement. The

implementation of this partnership was highlighted by a jointly

produced revision of the Federal telecommuting manual (DOT,

1994). The efforts of these two agencies led to a new

governmentwide telecommuting initiative, the National

Telecommuting Initiative.

THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUTING INITIATIVE

In January 1996, in order to give Federal telework an apparently

much-needed boost, the President’s Management Council (PMC)

implemented the National Telecommuting Initiative (NTI). The

general mission of the NTI was to boost, primarily, the number of

Federal teleworkers and, secondarily, the number of teleworkers

in other sectors of the US workforce. Led by DOT and GSA in

conjunction with an interagency taskforce, the NTI became the

first governmentwide telework initiative to set numerical goals:

60,000 Federal teleworkers by October 1998 and 160,000 by the end

of 2002.

One of the initial activities of the NTI was to conduct a survey

of Federal agencies to determine the number of Federal

teleworkers at the time (NTI, 1996). Agency response to the

survey was hampered by the fact that few agencies had any

established means of counting their teleworkers. The resulting

uneven and possibly inaccurate response from the agencies

indicated approximately 9,000 Federal teleworkers. In a

subsequent audit of the aforementioned survey response, the US

General Accounting Office (GAO) found numerous reporting errors.

GAO concluded, however, that since understatements and

overstatements were nearly equal, the reported total number of

teleworkers could be assumed to be a reasonable, if shakey,

estimate.

Over time, however, the NTI did not fare very well (See OPM

Teleworker Count below). The expected boost in Federal teleworker

numbers did not occur and by the end of 1998, GSA and DOT were

considering ways to improve/reenergize the NTI. These planning

efforts are still a work in progress.

THE CLINTON FAMILY-FRIENDLY WORKPLACE MEMO #2
In June 1996, following up on his 1994 Family Friendly Workplace

memo to all Federal agencies, President Clinton directed agency

heads to (1) review their personnel practices, (2) develop a plan

of action to utilize the flexible policies already in place,

(3) expand their ability to provide family friendly workplaces

(including opportunities to telecommute), and (4) where feasible,

to achieve the goal of 60,000 telecommmuters by 1998 as set by

the President's Management Council. He further directed agencies

to report their progress to the Vice President through the

National Performance Review. “The National Performance Review,

together with the Domestic Policy Council, the President's

Management Council Working Group on Telecommuting, the Office of

Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration

will continue to work with the executive agencies as we move

forward together to increase productivity through family friendly

work environments.”

RESEARCH FROM DOT

Also in 1996, Congress directed DOT to examine telecommuting

issues such as the benefits and limitations of different

approaches to implementation, keys to successful programs, and

potential roles of Federal, state, and local governments in

promoting telecommuting. In 1997, DOT published its research

report, “Successful Telecommuting Programs in the Public and

Private Sectors: A Report To Congress” (DOT, 1997). This

assignment reflected the growing Federal interest in the

development of all telework, not just Federal telework.

CONGRESSIONAL COALITION LETTER

In October 1996, still concerned about the lagging growth of

Federal telework, a coalition of eight members of the House of

Representatives wrote a letter to all agency heads extolling the

value of telecommuting and encouraging exploration of

telecommuting options available.
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND THE NTI

In 1997, Vice President Gore communicated, to all Federal

agencies, findings from a National Performance Review (NPR)

analysis of agency reports on family friendly workplace progress.

He noted “areas of achievement as well as areas which require a

great deal more effort.” One of the latter areas was

telecommuting:

“.... as many of you already understand, we must intensify

our efforts to make telecommuting more readily available to

our workers, not just in times of personal or medical

emergency, but as an important management strategy. The

accessibility of more than two dozen federal telecommuting

centers, the advances in information technology, and the

proven effectiveness of work-at-home arrangements, should

give us the confidence that we can meet the challenge of

60,000 federal telecommuters by the end of fiscal year

1998.....”

He urged agency heads to provide the strong leadership needed to

create a family friendly workplace culture.

OPM PUBLICATIONS AND TELEWORKER COUNT

That same year, OPM issued a revised version of its 1995

publication, ‘Balancing Work and Family Demands Through

Telecommuting’ (OPM, 1997), as well as a telework briefing tool

called ‘The Telework Briefing Kit’ (OPM, 1997).

In early 1998, Reps Wolf and Hoyer requested OPM to conduct a

study of Federal agency family friendly efforts and to include an

update on telecommuting progress. In October 1998, OPM published

its response to the Congressional request. A featured finding in

the report was a case of good news/bad news. The good news was

that the number of Federal teleworkers had grown to about 25,000.

The bad news was that this was less than half of the PMC goal of

60,000 expected by that time. At approximately 1% of the Federal

workforce, this finding was also significantly lower than the

various estimates (ranging from 8% to 11%) for the percentage of

teleworkers in the US workforce.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS
Beginning in late 1999, the Congressional Workforce and Education

Committee began a series of examinations and hearings into the

reasons for the continuing slow growth of telework in the Federal

government as well as in the U.S. workforce. This Congressional

activity is underway as of this writing.

GSA/OPM TELEWORK POLICY REVIEW

In mid-1999, GSA and OPM began telework policy examinations in

two directions. The first direction focused on existing workplace

policy and its adequacy for supporting the Federal teleworkplace.

For example, issues began to arise regarding the definition of an

employee’s official duty station and its relationship to regular

and travel pay. It had become clear that numerous Federal

workplace policies needed to be revised and/or clarified in view

of the advance of telework (The importance of this activity was

highlighted by a major public controversy over employer

responsibility for home worksites - see OSHA below). The second

direction focused on advancements in Federal telework such as

working anytime/anywhere, alternative officing (hotelling, e.g.),

and telework-assisted dependant care. It was clear that pilot

tests and accompanying new policy were needed to implement these

advanced aspects of telework. Currently, GSA and OPM are planning

this activity.

THE OSHA CONTROVERSY AND INFORMATION AGE WORKPLACE POLICY

In November, 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) of the US Department of Labor (DOL) issued

an interpretation letter in response to an employer inquiry on

employer responsibility for the safety and health conditions of

teleworker home worksites. In essence, the letter implied that

employers were responsible and liable for such conditions at

teleworker home worksites. In January 2000, the OSHA letter was

highlighted in a Washington Post article. This set off a

firestorm of criticism and concern based on explicit aspects of

the letter and implications drawn by the media, telework groups,

Congress, and others. Rep. Wolf and others threatened

Congressional action unless the letter was withdrawn. The DOL

withdrew the letter and planned a detailed examination to be

conducted in conjunction with relevant public and private

organizations and experts. Prior to the examination, however, at

a subsequent Congressional hearing, the DOL changed its official

interpretation and stated that, except for dangerous

manufacturing applications, employers would not be

responsible/liable for the safety and health of home worksites.
Because of other problems as well as the need for further

clarification of specific issues, Congress requested a

continuation of plans for a collaborative detailed examination

and report. The issue is still being deliberated as of this

writing.

This was a significant event for at least two reasons. First, it

highlighted the existing mismatch between information age

workplace policy/practices and outdated industrial era policies,

procedures, and management culture. This need for updating

industrial era policy and procedure was pinpointed heavily in the

Congressional hearings and attendant media coverage. Secondly, it

signaled the advent of a major policy shift regarding employer

responsibility and the safety and health of worksites in the

information age.

CONCLUSION OF PART ONE

The above discussion covered, past to present, the general

history of Federal telework. As you can see, at the time of this

writing, there are new areas of telework action and energy that

are beginning to unfold. In addition to general events, however,

there were several streams of special applications of Federal

telework that paralleled the general telework activity. These are

discussed below.
PART TWO : SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL TELEWORK

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES/WORKERS COMPENSATION

DOD PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

In April of 1993, Judith Gilliom, a manager in the Department of

Defense (DOD) Office of Civilian personnel, formally introduced

telework as a DOD work option for people with disabilities. This

Flexiplace project began with a one-year demonstration program.

At the end of the demonstration period, the program transitioned

into an on-going, supported work option. This was the first

formal Federal effort to utilize the new Flexiplace initiative

for people with disabilities:

“The DOD program grew out of a larger effort to create new

opportunities for persons with disabilities in the DOD

civilian workforce. The goal was to create a diverse

workforce in which at least 2% of all civilians employed

would be employees with disabilities. Flexiplace was seen as

a way of meeting that goal by offering an attractive work

alternative to prospective employees. During the uncertain

period of base closures, reductions in force, and changes in

administration during the early 90's the DOD altered its

goal from creating new opportunities to enhancing current

positions” (Hesse, 1995, p. 419)

Findings from the demonstration program supported the conclusion

that telework can be useful for persons with disabilities across

a wide range of practice and should be a continuing work option.

This DOD telework option for persons with disabilities is

functioning actively today.

DOD CAP PROGRAM

Since its inception in 1990, DOD’s Computer/Electronic

Accommodations Program (CAP) has provided the equipment and

assistive technology for people with disabilities to work at home

or other alternate worksites (CAP, 1999). Working together, CAP

and the DOD Flexiplace program for people with disabilities found

that Flexiplace is an effective accommodation and recruitment

tool for people with disabilities. CAP’s target groups include:

- Recipients of workers’ compensation payments;

- Persons who are being subjected to disability retirement;
- DOD employees with disabilities who could be more

productive if they were allowed to work part or all of the

week at home or in some other off-site location; and

- Persons with disabilities who have been unable to be

employed because their disabilities make it difficult for

them to function in a federal workplace on a regular basis.

Assistive devices supplied by CAP can:

- Allow injured employees to continue working in some

capacity;

- Help employees return to work after injury in a more

timely manner; and

- Help prevent further debilitation.

Today, CAP reports continuously increasing numbers of recipients

of its services.

EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM ON EMPLOYING PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT DISABILITIES UTILIZING

ALTERNATE WORK SITES

In July 2000, President Clinton issued an executive memorandum

directing all Federal agencies to (1) identify positions that can

be relocated to alternate worksites and that can be filled by

qualified individuals, including those with significant

disabilities and (2) regarding the identified positions, develop

an action plan for encouraging the recruitment and employment of

qualified individuals with significant disabilities.

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACTIVITY

During the early 90's, agencies such as the Tennessee Valley

Authority, the Department of Labor, and DOD (as mentioned above)

began experimenting with the use of telework to (1) provide

opportunities for recipients of workers compensation and (2)

reduce the size and expense of the Workers’ Compensation (WC)

Program.

Three major difficulties were uncovered:

- A risky situation for WC recipients who make the effort to

use telework to return to work (The risk is that if, for

some reason, the telework option does not work for the

recipient, the recipient may have a difficult time returning

to WC support.);

- A mistaken general belief by employers that WC recipients

are not interested in returning to work;
- An informal finding that some WC recipients would not be

welcome back to their workplaces.

The latter two difficulties are program issues that could be

overcome with a well-managed program initiative; the first

difficulty (recipient risk), however, requires a legislative fix.

Faced with such difficulties, efforts to develop a feasible and

comprehensive telework option for Workers’ Compensation faded out

by the mid-90's. Various small initiatives continue to tackle

this challenge. Currently, however, the absence of any Federal

policy, legislation, and/or program established to bring the

benefits of telework to Worker’s Compensation continues to be a

significant lost opportunity.

THE EMERGENCE OF FEDERAL TELECOMMUTING CENTERS (TELECENTERS)

The original Flexiplace guidelines called for pilot testing of

telecenters as well as work-at-home programs. Telecenters are

geographically convenient satellite offices shared by several

agencies and/or other employers. ‘Geographically convenient’

refers to being established in locations close to the residences

of potential Federal users. Telecenters serve the needs of those

employees who want/need a reduced commute but who require the

structure, social environment, technology, and/or other resources

that are typically not available in a home setting.

Because work-at-home programs involved fewer resources and less

complexity, the initial phase of Flexiplace focused on work-athome programs as opposed to telecenters. In the summer of 1991,

the Flexiplace project management team began planning/designing

Federal telecenters. By that time, the project management team

was an active participant in the Telecommuting Advisory Council

(see ITAC, below). Inspired by Flexiplace updates at Council

meetings, Marsha Fuller, a consultant from Hagerstown, Maryland,

approached the project management team with the idea that

Hagerstown would be a good pilot location for the telecenter

initiative. Working with the project management team, Ms. Fuller

was able to interest the Hagerstown mayor and business community

in the idea. Thus, began the initial negotiations and concrete

planning for the first Federal telecenter. Ironically, Hagerstown

was not to be the first official Federal telecenter. Ms. Fuller

mounted her own campaign on behalf of Federal telecenters. She

was able to engineer helpful publicity as well as Congressional

interest.

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL TELECENTERS
In 1992, a variety of Washington DC area congressional

representatives began work on establishing Federal telecenters.

Tom McMillen (D, Md) began by drafting authorizing legislation

that would place responsibility for development of Federal

telecommuting in the Commerce Department (NTIA). In subsequent

hearings held by McMillen, several testifying agencies (including

Commerce) objected to the plan. This proposed legislation was

soon dropped due partly to negative Federal reaction and, even

moreso, to McMillen’s re-election loss a few months later.

Meanwhile, on a separate Congressional front, Reps Hoyer (D, Md)

and Wolf (R, Va) drafted appropriations language that would

provide $5 million to fund three telecenters (one in Hoyer’s

district of southern Maryland, one in Wolf’s district of northern

Virginia, and one in McMillen’s Maryland eastern shore district).

In September 1992, this appropriation was approved and included

in the Treasury, Postal, etc. Appropriations Bill (Public law

102-393;106 Stat. 1745). The purpose of the legislation was to

test the effectiveness of telecenters in helping to alleviate

area air quality and traffic congestion problems and in promoting

a more family-friendly workplace.

As a result of further political activity, the preceding

appropriation was amended (by Public Law 103-123; 107 Stat. 1241)

in October, 1993. The amendment made the following changes:

- added an additional one million dollars to the appropriation,

- added Hagerstown, Md and Fredericksburg, Va to the list of

telecenter pilot locations, and

- dropped the Maryland eastern shore district as a telecenter

pilot location.
OFFICIAL OPENING OF FEDERAL TELECENTERS

Prior to the influx of Congressional funding, GSA and Hagerstown,

assisted by private sector resources, established what can be

called a preliminary telecenter located at the Hagerstown Junior

College. While this was a worthwhile early effort, it was not an

official Federal telecenter. Operation of official Federal

telecenters began with the opening of the Winchester, Virginia

telecenter. Between October 1993 and May 1994, GSA established

four pilot telecenters in the greater Washington metropolitan

area - two each in Maryland and Virginia. Initially, telecenters

ranged from 10 to 30 workstations in size. The first four pilot

telecenters offered a combined total of 80 workstations to 143

participants and achieved a workstation utilization rate of 55

percent by December 1994. Customer agencies paid a subsidized

rate of $100 per workstation per month. Sites included:

- a 26-workstation facility in Winchester, Virginia in

partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Transatlantic Division and the Winchester-Frederick County

Economic Development Commission (opened in October 1993 with

14 workstations);

- a 10-workstation facility at the Hagerstown Junior College

in partnership with the City of Hagerstown and the U.S. Army

Garrison at Fort Ritchie, Maryland (opened in October 1993);

- a 14-workstation facility in Charles County, Maryland in

partnership with the Charles County Community College

(opened in May 1994); and

- a 30-workstation facility in Spotsylvania County, Virginia

(just south of Fredericksburg) in partnership with the

Rappahannock Area Development Corporation (opened in May

1994).

By December 1994, 20 organizations in 10 Executive Branch

Departments and Agencies were participating in the four centers.

Agencies with the most significant participation included GSA,

the Department of Defense (DOD), and DOT.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE: THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE

In response to the Northridge (California) earthquake in 1994,

GSA initiated the first use of telecenters as an emergency
response measure. Only weeks after the January 17 earthquake, GSA

established three emergency telecenters in the Los Angeles

metropolitan area. These centers helped Federal workers avoid

what for many had become a six-hour round-trip commute.

CUSTOMERS AS TELECOMMUTERS. Importantly, not only Federal employees

benefitted from the markedly reduced commuting time afforded by

the California emergency telecenters. Agency customers were also

spared the long trip into downtown Los Angeles. For example,

taxpayers in the Santa Clarita Valley could get help from IRS

employees at the Valencia Telecommuting Center only five or ten

minutes away. Similarly, veterans could substitute a tedious

drive into west Los Angeles with a short, pleasant one to the

same facility to receive guidance from a Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) benefits counselor.

Given management resistance to flexible workplace arrangements,

even during an emergency, results were impressive through much of

1994. Despite little or no customer input on the location or

size of the telecenters, utilization rates at two of the three

telecenters were relatively high: the Valencia site (38

workstations) operated at 87 percent of capacity during the

emergency while the 29-workstation Westlake site was at 62

percent utilization well into FY 1994. The Sherman Oaks site

with 32 workstations was at 34 percent utilization at its peak.

GSA made these centers available cost-free to interested agencies

through the end of FY 1994 and experienced an overall utilization

rate of 63 percent through the emergency period.

All told, ten Executive Branch Departments or Agencies

participated in the Los Angeles area emergency telecenter effort

including: GSA, IRS, VA, the Departments of Defense (DOD),

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor (DOL), Transportation

(DOT), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM), and the Corporation for National

Service (CNS).

THE TELECENTER LESSON

The goal of the California Federal telecenters was twofold: to

serve as an emergency response tool and to continue existing as

an on-going telework option. In 1994, however, the emergency

Federal telecenters experienced the following lesson which had

been learned previously by non-Federal telecenters:
Telecenters emerged ahead of their time. In order to get

started, most telecenters operated on a subsidy or emergency

funding of some sort. This allowed them price their services

at discount rates that were well below market rates and low

enough to be a non-issue for employers. To succeed, however,

these centers would need to be self-supporting. To achieve

such independence, most telecenters eventually tried the

obvious route of increasing their fees to market level

rates. Raising fees to market levels, however, had the

additional impact of putting telecenter fee levels on

employer radar screens. Employers were faced with the

prospect of paying the now-significant telecenter fees IN

ADDITION TO the ongoing expenses for their teleworkers’ main

office space: thus, employers were paying double overhead

for each teleworker using a telecenter. The bottom line

result was that the raising of telecenter fees from

discounted (subsidized) levels to market levels highlighted

the double overhead problem and reduced the number of paying

customers.

Another factor that reduced the number of paying customers

was (and continues to be) ongoing management resistance to

telework, in general, regardless of cost.

Two major culture changes would be required to make

telecenters viable: (1) a changed management culture that

would be more amenable to flexible workplaces, and (2) a

changed organizational culture that would be receptive to

alternative officing/space saving applications as part of

more efficient facility management. For example, space

vacated, partially or fully, by teleworkers would be

released, consolidated, reconfigured, sub-leased etc. to

reduce main office space costs; resulting cost savings would

more than offset the typically lower costs for telecenter

workstations. As of this writing, neither of the

aforementioned culture changes has occurred in the majority

of Federal workplaces. (For more detail on this discussion,

see the section on alternative officing).

By December of 1994, due to the aforementioned issues, only one

of the California emergency Federal telecenters (Valencia)

continued to function. Given the mixed-use of this center,

serving both telecommuters and customers, and its relatively high

utilization rate, the Valencia site was able to continue to

function with little or no subsidy.
OTHER CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIPS

To build on this well-received start, GSA explored telecenter

partnerships with state and local officials throughout

California. These prospective partnerships were designed to make

enterprising use of existing public assets (e.g., underutilized

space, equipment, human resources), thus reducing the cost for

telecenter participants and their employers. In these

arrangements of low cost telecenter partnerships (which were

designed for both public and private employer use), Federal

agencies were tenants and paid a customer fee ranging from $100-

$150 per workstation per month. By December 1994, for example,

Federal employees had already begun telecommuting from four such

sites in the Los Angeles area.

OTHER SPECIAL RESPONSE TELECENTERS: OKLAHOMA CITY AND ATLANTA

With the same expedience demonstrated in the aftermath of the Los

Angeles earthquake, GSA established two emergency telecenters in

the Oklahoma city area within weeks after the bombing of the

Federal Building and four telecenters in Atlanta in response to

traffic congestion needs associated with the 1996 Summer

Olympics. As with the Los Angeles telecenters, these were not

part of the aforementioned Congressional telecenter

appropriation; these latter efforts were funded by special

authority of the Federal Buildings Fund. While the Atlanta

centers continue to operate, the Oklahoma centers have closed.

The closure of the Oklahoma centers is not surprising since

Oklahoma city was not on the list of areas having a high need for

telecenter intervention for traffic congestion and/or air

pollution.

THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU DISTANCE LEARNING/TELECENTER INITIATIVE

In 1995, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) was working on a major

nationwide project to convert many of its armories into high-tech

training centers capable of delivering distance-learning to

guardspeople. Inspired by information on Federal telecenters, the

NGB proposed and obtained a partnership with the Federal

telecenter program. The partnership was based on the fact that

the NGB expected to conduct its training activity in the

training centers during non-business hours (evenings and

weekends), leaving the centers free for telecenter use during

normal business hours. In addition to improving the utilization

and revenue for NGB armory/centers, this partnership provided a

major increase in the number of Federal telecenter facilities and
telecenter association with a well-funded national program. An

additional benefit of the NGB partnership was that the NGB

program brought a diversified revenue stream to the telecenter

business: providing training and distance learning in addition to

workstations. Telecenter managers had begun to realize that such

diversification of their offerings could enhance their chances

for success.

Thus, the NGB integrated telecenter workstations into its program

offerings and, in conjunction with GSA, began establishing

distance learning/telecenter facilities (primarily in Maryland).

Due to a variety of inter-organizational difficulties, however,

the NGB/GSA partnership eventually languished and currently

exists minimally if at all. The NGB, however, has pushed ahead,

on its own, with the integrated (distance learning + telecenter)

model for its on-going initiative. Currently, the NGB has more

than 180 distance learning facilities in operation.

MORE CONGRESSIONAL TELECENTER ACTIVITY

In 1996, in a continuing effort to jumpstart the generally

underutilized Federal telecenters (Interagency Telecenter

Program) in the Washington DC area, Congress passed a good news/

bad news bill. The good news was that

(1) GSA was authorized to ‘establish, acquire space for, and

equip’ telecenters for use any public or private sector employee

(Thus, not only was GSA formally authorized to get into the

telecenter business, but GSA-sponsored telecenters would no

longer be limited to Federal employee use.);

(2) telecenter user fees could be used to bolster telecenter

program operating funds; and

(3) agency heads were requested to ‘consider whether the need for

...facilities can be met using alternative workplace

arrangements’ such as telecommuting.

The bad news for the infant telecenter program was that for each

individual telecenter, GSA would be required to charge user fees

that would recover the costs of establishing and operating the

center. This would result in significantly higher fees, possibly

reducing utilization and killing the program.

By 1998, total Congressional funding for the Washington DC

metropolitan area telecenters had reached $11 million dollars and

the number of associated telecenters had grown to 16. In 1999,

Reps Wolf and Hoyer authored additional telecommuting

legislation. This language

(1) required Federal agencies to set aside an annual minimum of
$50,000 for telecenter user fees;

(2) appropriated an additional $2.1 million for telecenter

development; and

(3) established a family friendly support office at OPM.

As of this writing, it has been less than a year since this

legislation became law; its impact, thus far, has been minimal.

The telecenters are quickly approaching a make or break point in

their existence. As mentioned above, they have been gradually

raising their user fees to attempt to recover costs and become

self-sufficient. Interestingly enough, their customer base and

overall utilization rates remain stable (possibly due to the

$50,000 funding requirement mentioned above). It will be

interesting to see if they can hold on until the culture of

facility management becomes more amenable to their existence.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN

In 1993, the White House published “The Climate Change Action

Plan” focusing on environmental issues. Development of telework

was one of the plan’s action areas. The plan assigned EPA and DOT

to take a series of actions designed to promote home-based and

center-based telecommuting. The plan requested that:

 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in

consultation with DOT, issue guidance to states to take

pro-telecommuting measures (e.g., reforming local

zoning ordinances; providing employer trip reduction

and tax incentives; and implementing telecommuting

programs for state and local employees);

 DOT encourage states to use Federally provided

transportation funds to initiate or expand

telecommuting programs;

 DOT implement a Federal telecommuting pilot project

with the goal of getting one to two percent of Federal

employees to work at home at least one day a week; and

 DOT, in conjunction with other agencies, promote parttime, home-based telecommuting to reduce traffic

congestion and promote energy conservation.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESEARCH

In 1993, DOT became a major force in the development of Federal

telecommuting when it published its now classic study on telework
and transportation. Nicknamed the ‘redbook’ because of its bright

red cover, ‘Transportation Implications of Telecommuting’ was the

first comprehensive research-oriented treatment of this topic by

a Federal entity. It is still widely used today.

Soon afterward, the Department of Energy published another

transportation-related research report (DOE, 1994). This report

provided detailed analysis of energy and emissions consequences

of telework.

These latter reports finally gave Federal telework a sound

empirical quantitative basis for its assertions of telework’s

environmental benefits. Both research efforts, however, faced a

problem that continues today: the fact that teleworkers are not

numerous enough to provide credible direct evidence on

environmental impact. Consequently, both reports relied heavily

on analysis via models and projected data. While both reports

indicated future promise for telework impact on the environment

(traffic congestion, air pollution, energy conservation), their

estimates indicated modest impacts which served to tone down some

of the claims being made by telework advocates.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND A PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER

During the latter half of the 90's, most urban areas were being

deluged by traffic congestion problems. Prominent among these was

the Washington Metropolitan Area whose Board of Trade and council

of local governments had repeatedly produced studies warning of

the impending perils due to the increasing traffic congestion. In

response to this, the Clinton Administration directed the DOT to

take the lead on a Federal response. One of the resulting Federal

responses was to set up an interagency effort to draft an

executive order. The taskforce assigned to draft the order

favored the inclusion of a strong statement on telecommuting that

would require the Federal government to take on more

responsibility by significantly reducing its share of the

congestion.

Eight months after the original draft was submitted by DOT to

OMB, however, it had not been signed into action and was

considered dead in the water. This caused concern among some of

the telework advocates in Congress and, in February 2000, Rep.

Wolf introduced legislation to require the President to sign and

implement the executive order. Shortly thereafter, OMB revised

the draft executive order, deleting all mention of telework and

focusing on transportation subsidies. President Clinton issued
this version as executive order 13150 in the spring of 2000.

Needless to say, this was a major source of consternation in the

telework advocacy community.

CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CREDIT PLAN

In the summer of 1999, motivated by mounting concerns over urban

traffic congestion as well as the continuing slow development of

telework, Rep. Wolf, now chairman of the House Appropriations

Subcommittee on Transportation, introduced a bill to pilot test

financial incentives to businesses that let employees work from

home on various days. Rep. Wolf’s pilot program, to be conducted

in five metropolitan areas, would give voluntarily participating

firms pollution credits that they would be free to sell in deals

with other businesses and nonprofit groups, Federal and state

governments and schools and universities. The bill was enacted

into law and a task force that includes DOT, EPA, and DOE was

established to design and implement the program. The design

effort is currently underway.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICING

In the mid 1990's, a new driver for Federal telework began to

surface. This driver is reduced facility costs. It was noted that

with sufficient utilization of telework, an agency could

reconfigure its main worksite to take advantage of the fact that

at least part of the time, there could be a significant amount of

work space, vacated by teleworkers, that is not in use. The

resulting reconfiguration based on options such as hotelling,

mini-workstations, desk sharing, team space, etc. could enable

employers to achieve significant reductions in operating costs

through reductions in main worksite space, through leasing or

sub-leasing of main worksite space, and/or through consolidations

of main worksite space.

This ‘alternative officing’ is a by-product of the telework

movement. Because it requires a new management view toward the

possession and handling of office real estate, it is a culturechange movement in itself.

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION ALTERNATIVE OFFICING ACTIVITY

(From July 28, 1999, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION’S

REPORT ON TELECOMMUTING)
In 1995, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented a

telecommuting plus alternative officing program in 22 Railroad

Safety Inspector field offices around the country. Safety

Inspectors who volunteered for the program telecommuted full-time

from their homes and their traditional office space was

eliminated. By January 1997, the FRA had closed seven field

offices, reduced space in two others, and saved approximately

$80,000. In FY 1997, the FRA closed 5 more field offices and

reduced space in 3 offices resulting in an annual savings of

$84,644. In FY 1998, FRA closed 6 field offices and reduced space

in 4 offices, resulting in a cost savings of $87,285. As of this

writing, no new FRA field offices have been established.

In this case, telecommuting was not considered a condition of

employment and participating employees could elect to terminate

their arrangements with 3 months advance notice. FRA would then

be required to find and provide traditional workspace for the

telework-terminating inspector(s). As of this writing, only one

telecommuting inspector has requested termination of his

telecommuting arrangement. Approximately 65% (185 employees) of

the FRA’s inspector workforce telecommutes on a permanent basis.

Current FRA telecommuting goals continue to be focused on

reducing facility costs, improving employees’ well-being through

maximization of participation and improving operational

efficiency.
ALTERNATIVE OFFICING AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND OTHER AGENCIES

In 1996, the Department of Education used an alternative officing

solution to deal with budgetary problems. Using a combination of

hotelling and home workstations, Education was able to reduce

facility costs in regional field office locations. These savings

enabled Education to save 24 jobs that otherwise would have been

lost.

Other agencies that have reported alternative officing activity

are the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Defense

Contract Audit Agency.

THE INTERNATIONAL TELEWORK ASSOCIATION (ITAC)

In the early 90's, at the very beginning of the PCMI Flexiplace

initiative, Federal planners realized that telework activity

spanned far beyond the Federal sector and that information,

support, technical assistance, and numerous other benefits could

be obtained by joining a small but growing advocacy group which

at that time was called the Telecommuting Advisory Council (now

called the International Telework Association and Council). OPM

and GSA both participated actively in ITAC; GSA is still heavily

involved in ITAC. Over the years, ITAC and Federal agencies

partnered on numerous mutually beneficial activities in support

of the telework movement. One of the primary partnership

activities, which began in 1995, was ‘Telecommute America!’ which

is discussed below.

TELECOMMUTE AMERICA! (NOW CALLED TELEWORK AMERICA!)

In 1994, after conducting a successful event which set aside a

special day for company-wide telecommuting and telecommuting

focused activity, AT&T contacted EPA, GSA, and the Association

for Commuter Transportation (ACT). AT&T’s purpose was to propose

a similar activity on a national scale. Out of these discussions

emerged plans for Telecommute America! (now called Telework

America!). Telework America! (TWAM) is a public/private

partnership designed to promote and support the growth of

telecommuting in the US. TWAM’s initial founding sponsors

included AT&T, EPA, GSA, ACT, ITAC, and the US Department of

Commerce. Using major funding from AT&T and EPA, TWAM was

implemented as a week-long, nationwide slate of telework events

in 1995. The Federal government has used TWAM as a forum to focus

attention on its telework movement. Today, TWAM is still a
public/private partnership but is now a year-round, international

activity run by ITAC.

A SPECIAL PARTNER: WMCOG

The coincidence of the following factors created an on-going

partnership between the Federal telework program and the

Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments (WMCOG):

- the growing traffic congestion problem in the DC

metropolitan area (now rated as the second worst congestion

in the nation),

- the fact that the primary leaders of Federal telework are

located in the DC area, and

- the fact that the primary location for Federal telecenters

is the DC metro area.

Though based and focused in the DC area, COG became a major

champion and supporter for Federal telework and telecenters. This

support includes funding and other resources as well as services.

TODAY

As mentioned in the beginning of this discussion, the Federal

telework program is still evolving. Reading through this

discussion, one can see that, in fact, there is a lot of telework

activity unfolding at this time. Federal telework is not yet a

mainstream arrangement and, certainly, there are some serious

challenges ahead. All in all, however, things look promising for

telework as well as much needed true progress into the

information age.
Reference List

 Carlisle, N. (1991). Report On State Agency Responses To Work-at-Home in

Region 9. San Francisco, California: EPA Office of Planning and

Management.

 Cohen, D. (1999). The DOD Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program

(CAP). E-mail Message. US Department of Defense. Washington DC

 Cowley, T.N., & Joice, W.H. (1989) Informal Work-at-home Arrangements in

the Federal Government. US General Services Administration. Washington

DC. Unpublished report

 DOT. (1993). Transportation Implications of Telecommuting. Washington

DC: US Department of Transportation. U.S. G.P.O.: 1993-343-120:85869

 DOT. (1997). Successful Telecommuting Programs in the Public and Private

Sectors: A Report to Congress. Washington DC: US Department of

Transportation.

 Energy. (1994). Energy, Emissions, and Social Consequences of

Telecommuting. Washington DC: US Department of Energy: Office of

Policy, Planning, and Program Evaluation. DOE/PO-0026

 FRA. (1999). Federal Railroad Administration Report on Telecommuting.

Washington DC: Federal Railroad Administration, US Department of

Transportation.

 GAO. (1992). The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and

Nonfederal Work/Family Programs and Approaches. Washington DC: US

General Accounting Office. GAO/GGD-92-84

 Hesse, B.W. (1995). Curb Cuts in the Virtual Community: Telework and

Persons with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences: Hawaii

 Joice, W.H. (1989) Home-Based Employment: A Solution to Federal

Government Recruiting Problems. US Office of Personnel Management.

Washington DC. Unpublished Report

 Joice, W.H. (1991). Home Based Employment: A Consideration for Public

Personnel Management. Public Personnel Management, 20(1), 49-60.

 Joice, W.H. (1993). The Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project Workat-Home Component. Washington DC: US Office of Personnel Management.

PRD 92-15

 Joice, W.H. (1994). Implementing Telecommuting. Washington DC: US

Department of Transportation.

 Landon, L.W. (1991). We Didn't Fall Through the Cracks. HR Magazine,

48-50.
 Master, W., & Joice, W.H. (1994). Promoting Telecommuting: An

Application of the NII. Germantown, Maryland: National Institute of

Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce. Special

Publication 868,73-87.

 National Analysts. (1991). Qualitative Evaluation of EPA Region 9's

Work-At-Home Experience. Booz Allen & Hamilton.

 Nilles, J. (1999). Perspectives on the History of Federal Telework. Email Message. JALA International. Los Angeles, California

 NIST. (1994). The Information Infrastructure: Reaching Society's Goals.

Germantown, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology,

US Department of Commerce. Special Publication 868

 NPR. (1993). Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less:

Report of the National Performance Review. Washington DC: National

Performance Review.

 NTI. (1996) National Telecommuting Initiative Survey of Federal Agencies.

US General Services Administration. Washington DC. Unpublished Report

 OMB. (1989). Management for Fiscal Year 1990. Washington DC: US Office

of Management and Budget. 2-32-2-32.

 OPM. (1991). Federal Flexible Workplace (Flexiplace) Project.

Washington DC: US Office of Personnel Management. FPM Letter 368-1

 OPM. (1997). Telework Briefing Kit. Washington DC: US Office of

Personnel Management.

 OPM. (1998). A Review of Family-Friendly Workplace Arrangements.

Washington DC: US Office of Personnel Management.

 PCMI. (1990). Guidelines for Pilot Flexible Workplace Arrangements.

Washington, DC: President's Council on Management Improvement. GSA

Printed Document

 Schiff, F.W. (1979). Working At Home Can Save Gasoline. The Washington

Post, September 2, 1979, Washington DC: The Washington Post Company

 Schiff, F.W. (1993) Comments On the Origins of Flexiplace. MATAC.

Washington DC. Unpublished Presentation to the Mid-Alantic Telecommuting

Advisory Council

 The Hudson Institute. (1987). Workforce 2000. Washington DC: US

Department of Labor.

 The Hudson Institute. (1988). Civil Service 2000. Washington, DC: US

Office of Personnel Management. CE-56

 Wheeler, T. (1990). White House Keeps Tab on Federal Flexiplace.

Flexiplace Focus, April 1990, p2 Washington DC: US Office of Personnel

Management
 Wheeler, T. (1992). Congress Agrees on Proposal for Telecommuting Study.

Flexiplace Focus, February 1992, p1-2, Washington DC: US Office of

Personnel Management