United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Civil Service,

Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight, House of Representatives

July 1997 FEDERAL

WORKFORCE

Agencies’ Policies and

Views on Flexiplace in

the Federal

Government

GAO/GGD-97-116

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-272880 

July 3, 1997

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Cummings:

In January 1993, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the

General Services Administration (GSA) issued a report summarizing the

results of a pilot that began in 1990 and tested the concept of working at

locations other than the traditional government office. This concept, then

known as flexiplace in the federal government and telecommuting in the

private sector, was tested by over 500 federal employees from 13 agencies.

The report, which focused on working at home, concluded that flexiplace

provided significant benefits to participants, worked well with employees

who were proven performers, and was ready for governmentwide

implementation.

This report responds to a request by Representative James P. Moran, the

former Ranking Minority Member, that we review the implementation of

flexiplace since completion of the pilot. Specifically, we agreed to

(1) describe federal efforts to promote flexiplace; (2) review federal

agencies’ policies and the extent to which they permit flexiplace;

(3) determine the extent to which federal employees have used flexiplace,

as well as the characteristics of these employees and the work they have

done under flexiplace; (4) ascertain whether agencies and federal

employees’ unions have identified any barriers that inhibit flexiplace

implementation; and (5) determine whether agencies believe that

flexiplace has caused operational difficulties, including abuse of

flexiplace.

Scope and

Methodology

The term “flexiplace” was initially coined during the pilot as an

abbreviation for “flexible workplace.” Since the completion of the

flexiplace pilot, OPM has adopted the term “telecommuting” to define

workplace arrangements that allow an employee to work away from the

traditional work site, either at home or at another approved alternative

location. Although the terms “flexiplace” and “telecommuting” are often

used interchangeably, for the purposes of this report, we use the term

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

flexiplace only when describing work arrangements that are consistent

with OPM’s definition. We found this restrictiveness to be necessary

because some federal officials attach a meaning to the term

telecommuting other than that which is contemplated by OPM’s definition.

The other meaning attached to the term involves traditional management

decentralization initiatives, such as the establishment of local offices that

produce benefits (including improved customer services and satisfaction)

without necessarily being more geographically convenient to the

employees providing the services.

In developing this report, we obtained general information on flexiplace

policies and views on flexiplace use from officials in the 17 departments

and independent federal agencies1

 with the greatest numbers of

employees. Collectively, these departments and agencies employ about

95 percent of federal employees. From these 17 departments and agencies,

we then judgmentally selected 5 departments and 3 independent agencies

for a more detailed review, which forms the basis of this report. Our

intention in selecting this sample was to include departments and

independent agencies that (1) employed a large number of federal civilian

personnel, (2) varied in the nature and extent of their experience with

flexiplace, and (3) permitted examination of any variances in flexiplace

policies and efforts to promote flexiplace. We did not attempt to

determine, however, the extent to which flexiplace arrangements could or

should have been undertaken or the effectiveness of existing

arrangements. Because we did not use a representative sample, the results

of this review cannot be projected to the entire federal workforce.

We identified and analyzed 21 policy documents from the departments and

agencies selected and visited and interviewed agency officials in 26

locations, mostly in agencies’ headquarters and in their field offices in

Denver and San Francisco. The agency officials we interviewed were

either flexiplace coordinators or other personnel knowledgeable about

flexiplace in their agencies, and they predominantly worked in human

resources departments, although a lesser number were program or office

managers. During these interviews, we gathered information on the extent

of flexiplace use, agencies’ identification of barriers to implementing

flexiplace, and agency officials’ views on operational difficulties

attributable to flexiplace. We did not seek to question or verify either the

1

For the purpose of this report, the term “department” refers to cabinet level organizations within the

executive branch, such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Labor

(DOL). “Agency” refers to either the next organizational subdivision within these departments, such as

the Federal Highway Administration within DOT, or an independent agency within the executive

branch, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

perceptions held by agency officials or the data provided on the use of

flexiplace. In addition, we interviewed nine union representatives to solicit

their views on flexiplace, and interviewed OPM, GSA, and DOT officials in

Washington, D.C., to identify federal efforts to promote flexiplace. We also

visited telecenters (which are facilities for use by the employees of many

agencies as alternative work sites) in Virginia and California. Appendix I

describes in detail the objectives, scope, and methodology of our review.

Our review was conducted from June 1996 to May 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided a draft of

this report to the heads of the departments and agencies discussed in this

report for their review and comments. Their comments are summarized at

the end of this report.

Results in Brief OPM, GSA, and DOT have assumed lead roles in promoting flexiplace. OPM

promotes awareness of flexiplace, provides guidance on its

implementation, and distributes the results of its research on flexiplace.

GSA manages and markets federal telecenters. In addition, DOT and GSA

provide leadership for an interagency working group formed as part of the

National Telecommuting Initiative Action Plan in January 1996. A goal of

the plan is to increase the number of federal flexiplace participants by the

end of fiscal year 1998 to 60,000, or about 3 percent of the federal civilian

workforce, a percentage roughly equivalent to conservative estimates of

telecommuting in the private sector. DOT also promotes flexiplace and

distributes flexiplace literature to the general public as part of its effort to

decrease transportation-associated congestion and pollution.

The 21 policies we reviewed varied in their coverage, generally applying to

personnel within individual departmental and independent agencies, one

or more federal regions, or specific Department of Defense (DOD)

locations. Although none of the five departments we contacted had

blanket written policies that covered all employees in all geographic

locations, five agencies within three departments and two independent

agencies we contacted had such agencywide policies.

About half of the nearly 99,100 employees at the locations we visited were

covered by formal flexiplace policies. Because of limitations within these

policies, however, about 28,000 of the employees covered by flexiplace

policies were, in effect, excluded from flexiplace participation. Limitations

restricted participation to the medically disabled or members of a certain

occupation. In contrast, despite the absence of formal policies at five

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

locations we visited, some of the managers there permitted flexiplace. This

resulted in the majority of the employees at these locations who were not

covered by a policy, in effect, having the potential to participate in

flexiplace.

Flexiplace use appears to have increased since OPM’s 1993 estimate of

3,000 to 4,000 participants. A survey completed in July 1996 by the

President’s Management Council (PMC)2

 estimated that there were 9,000

telecommuting participants. This number included participants who would

fit within a broader definition of telecommuting, but on the other hand, it

did not include all participants that would meet OPM’s definition. Aside

from the PMC estimates, at the 26 locations we visited, agencies estimated

that about 4,700, or nearly 5 percent of their employees, participated in

flexiplace. We did not determine whether the flexiplace arrangements we

observed represented the universe of available opportunities or whether

they were effective.

Agency officials told us that most flexiplace participants’ occupational

categories were professional in nature, such as engineer, attorney,

management and program analyst, and computer specialist. Officials

reported the use of both regularly scheduled and episodic flexiplace—the

latter for completing short-term project-based work. According to agency

officials, writing, reading, telephoning, and computer work were the most

common tasks performed by flexiplace participants.

Agency officials and union representatives identified management

resistance as the greatest barrier to implementing flexiplace programs.

They reported that many managers had to see their employees to believe

they were working, as opposed to managing by results. They also

recognized that some jobs do not lend themselves to flexiplace

arrangements and cited other barriers, such as a lack of computers at

alternative work sites, the handling of sensitive data, employee reluctance

or indifference with regard to participation, and the lack of a formal

flexiplace policy.

Agency officials believed that few operational difficulties arose from

flexiplace. They cited only a few isolated instances of abuse of the

2

The PMC was established in 1993 to advise and assist the President and Vice President in ensuring

that the reforms adopted as a result of the National Performance Review (a study that recommended

ways to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and improve customer service to taxpayers) are

implemented throughout the executive branch. This council is chaired by the Deputy Director for

Management of the Office of Management and Budget, and members include the chief operating

officers of 18 executive branch agencies, the Director of OPM, the Administrator of GSA, the Secretary

of the Cabinet, and other officials as designated by the President.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

program. One official said that the use of flexiplace caused a drop in

productivity, while several others believed productivity increased as a

result of flexiplace. Similarly, agency officials cited few problems with

contacting flexiplace participants at alternative work sites or coordinating

their schedules, and these problems were subsequently solved.

Background No specific statute exists that explicitly authorizes or forbids flexiplace.

OPM has administratively determined that agencies can develop and

implement flexiplace programs. President Clinton has also encouraged

agencies to develop family-friendly programs, including flexiplace, through

memorandums addressed to the heads of executive agencies in 1994 and

1996.

OPM and GSA established instructional guidelines in 1990 to assist agencies

in implementing flexiplace programs. These guidelines recommended that

an agency should first identify reasons for establishing a program, and that

program benefits should accrue to both the employer and the employee.

According to OPM and GSA, reasons for agencies to establish flexiplace

programs include improved recruiting and retention of employees,

increased productivity, and a reduced need for office space. Reasons for

employees to participate in flexiplace include the opportunity to reduce

commuting time; lowered personal costs in areas such as transportation,

parking, food, and wardrobe; improvement in the quality of worklife and

morale accruing from the opportunity to balance work and family

demands; and removal of barriers for those with disabilities who want to

be part of the workforce. OPM and GSA guidelines stressed the fact that

flexiplace is not a substitute for child care because young children can

frequently produce distractions that prevent the successful completion of

work at home.

OPM updated the 1990 guidelines in 1993. In this update, OPM asserted that

flexiplace is a management option rather than an employee benefit, and

that flexiplace should be voluntary and should not change the terms and

conditions of employment. OPM recommended that agencies develop

written policies and procedures, appoint a flexiplace coordinator, conduct

training sessions for flexiplace employees and their supervisors, and

establish written work agreements that schedule flexiplace episodes.

Although flexiplace is a management option, OPM recognized that under 5

U.S.C. Chapter 71, labor unions representing employees have the right to

negotiate on the manner in which flexiplace programs are implemented

and on the impact of programs on employees.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

OPM cautioned agencies that the nature of the work, together with the

characteristics of both the employee and supervisor, must be suitable for

flexiplace. OPM defined suitable work as tasks that can be conducted

independently of the work location for at least part of the week. Work that

requires extensive face-to-face contact, according to OPM, is generally

unsuited for flexiplace. OPM also said that employees who participate in

flexiplace programs should be well organized, highly disciplined

self-starters who require little supervision and who have received at least

fully successful ratings. OPM recommended that supervisors should be

comfortable with managing by results rather than by observation.

Federal Efforts to

Promote Flexiplace

Since its January 1993 report on the results of the flexiplace pilot, OPM has

continued to promote flexiplace to other federal departments and

agencies. OPM maintains a Work and Family Program Center to promote

flexiplace awareness by publishing leaflets on flexiplace resources, writing

about flexiplace in newsletters, operating a computer bulletin board to

disseminate and exchange flexiplace information, and offering workshops

on flexiplace. OPM has also published descriptive brochures on flexiplace,

continues to make available to federal agencies the results of the

flexiplace pilot, and has recognized other agencies with awards for

promoting work and family programs, including flexiplace. In addition,

OPM has disseminated information through direct mailings to personnel

directors and heads of executive departments and agencies.

Also since 1993, GSA has promoted flexiplace through the establishment,

management, and marketing of facilities that provide alternative office

settings for federal employees who would otherwise travel longer

distances to work. These facilities, known as telecenters, are equipped

with modern workstations, telephones, computers, modems, and facsimile

machines, and are generally shared by employees of multiple agencies.

Initially established in Maryland and Virginia by fiscal year 1993

appropriations, federal telecenters were also established in Oklahoma

City; Seattle; Chicago; Atlanta; Charles Town, West Virginia; and a number

of northern and southern California communities. GSA has also established

partnerships with local and municipal governments to arrange for the use

of their telecenters by federal employees. A more detailed discussion of

federal telecenters appears in appendix II of this report.

Flexiplace gained additional promotional emphasis in 1993 as a result of a

National Performance Review recommendation that the President issue a

directive requiring agencies to implement flexiplace policies. The

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

President’s July 1994 memorandum to the heads of executive departments

and agencies had a family-friendly focus and encouraged these

departments and agencies to develop flexible work arrangements,

including flexiplace, and to adopt appropriate policies. Through a similar

memorandum in 1997, Vice President Gore also encouraged agencies to

increase opportunities to telecommute.

Federal efforts to promote flexiplace were also linked to the Climate

Change Action Plan issued by the President and Vice President in

October 1993. The plan was, in part, a response to the threat of global

warming and outlined directives aimed at decreasing U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions, including transportation-associated pollution. One of these

directives instructed DOT to implement a federal flexiplace pilot project

with the goal of inducing 1 to 2 percent of federal employees to work at

home at least 1 day per week. Since the plan’s inception, DOT has promoted

flexiplace by publishing and distributing information to the public on

flexiplace and by assisting GSA and the PMC in their efforts to promote

flexiplace.

In response to the Climate Change Action Plan, the PMC developed the

National Telecommuting Initiative Action Plan in January 1996. The plan,

developed by an Interagency Telecommuting Working Group cochaired by

DOT and GSA, calls for increasing the number of federal telecommuters to

60,000 by the end of fiscal year 1998. This goal represents about 3 percent

of the federal civilian workforce, a percentage roughly equivalent to

conservative estimates of participation in the private sector. The plan is a

multiphased project that calls for estimating current telecommuting

participation, assessing logistics, promoting telecommuting, and

implementing programs and pilots. Other members of the Working Group

are the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense, Education, Energy,

Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and

EPA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration (SSA),

and OPM.

In June 1996, President Clinton issued a memorandum to heads of

executive departments and agencies reaffirming his commitment to

federal telecommuting usage. He also adopted the PMC’s national goal of

achieving 60,000 federal telecommuters by the end of fiscal year 1998 and

directed executive departments and agencies to review, develop, utilize,

and expand opportunities for telecommuting so that the PMC’s goal would

be attained.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

Flexiplace Coverage

Varied by

Organization

The 21 flexiplace policies we reviewed generally applied to employees in

individual departmental or independent agencies, or in specific federal

regions or locations, rather than to all employees in a department. About

one-half of the employees at the 26 locations we visited were covered by

flexiplace policies, but the majority of covered employees were in effect

excluded from participating by some type of limitation in the policies.

Some policies limited participation to employees who were medically

disabled or in a specific occupation. In addition, policies generally

prescribed the type of work to be done as tasks which could be performed

away from the office and which were quantifiable or measurable.

Most Policies Covered

Offices in Specific Federal

Regions or Locations

Most of the policies we reviewed varied in their coverage. Of the 21

policies we reviewed, 14 applied to personnel either within

(1) headquarters, (2) a specific federal region, (3) more than one federal

region, or (4) specific DOD locations. In headquarters, for example, DOL’s

policy covered only selected Local Union 12 bargaining unit employees,

within a flexiplace pilot, who worked in the Washington, D.C., area. Also,

only EPA employees working in offices within federal regions 8 and 9 were

covered by the EPA’s federal region 8 and 9 policies, respectively. In

contrast to EPA’s regional policies, the DOT Office of Motor Carriers’ policy

covered employees in offices within all federal regions. In addition, the

Naval Air Weapons Center’s policy that we reviewed applied only to

employees working at the Point Mugu, California, location. These 14

policies are described in tables III.2, III.3, III.4, and III.5.

Although none of the policies were departmentwide in coverage, five

agencies within three departments and two independent agencies had

agencywide policies that covered all their employees in all geographic

locations. These agencies were the Federal Aviation, Federal Highway,

and Federal Railroad Administrations within DOT; the Natural Resources

Conservation Service within USDA; the Defense Finance and Accounting

Service within DOD; GSA; and SSA. These seven policies are described in

table III.1.

Policy Limitations Affected

Flexiplace Participation

Although about 47,000 (47 percent) of the nearly 99,100 employees at the

26 locations we visited were covered by formal flexiplace policies, about

28,000 of these employees were in effect excluded from participation

because of limitations within policies. For example, two of the policies we

reviewed limited flexiplace participants mainly to medically disabled

employees, which in effect excluded most employees covered by the

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

policy from actually participating at any given point in time. To illustrate,

of the estimated 4,000 employees in Denver who were covered by the

Defense Finance and Accounting Service’s policy, 3 individuals who were

disabled were allowed to temporarily work at home for periods during

1994 to 1996. Similarly, according to agency records, fewer than 25 of the

13,305 SSA headquarters employees participated under the flexiplace policy

that limited participation to those with certain medical conditions.

In addition, one policy that we reviewed limited participation to

employees in a specific occupation. The memorandum of understanding

between the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and SSA

management limited participation to attorney advisors in SSA’s Office of

Hearings and Appeals.

In the five locations we visited that had no formal flexiplace policies, the

majority of the employees nevertheless had the potential ability to

participate in flexiplace arrangements. For example, approximately 6,000

EPA headquarters employees were not covered by a formal policy because

their unions had not yet approved management’s draft policy. Agency

officials told us, however, that they generally allowed flexiplace

participation and that about 50 headquarters employees occasionally

worked at home under guidelines from a previous pilot. In contrast, about

4,662 employees in three of the five locations that were not covered by

flexiplace policies worked in offices where agency officials said they

generally did not permit employees to participate in flexiplace.

Flexiplace Policies

Generally Prescribed Types

of Work and Work

Arrangements

In addition to containing restrictions that excluded employees from

participating in flexiplace, most agency policies specified the type of work

employees could perform while on flexiplace and the types of work

arrangements that were permissible. Ten of the policies we reviewed

specified the type of work that could be done while on flexiplace as tasks

that could be accomplished away from the traditional office. In addition, 6

of these 10 also specified that work had to be quantifiable or measurable.

Nineteen of the 21 policies we reviewed also specified the nature of

flexiplace arrangements permitted. GSA and EPA recognized two basic types

of arrangements: regular flexiplace, in which employees are to work a

certain number of regularly scheduled days each week at an alternative

workplace, and episodic flexiplace, in which employees are to work away

from the office on a temporary basis for short periods of time to complete

discrete projects. Twelve of the policies we reviewed permitted only

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

regular flexiplace, while two policies allowed only episodic flexiplace, and

five policies permitted both regular and episodic flexiplace. About an

equal number of agencies reported that their personnel participated in

episodic arrangements as opposed to regular arrangements, despite fewer

policies permitting episodic flexiplace.

Extent of Flexiplace

Usage

The PMC estimated that about 9,000 federal employees out of

approximately 2 million executive branch employees, or less than

0.5 percent, telecommuted in 1996. Although this estimate may not directly

correlate with the 1993 estimated flexiplace participants, flexiplace

participation does appear to have increased from the 3,000 to 4,000

estimated by OPM in 1993.

Unrelated to the PMC’s estimate, agency estimates showed that nearly

5 percent of employees participated in flexiplace at agency locations we

visited. Participation at these locations may have been higher than in the

federal government in general because we purposely selected some

locations that had active flexiplace programs.

Agency officials reported that employees used flexiplace primarily for

personal benefits but also to avoid office interruptions. These employees,

according to agency officials, were in professional occupations, and they

carried out such tasks as writing, reading, telephoning, and working on the

computer while on flexiplace.

Flexiplace Use Appears to

Have Increased

A survey completed in July 1996 by the PMC’s Interagency Telecommuting

Working Group indicated that telecommuting had increased since the

completion of the flexiplace pilot in 1993. This survey requested members

of the PMC and a number of smaller agencies to estimate the number of

their telecommuting participants. From estimates supplied by 33 agencies,

the PMC estimated that, governmentwide, 9,000 federal employees were

telecommuting.

The PMC estimate included participants who would fit within a broader

definition of telecommuters but did not include all flexiplace participants.

For example, SSA used PMC’s definition, which in some respects was

broader than OPM’s. Under that definition, SSA reported a total of 1,939

telecommuters, including 800 personnel working at contact stations,

which are small temporary SSA offices designed to directly serve the

public, and 1,000 administrative law judges who traveled to various

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

hearing offices. An SSA official said SSA counted administrative law judges

and personnel working at contact stations as telecommuters because it

considered these employees to be included in the mobile/virtual office

category of the PMC’s telecommuting definition. This category consists of

the activities of field representatives, mobile managers, inspectors, and

traveling technical support employees—those who may work in multiple

locations or environments, including customer sites, hotels, cars, or at

home. According to an SSA official, these employees contribute to

decreasing air pollution and traffic congestion and to increasing customer

service, all of which are among the goals of PMC’s National Telecommuting

Initiative.

Conversely, DOL did not include all flexiplace participants in the estimate it

supplied to the PMC. DOL’s estimate, which was used in the PMC estimate of

9,000 telecommuters, consisted entirely of 581 formal participants in 2

ongoing flexiplace pilots. Realizing that this estimate did not include a

large number of field safety inspectors who were informally participating,

DOL subsequently resurveyed the number of participants and determined

that the total number of participants was actually 3,426.

We also asked officials at the 26 locations we visited to estimate the

number of their flexiplace participants, using OPM’s definition. According

to the information they provided, nearly 5 percent of the approximately

99,100 employees at the 26 agency locations we visited participated in

flexiplace. This information is summarized in figure 1 and presented for

each of the 26 locations in appendix IV.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

Figure 1: Flexiplace Participation at

Locations Visited 4.9% Participants in flexiplace

 (4,700)

Nonparticipants

(94,400) 

95.1%

N = 99,100

a

aParticipants include both those covered and those not covered by formal policies.

Source: GAO analysis.

Flexiplace Reportedly

Associated With Various

Benefits

Agency officials told us that employees’ use of flexiplace arrangements

had various benefits. They said that employees reported benefiting by an

increase in their productivity and morale, and a decrease in their

commuting time, interruptions, sick leave use, and personal costs. Some

agency officials said that flexiplace resulted in a decreased need for office

space, an increased ability to recruit and retain employees, lessened

environmental impacts, and greater opportunities for disabled employees.

Often cited by agency officials as one of the main reasons for using

flexiplace, productivity gains of professional staff are reportedly difficult

to define, much less measure. Yet some organizations and some agencies

we visited were able to measure productivity gains among some of their

staff who used flexiplace. For data entry clerks, computer programmers,

and word processors who produce measurable outputs, productivity gains

in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent are attributed to telecommuting in

the literature. Similarly, within SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals in Salt

Lake City, a manager documented a 25-percent increase in the number of

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

cases prepared by hearing assistants who worked under flexiplace

arrangements. During OPM’s pilot, supervisors reported that 39 percent of

their staff on flexiplace showed improved work output, and that

10 percent or fewer showed a decrease in output. Similarly, the combined

results of DOL’s 2 pilots showed that 32 percent of the 238 supervisors

believed that staff increased their quantity of work as a result of flexiplace,

as opposed to about 14 percent who believed quantity dropped.

Seventy-three percent of the 426 employees in these pilots believed their

quantity of work increased under flexiplace.

Agency officials we spoke with also reported reasons cited by employees

for not using flexiplace. The most common reason cited was a feeling of

isolation while working at home. Other reasons agency officials reported

were the perception by employees that flexiplace could be career limiting,

the presence of family members at home who would interrupt their work,

the lack of adequate work space at home, and a lack of self-discipline.

They told us that the best flexiplace participants are disciplined

self-starters who need little supervision.

Flexiplace Was Reportedly

Used Primarily by

Professionals

Agency officials said that most employees using flexiplace were in

professional occupations. They told us that the staff members most

frequently using flexiplace were employed as engineers and engineering

technicians, attorneys and paralegals, program and management analysts,

computer personnel, investigators, and inspectors. Agency officials also

said that flexiplace was used by personnel specialists, scientists,

administrative personnel, technical information specialists, contract

personnel, budget and financial analysts, accountants, architects, and

employee development specialists.

According to agency officials, employees reported that writing, reading,

telephoning, and computer work were the most common tasks

accomplished while on flexiplace. Other tasks that agency officials

reported participants doing on flexiplace included analysis, reviewing and

evaluating, preparing legal briefs and decisions, planning, and researching.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

Management

Resistance Was Cited

as the Largest Barrier

to Implementing

Flexiplace

Agency officials and union representatives told us that management

resistance was the largest barrier to implementing flexiplace programs.

They explained that some managers and supervisors resisted allowing

staff to participate in flexiplace because they did not believe that

employees were working unless they could see them. Almost half of the

agency officials and union representatives that we interviewed cited lack

of adequate equipment, such as computers and dedicated phone lines in

the home, as a barrier. Fewer of them identified the nature of the job and

handling of sensitive data as barriers. We did not attempt to determine the

accuracy or appropriateness of these views.

Management Resistance

Cited Most Frequently as

Barrier to Flexiplace

Management resistance has been frequently cited as an obstacle in the

literature on telecommuting in the private sector, and it was recognized as

a major impediment in the 1993 report on the flexiplace pilot. In their

training guide for managing telecommuters, GSA and DOT pointed out that

the role of management has changed from managing by observation to

managing by results and that managers who resisted this change faced a

major challenge in embracing flexiplace.

Agency officials and union representatives we interviewed cited

management resistance as the largest barrier to implementing flexiplace

programs. Management resistance was cited as the largest barrier by 16 of

the 28 agency officials and 7 of the 9 union representatives we

interviewed. All but nine of the agency officials and all but two of the

union representatives we interviewed said that management resistance

was a problem in implementing flexiplace programs.

Because OPM recommended that flexiplace participants be self-starters

who need little supervision, several agency officials questioned why

managers were resistant. They said that the behavior and work ethic of

employees did not change when they worked at home, so managers should

not worry about their ability to supervise these employees while they were

on flexiplace. In the surveys of supervisors participating in DOL’s 2

flexiplace pilots, 77 percent of the 237 respondents reported that

supervising an employee on flexiplace was about the same as, or

compared favorably with, supervising the same employee prior to

flexiplace.

Several agency officials told us they had had success in overcoming

management resistance by training supervisors or by exposing them to

flexiplace arrangements. Supervisors in the DOL pilots mentioned earlier

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

were both trained and exposed firsthand to flexiplace, and 73 percent of

them said that they would want their staff to continue working under a

flexiplace arrangement if given the opportunity.

Other Barriers to

Implementing Flexiplace

Also Cited by Agency

Officials

Although never cited as the largest barrier to implementing flexiplace, a

lack of adequate equipment was identified as a barrier by 12 of the 28

agency officials and 4 of the 9 union representatives we interviewed.

Agency officials said that budgetary constraints prevented them from

buying computers and modems for flexiplace participants and from

installing secondary phone lines in their homes for accessing the agency’s

local area network. Some agencies solved this problem in part by lending

participants surplus computers and laptops.

Five of the 28 agency officials and 1 of the 9 union representatives

believed that the nature of the job was a barrier to implementing

flexiplace. They explained that some jobs, like receptionist and some

clerical positions, required extensive face-to-face interaction with the

public and with other employees and therefore were not amenable to

flexiplace. Other jobs, such as air traffic controller and janitor, were

site-dependent and could not be performed at alternative work sites.

However, they said that most jobs had some tasks that could be performed

away from the traditional office, and some managers suggested grouping

these tasks into a single day to allow for a flexiplace arrangement.

Five of the agency officials and one of the union representatives we

interviewed said that the handling of sensitive data was a barrier. SSA

officials said that claims representatives in the Office of Operations

worked daily with databases containing financial information on

applicants and that they believed the public would feel uncomfortable

knowing that employees were using these data at home. These officials

said that the databases could be accessed securely from employees’

homes, but that security measures would be expensive to install.

Barriers less commonly cited by agency officials and union representatives

included lack of a flexiplace policy, burdensome paperwork, and

employee reluctance or indifference. Lack of a flexiplace policy was also

cited as a barrier for some of the agencies that had no policy but

nevertheless had a few flexiplace participants. Burdensome paperwork,

according to agency officials, was associated with participants completing

flexiplace work agreements. Employee reluctance reportedly arose from

employees fearing that flexiplace participants were at a disadvantage for

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

promotions because they were seen less in the office. Agency officials

suggested these barriers could be overcome by establishing flexiplace

policies, keeping associated paperwork to a minimum, and managing by

results rather than by observation.

Few Operational

Difficulties Were

Attributed to

Flexiplace

Agency officials reported few operational difficulties as a result of

flexiplace arrangements. Although agency officials told us that some

managers initially feared participants would abuse flexiplace

arrangements, these officials reported few instances of abuse. Of the

approximately 4,700 personnel who were participating in flexiplace at the

office locations we reviewed, agency officials mentioned only 6 definitive

instances of abuse. Similarly, few problems with contacting employees,

securing their attendance for important meetings, or coordinating

employee coverage of the office at critical times were reported. Only one

agency official said that productivity decreased as a result of flexiplace,

whereas, as discussed previously, several officials believed that

productivity increased.

The majority of these agency officials were flexiplace coordinators within

human resource departments and office or program managers. Due to time

constraints, we did not contact individual supervisors who would have had

more direct experience with supervising employees participating in

flexiplace arrangements.

Agency Comments The Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), Labor, and Transportation, as well as EPA, GSA, OPM,

and SSA, provided oral comments on a draft of this report. The agencies

generally agreed with the report’s contents. GSA and SSA suggested that we

point out that the PMC and OPM define telecommuting somewhat

differently. We made revisions to various sections of the report to account

for the different definitions. Some agencies provided comments of a

technical nature, or to clarify points, which we have incorporated where

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to Representative James P. Moran, the

original requestor; the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service,

House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; other interested

congressional committees and members; the Secretaries of the

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban Development,

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
B-272880 

Labor, and Transportation; the Administrator of the General Services

Administration; the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and

the Office of Personnel Management; the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration; and other interested parties. We will also make

copies available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have any

questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8676.

Sincerely yours,

L. Nye Stevens

Director

Federal Management and

 Workforce Issues

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

20

Appendix II 

Telecenters

24

History 24

Costs of Washington, D.C., Area Centers 25

Benefits 25

Use 26

Other Federal Telecenter Initiatives 27

Appendix III 

Agencies’ Policies

Reviewed

29

Appendix IV 

Flexiplace Use

Reported by Agency

Officials Within

Locations Visited and

Contacted

33

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

34

Tables Table III.1: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Agencywide 29

Table III.2: Flexiplace Policy Implemented in Headquarters 30

Table III.3: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Within Multiple

Federal Regions

30

Table III.4: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Within a Single

Federal Region

31

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Contents

Table III.5: Flexiplace Policies Implemented at a Single DOD

Facility

32

Figure Figure 1: Flexiplace Participation at Locations Visited 12

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GSA General Services Administration

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MOU memorandum of understanding

NTEU National Treasury Employees’ Union

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PMC President’s Management Council

SSA Social Security Administration

USDA Department of Agriculture

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report responds to a request by Representative James P. Moran, the

former Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommitte on Civil Service,

House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, that we review

the implementation of flexiplace since completion of the 1990 to 1993

flexiplace pilot. Specifically, we agreed to (1) describe federal efforts to

promote flexiplace; (2) review federal agencies’ policies and the extent to

which they permit flexiplace; (3) determine the extent to which federal

employees have used flexiplace, as well as the characteristics of these

employees and the work they have done under flexiplace; (4) ascertain

whether agencies and federal employees’ unions have identified any

barriers that inhibit flexiplace implementation; and (5) determine whether

agencies believe that flexiplace has caused any operational difficulties,

including abuse of flexiplace.

The term “flexiplace” was first coined during the pilot as an abbreviation

for “flexible workplace.” Since the completion of the flexiplace pilot, OPM

has adopted the term “telecommuting” to define workplace arrangements

that allow an employee to work away from the traditional work site, either

at home or at another approved alternative location. Although the terms

“flexiplace” and “telecommuting” are often used interchangeably, for the

purposes of this report, we use the term flexiplace only when describing

work arrangements that are consistent with OPM’s definition. We found this

restrictiveness to be necessary because some federal officials attach a

meaning to the term telecommuting other than that which is contemplated

by OPM’s definition. The other meaning attached to the term involves

traditional management decentralization initiatives, such as the

establishment of local offices that produce benefits (including improved

customer services and satisfaction) without necessarily being more

geographically convenient to the employees providing the services.

To obtain general information on federal flexiplace programs within the

executive branch, we contacted all cabinet-level departments and

independent agencies with more than 10,000 employees as of June 1995.

These 17 departments and independent agencies employed over

95 percent of the federal civilian workforce. From these departments and

agencies, we obtained basic information on flexiplace policies and the

extent to which their personnel used flexiplace. We also obtained

estimates of flexiplace participation that were collected by the PMC from

its members and from a number of smaller agencies.

To describe federal efforts to promote flexiplace, we contacted and

interviewed knowledgeable officials in the three agencies that we

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

identified as having taken the lead in promoting flexiplace. We interviewed

OPM, GSA, and DOT officials in Washington, D.C.; reviewed documents they

provided; and scanned pertinent electronic bulletin boards and the

Internet. We also visited GSA-sponsored telecenters in Virginia and

California.

We then judgmentally selected five departments and three independent

agencies for a more detailed review. Because we did not use a

representative sample, the results of this review cannot be projected to the

entire federal workforce. The intent of our selection strategy was to obtain

a mix of departments and agencies that varied in the nature and extent of

their experience with flexiplace, encompassed a large number of federal

civilian personnel, and permitted examination of any regional variations in

flexiplace policies and efforts. We chose the Washington-Baltimore area

because the headquarters of the departments and agencies we reviewed

are located there and because we were told by GSA that about one-third of

all flexiplace participants worked in this area. We selected San Francisco

because it is the seat of federal region 9 and because of traffic and

congestion problems in the city. We chose Denver because it is the seat of

federal region 8 and is located in the interior of the country. The eight

departments and independent agencies we selected had one or more

components or offices in each of these three locations. In total, we visited

26 locations.

We chose DOD because it has the largest number of civilian personnel. We

chose GSA because of its lead role in promoting flexiplace through

establishing telecenters, and we selected DOT because it promoted

flexiplace to reduce transportation-associated pollution. We selected DOL

based on the recommendation to review its program by knowledgeable

officials in GSA. We chose EPA because the agency reported having varying

local policies. We also selected several agencies based on their estimates

of telecommuters supplied to the PMC. We chose SSA because it reported

having the largest number of telecommuters, and we selected USDA and

HUD because they reported having few or no telecommuters.

To review federal policies and the extent to which they permitted

flexiplace, we collected and examined written policies and guidelines from

department and agency officials in headquarters and in field locations we

visited. We did not examine any policies that were in draft form awaiting

approval by agency officials. We reviewed flexiplace policies to determine

the extent to which they addressed the types of employees allowed to

participate, the types of work permitted, and the types of flexiplace

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

arrangements allowed. When necessary, we contacted officials to clarify

policy information. Because DOT and USDA delegated policy formulation to

their component agencies, we requested that they each provide policies

from their two largest civilian components, which excluded DOT’s Coast

Guard, and from one agency recommended by department officials. In

response, within DOT, we obtained policies from the Federal Aviation

Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal

Railroad Administration. Likewise, within USDA, we obtained policies from

the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Because the Navy, one of DOD’s largest employers of civilian personnel,

was recommended by DOD officials for our review, we asked agency

officials also to submit policies from the two other largest departments

employing civilian personnel: the Army and the Air Force. Neither the

Army nor the Air Force had a final departmentwide policy in effect at the

time of our review. The Navy supplied policies covering the employees at

two California locations that they suggested we visit.

To further describe the extent to which federal employees used flexiplace,

to ascertain whether agencies identified any barriers to implementing

flexiplace programs, and to determine whether agency officials believed

flexiplace caused operational difficulties, we interviewed department and

agency officials responsible for flexiplace oversight for each of the eight

departments and independent agencies in the Washington-Baltimore area,

Denver, and San Francisco. Most of these officials were flexiplace

coordinators within human resource departments, but a smaller number

were office or program managers. Due to time constraints, we did not

survey or interview individual supervisors who may have had more direct

experience with supervising employees participating in flexiplace

arrangements. Also, we did not attempt to determine the extent to which

flexiplace arrangements could or should have been undertaken or the

effectiveness of existing arrangements. Further, we did not seek to

question or verify perceptions held by agency officials or data provided on

the use of flexiplace.

Within the Washington-Baltimore area, we interviewed department and

agency officials with Navy, Forest Service, EPA, GSA, DOL, HUD, SSA, and DOT.

In Denver and San Francisco, we interviewed or contacted agency officials

in SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals and its Office of Operations, and

regional offices of HUD, GSA, EPA, the Forest Service, and the Federal

Highway Administration. Because DOL had separate guidelines for

flexiplace pilots in the field and in headquarters, we also interviewed the

DOL flexiplace coordinator in Denver. Because the Navy had no large

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

facilities in Denver, we contacted the flexiplace coordinator with the

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center, the largest DOD facility in

Denver. We identified large DOD facilities in the San Francisco area as

possible candidates for a site visit. However, it appeared that the nature of

the work done at these sites would not be conducive to flexiplace

arrangements. Therefore, at the recommendation of the Navy, we visited

the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, California, and the

Naval Air Weapons Center in Point Mugu, California.

To obtain additional information on barriers and operational difficulties,

we conducted two additional interviews with knowledgeable departmental

officials at DOD and USDA in Washington, D.C. We also interviewed nine

union representatives with the American Federation of Government

Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees to solicit

their views.

At each of the eight departments and agencies that were included in our

review, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the

telecommuting participation estimates provided to the PMC, to determine

how they were calculated. At the 26 locations we visited, we obtained the

agencies’ current estimates of flexiplace participation but did not verify

their accuracy.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture,

Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Transportation, as

well as to EPA, GSA, OPM, and SSA. Their comments are discussed in the body

of this report.

We did our work between June 1996 and May 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix II 

Telecenters

History The U.S. private sector and other countries began experimenting with

telecenters several years before the first federal experiments. The first

neighborhood telecenter opened in France in 1981, and others opened

shortly thereafter in Sweden, Switzerland, Jamaica, Japan, and the United

Kingdom. These early telecenters were established to slow the pace of

rural-to-urban employee migration, to foster economic development, to

capitalize on lower wages and operating costs in outlying areas, and to

promote a less stressful environment. In 1985, Pacific Bell established the

first telecenter in the United States.

Federal telecenters were first established through appropriations for fiscal

year 1993 when Congress designated $5 million to fund telecenters in

Maryland and Virginia. Telecenter sites were selected based on GSA’s

observation that 16,000 federal employees commuted at least 75 miles

each way on congested roads in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

In the spring of 1993, GSA began working in partnership with state and

local governments in the Washington area, and by December 1994, the

Washington area had four telecenters—one each in Hagerstown,

Maryland; Charles County, Maryland; Winchester, Virginia; and

Fredericksburg, Virginia. These telecenters had a total of 80 workstations,

143 participants, and a 55 percent utilization rate. Twenty organizations in

10 executive branch departments and agencies used these 4 centers.

Congress continued to fund telecenters through fiscal year 1996,

establishing additional telecenters in the Washington area. As of

February 1, 1997, there were nine GSA-funded and leased telecenters in the

greater Washington, D.C., area. According to GSA, at least eight other

centers are expected to be operating in the Washington area by the end of

1997.

Telecenters in the Washington, D.C., pilot provide state-of-the art

equipment that may be better than equipment provided by employers for

use at the office or at home. Equipment can include cubicles, open work

areas, some private offices, facsimile and copy machines, high speed

personal computers and modems, printers, separate voice and data lines,

local area networks, various software packages, and voice mail. Centers

often have a site manager to offer technical help to users, and some

centers offer video conferencing capabilities.

Although none of the Washington area telecenters were affiliated with day

care centers, eight of the nine telecenters were in close proximity to day

care facilities. At least three of these telecenters were located within

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix II 

Telecenters

walking distance of day care centers. Other day care centers were within a

5- to 15-minute drive from the eight telecenters.

Costs of Washington,

D.C., Area Centers

According to a GSA official, GSA charged agencies participating in the

Washington pilot a low of $25 per month for use of a single workstation 1

day per week, to $100 per month for use of a single workstation 5 days per

week. He said that the fee covered all operating expenses except for long

distance telephone charges. He also said that memorandums of

understanding (MOU) were signed by participating agencies and GSA’s

Office of Workplace Initiatives, and that these MOUs were administered by

telecenter managers. These agreements described the number and type of

workstations needed by agencies, the cost and billing procedure, the hours

of operation, and the equipment to be provided at the telecenter.

Employee supervision was the responsibility of the employee’s immediate

supervisor.

A GSA official anticipated that appropriations earmarked for the

Washington area telecenters will be depleted by the end of fiscal year

1999, at which time it is planned that these telecenters will be

self-supporting. He said that, in the interim, the cost to participating

federal agencies will rise over a 3-year period until agencies incur

100 percent of the operating costs, which are approximately $500 per

workstation per month. He said the future cost to participating federal

agencies will be determined by each individual telecenter, but that this

cost will be less than that for private sector participants. This official

further said that, when this cost increase occurs, participating agencies

will need to at least offset the increased charges by reconfiguring central

office space and reducing facilities costs.

Plans also call for the centers to be opened to the general public. In 1996,

Congress enacted legislation allowing for the opening of telecenters to

nonfederal employees if the centers are not fully utilized by federal

employees. User fees comparable to commercial rates are to be charged.

Benefits Telecenters can be utilized by either single employers or by many

employers. The single employer telecenter is used by employees of only

one firm, organization, or government entity. Single employer telecenters

are typically used by large organizations that wish to assume a more

decentralized structure and who already have multiple facilities in which

excess space is available for use as telecenters. Multiemployer telecenters

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix II 

Telecenters

are typically used by more than one organization and can provide the

opportunity for smaller organizations to participate in telecommuting

without assuming the financial burden of establishing their own centers.

According to a 1994 report by the Institute of Transportation Studies,

University of California, Davis,1

 in comparison to working at home,

telecenters can provide greater security for confidential information and

greater assurance to supervisors that employees are being productive. A

telecenter coordinator said that managers who may not be enthusiastic

about home-based flexiplace may be more supportive of employees

working at telecenters because the setting is similar to an office

environment. The report further said employers’ liability for personal

injury may be better controlled at a telecenter than at home. A GSA official

said telecenters have safeguards to ensure a safe work environment.

A GSA interim report on federal interagency telecommuting centers2

 said

that telecenters can provide employees an alternative office setting that is

nearer their home, thereby decreasing their commuting distance. Federal

employees we interviewed who favor working at telecenters over working

at home cited several advantages of telecenters. These included a better

separation of home and work, the ability to socially and professionally

interact with other people, access to high quality telecenter equipment,

and the opportunity to work in a professional atmosphere.

The University of California report said that telecenters can have

community and environmental benefits as well. It said that, while

home-based flexiplace requires no commuting time at all, commuting time

to telecenters is less than to a central office, which reduces traffic

congestion, air pollution, road repairs, and fuel consumption. The report

also suggests that telecenter users can increase their support of the local

economy and have more time for community involvement as a result of

working in the local community.

Use According to GSA, as of November 1996, of the 9,000 federal employees

who were telecommuting, about 500 of these employees used telecenters

nationwide. Of these participants, approximately 355 were in the

Washington, D.C., area. Federal agencies in the Denver area reported an

1

Telecommuting Centers and Related Concepts: A Review of Practice. Institute of Transportation

Studies, University of California, Davis (Davis, California: March 1994).

2

GSA, Office of Workplace Initiatives, Interim Report: Federal Interagency Telecommuting Centers,

March 1995.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix II 

Telecenters

absence of federal telecenters in Denver because their use would result in

no appreciable reduction in commuting time; Denver’s traffic is not as

heavy as that in other major metropolitan areas, such as Washington and

Los Angeles. A GSA official in San Francisco said that a shortage of federal

funding has limited the establishment of telecenters in that region. A DOT

official said that, in addition to this reason, interest in San Francisco

telecenters has declined as the interest in home-based telecommuting has

increased.

The University of California, Davis, report suggests that one reason for this

minimal use of telecenters nationwide is that management does not want

to pay rent for telecenter space and also maintain central office space for

telecommuters. The report further suggests that this barrier could be

partially overcome by eliminating permanent personal work space for

groups of telecenter users and instead renting work space at a telecenter

for their use on a reservation basis. A regional GSA official told us that

agencies are reluctant to reduce central office space without the assurance

that telecenters will survive when federal appropriations are discontinued.

Another GSA official said that federal agencies may not see any cost

savings until they eliminate at least 10 to 20 workstations in their central

offices. He added that decreasing agencies’ central office space will ensure

the continuation of telecenters. He observed that this pattern of

decreasing office space has existed in the private sector and has led to

significant telecommuting in some major corporations. He pointed out that

the latest national figures show 9 million telecommuters.

As with other flexiplace arrangements, management resistance was cited

by agency officials, as well as by the University of California, Davis, report,

as a common barrier to both single and multiemployer telecenters. They

indicated that, because managers believed they could not effectively

supervise remote employees, telecommuting opportunities were often

restricted to those workers with independent and professional jobs. Some

agency officials also suggested that ensuring the security of proprietary

information was a barrier in considering the use of telecenters. However,

the University of California, Davis, report suggests that this barrier may be

overcome with advanced technology and the use of private offices or

secured file cabinets.

Other Federal

Telecenter Initiatives

In 1994, GSA established three emergency telecenters in Los Angeles after

the Northridge earthquake, using emergency federal building funds. Three

telecenters in the north and west ends of the city provided 98 workstations

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix II 

Telecenters

so that federal workers could avoid commuting on badly damaged roads

into Los Angeles. According to GSA’s interim report on federal

telecommuting centers, two of these centers closed at the end of 1994 due

to high rental costs and low utilization.

In March 1995, PMC’s National Telecommuting Initiative identified 30

additional cities for telecommuting projects based on such factors as air

pollution, the potential for improved customer service, the size of the local

federal community, and geography. As of February 1, 1997, 20 GSA-funded

telecenters existed nationwide in cities such as Atlanta, Oklahoma City,

Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco.

GSA also developed telecenter partnerships with state agencies such as the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to relieve traffic

congestion, conserve energy, and improve air quality in the state of

California. Partners in this effort included regional transportation

management authorities, local economic development offices and

redevelopment agencies, state and county fairs, community colleges, and

public school systems. The regional GSA office also established telecenters

in vacant federal office space in the San Francisco area.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix III 

Agencies’ Policies Reviewed

Table III.1: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Agencywide

Department or agency Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

(USDA)

Written policy Managers, supervisors,

and employees

Tasks that can be

performed away from the

traditional office; work

assignments should be

specific and measurable

On recurring

assignments or on

special occasions

Defense Finance and

Accounting Service 

(DOD)

Written policy Permanently or

temporarily disabled

employees with

acceptable medical

documentation

Work that requires

thinking, writing, data

analysis, and little

face-to-face contact

Portion of work week

must be spent in regular

office

Federal Aviation

Administration (DOT)

Handbook containing

flexiplace guidance

applicable agencywide,

supplemented with

additional guidance

applicable to regional

offices

Does not specify Portable work activities

that can be performed

effectively outside the of

office; tasks that are

easily quantifiable or

primarily project-oriented

Predetermined schedule

identifying specific days

and times;

recommended to be

limited to no more than 2

days per week

Federal Highway

Administration (DOT)

Agency cover letter

attached to departmental

personnel letter, updated

by memorandum and

supplemented with

additional guidance

Does not specify Work that does not

require participants to be

in their assigned duty

locations at all times;

task-based work, certain

compliance work

Up to the lesser of 5

days or 45 hours for

task-based participants

Federal Railroad

Administration (DOT)

Written policy

supplemented with local

guidance

All supervisors,

managers, and

employees at all grade

levels

Specific and measurable

tasks that can be

performed away from the

traditional office

Does not specify

GSA Written GSA order dated

9/26/96

Does not attempt to limit

types of employees, but

includes employees

affected by short-term

injury or illness,

pregnancy and paternal

reasons, and an

unusable office;

implementation for union

members is contingent

upon completion of labor

obligations

When telecommuting is

done for infrequent

periods of time, projects

and assignments should

have short turnaround

times or require intense

concentration; type of

work not specified when

telecommuting is done

for longer periods of time

Infrequent periods of

time, such as for 1 day,

scheduled periods for up

to 6 months; and

regularly scheduled

periods for over 6

months that may be

extended annually

SSA Written policy Severely handicapped

employees who have a

severe medical illness or

injury

Does not specify Predetermined schedule

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ policies.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix III 

Agencies’ Policies Reviewed

Table III.2: Flexiplace Policy Implemented in Headquarters

Department Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

DOL Written guidelines for pilot Selected Local 12

bargaining unit employees

in the Washington, D.C.,

metropolitan area

Portable work that can be

performed effectively

outside of the office; tasks

that are easily quantifiable

or primarily

project-oriented, such as

reading proposals and

reviews, analysis and

research, writing, and

computer programming

Established work

schedules identifying days

and times employees work

on flexiplace; agreements

must provide for at least 1

day per week in the office

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ policies.

Table III.3: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Within Multiple Federal Regions

Department or agency Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

DOL Written guidelines for a

pilot

Selected field positions

throughout DOL in

selected regions

Not specified Established work

schedule that provides

for a minimum time in the

office, such as 2 or 3

days per week

SSA Written memorandum of

understanding between

SSA and NTEU

multiregional employees

All NTEU bargaining unit

employees with at least 1

year experience in their

occupation

Work that can be

performed at an

alternative site without

impairment to the

mission of the agency

In accordance with a

work plan that specifies

days the employee will

be in and out of the office

SSA Written memorandum of

understanding between

SSA and NTEU Chapter

224 employees

Attorney advisors in the

Office of Hearings and

Appeals with at least 2

years experience who

work at least 4 days per

week

Does not specify One day per week for

full-time employees

Office of Motor Carriers

within the Federal Highway

Administration (DOT)

Written policy Office of Motor Carriers

field operations

employees

Does not specify Field workers eligible on

a permanent basis, but

office workers not eligible

on a permanent basis;

minimum duration of 6

months unless

unforeseeable

circumstances require

cancellation

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ policies.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix III 

Agencies’ Policies Reviewed

Table III.4: Flexiplace Policies Implemented Within a Single Federal Region

Department or agency Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

Forest Service, Region 2,

Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experimental

Station, Fort Collins, CO

Written policy Employees of Rocky

Mountain Forest and

Range Experimental

Station with medical

disability or disruption of

normal work environment

Does not specify Does not specify

Forest Service, Region 5 Written policy Employees in Region 5 Does not specify For periods of 30 days or

less

EPA

Region 8

Policy written in 1995 for

the first year of a

telecommuting program

intended to be

implemented over

3 years

All permanent full- and

part-time employees

except those on

Intergovernmental

Personnel Agreement

assignments; SES

employees only available

for episodic and medical

telecommuting;

employees must have 1

year experience

Portable work that can

be performed effectively

outside of the office;

easily quantifiable and

project-oriented tasks;

tasks that can be

grouped into single

blocks of time

One or 2

nonconsecutive,

regularly scheduled days

per week; on a

project-basis for short

duration (with a minimum

number of days in the

office each week), or on

a full- or part-time basis

for medical reasons

EPA

Region 9

Written policy All Region 9 employees

except those on

Intergovernmental

Personnel Agreement

Assignments, Senior

Environmental

Employment Program

staff, and contract

employees; employees

must have 1 year

experience

Portable work that can

be performed effectively

outside of the office;

tasks that are easily

quantifiable or primarily

project-oriented; reading

and writing proposals

and reviews

Up to 2 regularly

scheduled days per

week, for short periods of

time on a project basis,

or on a full- or part-time

basis for medical reasons

HUD, Colorado State

Office

Written guidelines for

pilot

All full-time employees,

including managers and

supervisors in the Offices

of Counsel, Fair Housing

and Equal Opportunity

Enforcement Center, and

Public Housing

Does not specify Work at home for no

more than 3 days per

week with a minimum of

2 days in the office

(continued)

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix III 

Agencies’ Policies Reviewed

Department or agency Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

GSA

Region 8

Written policy exempt

from headquarters policy

because Region 8 is a

reinvention laboratory

Does not specify Work that requires

thinking and writing,

such as data analysis,

reviewing grants or

cases, and writing

decisions and reports;

for telephone-intensive

tasks, such as setting up

conferences, obtaining

information, following up

on participants in a

study; and for

computer-oriented tasks,

such as programming,

data entry, and word

processing

Predetermined schedule

with part of the work

week spent in the office

Federal Highway

Administration (DOT)

Region 9

Written policy Region 9 Federal

Highway Administration

employees

Does not specify One day per week on a

long-term basis

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ policies.

Table III.5: Flexiplace Policies Implemented at a Single DOD Facility

DOD facility Types of policy

Types of employees

allowed to participate Types of work permitted

Types of arrangements

permitted

Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Port Hueneme, CA

Written policy Port Hueneme employees Site independent work

assignments that won’t

unduly impact work

performance of other

employees or the

organization’s mission

Up to 3 work days per

week for a renewable

1-year period

Naval Air Weapons

Center, Point Mugu, CA

Written policy Point Mugu employees Jobs that can be

conducted

independently of the

work location for at least

a portion of the week

Established work

schedules that provide

for minimum work time in

the traditional office,

such as 2 to 3 days per

week

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ policies.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix IV 

Flexiplace Use Reported by Agency Officials

Within Locations Visited and Contacted

Agency location

Total number of

personnel at

location

Number of

flexiplace

participants

Percentage of

agency personnel

participating

Forest Service, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 677 0 0.0%

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region 1,632 13 0.8

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 5,200 95 1.8

Navy, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 30,995 110 0.4

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, CA 2,300 25 1.1

Naval Air Weapons Center, Point Mugu, CA 3,119 60 1.9

DOD Finance and Accounting Service Center, Denver, CO 4,000 2 0.1

EPA, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 6,000 50 0.8

EPA, Region 8 600 160 26.7

EPA, Region 9 850 325 38.2

GSA, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 5,288 160 3.0

GSA, Region 8 400 60 15.0

GSA, Region 9 1,400 65 4.6

DOL, agencies’ headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 5,316 1,047 19.7

DOL, field units 9,970 2,379 23.9

Federal Highway Administration, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 1,040 20 1.9

Federal Highway Administration, Region 8 305 4 1.3

Federal Highway Administration, Region 9 189 15 7.9

HUD, headquarters (Washington, D.C., area) 3,085 15 0.5

HUD, Region 8 475 5 1.1

HUD, Region 9 900 0 0.0

SSA, headquarters (Baltimore area) 13,305 25 0.2

SSA, operations, Region 8 870 1 0.1

SSA, operations, Region 9 300 1 0.3

SSA, OHA, Region 8 162 32 19.8

SSA, OHA, Region 9 707 40 5.7

Total 99,085 4,709 4.8%a

aFigure represents the overall percentage of employees participating in flexiplace at the 26

locations we visited.

Source: Agency officials provided the total number of personnel and the number of flexiplace

participants at their locations. We did not verify the accuracy of these data.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Larry Endy, Assistant Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues

Nancy A. Patterson, Assignment Manager

Marlene M. Zacharias, Evaluator Assistant

Thomas Beall, Technical Advisor

Denver Field Office Ronald Belak, Evaluator-in-Charge

(410042) Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-116 Flexiplace in the Federal Government
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100