Report to the Subcommittee on Forests 

and Forest Health, Committee on 

Resources, House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

May 2003 FOREST SERVICE 

Little Progress on 

Performance 

Accountability Likely 

Unless Management 

Addresses Key 

Challenges 

GAO-03-503 
The Forest Service has made little real progress in resolving its long-standing 

performance accountability problems and, based on the status of its current 

efforts, remains years away from implementing a credible performance 

accountability system. Since June 2000, when we last reported on 

performance accountability at the Forest Service, the agency has continued 

to study the issue but has made little real progress. For example, in March 

2002, the agency initiated a study of how several other federal agencies 

implemented their performance accountability systems and, by September 

2002, had devised a draft plan for implementing a system of its own. 

However, broad support within the agency for implementing this plan could 

not be achieved, and an executive steering team was recently established to 

restudy the issue. While the agency continues to study and restudy the issue, 

opportunities to establish key linkages among components of a performance 

accountability system have been missed. For example, in April 2000, the 

agency began considering a new budget system and, in August 2001, a new 

work-plan system—two critical components that should be part of a 

performance accountability system. However, the Forest Service has yet to 

develop clear linkages between these new systems and its strategic goals 

and performance results. Without these linkages, the agency will be unable 

to report in an integrated, results-oriented way on what activities it 

completed, how much they cost, and what they accomplished—key elements 

of an effective performance accountability system. While we recognize that 

developing a performance accountability system is a complex, timeconsuming process, other federal agencies with land management 

responsibilities have developed and implemented performance 

accountability systems and believe that their systems have produced 

multiple benefits. 

The Forest Service faces three key challenges that it must meet if it is to 

make more progress. First, the agency needs to establish clear lines of 

authority and responsibility for developing and implementing a performance 

accountability system. Currently, various senior executives have 

responsibilities for components of performance accountability; however, no 

one has overall responsibility and authority for ensuring these components 

are developed and properly linked. Second, the Forest Service needs to 

address its culture of consensus decision-making, which has made it difficult 

for the Forest Service to agree on how to develop and implement an 

integrated performance accountability system. Third, top agency leadership 

needs to give sufficient emphasis and priority to establishing a performance 

accountability system. The agency is currently giving greater emphasis to 

other priorities, like financial accountability. GAO recognizes the 

importance of, and need for, addressing the Forest Service’s long-standing 

financial accountability problems, but believes more can and should be done 

to address the agency’s performance accountability problems so that both 

performance and financial accountability can work in concert to assess and, 

ultimately, to improve the agency’s overall performance. 

Historically, the Forest Service has 

not been able to provide Congress 

or the public with a clear 

understanding of what the Forest 

Service’s 30,000 employees 

accomplish with the approximately 

$5 billion the agency receives every 

year. Since 1990, GAO has 

reported 7 times on performance 

accountability weaknesses at the 

Forest Service, including its 

inability to systematically link 

planning, budgeting, and results 

reporting. This report reviews the 

recent progress the Forest Service 

has made in resolving previously 

identified performance 

accountability problems and 

identifies key challenges the Forest 

Service must overcome to resolve 

these problems. 

The Secretary of Agriculture should 

direct that the Chief of the Forest 

Service appoint a senior executive 

to develop a comprehensive plan 

with milestones to ensure the 

timely implementation of an 

effective performance 

accountability system. The Chief 

should also report, beginning in 

2004, on (1) the agency’s progress 

in implementing a performance 

accountability system in the 

agency’s annual performance plans 

and (2) its accomplishments in 

implementing its performance 

accountability system in its annual 

performance report to the 

Congress. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, the Forest 

Service agreed with these 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-503.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill 

(202) 512-3841 or Hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-503, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 

Health, Committee on Resources, House 

of Representatives 

May 2003

FOREST SERVICE 

Little Progress on Performance 

Accountability Likely Unless Management 

Addresses Key Challenges 
Page i GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

Forest Service Has Made Little Progress in Resolving Known 

Performance Accountability Problems, unlike Other Federal 

Land Management Agencies 9

Forest Service’s Inability to Address Organizational, Cultural, and 

Leadership Challenges Continues to Impede Its Progress on 

Performance Accountability 15

Conclusions 16

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments 18

Scope and Methodology 18

Appendix I Forest Service’s Progress on GAO-Reported 

Performance Accountability Problems 20 

Appendix II Detailed Forest Service Organizational Chart 22 

Appendix III Comments from the Forest Service 24 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 25 

Related GAO Products 26 

Figures 

Figure 1: Forest Service’s Organizational Structure 5

Figure 2: The Linkage among Components in GPRA Legislative 

Framework 7

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Abbreviations 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BFES Budget Formulation and Execution System 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

NRCS Natural Resources and Conservation Service 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

USDA Department of Agriculture 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

May 1, 2003 

The Honorable Scott McInnis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Jay Inslee 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

For 10 years, Congress and the administration have focused on making 

federal agencies more accountable for what they accomplish with the 

dollars they receive. To this end, the Congress mandated in legislation that 

federal agencies undertake a number of major management reforms that, 

together, constitute a statutory framework for linking plans, budgets, and 

results.1

 Over this period, GAO has reviewed agencies’ efforts to achieve 

the accountability for financial management and performance envisioned 

by this framework. Since 1999, in a series of reports identifying agencies 

with major management challenges and at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, 

and mismanagement, GAO has consistently reported serious financial and 

performance accountability weaknesses at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Forest Service. As a result of these weaknesses, the 

Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress and the public with a 

clear understanding of what its 30,000 employees accomplish with the 

approximately $5 billion it receives every year. 

The Forest Service has an enormous stewardship responsibility: to 

maintain the health, productivity, and diversity of the nation’s forests and 

grasslands for current and future generations of Americans. The agency 

manages 192 million acres of land, including a national forest system that 

comprises 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 17 recreation 

areas. On these lands, the Forest Service, among other things, supports 

recreation; sells timber; provides rangeland for grazing; maintains and 

 1

 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as well as certain other laws, 

comprise this statutory framework. In particular, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 

was designed to bring more effective general and financial management practices to 

federal agencies; the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 was intended to ensure that 

information technology is managed to improve the performance of agencies; and the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agencies to establish goals for improving agency 

operations through the effective use of information technology. The framework also 

includes the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and the Inspector General Act. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

protects watersheds, wilderness, fish and wildlife; and works with other 

federal agencies to prevent and suppress wildfires. In addition, the Forest 

Service provides financial and program support for state and private 

forests and undertakes research activities. The Forest Service, headed by a 

Chief, conducts these activities through three levels of field 

management—-9 regional offices, 123 forest offices, and about 600 district 

offices. The managers of these field offices have considerable discretion in 

interpreting and applying the agency’s policies and directions. The Chief of 

the Forest Service reports to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for 

Natural Resources and Environment. 

In our previous reports, dating back to 1991, we noted that the agency’s 

lack of performance accountability in recent years occurred, at least in 

part, because it had not developed a performance accountability system 

that links its budget and organizational structures, planning processes, and 

resource allocations with its strategic goals, objectives, and performance 

measures. We also reported that the agency had difficulty in developing 

good performance measures and monitoring progress, both of which are 

critical to ensuring accountability. Furthermore, while the agency had 

made numerous commitments in recent years to provide the Congress and 

the public with a better understanding of what it accomplishes with 

appropriated funds, it did not appear to be fully committed to establishing 

the key linkages, measures, monitoring, and coordination needed for 

accountability. We reported that the Forest Service has studied options to 

address performance accountability but has done little else. In addition, 

we determined that the Forest Service has found it difficult to develop a 

performance accountability system because responsibilities for 

accountability have been fragmented among organizational components 

and because the agency’s culture allows field managers significant 

independence in deciding whether to implement headquarters’ guidance. 

You asked us to (1) review the progress the Forest Service is making in 

resolving known performance accountability problems and (2) identify 

key challenges impeding the Forest Service’s ability to resolve its 

performance accountability problems. This report updates our reviews of 

the Forest Service since we last testified before your Subcommittee in 

June 2000.2

 2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become 

More Accountable for Its Performance, GAO/T-RCED-00-236 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2000). 
Page 3 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

The Forest Service has made little progress in resolving its long-standing 

performance accountability problems and, based on the status of its 

current efforts, remains years away from establishing a credible 

performance accountability system. Nearly 2 years after we testified on 

the agency’s performance accountability problems in June 2000, the Forest 

Service once again began to study its options. In March 2002, it initiated a 

study of other federal agencies’ performance accountability systems to 

learn how to develop, evaluate, and implement a performance 

accountability system, and by September 2002, the Forest Service had 

formulated a draft plan for implementing one of its own. However, the 

draft plan never received broad support within the agency, and the agency 

established an executive steering team to restudy the issue. However, this 

team was not appointed until December 2002, nearly 21⁄2 years since we 

last testified on this issue and more than 11 years after we first reported on 

it. While the agency continues to study and restudy the issue, 

opportunities to establish key linkages among components of a 

performance accountability system have been missed. For example, the 

Forest Service is developing two systems that should be integral to a 

performance accountability system—budget and work-plan systems. 

However, the Forest Service has not developed clear linkages between 

these new systems and its strategic goals and performance results. 

Without these linkages, the agency will not be able to report in an 

integrated, results-oriented way on what activities it completed, how much 

they cost, and what they accomplished—key elements of any effective 

performance accountability system. While we recognize that developing a 

performance accountability system is a complex, time-consuming process, 

we found that other federal agencies with land management 

responsibilities have developed and implemented performance 

accountability systems and believe that their systems have produced 

multiple benefits. 

The Forest Service faces three key challenges that it must meet if it is to 

implement a credible performance accountability system: (1) establishing 

clear authority and responsibility within the current organizational 

structure, (2) making and implementing decisions in an agency culture 

that relies heavily on consensus, and (3) establishing sufficient leadership 

emphasis and making performance accountability a higher priority. With 

respect to the first challenge, several senior executives have been assigned 

responsibilities for components of performance accountability. However, 

none of these executives has overall responsibility and authority for 

ensuring these components are properly linked, and effective coordination 

continues to be difficult within the Forest Service’s existing organizational 

structure. Second, the Forest Service’s culture of making major decisions 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

by agencywide consensus serves as a major impediment to more 

concerted action on this front. Currently, the Forest Service cannot agree 

on an integrated approach to creating a performance accountability 

system, and without this agreement the agency’s progress is essentially 

stalemated. Finally, top agency leadership has not given sufficient 

emphasis and priority to establishing a performance accountability 

system. According to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural 

Resources and Environment and the Chief of the Forest Service, the 

agency is focusing its efforts on achieving financial accountability before 

addressing its performance accountability needs. While we recognize the 

importance of, and the need for, addressing the Forest Service’s longstanding financial accountability problems, we believe that more can and 

should be done to also address its performance accountability problems 

so that both performance and financial accountability can work in concert 

to assess and, ultimately, to improve the agency’s overall performance. 

GAO is recommending a series of steps to ensure that the Forest Service 

makes substantive progress towards developing and implementing a 

performance accountability system. The Forest Service commented on a 

draft of this report and agreed with our findings and recommendations. 

The Forest Service is organized into six areas, each headed by a deputy 

chief, who reports directly to the Chief of the Forest Service. These deputy 

chiefs are responsible for the National Forest System; State and Private 

Forestry; Research and Development; Budget and Finance; Programs, 

Legislation and Communications; and Business Operations, as shown in 

figure 1. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Figure 1: Forest Service’s Organizational Structure 

The Forest Service is one of four federal agencies that manage public 

lands. The other three are the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Service, within the 

Department of the Interior (Interior). The Natural Resources and 

Conservation Service (NRCS), within USDA, provides land management 

assistance to the owners of private lands. The Forest Service and the three 

agencies within Interior manage 95 percent of all federal lands, while 

NRCS is primarily responsible for conserving and protecting natural 

resources on private lands, which constitute about 75 percent of all 

acreage in the contiguous United States. NRCS has a budget of 

approximately $1 billion and 11,500 employees. BLM is responsible for 

administering more public lands than any other federal agency, with a 

budget of approximately $1.7 billion and 10,900 employees. Although 

Other Federal Agencies 

Have Land Management 

Responsibilities 
Page 6 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

somewhat smaller than the Forest Service, NRCS and BLM have important 

land management responsibilities. 

Over the past decade, Congress and the executive branch have sought to 

improve federal management by focusing more on results. The Congress 

enacted several laws to create a statutory framework for results-oriented 

management. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) is a key element of this statutory framework. GPRA requires 

agencies to develop strategic plans that have outcome-related goals and 

objectives. Agencies must also develop annual performance plans that 

establish goals for program activities and that create performance 

measures to assess program outcomes and to provide a basis for linking 

program results with established goals. The strategic plan must describe 

how the annual performance goals relate to the strategic plan’s goals and 

objectives. Finally, GPRA requires agencies to report annually on their 

results—that is, the extent to which their annual performance goals have 

been met. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of the different components 

of this legislative framework. 

Statutory and 

Administrative Framework 

for Performance 

Accountability 
Page 7 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Figure 2: The Linkage among Components in GPRA Legislative Framework 

Implementation of the legislative framework is evolving. Currently, for 

example, improving the integration of budget and performance is a highpriority initiative in the President’s Management Agenda.

3

 The Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) is central to this initiative. This diagnostic tool is intended to 

provide a consistent approach to reviewing program design, planning, and 

 3

 The President’s Management Agenda seeks to improve the management and 

performance of the federal government by focusing on 14 targeted areas—5 

governmentwide goals and 9 program initiatives. 
Page 8 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

goal development as well as program management and results. OMB has 

begun using PART to assess 20 percent of programs annually, beginning 

with the fiscal year 2004 President’s budget request to the Congress. 

GAO has documented the Forest Service’s struggles with achieving 

performance accountability for over a decade. (See Related GAO 

Products.) GAO concluded that the agency’s lack of performance 

accountability occurred, at least in part, because it had not developed a 

performance accountability system that linked its budget and 

organizational structures, planning processes, and resource allocations 

with its strategic goals, objectives, and performance measures. 

Adequate performance measures are key to linking components of a 

performance accountability system. However, as we reported, the Forest 

Service had not established objective and verifiable performance 

measures. Nor had it established specific and quantifiable objectives that 

link its strategic goals with its annual performance measures. We reported 

that the agency had difficulty establishing these linkages because the 

authority for these components was fragmented among three different 

deputy chiefs, with no method for resolving differences on how to best 

link these components. This lack of coordination at headquarters 

undermined performance accountability. 

Finally, we reported that the agency’s leadership had failed to credibly 

emphasize performance management at either the headquarters or field 

levels. We reported that in 1991 the Chief of the Forest Service had formed 

a task force to review performance accountability. The task force found 

that the agency had consistently promised to take corrective actions 

recommended by GAO and USDA’s Inspector General, but had most often 

failed to do so and that there was “compelling” evidence of a need for 

increased accountability. As a result, the task force recommended that the 

Forest Service (1) institutionalize accountability in managers’ performance 

contracts, (2) accelerate cultural change in the agency, and (3) monitor 

and track accountability through indicators or benchmarks.4

 The agency’s 

leadership team adopted these concepts and distributed them agencywide. 

However, as we reported in 1997, agency leadership did not follow up with 

 4

 Forest Service, Individual and Organizational Accountability in the Forest Service: 

Successful Management of Work Agreements, (Washington, D.C.: Forest Service, 1994). 

Prior GAO Reports 

Document Long-Standing 

Performance 

Accountability Problems 
Page 9 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

actions to implement these concepts and, as a result, the task force’s 

recommendations were never carried out. 

The Forest Service has made little progress in resolving previously 

identified performance accountability problems and remains years away 

from implementing a credible performance accountability system. Rather 

than developing and implementing a functioning performance 

accountability system like other federal land management agencies, the 

Forest Service, for the most part, continues to study its options, as it has 

for the last 11 years. The agency is developing or has implemented two 

systems that should be important components of a performance 

accountability system—a budget formulation and execution system and a 

work-planning system—but neither was originally designed to be part of a 

performance accountability system, nor has the Forest Service developed 

the clear linkages needed between these new systems and its strategic 

goal-setting and results-reporting functions. 

To understand how other agencies have established clear linkages among 

key components of a performance accountability system, the Forest 

Service initiated a benchmarking study of other agencies’ performance 

accountability systems in March 2002, including USDA’s NRCS and 

Interior’s BLM and National Park Service.5

 This study reports on lessons 

learned for successfully developing, evaluating, and implementing a 

performance accountability system. In particular, a good performance 

accountability system, among other things, should include 

• senior leadership commitment to performance accountability; 

• clear delineation of organizational responsibilities for performance 

measurement, budget integration, performance evaluation, and 

reporting; 

• close coordination of performance accountability activities; 

• national performance measures; 

• linkages from the strategic plan to annual performance measures to 

budget activities; and 

• the ability to track total costs and tie those costs to desired outcomes. 

 5

 Forest Service, Budget and Performance Integration: Benchmarking of Other 

Organizational Approaches—Initial Report, (Washington, D.C.: Forest Service, 2002). 

Two other agencies studied were the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Air Force. 

Forest Service Has 

Made Little Progress 

in Resolving Known 

Performance 

Accountability 

Problems, unlike 

Other Federal Land 

Management Agencies 

The Forest Service 

Continues to Study 

Performance 

Accountability 
Page 10 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Not until July 2002 did the Chief of the Forest Service emphasize his 

intention to “get started” on studying how performance accountability 

could be implemented at the Forest Service. In September 2002, in 

response to the Chief’s direction, the strategic planning and budget staffs 

completed a draft plan for an agencywide performance accountability 

system that incorporated the lessons learned from their benchmarking 

study. The Forest Service’s Draft Performance Accountability System 

Implementation Plan provides a conceptual framework and time frames 

for developing a performance accountability system. It is designed to 

develop the critical links among performance accountability components: 

the strategic plan, annual performance plan, project planning, budget, and 

annual reporting of results. The plan also explains how existing Forest 

Service databases, such as those for formulating the budget and the annual 

work plans, could be used to provide the information needed for 

performance accountability. Although the Chief endorsed the concept of 

performance accountability outlined in the plan, it did not receive broad 

support throughout the agency. As a result, the Chief decided to further 

assess performance accountability options through an executive steering 

team, rather than adopt the system envisioned in the draft implementation 

plan. 

The executive steering team, chaired by the Deputy Chief for Programs, 

Legislation, and Communications, comprises nine senior executives in key 

agency positions.6

 This team is to study the Forest Service’s own processes 

and systems and further consider options available for implementing a 

Forest Service performance accountability system and to report to the 

Chief by June 2003 on the viability of these options. However, this team 

was not appointed until December 2002, nearly 21⁄2 years after we last 

testified on this issue and more 11 years after we first reported on it. As a 

result, the Forest Service has made little progress since 1991, when it first 

formed a task force to review performance accountability. 

 6

 Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, and Communications (Chair); Deputy Chief for 

Business Operations; Chief Financial Officer; Deputy Chief for the National Forest System; 

Chief Information Officer; Regional Forester (region 10); Station Director, Pacific 

Northwest; Deputy Regional Forester for State and Private Forestry (region 8); and 

Director of Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment, serves as the non-voting 

executive secretary to the team. 
Page 11 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

The Forest Service began considering new budget and work-planning 

systems in April 2000 and August 2001, respectively, long before the Chief 

emphasized his intention to “get started” on performance accountability in 

July 2002. These new systems should be integral parts of a performance 

accountability system, but the Forest Service has not developed clear 

linkages between these new systems’ main outputs—budgets and work 

activities—and its strategic goals and performance results. Without these 

linkages, the agency will not be able to report in an integrated, resultsoriented way on what activities it completed, how much they cost, and 

what they accomplished—key elements of any effective performance 

accountability system. 

In June 2000, the House Committee on Appropriations reported it was 

concerned that the agency devoted too much of its funding to 

headquarters initiatives and special projects, to the detriment of 

conservation and public service activities the Committee believed to be 

important. As a result, the Committee directed the Forest Service to better 

link its budget formulation and allocation systems to the actual work 

planned for the nation’s forests. 

The Forest Service developed such a system—the Budget Formulation and 

Execution System (BFES)—and in March 2001 began using it to formulate 

its fiscal year 2003 budget. The agency viewed BFES as an answer to the 

Committee’s concerns, but not necessarily part of any effort to achieve 

performance accountability. The Forest Service designed BFES to allow 

field units to have more input into the budget formulation process, to plan 

activities and their associated funding throughout the annual budget 

development process, and to serve as a basis for subsequent field unit 

allocations. If BFES accomplishes these goals, according to senior officials 

in the budget office, it could allow field units to estimate their ability to 

carry out program activities in light of the agency’s strategic goals, 

headquarters priorities, and local priorities. Furthermore, according to 

these officials, BFES’s potential to establish such linkages could make it 

integral to the agency’s recent attempt to develop a performance 

accountability system. However, as of May 2003—more than 3 years after 

the Forest Service began work on BFES and 2 years after its first use—

only a portion of the agency’s budget is included in the system. 

Despite the expectations for BFES to link the agency’s strategic goals with 

headquarters and local priorities, the Forest Service has not established 

clear linkages between its strategic goals and field units’ local priorities, 

which makes it harder for the Forest Service to achieve performance 

accountability. In particular, budget instructions for fiscal years 2003 and 

Forest Service Has 

Developed Two Systems 

That Should Be Part of a 

Performance 

Accountability System, but 

It Has Not Established 

Clear Linkages between 

These Systems and Its 

Strategic Goals and 

Performance Results 
Page 12 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

2004 attempted to guide field units on how to make these linkages. 

According to these instructions, as field units planned their activities and 

associated funding, they were to weigh the agency’s strategic goals in 

making budgetary trade-offs between competing local priorities. In fiscal 

year 2003, field units found it impossible to deal effectively with the large 

number of priorities—50—headquarters identified. For fiscal year 2004, 

the agency’s guidance did not provide a formal process to document such 

linkages. Field managers used their “professional judgment” to draw these 

linkages. Consequently, for both fiscal years 2003 and 2004, field units 

used BFES estimates to set local priorities based on incremental 

adjustments to their previous year’s funding. Such a process does not meet 

the criteria for performance accountability because it is not clearly based 

on the strategic plan and associated outcomes. However, according to 

senior budget officials, the BFES approach to budget formulation for these 

years represents an improvement over the Forest Service’s previous 

process, a more arbitrary practice based almost entirely on the previous 

year’s funding. 

Although the Forest Service’s budget formulation effort for fiscal year 2005 

is an improvement over the budget formulation process for the prior 2 

fiscal years, it once again falls short of establishing clear linkages between 

the agency’s strategic goals and field unit priorities. In December 2002, the 

National Leadership Team—60 senior executives in the agency—reviewed 

a set of draft management objectives7

 developed by the planning staff and 

tentatively approved 11 of them for field units to consider in developing 

their fiscal year 2005 budget submissions. Field units have been instructed 

to use these management objectives in integrating local forest plan 

priorities with agency objectives. Agency officials reported this initial step 

was intended to have field staff become “comfortable” in seeing budget 

and strategic goals together and to begin linking performance goals to the 

budget. However, staff in the planning office as well as some senior 

executives questioned the extent to which the fiscal year 2005 

management objectives mirrored strategic goals, primarily because 

National Leadership Team members did not have sufficient time to 

carefully review the draft management objectives. 

The Forest Service decided to replace its work-planning system in August 

2001, when conversion to new computer hardware caused the existing 

 7

 Management objectives define intermediate outcomes toward strategic goals. They are 

tangible objectives against which progress toward strategic goals can be measured. 
Page 13 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

work-planning system to lose some of its usefulness. The agency sought a 

national work-planning system to, among other things, help field units plan 

and manage work activities at the project level. According to agency 

officials, the new work-planning system—called WorkPlan—will be 

completed and implemented in two phases. The first phase is scheduled to 

be completed by May 1, 2003, but it will include only a planning 

component. WorkPlan should be available to field units in time to help 

them develop their fiscal year 2004 work plans. The agency expects to 

complete the second phase in October 2003, which is to add tracking 

completed activities and reporting accomplishments to WorkPlan’s 

capabilities. According to the draft performance accountability system 

implementation plan, WorkPlan may eventually link field units’ work 

activities to Forest Service planning, budgeting, and results reporting 

functions. These linkages, if established, could assist program managers 

in, among other things, reporting accomplishments and their related 

expenditures and integrating these functions with the Forest Service’s 

strategic goals—key functions in a performance accountability system. 

However, it is not clear whether the agency will be able to establish the 

necessary linkages that would enable WorkPlan to meet these 

expectations. For example, it is unclear how accurately the Forest Service 

will be able to report on the actual costs of individual work activities. 

Currently, the agency’s financial information system reports actual 

expenditures only at the budget line item level, while WorkPlan is being 

designed to provide the planned costs of individual work activities at the 

project level. The Forest Service is planning to develop linkages to bridge 

this discrepancy between levels of reporting and thus to provide estimates 

of project activities’ actual costs. Forest Service officials believe that such 

estimates could provide sufficient detail and clarity to adequately address 

performance accountability concerns. However, until such linkages are, in 

fact, established and evaluated, it is uncertain that the agency will ever be 

able to accurately report the actual cost of project activities. 

WorkPlan’s future ability to report accomplishments depends heavily on 

the Forest Service making significantly more progress on developing 

outcome performance measures for all of its goals and objectives. While 

we understand the difficulty in developing meaningful performance 

measures, the Forest Service is in the process of developing such 

measures only for its wildfire program. For example, in Forest Service’s 

fiscal year 2005 draft Performance Management Plan, the measure for 

reducing hazardous fuels is expressed in terms of how much the risk of 

catastrophic fire has been reduced, an outcome-based performance 

measure. However, officials from the wildfire, wildlife and fish, 
Page 14 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

engineering, and water and air programs told us that relating work 

activities, such as those that will likely be reported in WorkPlan, to 

achieving results requires systematic monitoring of the changing 

conditions in the forests over time in order to validate the effects of these 

different work activities. These program officials told us that with the 

exception of the wildfire program, currently they do not have plans to 

undertake this systematic monitoring for their other programs. 

Other federal agencies with land management responsibilities have made 

more progress in developing and implementing performance 

accountability systems. The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have developed Webbased performance accountability systems that link planning, budgeting, 

and results. Both agencies continue to improve their systems and 

processes, and the Department of the Interior plans to implement BLM’s 

system departmentwide as part of Interior’s vision for effective program 

management. 

According to NRCS and BLM officials, the primary factor driving the 

development and implementation of their performance accountability 

systems was a strong desire to report accurately on what they had 

accomplished with the dollars they received. Furthermore, strong 

leadership commitment enabled the agencies to develop and begin 

implementing their systems with existing resources within a few years—4 

years for NRCS and 3 years for BLM. Finally, several other factors also 

contributed to the agencies’ success: taking the risk of investing time and 

resources into developing a performance accountability system, using the 

strategic plan to guide their efforts, and having an implementation plan 

with time frames for completing steps throughout the development and 

implementation phases. 

Both NRCS and BLM believe that their accountability systems have 

produced multiple benefits. Specifically, managers can make more 

informed decisions on resource allocation because the systems align 

actual costs with program work. For example, BLM officials report they 

can track actual costs to projects and tasks. In addition, their budget can 

show how these tasks and associated costs link with the agency’s strategic 

plan. NRCS officials can also report on the actual costs of the agency’s 

programs as well as how workload and time frames will change as 

resources change. Both agencies also told us that their Web-based systems 

enable them to know what they are accomplishing with the money they 

spend at any given moment. As a result, BLM officials report that they can 

Other Federal Land 

Management Agencies 

Have Implemented 

Performance 

Accountability Systems 
Page 15 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

reallocate dollars as priorities shift because it is easy to determine where 

dollars are available. At both agencies, transparent data promoted 

competition among units in the agency to improve performance because 

performance data can be viewed by anyone in the agency. 

Three key challenges continue to keep the Forest Service from resolving 

its performance accountability problems: (1) establishing clear authority 

and responsibility within the current organizational structure, (2) making 

and implementing decisions in an agency culture that relies on consensus, 

and (3) establishing sufficient leadership emphasis and making 

performance accountability a higher priority. 

Organizationally, several senior executives have been assigned 

responsibilities for components of performance accountability, but none 

of them has overall responsibility and authority for ensuring that these 

components are properly linked or that the agency achieves performance 

accountability. For example, the Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, 

and Communications is in charge of the strategic planning component, 

while the Deputy Chief for Budget and Finance is responsible for the 

budget and finance components. The agency will find it difficult to make 

progress in achieving performance accountability if the decisions and 

activities of the separate staffs responsible for the various accountability 

system components are not effectively coordinated. However, effective 

coordination continues to be a challenge within the Forest Service’s 

existing organizational structure. The fact that the agency’s efforts since 

our last report have not resulted in an approved performance 

accountability plan underscores the importance of addressing the issue of 

fragmentation and the need for more effective coordination. 

Culturally, the Forest Service makes and implements major decisions by 

obtaining consensus throughout all levels of the agency—headquarters, 

regions, and local units. At times, this approach slows the agency’s ability 

to make progress on important issues. According to senior Forest Service 

officials, the agency has a collaborative leadership management style—

senior managers from all levels moving forward together—so that 

progress depends on a collective acceptance of any new proposal. These 

officials added that progress on new proposals could slow or even stop if 

consensus cannot be achieved in the developmental process. The Forest 

Service has been unable to develop and implement a performance 

accountability system, largely because it cannot agree on an integrated 

approach. The executive steering team’s current effort to study available 

options for a performance accountability system is an indication that the 

Forest Service’s 

Inability to Address 

Organizational, 

Cultural, and 

Leadership 

Challenges Continues 

to Impede Its 

Progress on 

Performance 

Accountability 
Page 16 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

draft plan for implementing such a system does not have broad support 

throughout the agency. According to one deputy chief, the executive 

steering team must build support throughout the agency in order to make 

progress toward implementing a performance accountability system. 

Finally, agency leadership has not given the emphasis and priority to 

performance accountability that is needed to overcome the Forest 

Service’s organizational and cultural challenges. Currently, the Chief and 

the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 

Environment, who both have held their positions for less than 2 years, are 

emphasizing other priorities. The Chief is focusing on achieving financial 

accountability, while the Under Secretary counts performance 

accountability as his third priority, behind improvements to the agency’s 

decision-making process and financial accountability. Furthermore, the 

Under Secretary stated that, without progress on the first two priorities, 

performance accountability would be meaningless. Both the Chief and the 

Under Secretary acknowledge that the emphasis on performance 

accountability has lagged behind other priorities. However, the Chief told 

us that he intends to review GAO and USDA Inspector General’s 

recommendations to see whether the agency had taken actions as 

promised and also intends to include accountability for results in agency 

managers’ contracts. 

Our analysis of the Forest Service’s actions with respect to performance 

accountability shows that the agency is essentially in the same position it 

was more than a decade ago—studying how it might achieve performance 

accountability. By establishing another task force to again “review 

options” for implementing a performance accountability system, the 

agency has delayed any real action on this important front. Moreover, the 

Chief’s intentions—to review GAO and Inspector General reports to see if 

the agency had taken promised actions and to consider incorporating 

performance accountability into the managers’ contracts—are not new. 

The 1994 task force performed the same review and made the same 

recommendation on making performance accountability part of senior 

managers’ contracts. 

We understand that the Forest Service has important competing 

priorities—improving financial and performance accountability as well as 

its decision-making process—but we do not believe that these priorities 

need to be addressed sequentially. To the contrary, progress on these 

priorities is interdependent and can be and should be achieved 

concurrently so that both may be used to assess the overall performance 

Conclusions 
Page 17 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

of the agency. Accountability requires not only accurately informing 

Congress and the public on expenditures but also reporting the results of 

these expenditures. Without senior leadership’s placing sufficient 

emphasis, however, we believe that the Forest Service will continue to 

take only small, slow steps, if any, toward achieving performance 

accountability. 

If the future is to be different than the past, the challenges we identified 

have to be addressed aggressively. The Chief and the senior leadership 

have to decide to make performance accountability a reality, not a subject 

of continued study. To achieve more progress, the Forest Service will need 

to assign overall authority and responsibility for a performance 

accountability system to one official and then hold that person 

accountable for the effort. It is also crucial for Congress to monitor the 

Forest Service’s progress in developing a performance accountability 

system. Unlike other land management agencies that have developed and 

implemented performance accountability systems within the last 3 years, 

the Forest Service has yet to come to this commitment on its own. 

To ensure progress in achieving performance accountability, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest 

Service to appoint a senior executive with decision-making authority and 

responsibility for developing a comprehensive plan, with milestones, to 

ensure the timely implementation of an effective performance 

accountability system. This executive should be held accountable for 

• ensuring that the Forest Service’s performance accountability system 

clearly links the key components needed to manage for results—plans, 

performance measures, budgets, work activities, expenditures, and 

accomplishments; 

• meeting specific milestones for implementing the system; and 

• ensuring full implementation of the performance accountability system 

throughout all levels of the agency. 

The Secretary of Agriculture should also direct the Chief of the Forest 

Service to report, beginning in 2004, on the agency’s (1) progress in 

implementing a performance accountability system and the additional 

milestones to be accomplished in the agency’s annual performance plans 

and (2) accomplishments in implementing its performance accountability 

system in its annual performance report to the Congress. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 18 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for its review and comment. In 

response, the Forest Service stated that it agrees with the report’s findings 

and recommendations. Specifically, the Forest Service stated that it would 

propose a comprehensive plan by May 30, 2003, to ensure the timely 

implementation of an effective performance accountability system. 

The Forest Service’s written comments are presented in appendix III. 

To assess the progress the Forest Service has made in addressing 

previously identified performance accountability problems and key 

challenges impeding its ability to resolve these problems, we interviewed 

the Chief of the Forest Service, members of the executive steering team, 

and officials in various offices, including the Office of Budget and Program 

Analysis, the Office of Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment, and 

selected field offices. The Office of Strategic Planning and Resource 

Assessment and the Office of Budget and Program Analysis are 

responsible for designing and implementing the agency’s performance 

accountability system. The Office of Budget and Program Analysis and 

selected field offices are responsible for the budget formulation and 

execution system, and work-planning system. We also reviewed reports, 

planning documents, USDA OIG audits, and other documents on past 

performance accountability problems in the Forest Service and on the 

status of the development and implementation of the agency’s efforts to 

improve its planning, budgeting, performance measurement, and 

accomplishment reporting processes. Additionally, we interviewed 

officials at NRCS and BLM about their efforts to develop and implement 

Web-based accountability systems and reviewed related documents. 

Finally, we reviewed recent OMB directives related to agency performance 

management and budgeting and their recent PART analysis of two Forest 

Service programs. 

We conducted our review from August 2002 through March 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the 

Agency Comments 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Page 19 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Forest Service and its 

activities; the Honorable Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture; and the 

Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and 

Budget. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s home 

page at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Barry T. Hill 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 
Appendix I: Forest Service’s Progress on 

GAO-Reported Performance Accountability 

Problems 

Page 20 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

GAO’s reported performance 

accountability problems at the Forest 

Service Date(s) reported 

Forest Service’s progress as of 

April 1, 2003 

Related key 

challenges 

Forest Service budgets and allocates 

appropriated funds on the basis of historic 

funding levels. 

June 29, 2000 

October 13, 1999 

Forest Service's Budget Formulation 

and Execution System partially 

addresses this problem. 

Leadership 

Organization 

 

Forest Service also budgets and allocates 

funds on the basis of its programs, many of 

which are not linked to the agency's strategic 

plan or how work is actually done in the 

national forests. 

June 29, 2000 

February 16, 2000 

April 26, 1994 

Forest Service attempted to link 

budget formulation and the agency's 

strategic plan with the FY05 budget 

instructions. Forest Service is 

developing a national work-planning 

system for national forests to plan 

work. 

Leadership 

Organization 

 

Forest Service intends for forest plans to 

serve as the basis of future budgets, but it is 

unclear how national forests will blend 

agencywide goals with local priorities. 

June 29, 2000 

October 13, 1999 

No progress has been made to link 

forest plans to budgets. The Forest 

Service attempted to blend agencywide goals with local priorities for its 

fiscal year 2005 budget. 

Leadership 

Organization 

 

Forest Service relies on performance 

measures that are not always clearly linked 

to strategic goals and objectives because 

they do not always assess outputs, service 

levels, and outcomes the agency intends to 

achieve. 

June 29, 2000 

February 16, 2000 

October 13, 1999 

Forest Service is developing 

performance measures it believes 

better link to the agency's strategic 

goals. However, the performance 

measures still need improvement. 

Culture 

Leadership 

 

Forest Service is working to refine its 

performance measures so they better reflect 

strategic goals, but the agency has not 

determined how long it will take to gather 

and analyze the needed data. 

February 16, 2000 No progress in this area. Culture 

Leadership 

 

Forest Service's line managers cannot be 

held accountable for achieving strategic 

goals and objectives because of poor 

performance measures. 

October 13, 1999 

March 26, 1998 

April 26, 1994 

No progress in this area. Culture 

Leadership 

Organization 

 

Even when performance accountability 

improvements are adopted by Forest Service 

management, implementation is often left to 

field units which often leaves uneven and 

mixed results. 

March 26, 1998 No progress in this area. Culture 

Leadership 

Organization 

 

Agreement does not exist within the Forest 

Service on its long-term strategic goals. This 

is the result of broader disagreement over 

the agency's priorities under its multiple-use 

and sustained-yield mandate. 

April 29, 1997 The National Leadership Team is 

discussing long-term goals for the 

Forest Service's Strategic and 

Performance Management Plans. 

Culture 

Leadership 

Source: GAO. 

Appendix I: Forest Service’s Progress on 

GAO-Reported Performance Accountability 

Problems 
Page 21 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 
Appendix II: Detailed Forest Service 

Organizational Chart 

Page 22 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Appendix II: Detailed Forest Service 

Organizational Chart 
Appendix II: Detailed Forest Service 

Organizational Chart 

Page 23 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service 

Page 24 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service 
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 25 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Andrea Wamstad Brown (202) 512-3319 

Eugene W. Wisnoski (202) 512-6545 

In addition to those named above Chester M. Joy, Carol Herrnstadt 

Shulman, and Kelli Ann Walther made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 26 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Agriculture. GAO-03-96. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires 

Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 13, 2002. 

Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies 

Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. 

Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002. 

Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce 

Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2002. 

The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to 

Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. GAO-01-1022T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Agriculture. GAO-01-242. Washington, D.C.: January 2001. 

Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More 

Accountable for Its Performance. GAO/T-RCED-00-236. Washington, D.C.: 

June 29, 2000. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to 

Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability. GAO/RCED-00-83. 

Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2000. 

Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Improve Accountability. GAO/TRCED/AIMD-00-93. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2000. 

Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability. 

GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999. 

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address 

Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.: April 

2, 1999. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Agriculture. OCG-99-2. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 1999. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 27 GAO-03-503 Forest Service 

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based 

Management and Accountability. GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington, 

D.C.: January 28, 1998. 

Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving 

Performance. GAO/RCED-97-71. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997. 

Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Achieve Cost Efficiency. GAO/RCED94-185FS. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 1994. 

Performance Measurement: An Important Tool in Managing for Results. 

T-GGD-92-35. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1992. 

Wilderness Management: Accountability for Forest Service Funds Needs 

Improvement. GAO/RCED-92-33. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 1991. 

(360222) 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs