Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated Costs
Published: 2011-08-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In the early 2000s, the Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, centralized the operations of three major business services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and (3) information technology. The agency's goals in centralizing these services, which were previously delivered by staff in field units throughout the country, were to streamline and improve operations and reduce costs. Congressional committees directed GAO to independently analyze whether centralization had achieved intended efficiencies and cost savings. Accordingly, this report examines the (1) types of effects centralization has had on the Forest Service and its employees, particularly in field units; (2) actions the agency has taken to assess its delivery of its centralized business services and to address identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which the agency can demonstrate that it achieved intended cost savings. GAO examined agency reports, performance studies, cost estimates, and other documentation and interviewed and conducted focus groups with employees across the agency.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Forest Service's centralization of business services contributed to several agencywide improvements, but it has also had widespread, largely negative effects on field-unit employees. For example, centralization consolidated and standardized agency financial systems and procedures, which helped alleviate some of the agency's long-standing problems with financial accountability, and helped it sustain clean financial statement audit opinions more easily, according to agency officials. Nevertheless, GAO found that centralization of human resources management and information technology services had many negative repercussions for field-unit employees. Under centralization, the agency relies on a self-service approach whereby employees are generally responsible for independently initiating or carrying out many related business service tasks. According to field-unit employees, these increased administrative responsibilities, coupled with problems with automated systems and customer support, have negatively affected their ability to carry out their mission work and have led to widespread employee frustration. The Forest Service has undertaken a number of actions to assess its delivery of centralized business services, but it is unclear whether proposed remedies will fully address identified shortcomings. For example, the agency established a customer service board to continually monitor service delivery and recommend improvements. The agency has also undertaken initiatives to redesign and reorganize its human resources management and information technology services to improve service delivery in these areas. For example, human resources management hired additional staff and established regional service teams, and information technology developed a strategic framework and is in the early stages of a significant reorganization. Nevertheless, the agency has not yet systematically assessed which types of services are best suited to a self-service approach, and because many of the agency's other initiatives are in their early stages, it is unclear to what extent they will address identified shortcomings. The Forest Service could not reliably demonstrate cost savings resulting from centralization, but the agency estimated that anticipated savings may have been achieved in budget and finance. Achieving significant cost savings was one of the key goals of the agency's centralization effort, and the agency estimated it would save about $100 million annually across the three business services. (This estimate applied to budget and finance, human resources management, and a component within information technology known as the Information Solutions Organization, which was established to provide technology support services.) But because of limitations with the agency's documentation supporting the data, assumptions, and methods used in developing its cost information both before and after centralization, GAO was unable to fully ascertain the reliability of the cost estimates for (1) baseline costs of providing each of the business services before centralization, (2) projected costs for delivering those same business services after centralization was complete, or (3) actual costs of providing the business services after centralization. Nevertheless, the Forest Service estimated that anticipated annual savings through fiscal year 2010 may have been achieved in budget and finance but not in human resources management or the Information Solutions Organization, where the agency estimated that savings fell far short of its cost-savings goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Forest Service systematically examine business service tasks to determine which ones can best be carried out under a self-service approach, take related steps to improve service delivery, and adequately document and assess the costs of current initiatives and business service delivery. The Forest Service generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As steward of 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands, the  Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, performs tasks as  varied as fighting wildland fires, restoring forest landscapes and rivers,  and patrolling and maintaining the national forests’ remote recreational  trails. This work is carried out at hundreds of national forests, grasslands,  and research sites located across the country. With such geographically  widespread units and such a diverse portfolio of work—much of it  requiring specialized knowledge and skills—maintaining efficient business  services, such as providing computer support or processing employee  benefits, is especially critical to enable all agency employees to  accomplish their work effectively and efficiently.
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service began a major effort to transform  how it provided many of the business services needed to support its  mission activities. Over several years, the agency centralized three major  business services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources  management, and (3) information technology. These business services,  which were previously carried out by specialized staff located in Forest  Service offices throughout the country, were largely consolidated into one  location in Albuquerque, New Mexico, known as the Albuquerque Service  Center. According to Forest Service documents, the goals of  centralization were to improve service, streamline business processes  and modernize procedures, and reduce costs by about $100 million per  year. Since centralization began, however, concerns have been raised by  agency officials and others about its financial costs and its effects on the  workload and morale of Forest Service staff in field units such as national  forests and research sites. In this context, the Committee on  Appropriations of the U.S. Senate and of the House of Representatives  directed GAO to conduct an independent analysis of the Forest Service’s  centralization of its business services to determine whether centralization  has achieved intended efficiencies and cost savings. Accordingly, this  report examines the (1) types of effects centralization has had on the  Forest Service and its employees, particularly in field units; (2) actions the  Forest Service has taken to assess its delivery of centralized business  services and to address identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which  the Forest Service can demonstrate that it achieved centralization’s  intended cost savings.
To examine the effects of centralization on the Forest Service and its  employees, particularly in field units, we reviewed reports on  centralization completed by the Forest Service and others, including  contractors hired by the Forest Service, as well as policy documents and  guidance related to each of the three centralized business services:  (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and  (3) information technology. We reviewed the results of various surveys  and focus groups of Forest Service employees, conducted by Forest  Service teams during 2010, as well as all customer comments provided  through each of the business service help desks during 2010. We also  interviewed—through site visits and by telephone—more than 200 agency  officials from Forest Service headquarters, the three business services  housed in the Albuquerque Service Center, all nine regional offices,  12 national forests, 11 ranger districts, four research stations, four  science laboratories, and the State and Private Forestry program. In  addition, to systematically gather information from a geographically  diverse and broad cross-section of field-unit employees, we conducted  10 focus groups with a total of 68 randomly selected Forest Service  employees. Ground rules were established so that participants limited  their comments to their personal experiences with the business services  over the previous 12 months (focus groups were held during February  and March 2011). We used a set of consistent, probing questions  designed to ensure that all participants had an opportunity to share their  views and to react to the views of the other participants. Although the  results of the focus groups are not statistically generalizable, they reflect  in-depth information from a cross-section of randomly selected  employees, which was consistent with the information we obtained  through our reviews of formal and informal assessments of centralization  and our interviews and site visits with field-unit employees. To examine  actions the Forest Service has taken to assess its delivery of centralized  services and to address identified shortcomings, we reviewed Forest  Service reports and other documentation describing ongoing and one- time business service delivery assessments. We also reviewed  documentation describing actions the agency has undertaken or plans to  undertake to remedy identified shortcomings and improve its delivery of  business services. In addition, we interviewed agency officials at Forest  Service headquarters and the three business services, and several  members of the agency’s Operations Customer Service Board, which  monitors the performance of the three centralized business services. To  examine the extent to which the Forest Service could demonstrate that it  achieved centralization’s intended cost savings, we reviewed available  agency documentation summarizing original baseline costs, cost  projections, actual costs, and financial analyses comparing pre- and  postcentralization costs for budget and finance, human resources  management, and the component within information technology  established to provide technology support services. We took steps to  determine the reliability of the data contained in these documents,  including reviewing background documentation and interviewing  knowledgeable agency officials. We found that agency officials could not  always provide sufficient data supporting the information contained in the  documentation they made available to us, or re-create the methods used  to calculate cost savings or resolve inconsistencies in reported results.  We were therefore unable to verify the reliability of all cost data the  agency provided. Appendix I presents a more detailed description of our  scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through August  2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s mission includes sustaining the nation’s forests and  grasslands; managing the productivity of those lands for the benefit of  citizens; conserving open space; enhancing outdoor recreation  opportunities; and conducting research and development in the biological,  physical, and social sciences. The agency carries out its responsibilities  in three main program areas: (1) managing public lands, known  collectively as the National Forest System, through nine regional offices,  155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and over 600 ranger  districts; (2) conducting research through its network of seven research  stations, multiple associated research laboratories, and 81 experimental  forests and ranges; and (3) working with state and local governments,  forest industries, and other private landowners and forest users in the  management, protection, and development of forest land in nonfederal  ownership, largely through its regional offices. The nine regional offices,  each led by a regional forester, oversee the national forests and  grasslands located in their respective regions, and each national forest or  grassland is headed by a supervisor; the seven research stations are  each led by a station director. These offices, which we collectively refer to  as field units, are overseen by a Washington, D.C., headquarters office,  led by the Chief of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service has a workforce of approximately 30,000 employees,  although this number grows by thousands in the summer months, when  the agency brings on seasonal employees to conduct fieldwork, respond  to fires, and meet the visiting public’s additional needs for services. Forest  Service employees work in geographically dispersed and often remote  locations throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and  Puerto Rico. Agency employees carry out a variety of field-based  activities—including fire prevention and management, monitoring and  maintenance of recreational trails, biological research, and habitat  restoration—and have diverse skills, backgrounds, and experiences.  Forest Service employees include a wide range of specialists, such as  foresters, biologists, firefighters, administrative staff, research scientists,  recreation specialists, and many others, all of whom play an important  role in carrying out the agency’s mission.
In the early 2000s, the Forest Service began efforts to centralize many of  the business services needed to support its mission activities, including  (1) budget and finance, (2) human resources management, and  (3) information technology. Before centralization, according to the agency,  more than 3,500 employees located in field units throughout the nation  carried out business service tasks in these three areas for their respective  field units. These business service employees were part of the field-unit  organizational structure and typically reported directly to the managers of  those field units. Each region or forest often had unique processes or  systems for completing business-related tasks, such as varied processes  for financial accounting and budgeting, personnel actions, and computer  support. Faced with a number of internal and external pressures to  change the way these business services were delivered, and to address  growing costs of service delivery as well as operational problems, the  agency began efforts to centralize its business services. For budget and  finance and human resources management, the agency began re- engineering efforts for its business processes, which included preparing  business cases outlining the agency’s intended approach to  centralization, such as how the centralized structure would be organized  and how it would provide services to its field-unit customers, as well as  estimating the one-time investment costs and future costs of providing  services each year once centralization was complete. Centralization of  information technology, on the other hand, consisted of several efforts to  consolidate servers and data centers, among other things, and was  driven largely by competitive sourcing, whereby the agency and its  employees competed with private-sector organizations to deliver certain  information technology services. The Forest Service won this  competition, and, beginning in 2004, the agency transferred some of its  information technology employees to an “Information Solutions  Organization” (ISO)—a separate information technology component  established within the agency to provide technology support services,  including computers, radios, and telecommunications to all employees.  During 2008, however, the Forest Service terminated its competitive- sourcing arrangement with ISO, folding these services back into a single  information technology organization.
Centralization activities were carried out separately for each of the three  business services over several years and—given the magnitude of its  efforts and potential for significant cost savings—the agency undertook  efforts to monitor and report on its results during this time. For example,  centralization of budget and finance was implemented in 2005 and 2006  and involved the physical relocation of most finance-related positions to  the Albuquerque Service Center, with these positions now reporting to the  new centralized budget and finance organization. Some budget-related  positions and tasks, however, such as budget formulation and execution,  generally remained in the field units, and those positions continued to  report to field-unit management. Similarly, centralization of human  resources management began in 2006 and proceeded through a staged  implementation over a period of several years, in which most human  resources management positions were relocated to the Albuquerque  Service Center (although some human resources liaison positions were  developed to provide advice and counsel to managers across multiple  field units). Under the new centralized organization, all human resources  employees reported to human resources management rather than field- unit management. In contrast, although aspects of information technology  centralization began as early as 2001, those related to transferring  services to the agency’s new ISO occurred in 2004 and 2005. Some  information technology positions were relocated to the Albuquerque  Service Center, but many employees remained at field-unit locations and  became “virtually centralized” employees, reporting to centralized  management in Albuquerque. For each of the three business services,  the Forest Service predicted that the transition from its largely  decentralized field-based structure to the new centralized organization  would take about 3 years, although full integration in some cases could  take longer, given the significance of the changes. During this transition  period, the agency took steps to assess and report on the status of, and  results being achieved through, centralization and provided executive  briefings to congressional stakeholders and agency leaders. These  briefings provided an overview of implementation timelines, key  milestones, and achievements, as well as agency estimates of projected  and achieved cost savings resulting from centralization. For information  technology, these estimates specifically focused on savings related to the  agency’s ISO.
The three centralized business services encompass a wide variety of  activities to support field units’ mission work, ranging from making  payments to partners for trail maintenance, to repairing radios used for  communication in the field, to processing the paperwork to bring new  employees on board (see table 1).
Collectively, the budgets for the three business services were  approximately $440 million in fiscal year 2011, which represents about  7 percent of the agency’s annual operating budget of more than  $6.1 billion. There were 2,150 budgeted full-time equivalents (FTE) for the  three services, or about 6 percent of the agency total of more than  35,000 FTEs. Table 2 shows the 2011 staffing and budget levels for  each of the three business services.
section_title: Centralization of Business Services Has Had Mixed Results, Including Mostly Negative Effects on Field-Unit Employees
paragraphs: Centralization of Forest Service business services contributed to several  agencywide improvements, such as improved financial accountability,  standardization of information technology and human resources  processes, and consistent development and implementation of related  policies. Nevertheless, we found that the shift in how business services  were delivered resulted in significant negative repercussions for field-unit  employees, including increased responsibility for business service tasks.  Although the effects of centralization on employees varied, cumulatively  they have negatively affected the ability of these employees to carry out  their mission work.
subsections: section_title: Centralization Has Improved Financial Accountability and Led to More-Informed Management Decisions and More-Consistent Policy Implementation
paragraphs: By consolidating and standardizing the Forest Service’s financial systems  and procedures, centralization helped alleviate some of the agency’s  long-standing problems with financial accountability. For example, before  centralization, the agency had difficulty reconciling data produced by the  numerous financial systems used in field units across the agency.  Throughout the 1990s, the Forest Service was unable to achieve clean  financial statement audit opinions, and in 1999, we added financial  management at the agency to our list of federal programs and operations  at “high risk” for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. While the  agency was able to achieve clean opinions during the early 2000s, doing  so required substantial year-end financial adjustments involving  significant time and resources. By consolidating and standardizing its  finance, accounting, and budget processes through the centralization of  budget and finance, the agency was able to improve its financial  management and sustain clean financial statement audit opinions more  easily and at a lower cost than before centralization, according to agency  officials. Accordingly, in 2005, we removed the Forest Service from our  high-risk list, citing the agency’s centralization efforts.
Similarly, centralization made it easier to standardize and automate other  business processes, which improved the agency’s ability to collect and  review more-reliable agencywide data and make more-informed  management decisions. For example, according to information  technology officials, centralization has allowed them to more easily track  major technology equipment and infrastructure issues and address them  holistically, as well as to provide a more even distribution of technology  services, among other benefits. According to agency officials, centralizing  the three business services has also made it easier to monitor and  assess the performance of business service delivery to field-unit  customers, such as the timeliness of processing requests for service.  Officials told us that this type of information is closely tracked, analyzed,  and used to hold managers accountable for ensuring successful program  delivery. Further, data collected through automated systems are now  generally more reliable, according to agency officials, in part because  they collect more-standardized information, have more built-in controls,  and require fewer people to enter data.
In addition, centralization of the three business services has allowed for  more-consistent policy development and implementation, according to  agency officials. Before centralization, for example, business services  staff were located at hundreds of sites across the country and reported to  individual field units, making it difficult to ensure consistent policy  implementation. Now, with business service employees under a single  management structure, agency officials told us, it is easier to develop and  communicate policy procedures to help ensure their consistent  implementation, as well as to provide field-unit employees with consistent  access to services across the agency. Similarly, information technology  officials told us that centralization has also benefited the agency in the  face of increasing complexity and sophistication regarding information  management needs, allowing for more coordinated and timely responses  to continually changing needs. For example, officials said that  centralization facilitated the implementation of security requirements  across the multiple field units and improved the agency’s ability to ensure  that all employees use compatible hardware and software. Further, under  centralization, business service staff have been able to more easily  specialize in certain areas, which has improved consistency and overall  service quality, according to agency officials. For example, agency  officials told us that before centralization, field-unit staff might process  requests for specific services, such as retirements or transfers, only  occasionally, and therefore might be unfamiliar with the correct  procedures to follow or guidance to give to employees. Now there are  dedicated groups of employees at the centralized business service  centers who have specialized knowledge of each process, which has led  to consistent implementation of policies and overall improvements,  according to agency officials we spoke with.
section_title: Centralization Shifted How Business Services Were Delivered in Ways That Largely Increased Responsibilities for Field- Unit Staff
paragraphs: Even with these improvements, we found that centralization—particularly  of human resources management and information technology—has had  significant and widespread negative repercussions for field-unit  employees. Centralization changed many processes for completing  administrative tasks, placing greater responsibility on field-unit  employees. From our interviews, site visits, and focus groups with a  broad cross-section of Forest Service employees—as well as our reviews  of multiple internal agency assessments—we found that centralization of  budget and finance generally affected fewer employees and is viewed by  employees as now working reasonably well, whereas changes in human  resources management and information technology affected more  employees and created more problems for them in carrying out daily  tasks. This section describes the effects that centralization had on  employees; the agency’s actions to address employee concerns are  discussed in detail later in this report.
Centralization changed the processes for completing most administrative  tasks associated with the three business services, shifting a larger portion  of the responsibility for these tasks to field-unit employees. This shift  occurred because employees previously responsible for the task were  eliminated, relocated, or reassigned, leaving the task itself behind, and  because certain tasks became “self-service”—that is, field-unit staff were  generally expected to initiate or carry out certain tasks that were  previously handled by local business service specialists. Under the  centralized self-service model, to complete many business service tasks,  field-unit employees are generally responsible for accessing automated  systems, locating and filling out automated forms, submitting information  through these systems, and calling one of the three business services’  centralized help desks for assistance when they are not able to complete  an action on their own. For example, before centralization, to complete  retirement, health benefits, pay-related, or other personnel paperwork,  field-unit employees would receive assistance from field-unit-based  human resources specialists, who would also be responsible for  processing the actions. Now, under the centralized self-service model,  field-unit employees are to initiate or implement these actions directly  through automated systems, with a centralized help desk available to  offer advice on how to complete the action when questions arise.  Similarly, for information technology-related tasks, before centralization, a  field-unit employee would rely on a local field-unit-based technician to  troubleshoot a computer problem, whereas under the self-service model,  the employee is expected to seek self-help tools, such as guidance on the  agency’s Web site, or to call or e-mail a help-desk representative to  troubleshoot the problem.
Among the three services that were centralized, we found generally fewer  negative effects from centralizing budget and finance. Because many  field-unit employees do not regularly perform tasks related to budget and  finance, we found that difficulties associated with this centralization effort  were not as widely felt as those associated with centralization of the other  two business services. We consistently found that changes to budget and  finance resulting from centralization were generally perceived positively  after some early problems—such as the lack of clearly written policies  and procedures, unclear or untimely communications to field units, and  delayed payment processing—were corrected. Further, once it became  clear to field-unit staff what tasks were not centralized, many of those  duties were reassigned to budget or administrative staff in the field units.  These tasks—such as overseeing the collection and tracking of  campground fees—often required local presence or knowledge. A few  field units also hired additional administrative staff: for example, one  regional office established five new positions to carry out remaining  budget and finance-related work, such as assisting individual field units  within the region with tracking, managing, and overseeing various  financial accounts. One of the crucial factors often cited for the success of  the budget and finance centralization effort was the fact that the budget  staff in the field units were not centralized and therefore continued to  carry out budget and some finance-related responsibilities for the field  units. They also often became liaisons with the budget and finance center  in Albuquerque, providing critical information to the center and  communicating information back to the employees who worked in their  local field unit.
Nevertheless, we found continuing concern about several aspects of  budget and finance centralization. For example, a few field-unit officials  told us they have lost the flexibility to efficiently deal with unique  circumstances, such as the need for telephone service in certain field  units that are active during only part of the year or paying for shared  utilities in a building jointly occupied with another agency. Before  centralization, officials said they had the authority to easily make needed  arrangements. Under centralization, in contrast, because these  circumstances are atypical and therefore standard processes or  procedures may not be applicable, working with centralized budget and  finance staff to make appropriate arrangements has proven cumbersome  and time-consuming, according to the officials. In addition, according to  many field-unit employees, natural resource project managers who  manage agreements with external partners, such as other federal  agencies and nonprofit organizations, have also had to take on significant  additional administrative tasks. These managers have always been  responsible for managing and overseeing agreements, but project  managers are now also directly responsible for the steps associated with  tracking and confirming agreement payments in an automated system.  Many project managers we spoke with said they find these tasks  confusing and very time-consuming to carry out, in part because the  managers use the system infrequently and in part because the system is  not intuitive or easy to use.
In contrast to centralization of budget and finance, changes resulting from  centralizing human resources management and information technology  touched nearly all Forest Service employees and were often perceived as  overwhelmingly negative, although the extent of the negative perception  varied according to the task being performed and the employee  performing it. Many employees we spoke with said that when these  services were first centralized, significant and extreme breakdowns  occurred, affecting a large number of employees, and while they have  seen some improvements over time, significant concerns remain.  Through our interviews and focus groups, as well as our reviews of recent  internal agency assessments, including agency-led surveys and focus  groups, we found that field-unit employees across all agency levels have  continuing concerns with the increased administrative workload resulting  from centralization of these two business services and with the tools  available to carry out those tasks, including limitations with the automated  systems and help-desk customer support or guidance available on  service center Web sites.
Field-unit employees consistently expressed frustration through agency  feedback mechanisms and through our interviews and focus groups  about the increased number of largely self-service tasks they are now  responsible for as a result of centralization of human resources  management and information technology—tasks often requiring a  significant amount of time or expertise to complete. Several field-unit staff  told us that this self-service approach has in fact resulted in a form of  decentralization, as now all employees are expected to have the  knowledge or expertise to carry out those specific self-service tasks  themselves. Even carrying out simple tasks can prove to be difficult and  time-consuming, according to many field-unit employees whom we spoke  with. Because staff might do such tasks infrequently, and because the  processes or procedures for carrying them out may change often, field- unit employees told us they must spend time relearning how to perform  certain tasks every time they carry them out. For example, field-unit staff  told us that before centralization, to put a seasonal employee on nonpay  status they would simply inform their local human resources specialist,  and the specialist would then make the necessary change. After  centralization, field-unit supervisors became responsible for directly  entering information into an automated system to initiate the change or  calling the help desk for assistance. Because a supervisor may carry out  such an action only once a year—and the procedure for doing it might  have changed in the meantime—completing this action or other  apparently simple actions can be difficult and time-consuming, according  to officials.
Further, many field-unit employees told us that many other tasks are not  simple and in fact require detailed technical knowledge. As a result, they  believe they have had to become specialists to complete work they were  not hired or trained to do, putting them beyond their level of expertise and  making it difficult for them to efficiently or effectively complete some  tasks. For example, many staff expressed frustration that they do not  have the knowledge or skills to quickly complete specialized tasks, such  as updating or repairing computers or other office equipment like  telephones or printers. Yet under the self-service model, all agency staff  are expected to do so—requiring them to read, understand, and  implement technical instructions or contact the help desk, which can take  hours or days, depending on the nature of the issue, whereas a  specialized technician might be able to carry out the task in minutes.  Moreover, many field-unit staff told us that their lack of familiarity with  completing such tasks makes them prone to making errors, requiring  rework, and adding to the time-consuming and frustrating nature of the  process.
Centralization of human resources management and information  technology entailed greater reliance on numerous automated systems,  yet through our interviews, focus groups, and reviews of recent internal  agency assessments, we found widespread agreement among field-unit  staff that many of the agency’s systems are not user-friendly and have  not helped employees carry out their work. In the case of human  resources management, for example, centralization was predicated on  successful deployment of an automated system that was to process  multiple human resources-related actions, such as pay, benefits, and  personnel actions. When it became clear that this system—known as  EmpowHR—did not work as intended, the agency implemented several  separate systems to perform its functions, including one for tracking  personnel actions, called 52 Tracker. However, we heard from staff  across the field units who have to process these kinds of personnel  actions, that the 52 Tracker system has been slow, cumbersome to use,  and counterintuitive, often leading to mistakes and delays in processing  important personnel actions like pay raises. We also found that the  automated system used to carry out various steps in hiring—known as  AVUE—has been difficult to use and navigate by both field-unit managers  and external candidates trying to apply for a position within the agency.  Although AVUE was in use by the agency before centralization, field-unit  managers previously relied on human resources specialists who used the  system frequently and were therefore familiar with it, according to  managers we spoke with. In contrast, under centralization, field-unit  managers are expected to undertake more hiring-related tasks in addition  to their other duties, and managers repeatedly told us that creating  appropriately targeted job postings within AVUE was an arduous process,  frequently resulting in situations where highly qualified candidates were  wrongly eliminated from consideration or unqualified candidates were  listed along with qualified candidates.
We found consistent widespread dissatisfaction, through the interviews  and focus groups we conducted, as well as documentation of reviews  conducted by the agency, with the responsiveness and support provided  by the help desks and Web sites operated by human resources  management and information technology. Specifically, field-unit staff  identified the lack of timely and quality assistance from the help desks,  which has hindered their ability to complete tasks correctly or on time,  although many field-unit employees said they recognized that help desk  agents were courteous and were trying to be as helpful as possible. We  repeatedly heard that interactions with the help desks were often time- consuming because staff were passed from one customer support agent  to another, needed to make several calls before a knowledgeable agent  could be reached, or had to wait hours or days for a return call. Many  employees told us they often found themselves talking to two or three  agents about a given problem, and with each new agent, they had to  explain the problem and its context from the beginning. Even with  significant explanation, many staff noted that a lack of understanding and  context on the part of the help desk customer service agents has been a  problem. For example, one employee told us that when he called the help  desk for assistance with a failed radio component, the help desk agent  had a difficult time understanding that the radio system did not have an  actual address where the agent could send a replacement part but was  instead located on a remote mountain, where a technician would be  needed to install the new component. In contrast, when information  technology-related computer problems were simple or routine, many  employees we spoke with said the information technology help desk was  responsive and generally able to resolve their problems. In fact, we spoke  with several employees who said that it was very helpful when a help  desk agent could remotely access and control their computers to fix  certain software problems.
Conversely, field-unit staff seeking help may be unfamiliar with the  concepts, language, or forms related to human resources management or  information technology—such as knowing what form to submit to acquire  hand-held radios or the various technical aspects of computers or  radios—that help desk staff expect them to be familiar with. Thus, field- unit staff may not know what questions to ask or may be unable to frame  their questions in a way that elicits the correct or most helpful response  from the help desks. Many employees we spoke with indicated that  because they have little confidence in the information help desk agents  provide, they instead often seek help first from local co-workers or  sometimes simply ignore problems such as nonfunctioning computer  software or hardware components. Many told us they call the help desks  only as a last resort. Many field-unit staff were also unhappy with the  business services’ Web sites because it was often difficult and time- consuming to find needed information, and in some cases the information  on the Web site was outdated, conflicted with guidance acquired  elsewhere, or was inaccessible because the Web links did not work.
section_title: The Effects of Centralization Have Varied by Individual Employee but, Cumulatively, Have Affected Employees’ Ability to Carry Out Their Work
paragraphs: Changes resulting from centralization of human resources management  and information technology were consistently perceived negatively by  field-unit staff across the Forest Service, according to our interviews,  focus groups, and documented agency assessments, but we also found  that employees’ experience, skill levels, and responsibilities within the  agency—such as whether their work was primarily field based or office  based or the extent to which they supervised others—often factored into  the severity of the problems they described. In general, we found that  employees of different experience and skill sets frequently had different  abilities or willingness to carry out self-service tasks, navigate automated  systems, or communicate with help desks. For example, some field-unit  employees told us they could easily and independently carry out some  computer-related tasks, such as updating computer software with remote  guidance, while others said they did not feel comfortable carrying out  such tasks independently. We also found that field-unit staff whose work  requires them to spend significant portions of their time outdoors rather  than in the office (field-going staff)—appeared to be more severely  affected by centralization than primarily office-based staff. For example,  office-based employees may not have lost productivity waiting for a help- desk agent to call back, but a field-going employee may have had to  choose between going into the field—potentially missing a help-desk  return call—and forgoing fieldwork to wait, sometimes several days, for  such a call. Also, because under centralization many tasks rely on the  use of automated systems accessed through computers and some field- going staff are not issued computers by the agency, finding an available  computer to carry out the task can present an added challenge. We also  found that staff in supervisory positions were particularly affected by  centralization. Under centralization, for example, supervisors are now  responsible for completing multiple administrative actions for the staff  they supervise, such as processing personnel actions; calling the help  desk to resolve issues on behalf of their field-going staff (enabling field  staff to go into the field); or ensuring that new staff have working  computers, telephones, and access to agency systems and that they take  key training upon their arrival. Before centralization, on the other hand,  local human resources staff or other support staff would have provided  direct assistance with these tasks, according to officials.
Taken individually, changes associated with centralization may seem no  more than minor inconveniences or inefficiencies. Cumulatively, however,  they have had widespread negative effects on employees and on the  agency as a whole, including a reduced amount of time employees can  devote to their mission work, increased reliance on workarounds to  complete work, increased frustration and lowered morale, and increased  safety concerns, as follows:    Less time for mission work. The substantial time and effort needed to  complete administrative tasks has in many cases limited the ability of  field units to conduct mission work, in many instances fieldwork,  according to many field-unit employees. For example, because some  field-based activities, such as trail maintenance or river restoration  activities can be done only during relatively short seasons dictated by  biology and weather, delays may make it difficult to accomplish  mission goals in any one year. Delays of a few weeks in hiring, for  example, could result in much longer delays in getting the work done,  and we heard numerous examples of work being delayed or scaled  back because of hiring complications attributed to centralization. In  one instance, a manager told us that after spending significant time  and effort to hire a fuels specialist to carry out fuels management work  (such as thinning potentially flammable vegetation that could feed a  wildland fire), he was unable to hire anyone who qualified because of  problems encountered working with human resources management  staff—and, as a result, essentially a year’s worth of work was lost.  Many senior field-unit managers, including regional foresters and  forest supervisors, reported that because the help desks generally  follow a first-come, first-served priority scheme, they often feel  powerless to set a high priority for certain actions that may be critical  to staff at the forest level. For example, before centralization,  managers could influence which positions might be advertised or filled  most quickly, but now hiring actions go through the centralized  organization, generally without regard for how quickly a manager  believes he or she needs to fill a position. work. For example, we commonly heard that employees rely on local,  knowledgeable co-workers to help them with their computer problems  or provide advice on completing human resources-related actions.  Although this practice may greatly benefit the employees in need of  assistance, it could take time away from the other employees’ regular  work duties, and if accurate and up-to-date information is not given, it  could also result in unintentional errors. We also often heard from  field-unit employees that given repeated problems with accessing  network drives or other databases, they may store agency data on  their hard drives, rather than on central servers, or may share their  computers or passwords with others who lack ready access, such as  seasonal field staff or visiting research fellows. Such workarounds,  however, may result in the loss of information if a hard drive fails, and  they are in violation of the agency’s computer security policies.
Increased frustration and lowered morale. Field-unit employees’  frustrations over their perceived loss in productivity, as well as  problems that have directly affected employees’ careers with the  agency, have often lowered employees’ morale. We commonly heard  that spending more time on administrative tasks that are often  confusing and complex, and spending less time on mission work, has  resulted in significant employee frustration and has often directly  lowered employee morale. We also heard numerous examples where  employees’ benefits, pay, position, or other personnel-related actions  were negatively affected as a result of a mistake made by or a  miscommunication with, a help-desk agent or other business service  staff, which has often greatly affected employee morale, according to  those we spoke with. For example, problems cited ranged from  confusion over leave balances and appropriate pay levels to  promotions that were initially approved by human resources  management officials but then later rescinded. Several employees  told us that such errors have become so frequent that an “expectation  of failure” has generally taken root with many employees, which also  contributes to their low morale.
Increased safety concerns. In some cases, field-unit employees told  us that problems or delays in getting business service tasks  accomplished have increased safety risks for Forest Service  employees or the public, for example by distracting employees from  important safety work or by delaying needed equipment repair or  replacement. We commonly heard concerns that centralization has  caused employees to, as one senior official put it, “take their eye off  the ball”—that is, reduce their focus on efficiently and safely carrying  out their assigned tasks—because of the increased workload and  distractions associated with centralization. We also frequently heard  about delays or problems with technical assistance for radios—a key  communication tool for firefighting and fieldwork. For example, before  centralization, field units would have relied on local technicians to  conduct needed repairs, but under centralization, the field-unit staff  now first contact the help desk to make such a request. In one case a  field-unit official told us that he needed a simple repair on a radio but  had to wait for a technician to drive from a neighboring state to make  the 10-minute repair. In a few other cases, field-unit staff told us they  were without full use of their radio system for a significant amount of  time while waiting for requests for repair to be addressed by the help  desk. For example, one forest-unit official told us that, in place of their  radios, the unit had to use cell phones with limited service to  communicate for multiple days during the summer, when fire danger  was particularly high, putting the staff at increased risk.
section_title: The Forest Service Assesses Its Delivery of Centralized Business Services in Multiple Ways, but It Is Unclear Whether Proposed Remedies Will Fully Address Identified Shortcomings
paragraphs: The Forest Service has undertaken a number of actions to assess its  delivery of centralized business services, in part because of the  significant change centralization brought to employees across the Forest  Service. These actions, however, have focused largely on assessing the  quality of service provided through the service delivery framework  established by the agency and have not included a more fundamental  assessment of the extent to which, and for which tasks, the self-service  approach taken by the agency may be most effective and efficient.  Recognizing the concerns raised by many employees of the negative  consequences resulting from centralization, the agency has also made  significant efforts to address identified shortcomings in the business  services provided to field-unit employees. In particular, human resources  management and information technology managers are undertaking  initiatives to change their overall approach to delivering business  services. As a part of these efforts, agency officials told us they are  reviewing the experiences of other agencies that have undertaken similar  organizational changes for lessons learned and best practices that might  apply to the Forest Service. The impact of human resources  management’s and information technology’s initiatives, however— including the extent to which these business services will modify their  largely self-service-based delivery approach—is not yet clear because  many of the changes are still in progress.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service’s Assessment Actions Have Included Multiple Ongoing Efforts, Focused Largely on Service Delivery by Each Centralized Business Service
paragraphs: Recognizing the significant change centralization brought to employees  across the Forest Service, the agency has undertaken multiple actions to  assess business service delivery. These actions include ongoing efforts  such as the monitoring of service delivery by a customer service board,  service level agreements outlining services to be delivered and specific  performance measures to be tracked, and various mechanisms to capture  feedback from customers and assess business service delivery. The  agency has also conducted targeted reviews and established several  short-term review teams to assess particular aspects of its centralized  business services. These actions have mainly aimed to assess the quality  of service provided by each of the centralized business services and have  generally not included a more fundamental assessment of those aspects  of business service delivery typically carried out in a self-service  manner—including an assessment of how effectively and efficiently self- service tasks are completed by field-unit staff—and therefore the extent to  which a self-service approach may be most appropriate.
In 2006, the Forest Service established a 15-member Operations  Customer Service Board—chaired by a regional forester and composed  of employees representing varied levels and geographic locations within  the agency—to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the three  centralized business services. The board carries out a number of  activities to assess business service delivery. For instance, it meets on a  monthly basis to, among other things, discuss current issues and  projects, hear from board members on detailed oversight activities they  are doing, and interact with representatives of the business services to  learn about the status of efforts aimed at improving service delivery. The  board has also established specific teams to evaluate particular aspects  of business service delivery. For example, a budget team annually  reviews detailed budget information from the three business services to  identify any concerns, questions, or issues, which the board may then  discuss with the business service managers or agency leadership.  Similarly, another team annually reviews service-level agreements— contracts established by each business service to define the services  they are to deliver and performance measures associated with doing so— to ensure that the performance measures are meaningful and achievable  within established budgets. In addition, in 2010 the board established a  radio review team to, among other things, assess current and future  customer needs regarding radios because of its concerns that the lack of  an updated radio plan was seriously affecting employee safety and  productivity. The customer service board also holds annual meetings with  managers from the three business services to learn about improvements  and challenges in business service delivery and to make  recommendations for further improvements. During these meetings, the  board assesses detailed information developed by the budget team and  reviews the service-level agreements proposed by each business service  for the coming year.
On the basis of its reviews, including the information presented and  discussed throughout the year and during annual meetings with the three  business services, the board develops recommendations for the  managers of the business services and the Chief of the Forest Service,  generally aimed at improving service delivery to field-unit employees.  Specific recommendations from the board have often centered on  improving or clarifying business service budget information and service- level agreements. The board’s chair told us the board has not directly  examined or recommended that the business services systematically  examine or modify the extent to which they rely on a self-service delivery  approach for completing tasks, but she did say the board recognizes that  the approach has resulted in a significant shifting of responsibility for  completing business service tasks to field-unit employees. The business  services are not required to implement recommendations made by the  board, but several board members we spoke with, including the current  chair, told us the business services have generally been responsive to the  board’s recommendations; they also acknowledged that the business  services have been slow to respond in some instances. For example, in  2007 the board recommended that each business service develop or  update business plans to contain accurate budget information, including  its linkage to program goals and priorities and performance measures, for  board assessment. By 2009, budget and finance had prepared budget  information that allowed the board to track costs and budget proposals  from year to year. In contrast, according to the board, the business plan  submitted by information technology in 2009 needed better linkages  between budget requests and stated priorities and discussions of trade- offs under various budget alternatives; information technology submitted  an updated business plan in June 2011. Human resources management  submitted its first business plan to the board in March 2011.
Each business service has developed service-level agreements, which  are reviewed by, and often developed in collaboration with, customer  service board members. These agreements outline services to be  delivered and specific performance measures to be tracked, including  defining acceptable levels of performance. In general, the business  services’ performance measures capture operational aspects of their  service delivery, such as the length of time to process specific actions,  and customer satisfaction with service delivery. Few of the measures  capture the performance of actions completed by field-unit employees  when those employees are responsible for completing a portion of certain  tasks, such as initiating a payment to a partner. Monthly or quarterly  scorecards indicate the extent to which each business service is  achieving acceptable levels of performance across its performance  measures. However, the three business services have varied  considerably in their development of performance measures that fully and  accurately capture their performance, as well as their ability to achieve  acceptable levels of performance consistently, with budget and finance  generally outperforming the other two services. Specifically:    Budget and finance. Budget and finance has 17 performance  measures to capture critical elements of its service delivery. Although  small adjustments to the measures have been made over the past  several years, the measures have largely remained the same since  they were developed in 2006. Metrics have focused on the  performance of business service operations, the budget and finance  help desk, and actions taken in conjunction with field units. For  example, one performance measure tracks the number of days to  approve certain travel authorizations, one tracks how quickly  customer service agents respond to and resolve customer calls, and  another monitors customer satisfaction with the support provided by  the help desk. Several performance measures track the timeliness of  actions completed by field-unit staff, because some budget and  finance processes depend upon actions that must be initiated in a  field unit. For example, one performance measure tracks the  percentage of certain invoices received from field units on a timely  basis (so that these invoices can then be processed by budget and  finance staff). Over the last few years, budget and finance has  consistently achieved mostly acceptable levels of performance (as  defined in the service-level agreements), with the exception of  customer satisfaction with its internal Web site and the actions that  must first be completed by field-unit staff. Budget and finance officials  told us that several changes have been implemented recently to  improve performance in these areas, such as increasing the training  provided to field-unit managers and monitoring invoices to better  identify trends and problems. Budget and finance officials further told  us they will assess the effects of these changes in the future, as well  as continue their collaborative efforts with the board to regularly  assess the strength of their performance measures in capturing how  well services are delivered.   Human resources management. Human resources management  officials, and board members we spoke with about human resources  management, agreed that performance measures in place over the  past several years have not fully or accurately captured all important  aspects of service delivery performance. For fiscal year 2010, human  resources management had 20 performance measures intended to  capture various aspects of internal operational performance, including  its responsiveness to requests for customer service, how quickly  specific actions such as retirement applications were processed, and  customer satisfaction when a service was completed. Monthly  scorecards produced for fiscal year 2010 indicated that human  resources management was not achieving acceptable levels of  performance for most of its measures, but human resources  management officials told us the measures did not accurately reflect  the service being provided and that in some cases performance data  could not be easily measured or validated. Because of such problems,  during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, human resources management  staff gradually stopped reporting results for almost half their  performance measures. In fiscal year 2011, the staff began working  with board members to re-examine and revise the human resources  performance measures. In March 2011, human resources  management submitted to the board eight draft performance  measures, recognizing that several more may need to be developed  in the future.
Information technology. Information technology officials, and board  members we spoke with about information technology, likewise told  us they recognize the need to continue to revise and develop  measures to better capture the quality of service delivery to  customers. For fiscal year 2011, information technology had more  than 30 performance measures, with almost half tracking internal  processes, such as the percentage of internal plans or invoices  completed and submitted in a timely manner, and the remainder  tracking aspects of service delivery to customers or customer  satisfaction. Service delivery measures include the time frames for  resolving customer requests for assistance, such as computer  software or hardware problems submitted to the help desk, and the  number of days to create computer accounts for new hires. Customer  satisfaction measures include some incorporating the results of an  annual customer satisfaction survey sent to all agency employees and  one capturing customer satisfaction upon completion of a service  requested from the help desk. Across the performance measures,  quarterly scorecards for fiscal year 2010 indicated mixed results:  information technology consistently met its target for customer  satisfaction upon completion of a service but was consistently unable  to achieve acceptable levels of performance in several other areas,  including resolving customer incidents within targeted time frames.  Information technology officials said they plan to continue developing  additional measures to better capture the value and quality of service  they are providing to customers.
Officials from all three business services also told us they use customer  feedback obtained through various mechanisms to assess their business  service delivery. For example, each of the three business service help  desks offers customers the opportunity to give direct feedback about their  experience with each request for service. Each business service also  provides opportunities for staff to send electronic comments through links  on its Web site. In some instances, according to agency officials, focus  groups have been put together to solicit feedback from employees. For  example, in 2010, an internal team conducted 20 focus groups with small  groups of field-unit employees to obtain their perspectives on ways the  three business services could improve the support they provide to  customers. Officials from each service said they closely monitor the  feedback that comes in through these various mechanisms to identify  issues and trends they may need to address. For instance, human  resources management officials told us that feedback they received from  field-unit employees has led them, among other actions, to hold specific,  online training sessions before the general hiring period for seasonal  staff, to improve the information they make available to field-unit  employees.
The Forest Service has also conducted targeted reviews to help identify  the causes of continuing problems with human resources management  and delivery of information technology services and to help develop  recommendations or potential approaches for improvement. In 2008, for  example, Forest Service leadership commissioned a review by a private  consultant to assess problems in delivering human resources  management services, underlying causes of those problems, and  potential solutions. The consultant identified a number of factors  contributing to problems, including flawed assumptions about the types of  human resources-related transactions that could easily be automated or  made self-service; inadequate information systems that either did not  work as designed or were not intuitive or user-friendly; and the significant  loss of human resources expertise, resulting in skill gaps at the  centralized business service center. The consultant concluded that efforts  undertaken to date would not resolve all underlying problems and that,  instead, a fundamental redesign of the service delivery model was  needed to fully address deficiencies. The consultant recommended that  the agency set up two project teams, one to identify ways to improve  existing human resources management processes and one to examine  longer-term service delivery options. On the basis of this  recommendation, agency leadership developed two such teams to  identify priority issues and options for action. The results of the teams’  work were presented to Forest Service leadership in December 2009, and  actions the Forest Service has taken in response are discussed in greater  detail later in this section.
Similarly, in 2009, on the basis of a recommendation by the customer  service board, an internal agency review team was developed to assess  the effectiveness of information technology in managing the agency’s  information resources. The review team, led by a regional forester and  composed mostly of senior managers, concluded that there were several  fundamental problems with the service delivery model in place and that  aggressive action to address these problems was warranted. The review  team found widespread confusion about the information technology  organization’s relationship to the Forest Service’s mission. For instance,  the review team found that agency executives were not fully engaged in  defining and managing the information technology function as a vital part  of the agency’s mission and that the connections among the organization,  agency leadership, and the field units were limited. In response, the  review team recommended that the agency develop a strategic  framework to clearly identify and explain how the information technology  organization is linked to the agency’s mission. The review team also  found confusion surrounding information technology’s system for setting  priorities and allocating funding, and it recommended improvements to  clarify and provide more transparency to these areas. In addition, the  review team recommended changes to the organizational structure of  information technology to improve customer support, concluding that  increased service in some areas may be needed. The recommendations  of the review team are being considered by the Forest Service as part of  the ongoing reorganization efforts discussed below.
section_title: Efforts to Address Shortcomings Include Initiatives to Improve Human Resources Management and Information Technology, but It Is Unclear to What Extent Problems Will Be Resolved
paragraphs: In part following recommendations made in various assessments of its  business services, the Forest Service has taken, and continues to take,  steps to improve performance in each of these services. Budget and  finance has efforts under way aimed at continuous improvement, but  human resources management and information technology are making  more-significant changes to their overall service delivery approach. It is  unclear, however, to what extent additional changes will correct remaining  shortcomings—or to what extent changes will alter the agency’s reliance  on a self-service delivery approach for many tasks—in part because  these changes are still in progress.
Although its centralization efforts have largely been considered  successful by agency leadership, budget and finance continues to make  efforts to improve its business service delivery. For instance, budget and  finance recently implemented an automated tool to allow employees to  electronically submit requests for miscellaneous obligations, which will  eliminate manual data entry into the financial system—thereby reducing  the potential for error, improving processing times, and allowing  employees to check the status of their requests in real time. Officials  reported they are also working to streamline processes and information  sharing for tracking unspent monies and closing out some partner  agreements. To improve communication and collaboration with field-unit  staff, budget and finance officials reported they have begun placing their  monthly conference notes—which contain information about such things  as new systems, processes, or procedures being put in place—on their  Web site for relevant staff to review. In addition, to be more responsive to  customers, officials said they are currently working toward electronic  tracking of help-desk requests, so that customers can easily see the  status of these requests in real time as well.
Over time, human resources management has undertaken various efforts  to improve specific aspects of its services in response to identified  shortcomings—for example, by improving the operations of its help desk  and payroll system. More broadly, recognizing that centralization has  continued to pose serious and persistent problems, the Forest Service  began a substantial effort to more comprehensively address performance  shortcomings. This effort includes (1) an initiative to redesign human  resources management’s structure, (2) replacement of several key  automated systems, and (3) improvements to the customer service  provided by the help desk.
Regarding structural redesign, Forest Service leadership in December  2009 decided, after examining several options, on an approach aimed at,  among other things, restoring relationships between field-unit  management and the human resources management program by  establishing regional service teams to assist field-unit managers with  certain functions. Under this approach, the Forest Service’s regions would  be assigned teams of 9 to 64 human resources management staff,  depending on the size of the region. To this end, Forest Service  leadership gave human resources management the authority to hire up to  208 additional full-time staff to make up the regional service teams; these  staff members may be physically located in the regions or at the  Albuquerque Service Center. During 2010 and early 2011, the agency  established these teams, which are to assist managers in field units with  four specific services: position classification, hiring, employee relations,  and labor relations. The service teams remain within the human  resources management organization, and, according to the agency, the  goal is that the service teams will develop a relationship of shared  accountability with regional leadership, so that regional leadership will  have more influence on certain aspects of human resources management  work. Human resources management officials explained that the redesign  was being implemented using an “adaptive management approach,”  under which field-unit leadership will have the flexibility to influence the  work carried out by the service team assigned to their region.
Many Forest Service field-unit staff we spoke with expressed optimism  about changes being made under the human resources management  redesign initiative, but it remains uncertain to what extent such changes  will result in significant improvements. Because regional service teams  were established only recently, and because some aspects of the service  teams’ roles and responsibilities have yet to be clearly defined, staff said  it was too early to comment on resulting improvements. For example,  while certain aspects of position classification will be the responsibility of  regional service teams, it is not clear to what extent service teams will  directly assist supervisors with completing technical and procedural tasks  associated with position classification. According to human resources  management officials, classification specialists have been assigned to the  regional service teams to work more closely with regional managers on  several tasks related to position classification, but initiating and  completing a classification action request generally remain with field-unit  supervisors. Several field-unit staff we spoke with expressed concern that  if supervisors continue to be responsible for carrying out classification  work requiring detailed technical and procedural knowledge, then  redesign will do little to reduce the burden placed on supervisors for  completing these tasks.
Further, many field-unit staff we spoke with remained concerned that,  even after the redesign initiative is fully implemented, they may not see a  reduction in the time needed to complete human resources-related tasks,  especially self-service tasks, because processes and responsibilities for  those tasks have stayed unchanged under redesign. Human resources  management officials told us that many of the field-unit staff’s frustrations  stem from increased responsibilities placed on supervisors. They  explained that before centralization, local administrative staff sometimes  assisted with certain supervisory-related tasks, such as helping track  employee performance, but that under centralization, that support may no  longer be there. Human resources management officials said that tasks  that are supervisory in nature should be the responsibility of supervisors,  although they also acknowledged that no clear agreement prevails across  agency leadership on what types of administrative tasks supervisors  should be responsible for, and they recognized the need to more clearly  identify and define supervisory tasks. One agency official added that a  2010 presidential memorandum directs supervisors with responsibility for  hiring to be more fully involved in the hiring process, including engaging  actively in identifying the skills required for the job and participating in the  interviewing process when applicable. Human resources management  officials told us they also recognize the need to re-examine which  business service tasks best lend themselves to self-service and which  tasks may need greater expertise or direct support by human resources  specialists; they told us they plan to revisit this issue after the regional  service teams are fully established. They could not, however, provide us  with any concrete plans or target time frames for this effort. Without a  systematic re-examination, the agency risks continuing to burden its field- unit staff with tasks they cannot perform efficiently.
In addition to the organizational redesign initiative, human resources  management officials told us, they have efforts under way to replace and  make more integrated, flexible, and user-friendly several key automated  systems that both human resources management staff and field units rely  on to carry out human resources-related tasks. In particular, human  resources management is embarking on a long-term effort to develop an  integrated workforce system that ultimately is to consolidate and  streamline human resources processing for all Department of Agriculture  agencies, including the Forest Service. The effort to develop this system,  called OneUSDA, is currently being co-led by the Forest Service. Human  resources management officials said initial efforts are focused on the  development of a system for benefits and pay processing; eventually they  expect the system to be expanded to other actions, such as hiring. By  aligning efforts across the department, human resources management  officials said, they will be better positioned to standardize and share  information across agencies. This initiative is still in early stages of  development, and agency officials said that, although they recently  determined all necessary requirements across the department’s  agencies, it could take at least 5 years to establish basic system  functionalities.
In the meantime, human resources management has had efforts in  progress to improve several of its current systems—many of which were  put in place after the EmpowHR system, deployed when the agency first  centralized, proved inadequate—but these efforts have themselves been  problematic. For instance, human resources management has been  working to replace 52 Tracker, one of the personnel tracking systems it  put in place of EmpowHR, which has been widely cited as slow and  difficult to use. According to agency officials, the Forest Service hired a  contractor to develop a replacement system for 52 Tracker, which was  expected to provide improvements such as automatically populating  certain fields. In January 2011, however, after 2 years of work, the  agency discontinued the effort, concluding that what the contractor  developed would not meet the agency’s needs. Instead, human resources  management officials said they are now building an in-house system,  which they expect to be deployed in 2012. In addition, human resources  management officials said they have taken steps to mitigate known  weaknesses with their AVUE hiring system, such as manually going  through some candidate lists to make sure candidates are not  inadvertently put on an incorrect list; the officials told us they will be  revisiting the use of AVUE altogether over the next year.
Human resources management has also undertaken several actions to  improve customer service provided to employees through its help desk.  For example, human resources management staff conduct monthly focus  groups with 40 field-unit employees, representing a diverse range of  positions, to seek input on help-desk initiatives and other performance  issues or concerns raised by customers in field units. Also, during 2010,  human resources management made enhancements to its help-desk  ticketing system, which allowed employees to track the status of their  requests in real time and identified help-desk staff assigned to  employees’ cases, so employees could call the help-desk person directly  if needed. It is also developing a comprehensive training program to  enhance the technical knowledge and skills of its service providers, has  added specialists to handle certain issues and developed troubleshooting  guides to assist help-desk staff in diagnosing issues brought to their  attention, and has reported reducing telephone wait times significantly for  employees calling the help desk. In addition, human resources  management recently developed or updated its standard operating  procedures for a number of human resources-related areas, including  benefits, pay and leave, performance and awards, labor relations, hiring,  and temporary employment. These operating procedures have been  made available on human resources management’s Web site, and  managers are hopeful the procedures will improve the consistency of  information provided to and used by field-unit employees. Because some  of these initiatives are relatively new, their impact on field-unit employees  has not yet been assessed.
Information technology managers have recently undertaken several  actions to improve service delivery to field-unit employees and, for some  tasks, provide more direct assistance to those field-unit employees who  might need it. For example, in 2010 information technology developed  “strike teams” consisting of information technology specialists who  traveled to sites across the agency giving employees hands-on help with  transferring their electronic files to new servers. Information technology  also recently provided customer service training to the majority of its staff  and has been working to raise awareness among field-unit staff—through  efforts such as posting additional information on its Web site—of the  existence of customer relations specialists who serve as local liaisons  and are available as local resources for field-unit employees.  Nevertheless, it is unclear to what extent these efforts have been  effective, because they were not mentioned by the employees we  interviewed or those who participated in our focus groups.
In addition, after the Forest Service folded its technology support services  back into a single organization when its competitive sourcing  arrangement was terminated in 2008, the information technology service  began a reorganization initiative to significantly modify to its service  delivery approach. Forest Service leadership, however, put the  reorganization initiative on hold in 2009 until the agency could develop a  strategic framework establishing high-level goals and objectives for  managing its information resources and clarifying information  technology’s role in decision making. Agency officials told us that, given  the problems surrounding decision making and priority setting under the  centralized model, the agency also needed to clarify its processes for  making information technology resource decisions, including creating a  system for setting priorities and allocating funding for new technology  investments. With these efforts completed in 2010, a team led by senior  Forest Service managers has been formed to assess the current  organization and recommend changes by December 2011, according to  agency officials. As part of these efforts, the agency has stated that  improving customer service, and specifically addressing the level of self- service that will be expected of employees, will be a key focal area for the  reorganization team. Information technology managers told us they  recognize that under centralization they relied too extensively on a self- service approach and saw the need to seek alternatives to improve  service delivery to employees, but they also recognize the need to be  mindful of the higher costs that come with increased service. Given that  the reorganization initiative is still in early stages, and specific plans and  targets have yet to be documented, the extent to which the agency will  alter its self-service approach—and whether the revisions will address  identified shortcomings—remains unclear.
section_title: The Forest Service Could Not Reliably Demonstrate Cost Savings Resulting from Centralization but Estimated That Anticipated Savings May Have Been Achieved by One Business Service
paragraphs: Achieving significant cost savings was one of the key goals of the Forest  Service’s centralization effort, with the agency estimating it would save  about $100 million annually across the three business services—budget  and finance, human resources management, and the ISO component  within information technology. But because of limitations with the  agency’s documentation supporting the data, assumptions, and methods  used in developing its cost information both before and after  centralization, we were unable to fully ascertain the reliability of its cost  estimates for (1) baseline costs of providing each of the business services  before centralization, (2) projected costs for providing those same  business services after centralization was complete, or (3) actual costs of  providing the business services after centralization. Nevertheless, despite  these limitations, the Forest Service estimated that projected annual  savings through fiscal year 2010 may have been achieved in budget and  finance but in for the other two business services.
subsections: section_title: Savings Achieved from Centralization Could Not Be Conclusively Determined Because of Limited Supporting Documentation and Cost- Estimating Methods
paragraphs: With its centralization efforts, the agency projected it would achieve  significant cost savings—about $100 million annually across the three  business services—generally after a transition period, lasting around  3 years, in which it would incur one-time investment costs (see table 3).  Investment costs generally comprised those to acquire and establish  business service offices at the Albuquerque Service Center, transfer  business service employees located in various field units to the new  center, train these employees, and pay management and project  consulting fees. Overall, projected annual cost savings were largely  based on anticipated staff reductions for all three business services. For  example, for budget and finance, the agency projected it would be able to  eliminate 830 of the 1,975 FTEs it estimated went toward budget and  finance-related activities before centralization, accounting for a significant  portion of the projected annual cost savings. In addition, for information  technology, the agency’s cost-savings estimates were tied specifically to  savings it estimated it would achieve by shifting the support services  portion of its business service to ISO. Information technology officials told  us they expected to achieve additional savings related to other  centralization efforts outside ISO, but these savings were not included in  the agency’s projections.
We found several limitations with the Forest Service’s estimates of its  baseline costs, which calls into question whether the agency had an  accurate starting point from which to measure any savings achieved from  centralization. For example, the agency’s baseline costs for budget and  finance and human resources management relied largely on estimates  developed with the help of contractors during the centralization-planning  process, because the agency otherwise did not have a means to readily  distinguish and capture actual costs associated with the business service  activities being done by staff located at hundreds of field units across the  country. The Forest Service, however, did not maintain sufficient  supporting documentation to indicate what data, assumptions, or methods  were used to develop its baseline cost estimates, and therefore we were  unable to determine what types of costs may have been included or  excluded or to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions and  methods behind the estimates. Without clear information on what  baseline cost estimates consisted of, or on the reliability of such  information, we are unable to assess whether the estimates serve as an  accurate basis for comparing postcentralization costs to determine  achieved savings.
Similarly, although the agency took steps to measure savings achieved  from centralization for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, agency officials  could not provide supporting documentation, which limited our ability to  assess the agency’s methods or determine the reliability of the underlying  data. For example, according to its September 2007 estimate, the agency  estimated that it achieved a savings of $85 million for fiscal year 2007  across the three business services, attributing the savings largely to  staffing reductions. Agency officials, however, were unable to provide  documentation on the information or methods used to determine reported  staff reductions or the associated impact on operational costs. In addition,  although the agency’s September 2007 estimate indicated that one-time  investment costs for fiscal year 2006 totaled $68.6 million for budget and  finance and human resources management, we found that an earlier  estimate developed for that same period showed one-time costs of  $34.3 million. After further review of the documentation, agency officials  acknowledged that the September 2007 estimates appeared to reflect a  double counting of costs contained in the earlier estimate. Potential errors  such as this one raise questions about the accuracy of the data, but  without supporting documentation detailing the agency’s specific methods  and estimates, we were unable to assess the data’s reasonableness or  reliability.
The Forest Service terminated its efforts to measure the cost savings  associated with centralization at the end of fiscal year 2007, although at  our request it developed updated estimates through fiscal year 2010—but  with those estimates, too, we were limited in our ability to assess the  reasonableness or reliability of much of the information. Specifically, since  limited information was available to understand the assumptions and  methods the agency used to develop both its baseline cost estimates and  its estimates of savings achieved through 2007, agency officials  acknowledged they were unsure whether the methods used to produce  the updated estimates were consistent with those used previously. For  example, Forest Service officials were unable to confirm whether or to  what extent certain technology and associated implementation costs were  accounted for consistently across the agency’s various estimates of  baseline costs, projected costs, or achieved savings. Similarly, it was  unclear to what extent changes in the scope of work to be done by the  centralized business services or unanticipated significant new  requirements—such as new mandated information technology security  requirements or an agencywide travel system—were incorporated into the  agency’s estimates of cost savings. In addition, several field-unit officials  we spoke with said that some of the projected cost savings relying on a  reduction in field-unit facility costs may not have materialized because the  facility costs did not decrease (e.g., because of long-term lease  agreements or because space could not easily be configured to  accommodate reducing just a few positions). Given the lack of detailed  information supporting the Forest Service’s estimates, however, it is not  possible to determine the extent to which the agency may have factored  in updated information into its calculations of cost savings.
Further, the estimates of savings for the business services likely do not  account for the time now spent by field-unit employees on the whole  range of business service-related tasks that these employees did not  perform before centralization. Given the substantial shifting of  responsibility to field-unit employees for many business service tasks  after centralization, even a small amount of time that the agency’s more  than 30,000 employees spend on such tasks could add up to significant  associated costs that the agency’s estimates likely do not account for. If  the agency estimated cost savings by, in part, calculating the number of  business service-related staff it reduced but did not factor in the time  spent by employees who picked up portions of the business service- related work, then the agency’s cost-savings estimates for the business  services may be overstated.
Complete and accurate information for pre- and postcentralization costs is  essential to accurately determine the extent of achieved cost savings and  the reasonableness of key assumptions used to develop cost estimates.  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government highlights the  importance of comparing actual performance data with expected results  to determine whether goals are met for accountability for effective and  efficient use of resources. It also calls for agencies to clearly document  significant events, such as those involving major organizational changes,  and to maintain documentation so it is readily available for examination.  In addition, in March 2009, we issued a cost-estimating guide, which  compiles cost-estimating best practices drawn from across industry and  government. This guide notes the importance of sound cost-estimating  practices, including to develop in-depth cost-estimating models that  actively address risks by estimating costs associated with potential  delays, workarounds, or other key risks and to properly document cost  estimates so they can be independently validated, updated, or re-created.  Specifically, the guide explains that documentation describing the  methods and data behind estimates not only allows others to understand  how an estimate was developed and to replicate it, but also facilitates  updating the estimate as key assumptions change or more information  becomes available. In addition, the guide indicates that well-supported  and well-documented cost estimates can serve as a reference to support  future estimates. As the Forest Service moves forward with its initiatives  to redesign and reorganize its human resources management and  information technology services, neither it nor others will be able to fully  assess the cost-effectiveness of these initiatives or track updates as  assumptions or other information changes without complete and accurate  cost-estimating information.
section_title: The Forest Service Estimated That Centralization Achieved Intended Cost Savings in One of the Three Business Services
paragraphs: Despite limitations in the information it provided, the Forest Service  estimated that, through fiscal year 2010, it achieved intended annual  savings in budget and finance but was not able to achieve intended  savings for human resources management or the ISO component within  information technology. Selected aspects of the agency’s estimates of  achieved savings for the three business services are described below,  along with limitations that raise further questions about their reliability.
The Forest Service estimated that from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal  year 2010, it reduced its annual budget and finance costs by about  $47 million per year, on average—exceeding its cost-savings goal by  more than $8 million annually. According to agency documents, it  incurred one-time investment costs totaling $54 million, about $9 million  more than the initially projected amount of $45 million. According to  agency estimates, a large portion of the cost savings was attributable to  staff reductions. For example, agency data suggest that in 2010,  377 fewer FTEs than before centralization were assigned to positions  most closely associated with budget and finance work.
We found, however, that the agency’s estimate of postcentralization costs  was based in large part on estimates of the costs of field-based budget  and finance activity that agency officials told us had not been validated— raising questions about the reliability of these cost estimates and  therefore about the agency’s reported cost savings. Specifically,  estimates of postcentralization costs included costs for both the  centralized budget and finance organization and the budget and finance  activities that largely remained in the field units. Over half these estimated  annual costs, however, were for field-based activities, and they were  derived from estimates stemming back to the agency’s centralization  planning documents. According to agency officials, cost estimates  developed for the field-based activities were based on the number of  field-based FTEs that the agency projected would continue to do budget  and finance-related work after centralization. The officials said they have  not taken steps to assess the accuracy of this portion of their cost  estimates because they lack readily available data on these specific costs  from the agency’s accounting system and because the additional steps to  validate actual FTEs and associated costs would take significant time and  resources. Many field-unit staff we spoke with said they continue to  devote significant resources to performing budget and finance activities,  and in some cases field units have hired additional staff to carry out the  work. Regardless, without sufficient data to compare the agency’s initial  projections of field-based budget and finance costs before centralization  with actual postcentralization costs, the ability to assess the extent of  achieved cost savings is limited.
The Forest Service estimated that from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, it  reduced its annual human resources management costs by about  $11 million per year, on average—falling far short of its projection of  $31 million in annual savings. In fact, by fiscal year 2010, the Forest  Service estimated that annual human resources management costs were  almost $1 million more than the agency estimated they would have been  without centralization. The agency estimated that one-time investment  costs totaled $76 million, $15 million more than projected. According to  agency officials, higher-than-expected annual costs were largely due to  increases in staffing and technology costs for new automated systems.  By 2010, for example, the agency reported that staffing exceeded  650 FTEs, compared with the fewer than 400 FTEs estimated in its initial  projections. In addition, agency officials also stated that in fiscal year  2008, the Forest Service retained a contractor to assist in processing the  extensive seasonal hiring the agency undertakes each year. They  explained that the contractor was necessary to process personnel actions  for the approximately 15,000 to 18,000 staff temporarily hired each year  because human resources management does not have the staff to  process these transactions in a timely fashion.
The agency’s current redesign initiatives and other efforts are likely to  further significantly affect the costs of providing human resources  management services, but the nature and extent of those effects are  unclear because the Forest Service has not evaluated the long-term  financial impacts of its planned changes. In the short term, costs are likely  to rise substantially, given the agency’s planned increases in staffing in  connection with redesign of human resources management. Specifically,  during fiscal year 2011 human resources management planned to  increase staff by up to 208 additional positions over fiscal year 2010,  according to agency documents, which would bring the new total to  970 positions—more than twice the number of FTEs estimated in initial  agency projections. Agency officials attributed some of the increases to  additional unanticipated work requirements, such as activities related to  time-and-attendance reporting and unemployment compensation, which  human resources management continued to perform after centralization.  In addition, although the agency is actively pursuing OneUSDA to serve  as its comprehensive human resources management system, it has not  yet projected the costs to develop and implement this system. The  agency developed a business plan for fiscal years 2011 through 2013,  which estimated some costs for its human resources management  service for those years, but this plan did not specify costs, if any, related  to its OneUSDA effort. The plan also did not clearly explain how future  staffing would change to achieve a forecasted 10 percent reduction in  salary costs by fiscal year 2013, especially in light of current redesign  efforts and their associated increase in staffing levels. Furthermore, the  plan did not contain any discussion of the potential long-term financial  impact of these efforts on future human resources management costs.
The Forest Service’s estimates of cost savings for centralization of  information technology generally focused on its ISO, which, according to  the agency, resulted in annual savings of about $22 million from fiscal  year 2005 through fiscal year 2008—falling short of the agency’s goal of  $30 million in annual savings. The agency estimated that it also incurred  about $12 million in investment costs as part of these centralization  efforts. As part of its savings estimate, the agency reported that it had  reduced information technology-related staffing by 554 positions. Agency  officials also stated that, anticipating significant savings resulting from  centralization, the Forest Service in fiscal year 2005 dissolved the portion  of its working capital fund related to computer hardware and software,  allowing it to spend the approximately $60 million balance elsewhere in  the agency. The agency, however, did not provide sufficient  documentation for us to determine how this action specifically related to,  or may have affected, the agency’s estimates of the savings that resulted  from ISO centralization. In addition, because the Forest Service’s efforts  to measure cost savings focused on ISO, any savings associated with  centralizing information technology services outside of ISO (such as  those related to replacing computing and telecommunications hardware,  software, and radio systems) were not included in agency estimates.  During fiscal year 2008, the Forest Service terminated its competitive  sourcing arrangement with ISO, folding these service activities back into  one information technology organization, which limited the agency’s  ability to consistently measure cost savings because ISO-specific costs  were no longer tracked separately. Regardless, the cost of providing  information technology services overall has grown steadily over the last  several years: the agency estimated that total costs have increased about  8 percent per year, on average, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year  2010.
The agency’s lack of supporting documentation for several of its  information technology cost estimates raises questions about the  reliability of this information. Specifically, a business case was not  prepared for the information technology centralization effort, and,  although agency officials indicated that projected annual cost savings  were derived from competitive sourcing documentation (i.e., from the  agency’s bid under the competition for providing services using agency  employees), they were unable to demonstrate how such documentation  supported the estimate of baseline costs or projected yearly costs after  centralization. Also, agency officials were unable to specify how their  estimates of achieved savings, including those attributed to reported  staffing reductions, were derived, noting, among other things, that they  were unable to locate documentation supporting their estimates because  many information technology employees who may have been familiar with  these efforts had left the agency. These limitations echo concerns we  raised in 2008 about the reliability of Forest Service efforts to measure  information technology-related cost savings. Specifically, in January 2008  we reported that the agency was unable to provide sufficient information  to substantiate the approximately $35.2 million in savings it reported to  Congress as part of its ISO competitive sourcing arrangement for fiscal  years 2005 through 2006. We noted that, in addition to the lack of  complete and reliable cost data, the agency had failed to include in its  report $40 million in transition costs.
As with human resources management, the reorganization effort within  information technology is likely to significantly affect the future costs of  providing information technology services, but the nature and extent of  those effects are unclear because the long-term financial impacts and  other aspects of this initiative have yet to be fully evaluated. Although the  agency has taken steps to assess information technology costs, a March  2009 internal assessment of ISO performance and cost results  highlighted the need for an in-depth, realistic cost model among its  recommendations for additional analysis in connection with future  information technology reorganization. For both human resources  management and information technology, information on the future costs  and intended benefits associated with efforts to reorganize and improve  service delivery will be important in assessing the overall impact of these  key initiatives, as well as trade-offs that may be necessary if resources  are not available to fully implement the initiatives. Further, evaluating the  initiatives’ success will depend, in part, on the agency’s ability to develop  appropriate measures of cost-effectiveness and a methodologically sound  approach for measuring and documenting results, which includes a  realistic, in-depth cost-estimating model and appropriate, reliable cost  data that takes into account the initiatives’ potential long-term impact.  Without such an approach, the Forest Service risks being unable to  demonstrate, or even to determine, the cost-effectiveness of future efforts  to deliver business services.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The need for effective and efficient government operations has grown  more acute in light of the federal deficit and the long-term fiscal  challenges facing the nation, prompting government agencies, including  the Forest Service, to consider new models for accomplishing their  missions. For the Forest Service, consolidating business services  formerly located across the nation, and increasing the reliance on  sophisticated automated technologies, offered the promise of providing  key business services in a more coordinated and streamlined fashion and  at a lower overall cost to the agency. Although centralization of budget  and finance services had to overcome short-term obstacles typical of  institutional changes of this magnitude, centralizing these services  generally worked well to bring greater coordination and consistency to  many financial activities. But poor implementation hampered human  resources management and information technology services over a  longer period. For these services in particular, overreliance on a self- service model for tasks requiring specialized knowledge, automated  systems that did not work as intended or were not user-friendly, and  inconsistent support from customer-service help desks had unintended  consequences, particularly on field-unit employees—with resulting  impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness with which they could perform  their mission-related activities. As the agency moves forward with its  initiatives to redesign and reorganize its approach to delivering human  resources management and information technology services, it will be  critical for the agency to re-examine the extent to which a self-service  approach is most efficient and effective for providing needed services. In  doing so, the agency will need to better understand both the benefits and  the investment required under alternative approaches for delivering  business services. For those tasks and services where a self-service  approach is discontinued in favor of direct provision by specialists, higher  levels of service are likely to mean higher costs; for those tasks and  services where a self-service approach is continued, potential cost  savings may be partially offset by investment in more-effective and more  user-friendly automated systems, help-desk support, and other tools  essential to carrying out self-service tasks.
In addition, although the Forest Service reported cost savings from  centralization (albeit less than expected in the case of human resources  management and ISO), the agency was unable to clearly demonstrate  how its reported savings were determined and whether they were in fact  fully realized. The agency is now devoting significant resources to its  redesign and reorganization initiatives. The extent of additional resources  needed to fully implement these initiatives remains unclear, however, in  part because selected aspects of the initiatives—including their costs— have not been fully developed. Moreover, without complete and  accurately prepared and maintained cost information to allow the agency  to assess the cost-effectiveness of its efforts, including measures to be  used to monitor actual results achieved, neither the Forest Service nor  Congress can be assured that the initiatives’ costs can be objectively  monitored or that decisions about how to provide business services in the  future will produce cost-effective solutions.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To maintain and strengthen the Forest Service’s delivery of business  services and help ensure customer satisfaction and cost-effectiveness,  and in conjunction with its current initiatives to redesign and reorganize  the agency’s approach to delivering human resources management and  information technology services, we recommend that the Secretary of  Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following  three actions:    Complete a systematic examination of the tasks associated with these  two business services to determine (1) which tasks can be efficiently  and effectively carried out under a self-service approach and  (2) which tasks may require more direct support by specialists. In  doing so, officials should assess the costs and benefits associated  with each approach and consider the views of field-unit employees.   On the basis of the results of this systematic examination,  (1) document actions and implementation time frames for providing  these business services in the most appropriate manner, and  (2) ensure that the tools essential to carrying out any self-service  tasks—including automated systems and help-desk support—are  effective and user-friendly.   Prepare and maintain complete and accurate cost-estimating  information to (1) thoroughly assess the potential short- and long-term  agencywide costs of implementing the current redesign and  reorganization initiatives, and (2) develop and document  methodologically sound measures to monitor the initiatives’ cost- effectiveness, so that results can be conclusively determined and  objectively evaluated.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided the Secretary of Agriculture with a draft of this report for  review and comment. In response, the Forest Service generally agreed  with the report’s findings and recommendations and stated that the  agency is committed to the continual improvement of its business  services delivery and recognizes that changes may be needed to improve  performance. The Forest Service did not, however, specify the steps it will  take to address our recommendations or the time frames for doing so.  The Forest Service also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. The agency’s written comments are  reproduced in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines the (1) types of effects centralization has had on the  Forest Service and its employees, particularly in field units; (2) actions the  Forest Service has taken to assess its delivery of centralized business  services and to address identified shortcomings; and (3) extent to which  the Forest Service can demonstrate that it achieved centralization’s  intended cost savings.
To examine the effects of centralization on the Forest Service and its  employees, we reviewed guidance and policy documents, including early  planning documents prepared before centralization for each of the three  centralized business services: (1) budget and finance, (2) human  resources management, and (3) information technology. We also  examined numerous formal and informal reviews and assessments of  centralization prepared by Forest Service staff and contractors, as well as  past GAO reports on Forest Service operations, including reports on  Forest Service budget and finance operations. In addition, we reviewed  the results of various surveys and focus groups of Forest Service  employees, conducted by Forest Service teams during 2010, as well as  all customer comments provided through each of the business service  help desks during 2010. We interviewed officials from Forest Service  headquarters and the three business services at the Albuquerque Service  Center to determine how centralization changed business service  delivery, as well as to obtain their perspectives on positive and negative  outcomes resulting from centralization. To gain field-unit perspectives, we  interviewed—through site visits and by telephone—more than 200 agency  officials from all nine regional offices, 12 national forests, 11 ranger  districts, four research stations, four science laboratories, and the State  and Private Forestry program. Our interviews included employees in a  wide range of positions within the Forest Service, including forest  supervisors, district rangers, fire management officers, budget officers,  staff scientists, administrative officers, biologists, and recreation  specialists, among many others. During these interviews, we obtained  both general views and perspectives on the effects of centralization and  specific examples, for which, in some instances, we also obtained  supporting documentation.
In addition, to systematically obtain information on the experiences of a  geographically diverse and broad cross-section of Forest Service field- unit employees, we conducted 10 focus groups with a total of  68 randomly selected employees. These focus groups were structured  small-group discussions, which were designed to gain in-depth  information on the effects of centralization more systematically than is  possible during traditional single interviews. The focus groups ranged  from 4 to 11 participants in size, and all were conducted by telephone. To  select participants, we drew a random sample of individuals from a  database of all full-time Forest Service employees. We excluded  employees with less than 5 years of Forest Service experience to ensure  that the focus groups were composed of employees with pre- and  postcentralization experience. We then stratified this population into six  groups according to supervisory status (nonsupervisory and supervisory)  and general schedule (GS) levels (GS-2 through GS-15), so that each  focus group consisted of employees with broadly similar levels of  experience; we drew a total of 10 random samples from these six groups.  For representation in approximate proportion to the total number of full- time employees in the agency, our 10 focus groups consisted of the  following categories:    one focus group of supervisory GS-2 through GS-8 employees,  two focus groups of supervisory GS-9 through GS-11 employees, two focus groups of supervisory GS-12 though GS-15 employees, two focus groups of nonsupervisory GS-2 through GS-8 employees, two focus groups of nonsupervisory GS-9 through GS-11 employees,  and   one focus group of nonsupervisory GS-12 through GS-15 employees.
Focus group discussions lasted 90 minutes to 2 hours and were guided  by a trained moderator, who used a structured set of questions, generally  asking participants to share their experiences regarding how  centralization of each business service affected their work. In addition to  the moderator, two GAO analysts recorded the information provided  during the discussions. Ground rules were established so that participants  limited their comments to experiences they had had personally, and we  asked them to limit their discussion to experiences with business service  delivery over the previous 12 months (the focus groups took place during  February and March 2011). The moderator used a set of consistent,  probing questions designed to ensure that all participants had an  opportunity to share their views and to react to the views of the others.  These questions also helped ensure that topics were covered  comprehensively; for instance, separate questions were asked about both  positive and negative aspects of centralization for each business service.  We also asked for specific examples and details to increase our  confidence that the participants’ broader assessments of the effects were  well founded.
Our focus groups generated in-depth information that was consistent with  the information we obtained through our reviews of formal and informal  assessments of centralization and our interviews with field-unit  employees. Although participants were randomly selected and  represented a broad cross-section of employees, the results are not  statistically generalizable. To systematically assess the information we  obtained during the focus groups, we analyzed its content using content- analysis software, which allowed us to categorize the information into  various categories and themes. From this content analysis, we developed  a model of employee experiences with centralized business services  based on categories of participant responses. All information was initially  coded by one GAO analyst and then reviewed separately by a second  GAO analyst. We coded participants’ responses by splitting them into a  series of categories, including categories corresponding to current  conditions, perceived causes, and effects on day-to-day work. We  established these categories by identifying natural clusters of employee  responses. Our model of the employees’ experiences with centralization  thus highlights the most common elements identified by employees in our  focus groups, with each element in the model distinct from the other  elements. The specific elements resulting from our content analysis of  participants’ responses included the following:    Characteristics of systems and processes included comments  regarding the ease or difficulty of using automated systems, the clarity  of forms, and the complexity of processes under centralization.   Quality of customer support included comments regarding help-desk  support, online guidance, or other support.   Characteristics of individuals included comments regarding the nature  of individual employees, including their prior experience, training, and  job responsibilities.   Characteristics of tasks included comments regarding the nature of  the tasks being carried out, including the complexity and technical  nature of the tasks.   Quality of solutions included comments regarding the accuracy or  completeness of the service provided by customer service help desks.   Timeliness of solutions included comments regarding the speed with  which tasks are completed.   Effect on mission work included comments regarding what the  changes have meant for on-the-ground work, such as firefighting,  stream restoration, and research activities.   Morale included comments regarding what the changes have meant  for employees’ job satisfaction.   Policies and procedures included comments regarding what the  changes have meant for how well policies and procedures are being  followed for carrying out business service tasks under centralization.
To determine what actions the Forest Service has taken to assess its  delivery of centralized services and address identified shortcomings, we  interviewed senior agency officials responsible for managing and  overseeing the business services, including the Deputy Chief and  Associate Deputy Chief of Business Operations, and senior officials from  each of the three business services. We reviewed documentation  prepared by Forest Service staff and contractors assessing various  aspects of business service delivery, including one-time program reviews,  surveys of field-unit employees, and results of employee focus groups.  We also reviewed a variety of ongoing assessment mechanisms  developed by the business services, including service-level agreements  and performance measures established for each business service and  methods to solicit feedback from field-unit employees, such as customer  help desks and business service Web sites. In addition, we interviewed  several members of the agency’s Operations Customer Service Board,  which monitors the performance of the Albuquerque Service Center,  including the board’s chair and several members serving on specific  board review teams, such as those tasked with overseeing service-level  agreements and business service budgets. We reviewed documentation  developed by the board, including its monthly meeting notes for 2010,  annual meeting notes and related documentation for 2010 and 2011, and  recommendation letters provided to the Chief of the Forest Service and  the business service directors from 2006 through May 2011.
To further assess steps the Forest Service is taking to address identified  shortcomings, we reviewed documentation prepared by each business  service, such as annual accomplishment reports and information  developed and submitted to the Operations Customer Service Board. We  also interviewed officials on the human resources management redesign  and information technology reorganization teams and reviewed  documentation related to those efforts, such as implementation plans. In  addition, during our interviews with field-unit staff, we learned about  agency efforts to address identified shortcomings and the results of steps  taken to date.
To examine the extent to which the Forest Service could demonstrate that  it achieved centralization’s intended cost savings, we reviewed available  documentation on the baseline costs of providing each of the business  services before centralization, the projected costs for providing those  same business services after centralization was complete, the actual  costs of providing the business services after centralization, and  estimates of cost savings contained in financial analyses comparing these  data; we also reviewed internal and external assessments of the financial  impact of centralization. Specifically, we reviewed the following:    Available Forest Service documentation on the underlying data,  assumptions, and methodologies for developing estimates of baseline  costs and projected annual cost savings. For budget and finance and  human resources management, these estimates generally came from  business cases prepared as a part of early centralization-planning  efforts; for information technology, from documentation developed  through its competitive sourcing effort.   Agency estimates of cost savings contained in congressional and  agency leadership briefings on the status and results of centralization  efforts from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007.   Updated estimates of cost savings from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal  year 2010, prepared by the agency at our request.   Available documentation on actual costs, staffing changes, and other  factors used by the agency to support its estimates of cost savings.   Budget reviews by the agency’s Operations Customer Service Board.    Status reports, business plans, strategy documents, and other related  information prepared by each of the three business services.   Assessments performed by Forest Service staff and external  organizations, such as the National Academy of Public Administration,  assessing human resources management and information technology  centralization efforts.   Prior GAO reports.
In addition, to gain further information on the Forest Service’s efforts to  measure cost savings associated with business service centralization and  to assess their reliability, we interviewed senior officials responsible for  managing and overseeing the business services, including the Deputy  Chief and Associate Deputy Chief of Business Operations, the Chief  Financial Officer, and the directors of each of the three business services,  as well as others from Forest Service headquarters, the three business  services, and select field-unit offices. Agency officials, however, could not  always provide sufficient documentation supporting the estimates  contained in the information they made available to us, re-create or  substantiate the methods used to calculate cost savings, or resolve  inconsistencies in reported results. Because of these limitations, we were  unable to verify the reliability of all cost estimates the agency provided to  us. Moreover, given these limitations, we were unable to determine what  steps, if any, the agency took to adjust its estimates for inflation. As a  result, we were unable to consistently adjust all dollar values to constant  dollars, and we therefore report all dollar amounts as provided to us by  the agency.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to August 2011, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual name above, Steve Gaty (Assistant Director),  Mark A. Braza, Ellen W. Chu, Elizabeth Curda, Kay Daly, Sandra Davis,  Alyssa M. Hundrup, James Kernen, Michael Krafve, Michael LaForge,  Mehrzad Nadji, Jackie Nowicki, David Powner, Jeanette Soares, and  William Woods made key contributions to this report.