Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability Likely Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges
Published: 2003-05-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Historically, the Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress or the public with a clear understanding of what the Forest Service's 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion the agency receives every year. Since 1990, GAO has reported 7 times on performance accountability weaknesses at the Forest Service, including its inability to systematically link planning, budgeting, and results reporting. This report reviews the recent progress the Forest Service has made in resolving previously identified performance accountability problems and identifies key challenges the Forest Service must overcome to resolve these problems.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Forest Service has made little real progress in resolving its long-standing performance accountability problems and, based on the status of its current efforts, remains years away from implementing a credible performance accountability system. Since June 2000, when we last reported on performance accountability at the Forest Service, the agency has continued to study the issue but has made little real progress. For example, in March 2002, the agency initiated a study of how several other federal agencies implemented their performance accountability systems and, by September 2002, had devised a draft plan for implementing a system of its own. However, broad support within the agency for implementing this plan could not be achieved, and an executive steering team was recently established to restudy the issue. While the agency continues to study and restudy the issue, opportunities to establish key linkages among components of a performance accountability system have been missed. For example, in April 2000, the agency began considering a new budget system and, in August 2001, a new work-plan system--two critical components that should be part of a performance accountability system. However, the Forest Service has yet to develop clear linkages between these new systems and its strategic goals and performance results. Without these linkages, the agency will be unable to report in an integrated, results-oriented way on what activities it completed, how much they cost, and what they accomplished--key elements of an effective performance accountability system. While we recognize that developing a performance accountability system is a complex, time-consuming process, other federal agencies with land management responsibilities have developed and implemented performance accountability systems and believe that their systems have produced multiple benefits. The Forest Service faces three key challenges that it must meet if it is to make more progress. First, the agency needs to establish clear lines of authority and responsibility for developing and implementing a performance accountability system. Currently, various senior executives have responsibilities for components of performance accountability; however, no one has overall responsibility and authority for ensuring these components are developed and properly linked. Second, the Forest Service needs to address its culture of consensus decision-making, which has made it difficult for the Forest Service to agree on how to develop and implement an integrated performance accountability system. Third, top agency leadership needs to give sufficient emphasis and priority to establishing a performance accountability system. The agency is currently giving greater emphasis to other priorities, like financial accountability. GAO recognizes the importance of, and need for, addressing the Forest Service's long-standing financial accountability problems, but believes more can and should be done to address the agency's performance accountability problems so that both performance and financial accountability can work in concert to assess and, ultimately, to improve the agency's overall performance.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For 10 years, Congress and the administration have focused on making  federal agencies more accountable for what they accomplish with the  dollars they receive. To this end, the Congress mandated in legislation that  federal agencies undertake a number of major management reforms that,  together, constitute a statutory framework for linking plans, budgets, and  results. Over this period, GAO has reviewed agencies’ efforts to achieve  the accountability for financial management and performance envisioned  by this framework. Since 1999, in a series of reports identifying agencies  with major management challenges and at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse,  and mismanagement, GAO has consistently reported serious financial and  performance accountability weaknesses at the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Forest Service. As a result of these weaknesses, the  Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress and the public with a  clear understanding of what its 30,000 employees accomplish with the  approximately $5 billion it receives every year.
The Forest Service has an enormous stewardship responsibility: to  maintain the health, productivity, and diversity of the nation’s forests and  grasslands for current and future generations of Americans. The agency  manages 192 million acres of land, including a national forest system that  comprises 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 17 recreation  areas. On these lands, the Forest Service, among other things, supports  recreation; sells timber; provides rangeland for grazing; maintains and  protects watersheds, wilderness, fish and wildlife; and works with other  federal agencies to prevent and suppress wildfires. In addition, the Forest  Service provides financial and program support for state and private  forests and undertakes research activities. The Forest Service, headed by a  Chief, conducts these activities through three levels of field  management—-9 regional offices, 123 forest offices, and about 600 district  offices. The managers of these field offices have considerable discretion in  interpreting and applying the agency’s policies and directions. The Chief of  the Forest Service reports to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for  Natural Resources and Environment.
In our previous reports, dating back to 1991, we noted that the agency’s  lack of performance accountability in recent years occurred, at least in  part, because it had not developed a performance accountability system  that links its budget and organizational structures, planning processes, and  resource allocations with its strategic goals, objectives, and performance  measures. We also reported that the agency had difficulty in developing  good performance measures and monitoring progress, both of which are  critical to ensuring accountability. Furthermore, while the agency had  made numerous commitments in recent years to provide the Congress and  the public with a better understanding of what it accomplishes with  appropriated funds, it did not appear to be fully committed to establishing  the key linkages, measures, monitoring, and coordination needed for  accountability. We reported that the Forest Service has studied options to  address performance accountability but has done little else. In addition,  we determined that the Forest Service has found it difficult to develop a  performance accountability system because responsibilities for  accountability have been fragmented among organizational components  and because the agency’s culture allows field managers significant  independence in deciding whether to implement headquarters’ guidance.
You asked us to (1) review the progress the Forest Service is making in  resolving known performance accountability problems and (2) identify  key challenges impeding the Forest Service’s ability to resolve its  performance accountability problems. This report updates our reviews of  the Forest Service since we last testified before your Subcommittee in  June 2000.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Forest Service is organized into six areas, each headed by a deputy  chief, who reports directly to the Chief of the Forest Service. These deputy  chiefs are responsible for the National Forest System; State and Private  Forestry; Research and Development; Budget and Finance; Programs,  Legislation and Communications; and Business Operations, as shown in  figure 1.
subsections: section_title: Other Federal Agencies Have Land Management Responsibilities
paragraphs: The Forest Service is one of four federal agencies that manage public  lands. The other three are the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Service, within the  Department of the Interior (Interior). The Natural Resources and  Conservation Service (NRCS), within USDA, provides land management  assistance to the owners of private lands. The Forest Service and the three  agencies within Interior manage 95 percent of all federal lands, while  NRCS is primarily responsible for conserving and protecting natural  resources on private lands, which constitute about 75 percent of all  acreage in the contiguous United States. NRCS has a budget of  approximately $1 billion and 11,500 employees. BLM is responsible for  administering more public lands than any other federal agency, with a  budget of approximately $1.7 billion and 10,900 employees. Although  somewhat smaller than the Forest Service, NRCS and BLM have important  land management responsibilities.
section_title: Statutory and Administrative Framework for Performance Accountability
paragraphs: Over the past decade, Congress and the executive branch have sought to  improve federal management by focusing more on results. The Congress  enacted several laws to create a statutory framework for results-oriented  management. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  (GPRA) is a key element of this statutory framework. GPRA requires  agencies to develop strategic plans that have outcome-related goals and  objectives. Agencies must also develop annual performance plans that  establish goals for program activities and that create performance  measures to assess program outcomes and to provide a basis for linking  program results with established goals. The strategic plan must describe  how the annual performance goals relate to the strategic plan’s goals and  objectives. Finally, GPRA requires agencies to report annually on their  results—that is, the extent to which their annual performance goals have  been met. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of the different components  of this legislative framework.
Implementation of the legislative framework is evolving. Currently, for  example, improving the integration of budget and performance is a high- priority initiative in the President’s Management Agenda. The Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool  (PART) is central to this initiative. This diagnostic tool is intended to  provide a consistent approach to reviewing program design, planning, and  goal development as well as program management and results. OMB has  begun using PART to assess 20 percent of programs annually, beginning  with the fiscal year 2004 President’s budget request to the Congress.
section_title: Prior GAO Reports Document Long-Standing Performance Accountability Problems
paragraphs: GAO has documented the Forest Service’s struggles with achieving  performance accountability for over a decade. (See Related GAO  Products.) GAO concluded that the agency’s lack of performance  accountability occurred, at least in part, because it had not developed a  performance accountability system that linked its budget and  organizational structures, planning processes, and resource allocations  with its strategic goals, objectives, and performance measures.
Adequate performance measures are key to linking components of a  performance accountability system. However, as we reported, the Forest  Service had not established objective and verifiable performance  measures. Nor had it established specific and quantifiable objectives that  link its strategic goals with its annual performance measures. We reported  that the agency had difficulty establishing these linkages because the  authority for these components was fragmented among three different  deputy chiefs, with no method for resolving differences on how to best  link these components. This lack of coordination at headquarters  undermined performance accountability.
Finally, we reported that the agency’s leadership had failed to credibly  emphasize performance management at either the headquarters or field  levels. We reported that in 1991 the Chief of the Forest Service had formed  a task force to review performance accountability. The task force found  that the agency had consistently promised to take corrective actions  recommended by GAO and USDA’s Inspector General, but had most often  failed to do so and that there was “compelling” evidence of a need for  increased accountability. As a result, the task force recommended that the  Forest Service (1) institutionalize accountability in managers’ performance  contracts, (2) accelerate cultural change in the agency, and (3) monitor  and track accountability through indicators or benchmarks. The agency’s  leadership team adopted these concepts and distributed them agencywide.  However, as we reported in 1997, agency leadership did not follow up with  actions to implement these concepts and, as a result, the task force’s  recommendations were never carried out.
section_title: Forest Service Has Made Little Progress in Resolving Known Performance Accountability Problems, unlike Other Federal Land Management Agencies
paragraphs: The Forest Service has made little progress in resolving previously  identified performance accountability problems and remains years away  from implementing a credible performance accountability system. Rather  than developing and implementing a functioning performance  accountability system like other federal land management agencies, the  Forest Service, for the most part, continues to study its options, as it has  for the last 11 years. The agency is developing or has implemented two  systems that should be important components of a performance  accountability system—a budget formulation and execution system and a  work-planning system—but neither was originally designed to be part of a  performance accountability system, nor has the Forest Service developed  the clear linkages needed between these new systems and its strategic  goal-setting and results-reporting functions.
subsections: section_title: The Forest Service Continues to Study Performance Accountability
paragraphs: To understand how other agencies have established clear linkages among  key components of a performance accountability system, the Forest  Service initiated a benchmarking study of other agencies’ performance  accountability systems in March 2002, including USDA’s NRCS and  Interior’s BLM and National Park Service. This study reports on lessons  learned for successfully developing, evaluating, and implementing a  performance accountability system. In particular, a good performance  accountability system, among other things, should include    senior leadership commitment to performance accountability;    clear delineation of organizational responsibilities for performance  measurement, budget integration, performance evaluation, and  reporting;    close coordination of performance accountability activities;    national performance measures;  linkages from the strategic plan to annual performance measures to  budget activities; and  the ability to track total costs and tie those costs to desired outcomes.
Not until July 2002 did the Chief of the Forest Service emphasize his  intention to “get started” on studying how performance accountability  could be implemented at the Forest Service. In September 2002, in  response to the Chief’s direction, the strategic planning and budget staffs  completed a draft plan for an agencywide performance accountability  system that incorporated the lessons learned from their benchmarking  study. The Forest Service’s Draft Performance Accountability System  Implementation Plan provides a conceptual framework and time frames  for developing a performance accountability system. It is designed to  develop the critical links among performance accountability components:  the strategic plan, annual performance plan, project planning, budget, and  annual reporting of results. The plan also explains how existing Forest  Service databases, such as those for formulating the budget and the annual  work plans, could be used to provide the information needed for  performance accountability. Although the Chief endorsed the concept of  performance accountability outlined in the plan, it did not receive broad  support throughout the agency. As a result, the Chief decided to further  assess performance accountability options through an executive steering  team, rather than adopt the system envisioned in the draft implementation  plan.
The executive steering team, chaired by the Deputy Chief for Programs,  Legislation, and Communications, comprises nine senior executives in key  agency positions. This team is to study the Forest Service’s own processes  and systems and further consider options available for implementing a  Forest Service performance accountability system and to report to the  Chief by June 2003 on the viability of these options. However, this team  was not appointed until December 2002, nearly 2½ years after we last  testified on this issue and more 11 years after we first reported on it. As a  result, the Forest Service has made little progress since 1991, when it first  formed a task force to review performance accountability.
section_title: Forest Service Has Developed Two Systems That Should Be Part of a Performance Accountability System, but It Has Not Established Clear Linkages between These Systems and Its Strategic Goals and Performance Results
paragraphs: The Forest Service began considering new budget and work-planning  systems in April 2000 and August 2001, respectively, long before the Chief  emphasized his intention to “get started” on performance accountability in  July 2002. These new systems should be integral parts of a performance  accountability system, but the Forest Service has not developed clear  linkages between these new systems’ main outputs—budgets and work  activities—and its strategic goals and performance results. Without these  linkages, the agency will not be able to report in an integrated, results- oriented way on what activities it completed, how much they cost, and  what they accomplished—key elements of any effective performance  accountability system.
In June 2000, the House Committee on Appropriations reported it was  concerned that the agency devoted too much of its funding to  headquarters initiatives and special projects, to the detriment of  conservation and public service activities the Committee believed to be  important. As a result, the Committee directed the Forest Service to better  link its budget formulation and allocation systems to the actual work  planned for the nation’s forests.
The Forest Service developed such a system—the Budget Formulation and  Execution System (BFES)—and in March 2001 began using it to formulate  its fiscal year 2003 budget. The agency viewed BFES as an answer to the  Committee’s concerns, but not necessarily part of any effort to achieve  performance accountability. The Forest Service designed BFES to allow  field units to have more input into the budget formulation process, to plan  activities and their associated funding throughout the annual budget  development process, and to serve as a basis for subsequent field unit  allocations. If BFES accomplishes these goals, according to senior officials  in the budget office, it could allow field units to estimate their ability to  carry out program activities in light of the agency’s strategic goals,  headquarters priorities, and local priorities. Furthermore, according to  these officials, BFES’s potential to establish such linkages could make it  integral to the agency’s recent attempt to develop a performance  accountability system. However, as of May 2003—more than 3 years after  the Forest Service began work on BFES and 2 years after its first use— only a portion of the agency’s budget is included in the system.
Despite the expectations for BFES to link the agency’s strategic goals with  headquarters and local priorities, the Forest Service has not established  clear linkages between its strategic goals and field units’ local priorities,  which makes it harder for the Forest Service to achieve performance  accountability. In particular, budget instructions for fiscal years 2003 and  2004 attempted to guide field units on how to make these linkages.  According to these instructions, as field units planned their activities and  associated funding, they were to weigh the agency’s strategic goals in  making budgetary trade-offs between competing local priorities. In fiscal  year 2003, field units found it impossible to deal effectively with the large  number of priorities—50—headquarters identified. For fiscal year 2004,  the agency’s guidance did not provide a formal process to document such  linkages. Field managers used their “professional judgment” to draw these  linkages. Consequently, for both fiscal years 2003 and 2004, field units  used BFES estimates to set local priorities based on incremental  adjustments to their previous year’s funding. Such a process does not meet  the criteria for performance accountability because it is not clearly based  on the strategic plan and associated outcomes. However, according to  senior budget officials, the BFES approach to budget formulation for these  years represents an improvement over the Forest Service’s previous  process, a more arbitrary practice based almost entirely on the previous  year’s funding.
Although the Forest Service’s budget formulation effort for fiscal year 2005  is an improvement over the budget formulation process for the prior 2  fiscal years, it once again falls short of establishing clear linkages between  the agency’s strategic goals and field unit priorities. In December 2002, the  National Leadership Team—60 senior executives in the agency—reviewed  a set of draft management objectives developed by the planning staff and  tentatively approved 11 of them for field units to consider in developing  their fiscal year 2005 budget submissions. Field units have been instructed  to use these management objectives in integrating local forest plan  priorities with agency objectives. Agency officials reported this initial step  was intended to have field staff become “comfortable” in seeing budget  and strategic goals together and to begin linking performance goals to the  budget. However, staff in the planning office as well as some senior  executives questioned the extent to which the fiscal year 2005  management objectives mirrored strategic goals, primarily because  National Leadership Team members did not have sufficient time to  carefully review the draft management objectives.
The Forest Service decided to replace its work-planning system in August  2001, when conversion to new computer hardware caused the existing  work-planning system to lose some of its usefulness. The agency sought a  national work-planning system to, among other things, help field units plan  and manage work activities at the project level. According to agency  officials, the new work-planning system—called WorkPlan—will be  completed and implemented in two phases. The first phase is scheduled to  be completed by May 1, 2003, but it will include only a planning  component. WorkPlan should be available to field units in time to help  them develop their fiscal year 2004 work plans. The agency expects to  complete the second phase in October 2003, which is to add tracking  completed activities and reporting accomplishments to WorkPlan’s  capabilities. According to the draft performance accountability system  implementation plan, WorkPlan may eventually link field units’ work  activities to Forest Service planning, budgeting, and results reporting  functions. These linkages, if established, could assist program managers  in, among other things, reporting accomplishments and their related  expenditures and integrating these functions with the Forest Service’s  strategic goals—key functions in a performance accountability system.
However, it is not clear whether the agency will be able to establish the  necessary linkages that would enable WorkPlan to meet these  expectations. For example, it is unclear how accurately the Forest Service  will be able to report on the actual costs of individual work activities.  Currently, the agency’s financial information system reports actual  expenditures only at the budget line item level, while WorkPlan is being  designed to provide the planned costs of individual work activities at the  project level. The Forest Service is planning to develop linkages to bridge  this discrepancy between levels of reporting and thus to provide estimates  of project activities’ actual costs. Forest Service officials believe that such  estimates could provide sufficient detail and clarity to adequately address  performance accountability concerns. However, until such linkages are, in  fact, established and evaluated, it is uncertain that the agency will ever be  able to accurately report the actual cost of project activities.
WorkPlan’s future ability to report accomplishments depends heavily on  the Forest Service making significantly more progress on developing  outcome performance measures for all of its goals and objectives. While  we understand the difficulty in developing meaningful performance  measures, the Forest Service is in the process of developing such  measures only for its wildfire program. For example, in Forest Service’s  fiscal year 2005 draft Performance Management Plan, the measure for  reducing hazardous fuels is expressed in terms of how much the risk of  catastrophic fire has been reduced, an outcome-based performance  measure. However, officials from the wildfire, wildlife and fish,  engineering, and water and air programs told us that relating work  activities, such as those that will likely be reported in WorkPlan, to  achieving results requires systematic monitoring of the changing  conditions in the forests over time in order to validate the effects of these  different work activities. These program officials told us that with the  exception of the wildfire program, currently they do not have plans to  undertake this systematic monitoring for their other programs.
section_title: Other Federal Land Management Agencies Have Implemented Performance Accountability Systems
paragraphs: Other federal agencies with land management responsibilities have made  more progress in developing and implementing performance  accountability systems. The Natural Resources Conservation Service  (NRCS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have developed Web- based performance accountability systems that link planning, budgeting,  and results. Both agencies continue to improve their systems and  processes, and the Department of the Interior plans to implement BLM’s  system departmentwide as part of Interior’s vision for effective program  management.
According to NRCS and BLM officials, the primary factor driving the  development and implementation of their performance accountability  systems was a strong desire to report accurately on what they had  accomplished with the dollars they received. Furthermore, strong  leadership commitment enabled the agencies to develop and begin  implementing their systems with existing resources within a few years—4  years for NRCS and 3 years for BLM. Finally, several other factors also  contributed to the agencies’ success: taking the risk of investing time and  resources into developing a performance accountability system, using the  strategic plan to guide their efforts, and having an implementation plan  with time frames for completing steps throughout the development and  implementation phases.
Both NRCS and BLM believe that their accountability systems have  produced multiple benefits. Specifically, managers can make more  informed decisions on resource allocation because the systems align  actual costs with program work. For example, BLM officials report they  can track actual costs to projects and tasks. In addition, their budget can  show how these tasks and associated costs link with the agency’s strategic  plan. NRCS officials can also report on the actual costs of the agency’s  programs as well as how workload and time frames will change as  resources change. Both agencies also told us that their Web-based systems  enable them to know what they are accomplishing with the money they  spend at any given moment. As a result, BLM officials report that they can  reallocate dollars as priorities shift because it is easy to determine where  dollars are available. At both agencies, transparent data promoted  competition among units in the agency to improve performance because  performance data can be viewed by anyone in the agency.
section_title: Forest Service’s Inability to Address Organizational, Cultural, and Leadership Challenges Continues to Impede Its Progress on Performance Accountability
paragraphs: Three key challenges continue to keep the Forest Service from resolving  its performance accountability problems: (1) establishing clear authority  and responsibility within the current organizational structure, (2) making  and implementing decisions in an agency culture that relies on consensus,  and (3) establishing sufficient leadership emphasis and making  performance accountability a higher priority.
Organizationally, several senior executives have been assigned  responsibilities for components of performance accountability, but none  of them has overall responsibility and authority for ensuring that these  components are properly linked or that the agency achieves performance  accountability. For example, the Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation,  and Communications is in charge of the strategic planning component,  while the Deputy Chief for Budget and Finance is responsible for the  budget and finance components. The agency will find it difficult to make  progress in achieving performance accountability if the decisions and  activities of the separate staffs responsible for the various accountability  system components are not effectively coordinated. However, effective  coordination continues to be a challenge within the Forest Service’s  existing organizational structure. The fact that the agency’s efforts since  our last report have not resulted in an approved performance  accountability plan underscores the importance of addressing the issue of  fragmentation and the need for more effective coordination.
Culturally, the Forest Service makes and implements major decisions by  obtaining consensus throughout all levels of the agency—headquarters,  regions, and local units. At times, this approach slows the agency’s ability  to make progress on important issues. According to senior Forest Service  officials, the agency has a collaborative leadership management style— senior managers from all levels moving forward together—so that  progress depends on a collective acceptance of any new proposal. These  officials added that progress on new proposals could slow or even stop if  consensus cannot be achieved in the developmental process. The Forest  Service has been unable to develop and implement a performance  accountability system, largely because it cannot agree on an integrated  approach. The executive steering team’s current effort to study available  options for a performance accountability system is an indication that the  draft plan for implementing such a system does not have broad support  throughout the agency. According to one deputy chief, the executive  steering team must build support throughout the agency in order to make  progress toward implementing a performance accountability system.
Finally, agency leadership has not given the emphasis and priority to  performance accountability that is needed to overcome the Forest  Service’s organizational and cultural challenges. Currently, the Chief and  the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and  Environment, who both have held their positions for less than 2 years, are  emphasizing other priorities. The Chief is focusing on achieving financial  accountability, while the Under Secretary counts performance  accountability as his third priority, behind improvements to the agency’s  decision-making process and financial accountability. Furthermore, the  Under Secretary stated that, without progress on the first two priorities,  performance accountability would be meaningless. Both the Chief and the  Under Secretary acknowledge that the emphasis on performance  accountability has lagged behind other priorities. However, the Chief told  us that he intends to review GAO and USDA Inspector General’s  recommendations to see whether the agency had taken actions as  promised and also intends to include accountability for results in agency  managers’ contracts.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our analysis of the Forest Service’s actions with respect to performance  accountability shows that the agency is essentially in the same position it  was more than a decade ago—studying how it might achieve performance  accountability. By establishing another task force to again “review  options” for implementing a performance accountability system, the  agency has delayed any real action on this important front. Moreover, the  Chief’s intentions—to review GAO and Inspector General reports to see if  the agency had taken promised actions and to consider incorporating  performance accountability into the managers’ contracts—are not new.  The 1994 task force performed the same review and made the same  recommendation on making performance accountability part of senior  managers’ contracts.
We understand that the Forest Service has important competing  priorities—improving financial and performance accountability as well as  its decision-making process—but we do not believe that these priorities  need to be addressed sequentially. To the contrary, progress on these  priorities is interdependent and can be and should be achieved  concurrently so that both may be used to assess the overall performance  of the agency. Accountability requires not only accurately informing  Congress and the public on expenditures but also reporting the results of  these expenditures. Without senior leadership’s placing sufficient  emphasis, however, we believe that the Forest Service will continue to  take only small, slow steps, if any, toward achieving performance  accountability.
If the future is to be different than the past, the challenges we identified  have to be addressed aggressively. The Chief and the senior leadership  have to decide to make performance accountability a reality, not a subject  of continued study. To achieve more progress, the Forest Service will need  to assign overall authority and responsibility for a performance  accountability system to one official and then hold that person  accountable for the effort. It is also crucial for Congress to monitor the  Forest Service’s progress in developing a performance accountability  system. Unlike other land management agencies that have developed and  implemented performance accountability systems within the last 3 years,  the Forest Service has yet to come to this commitment on its own.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure progress in achieving performance accountability, we  recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest  Service to appoint a senior executive with decision-making authority and  responsibility for developing a comprehensive plan, with milestones, to  ensure the timely implementation of an effective performance  accountability system. This executive should be held accountable for    ensuring that the Forest Service’s performance accountability system  clearly links the key components needed to manage for results—plans,  performance measures, budgets, work activities, expenditures, and  accomplishments;    meeting specific milestones for implementing the system; and    ensuring full implementation of the performance accountability system  throughout all levels of the agency.
The Secretary of Agriculture should also direct the Chief of the Forest  Service to report, beginning in 2004, on the agency’s (1) progress in  implementing a performance accountability system and the additional  milestones to be accomplished in the agency’s annual performance plans  and (2) accomplishments in implementing its performance accountability  system in its annual performance report to the Congress.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USDA for its review and comment.  In  response, the Forest Service stated that it agrees with the report’s findings  and recommendations.  Specifically, the Forest Service stated that it would  propose a comprehensive plan by May 30, 2003, to ensure the timely  implementation of an effective performance accountability system.
The Forest Service’s written comments are presented in appendix III.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the progress the Forest Service has made in addressing  previously identified performance accountability problems and key  challenges impeding its ability to resolve these problems, we interviewed  the Chief of the Forest Service, members of the executive steering team,  and officials in various offices, including the Office of Budget and Program  Analysis, the Office of Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment, and  selected field offices. The Office of Strategic Planning and Resource  Assessment and the Office of Budget and Program Analysis are  responsible for designing and implementing the agency’s performance  accountability system. The Office of Budget and Program Analysis and  selected field offices are responsible for the budget formulation and  execution system, and work-planning system. We also reviewed reports,  planning documents, USDA OIG audits, and other documents on past  performance accountability problems in the Forest Service and on the  status of the development and implementation of the agency’s efforts to  improve its planning, budgeting, performance measurement, and  accomplishment reporting processes. Additionally, we interviewed  officials at NRCS and BLM about their efforts to develop and implement  Web-based accountability systems and reviewed related documents.  Finally, we reviewed recent OMB directives related to agency performance  management and budgeting and their recent PART analysis of two Forest  Service programs.
We conducted our review from August 2002 through March 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the   congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Forest Service and its  activities; the Honorable Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture; and the  Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and  Budget. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s home  page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Forest Service’s Progress on GAO-Reported Performance Accountability Problems
subsections: section_title: GAO’s reported performance accountability problems at the Forest Service Forest Service budgets and allocates appropriated funds on the basis of historic funding levels.
paragraphs: Forest Service’s progress as of  April 1, 2003  Forest Service's Budget Formulation  and Execution System partially  addresses this problem.
Forest Service also budgets and allocates  funds on the basis of its programs, many of  which are not linked to the agency's strategic  plan or how work is actually done in the  national forests.
Forest Service attempted to link  budget formulation and the agency's  strategic plan with the FY05 budget  instructions. Forest Service is  developing a national work-planning  system for national forests to plan  work.
Forest Service intends for forest plans to  serve as the basis of future budgets, but it is  unclear how national forests will blend  agencywide goals with local priorities.
No progress has been made to link  forest plans to budgets.  The Forest  Service attempted to blend agency- wide goals with local priorities for its  fiscal year 2005 budget.
Forest Service relies on performance  measures that are not always clearly linked  to strategic goals and objectives because  they do not always assess outputs, service  levels, and outcomes the agency intends to  achieve.
Forest Service is developing  performance measures it believes  better link to the agency's strategic  goals. However, the performance  measures still need improvement.
Forest Service is working to refine its  performance measures so they better reflect  strategic goals, but the agency has not  determined how long it will take to gather  and analyze the needed data.
No progress in this area.
Forest Service's line managers cannot be  held accountable for achieving strategic  goals and objectives because of poor  performance measures.
No progress in this area.
Even when performance accountability  improvements are adopted by Forest Service  management, implementation is often left to  field units which often leaves uneven and  mixed results.
No progress in this area.
Agreement does not exist within the Forest  Service on its long-term strategic goals.  This  is the result of broader disagreement over  the agency's priorities under its multiple-use  and sustained-yield mandate.
The National Leadership Team is  discussing long-term goals for the  Forest Service's Strategic and  Performance Management Plans.
section_title: Appendix II: Detailed Forest Service Organizational Chart
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Forest Service
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above Chester M. Joy, Carol Herrnstadt  Shulman, and Kelli Ann Walther made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of  Agriculture. GAO-03-96. Washington, D.C.: January 2003.
Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires  Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington,  D.C.: June 13, 2002.
Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies  Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158.  Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.
Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce  Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.:  January 31, 2002.
The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to  Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. GAO-01-1022T.  Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of  Agriculture. GAO-01-242. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More  Accountable for Its Performance. GAO/T-RCED-00-236. Washington, D.C.:  June 29, 2000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to  Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability. GAO/RCED-00-83.  Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2000.
Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Improve Accountability. GAO/T- RCED/AIMD-00-93. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2000.
Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability.  GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.
Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address  Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.: April  2, 1999.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of  Agriculture. OCG-99-2. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 1999.
Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based  Management and Accountability. GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington,  D.C.: January 28, 1998.
Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving  Performance. GAO/RCED-97-71. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997.
Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Achieve Cost Efficiency. GAO/RCED- 94-185FS. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 1994.
Performance Measurement: An Important Tool in Managing for Results.  T-GGD-92-35. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1992.
Wilderness Management: Accountability for Forest Service Funds Needs  Improvement. GAO/RCED-92-33. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 1991.