GAO-11-769, Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated Costs


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-769 
entitled 'Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to 
Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated 
Costs' which was released on August 25, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

August 2011: 

Forest Service Business Services: 

Further Actions Needed to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to 
Better Document Associated Costs: 

GAO-11-769: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-769, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-769] or key 
components. For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841 
or mittala@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Centralization of Business Services Has Had Mixed Results, Including 
Mostly Negative Effects on Field-Unit Employees: 

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: 

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: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Major Business Service Activities: 

Table 2: Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents and Operating Budgets, by 
Business Service, Fiscal Year 2011: 

Table 3: Forest Service Baseline Cost Estimates and Projected Annual 
Cost Savings from Centralization: 

Abbreviations: 

FTE: full-time equivalent: 

GS: general schedule: 

ISO: Information Solutions Organization: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 25, 2011: 

The Honorable Jack Reed: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Michael K. Simpson: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James P. Moran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

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.[Footnote 1] 
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. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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. 
[Footnote 4] During 2008, however, the Forest Service terminated its 
competitive-sourcing arrangement with ISO, folding these services back 
into a single information technology organization.[Footnote 5] 

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.[Footnote 6] 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). 

Table 1: Major Business Service Activities: 

Budget and finance: 
Payments; 
Claims processing; 
Real property accounting; 
Financial statement reporting; 
Accounting adjustments. 

Human resources management: 
Hiring; 
Pay and benefits; 
Employee and labor relations; 
Training; 
Workers' compensation; 
Performance and awards; 

Information technology: 
Networks and servers; 
Computers; 
Radios; 
Telecommunications; 
Printers and plotters. 

Source: Forest Service. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 7] Table 2 shows the 2011 staffing and budget 
levels for each of the three business services. 

Table 2: Budgeted Full-Time Equivalents and Operating Budgets, by 
Business Service, Fiscal Year 2011: 

Business service: Budget and finance; 
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 400; 
Operating budget: $50.0 million. 

Business service: Human resources management; 
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 970; 
Operating budget: $83.6 million. 

Business service: Information technology; 
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 780; 
Operating budget: $307.0 million. 

Business service: Total; 
Total budgeted FTEs[A]: 2,150; 
Operating budget: $440.6 million. 

Source: Forest Service. 

[A] FTEs represent authorized levels within each of the respective 
business services, not all of which were filled at the time of our 
review. 

[End of table] 

Centralization of Business Services Has Had Mixed Results, Including 
Mostly Negative Effects on Field-Unit Employees: 

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. 

Centralization Has Improved Financial Accountability and Led to More- 
Informed Management Decisions and More-Consistent Policy 
Implementation: 

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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 

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. 

Centralization Shifted How Business Services Were Delivered in Ways 
That Largely Increased Responsibilities for Field-Unit Staff: 

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.[Footnote 10] 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. 

Employee Concerns over Increased Administrative Workload: 

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. 

Dependence on Automated Systems That Are Not User Friendly or 
Intuitive: 

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. 

Dissatisfaction with Help Desk Customer Support and Web Sites: 

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. 

The Effects of Centralization Have Varied by Individual Employee but, 
Cumulatively, Have Affected Employees' Ability to Carry Out Their Work: 

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. 

* Increased reliance on workarounds. Perceived or actual problems 
associated with completing administrative tasks and reluctance to rely 
on support from the help desks have resulted in employees' increased 
reliance on the use of workarounds, which in some cases may not fully 
comply with agency policy or procedures, to accomplish their 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. 

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: 

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. 

The Forest Service's Assessment Actions Have Included Multiple Ongoing 
Efforts, Focused Largely on Service Delivery by Each Centralized 
Business Service: 

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. 

Customer Service Board: 

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. 

Service-Level Agreements: 

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. 

Mechanisms for Capturing Customer Feedback: 

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. 

Reviews for Assessing the Business Services: 

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. 

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: 

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. 

Budget and Finance: 

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. 

Human Resources Management: 

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.[Footnote 
11] 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: 

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. 

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: 

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. 

Savings Achieved from Centralization Could Not Be Conclusively 
Determined Because of Limited Supporting Documentation and Cost- 
Estimating Methods: 

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).[Footnote 12] 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. 

Table 3: Forest Service Baseline Cost Estimates and Projected Annual 
Cost Savings from Centralization: 

Estimate of baseline annual costs: 
Business service: Budget and finance: $139.9 million; 
Business service: Human resources management: $86.9 million; 
Business service: Information technology[A]: $76.3 million; 
Total: $303.1 million. 

Projected ongoing annual costs after centralization: 
Business service: Budget and finance: $101.2 million; 
Business service: Human resources management: $56.3 million; 
Business service: Information technology[A]: $46.8 million; 
Total: $204.3 million. 

Projected annual cost savings: 
Business service: Budget and finance: $38.7 million; 
Business service: Human resources management: $30.6 million; 
Business service: Information technology[A]: $29.5 million; 
Total: $98.8 million. 

Projected one-time investment costs: 
Business service: Budget and finance: $45.2 million; 
Business service: Human resources management: $60.5 million; 
Business service: Information technology[A]: $12.0 million; 
Total: $117.7 million. 

Source: Forest Service estimates as of September 30, 2007. 

[A] These amounts reflect only the portion of information technology 
services included in ISO. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 13] In addition, 
in March 2009, we issued a cost-estimating guide, which compiles cost- 
estimating best practices drawn from across industry and government. 
[Footnote 14] 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. 

The Forest Service Estimated That Centralization Achieved Intended 
Cost Savings in One of the Three Business Services: 

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. 

Budget and Finance: 

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. 

Human Resources Management: 

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. 

Information Technology: 

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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17] 
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.[Footnote 18] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments: 

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 [hyperlink, 
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. 

Signed by: 

Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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),[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20] 

* 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Forest Service: 

USDA: 
United States  Department of Agriculture: 
Forest Service: 
Washington Office: 
1400 Independence Avenue: 
Washington, DC 20250: 

File Code: 1420: 

Date: July 29, 2011: 

Ms. Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, GA0-11-769, 
"Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Reexamine 
Approach and Better Document Costs Associated with Centralization." 
The Forest Service has reviewed the report in great detail and 
generally agrees with the report's observations and recommendations. 
The agency's comments, regarding the Human Resources Management (HRM) 
and Chief Information Office (CIO) business services. are enclosed. 

The Forest Service is committed to the continual improvement of HRM 
and CIO organizational performance and effectiveness. Like any 
process, models periodically need to be tweaked to ensure maximum 
efficiency while taking into account the needs of Forest Service 
managers and employees. Thank you for identifying potential process 
improvements that can help bring success to our evolving Human 
Resources and Information Resources enterprises. Cost accountability 
and effectiveness is a key to Forest Service mission success. 

If you have any questions, please contact Donna M. Carmical, Chief 
Financial Officer, at 202-205-1321 or dearmical@fs.fed.us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Thomas L. Tidwell: 
Chief: 

Enclosures: 

cc: Donna M Carmical, Lenise Lago, Kathleen Atkinson, Robin Bailey, 
Douglas Nash, Jennifer McGuire, Shirley Bridges, Elizabeth Donnelly, 
Samantha C. Weinhold, Sam Graham, Elizabeth K. Caban. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] H.R. Rep. No. 111-180, at 139 (2009); H.R. Rep. No. 111-316, at 
140 (2009) (Conf. Rep.). 

[2] Business process re-engineering refers to an approach for 
redesigning the way work is done to better support an organization's 
mission and reduce costs. See GAO, Business Process Reengineering 
Assessment Guide, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-10.1.15] (Washington, D.C.: May 
1997). 

[3] Competitive sourcing refers to a governmentwide initiative that 
intended to improve government efficiency and reduce the costs of 
programs by promoting competition between federal entities and the 
private sector to determine who should perform certain activities. For 
more information on the Forest Service's competitive sourcing 
activities, see GAO, Forest Service: Better Planning, Guidance, and 
Data Are Needed to Improve Management of the Competitive Sourcing 
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2008). 

[4] The ISO component did not include those activities the agency 
considered inherently governmental, such as overseeing and managing 
ISO and making decisions about information resources. 

[5] The Forest Service's annual appropriations law for fiscal years 
2008 and 2009 prohibited the use of any appropriated funds for 
competitive sourcing studies and any related activities involving 
Forest Service personnel. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2010 prohibited the use of appropriated funds to begin or 
announce a study or public-private competition regarding the 
conversion to contractor performance of any function performed by 
federal employees throughout government. The Forest Service declined 
to ask for funding in fiscal year 2011 for competitive sourcing. 

[6] The budget component of budget and finance is mainly responsible 
for formulating, reviewing, and executing the agency's budget. The 
finance component of budget and finance, in contrast, is responsible 
for payments, claims processing, travel, accounting, and financial 
statement reporting, among other payment-related activities. 

[7] An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who 
collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. For example, 
both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one FTE. 

[8] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 
Agriculture, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OCG-99-2] 
(Washington, D.C.: January 1999). 

[9] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2005). Although we removed the Forest Service from our high- risk 
list, we also reported that significant challenges for the agency 
remained, including internal control weaknesses related to its 
financial reporting, and stated that it would be critical for the 
agency to continue to place a high priority on addressing its 
remaining financial management problems. 

[10] Assistance may be provided by multiple levels of staff, including 
agents who accept inbound calls from employees seeking help, as well 
as higher-level specialists trained to address specific issues. In 
this report we use the phrase "help desk" to refer to these staff 
collectively. 

[11] Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process: Memorandum 
for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 75 Fed. Reg. 
27157 (May 14, 2010). 

[12] All dollar values are as provided by the Forest Service and are 
not adjusted to constant dollars. 

[13] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[14] GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for 
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[15] A working capital fund is a type of intragovernmental revolving 
fund that operates as a self-supporting entity that conducts a regular 
cycle of businesslike activities. These funds function entirely from 
the fees charged for the services they provide, consistent with the 
funds' statutory authority. The Forest Service's working capital fund 
provides services to national forests; research stations; other 
federal agencies; and, as provided by law, to state and private 
cooperators. 

[16] To establish benchmarks for comparison with other entities, the 
Forest Service engaged a consulting firm to study its costs of 
providing selected information technology services in fiscal years 
2001 and 2007. These studies showed substantial declines in the costs 
of delivering the information technology services that were measured, 
including a 45 percent decline in the "per user" cost of these 
services. Agency officials cited these studies, in addition to the ISO-
specific information the agency provided, as useful to compare costs 
over time. We acknowledge the studies' potential usefulness for 
understanding the aspects of the agency's information technology 
efforts that were studied, but we focused our evaluation on cost 
savings specific to the agency's ISO-related centralization effort 
that began in 2004. These estimated savings were the focus of the 
agency's projections and related estimates of cost savings from 
centralization and the estimates that were reported to Congress. 
Further, the costs included in the study for fiscal year 2007 were 
almost $100 million less than total information technology costs for 
that year, in part because the study did not include all functional 
information technology areas. 

[17] By March 2008, the Forest Service had terminated its competitive 
sourcing arrangement with ISO. According to agency officials, however, 
the agency continued to track ISO-related costs through the end of 
fiscal year 2008. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195]. 

[19] GS levels refer to the "general schedule" pay grades used for 
many federal employees, including most full-time Forest Service 
employees. General schedule pay grade levels correspond roughly to the 
level of difficulty, responsibility, and qualifications required of 
the person who fills a given job. 

[20] Information technology centralization efforts extended beyond 
those specifically attributable to competitive sourcing and related 
transition of certain information technology activities to the 
Information Services Organization (ISO). Although centralization 
efforts not specifically related to ISO may have resulted in 
additional information technology savings, we focused our evaluation 
on ISO-related cost savings, which were the focus of the agency's 
projections and related estimates of cost savings from centralization, 
and the estimates reported to Congress. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: