U.S. Postal Service: Mail Processing Realignment Efforts Under Way Need Better Integration and Explanation

USPS responded in its 9-24-07 letter that it agreed with our recommendations and agreed to incorporate an explanation of how its realignment initiatives are integrated in the Facilities Plan that it will submit to Congress by June 2008. In its 2008 Network Plan the Service addressed the integration of its network initiatives stating that their overall impact and execution are tightly integrated and provided a few examples. In addition, during a recent interview senior postal officials provided us with more information that helps put the integration of the Service's three network initiatives in context.

The Postal Service has taken action to strengthen accountability by establishing measurable targets for expected cost savings associated with its network consolidation activities. In FY 2009 the Service plans to save about $35 million from consolidation of its air mail centers, area mail processing operations, and other facility consolidations. In FY 2010, savings in this area are expected to increase to over $220 million. These savings are not related to appropriated funds since the Postal Service generates its revenues from postal ratepayers.

We assessed the U.S. Postal Service's communication practices with stakeholders in making network realignment decisions and the challenges associated with public engagement. Our report found that stakeholders potentially affected by Area Mail Processing (AMP) consolidations could not discern from the Service's initial notification letters what the Service was planning to study and what the outcomes of the study might be; this lack of clarification led to speculation on the part of stakeholders, which in turn increased public resistance to the Service's realignment efforts. Furthermore in 2007, we reported that stakeholders were not given enough notice about the required public input meeting. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service improve public notice by (1) clarifying notification letters, (2) explaining the next decision point, and (3) providing a date for the public meeting earlier. In its 2008 AMP Communications Plan, the Service has eliminated most of the jargon from its notification letters and has generally provided more context as to why it is necessary to conduct the feasibility studies. The Service also added a requirement that the public be notified at least 15 days in advance of a public meeting.

In our 2007 review of the U.S. Postal Service's communication practices with stakeholders in making network realignment decisions, we reported that public meetings required for Area Mail Processing (AMP) consolidations were occurring too late in the decision-making process for the public to become engaged in this process in any meaningful way. We also found that the Service did not publish agendas in advance of public meetings or provide the public with much information about the proposed studies. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service hold the public meeting during the data gathering phase of the study and make an agenda and background information available to the public in advance of the public meetings. In response, the Service has moved the public meeting to a much earlier point in the AMP review process and plans to post a meeting agenda, presentation slides, and a summary brief of the AMP proposal on its Web site 1 week before the meeting.

Our report about the U.S. Postal Service's network realignment decisions found that stakeholders and the public were unclear as to how public input factored into the Service's decisions to consolidate mail processing operations. Accordingly, we recommended that the Service increase the transparency of its decision-making process by explaining how it considers public input in the decision-making process. In response, the Service has modified its public input review process so that officials at the district, area, and headquarters levels consider, and are responsive to, public concerns. Senior Postal officials told us that they weigh public input primarily by considering the impact of any consolidations on customer services and service standards. Additionally, the Service plans to post standard information about each consolidation,such as specifics about the scheduled public meeting and a summary of written and verbal public input,on its Web site and update this information regularly.