BLM is responsible for  administering more public lands than any other federal agency, with a  budget of approximately $1.7 billion and 10,900 employees. Forest Service Has Made Little Progress in Resolving Known Performance Accountability Problems, unlike Other Federal Land Management Agencies

The Forest Service has made little progress in resolving previously  identified performance accountability problems and remains years away  from implementing a credible performance accountability system. The agency is developing or has implemented two  systems that should be important components of a performance  accountability system—a budget formulation and execution system and a  work-planning system—but neither was originally designed to be part of a  performance accountability system, nor has the Forest Service developed  the clear linkages needed between these new systems and its strategic  goal-setting and results-reporting functions. The Forest Service Continues to Study Performance Accountability

To understand how other agencies have established clear linkages among  key components of a performance accountability system, the Forest  Service initiated a benchmarking study of other agencies’ performance  accountability systems in March 2002, including USDA’s NRCS and  Interior’s BLM and National Park Service. Forest Service Has Developed Two Systems That Should Be Part of a Performance Accountability System, but It Has Not Established Clear Linkages between These Systems and Its Strategic Goals and Performance Results

The Forest Service began considering new budget and work-planning  systems in April 2000 and August 2001, respectively, long before the Chief  emphasized his intention to “get started” on performance accountability in  July 2002. Without these  linkages, the agency will not be able to report in an integrated, results- oriented way on what activities it completed, how much they cost, and  what they accomplished—key elements of any effective performance  accountability system. Both NRCS and BLM believe that their accountability systems have  produced multiple benefits. Forest Service’s Inability to Address Organizational, Cultural, and Leadership Challenges Continues to Impede Its Progress on Performance Accountability

Three key challenges continue to keep the Forest Service from resolving  its performance accountability problems: (1) establishing clear authority  and responsibility within the current organizational structure, (2) making  and implementing decisions in an agency culture that relies on consensus,  and (3) establishing sufficient leadership emphasis and making  performance accountability a higher priority. Organizationally, several senior executives have been assigned  responsibilities for components of performance accountability, but none  of them has overall responsibility and authority for ensuring that these  components are properly linked or that the agency achieves performance  accountability. At times, this approach slows the agency’s ability  to make progress on important issues. The Forest  Service has been unable to develop and implement a performance  accountability system, largely because it cannot agree on an integrated  approach. The executive steering team’s current effort to study available  options for a performance accountability system is an indication that the  draft plan for implementing such a system does not have broad support  throughout the agency. Unlike other land management agencies that have developed and  implemented performance accountability systems within the last 3 years,  the Forest Service has yet to come to this commitment on its own. We also reviewed reports,  planning documents, USDA OIG audits, and other documents on past  performance accountability problems in the Forest Service and on the  status of the development and implementation of the agency’s efforts to  improve its planning, budgeting, performance measurement, and  accomplishment reporting processes. Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More  Accountable for Its Performance.
Why GAO Did This Study

Historically, the Forest Service has not been able to provide Congress or the public with a clear understanding of what the Forest Service's 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion the agency receives every year. Since 1990, GAO has reported 7 times on performance accountability weaknesses at the Forest Service, including its inability to systematically link planning, budgeting, and results reporting. This report reviews the recent progress the Forest Service has made in resolving previously identified performance accountability problems and identifies key challenges the Forest Service must overcome to resolve these problems.

What GAO Found

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