As a result, the Congress has not had an opportunity to accept or revise the statement of policy, as required by RPA. Our report on the Forest Service’s decision-making identifies an organizational culture of indifference toward accountability. The agency’s decentralized management and recently increased flexibility in shifting funds within a simplified budget structure have not been accompanied by sufficient accountability for expenditures and performance. The result is inefficiency and waste. However, the most likely outcomes of the Forest Service’s current decision-making process are indecision and delay. Past efforts by the Forest Service to improve its performance have been stymied by the organization’s highly decentralized management. Agreement Has Not Been Reached on the Forest Service’s Strategic Goals

The Results Act, if implemented successfully, should help break the existing cycle of inefficiency within the Forest Service, strengthen the agency’s accountability for performance and results, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making. The strategic goals in the Forest Service’s plan form the starting point and foundation for holding the agency accountable for its performance. Hence, these goals are critical to successfully implementing the act within the agency. However, agreement has not been reached on the strategic goals in the Forest Service’s plan, and the agency cannot begin to derive the benefits anticipated from implementing the act. The lack of agreement on the Forest Service’s strategic goals reflects the controversy, both inside and outside the agency, over (1) which uses the agency is to emphasize and (2) which management approach can best ensure the long-term sustainability of legislatively mandated uses on the national forests. However, given both the importance of strategic goals to the successful implementation of the act and the disagreement over the goals in the Forest Service’s plan, we believe that the agency should have taken the opportunity presented by the act to consult with the Congress to better articulate its positions on controversial issues. Specifically, the Forest Service should have set forth (1) its rationale for emphasizing some legislatively mandated uses on the national forests more than other uses, (2) the logic underlying its reliance on ecosystem management, and (3) the likely effects of its policy choices on the types, levels, and mixes of multiple uses on its lands. However, the Forest Service discussed none of these external factors in its draft plan.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Forest Service's draft strategic plan, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act, focusing on: (1) the need to hold the Forest Service accountable for its performance; (2) the importance of agreed-upon, long-term strategic goals to the successful implementation of the act and the reasons for the current lack of agreement on these goals; and (3) GAO's observations on how the Forest Service can improve critical components, including the strategic goals component, of its draft plan, to make it more informative and useful to the Congress and other stakeholders.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) its report on the Forest Service's decision-making identifies an organizational culture of indifference toward accountability; (2) the agency's historically decentralized management and recently increased flexibility in fiscal decision-making have not been accompanied by sufficient accountability for expenditures and performance; (3) as a result, inefficiency and waste have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and opportunities for both ecological and economic gains have been lost through indecision and delay; (4) past efforts by the Forest Service to change its behavior have not been successful; (5) decision-making within the agency is broken and in need of repair; (6) the Results Act, if implemented successfully, should help break the existing cycle of inefficiency within the Forest Service; (7) the strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan form the starting point and foundation for holding the agency accountable for its performance; (8) hence, these goals are critical to successfully implementing the act within the agency; (9) however, agreement has not been reached on the strategic goals in the Forest Service's plan; (10) this lack of agreement reflects the controversy, both inside and outside the forest Service, over: (a) which uses to emphasize under the agency's broad multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate; and (b) which management approach can best ensure the long-term sustainability of legislatively mandated uses on the national forests; (11) as a result, the agency cannot begin to derive the benefits anticipated from implementing the act; (12) the consultations with the Congress prescribed by the Results Act provide an opportunity for the Forest Service to better explain: (a) its rationale for emphasizing some legislatively mandated uses on the national forests more than other uses; (b) the logic underlying its approach to managing natural resources; and (c) the likely effects of its policy choices on the types, levels and mixes of uses on its lands; and (13) however, the Forest Service's plan is silent on these issues.