These personnelists were in the federal Personnel Management and Industrial Relations occupational group—GS-200s—that NPR specifically targeted for reduction. Agencies’ Activities to Restructure Personnel Offices

The four departments we reviewed generally approached the restructuring of their personnel offices with the intent of achieving staff reductions. Although all four departments reduced the number of personnelists they employed by 14 percent or more, the personnel servicing ratio for three of the four departments did not change as much. In contrast to the large reductions in the number of personnelists, however, the personnel servicing ratios for the departments, except for DOI, did not change as substantially from September 1993 to September 1997 because of downsizing in other parts of the agencies. In addition to reducing personnel staff, each department also downsized other parts of its workforce. As of late 1997, the departments were behind their original milestones for implementing the new personnel and payroll systems. Departments Recognized Need for More Performance Measures to Better Assess the Results of Personnel Operations

The four departments we reviewed had only limited measures in place to assess the performance of personnel offices and operations but were developing further measures. Another issue is the lack of a common framework in which to (1) compare the service quality of personnel and payroll services that franchise and other federal agencies will provide to agencies seeking services and (2) permit the efficient exchange of automated personnel data between agencies and service providers. Common Format to Facilitate Data Exchanges Was Being Developed

Department and agency officials we interviewed said it would be useful as well to have a standard technical format for data that agencies are likely to exchange with service providers. OPM has tasked the Council with developing a set of core data elements and requirements for personnel information systems in recognition of the need to develop a governmentwide strategy for using automation technology. Upgrading system technology was a primary element of the restructuring plans because the departments planned to increase operating efficiencies and improve services by automating paper-based personnel processes. Our third objective was to identify issues agencies may commonly encounter when, in restructuring their personnel operations, they consider purchasing automated personnel and/or payroll services from another agency or the private sector. In addressing our first objective further, we interviewed personnel officials of the four departments and the selected component agencies to obtain information on (1) when restructuring began, (2) the rationale for restructuring, (3) the plans developed for restructuring, (4) the activities undertaken to restructure, and (5) the status of implementation. To address our second objective (i.e., to ascertain whether performance measures are in place to gauge the results of the restructuring efforts), we discussed with responsible officials whether the departments and agencies had developed or were developing performance measures, whether the measures were “benchmarked” against leading organizations, and whether the performance measures were linked to the mission of the department or agency. Finally, to address our third objective (i.e., to identify issues agencies encountered as they purchased automated personnel and payroll services from another agency or the private sector), we interviewed officials from the departments and component agencies who were involved in the development and/or purchase of new technology (hardware and software) for personnel and/or payroll operations.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the effects of reductions in personnel positions at the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior (DOI), and Veteran Affairs (VA), focusing on: (1) the activities the agencies have undertaken in restructuring personnel offices and operations; (2) what performance measures are in place to gauge results of the restructuring efforts; and (3) issues agencies may commonly encounter when, in restructuring their personnel operations, they consider outsourcing automated personnel or payroll services to another agency or the private sector.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) although the focus of agencies' restructuring efforts differed across the four departments, their streamlining plans included reducing the number of employees working in personnel operations and automating paper-based personnel processes to improve the responsiveness and quality of personnel-related services; (2) the reduction in the number of personnelists at the four departments ranged from 14 to 41 percent between September 1993 and September 1997; (3) even with reductions of this magnitude, the personnel servicing ratios for three departments did not change substantially; (4) the departments sought to boost the efficiency of their personnel offices by automating their largely paper-based operations; (5) to achieve this increase in efficiency, the departments generally planned to have new equipment and software in place before staff reductions were made; (6) however, that did not occur, and the departments fell behind their original milestones for implementing new personnel and payroll systems while initial personnel staff reductions occurred; (7) according to personnel officials, the four departments had few measures in place to gauge the results of their personnel operations before restructuring; (8) however, officials in all four departments recognized the need for measurement, were developing performance measures to assess future efforts, and, in some cases, were seeking to more fully assess current costs and performance to identify specific targets for improvement; (9) in addition to providing personnel services to their component agencies, the four departments were developing or purchasing automated personnel systems with the intention of selling payroll or other key personnel services to other agencies; (10) agency officials suggested that a framework was needed with which agencies could obtain information on the personnel services offered by other federal agencies, the cost of those services, and their performance characteristics, including service-level standards; (11) agency officials also suggested the need for a standard technical format and a core set of requirements for personnel data that agencies are likely to exchange with each other; and (12) since April 1997, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has rechartered the mission of the Federal Personnel Automation Council and tasked it to develop a set of core data elements and requirements for personnel information systems.