FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE REFORM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 205
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 29, 2007
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: September 21, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
Routing Slip
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
DCI
2
DD
3
EXDIR
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
6
DDA
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/EEO
14
D/Pers
15
D/OEA
16
C/PAD/OEA
17
SA/IA
18
A0/DCI
19
C/IPD/0IS
20
21
22
STAT
Dot
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved
Services
1
L11
Administration Washington, DC 20405
DD/A Registry
J-/73
On August 30, President Reagan signed a memorandum directing you
to assess your organization's field structure and to implement
improvements. That directive, copy of which is attached,
followed a review of the Federal field structure, conducted for
the Cabinet Council on Management and Administration (CCMA) by an
interagency Working Group which I chaired.
One of the principal findings of the review is that some
Executive departments and agencies have vigorously implemented.
actions both in the headquarters and the field to reduce the size
and cost of running the Government to correspond with the
programmatic changes which have taken place during the first two
years of the Administration.
At the same time, the working Group found that opportunities
exist for further streamlining, and proposed that the top
management of the agencies undertake a comprehensive assessment
of their field structure and report to the CCMA by .Qctober 31.
These assessments should include, but not be limited to, a
general review and agency initiatives to:
(1) Reduce organizational layers between headquarters and the
field;
(2) Eliminate unnecessary offices;
(3) Consolidate administrative support services;
(4) Collocate field offices;
(5) Improve supervisory/employee ratios;
(6) Use third parties-to provide services, e.g. State and.
local governments and the private sector.
All initiatives should include their implementation timetables,
estimated savings, and an analysis of whether 0MB or
Cc:naressional action is required to achieve the savings in a
timely manner. Because of the interest in field structure, OMB
has indicated that this is an item that will be addressed in the
formulation of the FY 1985 budget.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
To assist in this important task, the Working Group is making
available to you a copy of our report which contains additional
criteria that may be helpful in the preparation of your agency's
response.
We will be assembling a task force to work with you and your
staff on your assessments. Your reports should be submitted to
the CCMA and marked for my attention as Working Group Chairman.
Any questions regarding this matter should be referred to
Tom Simon (523-1614), Director of Management Initiatives at. GSA.
I look forward to assisting you in carrying out this important
Presidential mandate.
/ /L
GERALD P. CARMEN
Chairman
Federal Field Structure Working Group
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
THE WHITE HOUSE
August 30, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Federal Field Structure Reform
During the past two and a half years this Administration has
made a number of changes in the organization, programs and
regulatory activities of the Federal government. Through
block grants and decreased imposition of regulations on State
and local governments we have lessened the Federal role in
programs which have been traditionally administered by other
levels of government. In addition, we have decreased the
regulatory burden on the private sector.
The successful completion of these changes should dramatically
reduce the need for personnel and organizational elements in
departmental and agency field structures and, in turn, require
less administrative and supervisory functions at headquarters.
Accordingly, you are hereby directed to immediately assess
your organization's field structure and to implement changes
to streamline field programs, administrative support activi-
ties, and, as appropriate, your headquarters staff. This
effort will continue to be reviewed by the Working Group on
Federal Field Structure Reform under the direction of the
Cabinet Council on Management and Administration.
The following objectives and guidelines should govern the
planning and reductions in your field structure:
1) Elimination of duplication and redundancy in the delivery
of necessary program services.
2) Elimination of unnecessary overhead and layers of manage-
ment via the consolidation of administrative support
functions.
3) Maximum efficient use of existing personnel and property
resources.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
4) Delivery of services, wherever possible, solely by
State and local governments without Federal government
intervention.
5) Elimination of regional, area and local offices where
primary contact is directly between State/local govern-
ments and the headquarters of your department or agency.
Oco~ (~Ot~
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
CABINET COUNCIL
ON MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Report of the
Federal Field Structure Working Group
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Report of the
Federal Field Structure working Group
to the
Cabinet Council on Management and Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
August 29, 1983
Honorable Edwin Meese III
Counsellor to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
I am pleased to submit the final report of the Federal Field
Structure Working Group which was established by the Cabinet
Council on Management and Administration.
The Working Group conducted a substantial review of the field
activities of the Federal government, with a view toward
enhancing service delivery while reducing costs. We believe that
improved federal field structure could become one of the
cornerstones in the foundation of New Federalism.
We hope that the information and recommendations we are providing
in this report will assist you and the President in accomplishing
the goal of better government. We look forward to providing
whatever additional assistance is appropriate as you proceed with
implementation.
GERALD P. CARMEN
Chairman
Federal Field Structure Working Group
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Executive Summary
Report of the Organization and Staffing SubGroup A
Report of the Common Administrative Services SubGroup B
Report of the Field Structure Policy SubGroup C
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Report of the Federal Field Structure Working Group
On March 10, 1983, the Cabinet Council on Management and
Administration (CCMA) established a Federal Field Structure
Working Group, with the following membership:
Gerald P. Carmen, Administrator, GSA - Chairman
Richard E. Lyng, Deputy Secretary, USDA
Darrel M. Trent, Deputy Secretary, DOT
Gary L. Jones, Undersecretary EDUC
J. J. Simmons III, Undersecretary, DOI
John A. Svahn, Undersecretary, HHS
Donald J. Devine, Director, OPM
Joseph R. Wright, Deputy Director, OMB
Martha Hesse, Assistant Secretary for Management, DOE
Arlene Triplett, Assistant Secretary for Administration, DOC
The purpose of the Working Group was to review the policies
legislation, current practices, structure and resources of
Federal activities in the field (all activities outside the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area); and to develop a set of
recommendations within 60 days to improve the delivery of
services and reduce the cost of field activities. The review
focused on organizational redundancy, overhead costs and the
increased use of new technology. Specific agency program
operations were not reviewed. The top 15 agencies with the
largest field activities (except USPS and DOD) were subjects of
the review.
Three interagency sub-groups were created to carry out this
review:
o Common Administrative Services, chaired by'Arlene Triplett,
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
Commerce; and
o Field Structure Policy, chaired by James Kelly, Deputy
Associate Director for Management Reform, OMB.
o organization and Staffing, chaired by Charles S. Davis III,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Management Systems,
GSA;
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5 -
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
The subgroups performed the review activities in their assigned
areas and developed the final recommendations of the Working
Group which were presented to the CCMA on May 12 and to the
President on June 20, 1983, by the GSA Administrator.
The individual subgroup reports contain the detailed findings,
conclusions and recommendations of this review; and they are
incorporated into this report in their entirety.
Based on formal agency presentations to the Working Group,
interviews with top agency officials; and on data collected
directly from agencies, from the office of Personnel Management,
and from the office of Management and Budget; the Working Group
found that some Federal agencies have already made substantial
progress in improving service delivery and reducing the cost of
their field operations.
The progress that has already been made by this Administration is
reflected by the following facts:
o Federal field employment on September 30, 1980 was 933,000
and was, costing the American taxpayers $28 billlion
annually.
o By October 1, 1982, the field employment level had been
reduced by 60,000 for a savings of $1.8 billion.
o The Fiscal Year 1984 budget projections include an
additional reduction of 60,000 in field employment levels
for additional savings.
Although much progress has been made, the findings from the
Working Group review suggest that opportunities exist for further
improvements in service delivery and reductions in the size and
cost of the Federal field structure.
o Most organizations studied have 3 or more organization
lavers (some have as many as 5 or 6), but comparable
private sector organizations tend to have no more than
o One out of every 4 field employees is providing
administrative support services.
o The span of control in the agencies, expressed 'as a
supervisor-to-employee ratio varies from a high of 9.5 to a
low of 3.5.
The Working Group recomended that an Executive Order or other
appropriate Presidential-level directive be issued to emphasize
the President's interest in this area and to set forth a
requirement that executive branch department and agency heads
assess their agency's field structure in line with the Working
Group's recommendations, to meet the following goals:
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
o Streamlined, efficient delivery of program and support
services;
o Elimination of unnecessary management layers, redundant
offices and top-heavy administrative overhead;
o Delivery of programs by State and local governments or the
private sector, whenever possible and cost-effective;_
o Maximum utilization of existing personnel, buildings,
personal property, and support services;
o Business-like practices and adherence to sound management
principles; and
o Responsiveness to duly established policies and priorities.
The Chairman of the Cabinet Council on Management and
Administration should further direct that the heads of all
departments and those independent agencies with the largest field
structures report the results of their assessments, to include
actions taken and planned actions, to the CCMA.
The CCMA, with the assistance of the Working Group, will review
the agency reports, prepare a summary of actions taken and
planned by the agencies, and make recommendations to the
President.
The Working Group will continue to monitor and report to the CCMA
the progress by the agencies toward the accomplishment of the
objectives set forth' in the Directive.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
STUDY OF FEDERAL FIELD ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE WORKING GROUP
Organization and Staffing Review Sub-Group
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1. INTRODUCTION 3
II. METHODOLOGY 4
III. FINDINGS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 7
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 24
V. ACTION PLAN 26
APPENDICES
A. LISTING OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS
B. DATA
C. CASE STUDIES
D. INTERVIEWS
E. PARTICIPATING AGENGIES
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
This report was prepared by the Organization and Staffing Review
Sub-group of the Federal Field Structure Working Group. The
Working Group was established in response to a request by the
Cabinet Council on Management and Administration (CCMA) to conduct
a 60 day study to provide background information and action
alternatives for the reduction of costs and the improvement of
service delivery by Federal field offices and installations. The
Sub-group was tasked with providing such background information
and action alternatives in the specific'areas of field
organizational structures and staffing.
Eased on 15 agency presentations by and interviews with top
managers, and on data collected directly from agencies, from the
Office of Personnel Management, and from the Office of Management
and Budget, the Sub--group has detailed how some F'ederal?agencies
have 'streamlined and consolidated operations, colocated activities
and offices in the field, used third party delivery systems, and
thus improved the efficiency of their field operations. These
examples suggest opportunities for other agencies to similarly
reduce the size and cost of their field structures and to improve
service delivery. However, such agency efforts also encountered
constraints imposed by outside influences. Examples of these
constraints have been collected by the Sub-group and are described
in this report.
An analysis of the opportunities and constraints has led to the
conclusion that the potential exists for greater improvements and
savings. Accordingly, the following recommendations are made:
1. Each agency head shall review the agency field structure
against the criteria of efficiency and effectiveness and
submit a report to CCMA by September 15, 1983. This review
shall consider:
a) Elimination of non-essential functions and layers of
management supervision and organization;
b) Use of third party service delivery systems: state and
local governments, other Federal agencies and private
organization systems;
c) Consolidation and colocation of activities and offices
in order to maintain the absolute minimum number of
intermediate offices essential for program direction and
control;
d) Increasing the number of employees supervised by each
supervisor (supervisory ratios); and
e) Possible imposition of user fees.
1
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
2. The Executive Branch should undertake a concerted effort to
reduce legislative involvement in management decisions --
specifically, limitations in management flexibility to
organize field structure and staffing for the effective and
efficient delivery of services.
The Sub-group also recommends the use of certain high-level
motivators to assure implementation of the proposed
recommendations:
1. Issuance of an Executive Order enunciating Administration
policy goals with regard to Federal field structure;
2. Issuance of a Presidential Directive to the heads of
Executive Agencies directing the review of field
structures, as specified in the Sub-group recommendations
described above;
3. Establishment of a committee by the CCMA to identify
potential areas for savings through the use of third party
service delivery; and
4. Discussion of field structure initiatives with appropriate
Congressional leaders.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
The Cabinet Council on Management and Administration (CCMA)
requested a 60 day study to provide background information and
action alternatives for cost reductions and the improvement of
service delivery by Federal field offices and installations. In
response to that request this report was prepared by the
Organization and Staffing Review Sub-group of the Federal Field
Structure Working Group. The report focuses on background
information and action alternatives in the specific areas of field
organizational structures and staffing.
The study used Office of Personnel Management (OPM) information on
employment, supervisory ratios and Federal field concentrations as
well as data provided directly by 13 Executive Agencies.
The study addresses the complexity of the efficient management of
Federal agencies in terms of the definition and documentation of
constraints as well as opportunities for cost effective changes.
In this context, the Sub'-group found that effective motivators to
positive change in these major public sector organizations are
complex and difficult to define. However, the Sub-group members
determined that various actions can be taken by the Fxecutive
Agencies to streamline field organizational structure, improve
service to the public, and reduce costs.
Members of the Organization and,Staffing Review Sub-group are
Listed in Appendix A.
This report recommends Presidential leadership in fostering
reduction of the Federal field structure based on sound management
guidelines. The Sub-group believes that it would be beneficial
for Agency heads to conduct in-depth analyses of opportunities for
streamlining agency field structure, justify improvements based on
specific criteria, and act toward the implementation of management
improvements within their organizations.
Fundamental changes are taking place in the scope and function of
Federal government policies and programs. Initiatives associated
with the "New Federalism" concept concentrate on less direct
Federal involvement and greater responsibility in the hands of
state and local governments. The redirection of resources toward
state and local governments should result in a reduction in tre
size of the Federal government of the future. Realization of this
shift in the development of the Federal government directs our
attention to how the Federal government can change and what
results we can expect from those changes.
The heads of Executive Agencies are, in many cases, operating with
a Federal field structure which was established according to
1950's and 1960's service requirements or by political preference,
and not necessarily in accordance with sound management principles
or program requirements. The focus of the Organization and
Staffing Review Sub-group is directed toward eliminating non-
essential activities, improving the effectiveness of program
delivery to the customer, and improving the efficiency of field
operations.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
The Sub-group staff collected and analyzed information on the
personnel, resources and organizational structure of the field
activities of 18 major civilian agencies based on data from
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) as well as interviews with
executives of agencies involved in the study. The information
about field structure and operations was developed from
briefings by managers of certain key agencies (Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Fousing and Urban
Development, Interior, and Transportation), visits by the Sub-
group members and staff to other agencies, and material
provided by agencies in response to a questionnaire.
Pertinent information from the call for data can he found in
Appendix B.
In addition to the above information, the Sub-group has
developed several specific case studies (see Appendix C) that
demonstrate how some Federal agencies have streamlined and
consolidated operations, colocated in the field, used third
party delivery systems and improved the efficiency of their
field operations.
After in-depth research of agency experience and prior
studies, and with the application of sound management
principles, the Sub-group developed alternatives for
streamlining agency field activities, organizations and
resource levels. These alternatives have been included in
Section IV of the report, "Recommendations."
P. Presentations to the Working Group
The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban
Development, Health and Human Services, Interior, and
Transportation made oral and written presentations to the
Working Group. The presentations provided up to date
information on:
1) Clientele,
2) Effects of budget reductions in the past and future,
3) Line and, staff authority,
4) Plans for organizational changes,
5) Specific progress of field structure reductions,
6) Organization of the departmental field structure (number of
layers and offices, functions of each layer), and
7) Departmental approach or philosophy toward field
organization and reduction.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152ROO0100010012-5
Major Agencies which did not make presentations to the Working
Group provided similar information through personal interviews
with their top management. They also supplied written
information in response to the key issues covered by the
presentations.
C. Data Collection
The Common Administrative Services Sub-group assisted this
Sub-group by coordinating an agency data call to gather
specifics on present numbers of management layers and offices
and personnel associated with the major 13 Agencies. This
made comparisons of organizational layering and headquarters
versus field structure possible.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provided the
following computerized data:
1) Numbers of personnel on board for major agencies by
a) Fiscal Years ending 1976, 1980 and 1982;
b) State;
c) Major organizational component (i.e., bureau, operating
administration); and
d) Major Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
The SMSA data shows concentrations of Federal field
employment by major cities. Comparisons of the data
were conducted to demonstrate the diversity of the
Federal regional structure, particularly deviation from
the standard 10 region organization;
2) Staffing concentrations among agencies;
3) Headquarters to field employment ratios;
4) Supervisor/employee staffing ratios; and,
5) Logical concentrations of Federal presence which Executive
branch top management may wish to foster.
D. Case Studies
Members of the Sub-group provided specific examples of
orzar.izational_ changes accomplished within their field
structures for reasons of economy,, service delivery
improvement, consolidation or streamlining. These case
studies are presented in Appendix C. They were requested as
examples of opportunities for positive management changes
which could be applied to other Executive Agencies.
The studies are grouped according to the managerial changes
made. These groupings focus on: 1) structural change to
improve service delivery, 2) consolidation or colocation of
offices, 3) utilization of third party delivery systems, 4)
reduction of supervisory and/or management layers, 5)
elimination of offices, 6) standardization of operational
structures, and 7) utilization of new and existing technology.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152ROO0100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
B. Presentation to the Working Group and the Cabinet Council
The Sub-group presented its findings and recommendations to
the Federal Field Structure Working Group. Information from
this presentation was then combined with recommendations and
findings of the Common Administrative Services and the Policy
Review Sub-groups for presentation to the President's Cabinet
Council on Management and Administration (COMA). The
presentation to the CCMA is intended to focus on what actions
the President and the Executive Branch can take to foster the
three objectives of this study: 1) reduce costs, 2) improve
service delivery and, 3) streamline field structures.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
III. FINDINGS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
A. Opportunities:
In response to budget reductions and other pressures, many
agencies have already taken specific and limited action to
streamline their field structures. The overall reductions
that agencies have achieved are shown in Tables 3 and 6 in
Appendix B. These tables are based on figures from two
separate data bases and confirm, by the fact that the patterns
are the same, that agencies have effected substantial
reductions from 1980 to 1982. Based on agency examples and
data, the findings of the Sub-group are that substantial
opportunities exist in virtually all agencies for additional
action.
i. Elimination of Non-Essential Layers of Management and
Supervision.
Agency field structures vary widely, even within similar
mission categories, with respect to the number of regions
and intermediate layers of management and supervision
between points of service delivery and the headquarters
(see Figures 1 and 2). Some agencies have taken action in
recent years to eliminate unnecessary management layers in
their field activities and have achieved meaningful
savings. The following examples suggest the possibility
of opportunities for other agencies to similarly reduce
management and supervisory layers in their field
organizations.
a) Department of Justice
In 1982, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
adopted the successful Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) structure of centralized program control with no
intermediate layers between its headquarters and field
offices through abolishment of the five DEA regional
offices. This action centralized program direction and
administrative support,'and enhanced operating
efficiency, thus improving coordination of law
enforcement operations between DEA and the FBI.
Benefits included the elimination of ,00 positions,
policy standardization, the establishment of direct
reporting relationships between the headquarters and
field offices, and improvement in accountability for
administrative and reporting functions.
h) Department of the Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) eliminated a
management layer by phasing out all 18 area offices and
placing those functions in the regional and field
offices. This action was taken to shorten the chain of
command from headquarters and regional offices to field
installations and to increase operational
responsibility and accountability.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
NUMBER OF REGIONS
For 103 Agency Co,aponente
15 t-
r
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Region
Source: Agency Data, 5/19/83 and 7/83 (see Table 1, Appendix A)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONAL LAYERS
Percent
60 r-
0 1 `2
Rogulutory
Number of Agencies 31
it
Land Mgmt.
4
1-~ 1
r I 1
-13 4
Service
57
Grant Hckin9
11
Layers
Source: Agency Data, 5/19/83 and 7/83 (see Table 2, Appendix A)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B0l 152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
2. Utilization of Third Party Delivery Systems.
Several agencies are using third party systems, i.e.,
state and local governments, other Federal agencies and/or
the private sector, for service delivery. Opportunities
exist for increased use of this approach to reduce costs
and improve service delivery. Examples of third party
delivery systems are:
a) Department of Health and Human Services
The Health Care Financing Administration delivers
Medicare services through private contractors and
provides enrollment services and information to clients
and the public through Social Security Administration
offices.
b) Department of Housing and Urban Development
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is in the process
of training HUD approved lending institutions to
underwrite Federal Housing Administration loans and to
close such loans without prior HUD review. The program
is expected to begin in June 1983.
c) Small Business Administration
The Small Business Adminstration is experimenting with
the use of commercial banks to process loan guarantees
to small business entrepreneurs.
d) Department of Agriculture
The Federal Crop 'Insurance Corporation was able to
close 150 county offices as a result of'the
implementation of the 1980 Federal Crop Insurance Act,
which provided for a shift to a new sales delivery
system that includes using the private insurance sector
to deliver the program.
e) Department of the Interior
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has transferred 1.7 day
schools to the State of Alaska over the past two years
resulting in savings of over $5.9 million. While this
is fundamentally. a transfer of function, it represents
an opportunity for third party delivery of a service.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
f) Department of the Interior
The Office of Surface Plining has transferred major
mined land inspection authority to coal mining states
with approved programs thereby enabling the states to
assume a greater role in the implementation of the
Surface Wining and Reclamation Act.
g) Department of Transportation
The Maritime Administration transferred the operation
of its radar schools to non-Federal organizations.
Dollar benefits include the savings of salaries and
benefits, and other operating and replacement costs.
These savings represent an estimated $875,000 annually.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
3. Elimination of Offices and Utilization of New or Existing
Technology.
Certain programs, organizations, and/or offices in some
agencies have been eliminated based on changes in mission
or customer requirements and/or use of new or existing
technology. The following examples suggest possible
opportunities for similar reductions in other agencies:
a) Department of the Treasury
Treasury was able to close its New York Assay Office by
contracting out the assay office function.
b) Department of the Interior
The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was
abolished and its functions incorporated into the
National Park Service. This action eliminated
overlapping, duplicative and parallel efforts, and
achieved economies in the utilization of funds,
personnel and equipment.
c) Department of the Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service is closing 20 of 89 fish
hatcheries in FY 83. This will reduce duplication of
state and Federal activities by closing those
hatcheries contributing more than half of their
production to waters owned and managed by states.
d) Department of Agriculture
The Federal Grain Inspection Service-was able to
eliminate five regional offices and six subordinate
field offices. All of the local field offices now come
under the direct line authority of the headquarters.
This action was taken as a result of the implementation
of a change in the Federal Grain Standards Act which
provided for the assessment of user fees for inspection
services. Tt was essential that costs he minimized so
that user fees could he set at a reasonable level.
e) The Federal Aviation Administration has begun to
automate an increased number of its air traffic control
functions. The costs are primarily for new data
systems (hardware and software), and the benefit will.
be improved productivity. The savings are the result
of a combination of office overhead reduction as well
as automation, and are estimated to be 170 positions in
1984, 1900 positions between 1986-1992, and 2500
positions between 1992-2000.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
f) Department of Health and Human Services
The Health Care Financing Administration uses weekly
teleconferencing to improve communications with
regional personnel. This has increased management
participation and the exchange of information between
the headquarters and the field and has saved travel
costs of $129,000.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
4. Consolidation.
Several agencies have consolidated regional and other
intermediate field offices in recent years, with
significant savings. Other agencies are considering or
have considered, consolidation of intermediate field
offices. Opportunities exist for further consolidations.
Examples of such consolidations are:
a) Department of the Treasury
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reduced
its field structure from 12 to 6 regions with an
estimated annual savings of $2.4 million, and the
elimination of 80 administrative support positions.
?b) Department of'the Treasury
The U.S. Customs Service reduced the number of its
regions from 9 to 7 with an estimated $6 million in
annual savings and the elimination of 192 mostly
administrative support positons.
c) Department of Transportation
The Federal Aviation Administration reduced the number
of its regions from 11 to 9 with an estimated annual
savings of $4.9 million and the elimination of 150
positions.
d) Consumer Product Safety Commission
The Consumer Product Safety Commission reduced the
number of its regions from 10 to 5 with an estimated
$1.1 million in annual savings and the elimination of
110 positions.
e) Department of the Interior
The Office of Surface Mining reduced the number of its
field offices from 42 to 22 and subseauentlv reduced
its authorized field positions by 344. The reduction
was made possible by consolidating or eliminating field
organizations as a result of the lessening role of the
Federal government.
f) Department of the Interior
The Office of the Solicitor reorganized its field
structure in March 1983 to improve its use of
resources. The reorganization will result in opening
one field office and closing six field offices.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
g) Department of the Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement districts
were reduced in number from 13 to 7 in FY 82. This was
accomplished to make district geographic areas
coincident with regional boundaries. The benefits are
principally in the areas of improved supervision and
coordination.
h) Department of the Interior
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for
functions relating to leasing of onshore minerals
formerly conducted by the Geological Survey. This
consolidates in BLM not just mineral leasing functions,
but all functions vital to the successful multiple-use
management of public lands. As a?result, BLM has been
able to improve efficiencies in the field organization
by, among other actions, the closure of eight offices.
i) Department of Transportation
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) achieved annual
savings of $1.35 million by consolidating or
centralizing various offices and activities. MARAD
consolidated the functions of its Western Region Area
Offices, centralized ship operations activities,
reorganized and consolidated deputy regional director
functions, and centralized its administrative
activities.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
5. Proximity of Geographic Location.
The Federal government currently has significant capital
assets, real and personal, in geographic areas where there
is a large Federal population. The majority of Federal
civilian employees are located within the top 30 Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's). These 30 SMSA's
include Washington, D.C., and the ten Standard Federal
Regional Cities. The distribution, for September 1982 is
as follows:
Number of
Civilian
Federal
Geographic location Employees Percentage
Headquarters:
Washington, D?.C., SMSA 295,642 17%
Field:
Ten ten Standard Federal
Regional Cities 299,264 18%
Top 19 SMSA's other than
the 10 Standard Regional Cities
and the Washington, D.C. SMSA 442,501 26%
SUBTOTAL (Top 29 SMSA's
excluding Washington, D.C.) 738,143 44%
SMSA's other than the top 30
SMSA's 672,522 39%
1,410,665 83%
1,709,929 100%
Please note: Not all Civilian Federal employees are located in
SMSA's. Background data for this table is detailed in Table 5
of Appendix B.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
6. Colocation.
Federal agencies appear to be delivering services to
similar clientele from different locations in the same
geographic area. Opportunities exist for grouping agency
and program points of delivery in close proximity for
improved convenience to clientele and more efficient
service delivery. In this context the following
definitions have been used:
- Client/Clientele: End user of service provided (e.g.,
welfare recipient, farmer, small businessperson)
- Point of Service: last point for direct Federal
involvement (client or third party delivery agency,
i.e., state, private contractor, mortgage bank).
An example of successful colocation by an agency is:
a) Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been
colocating county offices since 1962. The primary
focus of this colocation has been on USDA's five major
farmer oriented agencies: Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Service,
Farmers Home Administration, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation, and Cooperative Extension Service. The
Department had achieved the colocation of 1914 county
offices out of 3017 total county offices in 1982. The
President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control,
"Task Force Report on the Department of Agriculture",
April 15, 1983, estimates that further colocation could
result in an estimated savings of $194 million over the
next 3 years.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
7. Supervisory Ratios
Supervisory ratios, i.e. the number of employees
supervised by each supervisor, vary widely from agency to
agency. Data collected on these ratios for the 18
agencies surveyed are found in Table 4 in Appendix B. If
two branches, each headed by a supervisor, are combined
into one branch with one supervisor responsible for the
employees in both former branches, there will be a savings
of one supervisory position. If this principle is applied
in a general way, there may be opportunities to increase
supervisory ratios and thereby decrease the cost of field
organizational structures.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
B. Constraints and Considerations
1. General Constraints and Considerations.
Federal field consolidations and streamlining actions
cannot take place in a vacuum. There are important
considerations that affect reorganizations that must be
addressed during the early stages of fact-finding and
analysis. One area that requires early analysis is that
of constraints placed upon agencies when they are planning
field reorganizations. Following are the most pertinent
general areas that should be considered:
a) Congressional - The Congress has the authority to
create, abolish, reorganize and fund Federal agencies.
In doing this they have the opportunity to restrict,
broaden or redefine an agency's authority to
consolidate or streamline field organizations.
Therefore, proactive discussions and negotiations with
the Congress should be conducted on any proposed
reorganization effort in order to mitigate. any
constraints they can impose on agencies.
b) Budgetary - The costs associated with field
reorganizations must be considered and planned for
before implementation so that they do not become a
constraint. Field reorganizations can become expensive
during the implementation stages due to relocation
costs, retraining costs, new office space, severence
costs, etc. Efforts should be made to minimize these
costs, e.g., reassign personnel to existing local field
offices rather than relocate them.
c) General Regulations - While there is no comprehensive
legislation that requires field structures to be
established or relocated at a specific site, there are
government-wide regulations,that'deal with field
reorganizations generally:
- 0MB Circular A-105, which provides broad guidelines
and directives for Federal regions;
Executive Order 12072, which directs the Federal use
of space in urban areas; and
The Rural Development Act, which gives first priority
to locations of new offices and other facilities to
rural areas.
These regulations should be reviewed to assure that
they do not become a problem in a proposed field
consolidation or streamlining effort. They are
described in greater detail in the Policy Review Sub-
group Report.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
d) Employees/Employee Unions - Federal employees and the
unions that represent their interests should be
consulted, as appropriate, during any proposed field
reorganization. In order to minimize the constraints
these groups can place during organizational changes
(complaints to members of the Congress, etc.) they
should be kept informed, as necessary, in areas that
affect their working conditions and conditions of
employment.,
e) State/Local Government and Their Communities -
Reorganizations can have a significant impact on job
markets, economics (loss of tax revenue), local
businesses and school systems. These factors should be
analyzed carefully to reduce any negative impacts and
to minimize any constraints the localities can place on
a reorganization (e.g., pressure from local
politicians, members of Congress, and local business
leaders).
f) Space Demands - Consolidating field components may be
dependent, in part, upon the availability of space and
facilities. These requirements should be carefully
analyzed and planned for, in conjunction with the
General Services Administration, in order to minimize
costs and relocation difficulties.
g) Mission - Agency missions may constrain the location of
operations due to the need to be geographically present
to provide services. Examples of such mission
constraints are the Bonneville Power Administration and
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
2. Specific Constraints.
In addition to the above general constraints, there are
also unique problems that certain agencies encounter
during proposed field reorganizations. This section
discusses constraints that are agency specific. Other
examples are being compiled by the Policy Review Sub-
group.
Constraints on specific agencies have, in many cases,
prohibited those agencies from achieving improvements in
program management and in the efficiency and effectiveness
of their operations. Considerable cost savings may have
been lost due to these constraints.
a) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - The
Dole Amendment (P'.L. 95-557) requires that any proposed
field reorganization first be placed in the Federal
Register for a 90 day comment period. A cost/benefit
analysis must be included. In addition, the FY 83
Appropriation Bill (P.L. 97-272) prohibits HUD from
using funds for reorganization purposes prior to
January 1, 1983, without prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations. This, in effect, delayed
any proposed reorganization for three months (October 1
to January 1).
b) Small Business Administration (SBA) - Congress must be
advised 15 days prior to implementation of any field
reorganization at SBA.
c) Department of Commerce: Economic Development
Administration - The FY 83 Appropriation Bill requires
that there be no less than 47 Economic Development
Representatives (EDR) located in the United States.
Thus, consolidations to improve program efficiency and
effectiveness which would include reducing the number
of EDP's are not permitted.
d) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - The Clean Water
Act requires that EPA maintain laboratories in various
sections of the. country. Laboratories may not be
closed or moved from their areas without a change in
legislation. In addition, the EPA FY 83 Appropriations
Bill requires that the facility located in Grosse Isle,
Michigan, he maintained.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
e) Department of Transportation: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) - Airport and Airways Development
Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Section 528c prohibits FAA
from closing more than five flight service stations in
FY 1983, even if it is advantageous to the government
to close more stations. Section 528b states that no
more than 60 flight service stations may be part-timed,
regardless of criteria, cost, or need. In addition,
the FY 83 Department of Transporation Appropriation
Bill (P.L. 97-369) states that FAA shall not undertake
any reorganization of its regional office structure
without prior approval of both the House and Senate
Appropriation Committees.
f) Department of Health and Human Services:
Administration on Aging - Legislation (P.L. 89-73)
requires the Administration to-Wave its regional
offices report to the Commissioner on Aging, and not to
the Regional Administrator of Human Development
Services (HDS). This prevents HDS from consolidating
all human development activities under one regional
official and, in effect, prohibits certain
administrative and management efficiencies.
g) Department of Energy - Congressman Dingle must be
notified two weeks prior to any significant reduction-
in-force.
3. Case Studies.
Congressional involvement in management decisions by
agency heads to organize, reorganize or otherwise
streamline their field activities was cited in most agency
presentations, and in interviews with agency managers, in
the 13 agencies surveyed. Most agencies view this
involvement as a significant constraint on their ability
to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of their
service delivery systems.
These three case studies highlight how external
constraints can in effect stop proposed agency field
reorganizations, even if the reorganization would have
resulted in improved service, cost saving, and a more
efficient and effective operation.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
a) Department of Transportation (DOT) - DOT proposed to
colocate Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Regional
Offices with Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) Regional Offices. This field reorganization
would have unified transportation presence in the
regions, improved planning and decisionmaking between
FHWA and UMTA, and provided opportunities for economies
of scale through joint administrative support.
However, due to the following external constraints, the
reorganization proposal was withdrawn: lack of office
space in existing facilities to accommodate the
consolidation, the effectiveness of employees in
mobilizing the local communities to resist the proposed
move, and Congressional opposition.
b) Department of Agriculture (USDA) - USDA proposed to
realine and reduce the number of regions within the
Forest Service for purposes of improved management
efficiency and effectiveness as well as for cost
savings considerations. Congress imposed legislative
constraints, preventing any changes to the field
structure without the consent of four different
Congressional committees. These'constraints
effectively stopped the proposed field reorganization.
c) Department of the Interior (DOI) - DOI. proposed to
reduce the number. of area offices within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) from twelve to seven (five
regional offices and two area offices) in order to
reduce the cost of administering the BIA field
programs. The proposed reorganization would have
resulted in consolidation and streamlining of functions
but was never implemented due to the following external
constraints: the, proposal to consolidate the Muskegee
Area Office into the Anadarko Area Office, and the
Billings Area Office into the Aberdeen Area Office
generated strong opposition from Congressional sources,
local communities and Indian tribes. Opposition was
based on the impact on the local economies of the
affected areas. In addition, the proposal to abolish
the Sacramento Area Office and transfer its functions
to other offices outside of Calj_f'ornia prompted
opposition from Congressional sources and local Indian
tribes. The primary concern was the potential impact
on service delivery to Indian tribes in California.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
On the basis of this survey, it may be concluded that many
agencies have already taken action to streamline their Federal
field structure but that opportunities exist for greater
improvements and savings in this area. Therefore the Sub-group
recommends the following actions:
A. Each agency head shall review and justify the agency's field
structure against the criteria of efficiency and
effectiveness. This review will include proposals for
streamlining field structures and projected annual financial.
impacts of proposed changes for Fiscal Years 1984 through
1986. Each agency head shall submit this plan to the Cabinet
Council on Management and Administration (CCMA) by September
15, 1983. Thereafter, such reviews and submissions will be
made in conjunction with major agency reorganizations. The
following factors should be considered and utilized in the
conduct of this r-eview:
1. Elimination of non-essential functions, layers of
management supervision and organization. The fewest
practical intermediate offices should be permitted in the
field between the point of service delivery and the agency
headquarters. A baseline for this evaluation would be:
a) No intermediate offices for grant making functions
(except Auditing and Inspector General)
b) One intermediate office for service, regulatory and
land management functions
The baseline is for purposes of evaluation. In some cases
agencies may find that it is more operationally practical
to consolidate at the point of delivery rather than at the
intermediate office level.
2. The use of third party service delivery systems: state
and local governments, other Federal agencies and private
organization systems. Where a third party system is used,
only program audit and Inspector General field activities
should be permitted.
3. When intermediate offices are required, the absolute
minimum number essential for program direction and control
should be maintained. Consolidation and colocation will
promote maximum use of existing in-place assets, effective
use of common operational and administrative support
services, and convenience to the client (one stop
shopping). These intermediate offices should:
a. Be consolidated to the maximum extent possible,
whenever such consolidation is in keeping with
effective and efficient program operations.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
b.' Where cost effective and where there are no site-
specific program requirements, be located in proximity
to other Federal offices serving similar clientele and
in the following priority order:
1) Regional cities Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA's)
2) Federal enclave SMSA's (cities with existing
concentrations of Federal employees. See Appendix
B for a listing of the SMSA's constituting the
Federal enclaves.)
4. Supervisor to employee ratios should be increased. A
baseline for this evaluation would be that generally these
ratios should not be less than 1 to 7.
5. Other considerations such as the imposition of user fees
might also provide motivation for streamlining service
delivery.
B. The Executive Branch should undertake a concerted effort to
reduce legislative involvement in management decisions --
specifically, management ability to organize field structure
and staffing for effective and efficient delivery of service.
Key policy leadership (Executive Office of the President
including OMB, and Agency heads) shall discuss and negotiate
with Congressional leadership for increased Executive Branch
flexibility in streamlining the Federal Field Structure.
Agency heads, as part of their review and justification of
field structure cited in Recommendation A, shall provide an
analysis of field structure streamlining actions they can
take:
1. Within their own authority, which they believe would
invoke no significant Congressional concern;
2. Within their own authority, which they believe would
provoke significant Congressional concern; and
3. Which require specific legislative changes.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
The recommendations of the Organization and Staffing Review Sub-
group can have an extremely positive effect on how field
organizations operate. The objectives of the Sub-group -- to
establish a framework for the elimination of non-essential
activities, improvement in effectiveness of program delivery, and
improvement in efficiency of operations -- may all be realized
with implementation of the proposed recommendations.
Since some Federal agencies may not be inclined to implement the
proposed recommendations, the following actions should be taken in
order to ensure Federal agency implementation of recommendations:
A. Issuance of an Executive Order enunciating Administration
policy goals with regard to Federal field structure.
B. Issuance of a Presidential Management Directive to the heads
of Executive Agencies directing the review of field
structures, as specified in Recommendation A.
C. Establishment of committees by the Cabinet Council on
Management and Administration (COMA) to identify potential and
make recommendations for interagency third-party service
delivery.
D. Discussion of field structure initiatives with appropriate
Congressional leaders.
In addition, a publication of successes in field streamlining and
consolidation actions that Federal agencies have had could provide
the deeded impetus for organizations to review and improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of their field structures. Further,
a publication of trends in field employment levels, by Federal
agency, may encourage organizations to be "competitive" with one
another to decrease employment.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
APPENDICES
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
A. Listing of Sub-group Members
ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING REVIEW SUB-GROUP
Chairman:
Charles S. Davis III
Associate Administrator for Policy
and Management Systems
General Services Administration
Mr. Richard A. Ashworth
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Administration
Department of Agriculture
Mr. Stephen Babcock
Executive Director
Administrative Conference of the United States
Mr. James P. Jadlos
Office of Information Resources Management
Chief, Project Services Division
Department of Interior
Mr. Howard Messner
Controller
Department of Energy
Lis. Shannon Roberts
Deputy Director of Management Planning
Department of Transportation
Mr. Dale W. Sopper
Assistant Secretary for Management
and Budget
Department of Health and Human Services
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Contributors
Ed Chase
Roger Dierman
Dick Hadsell
Bob Sermier
Tom Simon
Staff
Susan D. Coulter.
Kathleen K. Geisler
Daniel M. Steckler
Donald L. Venneberg
Richard J. Walker
Pamela B. White
Office of Management and Budget
General Services Administration
Department of Commerce
Health and Human Services
General Services Administration
Department of Transportation
General Services Administration
Department of Energy
General Services Administration
Department of the Interior
General Services Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
BACKGROUND DATA/TRENDS
1. The summary data contained in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained
from information submitted by agencies to the Sub-group on
April. 21, 1983. This data was developed by the agencies
within a very short timeframe and certain inconsistencies are
apparent in the submissions. The category breakouts for
Regulatory, Service, Grant Making and Land Management are
based on agency mission statements but are, by their nature,
arbitrary. The breakouts were developed to try to identify
trends based on similarity of mission and were not cleared
with individual agencies for accuracy. Many organizations
have multi-mission operations and the breakout made a choice
of only one of these for purposes of analysis. Resource and
Development (R&D) activities were included, in the Service
category. Agency data was updated in May and July 1983.
2. The summary data contained in Tables 3 - 5 were obtained from
the September 30,.1982, data in the Central Personnel. Data
File (CPDF), provided by Office of Personnel Management in a
special report to the Sub-group. The following
characteristics apply to these data:
A. Certain field facilities are included in the headquarters
numbers due to the fact that OPM defines headquarters in
the data as those activities located in the Washington,
D.C., Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Therefore facilities like.the Goddard Space Center are
included in these numbers. Further, headquarters such as
the Social Security Administration offices in Baltimore,
Maryland, are included in field facility numbers for the
same reason.
E. Total Federal civilian employment for the SMSA data does
not match the previous total of 2.8 million (cited in the
.original briefing to the CCMA) because of the following
factors:
(1) Monthly OPM releases (used for the Cabinet Council. on
~'anagement and Administration briefing) are based on
agency submissions; the CPDF, us'ea for Sub-group dat=,
is based on personnel actions reported to OPM.
(2) This data excludes the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) This data excludes certain agencies such as TVA,
Federal Reserve Board and foreign countries.
(4) Some Federal civilian employees do not work in a SMSA.
3. The summary data contained in Table 6 were obtained from the
monthly OPM releases for September 30, 1980, 1.981 and 1982.
These data were obtained to reinforce the employment trends
shown in Table 3 using a second data base.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TABLE 1
Regional Structure Configuration
Type of agency Number of Regions
Number of agency
Components
identified
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 > 1 5
Regulatory
(31)
dk 8 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 2 6 0 3 2 0 1(23)
27 0 0 0 3 13 3 3. 6 6 20 0 10 6 0 3
Service
(57)
k 29 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 0 5 1 3 0 0 2(28,20)
50 4 2 5 4 5 5 2 4 0 8 2 5 0 0 4
Grant Making
(11)
dk 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 9 64 0 0 0 0 0
Land Management
(4)
dE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 0
*Totals
(103)
E 40 2 1 3 4 7 4 3 4 4 1 8 1 6 2 1 3
4 0 2 1 3 4 7 4 3 4 4 18 1 6 2 1 3
Source: Agency data submitted to Sub-group 4/21/83; as amended
5/19/83 and 7/83
(See backup sheets following and Note #1, page A3)
* Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TABLE 2
Management Layering by Selected Executive Agencies
Type of Agency/
Number of
Agency Components
Number of layers
including headquarters)
Identified
3
4
5-
Regulatory
(31)
0
13
12
5
1
(5)
0
42
39
16
3
Service
(57)
5
27
15
3
9
47
32
5
Grant Making
(11.)
3
2
6
0
0
27
1F
55
r
0
Land Management
(4)
1L
0
C
2
1
1
0
50
23
25
Totals ^
(103)
42
38
9
6
42
9
6
5/19/?? and 7/83
(See backup
sheets following and Note
page
A3)
Mote: ?er.:er,tages
do not add to 100
due to
rounding
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Category: REGULATORY
Bureau/AgenU
1. Interior -
Office of
Surface Mining
2. HHS - Food & Drug
Administration
3'. USDA -
Animal & Plant
Health Inspection
4. USDA -
Federal Grain
Inspection Service
5. USDA -
Food Safety and
Inspection Service
6. USDA -
Packers and
Stockyards Admin.
7. Education -
Civil Rights
DOE
Federal Energy
Regulatory Comm.
9. DOE Economic
t "~^ In L tr t LJn
1C. DOJ
F.B.I.
11 . DOJ
Bureau of Prisons
12. DOJ
U.S. Marshals
13. DOJ
U.S. Attorneys
~k #
Re ions La ers Comments
0 1/ 4
3 HHS overall: Mission
includes R&D and Health
Care Service to medically
underserved areas and to
American Indians and
Alaskan Natives.
5 569 Sub-regional field
offices in 3 layers
2 31 field offices report
directly to headquarters
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
14. DOJ
Immigration &
Naturaliz. Service 4 3
15. DOJ
Drug Enforcement
Administration
16. HUD
Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity 10(S) 3
17. HUD
Govt. National
Mortgage Corp. 10(S) 3
18. DOL
Oc.c. Safety and
Health Admin.
19. DOL
Mine Safety and
Health Admin.
20. DOL
Employment S.tds.
Administration
21. DOL
Labor-Mgmt.
Services Admin.
22. DOL
Office of the
Solicitor
10(NS) 3 79 Sub-regional field
offices, in 1 layer
23 4 District offices are at
regional level. 148
Sub-regional field
offices, in 2 layers
10 (NS) 3 158 Sub-regional field
offices, in 3 layers
24 Sub-regional field
field offices, in 1 layer
8 3 9 Sub-regional field
offices, in 1 layer
23. Treasury -
Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco & Firearms 5 4
24. DOT -
Maritime Admin. 5 3 Regional level includes
Merchant Marine Academy
25. DOT -
Federal Railroad
Administration 8 3
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
26. DOT -
Federal Aviation
Administration 13 3 Mission includes service
and grant making
activities
2 7 . DOT -
Nat'l. Hwy. Traffic
Administration 12 2 Regional level includes
two test facilities
reporting to
headquarters.
28. Treasury -
Comptroller of 12 2
the Currency
29. Treasury -
IT. S. Customs 7 4
Service
30. Treasury -
U.S. Secret 0 2
Service
31. Treasury - .
Bureau of Gov?t. 9 2
Financial Opns.
Legend:
5: Standard
US: Non-Standard
Source: Agency data submitted to Sub-group 4/21/83; as amended 5/19/83
Please see Note #l, page A3
1/ Figures corrected by DOI 5/19/ 3 and 7/83.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Category: SERVICES PROVISION
Bureau/Agency
1. Interior -
National Park
Service
2. Interior -
Minerals Mgmt.
Service
3. Interior -
Bureau of Indian
Affairs
4. Interior -
Geological
Survey
5. Interior -
Fish and Wildlife
Service
6. HHS (SSA)
Social Security
Administration
7. HHS - (HDS)
Human Development
Services
8. HHS - (HCFA)
Health Care
Financing Admin.
9. HHS - Health Resources
Service Admin. - Indian 0
Health Service
10. HHS - National
Institutes of
Health
Region Layers
4 1/
12 1/
8 1/
Comments
Area offices are at
regional level. Also
trustee for lands and
monies.
Mission includes R&D
Mission includes R&D
Mission includes grants
to states for child
support enforcement
program.
Mission includes grants
to states and localities.
Most services provided
through states and
localities; exception is
Head Start Program.
Most programs are through
states or intermediaries.
Also monitors and
certifies health care
facilities.
Public Health Service
(PHS) has not been
included since PHS sub-
ordinate components
have been used.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
11. HHS - Alcohol, Drug
Abuse and Mental
Health Admin.
12. HHS - Centers for
Disease Control
13. USDA -
Farmers Home
Administration
14. USDA -
Rural Electrifi-
cation Admin.
15. USDA -
Federal Crop
Insurance Corp.
16. USDA -
Agriculture
Marketing Serv.
17. USDA -
Food and Nutrition
Service
18. USDA -
Agriculture Stabi-
lization and Con-
servation Service
19. USDA -
Statistical
Reporting Service
2( C \ - (FSS, PPS,
NARS, ADTS, TPUS,
FPRS)
21. Education -
Bilingual Ed.
22. Education -
Special Ed and
Rehab. Services
23. Veterans Admin.
Dept of Med & Surg.
1926 - Local offices
provide credit to
those in rural America.
Provides credit for rural
electric and telephone
utilities.
Provide crop insurance
for losses.
Mission includes
inspection, grading,
research, and regulatory
programs.
110 Sub-regional offices
in 3 layers, including 16
employees working out of
their homes.
Provides service mostly
to R & D programs.
Programs include grants
for research and financial
aid to states.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 ? Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
24.
Veterans Admin.
Dept of Mem. Affairs
3
2
25.
Veterans Admin.
Dept of VA Benefits
3
2
26.
Treasury
Bureau of Engraving
and Printing
0
27.
Treasury
Fed. Law Enforce-
ment Training
Center
0
1
28.
Treasury
Bureau of the
Mint
29.
Treasury
Bureau of the
Public Debt
30.
DOL
Bureau of Labor Stat.
31.
DOL
Int'l Labor Affairs
32.
HUD
Policy Dup.
& Research
33.
DOE Power
Admin.
0
3
34.
DOE
Conservation &
Renewable Energy
1
3
R&D and grants
mangement
35.
DOE
Energy Info.
Administration
0
2
36.
DOE Operations
Offices
0
2
R&D
37.
DOE
Nuclear Energy
0
2
R&D
38.
DOE
Fossil Energy
0
2
R&D
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
39. DOE
Environmental
Protection, Safety &
Emergency
Preparedness
40. DOJ - Offices/
Services/Divisons
& Eds.
41. DOT - U.S. Coast 12*
Guard
42. DOT -
St. Lawrence
Seaway Develop.
Corp.
43. DOT - Research and
Special Projects
Admin.
44. Commerce
Nat'l. Weather Service 6
45. .Commerce
Nat'l. Ocean Service 0
46. Commerce
Nat'l. Marine Fisheries 5
47. Commerce
Environ. Sat., Data & 0
& Info. Serv.
4S. Commerce
.Office of Oceanic & 0
Atmospheric Rsch.
t9. Commerce
Minority Bus.
Develop.
50. Commerce
Census 1.2
52. Commerce
Tntn'l. Trade
Administration
53. Commerce -
Economic Develop.
Administration
* Districts, no formal
regions. Mission in-
cludes regulatory and
maritime law enforce-
ment activities.
1 regional level office
at Massena, New York
Mission includes
R and D and
regulatory activities.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
54
Interior -
2
.
Bureau of Mines
0
1/
55.
USDA -
Agriculture
Research Serv.
4 R & D
56.
USDA -
Economic Research
0
2
Service
57.
Commerce -
Nat'l. Telecomm.
& Info. Admin.
0
2
nd
83
Source: Agency data submitte
d to
a
Sub-group 4/21/83; as amended 5/19/
7/83
Please see Vote #1,
page
A3
1/ Figures corrected by DOI 5/19/83
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Category: GPA?T MAKING
Bureau/Agency ReLion Layers Comments
1. DOT
Urban Mass Transit 10 2
Administration
2. DOT
Federal Hwy. 9 3
Admin.
3. Education -
Elem. & Secondary 0 1 Formulates policy
Education
4. Education -
Educational Research 0 1 Mission includes
& Improvement R & D
5. Education -
Vocational
Education
6. Education -
Post Secondary 10 2 Formulates policy
Education
7. DOL -
Employment & 10 (NS) 3 34 Sub reg. offices
Training Admin.
8. HUD
Community planning and 10 (S) 3
Development
9. HUD
New Community Develop- 10(S) 3
ment Corporation
1C. HUD
Federal Housing '.0 (S)
Commission
11. HUD
Neighborhood Volun-
teers Association for
Consumer Protection 10 (S)
Source: Agency data submitted to Sub-group 4/21/83; as amended 5/19/83
Please see rote #l, page A3
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Bureau/Agency
1. Interior -
Bureau of Land
Management
2. Interior -
Bureau of
Reclamation
3 . USDA -
Forest Service.
4. USDA -
Soil Conserva-
tion Service
Category: LAND MANAGEMENT
4d 46
Rion Layers
Comments
"'c d to provided
frog USP^ - data assur
from Gov't. manuals
3507 local offices.
Regional-level offices
are National Technical
Centers.
Agency data submitted to Sub-group 4/21/83; as amended 5./19/83
Please see Note #1, page A3
A15
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TA_PLE 3
Percentage Change by Selected Executive Agencies
Number of Employees:Percent
FY 1976-1980
Change
FY
1980-1982
Agency/ Total HQ Region
Total
140
Region
Department
Veterans Administration + 2.9
- 0.4
+ 3.0
+ 3.4
+ 0.6
+ 3.5
Health and Human Services 1./ - 2.3.
-12.0
+ 0.6
- 3.1
- 1.5
- 3.6
Agriculture +10.9
+ 9.6
+11.0
- 4.5
- 4.2
- 4.6
Treasury 2/ - 5.4
+10.7
- 7.8
- 1.3
-10.3
+ 0.3
Interior 3/ - 4.5
+ 2.3
- 5.4
+ 2.7
- 1.6
+ 3.3
Transportation 4/ - 2.4
- 4.1
- 2.1
-13.2
- 7.9
-14.1
Justice 5/ + 5.5
+ 2 . 7
+ 6.8
+ 1 . 4
+ 2 . 0
+ 1 . 2
Corps of Engineers 6/ n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
+ 0.8
+28.2
- 0.6
General Services
Administration + 6.4
- 6.0
+13.7
-16.0
-15.3
-16.4
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 7/ - 5.9
- 6.0
- 5.9
- 5.4
- 7.0
- 5.0
Commerce 8/ +15.7
+ 5.2
+26.7
-16.9
-11.5
-21.7
Labor 9/ +45.9
+15.6
+68.8
-17.5
-14.6
-19.0
Energy 10/ n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
-12.0
-18.9
- 7.7
Housing and Urban
Development 11/ - 3.2
- 1.4
3.8
-12.6
-17.8
-10.7
Environmental Protection
Agency +26.3
+5C.1
+15.5
Office of Personnel Management n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
-18.6
-16.6
-19.8
Small Business
Administration 12/ +21.3
+15.9
+22.5
-13.1
- 0.5
-15.9
Education 13/ n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
-20.6
-17.0
-26.8
+10.5
+12.5
+10.2
- 3.7
- 7.5
- 3.0
Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)
Field Structure Report
September 30, 1982
(See backup sheets following)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Explanatory Notes
1. HHS: If employment for Department of Education is extracted
from the 1976 employment figures to make the comparison from
1976 - 1980 consistent with 1980 - 1982, and HHS employment
figures as reported to OPM are used, the total percentage
change from 1976 - 1980 is +4.2 and from 1980 - 1982 is -4.3.
These figures also reflect the transfer of the Public Health
,Hospitals to non-Federal entities.
2. Treasury: The percentage change figures reflect increases in
personnel in the IRS.
3. Interior: Interior questions the validity of using on board
figures as the source of an indicator of employment strength.
4. DOT:- The percentage change figures from 1980 - 1982 may not
reflect the loss of 8,000 Air Traffic Controllers in 1981.
5. Justice: Based on Justice employment figures as reported to
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the percentage
change from 1976 - 1980 is +4.3. This is due in large part
to an increase in the Immigration and Naturalization Service
due to new enforcement enhancement programs.
6. Corps of Engineers: The OPM figures include numerous part-
time and temporary employees and are therefore inflated in
relation to full time employment. Corps of Engineers
disputes the percentage increase at headquarters from 1980
1982 of 28.2. They are checking with OPM to resolve the
difficulty. Based on full time permanent appointments, the
percentage change from 1976 - 1980 is -2.7. The Corps of
Engineers employment figures as reported to OPM (Civilian
Personnel Information System report, 113A) reflects a
percentage change from 1980 - 1982 of -3.2.
7. NASA: The figures reflect reductions in energy related
programs and the consolidation of flight centers.
8. Commerce: The percentage increase from 1976 - 1980 is due in
large part to increased staffing at the Bureau of the Census
in order to accomplish the decennial census (1980). The
percentage decrease from 1980 - 1982 reflects the decreased
staff after the completion of the census.
9. Labor: The percentage increase from 1976 - 1980 reflects the
transfer of the Mine and Safety program to the Department of
Labor from the Department of the Interior, as well as the
consolidation of the contract compliance function from the
agencies to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance at
Labor. Labor reports that the percentage change from 1980 -
1982 should be -20.0 based on their figures.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
10. Energy: DOE reports. that the OPM data is inaccurate. If DOE
data as reported to OPM is used, the total percentage change
would be -16.7 between FY 1980 and FY 1982.
11. HUD: HUD reports that, if adjustments are made to the OPM
figures to extract employment that was transferred out of HUD
when FEMA was created (1978) and to reflect a change in the
employment counting procedures made in 1981, the percentage
change from 1976 - 1980 is +7.3 and from 1980 - 1982 is -
14.4.
12. SBA: SBA reports that the percentage change from 1980 - 1982
should be -15.9 based on their figures as reported to OPM.
13. Education: The percentage change figures reflect block
grants, transfers'of functions and the cut back of the
student loan program in the field.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Data Back.urp Streets for TABLE 3*
1280
Health and Human
Services 1/
152,468
35,676
116,792
148,923
31,400
117,523
144,241
30,922
113,319
Agriculture
133,348
12,462
120,886
147,859
13,660
134,199
141,174
13,087
128,087
Treasury
133,013
17,220
115,793
125,876
19,066
106,810
124,215
17,093
107x122
Interior
87,076
10,392
76,684
83,164
10,629
72,335
85,391
10,456
74,935
Transportation
73,709
10,777
62,932
71x925
10,336
61,589
62,400
9,522
52,878
JusLice
53,894
16x019
37,875
56,883
16,450
40,433
57,675
16,774
40,901
Corps of Er.aiueers
n.a.
r.. a.
r..a.
42,823
2,096
40,727
43,151
2,688
40,463
General Services
Ada.ir.iatratioii
40x042
13x053
26,989
33x623
11,050
22,573
National Aerur.autics and
Space Administration
25,517
5,685
19,832
24,006
5,346
18,660
22,700
4,972
17,728
Commerce
38,719
19,807
18x912
44,794
20,839
23,955
37,203
18,452
18,751
Labor
16,256
7,011
9,245
23,710
8,105
15,605
19,562
6,923
12,639
Erie ray
n.a.
n.a.
11.0.
21,485
8,376
13,109
18x,899
6,794
12x105
Huusiiia and
UrL.ar. Oevelopmerrt
17,069
4,648
12,421
16,528
4!583
11,945
14,439
3,767
10,672
Envirurrmerital Protection
AAenev
11,756
3,602
8,154
14,853
5,434
9,419
12,470
4,413
8,057
Office of Persurifiel
)Management
re.a.
r..a.
ri.a.
9,125
3,533
5,592
7,429
2,945
4,484
Small Business
Administration
4,716
678
3x838
5,721
1,018
4,703
4,969
1,013
3,956
n. a.
r.. a.
r..a.
7,470
4,725
2,745
5,931
3,923
2,008
1,010,408
164,589
845,819
1,116,930
185,153
931,777
1,075,074
171x337
903,737
Source: OPH Central Persu,oiel Data File (CF'OF)
Field Structure ReCO,t
September 30, 1982
See Explanatory Notes un page 16 amid Faae A3 of the Appendices
-------------------------------------------------
1/ HIS: HHS advises that accurdiug Lu HHS records these figures should be 1976: 144,724; 30,278; 114,446; 1980: 150,825; 32,096;
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TABLE 4
Ratios of Supervisors to Employees by
Selected Executive Agencies
Supervisory Ratios
Agency/
Department FY 1976
FY 1980
FY 1982
Veterans Administration 9.0
9.1
9.1
Health and Human Services 8.5
8.5
8.3
Agriculture 5.2
6.9
6.9
Treasury 11.0
10.2
9.6
Interior 7.6
8.1
8.7
Transportation 1/ 7.5
5.9
5.1
Justice 5.9
6.0
5.8
Corps of Engineers n.a.
6.2
7.4
General Services Administration 6.3
7.0
6.3
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 2/ 17.3
6.5
6.1
Commerce 8.4
8.1
7.6
Labor 7.9
8.3
5.7
Energy 3/ n.a.
3.0
3.2
Housing and Urban
Development 6.4
6.6
5.5
Environmental Protection Agency 15.5
10.4
7.9
Office of Personnel Management n.a.
9.0
7.4
Small Business Administration 7.0
8.3
5.9
7
6
8
5
Education n.a.
.
.
Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File
(CPDF)
Federal Field Structure Report
September 1976, 1980, 1982
1/ Transportation: DOT advises that their figures show the
supervisory ratio in 1982 to be 6.0.
2/ NASA: NASA advises that their figures show the supervisory
ratio in FY 1976 to be approximately 6.0.
3/ DOE: This ratio is being challenged by DOE since it appears
that a major organizational component of DOE provided inaccurate
data to OPM. OPM is in the process of amending this number.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TABLE 5
Federal Civilian Employment by Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
Total Federal
Employment Excludes
Postal Service
TOP 30 SMSA's - OPM DATA
1976 Total 1980 Total 1982 Total
Fed Employment Fed Employment Fed^Emloyment
318,335- 328,065 295,642
18.9 18.8 17.5
23.1 23.1 21.2
-- + 3.0 -10.9
*Philadelphia, PA- 53,273 53,823 52,759
3. 1 3. 1 3. 1
3.9 3.8 3.8-
+ 1.0 - 2.0
48,045 46,550 45,129
2.8 2.7 2.7
3.5 - 3.3 3.2
- 3.1 - 3.1
*San Francisco-
Oakland, CA
47,913 48,034 45,900
2.8 2.7 2.7
3.5 3.4 3.3
+ .3 - 4.4
*NY, NY - NJ
46,071 44,049 39,122
2.7 2.5 2".3
3.3 3.1 2.8
- .4.4 -11.2W
LA - Long Beach,
CA
41,759 40,636 39,915
2.5 2.3 2.3
3.0 2.9 2.9
*Chicago, IL
- 2.7 - 1.8
37,849 38,665 36,451
2.2 2.2 2.2
2.8 2.7 2.6
+ 2.2 - 5.7
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
7 of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
1976 1980 1982
8 San Antonio, TX 33,938 32,688
2.0 1.9
2.5 2.3
- 3.7
33,530 Total #
2.0 % of Total
2.4 % of Field
+ 2.6 % Change
9 Norfolk - VA Beach- 32,122 33,261 33,396 Total #
Portsmouth, VA-NC 1.9 1.9 2.0 % of Total
2.3 2.3 2.4 % of Field
- + 3.5 + .4 7 Change
10 San Diego, CA 30,005 29,538 29,286 Total #
1.8 1.7 1.7 % of Total
2.2 2.1 2.1 % of Field
- - 1.6 - .9 % Change
11 Salt Lake City- 29,512 28,518 30,246 Total #
Ogden, UT 1.7 1.6 1.8 % of Total
2.1 2.0 2.2 % of Field
- 3.4 + 6.1 % Change
12 *Denver - Boulder, 26,853 28,449 26,688 Total #
CO 1.6 1.6 1.6 % of Total
2.0 2.0 1.9 % of Field
- + 5.9 - 6.2 % Change
13 Oklahoma City, OK 25,775 24,310 24,841 Total
1.5 1.4 1.5 % of Total
1.9 1.-7 1.8 % of Field
5.7 + 2.2 % Change
14 St. Louis, MO-IL 24,688 25,769
1.5 1.5
1.8 1.8
- + 4.4
25,980 Total #
1.5 % of Total
1.9 % of Field
+ .8 - % Change
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
15 *Atlanta, GA
16 Dayton, OH
17 Sacramento, CA
18 Honolulu, HI
19 *Boston, MA
20 *Kansas City, MO-KS
21 *DalLas-Fort Worth,
1976
23,489
1.4
1.7
22,821
1.3
1.7
22,660
1.3
1.6
22,268
1.3
1.6
19,308
1.1
1.4
18,580
1.1
1.4
1980
25,703
1.5
1.8
+ 9.4
20,957
1.2
1.5
- 8.2
21,522
1.2
1.5
- 5.0
24,690
1.4
1.7
+16.5
1982
25,664
1.5
1.8
.2
22,141
1.3
1.?
2.9
22,007.
1.3
1.6
+ .7
22,749
1.3
1.6
7.9
Total #
% of Total
of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
22 Detroit, MI
23 Macon, GA
24 Newark, NJ
25 Charleston, SC
26 Vallejo-Fairfield-
Napa, CA
27 Huntsville, AL
28 *Seattle-Everett,
WA
16,744
1.0
1.2
16,083
.9
1.2
14,835
.9
1.l
14,630
.9
1.1
14,557
.9
1.1
14,497
.9
1.1
13,388
.8
1.0
15,575
.9
12,603
.7
.9
-13.4
14,524
.8
1.0
+ 8.5
13,423
.8
1.0
+ 6.5
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
7 Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Total #
% of Total
% of Field
% Change
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
29 Cleveland, OH 13,067 13,003 12,240 Total #
,8 .7 .7 % of Total
1.0 .9 .9 % of Field
- - .5 - 5.9 % Change
30 Indianapolis, IN 12,447 12,582 12,169 Total #
.7 .7 .7 % of Total
.9 .9 .9 % of Field
+ 1.1 - 3.3 % Change
Total SMSA (Top 30)
1,076,704 1,086,039 1,037,407 Total #
63.6 62.1 60.7 % of Total
- % of Field
+ .9 - 4.5 % Change
Total Field SMSA 758,369 757,974 741,765 Total #
(Top 30- DC-MD-VA 44.8 43.3 43?.5 % of Total
SMSA) 55.1 53.3 52.7 % of Field
- - .05 - 1.2 % Change
Total Federal 1,693,789 1,748,574 1,709,929 Total #
Employment
% of Total
- % of Field
+ 3.2 - 2.2 % Change
Total Field 1,375,454 1,420,509 1,414,287 Total #
(Total Federal- - - - % of Total
DC-MD-VA SMSA) - - - % of Field
+ 3.3 - .5 % of Change
* 10 Standard Regional Cities
Source: OPH Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)
Federal Civilian Employment by Geographical Area
and Special SMSA Report.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
TABLE 6
Field Employment in U. S.
Executive Branch Civilian Employment
Percent
Change
Agency
1980
1981
1982
1980-1982
Veterans Administration
220,000
223,000
227,000
+ 3.2
Health and Human
Services
122,000
122,000
115,000
- 5.7
Agriculture
114,000
114,000
107,000
- 6.1
Treasury
106,000
103,000
101,000
- 4.7
Interior
67,000
66,000
68,000
+ 1.5
Transporation
62,000
49,000
53,000
-14.5
Justice
39,000
38,000
40,000
+ 2.6
Corps of Engineers
32,000
32,000
31,000
- 3.1
General Services
Administration
25,000
22,000
20,000
-20.0
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
19,000
18,000
18,000
- 5.3
Commerce 1/
28,000
20,000
16,000
-42.9
Labor
15,000
14,000
12,000
-20.0
Energy 14,000
13,000
12,000
-14.3
Housing and Urban
Development 12,000
11,000
10,000
-16.7
Environmental Protection
Agency 10,000
9,000
8,000
-20.0
Totals 885,000
854,000
838,000
- 5.3
Source: OPM Monthly Release
9/30/80
9/30/81
9/30/82
Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand
1/ See note #8, Table 3.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 ? Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
C. Case Studies
1. Drug Enforcement Administration Case Study
Organization
U. S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).
Structure Change
Abolishment of regional layer.
Objective
To centralize program direction and administrative
support, to enhance overall operating efficiency of DEA,
and to improve coordination of law enforcement operations
between DEA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).-
Motivation
As of January 21, 1982 the Director of the FBI was
assigned responsibility for the general supervision of
drug enforcement matters. FBI and DEA wished to improve
their coordination in Federal drug enforcement. Top
management direction and budget reductions at DEA also
provided motivation.
Time Elapsed
Starting date: January 1982
Completion date: September 1982
Difficulties (Constraints) Encountered
DEA h.ad not reduced internal personnel ceiling levels
although budget authority had-been reduced over. several
years. This reduction resulted in a 300 position cutback
which affected all categories but impacted. clerical and
administrative personnel most directly. Eighty persons
were separated as a result of reduction-in-force (RIF) or
refusal to relocate. There were twelve retirements and
ninety downgrades as a result of the RIF. There was some
reluctance on the part of field personnel to assume full
operational authority.
Several positions downgraded in the RIF have been
reinstated to previous levels due to the fact that new
drug and crime enforcement initiatives by the Attorney
General have reversed the position allocation and program
concentration trend of previous years, thus resulting in
authorization of new positions (333 so far). In addition,
34 positions are anticipated as an increase in the FY 84
budget and 60 additional positions have been requested in
two separate budget supplementals for the Vice President's
South Florida Task Force and the border interdiction
project.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Operational Effects/Implementation
Reorganization was accomplished by closing the five
existing regional offices. Most functions, particularly
administrative, were centralized at headquarters. Field
elements (19 program division offices and 9 smaller
district offices) were put under the direct control of
headquarters. Programs directly involved in mission
o.perations, operational and technical support, and
planning and inspection were consolidated under three
assistant administrator positions which exercise line
authority over all offices in their jurisdiction.
Functional statements, reporting lines., and organizational
documentation was required. Adverse effects on financial
and material resources and budget decision units is minor.
No legislative changes were required.
Division offices headed by special agents in charge
(SAC'S) are under the direct supervision of the
Administrator. However, in order to insure headquarters
control of major field operations, day-to-day direction
and guidance will be provided by the appropriate elements
of the operations and operational support divisions.
1. Severence Pay = $320,000
Relocation $3.2 million was reprogrammed to cover
relocation expenses including housing hunting, trips,
moving costs, and relocation of office equipment.
Benefits
1. Close coordination with the FBI
2. Reduction of 300 positions
3. Elimination of one management layer to enhance
operational support
4. Policy standardization
5. Direct reporting of field offices
6. Improvement in accountability for administrative and
report functions
Savings
1. Office space (retained to accommodate President
Reagan's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement subgroup
program (OCDE).
2. Positions: 90 separations
3. Salaries: $1.5 million (based on average grade GS-7,
Step 1, plus 10 percent benefits)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
2. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Case Study
Organization
Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC)
Structural Change
Closure of 150 county offices
objective/Motivation
Implementation of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 1980,
which provided for a shift to a new sales delivery system
that includes using the private insurance sector to
deliver` the program.
Time Elapsed
Starting date: October 1980
Completion date: January 1982
Implementating Mechanism
Federal Crop Insurance Act 1980 of which specifically
mandated the closing of county offices.
Difficulties (Constraints) Encountered
No major difficulties were encountered.
Costs
Data on dollar costs and savings is not readily available.
This is largely due to the fact that the office closings
were Congressionally mandated, rather than being based on
internal analysis.
Benefits
Savings: Reduction of approximately 150 full-time
permanent positions.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
3. Federal Grain Inspection Service Case Study
Organization
Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection
Service (FGIS)
Structural Chafe
Elimination of all five regional offices. The number of
local field offices was reduced by six; five additional
field offices were downgraded to sub-offices. As of
January 1983, FGIS had 31 field offices and 9 sub-offices.
All of these local field offices now come under the direct
line authority of Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Objective/Motivation
Implementation of a change in the Federal Grain Standards
Act which provided for the assessment of user fees for
inspection services. It was essential that costs be
minimized so that user fees could be set at a reasonable
level.
Time Elapsed
Starting date: June 1981
Completion date: October 1981
Implementing Mechanism
Revised organization chart dated September 21, 1981 was
issued.
Difficulties (Constraints) Encountered
Complexity of personnel procedures involved in:
a) obtaining approval for reorganization, and
b) reduction-in-force was an obstacle to timely action.
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
Savings: Reduction of $2.8 million in personnel expenses
and 79 full time permanent positions (regional offices
only). Had they remained, regional office costs would
have grown to over $3 million in FY 1982.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
The agency streamlined its operations at all levels and
eliminated a regional structure which was not necessary
for effective mission accomplishment.
This reorganization has implications for other departments
and agencies. Prior to reorganization, FGIS performed an
exhaustive review of its internal activities. It found
that there were huge opportunities for cost savings due
to.
1) functions being performed which were not authorized
by legislation;
2) excessive layering of structures and personnel, and
3) general overstaffing.
These problems were corrected without any basic change in
the agency mission. FGIS was forced to take action
because of legislative changes which required the
application of user fees to support FGIS operations. The
point is that similar situations undoubtedly exist in many
other organizations; however, there is no factor which
would force them to scrutinize their operations or take
aggressive action to reduce costs.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
4. Department of Agriculture Case Study
Organization
Department of Agriculture
Structure Change
Colocation of county offices
Objective/Motivation
See Comments
Time ElaRsed
Starting- date: 1982
Completion date: ongoing
Implementing Mechanism:
1962: Secretary's Memorandum (SM 1492, Establishment of
State Administrative Committees, SAC's, for the purpose of
implementing Department policy for consolidating offices
and common services, specifically administrative support
activities)
1972: Rural Development Act of 1972 (mandated additional
collocation efforts)
1974: Amendments to Agriculture Regulations (1 Aug 74
guidelines for establishment of Service Centers)
1978: Task Force report on Service Centers
1979: SM 1971 and SM 1977 (new policy objectives based on
Task Force report, SAC's become State Coordination and
Administration Committees (SCAC's))
1982: SM 1944-2 (Secretary's Policy and Coordination
Council to promote strong and effective coordination at
the Headquarters level among agencies of the Department)
SM,1943-2 (Food and Agriculture Councils in each state
replacing SCAC's)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Difficulties (Constraints) Encountered
GAO Report, 1979: "According to the subgroup, the major
problem in achieving colocation is the conflict between
USDA's goal -- giving first priority to locating offices
in rural areas -- and GSA's goal -- giving first
consideration to the central business district of urban
centers." (page 26)
Costs
Information not available. See Comments.
Penef its
Savings: Information not available. See Comments.
Results
There were 1678 colocated counties out of 2935 total
counties (57%) in 1978; there were 1914 colocated counties
out of 3017 total counties (63%) in 1982.
a) USDA Stated Policy: It is USDA's policy to operate its
field office system as efficiently and effectively as
possible. The primary goals for all efforts related to
this policy are to:
i) Reduce the overall size and complexity of the
current system;
ii) Reduce the cost of operating the current system;
and
iii) 'Increase the level of efficiency and
responsiveness to the maximum extent possible.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
b) GAO Study: Colocating Agriculture Field Office -- More
Can Be Done (April 25, 1979.)
Primary focus: Five major farmer-oriented agencies:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS),
Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
Farmers Home Administration (FMHA),
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), and
Cooperative Extension Service (CES)
"At the colocated offices, the agencies are to
interchange personnel and facilities to achieve
efficiency and provide the most effective assistance in
developing rural areas..." (page 1)
"... further impravments need to be made to increase
the number of complete colocations and foster greater
cooperation and sharing... full colocation in all ...
cases may not be beneficial. However, an additional
1,112 counties have the potential to colocate CES or
other agencies' field offices with the field offices
that are already colocated." (page 8)
"... nearly all the field employees viewed colocation
as benefiting USDA clients because it provided the
clients a better opportunity. to do their business at
one site within a county." (page 12)
c) The President's Private Sector Survey on Cost_ Control
Task Force Report on the Department _ of Agriculture
April 15, 1983 _
AG 35-1: USDA should more aggressively pursue
colocating ASCS, SCS, and FMHA, county offices and
consolidating ASCS offices.
Estimated Savings: $194 million over 3 years
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
5. Minerals Management Service Case Study
Organization
Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Structure ChanLe
Creation of new bureau.
Objective
To consolidate related minerals management functions from
other.parts of the Department into a single, efficient
agency with a common mission; to provide greater
accountability for mineral royalty collection.
Increased awareness of rapid changes in the areas of '
energy and minerals management, growing need to improve
service to the public and recommendations from Linowes
Commission (Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the
Nation's Energy Resources).
Time Elapsed
July 8, 1981 - Charter of Linowes Commission
September 30, 1982 - Actual. transfer of all personnel
funds,, etc. to newly created MMS.
Implementing Mechanism
Secretary's Order Number 3071, January 19, 1982.
Difficulties Encountered
No major'difficulties
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
Creation of the new bureau pulled together functions which
had been fragmented within the Department. The
organizational level of Royalty Management was raised from
a branch of a division within a bureau to a major division
in a separate bureau. This recognized the importance of
the function and improved the potential to serve the
public. Duplication was eliminated.
The reorganization not only allowed for grouping similar
minerals functions together but for the possible joining
of responsibilities (e.g., for land management) and
sharing of resources.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
6. Bureau of Land Management Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
Structure Change
Absorbed responsibility of onshore minerals management and
effected major regional restructuring.
Objective
To consolidate onshore mineral leasing functions with
those traditional ELM functions which are vital to the
successful multiple use management of the public lands.
Motivation
'Decision by Secretary,Watt to combine onshore leasing with
other land management functions.
Time Elapsed
Secretary's Order issued December 3, 1982 - Determination
Order transferred functions, personnel, funds, etc., March
16, 1983
Implementing Mechanism
Secretary's Order Number 3087, December 3, 1982, and
Departmental Manual issuance dated April 1, 1983.
Difficulties Encountered
No major difficulties encountered.
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
Improved efficiencies in the field structure while
consolidating and streamlining onshore responsibilities
within BLM.
Closing eight offices, redesignation of six minerals
offices to BLM field office configuration, opening one
office, establishing Deputy State Director for Minerals
Management position and an Assistant District Manager for
Minerals position to place additional emphasis on BLM's
onshore minerals responsibilities.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
7. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS)
and Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS)
Structure Change
Abolished HCRS and transferred major functions to NPS.
The HCRS field structure was consolidated by merging
Regional Offices with NPS Regional Offices in six cities
where the offices were colocated and by transferring staff
from Albuquerque to Santa Fe and Ann Arbor.
Objective
Consolidate similar historic preservation and recreation
functions within one bureau.
Motivation
This action was undertaken to eliminate overlapping,
duplicative and parallel efforts in order to achieve
economies in the utilization of funds, personnel and
equipment.
Time Elapsed
Starting date: May 1981
Completion date: January 1982
Implementing Mechanism
Secretary's Order 3060 - Consolidation of Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service functions into the
National Park Service.
Difficulties Encountered
Problems were encountered in integrating personnel from
certain former HCRS functions into fully staffed NPS
functions with similar responsibilities.
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
Information is not available on savings.
Results
The consolidation effort has been successfully completed
and NPS is providing consistent and better coordinated
policy and program implementation.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
8. Fish and Wildlife Service Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Structure Change
Phased out all 18 area offices and placed functions in the
regional and field offices.
Objective
Shorten the chain of command from headquarters and
regional offices to field stations and increase
operational responsibility and accountability.
Motivation
Elimination of a' management layer.
Time Elapsed
Approximately 18 months. Fully completed on January 1983.
Implementing Mechanism
Director's memorandum and subsequent Departmental Manual
release.
Difficulties Encountered
General logistical complexities of relocation of
personnel; adaptation to a revised management structure
and system.
Costs
Cost data not available.
Benefits
Future savings in management operations will help support
field stations.
Other Comments-
Area offices employed 190 people and had a $6 million
budget.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
9. Bureau of Indian Affairs Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), Office of Indian Education Programs
Structure Change
Transfer of BIA day schools in Alaska to the State of
Alaska.
Objective
To ensure the provision of the best possible educational
services to Alaskan Native students through a unified
school system by transferring jurisdiction and
responsibility for, program management to the state level.
Motivation
To achieve a single school system in the State of Alaska.
Time Elapsed
The first of the Alaskan Day schools to transfer from BIA
jurisdiction to the State of Alaska occurred in 1938.
However, transfer activities were escalated in 1980-82
with the transfer of 21 schools to the State of Alaska,
seventeen of which were 1982 transfers. .
Implementating Mechanism
Agreement between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and State
of Alaska.
Difficulties Encountered
No major difficulties have been encountered.
Costs
Costs of the transfer have not been calculated, but they
are minimal. Such costs would include staff time in
negotiating with the State of Alaska, severence pay to
employees terminated, and time spent in consultation with
village governments.
Benefits
The transfer of 17 day schools to the State in FY 1982 has
benefitted the government by $5.9 million; that is, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs did not have to request that
amount of funding in its FY 1983 budget. Because of the
1982 action the Bureau of Indian Affairs has 17 fewer day
schools in Alaska to administer in FY 1983.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Results
The Bureau of Indian Affairs' day schools were
.successfully transferred to the State of Alaska with a
probable transfer of the remaining 20 day schools
anticipated.
The transfer of the day schools from federal jurisdiction
to the State of Alaska is in accordance with the State's
identified responsibilities for educating all citizens in
the State of Alaska.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
10. Office of Surface Mining Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining
(OSM)
Structure Change
OSM reduced its number of field offices from 42 to 22 in
conjunction with the aggressive OSM program of
transferring the mined land inspection authority to the
states.
Objective
Transfer inspection authority to states with approved
inspection programs and consolidate and streamline the
field structure to carry out the lessening on-site role
of the federal government.
Motivation
Reduce role of federal government in on-site inspection
of mined lands in states with approved inspection
programs. Also, create an appropriate field organization
that will better enable OSM to implement the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA.) and thus
provide technical assistance for, and oversight of, the
state programs and inspections for those few states
without approved programs.
Time Elapsed
1977 - The SMCRA was enacted.
1981 - The first of the current 24 states assumed
inspection responsibility. The reorganization was
initiated in conjunction with the changing roles
of the OSM and the state governments.
1982 - The new field structure is fully operational.
Only a few states have not assumed responsibility
for mined land inspection.
Implementing Mechanism
Secretary's Order 3065 of 1981 implemented the
realinement and reassignment of certain functions and
responsibilities in OSM. The enactment of SMCRA of 1977
created OSM with the responsibility of ensuring that the
nation's increased use of coal would not result in
unnecessary degradation of-its land and water resources.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Difficulties Encountered
Problem experienced with the transfer of authority.
o Assuring that state reclamation agencies have
adequate staff and resources to carry out an
effective program.
Problem experienced with the reorganization of the field
structure.
o Employee morale concerns due to transfers and other
job actions.
Costs
The reorganization of the field structure was the primary
mechanism to help bring about the'successful transfer.of
authority to the states. The cost of implementing'the
reorganization was $2.4 million, through FY 1982..
Benefits
At the end of FY 82 the savings were $6.1 million in
personnel, facilities, equipment, travel, etc., and a 40
percent reduction in authorized OSM field positions.
Results
The reorganization has been successfully implemented and
the states are being provided improved support for their
mined land inspection program. The reorganization has
been a key component in transferring responsibility to
the states.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
11. Fish and Wildlife Service Case Study
Organization
Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Structure Change
Closure/transfer of 20 of 89 fish batcheries in FY 83;
twenty-four additional hatcheries proposed for
closure/transfer in FY 84 subject to Congressional
approval.
Objective
Reduce duplication of state and Federal activities by
closing/transferring hatcheries contributing more than
half of their production to water owned or managed by
states.
Motivation
Desire to reduce the budget.
Time Elapsed
Proposal was presented as early as ten years ago.
Significant action began in FY 82; now ongoing.
Implementing Mechanism
FY 83 budget.
Difficulties Encountered
Issue of closing/transferring some hatcheries has become
politically sensitive both'at the.Congressional and local
levels. For example, 31 hatcheries were proposed for
closure/transfer in FY 83. Congress reduced the number
to 20.
Closure costs of f1.7 million projected for FY 83; $1.6
million for FY 84.
Cost savings of $1.9 million projected for FY 83; $1.6
million for FY 84.
Five have now been transferred to the states, two to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Negotiations with the states
are ongoing for the remainder.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Comments - States have been given the opportunity to
assume the operation of hatcheries that the Federal
government has proposed to close. Efforts will now be
focused on the remaining national hatcheries on high
priority Federal fishery responsibilities.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
12. Office of the Solicitor Case Study
Organization
Department the of Interior, Office of the Solicitor
Structure Change
Reorganization of field structure
Objective
To improve upon the utilization of resources within the
Solicitor's Office and provide better legal service to
client agencies.
Motivation
Congressional Appropriation Reduction
Time Elapsed
Starting date: January 1983
Completion date: May 2, 1983 (implementation)
Implementatiog Mechanism
Chapter III, Departmental Manual, 3/1/83
Difficulties Encountered
No major difficulties.
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
Lowered overall costs and provide better legal services
to client agencies.
Results
Closing of six offices and opening one.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
13. Fish and Wildlife Service Case Study
Organization
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Structure Change
Reduced the number of law enforcement districts from 12
to 7.
Objective
To make law enforcement districts coincident with
regional boundaries.
Motivation
Improve supervision and coordination.
Time Elapsed
Completed at end of FY 82.
Implementin Mechanism
Director's memorandum
Difficulties Encountered
No specific difficulties were encountered. The public
was informed of the move.
Costs
Data on dollar costs is not available.
Benefits
The span of supervision was tightened and the number of
upper level managers was reduced.
Results
The force is now smaller. The 12 districts were set up
to accommodate 240 agents. Now with 7 districts this has
been reduced to 200 agents.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
14. Administration for Native Americans Case Study
Background
The Administration for Native Americans within the Office
of Human Development Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, represents the concerns of American
Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians. The
Administration has primary responsibility for developing
policy, legislative proposals and guidance on matters
involving the social and economic development of Native
Americans. The Administration carries out its functions
by awarding grants and interacting with other components
of Health and Human Services and with other Federal
agencies to identify ways to promote the social and
economic well-being of Native Americans.
Administration for Native Americans programs and policies
foster a balanced developmental approach at the community
level. through three major goals:
o To develop or strengthen tribal governments, local
decision-making and Native American leadership
o To encourage development of stable, diversified
local economies or economic activities which
provide jobs, promote economic well-being and
reduce dependency on welfare services
o To support local control and/or access to and
coordination of programs and services which
safeguard the health and well-being of people and
which are essential to a thriving and self-
sufficient community.
Prior to December 1981, the Administration had ten
regional offices located in the ten standard regional
headquarters cities. (Please note that the Department of
Health and Human Services operates under the standard
regional structure of OMB Circular A-105.) These offices
were responsible primarily for making grant award
decisions for non-Federally-recognized tribes and groups.
Headquarters staff retained the authority for making
award decisions for Federally-recognized tribes and
groups.
Organizational Change
In December 1981, in response to a review of full-time
equivalents resources for the Office of Human Development
Services and program management considerations, the
Secretary approved a reorganization of the regional
structure which:
o Assigned all functions of Regions I - VIII to
headquarters, and
o Transferred the functions of Region IX to Region X
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
The result is that the Administration has one regional
office located in Seattle. The regional office staff
represent the interests of Native Americans in that
region and Region IX, and report to the Regional
Administrator for Human Development Services. Seattle
staff are authorized to make grant award decisions for
grants to non-Federally-recognized tribes and groups
throughout Regons IX and X and to Federally-recognized
tribes or groups in Alaska. Headquarters.staff retains
the authority to award grants to Federally-recognized
tribes or groups, nationwide, except in Alaska, and to
non-Federally-recognized tribes or groups outside Regions
IX and X. In the view of the program, this approach best
satisfies the need to ensure nationwide consistency of
program operations and serve effectively the
concentrations of Native Americans in the western states.
Effect of Change in Personnel
In addition to realining functions, the reorganization
reduced staffing in the regional offices and reduced the
headquarters staff.
Staffing prior Staffing after
to transfer transfer
Headquarters 55 41
Regions (I-IX) 9 0
Region X 2 4 (in Seattle,
serving
Regions IX
and X)
Result of Reorganization
The reorganization has produced a smaller overall staff
located primarily at one site (headquarters) to insure
uniformity of policy and procedures, with a smaller field
staff to serve populations concentrated in the regions.
TransferabilitV to Other Agencies
The reorganization of the Administration for Native
Americans is a potential model for replication by other
agencies with a client population which is concentrated
in particular regions. For Health and Human Services,
the reorganization consolidated many small offices into
one headquarters-administered operation and left a field
office to respond to the largest client populations to be
served.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
15. Health Care Financing Administration Case Study
Since the inception of the Medicare Program in 1966,
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department
of Health and Human Services, has contracted out claims
processing operations to the private sector. The
decision to contract out rather than develop an in-house
operation was primarily because the function was already
being. performed by the private sector. HCFA, recognizing
that the expertise could not be found in the Federal
government, contracted the function out to insurance
corporations. The present statute states that the claims
processing function will be contracted out on a non-
competitive bid. Approximately 20,000 contractor
employees perform the duties, which are mostly systems
oriented, since the operation is highly automated. Two
hundred million claims will probably be processed this
year and an estimated 230 million are expected for 1983.
HCFA continues to oversee the claims processing operation
through development of policy, regulations, operating and
procurement practices, and elimination of high priced
insurance corporations. HCFA'.s present budget is 800
million dollars.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
16. Use of New Technology Case Study
Organization
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation
Structure Change
Enhanced automation of terminal air traffic control
Objective
Maintaining a high level of safety while improving
productivity and efficiency; reducing the need for
additional positions and minimizing FAA operations costs.
Motivation
Stabilize or decrease staffing levels; 1981 controllers'
strike; planning emphasis from management
Time Elapsed
Starting date: 1970's
Completion date: 2000
Difficulties Encountered (Constraints)
Yearly budget cycle, computer approvals.
Costs
Computers, systems analysis, direct radar access radar
channel, automated radar tracking systems, electronic
tabular displays, advanced automation, direct user
access.
Benefits
Improved productivity
Savings
Savings are a result of a combination of office overhead
reduction and automation
1985 - 100 positions due to utilization of Direct
Access Radar Channels or computer display
backup (DARC)
- 70 positions as a result of installing
Automated Radar Tracking Systems (ARTS II A)
1986-1992 - 1100 positions savings from model two Flight
Service Station Automation
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
1990 - 800 positions due to electronic tabular
display of flight data
1992-2000 - 2500 positions from advanced automation and
automated enroute air traffic control (AERA)
Sources: Air Traffic, Airway Facility and Advanced
Automation personnel and the FAA National Airspace System
Plan, April 1983.
Return on the Investment
As a result of these planned actions, an upgraded en
route air traffic control system will have been
implemented. This will serve as the basis for
significant improvements in air safety and will provide
the reliability and flexibility necessary for further
automation. These system improvements will allow for
some reductions in maintenance staffing and a 'substantial
decrease in the number of air traffic controllers.
Field Employment
During the next 20 years, the en route system will
undergo changes in hardware, software, and plant
improvement. That will reduce both Air Traffic personnel
requirements. by 63 percent and Airway Facilities
personnel requirements at FAA field facilities by 49
percent by the year 2000.
Summary of Facility Changes
1981 - Present Airway Facilities (AF) and Air Traffic
(AT) employment for 207 facilities require a total of
13,649 people.
1985 - Consumption will be reduced by changeover of
facilities from tube-type to solid-state devices and by
facility consolidation.
1990 - Air Traffic employment will decrease to 9,300
because of conversion to a host computer, enhancement of
direct access radar channel (DARC), and transfer of 2P
nonradar approach control facility functions to air route
traffic control centers. Airway Facilities employment
will decrease slightly due to input/output device
automation hardware improvements and removal of broadband
radar equipment,. Changeover of facilities from tube-type
to solid-state and facility consolidation will continue.
Also, plant equipment will be improved. Thus, a total AT
and AF work force of 5,337 will be required to operate
and support 1,275 facilities.
2000 - Further reductions occur due to final system
improvements.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
17. Health Care Financing Administration Case Study
The responsibility for the certification of hospitals or
clinics involved with the Medicare Program was contracted
out to states by Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, in 1966,
the start of the program. States already do their own
certification of service providers. The Federal
government provides the states with Federal regulations,
requirements and policies to conduct Federal surveys.
Section 1864 of the Social Security Act establishes
survey procedures. There are two parts to the survey:
1) states conduct a survey of the medical facilities and
make a recommendation of compliance for certification,
and 2) HCFA regional offices review the recommendation
and make a decision for certification. States do not
have the authority to certify but generally 99 precent of
all recommendations are accepted by the regional offices.
Surveys are conducted annually to review safety
requirements for staffing, quality of care and
facilities. HCFA does have the authority to review and
override any recommendation of a facility made by the
state. HCFA does not incur the full cost because the
state is doing the surveys anyway.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
18. New Technology Case Study
Organization
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department
of Health and Human Services.
Structural change
Installation of teleconferencing capability.
Objective/Motivation
The need to reduce administrative costs but maintain
mission effectiveness; explored concept of
teleconferencing.
Time Elapsed
Starting-date: February 1982
Completion date: June 1982
Difficulties (Constraints) Encountered
No major difficulties.
Costs
Installation and construction costs to prepare sites for
teleconferencing are nonrecurring costs and were
amortized over the life of the system, 60 months.
Construction costs: $21,413
Installation costs: 10,305
Total $31,718
$31,718 amortized over 60 months equals $528
No additional personnel costs were incurred
a month.
since HCFA
utilized
existing personnel.
Costs to date:
Construction and Installation
Equipment Losses:
Total
Benefits
S 4,224 amortized
92,397
$96,621
Savings
$125,000
Travel costs savings
(transportation and
per diem expenses)
000
+100
Productivity savings
(salaries of managers
,
$225,000
Total Savings
on travel)
- 96,000
Total Expenditures
$129,000
Net Savings
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Other benefits realized by HCFA:
o 5.14 percent reduction in travel expenditures;
o increased productivity as a result of the man-hours
of travel time and papework eliminated annually;
o a cost-effective, efficient and timely means of
disseminating information throughout HCFA;
o reduction of workflow disruption due to travel;
o energy conservation as a result of a decrease in
travel;
o opportunity for increased attendance at meetings;
and
o elimination of safety hazards due to travel
displacement.
Use of HCFA's Teleconferencing System
Total Calls Total Hours
Demonstrations
and Training
Month
DC Regions Total DC
Regions Total
Sessions
February
13
14
27
13
16
30
10
March
30
19
49
22
20.
43
19
April
7
16
23
8
18
26
3
May
3
19
22
2
22
24
1
June
3
15
18
4
17
20
0
July
16
25
41
18
33
51
5
August
22
41
63
28
43
70
6
September
25
32
57
38
37
75
12
Total
119
181
300
1-33
206
339
56
The above
information
portrayed
graphically
is as
follows:
HRS
80
70
40-
30-
20-
10-
1 F - M A
r--- . Total hours per month
J J - A
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
One of HCFA's goals is to reach an average system usage
of 4 hours per day. The following data indicates their
progress toward realization of this goal.
Av. Hrs.
Month Business Days/Mo. Hrs. Usage/Mo. Usage/Day
February 16* 30 1.9
March 23 43 1.9
April 22 26 1.2
May 20 24 1.2
June 22 20 .9
July 21 51 2.4
August 22 70 3.2
September 21 75 3.6
*Based on an initial system usage date of February 4, 1982.
Installation of the regional office equipment was not
completed until June 7, 1982. It is noteworthy that
system usage in the three succeeding months increased
significantly. In addition, the Washington, D.C.,
teleconferencing room was moved, upgraded, and officially
available for use on August 15, 1982..
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
19. Maritime Administration Case Study
Organization
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation
Structural change
Consolidation and centralization of offices and
activities
Date
1982
Description
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has taken various
actions to consolidate or centralize offices and
activities to increase the efficiency of the
organization. Consolidation of Western Region area
office functions provided salary savings and savings from
reductions in office space, utilities, and administration
overhead totalling $195,000 annually. Centralization of
ship operations activities in Washington, D.C. saved
three positions and $120,000 annually. Reduction of
.overhead regional staffing through reorganization of
regional headquarters and consolidation of deputy region
director functions provided an additional annual savings
of $290,000. Centralization of MARAD's administrative
activities from the regions into its Washington, D.C.
headquarters allowed cost savings of $749,000 annually
without adverse affect on the organization's ability to
.carry out its mission or services to the public. Savings
from these consolidations total $1.35 million annually.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
20. Maritime Administration Case Study
Organization
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation
Structural change
Transfer of Radar Training Schools to non-Federal
operation
Date
June 12, 1982
(Potential) Impact
At the beginning of FY-1982, MARAD operated-radar
training schools in New York, City, Toledo, New Orleans,
San.Francisco and Seattle. The schools provided'radar
and other navigational safety training to U. S. Merchant
seamen.
In support of the President's program to reduce Federal
spending and to return services and functions to more
appropriate state, local or private control, and as part
of meeting 1982 ceiling reductions, MARAD transferred the
operation of its radar schools to non-Federal
organizations. Dollar benefits include the savings of
salaries and benefits, and other operating and
replacement costs.
Savings Realized or Anticipated
$875,000 annually
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
21. Federal Railroad Administration Case Study
Organization
Federal Railroad Administration, Department of
Transportation
Structural change
Transfer of management of the Pueblo test facility to
private sector
Date
1980 - 1982
Description
The Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado, was
managed by the Federal Railroad Administration for the
testing and evaluation of railroad car and railroad track
designs. This test facility was transferred to the
Association of American Railroads in October 1982. The
transfer resulted in the reduction of personnel from 45
employees to one employee at a cost savings of $1.5
million.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
D. Interviews
Interviews were conducted by Sub-group members and staff as
follows:
Agency/Management Official Date
Small Business Administration
Bob Turnbull
Association Deputy Administrator
for Resource Management
Department of Energy
Harry Peebles
Deputy Director for Administration
Department of Justice
Kevin D. Rooney
Assistant Attorney General
for Administration
Veterans Administration
Dennis M. Kenneally
Associate Deputy Administrator
for Administration
Department of Education
Charles L. Heatherly
.Deputy Undersecretary for
'Management
Department of Labor
Betty Bolden
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Administration and
Management
Corps of Engineers
General Heiberg, Deputy Chief
of Engineers
General Albro, Deputy Chief
of Engineers, designate
Col. Tener, Chief, Resources
Management
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Ann P. Bradley
Acting Associate Administrator
for Management
Department of the Treasury 4/29
Cora P. Beebe
Assistant Secretary for
Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
E. Agency Data
Data submissions and/or descriptions of field structure
and actions to streamline field structures taken in
response to budget reductions were received from the
following agencies:
Department
of
Health and Human Services
Department
of
Agriculture
Department
of
the Treasury
Department
of
the Interior
Department
of
Transportation
Department
of
Justice
Corps of Engineers
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Small Business Administration
Department of Education
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
REPORT OF THE
COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TEAM
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE WORKING GROUP
Chaired by
Arlene Triplett
Assistant Secretary for Administration
Department of Commerce
July 1983
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Administration
Washington, O.C. 20230
AUG 4 1993
Gerald Carmen
Administrator
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
Thank you i it inviting me to participate in the Cabinet Council
on Management and Administration's Federal Field Structure Study
and for asking me to Chair the Interagency Task Team on Common
Administrative Services. The assignment was most challenging and
I hope we have contributed by presenting information that will be
useful in supporting actions to cut costs and improve program
delivery by the Federal Field Structure.
We look forw4rd to providing whatever additional assistance is
appropriate as you proceed with implementation actions reflected
in this report of the Common Administrative Services Team.
Sincerely,
Q.A.u, /~y/~zc
Arlene Triplett
Assistant Secretary
for Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Page
Introduction
1
Findings
2
General
2
Personnel
6
Procurement
8
Administrative Payments
11
Administrative Services
13
Recommendations
15
Appendices
19
Background, Methodology, and Caveats
20
Agency Contacts for Data Collection
28
Definitions, Key Terms, and Questionnaire
30
Data Validation Memorandum
66
Administrative Services - Previous Initiatives
67
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
In March, 1983, the Cabinet Council on Management and Administra-
tion (CCMA) established a Federal Field Structure Working Group,
chaired by GSA Administrator Gerald Carmen, to review policies,
legislation, current practices and resources of Federal Field
organizations. Based on this review, the Working Group was to
develop policy options and propose actions which would result in
cost savings and improvements in service delivery.
Three Interagency Task Teams were created to carry out this
review:
o Organization and Staffing - directed by Charles S.
Davis III, Associate Administrator for Policy and
Management, GSA;
o Policy - directed by James Kelly, Deputy Associate Director
for Management Reform, OMB; and
o Common Administrative Services - directed by Arlene
Triplett, Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department
of Commerce.
This report describes the study of common administrative
services directed by Mrs. Triplett. It summarizes the major
findings and presents recommendations for future actions. A
brief description of the background of this project, the
methodology, and caveats are included as Attachment A.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Administrative support, broadly defined, encompasses a
substantial portion of total field employment. Data reported by
the Agencies, supplemented by information obtained.from the
Office of Personnel Management, indicated that there are over
220,000 employees engaged in various common administrative
services (See Table 1). These employees are clustered in several
States and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).
This study focused primarily on four areas - personnel,
procurement, administrative payments, and administrative
services. These four functions represent 42$ of the total (See
Table 2).
Provision of common administrative services within Departments
is the exception rather than the rule. Operating components
within Departments have established separate administrative
fiefdoms that operate in isolation from other parts of the
government and even from other parts of their own Department.
This often results in considerable inefficiency in the delivery
of administrative support.
Many cities serve as multiple sites for the provision of
personnel services, procurement support, and payments of
administrative transactions (See Table 3).
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Function
Number of
Employees Total
Number of
Employees Field
Personnel
13,367
8,599
Procurement/Supply
10,497
7,860
Finance/Budgeting
25,271
16,939
Information/Data Systems
44,863
26,797
Property
5,289
4,939
L
Transportation
6,432
5,598
1
Communications
25,509
10,504
Legal
36,211
26,915
General Services
35,026
35,354
Office/Clerical Support
109,967
76,671
312,432
220,176
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Function
Number of
Offices
Number of
Employees
Administrative Services
1,287
76,910
Administrative Payments
192
2,705
Personnel
869
8,901
Procurement
515-----
4,478
TOTAL
2,863.
92,994
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
0.
Function > 1 Office 74 Offices 79 Offices 714 Offices
PC -T Sol IIlc 1 90 24 6
9`
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
There are more than 90 cities in the country with two or more
servicing personnel offices. There are 65 cities with two or
more procurement offices (with more than $10,000 authority).
Five Departments have twenty or more administrative payments
offices. In Portland, Oregon there are 18 personnel offices and
12 procurement offices. In the Denver area there are 27
personnel offices, 24 procurement offices, and 18 payment offices
-- 69 support offices in total.
There are economies of scale in the delivery of administrative
support. The data clearly show that larger offices are more
efficient. There is a strong correlation between level of
productivity and the size of the personnel, procurement, or
payments office. The following analyses of each of these
functional activities clearly illustrate this point.
In the Departments surveyed, there are almost 9,000 personnelists
in almost 900 offices servicing over 500,000 Federal employees
around the country. In FY 1982, they processed more than 140,000
accession actions. Information was analyzed by Department, by
operating component'therein, and by State. As Table 4 shows,
there is a direct correlation between the size of a personnel
office and its relative efficiency. Those offices that serve
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Employees
No. of
No. of
Average No. of
Employees Serviced
Served
Offices
Personnelists
Per Personnelist
1- 250
485
1,239
36
250- 750
216
1,871
48
750-1,500
72
1,434
53
1,500-3,000
57
1,787
70
3,000+
39
2,570
75
TOTAL
869
8,901.
- 59
Proposed Standard - Since approximately 50% of the Government
Personnelists service an average of 70 to 75 employees, a ratio of 1:72
would seem reasonable as a proposed standard.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
between 1,500 and 3,000 Federal employees are almost twice as
efficient as those that serve less than 250 employees. While the
government-wide average of employees serviced per personnelist is
59 to'1, there are more than 750 offices that fail to meet this
standard. However, there are almost 100 that surpass it by a
substantial amount. Those offices that have achieved a "critical
mass" of more than 1,500 employees serviced operate at a much
higher level of productivity. If a ratio of 72 to 1 were-adopted
as a minimum standard - and it seems that this is readily
achievable - and all servicing personnel offices were required to
meet this standard, the Federal government could save nearly
1,700 personnel positions and approximately $42,000,000.(Note:
assumes average salary, benefits, and overhead of $25,000 per
year per employee).
PROCUREMENT
There are almost 4,500 procurement employees in over 500 offices
around the country. In FY 1982, they processed 2 million
actions - almost $1.5 billion in small purchases and almost
$15 billion in contracts ($10,000 and above). Once again the
data indicated that the larger offices were more efficient (See
Tables 5 and 6). Those offices that processed more than 1,000
small purchases were seven times more efficient than those that
did less than 500 small purchases. Those offices that process
more than 2,500 small purchases were more than twenty times more
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
PROCUREMENT SERVICES
(Contracts)
Average No. of
Number of
No. of
No. of
Contracts Processed
Contracts
Offices
Employees
Per Contract Specialist
0- 25
261
288
7
26- 50
59
145
15
51-200
134
536
24
201-250
13 -
85
34
251+
51
1,051
45
TOTAL
515
2,105
Proposed Standard - Since over 50% of the employees currently process 45
contracts per year, a ratio of 1:45 would appear to be a reasonable
target.
PROCUREMENT SERVICES
(Small Purchases)
Number of
No. of
No. of
Average No. of
Small Purchases Processed
Small Purchases
Offices
Employees
Per Purchasing Agent
0- 500
142
450
50
501-1,000
87
365
175
1,001-1,750
83
299
374
1,751-2,500
53
185
607
2,501+
150
1,075
1,045
515
2,373
Proposed Standard - Since approximately 50% of the employees process in
excess of 1,000 transactions per year, a ratio of 1:1,000 seems
achievable.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
efficient than the smallest offices. The same situation applies
in handling contracts ($10,000 and above). Those offices
handling more than 50 contracts or contract amendments were more
than three times more efficient than those that processed less
than 25. The largest offices, those that handled more than 250
contracts per year, were more than six times more efficient than
the smallest ones.
The government-wide average of contracts processed per
procurement specialist is 32 to 1. More than 450 offices fail to
meet this standard. However, the 64 offices that meet or exceed
the average contain just about half the contract officers in the
country. Similarly, for small purchases, over 300. offices fail
to reach the government-wide average of 606 purchases per
procurement specialist. But over 200 offices meet or surpass
this average; and almost half the purchasing agents exceed the
average by more than 60 percent.
The fact that so many procurement staffers are functioning at
levels far higher than the mean argues for setting the standard
at this level - 45 contracts or contract amendments per year per
contract specialist and 1,000 small purchases per purchasing
agent. If these ratios were adopted as minimum standards and all
contracting offices were required to meet them, the Federal
government could save almost 1,600 procurement positions and
approximately $39,600,000.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Almost 200 administrative payments offices, with more than 2,700
employees, make various kinds of payments to vendors for travel,
transportation, utility, and small purchase transactions around
the country. In FY 1982, these offices made 5 million payments
for a total of $13 billion.
An economy of scale factor also exists in the administrative
payments area. Those offices that process over 50,000
transactions per year are on the average more than three times as
efficient as those that process from 1 to 20,000 (See Table 7).
These offices clearly demonstrate the benefits that can accrue
through the use of automated systems and streamlined processes.
With a standard of 2,400 payments per employee, a norm that is
currently being exceeded by,at least 20 offices, the Federal
government can save about 1,000 positions and approximately
$25,000,000 per year. This should be established as an immediate
objective. A longer-range goal of 3,000 payments per employee is
demonstrately attainable through enhanced systems.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Transactions
Offices
Employees
Payments Processed
Per Employee
1- 5,000
98
389
495
5,001- 20,000
56
692
948
20,001- 50,000
21
533
1,306
50,001-250,000
15
611
2,299
250,001+
1
480
4,358
TOTAL
191
2,705.
1,864
Proposed Standard - Since there are now at least 20 offices annually
exceeding 2,400 payments per employee and some by a larger number, it
appears tjtat a ratio of 1:2,400 would be fully reasonable. This
standard may be raised to three to four thousand as soon as automated
processes are implemented.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Administrative Services is a broad area that encompasses many of
the specific functions carried out by the General Services
Administration (GSA). The area included five sub-functions:
supply, property, transportation, communications, and general
services (See Table 8).
There are over 75,000 administrative services personnel in almost
1300 offices serving Federal employees around the country. A
full review should be conducted of the Administrative Services
area to determine current productivity, identify specific
problems, and recommend solutions. Performance standards and
output indicators like those for personnel, procurement, and
payments should be developed. The opportunities for savings in
this may be even larger than the other areas reviewed in this
report.
The evidence from this study is very strong. There are major
opportunities for substantial savings in administrative support
activities in the Federal Field Structure. By applying realistic
performance standards and establishing common support
arrangements for field activities, the Federal Government can
dramatically reduce unnecessary and duplicative overhead and
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
No. of
Function
Employees
024
4
Supply
Property
,
4,922
Tansportation
6,346
Communications
14,072
General Services
47,546
76,910
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
support costs. In the functional areas reviewed there is an
opportunity for savings of over 4,300 positions and $107,000,000
at the minimum. These figures do not include such additional
overhead as telephone charges, travel, or space. Moreover, the
three areas reviewed represent a small portion of the total
administrative staffs in the field. There is reason to assume
that opportunities exist for even larger savings in other
administrative functions.
The standards suggested are realistic and attainable. Many
offices and support personnel are already functioning at or
above these levels. It is an opportunity to achieve major
savings by emulating good practices that exist in many parts of
the field structure.
Based on the findings from the review, the following specific
recommendations are offered:
o That an Executive Order or Presidential memorandum on
Federal field structure-be issued, enunciating the
Administration's policies, goals, and objectives;
o That a CCMA directive be sent to the heads of Departments,
requiring the study of agency field structures against
-15-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
established criteria. Every Cabinet officer would be asked
to initiate immediately a zero-based review of their
administrative field structure;
o That the standards noted earlier be adopted as government-
wide minimums and all servicing offices be required to meet
them. These standards are:
- One personnelist for every 72 employees;
- One contract employee for every 45 contracts (over
$10,000) or contract amendments;
One contract employee for every 1,000 small purchases
(under $10,000); and
- One employee for every 2,400 administrative payments
processed.
o That the head of each Department review its administrative
field structure and submit the study results and an action
plan to implement needed changes to the Cabinet Council on
Management and Administration (CCMA) by October 15, 1983.
To assist them in this effort, each Department will be
provided with their portion of the data gathered in this
review and the current status of their Department against
the new standards;
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
o That a CCMA-directed interagency study be undertaken of
common administrative support services. This study would be
designed to identify existing successes which could be
expanded to serve as Pilot Administrative Support Centers
(ASCs). These prototype ASCs would be created to
demonstrate the advantages of shared services and the
savings from economies of scale. The prototypes would be
small, established quickly, built on existing organizations,
host-operated, and evaluated at the earliest practical time.
Several alternative structures exist.
- Functional - Provide procurement services to all field
installations in a designated geographic area. Build
around a strong existing office;
- Organizational - Require one or more decentralized
Departments, which currently provide administrative
support from many, locations, to consolidate such
support to all Departmental employees in a specified
geographical area;
- Geographical - Departments with functioning Centers
which provide the full complement of services could
provide administrative support for other Federal
entities within a specified region; and
Such Centers should be established by April 1, 1984.
--7-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
o That a full review should be undertaken of the
Administrative Services functions not covered in this study.
If these initiatives are to succeed, it will require a committed
and coordinated effort on the part of the Executive Branch and
the Congress. These are initiatives that can result in major
savings and improved service without affecting program delivery
or requiring the closing of field offices. We cannot afford to
miss such a unique opportunity to improve management across the
Federal government.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
At the present time, administrative support in the field is being
provided in a fragmented manner - Department by Department and,
in many cases, separately for each organizational component of a
Department.- In some large decentralized Departments,'for
example, there are scores of field offices with delegated
procurement or personnel authority. This results in numerous
metropolitan areas in the nation with more than one Federal
service office. While such arrangements may serve Departmental
or Bureau needs, service is being provided at a high cost in
terms of efficient uae of resources.
At the other extreme, administrative support for field employees
in some,Departments comes largely from Headquarters' units in the
National, Capital Region. Personnel actions, space requests, and
procurement documents are prepared in the field and sent to
Headquarters for review, approval, and processing. This
occasionally results in long delays, difficulties in resolving
questions, communications problems -- poor service to Federal
employees in the field.
Finally, some Departments have taken steps to share or combine
administrative support systems. The Department of Health and
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Human Services provides regionally centralized administrative
support services through Regional Administrative Support Centers
located in the ten designated regional headquarters' cities.
Within the Department of Agriculture, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has consolidated administrative operations at
a Field Servicing Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Cross-
servicing arrangements exist within (and between) several
Departments. For example, the Bureau of Mines in the Department
of Interior provides support to the Fish and Wildlife Service to
operate its financial management information system.
The study began with an intensive "scoping" phase to define key
terms, narrow the focus of the review, and develop a data
instrument. The data gathering effort included the following
Departments which have the largest field structures:
Defense (civilian only)
Veterans Administration
Health and Human Services
Agriculture
Treasury
Interior
Transportation
Justice
Corps of Engineers
General Services Administration
NASA
Commerce
Labor
Energy
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
No response was received from the Veterans Administration. The
Defense Department and the Corps of Engineers data were excluded
from the study. Thus, information was received from only 13
Departments. These Departments constitute 25% of total executive
branch civilian employment in the field.
Information was gathered on four administrative functions
(detailed definitions may be found'in Attachment C):
Administrative Payments
Procurement
Personnel
Administrative Services
A number of other administrative functions were reviewed but
excluded from this study. These included budget, management
analysis, payroll and personnel systems, planning and evaluation,
information management (ADP), public affairs, congressional
affairs, general counsel, executive secretariat, and others
(e.g., special assistant, administrative assistant, etc.). The
criteria applied in making the determination about inclusion
Cost/benefit (i.e., where did there appear to be the
greatest potential for integration, consolidation, or
coordination);
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Ease of definition (i.e., could the function be specifically
defined);
Is the function currently being performed on a
cross-servicing basis;
Is the function too closely related to program management;
and
Is the function already being reviewed by another group with
a view toward greater centralization/consolidation (e.g.,
Reform 88 review of payroll/personnel systems and OMB/JCP study
of printing and duplicating).
Key terms and administrative functions were defined and a
questionnaire was drafted. These were discussed with designated
contacts from each, Agency participating in the study (See,
Attachment B). After a series of one-on-one meetings over a
three day period in early April, the definitions and the
questionnaire were revised and reviewed by the overall Working
Group and by the Assistant Secretaries for Administration of the
affected Departments. On Monday, April 11, the final versions
were delivered to the Departmental contacts and the data
collection effort began. A copy of the questionnaire,
definitions for key terms and administrative functions, and the
timetable for the study are included as Attachment C.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Data was collected in four categories:
1. Summary information on the number of offices and employees
at each level (i.e., headquarters, region, area, etc.);
2. Number of employees by specific occupational series for
selected administrative areas;
3._ Detailed information on the four administrative functions
noted earlier; and
4. A narrative description of mechanisms for sharing or
combining administrative support functions.
In the course of the analysis, several specific data units
were dropped from the study data base. This was done if there
were problems with the data that could not be resolved by the
Agency contact in the limited time allowed.
In early May, a draft version of this report was. submitted to the
.chairman, Gerald Carmen, for his use in a presentation to the
CCMA. That briefing was conducted on May 12, 1983. On June 20,
Mr. Carmen made another presentation to the CCMA with the
President in attendance. At the request of the CCMA, Departments
were asked to validate the information previously submitted (See
Attachment D). Additional information in the procurement area
was requested at the same time. This report is based on the data
reviewed and validated by the Departments themselves.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
In earlier sections, we have described the Departments surveyed,
the functions reviewed, and the methodology. It might be useful
to note certain important consequences of our approach:
o The study defined the "field" as sites and employees within
the 50 States but outside the National Capital Region (NCR).
Therefore, it excluded Regional offices that are located
inside the NCR - for example, the GSA National Capital
Region office.
-o The study included Headquarters units of Departmental
operating components that are located outside the NCR - for
example, the Social Security Administration in Baltimore,
Maryland.
o The questionniare requested information on field
administrative support units and employees located in the
field. It excluded offices located in the NCR that provide
administrative support to,the field.
o Thresholds were set in certain areas. For example, on the
procurement questionnaire, Departments were asked to report
only offices with procurement authority of $10,000 and
above. The Department c~ Agriculture, which reported over
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
200 procurement offices with delegated authority of $10,000
or more, indicated that there are anywhere between 1,500 and
2,000 offices with some procurement authority. The
Deparment of Transportation noted a similar situation.
o No information was included from the Department of Defense,
the Veterans Administration or the Corps of Engineers, which
together account for over 1,000,000 civilian employees in-
the field.
o The Departments of Transportation and Energy did not provide
the additional information requested in the procurement
area.
o The study excluded areas such as payroll/personnel systems
and printing/duplicating which are under separate review.
Preliminary reports indicate similar findings in these,
studies. The OMB/JCP study revealed more than 2,000
individual printing and duplicating sites around the
country. The Reform 88 study of payroll and personnel
systems found almost 100 such systems.
One final point should be made. Information was assembled in a
very short period of time. Most Departments had less than two
weeks to prepare their responses. While we attempted to request
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
data that we felt would be available, many Departments had
difficulty with our request. The Departments - and the employees
who worked on this study - deserve recognition for producing the
information requested under tremendous pressure and within a
brief timeframe.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT B
4/83
INFORMATION
ADDRESS &
CONTACT
PHONE NO.
Defense
.Dr. Robert Rauner
Pentagon
Director, Office of
Room 3D968
Economic Adjustment
697-9155
HHS
Gary Arnold
HHS Building
Director, Office.of
Room 522E
Management Control
245-6501
Agriculture
Liz Boyd
Auditor Bldg.
Management Analyst
Room 3132
Office of Finance
382-1170
and Management
Treasury
John Garmat
Main Treasury
Acting Director, Office of
Room 4406
Management and Organization
566-6636
Interior
Howard Holbert
18th & C St.
Fish & Wildlife Service
Room 3349
Division of Finance
343-8991
Transportation
Norm Bowles
400 7th St.
Acting Chief, Aviation and
Room 10320
Research Division
Office of Management Planning
NASA
Tony Moscato
Director, Evaluation Staff
Pete Lee
GSA Liaison for
Field Study
David Hornestay
Chief, Institutional Planning
and Evaluation Branch
Joseph Cocco
Management Analyst
Office of Position Management
and Classification
426-4756
Home Owners
Loan Corp.
Building
Room 1052
272-6265
18th & F St.
Room 3101
566-1054
400 Maryland
Ave., SW
Room 5007
755-3960
Main Labor
Building
Room N-5456
523-6609
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Page 2
DEPARTMENT
INFORMATION
CONTACT
ADDRESS &
PHONE NO.
Energy
Jack Lopez
Forrestal Blg.
Budget Analyst
Room 4A178
Office of the Controller
252-4038
HUD
Dennis Geer
7th & D.
St.
Acting Director, Adminis-
Room 5168
trative Services
755-5123
Education
Bill Keough
Office of Regional Liaison
FOB 6
Room 4155
245-8787
Commerce
Kay Bulow
Herbert Hoover
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bldg. Rm. 5830
for Administration
377-4951
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
DEFINITIONS, KEY TERMS, AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
8 APR 1983
Dear Colleague:
Thank you for your participation in the Cabinet Council on
Management and Administration's Federal Field Study.
Attached are the final study plan and data instruments for'the
study. They have been revised based on the discussions we've
had over the last, two days with members of your staff. We need
data in four categories:
1. Summary information on the number of offices and employees
at each level (i.e., headquarters, region, area, etc.);
2. Number of employees by specific occupational series for
selected administrative areas;
3. Detailed information on four administrative functions -
personnel, procurement, administrative payments, and
administrative services; and
4. A narrative description of mechanisms for sharing or
combining administrative support functions.
We have limited our request to information which we must have
to complete our review. The deadline for presentation of our
findings and recommendations to the Cabinet Council is quite
short. Therefore, we must have your response to this data
request by April 21. Your assistance in meeting this deadline
is essential.
Sincerely,
rr 7.0,~-~000
Arlene Triplett
Assistant Secretary
for Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE
April 8, 1983
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Background. The Cabinet Council on Management and Adminis-
tration COMA) has established a Federal Field Structure Working
Group, chaired by GSA Administrator Gerald Carmen, to review
policies, legislation, current practices and resources of
Federal Field organizations. Based on this review, the Working
Group will propose policy options and actions to cut costs and
improve program delivery by the Federal field structure.
Objectives. The purpose of this paper is to:
o identify the scope of the study;
o Describe the methodology to be used in the review; and
o Provide a timeline with key dates to meet the deadline
imposed by the Working Groups for submission of
findings, options, and recommendations to the CCMA.
Scope. The data gathering effort will include the following 15
Departments, which have the largest field structures:
Defense Corps of Engineers
Veterans Administration General Service Administration
Health and Human Services NASA
Agriculture Commerce
Treasury Labor
Interior Energy
Transportation HUD
Justice
Definitions. Key terms and functions are defined as follows:
Field - Sites and employees within the 50 States but
outside the National Capital Region.
National Capital Region - Includes Washington, D.C. and the.
counties and independent cities in Maryland and Virginia
listed below:
Maryland Virginia
Montgomery Alexandria
Prince Georges Arlington
Fairfax
Fairfax City
Falls Church
Loudoun
Prince William
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Administrative Payments include disbursements for services,
supplies and material. Some examples are payments for: travel
vouchers, travel advances, small purchases, contracts,
utility bills, rental charges, imprest fund reimbursements, and
transportation. Payroll payments are not included.
The processing of administrative payments include the following
major activities: document preview, data entry, document audit,
preparation and certification of payment schedules to the
Treasury Disbursing Office, and entry of payment data into the
accounting system.
Procurement means the acquisition of personal property and,
nonpersonal services (including automated data processing and
construction) by such means as purchasing, renting, leasing
(including real property) and contracting. It includes
requisitioning from other Government sources and use of informal
small purchasing procedures (presently for acquisitions of
$10,000 or less), as well as the formal contracting procedures
established for initiating Invitations for Bid (IFB) and Request
for Proposal (RFP). The term "procurement" is'also used to
describe the contract administration processes deemed necessary
to ensure compliance with contract award provisions. It also
includes the grants administration functions.
Personnel consists of planning, organizing and administering
a complete operating personnel management program. It includes
such activities as recruitment, placement, employee utilization,
position management and job classification, pay administration,
employee relations, special programs (e.g., summer employment,
handicapped, and employee assistance programs), labor-management
relations, employee recognition and awards, workforce
effectiveness, performance appraisal, employee/supervisory
development and training, executive and managerial development,
employee records and processing services, and benefit programs.
Administrative Services. Includes communications centers, labor
services, mail and messenger services, libraries, real property
and space management, personal property management, warehousing,
traffic management, travel administration, freight rates, fleet
management, cargo dispatching, trades (plumbers, electricians,
and painters), security guards, and laborers.'
Methodology. The attachments request information in four (4)
categories:
(1) Organization and staffing;
(2) Administrative support (total);
(3) Common administrative services; and.
(4) Centralized or cross-servicing mechanisms.
Specific instructions for each request are provided on the
first page of the respective tab.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 1
Federal Field Structure Working Group
Organization' and Staffing Task Force
Data Collection
1. Identify organizational levels of each separate Bureau,
Service, Agency, or Administration under each Eederal Government
Agency.
o Provide the total number of employees associated with each
organizational level.1
o Provide the total number of offices in each organizational
level.
2. Correct regional structure illustrated in "The United States
Directory of.Federal Regional Structure 1981/1982" to reflect
present regional structure.
1
Use FY 1983 on-board.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
EXAMPLE
Department of Agriculture
Bureau/Service/Agency/Ad,ninistration: Forest Service
EXAMPLE
Number of employees: Number of offices: _
Level 1: Hdqtrs. Off Ices
Number of employees: Number of offices:
Level 2: Regional Offices
Number of employees: I Number of offices:
Number of employees:
Number of employees:
Total number of employees:
Sub-Region & State Offices
Local Offices
Total number of offices:
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
EXAMPLE
DCPAIITMCNT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
National Forest Systom
EXAMPLE
Source: The United States Directory of Federal Regional Structure
1981/1982
Office of Federal Register/NARS/GSA
Indicate any changes made to the regional structure.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Bureau/Service/Agency/Administration:
Number of employees:
Number of offices:
Number of employees:
Level 2:
Number of employees:
Level 3:
Number of employees:
Number of employees:
Number of offices:.
Number of offices:
Number of offices:
Number of offices:
Total number of employees: _ _ Total number of offices:
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 2
-40-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE WORKING GROUP
COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE
DATA COLLECTION
1. Identify the total number of employees in the Department
providing administrative support. The ten common services
are listed on the next page; definitions and occupational
series associated with each "service" are noted immediately
afterward.
2. Use FY 1983 on-board data; provide information for the most
current period possible.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
NO. OF EMPLOYEES*
FUNCTION TOTAL FIELD
PERSONNEL
PROCUREMENT/SUPPLY
FINANCE/BUDGETING
INFORMATION/DATA SYSTEMS
PROPERTY
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNICATIONS
LEGAL
GENERAL SERVICES
OFFICE/CLERICAL SUPPORT
TOTAL
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Common Services
Personnel - All activities carried out by individuals in those occupational
series dealing with classification, employment, development, employee relations,
safety, and equal employment are included in this category.
Procurement/Supply - Contracting, procurement, purchasing, supply, and
warehousing are the major activities included in this category.
Finance/Budgeting - This category includes accounting,
grants, payroll, and budget analysis and preparationactivities examination,
Information/Data Systems - This category includes all data processing functions
such as operator, programmer, analyst, and administrator. Also, management
analysis and technical support are included.
Property - This category includes basic activities related to real and personal
property. Included are acquisition, construction, inspection, appraisal,
assessment, repair, and disposal.
Transportation-- This category includes traffic management, travel
administration, freight rates, fleet management, and cargo dispatching
activities.
Communications - This broad category includes photography, audio-visual aids,
exhibits, pubic information, writing, editing, reproduction, and mail
activities.
Legal - The activities, of attorneys, claims, and legal instrument examiners are
inc uded in this category.
General Services - This category includes largely trades personnel;'such as,
plumbers, electricians, and painters, guards and laborers; and professionals
such as engineers, architects, and librarians.
Support - This category includes administrative officers, office services
managers, clerks, stenographers, data transcribers, secretaries, and typists.
(Included are employees in management and/or professional positions in the
administrative occupational series, GS-301.) ?
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
COMMON SERVICES FUNCTION
EMPLOYEE BREAKOUT
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES TOTAL
PERSONNEL
Safety Management/Safety Engineering
018
Safety Technician
019
Manpower Development
14Z
Personnel Management
201
Personnel Clerical and Assistant
203
Personnel Staffing
212
Position Classification
221
Salary and Wage Administration
223
Employee Relations
230
Labor Relations
233
Employee Development
235
Equal Employment Opportunity
260
PROCUREMENT/SUPPLY
Contract and Procurement
1102
Purchasing
1105
Procurement Clerical and Assistance
1106
General Supply
2001
Supply Program management
2003
Supply Clerical and Technician
2005
Inventory Management
2010
Distribution Facilities and Storage Management
2030
Warehouseman
6907
FINANCE/BUDGETING
General Accounting Clerk and Administration
501
Financial Clerk and Assistant
503
Budget and Accounting
504
Financial Management
505
Accounting
510
Accounts Maintenance Clerk
520
Accounting Technician
525
Cash Processing
530
Voucher Examining
540
Payroll
544
Budget Administration
560
Budget Clerk and Assistant
561
Time and Leave
590
Accounting Trainee
599
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES TOTAL
INFORMATION/DATA SYSTEMS
Digital Computer Systems Administration
Computer Operation
Computer Specialist
Computer. Aid and Technician
Program Management
Management Analysis
Management Clerical and Assistance
Program Analysis
Data Transcriber
PROPERTY
330
332
334
335
340
343
344
346
356
Construction Control
Surveying Technician
Industrial Property Management
Property Disposal
Property Disposal Clerical and Technician
Public Utilities Specialist
Realty
Appraising and Assessing
General Facilities and Equipment
Facility Management
Equipment Specialist,
809
817
1103
1104
1107
1130
1170
1171
1601
1640
1670
TRANSPORTATION
General Transportation
2101
Transportation Clerk and Assistant
2102
Traffic Management
2130
Freight Rate
2131
Travel
2132
Shipment Clerical
2134
Transportation Operations
2150
Dispatching
2151
Aircraft Operation
2181
Mobile Equipment Body Repair
3809
Motor Vehicle Operator
5703
Fork Lift Operator
5704
Tractor Operator
5705
Engineering Equipment Operator
5716
Mobile Equipment Maintenance
5801
Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic
5803
Automotive Mechanic
5823
Boat Operating
5903
Aircraft Mechanic
8852
-45-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES TOTAL
COMMUNICATIONS
Messenger
302
Mail and File Clerk
305
Correspondence Clerk
309
Printing Clerical
351
Telephone Operating
382
Teletypist
385
Radio Operation
389
Communications Relay Operation
390
Communications Management
391
General Communications
392
Communications Specialist
393
Communications Clerical,'
394
General Arts and Information
1001
Exhibits Specialist
1010
Illustrating
1020
Office Drafting
1021
Public Affairs
1035
Photography
1060
Audio-Visual Production
1071
Public Information
1081
Writing and Editing
1082
Technical Writing and Editing
1083
Visual Information
1084
Editorial Assistance
1087
Technical Information Services
1412
Printing Management
1654
Sound Recording Equipment Operator
3911
LEGAL
General Attorney
905
Hearing Examiner
935
Paralegal Specialist
950
Legal Instruments Examining
963
Land Law Examining
965
Legal Clerk
986
General Claims Examining
990
LCS DMS Claims Examining
992
Claims Clerical
998
Patent Advisor
1221
Patent Attorney
1222
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
GENERAL SERVICES
Correctional Officer
Security Administration
Fire Protection and Prevention,
Guard
Guide
Information Receptionist
General
Engineering Technician
Materials Engineering
Civil Engineering
Engineering Grafting
Environmental Engineering
Mechancial Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Electronics Engineering
Electronic Technician
Mining Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Industrial Engineering Technician
Industrial Engineering
Engineering/Architect Student-Trainee
Librarian
Librarian Technician,
Electronics Mechanic
General Electrical
Electrician
Electrician (High Voltage)
General Labor
Laborer
Custodian
Janitor
Cement Finisher
Mason
Plasterer
Roofer
Welder
Sheet Metal Mechanic
Locksmith
Air Conditioning Equipment Mechanic
Heating Equipment Repair
Equipment Maintenance Mechanic
Boiler Plant Operator
Utility Systems Operator
Sewage Disposal Plant Operator
Tools and Parts Attendant
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES TOTAL
007
080
081
085
090
304
801
802
806
810
818
819
830
850
855
856
880
881
890
893
895
896
899
1410
1411
2614
2801
2805
2810
3501
3502
3565
3566
3602
3603
3605
3606
3703
3806
3817
5306
5309
5352
5402
5406
5408
6904
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES TOTAL
SUPPORT
Clerks and Nondescription
099
Nonsupervisory Clerical Position
301
Miscellaneous Clerk & Assistant
303
Clerk-Stenographer and Reporter
312
Stenographer/Secretary Supervisor
313
Clerk-Dictating Machine Transcriber
316
Secretary
318
Clerk-Typist
322
Administrative Officer
341
Office Services Management and Supervision
342
Office Machine Operating
350
Calculating Machine Operation
355
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 3
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE WORKING GROUP
COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE
DATA COLLECTION
1. Detailed information is being requested for the following
four (4) administrative functions:
o Personnel
o Procurement
o Administrative Payments
o Administrative Services
Definitions of each were provided earlier in this package.
2. Questionnaire instructions.
A. Insert the Department name and indicate the two (2) digit
Department Code used in the Budget of the United States
Appendix (positions 1_ and 2 of the Identification Code,
Program and Financing Schedule).
B. For each Bureau, Service, Agency or Administration within
the Department, insert the "Bureau" name and indicate the
two (2) digit "Bureau" Code used in the Budget of the
United States Appendix (positions 3 and 4 of the
Identification Code, Program and Financing Schedule).
o List by location each office providing the respective
service. To identify each office location,. insert the
FIPS location code in column 2. This code is
published in FIPS Publication No. 55. FIPS is the
Federal Information Processing Standard Publications
available from your administrative office or directly
from the National Technical Information Service in
Springfield, VA.; telephone number (703) 557-4763.
o Indicate the total number of employees providing the
service in that location. Include both professional
and clerical support staff. Use FY 1983 on-board data
for the most current period possible. Include all
personnel regardless of type of appointment.
o On the Personnel Questionnaire enter the Submitting
Office Number (SON) assigned to each particular
office. Enter the current number of employees
serviced by each office.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
o On the Procurement Questionnaire, report only offices
with procurement authority of $10,000 and above. For
these offices report all transaction volumes including
those under $10,000. Also, report the Federal
Procurement Data System (FPDS) number for each office.
o On the Payment Office Questionnaire, indicate the
number of individual payments made through Treasury as
reflected on SF-1166. Do not include non-check
payments to other government agencies or
letter-of-credit payments.
o On the Administrative Services Questionnaire, provide
the total current number of. employees associated with
each administrative service function by State. The
five administrative service functions with definitions
are shown.below. Occupational Series for each of the
functions are shown immediately afterward.
3. Administrative Services Definitions.
Supply - Supply and warehousing are the major activities
included in this category.
Property - This category includes basic activities related to
real and personal property. Included are acquisition,
construction, inspection, appraisal, assessment, repair, and
disposal.
Transportation - This category includes traffic management,
travel administration, freight rates, fleet management, and
cargo dispatching activities.
Communications - This broad category includes photography,
audio-visual aids, exhibits, public information, writing,
editing, reproduction, and mail activities.
General Services - This category includes largely trades
personnel; such as, plumbers, electricians, and painters,
guards and laborers; and professionals such as engineers,
architects, and librarians.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Department
Bureau
Payment Office
FIPS Location Code
St. Cit Co.
No. of
Employees
Providing
Service
Volumes
Count of Payments
Made via SF-1166
Total No. Total Dollars
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Department
Bureau
Procurement Office
FIPS Location Code
t. city Co.
FPDS
No.
No.' of
Employees
Providing
Service
Procurements
Under Over
$10,000 $10,000
No. (Dollars No. (Dollars
1
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Department
Bureau
Personnel Office
FIPS Location Code
t. City Co.
SON
No. of
Employees
Providing
Service
No. of
Employees
Serviced
Accession
Actions
Processed
in FY 82
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
1. For each separate Bureau, Service, Agency, or Administration
under each Federal Government Agency
o Provide the total number of employees associated with
each administative services function, by State. The
five administrative services functions are listed on
the next page with definitions; occupational series
associated with each "function" are noted immediately
afterward.
o Use FY 1983 on-board data; provide information for the
most current period possible.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Supply - Supply and warehousing are the major activities included
in this category.
Property - This category includes basic activities related to
real and personal property. Included are acquisition,
construction, inspection, appraisal, assessment, repair, and
disposal.
Transportation - This category includes traffic management,
travel administration, freight rates, fleet management, and cargo
dispatching activities.
Communications - This broad category includes photography, audio-
visual aids, exhibits, public information, writing, editing,
reproduction, and mail activities.
General Services - This category includes largely trades
personnel; such as, plumbers, electricians, and painters, guards
and laborers; and professionals such as engineers, architects,
and librarians.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FUNCTIONS
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES
SUPPLY
2001
General Supply
2003
Supply Program Management
Supply Clerical and Technician
2005
2010
Inventory Management
ent
2030
Distribution Facilities and Storage Managem
6907
Warehouseman
PROPERTY
809
Construction Control
817
Surveying Technician
t
1103
Industrial Property Managemen
1104
Property Disposal
hnician
d T
l
1107
ec
an
Property Disposal Clerica
1130
Public Utilities Specialist
1170
Realty
171
1171
Appraising and Assessing
1601
1
General Facilities and Equipment
160
Facility Management
1670
Equipment Specialist
TRANSPORTATION
General Transportation
2101
Transportation Clerk and Assistant
2102
30
Traffic Management
21
31
Freight Rate
21
Travel
2132
34
Shipment Clerical
21
2150
Transportation Operations
Dispatching
2151
2181
Aircraft Operation
3809
Mobile Equipment Body Repair
5703
Motor Vehicle Operator
5704
Fork Lift Operator
5705
Tractor Operator .
5716
Engineering Equipment Operator
5801
Mobile Equipment Maintenance
5803
Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic
3
Automotive Mechanic
582
3
Boat Operating
590
8
52
Aircraft Mechanic
8
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES
COMMUNICATIONS
Messenger
302
Mail and File Clerk
305
Correspondence Clerk
309
Printing Clerical
351
Telephone Operating
382
Teletypist
385
Radio Operation
-389
Communications Relay Operation
390
Communications Management
391
General Communications
392
Communications Specialist
393
Communications Clerical
394
General Arts and Information
1001
Exhibits Specialist
1010
Illustrating
1020
Office Drafting
1021
Public Affairs
1035
Photography
1060
Audio-Visual Production
1071
Public Information
1081
Writing and Editing
1082
Technical Writing and Editing
1083
Visual Information
1084
Editorial Assistance
1087
Technical Information Services
1412
Printing Management
1654
Sound Recording Equipment Operator
3911
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
OCCUPATIONAL
SERIES
GENERAL SERVICES
Correctional Officer
007
Security Administration
080
Fire Protection and Prevention
081
Guard
085
Guide
090
Information Receptionist
304
General
801
Engineering Technician
802
Materials Engineering
806
Civil Engineering
810
Engineering Drafting
818
Environmental Engineering
819
Mechancial Engineering
830
Electrical Engineering
850
Electronics Engineering
855
Electronic Technician
856
Mining Engineering
880
Petroleum Engineering
881
Agricultural Engineering
890
Chemical Engineering
893
Industrial Engineering Technician
895
Industrial Engineering
896
Engineering/Architect Student,Trainee
899
Librarian
1410
Librarian Technician
.
1411
'
Electronics Mechanic
2614
General Electrical
2801
Electrician
2805
Electrician (High Voltage)
2810
General Labor
3501
Laborer
3502
Custodian
3565
Janitor
3566
Cement Finisher
3602
Mason
3603
Plasterer
3605
Roofer
3606
Welder
3703
Sheet Metal Mechanic -
3806
Locksmith
3817
Air Conditioning Equipment Mechanic
5306
Heating Equipment Repair
5309
Equipment Maintenance Mechanic
5352
Boiler Plant Operator
5402
Utility Systems Operator
5406
Sewage Disposal Plant Operator
5408
Tools and Parts Attendant
6904
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE
Department
unction
State
Supply
Property
Trans ortation
Communications
General
Service
01 Alabama
02 Alaska
0k Arizona
i i
D5 Arkansas
06 California
08 Colorado
09 Connecticut
10 Delaware
11 Dist. of Col.
12 Florida
13 Georgia
15 Hawaii
' 6 Idaho
17 Illinois
8 Indiana
20 Kansas
21 Kentucky
22 Louisiana
2_ Maine
24 Maryland 25 Massachusetts
26 Michigan
27 Minnesota
29 Mississippi
29 Missouri
33 Montana
31 Nebraska
2 Nevada
33 New Hampshire
'4 New Jerse
35 New Mexico
36 New York
37 North Carolina
f
38 North Dakota
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE (Con't)
Thepartment
ureau
unction
7tate
Supply
Service-
Property; Transportation Communications! General
?9 Ohio
~
0 Oklahoma
Oregon
'2 Pennsylvania
=4 Rhode Island
i
:5 South Carolina
South Dakota
=' Tennessee
48 Texas
=9 Utah
50 Vermont
"1 Virginia
Washin ton
i
i
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
2 Puerto Rico
73 Virgin Islands
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
-
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 4
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
FEDERAL FIELD STRUCTURE WORKING GROUP
COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE
DATA COLLECTION
Briefly describe any existing or proposed mechanisms in the
Department to share or combine administrative support functions.
This might include consolidated regional support units, cross-
servici.ng agreements, centralized servicing points, extensive use
of contract support, and the like.. These narratives should high-
light the background of such mechanisms, the services provided,
location, budget and staffing, outputs/volumes, and findings from
any evaluations conducted of efficiency/effectiveness. The
description should be fairly brief (one or two pages).
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 5
4-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
ATTACHMENT 5
Completion Date Action Step
.3/25 Preliminary meetings with GSA and OPM
3/30 First status report to Working Group
4/1 Notification letters
4/4 Information contacts designated
Data collection coordinated with
Organization and Staffing Team
4/5 Draft study plan delivered to contacts
Second status report to Working Group
4/6-4/7 Meetings with Departmental contacts
4/8 Final study plan and data instrument
to contacts
4/8-4/20 Data collection by Departments
4/21 Data submissions due from Departments
4/21-4/29 Data analysis; development of options
and recommendations
5/4 Presentation to Working Group
5/12 Presentation to CCMA
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
.1 - CO
t I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-
.... o.,.....
logo 043a(Df.01116 7ca.r ca.o? ^v? .+..........
*0 Washington. O.C. 20230
't4*cs or
2 4 JUN 1983
Dear Colleague:
In April you supplied us with information for the Cabinet Council
on Management and Administration'.s (CCMA's) Federal Field Study.
On May 12, our report was presented to the CCMA and on June 20
it was discussed at a CCMA meeting with the President.
The CCMA has asked that we validate the information provided us.
Therefore, attached for your review are the following:
1. Summary information on the number of offices and employees
at each level (i.e., headquarters, region, area, etc.);
2. Number of employees by specific occupational series for
selected administrative areas; and
3. Detailed information on four administrative functions
a. Personnel;
b. Administrative Payments;
c. Administrative Services; and
d. Procurement.
In order to complete our analysis, we need some additional
information in the procurement area. Detailed instructions are
contained in the front of the notebook. Please have your staff
continue to work with Alan Balutis of my office on this matter.
Alan can be reached at 377-0884.
The deadline for follow-up to the Cabinet presentation is quite
short. Therefore, we must have your response to this request
by July 8. I will assume that if I don't hear from you to the
contrary by this date that the information is correct.
Sincerely,
Arlene Triplett
Assistant Secretary
for Administration
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5 -
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
President Carter's Reorganization Project reviewed the
administrative services structure in the Federal Government. The
study addressed the issue of which services and functions should
be provided in a general services agency or decentralized to the
Departments and Agencies. Though never issued as a final report,
the study identified potential savings of at least $384 million
that could result from providing supply, support, and
telecommunications functions on a common basis.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports
over the years that have identified opportunities for improved
management and savings 'through consolidating services within or
among Agencies. At the request of the. Chairman of the Senate
Government Affairs Committee, the GAO is currently conducting a
government-wide review of Federal agency field operations. This
review, scheduled for completion early next year, is
focusing on organization and management layering, co-location,
and consolidation of administrative support.
In one report, GAO discussed a 1971 GSA experiment in Seattle to
provide common services to agencies. That pilot, termed the
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Arcade Plaza Project, involved the provision of common services
to five Departments. The five were the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Labor, the Office of Economic
Opportunity, and the Department of Transportation. The services
provided on a common basis included printing and duplication,
mail and messenger, procurement, receiving and shipping, labor,
library, and supply.
Although the arrangement had a rocky start, an Office of
Management and Budget review indicated that "tangible economies
as well as a high level of effectiveness are being achieved."
The arrangement reportedly resulted in a 25% staff savings and
increased effectiveness by:
o Concentrating functions - more highly qualified personnel
could be used;
o Reducing personnel requirements - better use of cross -
training and time were initiated;
o Stabilizing workload - greater volume permitted more
flexibility in use of people;
o Reducing administrative problems - larger operations
decreased problems associated with rest periods, lunch,
vacations, and absenteeism.
-68-
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
A 1972 GSA evaluation of the pilot recommended that the
arrangement be continued on a permanent basis, finding that the
arrangement "is efficient, economical, and provides a high level
of customer satisfaction." The GSA study went on to recommend
that "a common services arrangement be established at a suitable
location in each of the remaining nine standard Federal regions."
Regrettably, within a year, the arrangement had dissolved under
the pressure of budgetary constraints and Departmental
parochialism.
Further study'is necessary to determine current productivity,
define specific problems, and identify solutions. It does appear
that considerable savings are possible through greater use of
common administrative services. If the Federal government were
able to saveleven half of the amount achieved in the Arcade Plaza
Project, over 9,500 positions could be eliminated, and almost
$194,000,000 saved. (Note: assumes average salary, benefits and
overhead of $20,000 per year per employee).
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Executive Overview
Introduction
The Federal Field Structure Policy Review was conducted during
April 1983 as part of a three-pronged review of Federal field
structure undertaken for the Cabinet Council on Management and
Administration (CCMA).- (The other two elements of the broader
study covered a) field structure organization and staffing and b)
the common administrative services concept.) Its objectives were
to examine current field structure policy and to develop a range
of options for possible future field structure policy for
presentation to the CCMA. The Federal Government's investment in
its-field structure includes over 85% of all Federal civilian
employees and over 20,000 facilities.
A Context for Change: The Federalism Philosophy and Management
Goals
The Reagan Administration's Federalism philosophy and management
goals have major implications for Federal field structure policy
because adherence to the philosophy and.the achievement of the
goals entails a different way for the Federal Government to do
business. The Administration's intergovernmental and management
goals militate for a reexamination of the Federal field structure
policy promulgated at an earlier time to facilitate different
objectives.
Evolution of Federal Field Structure Policy
Over the past thirty years, Federal field structure policy, has
been marked by almost cyclical fluctuations between centralization
and decentralization of authority; importance and lack of
importance attributed to field operations by Washington
leadership; and periods of attention and lack of attention paid to
field coordination and coordination mechanisms due to changing
philosophies and perceived needs.
Current Policy
Current governmentwide field structure policy comes from three
sources. The Rural Development Act of 1972 requires agencies to
give first priority to locating new facilities in rural areas.
Executive Order 12072 (August 16, 1978) requires giving first
consideration to central business areas when meeting Federal space
needs in urban areas. OMB Circular No. A-105, Standard Federal
Regions (April 4, 1974) establishes ten standard regions as a long
range goal and provides guidelines for aligning or establishing
offices in the field. For all practical purposes, however, OMB
Circular A-105 is the current Federal field structure policy
document, and is certainly the one around which the pragmatic
field policy issues have developed.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Experience and Lessons Learned Under Circular A-105
Based on the record of 24 waiver approvals of 28 requests over the
last two years, Circular A-105 apparently has not prevented
agencies from making supportable modifications in field structure
within the context of the general policy of standardization. Yet
this fact also seems to raise questions about the need for and
value of a policy of uniformity in the first place. Specific
lessons learned under Circular A-105 deal with the issues of-
uniformity vs. flexibility, the protection offered by a standard
field structure, the value of periodic reassessments of field
structure policy, the benefits of concentrating Federal assets,
and the political realities of changing field structure policy.
Constraints on Changing Field Structure Policy
Any consideration of possibilities for changing Federal field
structure policy must take into account several constraints that
are likely to be encountered. These constraints may range from
applicahle statutory requirements to Congressional committee
concerns, from labor relations to local government interests, from
questions of economics to questions of public perceptions.
Potential Congressional pressures from committees and members
protecting specific programs or constituents must be
anticipated. In addition, several other general constraints that
have been identified during this review could he applicable
regardless of the specific field structure policy option being
considered.
Options for Consideration
There is'a wide range of.field structure policy options, each with
its own advantages and disadvantages, that the CCMA could
consider:
A. Retain Circular A-105 as is;
B. Refine specific elements of the policies formulated in
Circular A-105;
C. Provide field structure "guidance" rather than
"policy";
D. Establish a "series" of standard policies for different
"types" of programs;
E. Establish a refined policy of goals of economy and
effectiveness rather than specific structure; and
F. Establish no governmentwide field structure policy.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Preferred Options and Recommendation
Of the Options, B and E seem to have the greatest potential for
achieving both agency-specific and central management objectives.
They differ from one another primarily in approach rather than in
expected results.
The recommendation is for adoption of Option E. A_draft policy
statement reflecting this option is provided.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Table of Contents
Paae
Executive Overview ........................
Introduction ...............................
A Context for Chanqe: The Federalism 2-1
Philosophy and Management Goals .......................
3-1
E,olution of Federal Field Structure Policy .............?
? 4-1
Current Policy ...........................................
Experience and Lessons Learned Under 5-1
Circular A-105 ......................
Con3traints on Changing Field Structure Policy ........... 6
7-1
Options for Consideration .................................
8-1
Preferred Options and Recommendation .....................
dIceS..... ................................
Appendix A - Participants on the Interagency Task Team 9
Appendix g - Current Policy Statements and 10-1
Summary of Comments
~dix Material Available 11
Anc_n,3ix C - Additional App-n
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Introduction
The Federal Field Structure Policy Review was conducted during
April 1983 as part of a three-pronged review of Federal field
structure undertaken for the Cabinet Council on Management and
Administration (CCMA). The other two elements of the broader
study covered a) field structure organization and staffing and
b) the common administrative services concept.
The Federal Government's field structure represents an extremely
large investment of the taxpayers' dollars. Over the past two
decades, according to a January 1980 OMB study of
decentralization, over 85 percent of all Federal civilian
employees have been located in the "field."; that is, outside of
the National Capital Region. A March 1979 internal OMB report
identified over 22,000 staffed Federal field facilities throughout
the United States.
The objectives of the Field Structure Policy Review were to
examine current field structure policy and to develop a range of
options and a recommendation for possible future field structure
policy for presentation to the CCMA for its consideration. The
specific actions taken to achieve these objectives included:
o identification of Administration policies affecting
field structure policy;
o examination of the evolution of current field
structure policy;
o consideration of agency and central management
experience in operating under the current policies,
including identification of generic points to take
into account when considering possible revisions of
field structure policy;
o identification of constraints on changing field
structure policy; and
o exploration of the relative advantages and
disadvantages of several possible options for
future field structure policy.
The review was conducted under the leadership of the Office of
Management and Budget with substantial assistance from selected
departments and agencies representative of a wide range of Federal
functions including grant-making, services provision, land
management, and regulation. While representing an agency
perspective, the participants did not present formal agency
positions. (A list of participants is included in the Appendix.)
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
A Context for Change: The Federalism Philosophy and
Management Goals
The Reagan Administration's Federalism philosophy has major
implications for Federal field structure policy because adherence
to the philosophy and the achievement of its goals entails a
different way for the Federal Government to do business.
Intergovernmental Goals
Under the Federalism philosophy there are five basic goals that
create a context for change in which Federal business in the field
is conducted. These include:
o return of authority for programs to State and local
governments;
o greater flexibility and responsibility for elected
officials;
o increased State and local capability to qovern
efficiently;
o increased State and local participation in Federal
decision-making processes; and
o increased reliance on the private sector, both in
general and in the OMB Circular No. A-76 context.
Amonq other things, these goals have qiven rise to concrete
efforts at devolution of program authorities to the State and
local levels and the private sector, the emphasis on block arants
as a replacement for multiple categorical programs, and increasing
Federal Government reliance'on State and local,governments.
Management Goals
In addition to its intergovernmental goals, the Administration is
also pursuing several broad management improvement goals through
the President's Reform '88 Management Actions Program and related
efforts:
o reducing Federal Government influence, size, and
personnel ceilings;
o reducing unnecessary layers of government; and
o reducing Federal Government prescriptiveness and
interference, in part through reducinq the Federal
presence.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
These goals also imply the need to reexamine field structure
policy and the way in which the government operates in the field
to ensure:
o streamlined systems;
o elimination of duplication and inefficiency;
o appropriate changes in the workforce as functions
and activities change; and
o more efficient use of federally owned and leased space.
Take'n together, the Administration's intergovernmental and
management goals militate for a reexamination of the Federal field
structure policy promulgated at an earlier time to facilitate
different objectives.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Evolution of Federal Field Structure Policy
Over the past thirty years, Federal field structure policy has
been marked by almost cyclical fluctuations between:
o centralization and. decentralization of authority;
o importance and lack of importance attributed to
field operations by Washington leadership; and
o periods of attention and lack of attention paid to
field coordination and coordination mechanisms due
to changing philosophies and perceived needs.
Current field structure policy needs to be considered in the
context of the differing policies that-have been employed over the
past three decades so that future policy options reflect the
experience gained from past approaches.
Field Importance Recoanized -- The '50s
The importance of field operations to the Federal Government was
repeatedly identified as a significant issue in the 1950's. In
fact, at the time, there was considerable criticism about the lack
of attention being paid to field coordination. Several
recomrendations were made for increased interagency coordination
and closer regional ties to State and local governments.
Regional Coordination Efforts -- The '60s
The experience in the '50s led to several efforts at regional
coordination and communication throughout the 1960's. These
included creation of regional.coordinatio.n mechanisms, increasing
emphasis on decentralization, and the issuance of OMB Circular No.-
A_ 60 which provided guidance on decentralization. The 1960's also
saw the creation of mandatory common regional boundaries for
social agencies and a recommendation for standard regional
boundaries.
"Ups" and "Downs" -- The '70s
In the early 1970's, there was an increasing belief in the
importance of "the field." While there was a relaxation of the
emphasis on standardization, field coordination received a great
deal of attention and support. Co-location efforts were
initiated, the Federal Regional Council system reached its high
point, and OMR Circular No. A-lOS was issued to provide guidance
for field organization. By the end of the decade, however, there
was a growing disinterest in strenatheninq field operations.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Federalism -- The '80s
With the development of Federalism at the beginning of the 1980's,
with its emphasis on block grants and devolution of program
authorities to the States, the pendulum swings again from "the
field." Agency reorganizations reduced field authorities, the
Federal Regional Council system was abolished as no longer being
necessary, and OMB Circular No. A-60 on decentralization was
rescinded.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Current Policy
Current governmentwide field structure policy comes from three
sources:
o
o
The Rural Development Act of 1972
Executive Order 12072 (August 16,
1978)
o
OMB Circular No. A-105, Standard Federal Regions
(April 4, 1974)
The Rural Development Act of 1972
.The Rura-1 Development Act of 1972 essentially requires departments
and agencies to give first priority to location of new offices and
other facilities in rural areas.*
Executive Order 12072
Executive Order 12072, issued during the Carter Administration,
requires that the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban
areas shall give first consideration to a centralized community
business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including
other specific areas which may he recommended by local
officials.*
OMB Circular A-105
The principal current Federal field structure policy statement is
OM9 Circular No. A-105. The Circular estahlishes as long-ranee
goals ten standard Federal,regions having uniform boundaries and
common regional headquarters locations. It also provides
guidelines for establishing and realiqninq field offices, regional
offices, and subregional structures. (Each of the specific
provisions of Circular A-105 is summarized in the Appendix.)
Additional Policy Statements
Beyond the three sources described above, there are no other
qovernmentwide field structure policy statements at the present
time. There is, according to GAO, no current legislation
requiring establishment or relocation of a field structure at a
specific site. There are some general statutory provisions about
locating field offices for the convenience of those being served.
There are also some provisions for individual agencies or
functions that constrain, restrict, or require approval for field
location decisions.
*Note: The underlined portions of the Rural Development Act and
F.O. 12072 requirements help clarify the absence of any conflict
between two potentially contradictory policies. GAO, GSA, and
individual agency experience demonstrate that both requirements
can be met without contradicting one another.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
For all practical purposes, however, OMB Circular A-105 is the
current Federal field structure policy document, and is certainly
the one around which the pragmatic field policy issues have
developed.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Ex erience and Lessons Learned Under Circular A-105
Circular A-105 is clearly seen as the focal point for Federal
field entuandraspalcentraltmanagementscontrolaprocess. policy
statem
Experience Shows Flexibility
In the last two years, there have been twenty-eight waiver
under
requests
allow:
o location outside of a central regional city for reasons
of space suitability and economics;
o adjustment of regional boundaries to balance workload;
and
o consolidation or elimination of regions to reduce
overhead costs or reassign resources.
The rationale offered for these waivers. generally has focused on:
o a limited need for coordination with other agencies;
o a limited impact of the proposed changes on State and
local governments and the public;
o improved program operations;
o elimination of inefficiencies; and
o savings in funds and positions..
Of the twenty-eight waiver requests, 0MB has.approved twenty-four.
The four others were withdrawn by the involved agencies. (Details
on each approved request are provided in the Appendix.)
Based on the record of waiver approvals, Circular A-105 apparently
has not prevented agencies from making supportable modifications
in field structure within the context of the general policy of
standardization. Yet this very fact also seems to raise questions
about the need for and value of a policy of uniformity in the
first place.
Lessons Learned Under A-105
The Appendix contains a summary of the positions voiced by a group
of representative agency officials on each of the specific
provisions in Circular A-105. From discussions held with these
officials and from central manaqement agency concerns that have
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
been considered, a number of significant factors have emerged
concerning any future field structure policy. While these were
initially identified as specific opportunities and constraints
perceived in operating under Circular A-105, they are clearly
points that warrant attention when field structure policy is
considered in the broader generic context as well. --
Uniformity and Flexibility
Circular A-105 recognizes a need for some balance between
uniformity and standardization on the one hand and unique mission
differences and program needs on the other. From the central
management perspective it builds in agency latitude while
maintaining management control through approval and compliance
provisions. From the operati-ng'agency standpoint, the Circular's'
very statement of uniformity as a long-range goal is unrealistic
because of the diversity of programs -- even within given
departments. Agency officials generally suggest that proaram,
cost, and clientele considerations should serve as the major
factors in field structure and location determinations.
The inherent conflicts between uniformity and flexibility seem to
suggest a different basis for field structure policy, perhaps
establishment of a Presidential goal covering economy and
efficiencies in field operations, with the means for accomplishing
the goal beina left to the agencies.
Standard Offers Protection
Another lesson coming from Circular A-105 is that on occasion a
standard field structure policy can serve to insulate or protect
an agency from outside influences. For instance, political or
interest group pressure's about location of a function can be
deflected by the standard structure policy.
Periodic Reassessments
Whatever field structure policy is in place, it and the agency
structure it establishes should both be subject to required
periodic reviews and reassessments to determine any needed
modifications. In the case of Circular A-105, for example,
several significant proqram and policy changes with implications
for field structure policy have been implemented but the Circular
has remained unchanged. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to
question the basic value of standard regions altogether in view of
recent proaram. and policy changes. Periodic reviews could ensure
that field structure policy is current and adequately reflects
demographic changes and program and policy emphases.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
Concentration of Assets
Despite the desire for maximum flexibility in field structure
policy, the agencies generally see value in the concentration of
Federal assets. The economics associated with maximizing real
property resources and combining common services are readily
acknowledged. Co-location is also viewed as a valid-concept when
program needs dictate or are not impaired by locations in the same
general area or facility. From a central services and support
standpoint, the concentration of assets also makes obvious sense
since it offers the potential of savings and increased
efficiency.
A field structure policy should encourage economies through asset
concentration.
Political Realities
The Circular A-105 evolutionary approach to its stated goal
tacitly recognizes a political fact of life -- there are likely to
be serious political concerns and problems associated with any
type of change. While such constraints are described in a later
section of this report, it is important-to recognize their
significance at this point as well as to emphasize that some
provisions for accommodation of such problems would be of value
regardless of the field structure policy adopted.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Constraints on Changing Field Structure Policy
Any consideration of possibilities for changing Federal field
structure policy must take into account several constraints that
are likely to be encountered. These constraints may range from
applicable statutory requirements to Congressional committee
concerns, from labor relations to local government interests, from
questions of economics to questions of public perceptions.
Several general constraints have been identified during this
review, and could be applicable regardless of the specific field
structure policy option being considered. These are summarized
below:
Congressional Concerns -- Congressional opposition from committees
and individual members attempting to protect programs and
constituents must be expected for any field structure policy
chanqe that would require geographic relocations, involve even
temporary disruptions affecting proqram operations, increase OMB
control over agency management, or project significant changes
without Congressional consultation or consent.
Labor Relations -- Employees and employee groups will generally
react adversely to any change that would result in relocations or
the possibility of relocations.
State and Local Governments -- Any change in field structure
policy that imalies a shifting of facilities will mobilize
opposition from local jurisdictions that risk losing facilities
and consequently elements of their economic base.
Statutory Requirements -- Although, as noted earlier, there are no
general statutory requirements on Federal field-structure beyond
the Rural Development Act provision, existing legislation and
executive orders. do proscribe or require certain agency- or
program-specific field structure locations or changes.
Efficiency Considerations -- Several operational efficiency issues
are ccnstraints that will require attention as field structure
policy chances are considered. These include'use of existing
assets, long-term leases, economical use of space, delivery of
services, accessibility for clientele, and intra- or interagency
cooperation, coordination, and communications needs.
None of these constraints should ecessarily preclude field
structure policy change.
attention as changes are considered.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
? Options for Consideration
Based on the review of current field structure policy, the
experience and lessons learned under the current policy, and the
field implications of Federalism and related Administration opt policies, ab1CouncileonaManagementlandtAdministration couldns
that the Cabinet
consider. These include:
A. Retain Circular A-105
B. Refine specific elements of the policies formulated in
Circular A-105; eq:
change number and configuration of standard
regions
maintain standard Federal enclaves with open
regional alignment
retain standard alignment but increase
flexibility to allow for diversity
C. Provide field structure "guidance" rather than "policy"
T). Establish a "series" of standard policies for different
"types" of programs
E. Establish a refined policy of goals of economy and
effectiveness rather than specific structure
F. Establish no governmentwide field structure policy
The relative advantages and disadvantaaes of each of these options
are described below.
A. Retain Circular A-105
While Circular A-105 was promulgated nine years ago, it continues
to represent a reasonable balance between central management
oversight of Federal field structure and arencym~lexibilityntods.
make adjustments to meet unique mission, p or e
The policy encourages concentration of Federal assets with its
recognized potential for increased economies and efficiencies and
improved coordination. While agency flexibility is constrainted
by requirements for OMB approvals, such approvals have not been
withheld for any reasonably supported request, and future requests
for exceptions could expect to be similarly received.
Retention of Circular A-105 would continue a reasonably flexible
and adaptable field structure policy without disrupting operations
or engenderinq further costs political reactions, but could
also be viewed
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
B. Refine Specific Elements of the Policies Formulated in
Circular A-IU5
concerns expressed about the current field structure
policy are that the current number and configuration of standard
Federal regions are themselves an unnecessary constraint on
operations, particularly in view of the changes in the way
business is conducted under the Federalism philosophy. These
concerns lead to a wide range of possible modifications to
Circular A-105, mostly arrayed around the number and borders of
standard regions. Standardization for its own sake is perceived
as having some benefits, but the specific nature of the
standardization should be different and the new standard should
allow increased flexibility to accommodate program diversity.
This generally translates to a smaller number of standard regional
headquarters cities with greater agency latitude in aligning
regional boundaries around those cities. _
This option tends to retain the advantages of concentrating
Federal assets while at the same time making it easier for
agencies to arrange regional boundaries according to program
needs. Such an approach represents a reduced emphasis on
standardization and central management control and is likely to
result in some Congressional and State and local apprehension
about potential changes.
C. Provide Guidance Rather Than Policy
This option assumes that individual agencies are the appropriate
source for basic field structure policy determinations -- within a
framework of minimum quidance and basic criteria provided by the
central management agencies. It offers great flexibility for the
agencies to adjust field structure to meet their own needs but
could provide them with basic information to help them make their
determinations. This information could-cover such areas as
Federalism considerations, realistic cost limitations, and the
governmentwide implications of various approaches. This policy
approach would be very loose, allowing for little central
management assessment of individual agency determinations. It
opens the agencies to considerable potential pressure from
Congressional and other sources for specific locational decisions
since they would no longer have ,a standard requirement beyond
which to shield themselves.
D. Provide a Series of Standard Policies
This option assumes that similar "types" of agencies and programs
can be identified and that standard field structure policies could
be developed for each type. This would permit general tailoring
of policies to program needs while simultaneously retaining the
ability to take advantage of concentration of assets, etc. Such
an option would be complex and complicated to implement and would
likely satisfy neither the individual agencies' desire for
flexibility nor the central management objectives of maximum
economy and effectiveness of government operations as a whole.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
E. Establish a Refined Policy of Goals of Economy and
Effectiveness
Another option for field structure policy would be the
promulgation of a policy statement requiring agencies to examine
their field structures and develop long-range plans for increasinq
efficiency and effectiveness -- essentially substituting
traditional management improvement goals for current field
structure statements. These goals could cover items such as
roles, authorities and responsibilities, size, and span of
control. This could he accomplished either within or outside of
the Circular A-105 context. Outside of the Circular A-105
context, this approach would permit agencies to develop any field
structure that is desirable as long as it results in improved
economy and efficiency. The absence of standard field structure
requirements would make this approach more susceptible to
political and other outside influences. Within the Circular A-105
context, the potential economies and efficiencies could be
constrained as the original A-105 goals continue to be pursued
(eq, promoting interagency and intergovernmental coordination and
providing common administrative services). In either case, there
is no assurance that the aggregate of individual agency economies
and efficiencies will necessarily mean overall savings to the
government. The benefits of governmentwide asset concentration
are more likely to result with the continuation of Circular
A-105.
F. No Governmentwide Policy
One additional,option would be to choose to establish no
governmentwide field structure policy, leaving all determinations
to the individual agencies. This is the maximum flexihility
option, but it also involves the risk of an incoherent and
uneconomical array of field structure decisions. As such, its
value is limited unless central management decision-makers see no
governmentwide objectives to be pursued through the Federal field
structure.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Preferred Options and Recommendation
Of the various options for consideration, two seem to have the
greatest potential for achieving both aqency-specific and central
management objectives:
o Option B, refine specific elements of the policies
formulated in Circular A-105, and
o Option E, establish a refined policy of goals of economy
and effectiveness rather than specific structure.
Expected Results
Either of these options provides a sound mechanism by which to
reflect policy refinements that recognize the philosophical,
programmatic, and environmental changes that have occurred since
Circular A-105 was originally promulgated. In fact, both options
would have the same expected results:
o consolidation/elimination of unnecessary field
offices;
o reduction in the number of administrative support
positions;
o elimination of unnecessary administrative and
programmatic layering in field operations; and
o support for the establishment of common administrative
service centers.
Different Approaches
The options differ from one another primarily in the mechanisms
they would rely on to, achieve these common results. Option B
would establish specific policies covering:
o reduction in. the number of standard Federal regions;
greater latitude in the boundaries of regions;
o standardized location of regional headquarters cities;
o allowance for variations at agency discretion based on
individual program and mission needs; and
o provision for a central management oversight role.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Option E, on the other hand, would take a different approach. The
specific economy and effectiveness goals that it would promulgate
would include:
o elimination of unnecessary field offices; ---
o efficient provision of administrative support services;
o maintenance of organizational structures supporting
more effective and consistent achievement of program
and mission qoals;
o maximum use of Federal assets in the field, including
not only physical assets but'also appropriate
coordination among agencies; and
o decentralization of appropriate programs and responsibi-
lities to State and local government and the private
sector.
Either option would clearly have to recognize and specify that
there is no automatic requirement for agencies to change or
eliminate current field structures if those structures are still
consistent with current needs.
Different Problems
Because of their differences in approach, Option B and Option E
entail different implementation problems that will require
attention. The principal disadvantages of Option B would be that
by focusing attention on reductions in the number of regions it
would bring to the forefront the major political constraint of
various Congressional interests protecting existing arrangements.
The major disadvantages of Option F would be that it would involve
a somewhat greater risk of central management objectives beino
subordinated to individual agency interests.
Similar Implementation Steps
Implementation of either of the.preferred options would require a
disciplined series of steps to assure that the resulting policies
are effective:
o Determination of the specific policy refinements to
be made on goals to be established -- through a process
involving the major agencies;
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
o Definition of the specific delegations, criteria, and
guidelines for change (ie, what would be expected of
the agencies) -- also through a process involving the
agencies;
o Determination of the best mechanism for making the
changes (eg, Executive Order, Presidential Memorandur,
new or.revised OMB Circular);
o Preparation of the'necessary decision documents to
obtain policy approval;
o Distribution of the draft policy statement for review
and appropriate concurrences;
o Promulgation of the policy; and
o Monitoring of policy implementation against the
specific criteria and guidelines established through
the budget and other resource management processes,
including periodic agency reports and evaluations.
Recommendation
Option. E, establishment of a refined policy of goals of economy
and effectiveness rather than specific structure is the
recommended option. The following draft Executive Order and
Presidential Management Directive have been developed to reflect
this recommended option:
Draft Executive Order U By the authority vested in me -as structureaofs
of America, and in order to
the Federal Government and its agencies is consistent with
current policies, reflects current technological capacities,
and contributes to the efficient and effective functioning of
the Federal Government, and in order to prescribe appropriate
p-lices and directives, not inconsistent with current law,
concerning the field structure of Federal Government
operations, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Federal Field Structure Goals
Section 1. The field structure of Federal departments of
agencies shall be consistent with the following basic goals
efficiency and effectiveness:
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
- elimination of unnecessary layering in the delivery,
administration, and support of program services;
- operation of the minimum number of field offices
necessary to accomplish the agency mission;
- devolution of the operation of programs, where
appropriate, to State and local governments;
- maintenance of individual field operations at a size
that is commensurate with program needs and the most efficient
and effective use of resources;
- use of the private sector and other external service
providers, whenever possible'and cost-effective;
- maintenance of a responsiveness to policies and
priorities established through the political process;
obtaining of the maximum use of already existing
buildings and other assets; and
obtaining. of the maximum use of executive interchange
and mobility arrangements to broaden understanding and improve
communications and coordination among executives, and thereby
increasing opportunities for consolidations of field structure
operations and achievement of other efficiency and
effectiveness options.
Agency Head Responsibilities
Section' 2. The above notwithstanding, it is the
responsibility of the agency head to establish agency field
structures consistent with the,agency's missions. It is also
the agency head's responsibility to periodically evaluate the
agency's field structure for consistency with agency mission
and the field structure goals defined in Section 1, and to
institute any changes needed to achieve that consistency.
CCMA and OMB Responsibilities
Section 3. The Cabinet Council on Management and
Administration, with the assistance of the Office of Management
and Budget, shall have the responsibility to monitor and
evaluate the implementation of this Executive Order and to
report its findings and recommendations for improvements
periodically to the President.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Consultation with the Congress
Section 4. There shall be regular and thorough consultation
as appropriate with the Congress on any potential modifications
in Federal field structure resulting from implementation of
this Executive Order.
Draft Presidential Management Directive
Background
1. Today I issued Executive Order to establish a set of goals for
the efficient and effective operation of the Federal field
structure. These goals provide a context within which agency heads
should establish the most efficient and effective field structure for
meeting program and administrative requirements consistent with the
agency's mission.
Agency Head Assessments of Agency Field Structure
2. Each department and agency head shall assess his or her agency's
field structure in relation to the goals expressed in Section 1 of
Executive Order , and institute any corrective actions needed.
The following are the minimum criteria that shall be considered in
the'conduct of,the assessment.
a. Number of Offices
the number of field offices are no more than the
absolute minimum needed to carry out the agency's mission'
and operations.
- intermediary, supervisory and review, layers are held to
the minimum, and exist only beccause they are necessary to
maintain effective control and span of control.
- the span of control for each supervisory office is great
enough to benefit from economies of scale. Agencies shall
justify aggregate spans of control that are less than -.
no more than one office or unit is maintained in a single
city or metropolitan area for any given administrative or
support service.
b. Staffing of Offices
the number of staff at each field office is maintained at
the absolute minimum necessary to carry out those missions
or operations which shall be p~idedabypthe Federbroader
Government with agency personnel,
effort with other offices.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
field office staff is not maintained to provide services
sourcefrom other
that arereadily and oreconomically
externalavailable
parts of agency
staff is not retained to provide services that
cans be
obtained from common administrative support
ratios of supervisory and support personnel to program
personnel are adequate, but not in excess of ratios that
would be considered good business practice. Agencies
shall justify ratios of supervisory personnel to program
personnel that are greater than 1 to _, and of support
personnel to program personnel that are greater than 1 to
c. Location of Offices
- the location of field offices is governed by the following
considerations:
the locations of the persons or entities served by the
agency, the characteristics of the services, and the
requirements of those receiving the services.
the locations of other Federal agencies, and
particularly those providing services to the same
persons and/or entities.
the location and relocation of field offices take
into account facilities already owned by the Federal
Government.
d. Functioning of offices
delegations of authority to field offices are clearly
or
defined, in order to avoid conflict, confusion, delay o
duplication.
the agency's field structure is consistent with
authorities retained by the headquarters level and
delegated to the field levels, and the responsibilities
for overseeing the exercise of those authorities. t oversight mechanisr^s and information systesare us ids tood
monitor and assure implementation of approved police
programs.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
modern communications and information processing
techniques (eg, teleconferencing, automatic data systems)
are used to minimize manpower needs.
field offices use common administrative support centers
and interagency administrative service arrangements to the
extent they-are available.
the agency's field structure takes into adcount the
instances when,it may be necessary to coordinate
activities with other agencies.
e. External Source Service Arrangements
- external parties (e.g., other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, non-profit organizations, business
entities) are contracted with.to provide program and
support services, whenever it appears economically
feasible.
- opportunities are sought to contract the provision of
services to the persons and entities that receive the
services.
Agency Reports
3. Each agency head shall provide a report of the assessment of his
or her agency's field structure to the Cabinet Council On Management
and Administration by September 30, 1983. The report, shall include:
the results of the assessment;
the specific actions-taken or that must be taken to make the
agency field structure-consistent with the provisions of
Executive order and this Directive; and
a plan and schedule for
taking necessary corrective actions.
Sutsequent Assessments
4. Subsequent reviews of agency field structure arrangements against
the Executive Order goals and the criteria specified in this
Directive shall he made by the agency head annually and shall he
submitted to OMB as part of the agency's annual budget request.
CCMA and OMB Actions
5. The Cabinet Council on Management and Administration, with the
assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, will review the
reports provided by the agencies and prepare a summary of proposed
field structure actions and specific recommendations for the
President.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
One year following receipt of the initial agency reports and annually
thereafter, OMB will conduct an evaluation of the results of the
agency field structure actions taken in accordance with Executive
Order and this Directive and submit a report of the evaluation
accompanied by recommendations to the CCMA and the President. The
report will highlight the current status of the Federal field
structure and any policy modifications concerning the field structure
that it believes are needed.
Review of OMB Circular A-105
6. Each agency head shall also review the provisions of OMB Circular
A-105, "Standard Federal Regions", simultaneous with the assessment
of the agency's field structure required above, and submit a report
on that review to OMB by September 30, 1983. The report shall
include recommendations, if any, for revising the Circular to assure
that it is not an inhibitor to efficient and effective agency field
structure and provides maximum reasonable flexibility in field
structure decisions and actions. OMB shall review the
recommendations and consider the need to revise the Circular,
assuring its compatibility with Executive Order and this
Directive.
Employment Reductions
7. It is expected that actions taken in accordance with Executive
order and this Directive will result in significantly reduced
staffing requirements of positions due to consolidations,
colocations, and other steps to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
The Director of OMB, with the assistance of the CCMA, will allocate
specific employment reduction targets for each agency. The agency
heads will be responsible for achieving these reduction targets by
fiscal year 1986.
Effective Date
8. This Directive is effective immediately and remains in effect
until rescinded.
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
Appendix A
Participants on the Interagency Task Team
Office of Management and Budqet
James F. Kelly (lead)
Richard Feezle
Gary Katz
Richard O'Brien
Department of Agriculture
David Lewis
Department of Commerce
Alan Balutis
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection Aqency
Kenneth Dawsev
Steve Martin
Richard Cocozza
General Services Administration
Robert DiLuchio
Joseph Gerber
Department of Health and Human Services
Gary Arnold
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Gordon Walker
Department of Transportation
Shannon Roberts
Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85B01152R000100010012-5
 Approved For Release 2007/10/29: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000100010012-5
1'i,II ,I rue1I'se I',II 1