For those with a clearance process, agencies simply compared one's task force duties with the occupation that the member identified. No agency reviewed personal financial interests since these members were not identified as SGES. Only a few identified task force members or co-chairs whose participation raised concerns about conflict. Task force objectives and area of study In almost all cases, agency contacts perceived task force objectives as cost saving/management improvements. A few were unsure about the objectives because the task force just began working in their agency. Concerning the area of study, task forces' reviews seemed very broad. Most agencies helped task forces to identify the areas. Contacts said that task forces seemed to focus on anything that could save money--especially in the short term. Agencies' responses to this question included the following. --Four were unclear about the areas because the task force still was defining the issues. Others only knew broad areas to be reviewed. --Among administrative areas under review, the most common --Most said that a task force focused on administrative --A few agency contacts believed that task forces had pre- Task force methodology In almost all cases, agency contacts described the following task force review process: --Task force officials briefed top agency officials. --Agency officials explained key issues and programs. --Task forces reviewed internal and external reports, con- These represent the broad steps. No agency contact seemed certain about the methods for analyzing the information or writing the reports. While the contacts generally did not know how task forces conducted reviews, most said that task forces relied on previously generated data/findings and worked in teams. Interviewed agency employees Agency contacts said that most task force interviews occurred at top management levels (for example, Secretary, Deputy/ Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries). In addition, task forces also have interviewed directors/managers who oversee programs and administrative operations. A few agency contacts referred to interviews with career employees (for example, analysts). Overall, many contacts were unsure about who task forces interviewed or planned to interview. This uncertainty partially existed because some task forces just began. Also, not all agencies required task forces to identify interviewees. Some contacts said that a task force was given complete freedom to interview whomever it desired. A few required coordinating all interviews in the agency. Task force membership In this area, agency contacts exhibited a great deal of uncertainty. They stated that they generally (1) deal only with the project manager and (2) lacked an updated list of task force members--especially since membership changes periodically. While contacts did not disclose most task force members' names, they did provide a few. Also, they estimated how many members worked on task forces. About half of the contacts praised the members' expertise. They felt fortunate to have experts reviewing many areas that the agency perceived as problems. Agency support to task forces Agencies commonly provided space, furniture, and staff time for briefings and interviews. In these cases, agency contacts usually explained that the (1) items were surplus and (2) staff time was well used or similar to time spent with GAO or a consultant. Many agencies also referred to equipment (for example, phones and typewriters) and supplies. Further, a few agencies provided minimal clerical support. Agency comments on task Force effects/operations Most agency contacts viewed the task forces as positive attempts to identify cost savings. They generally viewed task force members as very talented experts who provided free advice and an objective viewpoint. Given these perceptions, most agencies seemed willing to help the task forces and had an open mind on the findings. Some agencies eagerly supported the task forces' efforts and awaited the recommendations. Many said that task force's presence forced them to improve operations. Also, contacts believed a "fresh, objective look" was healthy because it generated new ideas or reconsidered old ones. Many saw no problems emerging from the task forces' work. Nevertheless, some agency contacts had negative views about how task forces operated. While all agency contacts said something positive about the task forces, a few referred to negative aspects such as whether the task force members could learn complex issues in a short time and whether members had formed conclusions before doing the review. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO DATE August 18, 1982 Aetna Life Insurance Company Allied Corporation American Cyanamid Company American International Group, Inc. Beneficial Corporation Borden Foundation CBS, Inc. CIGNA Corporation CSX Corporation Champion International Corp. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. Citicorp The Coca Cola Co. Continental Group Foundation, Inc. Dresser Industries, Inc. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company Esmark, Inc. Exxon Corporation Federated Department Stores, Inc. General Dynamics Corporation General Electric Co. General Foods Corp. General Mills Foundation General Signal Corporation General Telephone & Electronics Corp. Georgia-Pacific Foundation Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Hercules, Incorporated Hewlett-Packard Co. Honeywell, Inc. Ingersoll Rand Company InterFirst Corporation International Business Machines Corp. International Minerals & Chemical Corp. Kimberly-Clark Corporation Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Melville Corporation Merck & Co., Inc. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Metropolitan Life Foundation United Telecommunications, Inc. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Burlington Industries, Inc. Champion Spark Plug Co. Delaware Trust Company The First Boston Corporation Fluor Corporation Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. GK Technologies Incorporated Jewel Companies, Inc. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. Marine Midland Banks, Inc. Marshall & Ilsley Bank Foundation Inc. Mercantile Stores Co., Inc. Metromedia, Inc. National Steel Corporation Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. North American Philips Corporation Northrop Corporation Northwest Airlines Paine Webber Incorporated Prince Foundation LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS CONTINUED RichSeaPak Corporation St. Joe Minerals Corporation The First National Bank of Chicago Whittaker Corporation Colt Industries, Inc. Heublein, Inc. Middle South Utilities, Inc. Raytheon Co. The Williams Companies Hershey Foods Corporation The New York Times Co. Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb AVCO Corporation Cameron Iron Works, Inc. Carpenter Technology Corp. Financial World General Reinsurance Corp. Holiday Inns, Inc. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York The Peoples Gas Light & Coke Company The Philadelphia National Bank Provident Charitable Trust Ex-Cell-O Corporation Intel Corp. Rockwell International Corporation Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. The Chase Manhattan Bank Celanese Corporation Gould Foundation McGraw-Hill, Inc. Shell Companies Foundation The Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York NCNB Corporation United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company I Wachovia Bank & Trust Company McGraw-Edison Company Texas Instruments Incorporated The Lear Siegler Foundation Texas Utilities Company Aluminum Company of America |