• on Jun 9th, 2011 in Post Offices & Retail Network | 8 comments
    Think for a moment about your most recent visit to a store. How late was it open? Where was it located? Now think about the last time you visited a Post Office? Were there any differences between the two experiences? While retail and the society at large have changed tremendously in the last 40 years, the size and distribution of the Postal Service retail network today is not that different from the network that existed in 1971. It has not changed to reflect the changes in where and how Americans live today.

    Why is this? An OIG paper issued today, Barriers to Retail Network Optimization, highlights some of the obstacles to change:

    Statutory restrictions prevent closing Post Offices for economic reasons and impose requirements for notice, consultation, and appeal procedures. • Regulatory procedures and interpretations create burdens on the Postal Service’s ability to make adjustments. • Political obstacles to rightsizing result from the natural inclination of affected groups to protest the loss of local Post Offices. • Institutional barriers within the Postal Service prevent action. These include a lack of sustained focus over time on retail optimization, problems with the availability and quality of data, past dependence on a highly decentralized bottom-up process, and the absence of a well-articulated strategic retail vision. What changes would you like to see to the Postal Service’s retail network? What do you think are the biggest barriers to change? We want to hear from you. This blog is hosted by the OIG’s Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC).
  • on Mar 21st, 2011 in Post Offices & Retail Network | 26 comments
    [dropcap style="font-size: 60px; color: #9b9b9b;"]I[/dropcap]n fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Postal Service spent more than $149 million in manufacturing, shipping, and fulfillment costs for Express Mail® and Priority Mail® packaging supplies. The Postal Service, like FedEx, provides these supplies at no cost to customers and the public. The packaging is Postal Service property and, therefore, should only be used to send Express and Priority mail packages. However, some customers use the boxes, envelopes, and labels for other purposes and in some cases, customers use the packaging to mail items using the Postal Service’s competitors. This adds additional costs to the Postal Service and violates federal law. The question is balancing the desire to control costs with maintaining the convenience that customers desire. The Postal Service must ensure the supplies it provides are used appropriately, but what’s the best way to do this? Are the savings worth the logistics and costs of monitoring and the inconvenience for customers? How do competitors monitor the use of packaging supplies? This topic is hosted by the Office of Audit Field Financial – West team.
  • on Feb 14th, 2011 in Finances: Cost & Revenue | 12 comments
    [dropcap style="font-size: 60px; color: #9b9b9b;"] T [/dropcap]he Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the Postal Service to comply with specific sections of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Among other financial reporting requirements, SOX mandates internal control compliance – making sure that financial transactions are reasonably and fairly presented in the accounting records - and places the responsibility on postal management. A recent district-wide audit of 13 postal retail units found 80 internal control compliance issues related to stamp accountabilities, disbursements, and financial accounting and reporting. The cause for most of these issues was attributed to a lack of adequate training, the insufficient financial background of some unit managers, why they were placed in the position without receiving the necessary financial training, and an absence of oversight by the managers and supervisors responsible for implementing financial internal controls. Why do these managers lack the proper training and background to adequately supervise financial operations? One possibility is the amount of management turnover at retail units. The management turnover rate was high at some retail sites visited during the audit. For example, one retail unit had three different acting station managers in the last 18 months. Often, new or acting managers and supervisors come from different segments of the Postal Service and are placed in positions which require them to supervise financial operations. Is there a benefit for bringing in someone from a different segment to oversee the operations of a retail unit? How should they be trained? Please give your comments. The topic is hosted by the Office of Audit Field Financial – West team.

Pages