For nearly three years, the US government has been reorganizing its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—and some employees are sick of it. The process is taking too long, they say, and the end result is unlikely to be an improvement.

CDC director Julie Gerberding first announced the reshuffle in June 2003, and Congress gave its final approval to the ongoing changes in April 2005. The plan aims to make the agency more efficient, innovative and responsive to changing circumstances.

The reorganization, cheerfully dubbed the 'futures initiative', does not have a set date for completion, but within the agency, it has already won many critics. An internal survey in April revealed that 65% of respondents were “not at all” or “a little” confident that the initiative would result in positive changes. The agency plans to take another survey next April.

There is widespread, almost universal, dissatisfaction and demoralization at the CDC. A senior public health researcher

“There is widespread, almost universal, dissatistfaction and demoralization at the CDC,” says a senior public health researcher who is long-acquainted with the agency.

In the new structure, the CDC's 11 scientific divisions, which reported directly to the office of the director, now report to one of six “coordinating centers”. These new centers are meant to allow for more research and collaboration between divisions. But critics in the agency—none of whom will speak on the record for fear of reprisals—say the centers have only added an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.

Some critics say new administrators, many of whom were appointed in November, are not experienced enough and were picked for their allegiance to Gerberding. “The reorganization is emasculating the [divisions] and putting in cronies,” says a senior official. “It's just endless reorganization and reshuffling.”

Unhappiness at the CDC mostly roils below the surface because the agency frowns on outspoken complaint. One manager who spoke openly about his unhappiness was reportedly disciplined for misconduct. “Raising honest concerns is not appreciated,” says a senior official. “Anybody here who talks on the record is dead meat.”

Off the record, the staff complain about increasing bureaucracy, bad management and meddling from the Bush administration. The last charge was exemplified by the smallpox vaccine initiative, which some CDC scientists say was insufficiently grounded in science. An Institute of Medicine report in March 2005 found that national security interests superseded the science behind the program.

Donna Garland, chief of enterprise communications for the agency, admits that there has been some unhappiness among CDC staff, but says much of the irritation is misplaced. “A lot of concerns come from issues that predate the futures initiative,” she says. “Change is constant. I think in the federal government we lose track of that sometimes.”

Still, to improve morale, the agency has created a 'ton of feathers' task force, the idea being that little irritants—such as burdensome travel clearance procedures or long waits for computer support—may be small matters, but can collectively take a heavy toll.