Department of Agriculture: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and
Addressing Major Management Challenges (23-AUG-01, GAO-01-761).
The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) fiscal year 2000
performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan have the
potential for focusing the department's missions, but these
efforts are compromised in a number of areas. USDA's goals and
measures are too general to give insight into the actual
achievements that USDA is striving to make. In particular, it is
difficult to assess USDA's progress when it uses unrealistic
goals to achieve strategic outcomes and when it uses untimely
data that has not been consistently verified. In two particular
areas--strategic human capital management and information
security--the process of measuring USDA's performance has been
frustrated by the lack of goals and measures for identified
issues. Finally, by not sharing information about the major
management challenges identified by its own Inspector General,
USDA's agencies miss the opportunity to develop strategies and
plans to respond to these issues.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-761
ACCNO: A01564
TITLE: Department of Agriculture: Status of Achieving Key
Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges
DATE: 08/23/2001
SUBJECT: Food supply
Reporting requirements
Strategic planning
Performance measures
Program evaluation
Food Stamp Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-761
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.
S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
August 2001 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and
Addressing Major Management Challenges
GAO- 01- 761
Page i GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 6 Assessment of USDA?s Progress and Strategies
in Achieving
Selected Key Outcomes 8 Comparison of USDA?s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance
Report and
Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan With the Prior Year Report and Plan for
Selected Key Outcomes 15 USDA?s Efforts to Address its Major Management
Challenges
Identified by GAO 18 Conclusions 18 Recommendations for Executive Action 19
Agency Comments 19 Scope and Methodology 21
Appendix I Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges 23
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33
Table
Table 1: Major Management Challenges 24
Figure
Figure 1: Estimated Percent of Total Outlays for USDA?s Major Activities 7
Contents
Page 1 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
August 23, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
Dear Senator Thompson: As you requested, we reviewed the U. S. Department of
Agriculture?s (USDA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year
2002 performance plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency?s progress in achieving selected key
outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the agency. 1
USDA presented one performance report with agency- by- agency coverage and 1
departmental and 24 agency and office performance plans. We reviewed the
same outcomes we addressed in our June 2000 review of the agency?s fiscal
year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plans to
provide a baseline by which to measure the agency?s performance from year-
to- year. 2 These selected key outcomes are
ensuring an adequate and reasonably priced food supply; opening,
expanding, and maintaining global market opportunities for
agricultural producers; reducing hunger and ensuring food for the hungry;
ensuring a safe and wholesome food supply; and reducing food stamp fraud
and error. As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for USDA as a
framework, we (1) assessed the progress USDA has made in accomplishing these
outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them; and
1 This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial
Officers (CFO) Act agencies? fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal
year 2002 performance plans. 2 Observations on the U. S. Department of
Agriculture?s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance
Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/ RCED- 00- 212R, June 30,
2000).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
(2) compared USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan with the agency?s previous year performance report and plan
for these outcomes. 3 Additionally, we agreed to analyze how USDA addressed
its major management challenges, including the governmentwide high- risk
areas of strategic human capital management and information security, that
we and USDA?s Office of Inspector General identified. Appendix I provides
detailed information on how USDA addressed these challenges.
USDA made progress in achieving the selected key outcomes while recognizing
that, in some areas, more progress is needed to meet its goals. As advised
by the Congress and as we suggested, USDA developed for the first time a
departmentwide annual performance plan, which contains five broad
departmental strategic goals. USDA?s new plan represents a significant
improvement by focusing on the department?s central missions- a focus that
was absent last year when USDA?s plans contained 1,700 goals and did not
identify the department?s priorities. While the new plan is improved, it is
a work- in- progress that could more clearly link the departmental
strategies and goals and individual agency performance plans. Information
related to each outcome follows:
Planned Outcome: Ensuring an Adequate and Reasonably Priced Food Supply
Although USDA did not select this outcome as a key departmental goal in its
fiscal year 2002 plan, the department views this as an important outcome and
reported making some progress. For example, USDA reported that it met its
goals for stabilizing peanut and tobacco prices and maintaining the economic
viability of peanut and tobacco producers. USDA includes important annual
performance goals related to this outcome under the department?s first
strategic goal of expanding economic and trade opportunities for U. S.
agricultural producers. This departmental strategic goal is mainly concerned
with developing creative solutions to ensure the long- term profitability
and
3 Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress
and the public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies? major
programs and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge
performance, (3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the
performance goals, and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and
validate performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after
transmittal of the president?s budget, provide a direct linkage between an
agency?s longer- term goals and mission and day- to- day activities. Annual
performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which
performance goals were met. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
sustainability of U. S. agriculture. The plan contains performance goals
such as those to improve farmers? incomes, reduce pest and disease
outbreaks, and expand international sales opportunities for U. S.
agricultural products.
Planned Outcome: Opening, Expanding, and Maintaining Global Market
Opportunities for Agricultural Producers
USDA reported progress in achieving this outcome. However, it is difficult
to isolate and measure the extent of USDA?s progress because some of the key
measures are affected by variables that extend beyond the department?s
authority and capability. For example, the decrease in the value and volume
of U. S. agricultural exports over the last several years is generally
recognized to be the result of deteriorating economic conditions in the
Asian market that could not be overcome by USDA policy or activities. In its
fiscal year 2002 performance plan, USDA presents a number of strategies that
are relevant to this important federal activity. USDA states its intention
to develop an integrated longrange marketing plan to work with the private
sector to expand sales of agricultural products abroad. In most instances,
these strategies do not yet contain adequate explanations of the key
elements that will facilitate success such as operational concepts and
methods and human capital and technological resources that are necessary to
achieve its goals. Moreover, the department does not provide mitigation
strategies to explain how it would adapt to changing global conditions.
Planned Outcome: Reducing Hunger and Ensuring Food For the Hungry
USDA reported continued progress in fiscal year 2000 toward achieving this
outcome and that its performance exceeded that of fiscal year 1999. For
example, the department reported meeting its goals for distributing food
nutrition education information to low- income Americans. USDA?s fiscal year
2002 departmental performance plan contains general strategies for achieving
this outcome- such as the strategy to ?effectively deliver assistance to
eligible people? that provides little insight into how progress is to be
achieved. USDA?s Food and Nutrition Service- the agency primarily
responsible for achieving these strategies- has not yet drafted a
performance plan for fiscal year 2002- so we could not determine how well
its agency goals and measures support the departmental plan.
Page 4 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Planned Outcome: Ensuring a Safe and Wholesome Food Supply USDA reported
that it met or exceeded nearly all of its fiscal year 2000 performance goals
related to this outcome. It reported, for example, that it met its target
for implementing the new scientific- based food safety system for federally
inspected meat and poultry plants. In USDA?s fiscal year 2002 departmental
performance plan, it generally provides clear strategies for achieving this
outcome. For example, one clear set of strategies to improve USDA?s reviews
of foreign food safety programs includes intensifying the reviews of animal
feeds, animal identification, and process control systems in countries
exporting meat and poultry products to the United States.
Planned Outcome: Reducing Food Stamp Fraud and Error USDA reported
continued progress toward achieving this outcome and it met or exceeded many
of its fiscal year 2000 performance goals. The department, for example,
reported exceeding its target for payment accuracy in delivering Food Stamp
Program benefits. It also reported collecting about $216 million in
overpayments to recipients in fiscal year 2000, exceeding its original
target of collecting $194 million. The fiscal year 2002 performance plan
contains strategies for meeting this outcome, but they are too general to
demonstrate how it would further reduce fraud and error in its Food Stamp
Program. For example, the plan does not include a discussion of sanctions
against retail stores that traffic in food stamps- a violation of program
requirements. A recent Food and Nutrition Service study estimated that
stores each year illegally provided cash for benefits (trafficking of
benefits) totaling about $660 million.
Although USDA has additional work to do on the outcomes that we reviewed,
its fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance
plan show improvement over the prior year?s report and plan. In particular,
the fiscal year 2002 performance plan presented USDA as a single department
with clear missions, rather than a collection of separate agencies with a
diversity of loosely related roles. While this plan is a welcome
development, we found that it is also a work- in- progress. The plan could
be strengthened by improving linkages among important key outcomes, goals
and indicators, and the strategies for achieving the key outcomes. For
example, the plan recognized departmentwide strategic human capital
management issues, such as emerging skill gaps and the need for staff to
shift to a greater use of technology. However, the plan did not link
measurable goals and strategies for addressing these and other
Page 5 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
human capital management issues discussed in the plan. Additionally, we
found that the departmental plan could more consistently link to some of
USDA?s individual agencies? plans, and thereby improve accountability for
achieving the departmental goals. In transmitting USDA?s fiscal year 2002
performance plan, the Secretary recognized the plan as a beginning effort
that will be replaced, once USDA?s new leadership team is in place, by
another plan that better reflects the administration?s priorities.
Of the 10 management challenges identified by GAO, we found that USDA?s
performance report and plan generally discussed the department?s progress,
except that the fiscal year 2000 performance report did not include the two
governmentwide major management challenges identified by GAO- strategic
human capital management and information security. USDA acknowledged
multiple strategic human capital management issues in its fiscal year 2002
plan, such as skill gaps in its workforce, but it does not include
performance goals and measures for addressing the specific challenges it
identified. Similarly, USDA identified the need to strengthen departmentwide
information security, but it does not provide performance goals or measures
for addressing this management challenge. Finally, USDA did not recognize or
address all of the management challenges identified by its own Office of
Inspector General (OIG). We found that the OIG did not provide a copy of its
letter to congressional requesters identifying major management challenges
to each affected USDA agency.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture set priorities for
improving the timeliness of data used for reporting on performance goals and
measures; provide more consistent discussions of data verification and
validation; better match the department?s goals with its capabilities for
expanding and maintaining global market opportunities; include performance
goals and measures for strategic human capital management and information
security in USDA?s departmental plan; and include in its departmental plan
an annual performance goal for reducing food stamp trafficking. We are also
recommending that the Secretary address the major management challenges
identified by USDA?s OIG in its future performance plans.
We obtained oral comments on a draft of our report from the Department of
Agriculture. USDA generally agreed with the information presented in the
draft report. However, USDA OIG officials disagreed with one recommendation
that calls for them to facilitate the discussion of major management
challenges in USDA?s performance plan. We modified our recommendation based
on these comments. USDA officials also disagreed with our recommendation to
improve the departmental strategic
Page 6 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
performance goal and maintained that its measure- U. S. global market share-
is the ultimate performance measure describing overall changes in
international markets. We retained our recommendation because we believe
that USDA has relatively little influence on overall U. S. global market
share and therefore should select a departmental performance goal that is
more in keeping with USDA?s actual influence over international market
events.
GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,
management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results
and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on
the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since
federal agencies began implementing GPRA. The fiscal year 2002 performance
plan is the fourth of these annual plans under GPRA. The fiscal year 2000
performance report is the second of these annual reports under GPRA. The
issuance of the agencies? performance reports, due by March 31, 2001,
represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the
implementation of GPRA- the opportunity to assess federal agencies? actual
performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed
to improve performance and reduce costs in the future.
USDA is one of the nation?s largest federal agencies, employing over 110,000
people and managing a budget of over $78 billion. Its agencies and offices
are responsible for operating more than 200 programs. These programs support
the profitability of farming, promote domestic agricultural markets and the
export of food and farm products, provide food assistance for the needy,
ensure the safety of the nation?s food supply, manage the national forests,
protect the environment, conduct biotechnological and other agricultural
research, and improve the well being of rural America. Background
Page 7 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Figure 1: Estimated Percent of Total Outlays for USDA?s Major Activities
Fiscal Year 2000 estimated outlays-$ 78.6 Billion Source: USDA?s Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Year 2000- 2005.
Page 8 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
This section discusses our analysis of USDA?s performance in achieving the
selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place to achieve
these outcomes, particularly for strategic human capital management and
information technology. 4 In discussing these outcomes, we have also
provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to which the
department provided assurance that its reported performance information is
credible.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report, which was issued in March 2001,
indicated that the department continued to make some progress toward
achieving this outcome. For example, USDA reported that it met its goals for
stabilizing peanut and tobacco prices and maintaining the economic viability
of peanut and tobacco producers. However, it is difficult to assess USDA?s
progress because the department did not provide an overall evaluation of
this outcome in its report. According to the performance report, USDA met
about 72 percent of the performance goals related to this outcome, less than
last year when USDA reported it met over 80 percent of its goals.
USDA did not select the outcome of providing an adequate and reasonably
priced food supply as a key departmental strategic goal in its fiscal year
2002 performance plan, which was issued in June 2001. Some of USDA?s efforts
to achieve this outcome are discussed under the top ranked departmental
strategic goal of expanding economic and trade opportunities for U. S.
agricultural producers and a USDA official stated that this outcome
continues to be important for the department. USDA?s discussion of this
strategic goal stated that farming and ranching is being transformed by
changes in biological and information technology, environmental and
conservation concerns, greater threats from pests and diseases spreading
across continents, natural disasters and the industrialization of
agriculture, and globalization of markets. Under this goal, USDA chose as
its first objective to provide an effective safety net and to promote a
strong, sustainable U. S. farm economy. 5 USDA explained
4 GAO has selected strategic human capital management and information
technology as governmentwide high- risk areas. Key elements of modern human
capital management include strategic human capital planning and
organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning;
acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet
agency needs; and creating results- oriented organizational cultures. 5 A
safety net for farmers is mainly providing farm income assistance to help
farmers maintain a profitable operation when there are collapses in market
commodity prices, decreases in crop yields, and/ or natural disasters.
Assessment of USDA?s
Progress and Strategies in Achieving Selected Key Outcomes
An Adequate And Reasonably Priced Food Supply
Page 9 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
that if it is to achieve its goal of promoting a strong farm economy that is
less dependent of government support, then it must also place a heavy
emphasis on helping farmers proactively manage the risks inherent in
agriculture and improve farmers income. USDA?s second objective under this
strategic goal is to expand export markets- USDA illustrated the opportunity
for exports by estimating that 96 percent of American agriculture?s
potential customers reside outside the United States. Some of the
performance goals presented for this strategic goal are to improve farmers?
incomes, reduce pest and disease outbreaks, and expand international sales
opportunities.
USDA reported progress in fiscal year 2000 that was similar to its
performance last year in that it met some of its goals and indicators for
this outcome. USDA stated that it exceeded its targets for two key goals.
The gross trade value of markets created, expanded, or retained annually due
to market access activities reached $4.35 billion, significantly higher than
its $2 billion target. USDA attributed $2 billion of this gain to
negotiations on China?s accession to the World Trade Organization in fiscal
year 2000. Similarly, annual sales, which were reported by U. S. exporters
from on- site sales at international trade shows, reached $367 million in
fiscal year 2000, compared to USDA?s target of $250 million. Despite these
successes, USDA fell short in meeting other goals. The department reported
$837 million in U. S. agricultural exports resulted from the implementation
of trade agreements under the World Trade Organization, below its target of
$2 billion. It also reported that the total value of U. S. agricultural
exports supported by its export credit guarantee programs reached $3. 1
billion, falling short of its $3. 8 billion target.
USDA uses a questionable methodology for measuring the success of its
efforts to expand and maintain global markets for U. S. agricultural
products. USDA?s goals and indicators emphasize growth in the U. S. share of
the global agricultural market- measured by changes in the dollar value of
exports resulting from the implementation of trade agreements, market access
enhancements, sales from annual trade shows, and agricultural exports. Yet,
the dollar value of exports is subject to powerful external variables that
transcend USDA?s authority and ability to affect change in international
trade. These variables include exchange rates, government policies, global
and national economic conditions, climactic changes, and numerous other
factors over which USDA has no control or strategies to address. For
example, the decrease in the value and volume of U. S. agricultural exports
over the last several years is generally recognized by economists,
government officials, and private sector representatives to be the result of
deteriorating economic conditions, particularly in the Asian Opening,
Expanding, and
Maintaining Global Market Opportunities for Agricultural Producers
Page 10 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
market, over which USDA has no control. USDA?s Economic Research Service has
consistently held that U. S. agricultural export performance results more
from market forces, which include multiple variables beyond the control of
USDA, than from the actions of the U. S. government to expand international
market opportunities. Along with other research institutions, it has
confirmed that the decline in the value of U. S. agricultural exports from
$60 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $50. 9 billion in fiscal year 2000 was
not attributable to U. S. government trade policies, programs, and
activities. It further observed that USDA programs typically have a limited
effect on the dollar value of U. S. exports and market share. We have
previously raised questions about the extent of the relationship between
USDA?s export policies and programs and increased exports. 6
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 plan is based on the assumption that government
policies, programs, and activities have a significant influence on the U. S.
share of the global agricultural market. USDA has set a goal to increase
exports by $14 billion by fiscal year 2010, or about 22 percent of the
global market. This level would return the United States to the same global
market share it held in the early 1990s. USDA?s plan is consistent with the
assumption that the government?s impact is enhanced when the government
works with the private sector to create a facilitative environment to expand
sales of agricultural products abroad. USDA?s strategies are to include a
long- range integrated marketing plan, which would provide a generalized
framework that goes beyond the traditional narrow and short- term
programmatic and reactive export oriented approaches. Among its goals are
those for (1) developing a long- range marketing plan that enlists USDA?s
network of domestic and foreign field offices in an effort to assist U. S.
producers in capturing new market opportunities, (2) partnering with private
U. S. market development groups to leverage resources aimed at expanding
market opportunities abroad for U. S. food and agricultural products, (3)
expanding U. S. access to foreign markets through active participation in
the World Trade Organization and international trade forums, and (4)
continuing to monitor international trade agreements and negotiating new
agreements to open overseas markets to U. S. food and agricultural products.
However, what is not yet spelled out are the key elements of the integrated
marketing plan that will move beyond a generalized concept to the reality of
specific actions that
6 U. S. Agricultural Exports: Strong Growth Likely But U. S. Export
Assistance Programs? Contribution Uncertain (GAO/ NSIAD- 97- 260, Sept. 30,
1997) and Agricultural Trade: Changes Made to Market Access Program, but
Questions Remain on Economic Impact
(GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 38, Apr. 5, 1999).
Page 11 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
will lead to success. Among the elements that could be further addressed
would be the organizational structure, the human capital and technological
resources, and the operational concepts and methods that will actually
enable USDA to meet its global marketing objectives.
USDA?s Foreign Agricultural Service said that its plans are necessarily
generalized at this point in time and should be considered as their first
steps in developing an integrated marketing plan. The Service also said that
it would be instituting quarterly reporting to track progress. In addition,
the Service disagreed with our views about its departmental level strategic
performance goal to affect U. S. market share, and said that it believed it
had selected the ultimate measure of change for international agricultural
markets. However, as previously discussed, we disagree with the selection of
this goal because USDA?s activities have little influence on the overall
level of international market shares. Since the GPRA was designed to lead to
better insights into the performance of government, USDA will need to adopt
a realistic departmental performance goal to meet this purpose.
According to its performance report, USDA reported continued progress toward
this outcome and met about 80 percent of its goals. USDA?s performance
exceeded that of fiscal year 1999. For example, the department reported
meeting its goals for distributing food nutrition education information to
low- income Americans, for increasing the number of schools that meet USDA?s
dietary guidelines, and for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
commodity acquisition and distribution to support domestic and international
food assistance programs. Some of the goals do not have specific performance
targets, so it is not always clear what USDA is actually accomplishing. For
example, USDA determined that it is meeting its goal of improving the
nutritional status of Americans by such actions as distributing revised
dietary guidelines and by promoting media coverage, and observing seminar
attendance and web- page usage related to improved nutrition and diet. These
measures of performance do not tell us whether USDA?s actions are improving
Americans? nutritional status.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 departmental performance plan contains many general
strategies for achieving its goals and measures. For example, one general
strategy called for reallocating funds from areas with excess funds to areas
with high demand for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children. However, some of the general strategies make it
difficult to assess USDA?s progress. For example, USDA?s goal to improve
food security for children and low- income individuals calls for Food for
the Hungry
Page 12 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
expanding program access to the needy- and the plan?s strategies for doing
this involves ?effectively delivering assistance? and ?continuing
efforts? to ensure that the Food Stamp Program is accessible. Such
strategies provide little insight into the specific actions USDA intends to
take to achieve its goals. In addition, at the time of our review, USDA?s
Food and Nutrition Service, the agency primarily responsible for this
outcome, had yet to draft a performance plan for fiscal year 2002. The
detailed goals and strategies that the agency level plan would contain are
needed to support USDA?s departmental plan. The Acting Administrator of the
Food and Nutrition Service reported that the agency is assembling a policy
team and will issue a draft performance plan after the team is selected.
According to its performance report, USDA met or exceeded nearly all of its
fiscal year 2000 performance goals for ensuring a safe and wholesome food
supply. USDA stated that it met its goals for key areas, such as the
percentage of federally inspected meat and poultry slaughter and/ or
processing plants that had implemented the basic hazard analysis and
critical control points (HACCP) requirements. GAO issued a report on this
subject in 1997. 7 USDA also reported that it exceeded its goal for the
number of reviews it conducted of foreign meat and poultry food safety
programs to ensure their compliance with U. S. safety standards. GAO also
issued a report on this subject in 1998. 8 When performance goals were not
met, USDA generally provided specific explanations, including describing
external factors when applicable, for not achieving the performance goals.
For example, USDA reported that it fell short of meeting its goal for
deploying 607 computers to state inspection programs because 4 states did
not have the funding available to meet their 50- percent share of the
computers? costs. In another example, USDA did not meet its goal to perform
68, 000 laboratory tests, falling short of its target by 8, 000 tests. USDA
did not provide any additional strategies for achieving this goal in the
following fiscal year, but it stated that it believed many of the
difficulties in meeting the goal have been alleviated by the implementation
of the new HACCP system.
7 Food Safety: Fundamental Changes Needed to Improve the Nation?s Food
Safety System
(GAO/ T- RCED- 98- 24, Oct. 8, 1997). 8 Food Safety: Federal Efforts to
Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods Are Inconsistent
and Unreliable (GAO/ RCED- 98- 103, Apr. 30, 1998). A Safe and Wholesome
Food Supply
Page 13 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan describes several strategies to
ensure a safe and wholesome food supply. Such strategies include (1)
strengthening laboratory and risk assessment capabilities, (2) implementing
a HACCP system for eggs, and (3) strengthening its foreign food safety
program efforts. These strategies generally provided a clear description of
USDA?s approach for reaching its performance goals. For example, USDA
described a strategy that seeks to improve its foreign food safety program
review efforts by intensifying reviews of animal feeds, animal
identification, and process control systems in countries exporting meat and
poultry products to the United States. However, the strategies did not show
how USDA plans to address and overcome the fundamental problem it faces in
this area- the current food safety system is fragmented with as many as 12
different federal agencies administering over 35 laws regarding food safety.
USDA?s plan states that the creation of a single federal food safety agency,
as previously recommended by us, extends beyond the legal scope of any one
federal agency. We have maintained that until this fragmented system is
replaced with a risk- based single food agency, the U. S. food safety system
will continue to under perform. 9 USDA pointed out that it does not have the
authority to merge with other federal agencies and form a single food safety
agency. (See app. I.)
According to its performance report, USDA met or exceeded many of its fiscal
year 2000 goals and made progress toward reducing food stamp fraud and
error. 10 The department, for example, reported exceeding its goal for
payment accuracy rate in the delivery of Food Stamp Program benefits and
stated that it would support continued improvements by seeking opportunities
to simplify program rules- a recommendation made by us in a recent report on
reducing payment errors. 11 It also reported collecting about $219 million
in overpayments to recipients in fiscal year 2000, which exceeded its
original target of collecting about $194 million. In some instances, USDA
fell short of meeting its goals for this outcome. For example, USDA did not
meet its goal for increasing the percentage of debt owed by retailers who
were delinquent on their food stamp payments that was referred to Treasury,
and it narrowly missed its goal for the number of
9 Food Safety: U. S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, Risk-
Based Inspection System (GAO/ T- RCED- 99- 256, Aug. 4, 1999). 10 Food stamp
fraud is a crime, and error refers to administrative problems such as
incorrectly calculated benefit payments. 11 Food Stamp Program: States Seek
to Reduce Payment Errors and Program Complexity
(GAO- 01- 272, Jan. 19, 2001). Food Stamp Fraud and
Error
Page 14 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
retailers sanctioned for not meeting regulatory requirements. In those
instances when goals were not met, USDA generally provided specific
explanations for not achieving them. For example, the department reported
that it did not meet its goal for referring to the Treasury Department cases
of food stamp retailers with delinquent debts for collection because it did
not submit cases in a timely manner and because of shortcomings in the
processing of such referrals.
USDA did not base its fiscal year 2000 performance report assessments on
actual performance data in some cases. For example, for two performance
goals- maintain payment accuracy in the delivery of Food Stamp Program
benefits and the number of states qualifying for enhanced funding based on
high payment accuracy- the department reported progress from fiscal year
1999, and it stated that it would meet its fiscal year 2000 performance
goals based on ?early indications? and planned activities. USDA also
recognized that actual data would be available 3 months after the
performance report was issued, which represents an improvement in data
reporting. Nevertheless, the absence of timely performance data makes it
difficult for USDA and others to annually assess performance and determine
if changes in strategies are needed.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 departmental performance plan contained several
strategies for reducing food stamp fraud and error. USDA stated that it
intended to continue to improve the accuracy and consistency of its quality
control system and support state efforts to improve food stamp benefit
accuracy through technical assistance and by using the best practices for
information- sharing. However, the departmental plan did not have specific
strategies to demonstrate how USDA would achieve its strategic goals and
objectives. In some instances, a discussion of goals, objectives, and
strategies directly related to this key outcome were not included. For
example, the plan did not include a discussion of how it would deal with
retail stores that violate program requirements. A recent Food and Nutrition
Service study estimated that stores each year illegally provided cash for
benefits (trafficking of benefits) totaling about $660 million. USDA?s
departmental plan also did not specifically discuss the Food and Nutrition
Service?s targets or measures for reducing trafficking in food stamps, and
it does not contain details on the strategies to be used to reduce fraud and
error in the Food Stamp Program. The details of these strategies may be
included in the Food and Nutrition Service?s agency level performance plan
for fiscal year 2002, which has not yet been prepared. Additionally, we have
identified efforts to reduce fraud and error in the food stamp program as a
major management challenge. (See app. I.)
Page 15 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or
remaining weaknesses in USDA?s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in
comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002
performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also
discusses the degree to which the agency?s fiscal year 2000 report and
fiscal year 2002 plan addresses concerns and recommendations by the
Congress, GAO, USDA?s OIG and others.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report presentation has remained largely
unchanged compared with the prior year?s report. Specifically, the report
continued to be an agency- by- agency discussion of its progress without an
overview presenting a picture of the department?s overall performance. As
discussed previously, the fiscal year 2000 performance Comparison of
USDA?s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Plan With the Prior Year Report and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes
Comparison of Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
Page 16 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
report has limitations such as its reliance on narrative measures that track
agency actions but that do not provide information about the impacts of the
agency?s performance. There are also areas where the data is limited and of
questionable reliability- USDA has reported that the vast scale and
complexity of its programs present major management challenges in terms of
the availability of accurate, credible, and timely performance data. For
example: (1) the Foreign Agricultural Service reported that it has limited
resources for tracking issues related to the World Trade Organization and
barriers in foreign markets leading to errors and limitations in data
verification; (2) USDA?s estimates of the populations that are participating
in food stamp and other nutrition assistance programs are generally not
available in time for preparing its annual performance reports; (3) USDA has
relied on data about school food services that is collected informally and
without standardized procedures because of opposition to the collection of
this data; and (4) USDA reported that its data on agricultural producers?
awareness of risk management alternatives had not been collected
consistently from state to state.
In addition, the fiscal year 2000 performance report varied from providing a
detailed discussion of USDA?s data verification and validation efforts, to
little or no information about its data accuracy. In many cases, USDA did
not provide information on the steps that were taken to verify and validate
the data. For example, concerning the performance goal to eradicate a common
animal disease, the report simply stated that staff members are responsible
for ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the data. Also, UDSA did not
report on the reliability of the information reported by the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which relies on the
accomplishments and results reported by the universities receiving its
research funds.
USDA developed a new departmental plan for fiscal year 2002 that is
significantly different than its 2001 plan. The fiscal year 2002 plan
provided, for the first time, a departmentwide approach to performance
management. This streamlined presentation consolidated the more than 1,700
agency specific performance goals and measures it presented in 2001 into 5
departmental strategic goals, 56 annual performance goals, and 79 measures
for fiscal year 2002. The departmental strategic goals USDA selected were as
follows: (1) expand economic and trade opportunities for U. S. agricultural
producers; (2) promote health by providing access to safe, affordable, and
nutritious food; (3) maintain and enhance the nation?s natural resources and
environment; (4) enhance the capacity of all rural residents, communities,
and businesses to prosper; and (5) operate an efficient, effective, and
discrimination- free organization. The new Comparison of
Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 17 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
departmental plan is supported by agency- level annual performance plans
that offer more detailed information on evolving strategies, priorities, and
resource needs.
We found USDA?s new plan to be a work- in- progress, as discussed throughout
this report. USDA did not consistently provide the detailed strategies that
were needed for achieving its departmental goals. Of the 56 annual
performance goals in the departmental plan, 33 goals do not contain overall
performance targets against which to measure overall progress. For each of
these 33 goals, USDA provided various performance indicators, some of which
contain performance targets that are representative measures of progress.
Also, there were goals that were substantially affected by external factors
beyond the scope of USDA?s activities. Examples include the goals to (1)
grow the U. S share of the global agriculture market, even though USDA?s
programs have a limited effect on the total dollar value of U. S. exports,
and (2) enhance the capacity of all rural residents, communities, and
businesses to prosper, when the scope of USDA?s rural assistance programs is
not designed to provide for a comprehensive federal effort in this area.
Moreover, in the Secretary?s message transmitting the fiscal year 2002 plan,
the Secretary stated that she had not thoroughly reviewed the new strategic
plan, did not have a full leadership team in place, and recognized that more
needed to be done. The Secretary also stated that once USDA?s full
leadership team is in place, it will be working to conduct a top- to- bottom
review of the department?s programs, and will develop new strategic and
annual performance goals to carry out this administration?s priorities.
Additionally, in response to our prior GPRA reviews, USDA included two new
sections in its 2002 performance plan- one that includes a discussion of
data verification and validation by each performance goal and one that
recognizes major management challenges identified by GAO. The discussion of
USDA?s data and its sources is a valuable addition to USDA?s plan because it
provides a more consistent picture of the data USDA uses, the steps USDA
takes to verify its data, and the limitations that need to be taken into
account.
Page 18 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
GAO has identified two governmentwide high- risk management challenges:
strategic human capital management and information security. Regarding human
capital management, USDA?s plan contains a key outcome- to ensure USDA has a
skilled, satisfied workforce and strong prospects for retention of its best
employees. The plan recognized emerging skill gaps, high retirement
eligibility rates, and the need for staff to shift to a greater use of
technology as departmental strategic issues. However, USDA has identified
only one human capital performance measure- an employee satisfaction survey-
which would not measure the closing of skill gaps, the retention of critical
employees, or changes related to the use of new technology. Furthermore, the
extent of the discussion of human capital strategies in USDA?s individual
agency plans varies. For example, the plans of the Farm Service Agency and
the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not discuss human capital issues,
and the Food and Nutrition Service has not completed a plan. With respect to
information security, we found that the Chief Information Officer?s
performance report did not explain its progress in implementing its August
1999 action plan for improving departmentwide information security, or time
frames and milestones for doing so. In addition, USDA?s performance plan did
not have departmental goals and measures related to this important area. In
commenting on a draft of this report, USDA officials stated that progress
had been made in implementing their August 1999 action plan to strengthen
information security and agreed that USDA?s annual performance plan could be
improved by including information security performance goals and measures.
GAO has also identified 10 major management challenges facing USDA. USDA?s
performance report discussed the agency?s progress in resolving many of its
challenges, and its performance plan had (1) goals and measures that were
directly related to seven of the challenges, (2) goals and measures that
were indirectly applicable to two of the challenges, and (3) no goals and
measures related to one of the challenges. Appendix I provides detailed
information on how USDA addressed these challenges and high- risk areas as
identified by both GAO and the agency?s Inspector General. However, USDA did
not recognize or address some of the management challenges identified by its
own Inspector General because according to USDA officials, the Office of the
Inspector General did not send a copy of its letter to the affected USDA
agencies.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance
plan have the potential for focusing the department?s missions, but these
efforts are compromised in a number of areas. USDA?s goals and measures are
too general to give insight into the actual USDA?s Efforts to
Address its Major Management Challenges Identified by GAO
Conclusions
Page 19 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
achievements that USDA is striving to make. In particular, it is difficult
to assess USDA?s progress when it uses unrealistic goals to achieve
strategic outcomes and when it uses untimely data that has not been
consistently verified. In two particular areas- strategic human capital
management and information security- the process of measuring USDA?s
performance could be improved by including goals and measures in USDA?s
annual performance plan. Finally, USDA missed the opportunity to develop
strategies and plans to respond to the major management challenges
identified by the OIG.
To improve USDA?s performance reporting and planning, we recommend that the
Secretary of Agriculture (1) set priorities for improving the timeliness of
the data that USDA is using for measuring its performance; (2) improve
USDA?s performance report by including more consistent discussions of data
verification and validation; (3) better match the department?s goals and
outcomes with its capabilities for expanding and maintaining global market
opportunities; (4) include performance goals and measures for strategic
human capital management issues and information security issues in the
departmental performance plan; (5) make reducing food stamp trafficking an
annual performance goal in USDA?s plan; and (6) address and include the
Office of Inspector General?s major management challenges in future
performance plans. To facilitate our last recommendation, we also recommend
that the Inspector General work with the Chief Financial Officer and USDA
agency officials in identifying and including major management challenges in
USDA?s performance plans.
We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
USDA chose to meet with us to provide oral comments, and we met with the
Acting Chief Financial Officer and other officials from the department on
August 13, 2001, to discuss these comments. The Acting Chief Financial
Officer said that the department generally agreed with the information
presented in the draft report. USDA officials also provided the following
comments.
Regarding major management challenges, USDA agency officials questioned
whether there is a requirement for USDA to report on major management
challenges as part of its performance plan and to include related
performance goals. Our review, as requested, included an assessment of
USDA?s progress in addressing its major management challenges. In addition,
OMB Circular A- 11 states that federal agencies should include a discussion
of major management challenges in their Recommendations for
Executive Action Agency Comments
Page 20 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
annual performance plans and present performance goals for these challenges.
USDA?s OIG disagreed with our recommendation calling for the OIG to
distribute future OIG letters on major management challenges to affected
USDA agencies. The OIG commented that its audit reports already identify
management challenges and that these are discussed with the affected
agencies. The OIG also stated that its letter to congressional requesters
identifying major management challenges was provided informally to the
department and that the OIG is required by Public Law 106- 531 to report on
the most serious management challenges in USDA?s annual report to the
president and the Congress.
We are well aware that the OIG identifies management challenges in audit
reports and reports separately on these challenges. Nevertheless, as stated
in our draft report, our recommendation is directed at facilitating the
inclusion and discussion of the OIG identified major management challenges
in USDA?s annual performance plan. The OIG?s reporting of the management
challenges to congressional requesters in December 2000 appeared to us to be
a document that could have served as a timely starting point for the major
management challenge section of USDA?s departmental annual performance plan.
We continue to believe that the OIG should play a role in facilitating the
major management challenge section of the departmental performance plan, and
have modified our recommendation to directly call for the OIG to participate
in the development of this section of USDA?s plan.
The Foreign Agricultural Service disagreed with our recommendation to better
match the department?s goals and outcomes with its capabilities for
expanding global market opportunities. It stated that the measure it is
using- global market share- is the ultimate performance measure for
describing overall changes in international markets and that the Congress is
interested in U. S. international market share. However, in discussing this
concern, the Service itself acknowledged that market forces are the
principal cause of changes in exports rather than its activities. Therefore,
we continue to believe that it would be appropriate to use more realistic
goals for performance that are more closely related to the outcomes that
USDA activities can achieve. The Service?s agency level performance plan
contains some performance indicators that are more limited and better
reflect the government?s role in changing export values and market share.
The Foreign Agricultural Service also expressed concern that if it were to
make detailed information on its strategies available to the public, it
could
Page 21 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
be used by foreign competitors to offset U. S. efforts. Because of the
limited federal role in affecting international market share, we believe
that more specific information on U. S. role and activities would not
compromise U. S. efforts.
USDA officials stated that that they had made progress in improving
information security and strategic human capital management. Specifically,
USDA officials said that progress had been made in implementing their August
1999 action plan to strengthen information security. However, USDA officials
recognized that this information, along with information security goals and
measures, was generally not included in the department?s performance plan or
report and that the process of measuring USDA?s performance would be
improved by including it. Also, concerning strategic human capital
management, USDA?s performance report and plan did not summarize key actions
that USDA officials said have been taken on workforce planning, recruitment,
and the retention of employees. USDA will have the opportunity to summarize
its progress in these areas in its future performance reports and plans.
Department officials also provided technical clarifications, which we made
as appropriate.
As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on a review of the fiscal year
2000 performance report and the fiscal year 2002 performance plan and the
requirements of GPRA, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to
agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for developing
performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A- 11, Part 2), previous reports
and evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of USDA?s operations and
programs, GAO identification of best practices concerning performance
planning and reporting, and our observations on USDA?s other GPRA- related
efforts. We also discussed our review with agency officials in the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer and with the USDA Office of Inspector General.
The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were
identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee as important mission areas for the agency and generally reflect
the outcomes for key USDA programs or activities. The major management
challenges confronting USDA, including the governmentwide high- risk areas
of strategic human capital management and information security, were
identified by us in our January 2001 performance and accountability series
and high- risk update or were identified by USDA?s Office of Inspector
General in December 2000. We did not independently verify the information
contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from our
other work Scope and
Methodology
Page 22 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of USDA?s performance
data. We conducted our review from April 2001 through August 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available at
to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 9692.
Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
Sincerely yours, Lawrence J. Dyckman Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 23 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
The following table identifies the major management challenges confronting
the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which includes the government-
wide high- risk areas of strategic human capital management and information
security. USDA has one performance report and a departmentwide plan with
supporting plans from the department?s individual agencies. The first column
lists the challenges identified by our office and USDA?s Office of Inspector
General. The second column discusses what progress, as discussed in its
fiscal year 2000 performance report, USDA made in resolving its challenges.
The third column discusses the extent to which USDA?s fiscal year 2002
performance plan includes performance goals and measures to address the
challenges that we and the USDA?s OIG identified. While USDA?s fiscal year
2000 performance report addressed progress in resolving some of the 17
management challenges, the department did not have goals for the following:
strategic human capital management, information security, Forest Service
land exchange program, grant agreement administration, grant
competitiveness, research funding accountability, and Rural Business
Cooperative Service and therefore did not discuss progress in resolving
these challenges. USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plans provided some
goals and measures or strategies for all but five of its management
challenges. USDA did not have goals for the management challenges involving
the Forest Service land exchange program, grant agreement administration,
grant competitiveness, research funding accountability, and Rural Business
Cooperative Services. For the remaining 12 major management challenges, its
performance plan had (1) goals and measures that were directly related to 8
of the challenges, (2) goals and measures that were indirectly applicable to
3 of the challenges, or (3) had no goals and measures related to 1 of the
challenges, but discussed strategies to address it. In commenting on a draft
of this report, USDA stated that it made additional progress in resolving
its management challenges that had not been reflected in its fiscal year
2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan. Appendix I:
Observations on the U. S.
Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 24 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Table 1: Major Management Challenges Major management challenge
Progress in resolving major management challenge as discussed in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report Applicable goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- designated governmentwide high risk
Strategic Human Capital Management: GAO has identified shortcomings at
multiple agencies involving key elements of modern human capital management,
including strategic human capital planning and organizational alignment;
leadership continuity and succession planning; acquiring and developing
staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and creating
results- oriented organizational cultures.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 report did not address this management challenge. It
contained no performance goals and indicators for measuring progress in
human capital management. The departmentwide report section cited a human
capital objective- that of ensuring consistent, uniform key administrative
policies to increase employee productivity and improve the well being of the
workforce. It further noted that sound leadership and adequate performance
incentives help create a work environment for serving customers effectively.
However, the cited goal was not related to the desired outcome.
In commenting on a draft of this report, USDA officials said that their
performance report and plan did not reflect all of the progress that has
been made on this management challenge. For example, USDA officials stated
that they have completed and submitted a departmental workforce plan to the
Office of Management and Budget.
The Forest Service acknowledged human capital management challenges and
referred to its own recently developed comprehensive workforce strategy but
did not link the strategy to specific objectives and goals. Several USDA
agencies included human resource performance goals to address Equal
Employment Opportunity concerns and improve program delivery.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 plan takes, for the first time, a single- entity
approach to performance management. It also recognizes, for the first time,
selected USDA- wide human capital management challenges related to emerging
skill gaps and the ?brain drain? that may result from a high retirement
eligibility rate. However, its performance goal to improve employee work
satisfaction will not measure progress in addressing these challenges.
Indeed, human capital management is subsumed in an objective that focuses on
greater use of technology to improve organizational productivity,
accountability, and performance. However, the plan does not link the
objective to goals or indicators for key human capital management
challenges, such as progress in strategic human capital planning,
organizational alignment, leadership continuity, and succession planning,
that will be necessary to achieve technology advances. Furthermore, the plan
will not facilitate USDA?s ability to acquire and develop staffs whose size,
skills, and deployment meet agency needs or to create a results- oriented
organizational culture.
Information Security: Our January 2001 high- risk series update noted that
governmentwide efforts to strengthen information security have gained
momentum and expanded. Nevertheless, recent audits continue to show federal
computer systems are riddled with weaknesses that make them highly
vulnerable to computer- based
USDA?s Office of Chief Information Officer?s (OCIO) fiscal year 2000
performance report discussed actions underway or planned to address
performance goals for establishing a department- level risk management
program and developing an information and telecommunications security
architecture. However, it did not discuss either the department?s overall
progress in
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has some general discussion of
efforts to strengthen departmentwide information security; however, no
information security performance goals or measures were provided. USDA did
list one performance goal with indicators for establishing a common
computing environment for USDA Service Centers, which includes hardware,
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 25 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
attacks and place a broad range of critical operations and assets at risk of
fraud, misuse, and disruption.
GAO and USDA?s OIG have identified significant weaknesses in the
department?s information security program and its two major data centers
that place the department?s computer systems, which support billions of
dollars in benefits, at risk. USDA has taken positive steps to improve its
information security by developing its August 1999 action plan to address
vulnerabilities and potential threats. However, at the time of our August
2000 report, little progress had been made to implement many components of
the action plan that are critical to strengthening departmentwide
information security 1 . USDA also needed to develop and document a detailed
strategy with time frames and milestones to fully implement the action plan.
Because of this, we also recommended that USDA report its information
security weaknesses as a material internal control weakness under the
Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).
The OIG also identified information resources management as a management
challenge. Specifically, the OIG reported on widespread weaknesses in
information technology security controls.
implementing USDA?s August 1999 action plan for improving departmentwide
information security or the time frames and milestones for doing so.
OCIO?s performance report included a key performance goal for establishing a
central cyber security office, which the department says it has met.
However, the performance report stated that key performance goals for
establishing a department- level risk management program and developing an
information and telecommunications security architecture have not been met.
For example, the report stated that only some security risk assessments had
been done, but they were often incomplete and conducted in a nonstandard
manner.
software, security, websites, telecommunications, and databases.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan did identify the need to strengthen
departmentwide information security along with other major management
challenges and program risks identified by GAO. The plan also discussed work
on the OCIO?s August 1999 action plan to strengthen information security and
referred to OCIO?s separately prepared annual performance plan for
information on measures for tracking performance.
OCIO?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan included performance goals and
indicators for (1) ensuring that USDA agencies identified security
vulnerabilities and implemented strategies to mitigate them and (2)
developing and implementing an information and telecommunications security
architecture. While these actions are important to address part of USDA?s
security needs, performance goals or indicators for implementing the
department?s August 1999 overall action plan to strengthen information
security are not discussed. Moreover, OCIO?s plan did not address USDA?s
designation of information security as a material control weakness in the
department?s fiscal year 2000 FMFIA report and how this issue will be
resolved.
GAO- designated major management challenge
Farm Service Delivery: USDA has an important role in distributing benefits
and addressing farmers? concerns. Since 1995, USDA has been engaged in a
reorganization and modernization effort
USDA developed performance goals relating to customer satisfaction with both
program delivery and service quality. However, USDA did not provide its
actual performance percentages as of the end of
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan stated that it is working to
improve customer service and operational efficiency by building a modern
information technology infrastructure- named Common Computing
1 Information Security: USDA Needs to Implement Its Departmentwide
Information Security Plan (GAO/ AIMD- 00- 217, Aug. 10, 2000).
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 26 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
to achieve operational efficiencies and better customer service. While USDA
has co- located its county field offices into service centers, it needs to
improve how these centers deliver program benefits to their customers.
fiscal year 2000. Thus, USDA?s progress toward resolving this management
challenge could not be measured.
Environment (CCE)- at its service centers and moving many of its common
transactions to Internet- based systems. USDA established fiscal year 2002
goals of 100 percent for the CCE implementation and to transition to a fully
integrated Internet system. Food Stamp Program: Millions of dollars in
overpayments occur because eligible persons are paid too much or ineligible
individuals improperly participate in the program. In addition, trafficking
of food stamps continues to be a problem.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report stated that the Food and
Nutrition Service?s (FNS) had a performance goal for maintaining payment
accuracy and a goal relating to recovering overpayments to participants.
Although the report stated that FNS data was not yet available to measure
fiscal year 2000 progress in maintaining payment accuracy, FNS officials
stated that early indications are that it would achieve its payment accuracy
goal of 90.5 percent in fiscal year 2000.
USDA reported that FNS collected about $216 million in overpayments to
recipients in fiscal year 2000, which exceeded its original target of
collecting $193. 6 million. As a result, FNS increased its target to $215.8
million for fiscal year 2001.
USDA reported that FNS sanctioned 1, 349 stores that violated program
regulations, thus it narrowly missed its target of sanctioning 1, 365
stores. Also, FNS cited a number of recent program evaluations that
contributed to its knowledge base about preventing illegal use of benefits.
USDA reported that FNS exceeded its target of maintaining the baseline of
1.54 percent of authorized stores that did not meet regulatory requirements
for type and amount of food sold. The actual percent achieved was 1.48.
A recent FNS study estimated that stores each year illegally provided cash
for benefits (trafficking of benefits) totaling about $660 million. USDA?s
report did not specifically discuss FNS? targets or measures for reducing
trafficking.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan established a target goal for food
stamp benefit accuracy of 90. 8 percent in fiscal year 2002 (same as for
fiscal year 2001). Strategies for meeting this goal include continuing to
improve the accuracy and consistency of the food stamp benefit quality
control system and supporting state efforts to improve benefit accuracy
through technical assistance and ?best practices? information- sharing.
USDA?s plan did not discuss improving the recovery of overpayments to
recipients.
USDA?s plan contained a general goal of improving the stewardship of federal
nutrition assistance programs and contained strategies to achieve this but
does not specifically discuss this issue.
USDA?s plan had a goal of improving stewardship of federal nutrition
assistance programs, but it does not specifically discuss goals, strategies,
and measures for minimizing illegal use of benefits by participants or
retailers.
USDA?s plan did not discuss trafficking of benefits.
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 27 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Food Stamp Program: Implement Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Nationwide
and Ensure Adequate Controls.
(This management challenge is also discussed in this report under the ?Food
Stamp Fraud and Error? caption.) USDA reported that FNS met its fiscal year
2000 goal of having 42 states issue benefits by EBT. FNS stated that 41
states and the District of Columbia had operational EBT systems (39 of these
systems were operating statewide). USDA did not address whether the state
EBT systems contained adequate controls.
USDA?s plan contained a target of having 89 percent of food stamp benefits
issued by EBT for fiscal year 2002. To achieve its target, USDA plans to
work aggressively with states needing to implement statewide systems. The
plan pointed out the need for USDA to address other EBT- related cost and
service challenges.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP): This Program provides for the
nutritional well being of young children and adults in day- care homes and
centers and for teenagers in after school programs.
Improve state and local management and program controls to reduce fraud and
abuse.
USDA reported that FNS was premature to assess the effectiveness of its goal
of better targeting and higher quality program reviews by state agencies
because fiscal year 2000 was a start up year for comprehensive management
evaluations and data was not available to measure this activity. Instead,
FNS focused its efforts on conducting comprehensive and aggressive program
oversight in the form of management evaluations of state agency operations.
FNS revised its indicators for improving CACFP management in the fiscal year
2001 performance plan, and it will begin reporting based on the new
indicators in that year?s performance report. However, the report did not
specify any of these indicators.
USDA?s plan contained a goal of strengthening state and local management of
CACFP. It established the following two targets for fiscal year 2002: (1)
USDA to conduct management evaluations of all state agencies administering
the program and (2) USDA to work with state agencies to ensure that all
states train program sponsors on new regulations.
GAO- and OIG- designated major management challenges
Civil Rights Complaints: There continues to be problems in the timely
processing of discrimination complaints in USDA?s Civil Rights Office.
Processing delays have caused a significant backlog in both program and
employee discrimination complaints, resulting in USDA?s failure to comply
with federal regulations that affect the livelihood and well- being of
individuals who believe they have been discriminated against. Complaints
involve the treatment of minority farmers when they applied for farm loans
or loan servicing and employee?s civil rights. The OIG recently reported
that this backlog was not being resolved fast enough.
Although USDA continued to address this issue, the Office of Civil Rights
did not meet its fiscal year 2000 performance goal reduction of 15 percent
from the previous year in the number of days for processing farmer program
and employment civil rights complaints. USDA?s Long Term Improvement Plan
for civil rights activities, completed in October 2000, cited the systems
and processes for handling civil rights complaints as inadequate, resulting
in lost files, delays, inaccurate accounting, and other problems. The plan
also identified insufficient staffing, lack of expertise, insufficient
employee training, and inefficient automated tracking systems as reasons for
continued delays in processing discrimination complaints. These problems
were similar to the weaknesses previously identified by the OIG and us. USDA
believed that focused attention on case processing, professional training,
and other efforts should help close more complaints each year.
According to USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan, USDA revised its
performance measure, lowering it significantly from fiscal year 2000. For
fiscal year 2001, the measure is to reduce by 5 percent the amount of time
it takes to resolve the average civil rights complaints. For fiscal year
2002, USDA will aim to reduce the processing time by yet another 5 percent.
USDA plans to continue these efforts until it reaches its long- term
strategic goal of resolving all program and employee complaints by issuing
its reports of civil rights investigations within its regulatory requirement
of 180 days by fiscal year 2005. However, USDA will not meet its goal by
applying this performance measure to its current average processing time for
program and employee discrimination complaints. It could take over a decade
for USDA to come into compliance. Nevertheless, USDA plans that by fiscal
year 2005 it will be in compliance with regulations by issuing its reports
of civil
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 28 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
rights investigations within its regulatory time frame of 180 days.
Financial Management: USDA continues to lack financial accountability over
billions of dollars in assets. As such, USDA does not have meaningful and
accurate financial information to evaluate its financial performance and
provide assurance that its consolidated financial statements are reliable
and presented in accordance with federal accounting standards. In January
2001, because major barriers to achieving financial accountability at the
Forest Service remain, we continued to designate the Forest Service?s
financial management a high- risk area vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse,
and mismanagement.
USDA reported meeting its performance goal of 50 percent of its agency
components receiving an unqualified audit opinion on their stand- alone
financial statements. This represented an important step toward improving
financial accountability. USDA also reported meeting its performance goal of
partially implementing a new accounting system, the Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS) that will assist USDA in its preparation of
meaningful and accurate financial information. In addition, the Forest
Service reported that it had partially met its performance goal of
completing its real property inventory, a long- standing problem that has
contributed to our high- risk designation of the Forest Service?s financial
management as well as USDA?s lack of financial accountability over billions
of dollars in assets. Progress reported by the Forest Service included
completing its physical verification of real property, issuing protocols for
maintenance and capital improvements of real property, and determining the
value of its forest roads.
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan included performance goals and
measures to address the lack of financial accountability. Specifically, to
promote financial accountability throughout the department, USDA has
established goals and measures that included achieving an unqualified
opinion on its consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2002 and
implementing FFIS departmentwide. USDA reported that its new financial
management system will provide the integration and capabilities to improve
the delivery of timely and meaningful financial management information and
will allow USDA to comply with external legislation including the Chief
Financial Officer Act of 1990. Furthermore, USDA reported that the
implementation of this financial information system will provide auditable
financial data that can be used to prepare the USDA consolidated financial
statements. The Forest Service?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes
performance goals and measures that address achieving an unqualified audit
opinion on its financial statements and providing timely, accurate, and
reliable financial information, which are consistent with those established
departmentwide. However, the Forest Service?s plan does not specifically
address how it will correct its financial management weaknesses related to
real property, a component that has contributed to our high- risk
designation of the Forest Service?s financial management. Food Safety: The
number of food- borne illnesses has heightened concerns about the
effectiveness of the federal food safety system. GAO has found the current
multi- agency federal food safety system needs to be replaced by a single
food safety agency. (This management challenge is also discussed in this
report under the ?A Safe and Wholesome Food Supply? caption.)
The OIG reported that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) needs to
improve activities relating to implementation of the Hazard Analysis
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report contained an objective to
establish effective working relationships with other agencies.
USDA reported that FSIS had made substantial progress in resolving this
management challenge. FSIS had met or exceeded most of its goals relating to
HACCP system implementation, compliance and enforcement activities, safety
of imported meat and poultry products, and the contamination and
adulteration of foods. However, FSIS did not meet its fiscal year 2000
target goal to perform 68, 000 laboratory tests, falling short of its target
by
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan did not contain a performance goal to
create a single federal food safety agency. USDA?s plan stated that concerns
about the need for fundamental changes in food safety programs and about
food safety fragmentation are being addressed through
?cross- Departmental partnerships? and other coordination activities. USDA
stated that FSIS is a mandated federal program and that FSIS can take no
action to dismantle itself or to merge with other agencies. USDA stated that
it did not have the legal authority to create a single food safety
organization, and therefore did not mention
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 29 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, compliance and enforcement
activities, laboratory testing of meat and poultry products, safety of
imported meat and poultry products, and the contamination and adulteration
of foods.
Also, the OIG reported that USDA needs to identify and halt criminal
activity involving the intentional contamination of food products.
8,000 tests. In commenting on a draft of this report, FSIS stated that it
does not consider this OIG issue to be a major management challenge because
the OIG findings concerned incomplete documentation rather than inadequate
performance.
USDA did not directly discuss this management challenge. However, it
reported that FSIS met a related performance goal to establish standard
operating procedures for coordinating foodborne illness outbreaks and other
food safety emergencies, both unintentional and intentional in nature.
a merger of agencies in the USDA plan or FSIS plan.
FSIS? fiscal year 2002 performance plan included tangible and measurable
performance goals relating to the safety of imported foods. However, the
plan did not include measurable performance goals for the other elements of
this management challenge.
FSIS? fiscal year 2002 performance plan did not have a performance goal
related to identifying and halting criminal activity involving the
intentional contamination of food products. In commenting on a draft of this
report, FSIS stated that it was unaware that the OIG considered this to be a
major management challenge and that it had enhanced its efforts to review
high- risk firms in the last few years. Farm Loan Programs: USDA needs
monitoring to ensure improvements to the programs continue to further reduce
the significant level of delinquent farm debt. The OIG reported that it is
continuing to work on determining whether borrowers are meeting eligibility
requirements and whether loan proceeds are being used for their intended
purposes.
In January 2001, we removed the Farm Loan Programs from our high- risk list.
We did so because the financial condition of the programs had improved since
we first designated the programs as high- risk in 1990 and because actions
taken by the Congress and USDA, many of which we recommended, have had a
significant and positive impact on the operations and condition of USDA?s
farm loan programs.
USDA reported overall improvement in the Farm Service Agency farm loan
portfolio. It met its performance goals of the delinquency rate for direct
loans and the loss rates for direct and guaranteed loans.
More specifically, since the end of fiscal year 1995, the amount of
outstanding principal owed by borrowers who were delinquent on their direct
farm loans and the percentage of debt owed by such borrowers declined each
year- from $4. 6 billion, or about 41 percent of the outstanding principal,
in fiscal year 1995 to $1. 8 billion, or about 21 percent of the outstanding
principal, in fiscal year 2000.
The Farm Service Agency?s plan included performance goals to reduce
delinquencies and losses on direct loans and to maintain the loss rate for
guaranteed loans at or below 2 percent. USDA planed to achieve a low loss
rate by using prudent underwriting practices, borrower supervision, and its
loan servicing tools. However, USDA commented that maintaining a low loss
rate will be a significant challenge in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because
commodity prices may remain weak and producers will be recovering from the
effects of recent natural disasters.
Forest Service- Improving Performance Accountability: The Forest Service is
refocusing its activities, resulting in a significant change in its mission
and funding priorities. We concluded that it is
The Forest Service reported that it is implementing a new process and a new
approach to performance accountability that it believes will provide the
Congress and the public with a clear understanding of what it accomplished
with its appropriated funds.
In fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service revised its strategic plan to better
focus on outcomes and results to be achieved over time and to better link
strategic goals and objectives to long- term measures and 5- year
milestones. The agency?s fiscal year
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 30 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
important for the Forest Service to provide the Congress and the public with
a better understanding of what is achieved with the funds that are being
spent.
In addition, the OIG found that the Forest Service?s strategic and annual
plans lacked meaningful goals and objectives with relevant performance
measures and past performance measurement data were irrelevant and lacked
basic accuracy.
The new process and approach include (1) developing the annual performance
plan before formulating the related fiscal year budget; (2) using the plan
to set priorities and to sequence milestones and goals; and (3) developing
clear links among the budget structure, program activities and outputs,
annual goals and measures, and long- term strategic outcomes and measures.
In addition, in response to OIG reviews, the agency made several
improvements to its data collection processes during fiscal year 2000.
2002 performance plan begins to provide a bridge between the strategic plan
and the on- the- ground activities funded through the annual budget process
by linking annual performance goals and associated annual performance
measures to the strategic plan?s goals and objectives. Moreover, in fiscal
year 2002, the Forest Service plans to use an Activity- Based Costing system
to track the costs of about 80 core business activities that describe on-
the- ground work accomplished. However, the agency recognizes that much work
still needs to be done to be fully accountable.
IG- designated major management challenges
Forest Service Land Exchange Program: OIG audits have disclosed significant
weaknesses in the management and controls over land exchanges. Private/
public land exchanges did not reflect current market conditions and resulted
in undervalued public property and overvalued private property. In addition,
some transactions resulted in limited or no public value.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not address progress for this
challenge. The Forest Services? fiscal year 2002
performance plan did not include performance goals, measures, or strategies
applicable to this management challenge. Also, this management challenge was
not included as one of USDA?s major management challenges in USDA?s fiscal
year 2002 plan.
Grant and Agreement Administration: The Forest Service did not effectively
manage grant agreements to ensure funds were expended for their intended
purposes. OIG audits have disclosed several issues, for which the agency has
taken limited action. Management decisions have not been made on six audit
recommendations made over 2 years ago.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not address progress for this
challenge. The Forest Services? fiscal year 2002
performance plan did not include performance goals and measures applicable
to this management challenge. Also, this management challenge was not
included as one of USDA?s major management challenges in USDA?s fiscal year
2002 plan.
Crop Insurance: Crop insurance has become a major USDA farmer ?safety
net.? OIG audits have identified areas where crop insurance program
integrity needs to be strengthened: Oversight and monitoring procedures to
evaluate the effectiveness of the insurance companies quality control
processes are weak. Conflicts of interest problems exist among
policyholders, sales agents, claims adjusters, and insurance companies?
employees. Material weaknesses and shortcomings during the verification
process by adjusters have resulted in claim
The Risk Management Agency?s (RMA) performance report for fiscal year 2000
did not directly address the management challenge. The report indicated that
it met the four broad performance indicators to improve the integrity of the
federal crop insurance program. However, the report provided no support to
substantiate this claim, and it noted that data used to measure progress
were unavailable for three of the indicators and unreliable for the fourth.
The report explained that RMA is transitioning to new performance measures
that should help it to better address this management challenge in fiscal
year 2001.
RMA?s performance plan for fiscal year 2002 did not directly address the
management challenge. The plan contained an overall performance goal to
reduce crop insurance program vulnerabilities and improve program integrity.
However, the measure for the goal was generally inadequate. For example, the
plan did not identify a target for the goal and noted that data used to
measure the goal may be unreliable.
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 31 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
overpayments and other program abuses.
Insurance claim overpayments resulting from overstated or unreasonable crop
yields and replacement cost for lost crops.
OIG audits have also found that the catastrophic insurance program may not
be providing the expected safety net coverage to all farmers, particularly
lowincome or other socially disadvantaged farmers.
RMA?s performance report for fiscal year 2000 did address insurance
availability to all producers.
RMA?s performance plan contains a goal to improve insurance availability to
small and low- income farmers by funding projects that provide information
and technical assistance necessary to participate in the insurance programs.
However, the report relies on a measure that focuses on outputs rather than
on outcomes. The measure is based on the number of outreach projects jointly
funded rather than on the number of small and lowincome producers actually
participating in RMA?s insurance programs. Research Funding Accountability:
USDA?s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service?s
(CSREES) management controls do not ensure sufficient monitoring, review,
and accountability for the use of its funds.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not address progress for this
challenge. CSREES? fiscal year 2002 performance plan
did not include performance goals, measures, or strategies applicable to
this management challenge. Also, this management challenge was not included
as one of USDA?s major management challenges in USDA?s fiscal year 2002
plan. Competitive Grants Program Compliance: OIG reviews of current grant
programs have found that they favor large institutions and that applicants
questioned the fairness of the grants awarded. In addition, The Congress
recently authorized two new competitive grants: the Fund for Rural America
and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The OIG will
continue reviewing this program.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not address progress for this
challenge. USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan
did not include performance goals and measures applicable to this management
challenge. Also, this management challenge was not included as one of USDA?s
major management challenges in USDA?s fiscal year 2002 plan.
Rural Business- Cooperative Service: The Rural Business- Cooperative Service
needs to address several management challenges that have affected the
integrity it?s program. For example, the OIG reported that management action
is needed to assure that (1) grants and loans are made only to eligible
recipients located in qualified rural areas, (2) improper exceptions to loan
making requirements are not made, and (3) lender underwriting reviews and
servicing are adequate.
USDA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report did not address progress for this
challenge.
In commenting on a draft of this report, RBS stated that the issues raised
by the OIG have been and are being addressed: (1) the rural area concerned
only Puerto Rico and a difference of opinion on the eligible area; (2) the
improper exceptions to loan making requirements involved a former official
who was removed, and new procedures have been adopted; and (3) lender
underwriting has been addressed through several
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan did not include performance goals
and measures applicable to this management challenge. Also, this management
challenge was not included as one of USDA?s major management challenges in
USDA?s fiscal year 2002 plan.
In commenting on a draft of this report, RBS stated that it has addressed
these issues and does not believe that performance goals or measures are
needed because these items were not chronic problems.
Appendix I: Observations on the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges
Page 32 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 performance plan
actions, including further reviews of states, assistance from the Farm
Credit Administration, and by obtaining software to assist field staff
making credit decisions and in monitoring lender recommendations. Rural
Rental Housing: There has been a history of fraud and abuse in the Rural
Housing Service?s (RHS) Rural Rental Housing (RRH) Program. Owners and
management companies have shown indifference toward the health and safety of
low- income and elderly tenants.
The Rural Development mission area?s report did not specifically address
progress in reducing fraud and abuse in the RRH Program. The report also did
not address reducing the indifference shown by management companies toward
the health and safety of low- income and elderly tenants. RHS measured
progress by the number of new units built, the number of units
rehabilitated, and the direct resources given to those rural communities and
customers with the greatest need. The report did include a new performance
indicator to minimize loan delinquencies and future losses. It established a
fiscal year 2001 target to reduce the number of RRH projects with accounts
more than 180 days past due to 130 projects. The actual fiscal year 2000
number was 153.
The Rural Development mission area?s plan did not include goals and measures
that specifically addressed this management challenge. The plan did
acknowledge that we and the OIG have identified a continuing history of
fraud and abuse by owners and management companies, along with instances of
indifference toward the health and safety of low- income and elderly
tenants. According to the plan, the performance indicator ?to develop
systems and processes which strengthen the management of Multifamily Housing
(MFH) projects and help preserve the portfolio? and encourage a sound life-
cycle management was added for fiscal year 2001 to address this issue.
However, we do not believe that the addition of this indicator adds enough
detail or discussion of the fraud and abuse issues.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 33 GAO- 01- 761 USDA's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes
Charles Adams (202) 512- 8010 Erin Barlow, Andrea Brown, Jacqueline Cook,
Thomas Cook, Charles Cotton, Angela Davis, Andrew Finkel, Judy Hoovler, Erin
Lansburgh, Carla Lewis, Sue Naiberk, Stephen Schwartz, Richard Shargots,
Mark Shaw, Ray Smith, Alana Stanfield, Phillip Thomas, and Ronnie Wood.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments
(360059)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***