Major Management Challenges and Program Risks
Department of Agriculture Gao ID: GAO-03-96 January 1, 2003In its 2001 performance and accountability report on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GAO identified important security, modernization, food safety, food assistance, and other issues facing the department. The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help to sustain congressional attention and departmental focus on continuing to make progress in addressing these challenges and ultimately overcoming them. This report is part of a special series of reports on governmentwide and agency-specific issues.
USDA has taken steps to address some of the specific performance and management challenges that GAO previously identified. However, a variety of challenges continue, including a significant expansion of the one involving security. Ensuring adequate security: USDA has taken actions when security problems are brought to its attention. However, it needs to be proactive in identifying and correcting an expanding array of weaknesses, such as a recently identified one involving biological agents at its laboratories as well as in correcting a long-standing one involving information security. Improving the delivery of services to farmers: USDA is progressing with its field office modernization effort to improve efficiency and customer service. However, it needs to complete this task on a number of fronts, including the automation of its application processes and the integration of field operations across its various agencies. Enhancing the safety of the nation's food supply: USDA and other federal agencies responsible for food safety have implemented an inspection program intended to enhance food safety. However, because of the millions of instances of foodborne illnesses and 5,000 related deaths that occur annually, we believe the responsibilities of USDA and other agencies for ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply need to be brought together in a single food safety agency. Providing food assistance and improving program integrity: USDA has actions underway to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in its food assistance programs. However, it needs to reduce further the errors that occur in these programs, which, among other things, lead to significant overpayments and underpayments to benefit recipients. Enhancing financial management: USDA has achieved an unqualified opinion on its financial statements for the first time in 9 years. However, more needs to be done, especially in the Forest Service, which continues to be "high risk" due to serious financial and accounting weaknesses. Improving performance accountability at the Forest Service: The Forest Service has initiated or planned actions to address how it accounts for and reports on its operations, accomplishments, and expenditures. However, the agency has a continuing need to make significant improvements in its performance accountability. Resolving discrimination complaints: USDA has made modest process in processing discrimination complaints. However, it has a continuing need to resolve complaints in a more timely manner.
GAO-03-96, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Agriculture
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-96
entitled 'Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture' which was released on January 01, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Performance and Accountability Series:
January 2003:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of Agriculture:
GAO-03-96:
A Glance at the Agency Covered in This Report:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is one of the federal government‘s
largest entities. The department‘s overall mission is complex, covering
a wide range of areas including;
* enhancing the quality of life for the American people by directly
supporting the agricultural sector;
* ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply;
* caring for agricultural land, forests, and rangelands;
* supporting sound development of rural communities;
* providing economic opportunities for farm and rural residents;
* expanding global markets for U.S. agricultural and forest products
and services; and
* working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.
Figure: The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Budgetary and Staff
Resources:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
This Series:
This report is part of a special GAO series, first issued in 1999 and
updated in 2001, entitled the Performance and Accountability Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks. The 2003 Performance
and Accountability Series contains separate reports covering each
cabinet
department, most major independent agencies, and the U.S. Postal
Service.
The series also includes a governmentwide perspective on what is needed
to transform the way the government does business to meet 21st century
challenges and long-term fiscal needs. The companion 2003 High-Risk
Update identifies areas at high risk due to either their greater
vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or major
challenges associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-96, a report to Congress included as part of
GAO‘s Performance and Accountability Series:
January 2003:
Performance and Accountability Series:
Department of Agriculture:
Why GAO Did This Report:
In its 2001 performance and accountability report on the U.S.
Department
of Agriculture (USDA), GAO identified important security,
modernization,
food safety, food assistance, and other issues facing the department.
The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help to
sustain
congressional attention and a departmental focus on continuing to make
progress in addressing these challenges and ultimately overcoming them.
This report is part of a special series of reports on governmentwide
and
agency-specific issues.
What GAO Found:
USDA has taken steps to address some of the specific performance and
management challenges that GAO previously identified. However, a
variety
of challenges continue, including a significant expansion of the one
involving security.
* Ensuring adequate security. USDA has taken actions when security
problems are brought to its attention. However, it needs to be
proactive
in identifying and correcting an expanding array of weaknesses, such as
a recently identified one involving biological agents at its
laboratories
as well as in correcting a long-standing one involving information
security.
* Improving the delivery of services to farmers. USDA is progressing
with
its field office modernization effort to improve efficiency and
customer
service. However, it needs to complete this task on a number of fronts,
including the automation of its application processes and the
integration
of field operations across its various agencies.
* Enhancing the safety of the nation‘s food supply. USDA and other
federal
agencies responsible for food safety have implemented an inspection
program
intended to enhance food safety. However, because of the millions of
instances
of foodborne illnesses and 5,000 related deaths that occur annually, we
believe
the responsibilities of USDA and other agencies for ensuring the safety
of the
nation‘s food supply need to be brought together in a single food
safety agency.
* Providing food assistance and improving program integrity. USDA has
actions
underway to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in its food assistance
programs.
However, it needs to reduce further the errors that occur in these
programs,
which, among other things, lead to significant overpayments and
underpayments
to benefit recipients.
* Enhancing financial management. USDA has achieved an unqualified
opinion
on its financial statements for the first time in 9 years. However,
more
needs to be done, especially in the Forest Service, which continues to
be
’high risk“ due to serious financial and accounting weaknesses.
* Improving performance accountability at the Forest Service. The
Forest
Service has initiated or planned actions to address how it accounts for
and
reports on its operations, accomplishments, and expenditures. However,
the
agency has a continuing need to make significant improvements in its
performance accountability.
* Resolving discrimination complaints. USDA has made modest progress in
processing discrimination complaints. However, it has a continuing
need to
resolve complaints in a more timely manner.
What Remains to Be Done:
GAO believes that USDA should;
* conduct reviews of its infrastructure, equipment, and programs to
identify
and correct security weaknesses and
* continue to work on completing its modernization and on other
challenges
involving food assistance, financial management, the performance and
accountability of the Forest Service, and the resolution of
discrimination
complaints.
GAO also believes food safety should be regulated by a single federal
agency.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-96.
To view the full report, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert A. Robinson at 202-512-3841 or at
robinsonr@gao.gov.
Contents:
Transmittal Letter:
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
GAO Contacts:
Related GAO Products:
Performance and Accountability and
High-Risk Series:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. It may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics,
images or other materials. Permission from the copyright
holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
Transmittal Letter:
January 2003:
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives:
This report addresses the major management challenges and program risks
facing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as it works to carry
out its multiple and highly diverse missions. The report discusses the
actions that USDA has taken and that are under way to address the
challenges GAO identified in its Performance and Accountability Series
2 years ago and major events that have occurred that significantly
influence the environment in which the department carries out its
mission. Also, GAO summarizes the challenges that remain and further
actions that GAO believes are needed.
This analysis should help the new Congress and the administration carry
out their responsibilities and improve government for the benefit of
the American people. For additional information about this report,
please contact Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, at (202) 512-3841 or at robinsonr@gao.gov.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
of the United States:
Signed by David M. Walker:
[End of section]
Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:
In our January 2001 report,[Footnote 1] we identified the following
specific performance and accountability challenges that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) faced: (1) it needed to strengthen
departmentwide information security; (2) the delivery of services to
farmers had improved, but challenges remain; (3) fundamental changes
were needed to minimize foodborne illnesses; (4) USDA needed to
effectively and efficiently provide food assistance benefits to
eligible individuals while maintaining program integrity; (5) USDA
continued to lack financial accountability over billions of dollars in
assets; (6) the Forest Service must provide the Congress and the public
with a better understanding of what it accomplishes with appropriated
funds; and (7) problems persisted in processing discrimination
complaints. In addition, we reported that while USDA‘s farm loan
programs remained vulnerable to loss, we were removing this issue from
our ’high-risk“ listing because the Congress and USDA had taken actions
to address the underlying causes of the programs‘ past weaknesses and
because the financial condition of the loan portfolio had improved
significantly.
Since our January 2001 report, two major events have occurred that
greatly influence USDA‘s contemporary overall mission and present
challenges to effectively address its multiple functions and
activities. First, the September 11, 2001, attacks have raised concerns
over the devastating impacts that terrorist actions and threats could
have on the overall infrastructure of production agriculture and food
safety and on USDA‘s facilities, equipment, and employees. Second, the
enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the
2002 Farm Bill)[Footnote 2] provides for, among other things,
significant changes in the federal government‘s support of production
agriculture and requires USDA to implement numerous provisions that
change existing programs and establish new programs. Specifically, the
2002 Farm Bill has requirements for USDA involving programs that cover
commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural
development, research, forestry, energy, and a variety of miscellaneous
provisions, such as those for crop insurance, disaster assistance, and
livestock.
USDA‘s management recognized the difficulty that implementing the 2002
Farm Bill placed on the department and, as such, took early steps to
address the act‘s requirements. For example, on the day after it was
enacted, USDA launched a Web site providing detailed information on the
requirements of the act, including program details, application and
sign-up forms, and information and materials on
implementation.[Footnote 3] The next day, the Secretary of Agriculture
announced the establishment of its Farm Bill Working Group, consisting
of top and lower-level USDA officials, to oversee the planning,
coordination, and implementation of the act. The following week, USDA
announced a pilot program to allow producers in selected counties in 21
states to apply for and receive loan deficiency payments via the
Internet. In early June 2002, the Secretary announced that 1,000
temporary employees would be hired to aid field offices around the
country to implement the act.
Furthermore, since our January 2001 report, USDA has taken steps to
address some of the specific performance and accountability challenges
that we previously reported. For example, USDA continues to work on
implementing a departmentwide action plan to improve information
security and on its field office reorganization and modernization
effort, which is aimed at achieving greater economy and efficiency and
better customer service. The department has actions underway to
minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in the food assistance programs of the
Food and Nutrition Service and has initiated or planned actions to
address the performance accountability of the Forest Service. Also,
USDA‘s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an unqualified opinion
on USDA‘s financial statements for the first time in nine years.
Although this report does not include new management challenges, it
does address important remaining issues with the challenges we
previously identified, including a significant expansion of the
challenge involving security. The major performance and accountability
challenges USDA continues to face are as follows:
Figure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Ensuring Adequate Security:
In a period of heightened concerns about terrorist actions and threats,
USDA‘s managers need to conduct reviews of the infrastructure,
equipment, and programs they manage and operate so as to identify
potential security weaknesses and, when and where necessary, take
corrective actions aimed at avoiding serious consequences, rather than
waiting for others to bring highly serious problems to their attention.
Specifically, USDA‘s managers are often unaware of highly serious
security problems that exist within the department until these problems
are brought to their attention by others. Also, USDA‘s managers do not
always take the necessary first steps to prevent serious problems from
occurring. Recent studies have identified significant problems and
weaknesses involving the security of biological agents at USDA
laboratories throughout the country, the security of aircraft used by
the Forest Service in firefighting operations, and the timeliness of
providing guidance to protect against the possible introduction of foot
and mouth disease into the United States. In addition, the security of
automated information throughout the department continues to be a
significant problem area.
Security of biological agents. A March 2002 report by the department‘s
OIG disclosed that security of biological agents--living organisms in
their microbial form that are used in research and diagnostics and that
are generally pathogenic, or disease-producing--at USDA laboratories
generally needed improvement.[Footnote 4] Specifically, the OIG found
that, among other things, USDA had no policies or procedures for
agencies to follow to manage security at laboratories; the department
lacked a consolidated database to identify the location and risk levels
of the biological agents at laboratories; and some laboratories failed
to follow requirements to maintain an inventory of their biological
agents and other laboratories had inaccurate inventories. Also, many of
the laboratories reviewed lacked alarm systems, security fences, and
surveillance cameras. Furthermore, USDA did not adequately control
access to biological agents by unauthorized personnel and did not have
procedures for reporting incidences of unauthorized access.
Recognizing the need for greater biosecurity following the September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks, USDA developed policies and procedures for
biosecurity issues, which were in process of being implemented when the
OIG issued its report in March 2002. However, the OIG also reported
that more needs to be done in several key areas, such as developing a
centralized database to ensure department-level management of
biological agents and consolidating inventories of biological agents at
the agency and the department level. Furthermore, the OIG‘s report
contained 10 specific recommendations for management action in areas
such as controlling access to biological agents and requiring a report
of any break-in or vandalism. Agreements between the department‘s
managers and the OIG on actions to address 9 of those recommendations
had not been reached as of early October 2002.
Security of aircraft. A March 2002 OIG report disclosed security
problems involving aircraft that are owned or operated under contract
by the Forest Service and used in firefighting operations, including
air tankers with a 3,000-gallon liquid capacity, and with air bases
used by the Forest Service.[Footnote 5] Specifically, the OIG reported
that the aircraft are vulnerable to theft and that the Forest Service
had not assessed the risks of theft and misuse by terrorists because
the agency did not consider the risk to be significant. Furthermore,
the agency had not provided guidance to air tanker contractors about
potential threats against aircraft. The agency also lacked standards
for securing the bases used by its aircraft and by air tankers and had
not assessed the measures needed to secure the facilities.
The OIG concluded that the Forest Service needed to immediately conduct
a risk analysis to identify significant threats and potential actions
to mitigate the threats. The agency also needed to develop security
standards for the facilities where the aircraft are based and to
determine the measures needed to meet those standards. In commenting on
a draft of the OIG‘s report, the Forest Service stated that it agreed
with the OIG‘s assessment and was taking steps to improve the security
of the aircraft and facilities. The OIG, in turn, agreed with the
agency‘s plans to implement the eight recommendations contained in the
report, which were directed at securing the aircraft from use by
terrorists or others engaging in criminal activity and at securing the
air bases.
Protecting against importing animal diseases. Concerning the security
of the agricultural sector, we recently reported on problems involving
the timeliness of providing guidance to protect against the possible
introduction of foot and mouth disease into the United States.
Specifically, we reported in July 2002 that after foot and mouth
disease struck the United Kingdom in 2001, USDA‘s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did not provide the U.S. Customs
Service (Customs) with guidance on restricting or prohibiting certain
products from entering the country or on screening arriving
international passengers until after Customs had requested inspection
guidance.[Footnote 6] The lack of proactive action by APHIS occurred
because the agency incorrectly assumed that Customs inspectors knew how
to address this very serious disease outbreak.
Specifically, APHIS is responsible for preventing animal diseases from
entering the country and has inspectors stationed at 144 ports of
entry. Customs, which has inspectors stationed at all 301 ports of
entry, is to perform inspections where APHIS does not have a presence.
The duties performed by APHIS and Customs inspectors include checking
commercial cargo shipments as well as passengers and their luggage to
prevent the introduction of, among other things, animal diseases that
could adversely affect U.S. livestock. The effectiveness of the
inspections performed by Customs depends, in part, on timely and
adequate guidance from APHIS on how to check for specific animal
diseases.
As we reported in July 2002, APHIS received notice from the United
Kingdom in February 2001 of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. In
mid-March 2001, Customs asked APHIS for guidance on inspecting cargo
and passengers to detect and prevent the disease from being introduced
into the United States. APHIS responded in late March 2001 by providing
guidance on inspecting products and passengers and then in early April
by providing guidance on detaining specific at-risk products at entry
ports. As a result of these delays, many Customs inspectors, who are
not specialists in animal diseases, were ill equipped to adequately
process cargo and passengers at ports of entry during the initial
stages of the outbreak. According to APHIS, in May 2002, it added a
Customs official to its notification list for any future foreign
outbreaks of the disease. While this action should be beneficial, we
reported that it does not go far enough and recommended that APHIS
develop a formal agreement with Customs. This agreement should clearly
delineate the communication process for notifications of future foreign
outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. We further recommended that APHIS
develop uniform, nontechnical procedures that Customs inspectors can
use to process cargo and passengers arriving from countries affected by
the foot and mouth virus.
Security of information. USDA continues to face security challenges in
protecting its computer systems from serious threats and cyber attacks.
To protect these systems, which process sensitive data and support
billions of dollars in benefits, we recommended in August 2000 that
USDA strengthen its information security.[Footnote 7] USDA is taking
steps to implement a departmentwide action plan to improve information
security, but work on these improvements is not complete, and security
vulnerabilities and weaknesses continue to place USDA‘s computer
systems at significant risk.
In August 2000, we reported that USDA had developed an action plan in
August 1999 to strengthen its information security, but had made little
progress in implementing the planned improvements. Since our 2000
report, USDA has taken more actions to implement improvements called
for in its 1999 action plan. For example, under the leadership of
USDA‘s Associate Chief Information Officer for Cyber Security, the
department has expanded its in-house cyber-security staff, performed
security reviews at key agency computer facilities, started to develop
standardized risk assessment tools, revised a number of security-
related policies, and developed plans to implement departmentwide
security awareness and certification/accreditation programs. However,
in USDA‘s fiscal year 2001 Federal Managers‘ Financial Integrity Act
report, the department identified its information security weaknesses
and lack of an information security management program as a material
internal control weakness, and it listed actions planned or being taken
to address this weakness.
USDA‘s actions to strengthen information security are encouraging, but
more needs to be done. In recognition of this, the department is
developing revised time frames and milestones for completing all its
departmentwide security improvements. Until it completes these
improvements, however, computer systems and networks across USDA remain
vulnerable to unlawful and destructive penetration and disruption. For
example, since we included the need for USDA to strengthen information
security in our January 2001 report, USDA‘s OIG has identified
thousands of additional security vulnerabilities throughout the
department‘s agencies and offices. Among others, the OIG found that
agencies‘ networks and systems were vulnerable to internal and external
intrusion, mission assets and sensitive computer data were not properly
protected, security training was not adequate, and plans were not
prepared and tested for minimizing the impact of potential disruptions
on the continuity of critical agency operations. In addition,
assessments in 2001 conducted by the OIG and USDA‘s Office of the Chief
Information Officer identified material weaknesses in general areas,
such as the physical security of facilities, configuration management,
and contingency planning.
Improving the Delivery of Services to Farmers:
USDA has achieved some success in implementing its reorganization and
modernization efforts but more needs to be done. Specifically, since
1995, USDA has been engaged in a reorganization and modernization
effort targeted at achieving greater economy and efficiency and better
customer service by its service-center agencies--the Farm Service
Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Rural
Development mission area‘s Rural Housing Service. Service center agency
staff total about 36,000 employees and account for nearly one-third of
the entire USDA workforce. USDA‘s efforts consist of five interrelated
initiatives:
(1) collocation--locating the agencies‘ county offices at one site
within each county and their state offices at one location in each
state; (2) administrative convergence--merging the agencies‘
administrative
functions at the state and headquarters levels under a single support
organization; (3) business-process reengineering--redesigning how the
agencies perform their work; (4) information technology modernization-
-providing an updated communications network and a common computing
environment in order that the employees of all the agencies can use
compatible computer hardware and software to share information; and
(5) cultural change--improving customer service by implementing a
seamless interagency approach to delivering services, increasing
outreach efforts to customers, and working cooperatively with other
service providers, such as state and local governments and private
organizations.
USDA has made some progress in its efforts. For example, it has closed
over 1,000 of its 3,726 county office locations and established
collocated service centers throughout the nation. It has also made
substantial progress in deploying personal computers and a
telecommunications network to link its service centers and recently
deployed a shared network server, which supports shared data. However,
the full range of service delivery efficiencies has not yet been
realized because the agencies‘ program applications are not fully
integrated--the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, for example, are only beginning to electronically
share key farm information--and some staff are still being trained on a
number of the software packages that are used to record and monitor
farm information. USDA currently estimates that by June 2003, all
common technology equipment and software will be operable in its
service centers and that all service center employees will be trained
on the systems‘ use.
In addition, it is unclear whether USDA will achieve the seamless
approach to service delivery that it has sought because each of its
agencies emphasizes a different client base and the delivery of
different programs. Consequently, little has changed in how the three
agencies work together to serve their customers, particularly in terms
of cross-servicing and sharing of information. Each agency has only
limited knowledge of the others‘ programs and program requirements.
Also, the very nature of the service provided by each is different. For
example, the Farm Service Agency provides largely administrative and
financial services to agricultural producers; the Natural Resources
Conservation Service provides largely technical services to producers
and others in the community; and the Rural Housing Service provides
largely financial services to rural homeowners.
Furthermore, although the service centers‘ client base continues to
change, USDA‘s basic approach to delivering services to farmers has
been the same for 70 years. In 2001, the National Agricultural
Statistics Service reported that there were 2,157,780 farms in America.
Of this total, about 16 percent of the farms accounted for about 58
percent of the land farmed and reported annual sales in excess of
$100,000. More than half of the farms in existence in 2001--1.2
million--reported sales of less than $10,000. In terms of the delivery
of programs to farmers, USDA processes and requirements are generally
the same regardless of farm size. In some cases, this can lead to
service delivery costs exceeding the price of the service delivered.
As required by legislation enacted in 2000--the Freedom to E-File Act-
-USDA made a new electronic filing system available to the clients of
its service centers on June 17, 2002. Specifically, the act required
the USDA service center agencies to establish by June 20, 2002, a
system that would allow farmers, ranchers, and other customers to
electronically retrieve and file through the Internet the forms
required to participate in the programs operated by the centers. At
this time, it is unclear how many clients of the service centers have
the equipment and know-how to take advantage of this new online
resource, and it is unclear how this new technology will affect service
delivery and resource needs at USDA‘s service centers.
Concerns also continue about the adequacy of staffing at the service
centers to meet farmers‘ needs, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Among other things, this act makes a number of changes affecting
current record keeping and establishes new program requirements for the
Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA announced in June 2002 that 1,000 temporary employees would be
hired to assist in implementing the act. However, there is a sense at
the service centers that more resources will be needed to meet the
act‘s requirements. In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill requires the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to undertake a major change in
its operations as it begins to facilitate the use of third party
vendors to carry out a number of conservation planning and program
technical requirements. It is unclear what impact the implementation of
this requirement will have on service center operations and the
delivery of these services.
Finally, because of the overall value of USDA‘s farm programs--more
than $55 billion annually--and the number of resources that have been
committed to these programs--about one-third of its total workforce--
the department has to continually evaluate its processes for delivering
services. As its client base changes, USDA needs to consider
alternative delivery approaches. In this regard, the service center
agencies need to reassess the types of services they now provide and
how they can work more efficiently to deliver these services in the
future.
Enhancing the Safety of the Nation‘s Food Supply:
USDA is one of several Executive Branch departments and agencies that
have a key role in ensuring the safety of the nation‘s food supply. The
level of foodborne illnesses, however, continues to raise concerns
about the federal government‘s effectiveness in ensuring the safety of
both domestic and imported foods. And now, the risk of bioterrorism
intensifies concerns about the ability of our system to protect the
food supply against deliberate contamination. As we stated in numerous
reports and testimonies, the food safety system contains key
weaknesses, including the fragmented nature of the regulatory system;
differences in the federal agencies‘ authorities to enforce food safety
requirements; inconsistencies in, and the unreliability of, federal
efforts to ensure imported food safety; and significant problems with
the effective implementation of a relatively new science-based
inspection system--the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
system (HACCP)--that was intended to enhance food safety. These
continuing weaknesses could also affect the government‘s ability to
detect and respond quickly to deliberate contamination of the food
supply. Therefore, we continue to maintain, as we have since 1992, that
the federal food safety system needs to be replaced with an effective
risk-based inspection system under a single food safety agency.
Otherwise, the food supply will continue to be subject to inconsistent
oversight, poor coordination, and inefficient allocation of resources.
With the now-recognized vulnerability of the food supply to potential
terrorist attacks, there exists an even stronger need to consolidate
federal food safety and security activities and resources.
Specifically, although the American food supply is regarded as one of
the safest in the world, foodborne illnesses in the United States
continue to be an extensive and costly problem. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, an agency of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), estimates that there are as many as 76 million food-
related illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the
United States annually from the consumption of foods contaminated with
harmful bacteria, toxins, and/or chemicals. USDA estimates that the
costs associated with foodborne illnesses range from $7 billion to $37
billion annually.
In January 2001, we reported that a number of factors heightened
concerns about the federal government‘s effectiveness in ensuring the
safety of the nation‘s food supply. These include the emergence of new
foodborne pathogens, the recognition of the long-term health effects of
foodborne illness, the globalization of the food industry, and the
growing segment of the U.S. population at increased risk of disease. In
addition, we reported on our concerns about the differences in
agencies‘ authorities to enforce food safety requirements and the
resulting uneven enforcement of food regulations. We noted that, for
example, USDA has the authority to require food firms to register so
that they can be inspected and that it can temporarily detain any
suspect foods, but that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an
agency of HHS, had no comparable authorities. Since our January 2001
report, the Congress has addressed some of these differences by
strengthening FDA‘s regulatory and enforcement authorities. For
example, legislation enacted in June 2002--the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002--provides HHS
with the authority to require food facilities to register with it and
FDA with the authority to detain products suspected of contamination.
To address heightened concerns about the federal government‘s
effectiveness in ensuring the safety of the domestic food supply, and
in line with our prior recommendations, the federal agencies
responsible for food safety implemented a science-based program
intended to enhance food safety and reduce foodborne illnesses.
Specifically, the HACCP system regulations adopted by USDA and FDA
require that meat, poultry, and seafood plants use this system to
better ensure the safety of their products. In addition, the HACCP
regulations require that USDA and federally inspected meat and poultry
processing plants test for the presence of dangerous pathogens, such as
E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes. These actions
were important steps to improve the safety of our food supply.
However, some of our recent work identified weaknesses in HACCP
implementation and enforcement that, if left uncorrected, could
undermine a primary goal of the HACCP system--that is, controlling
hazards in the production process before the product reaches the
market. As a result, U.S. consumers may continue to be placed at risk
of contracting foodborne illness from contaminated foods. For example,
our January 2001 report on FDA‘s seafood safety program showed that,
although seafood processing firms had made some progress in
implementing the HACCP system, many firms had still not implemented the
HACCP system and that in many cases FDA had not issued warning letters
even though there were serious safety violations.[Footnote 8]
Similarly, our July 2001 report on FDA‘s shellfish safety program
showed that the agency lacks a risk-based approach to overseeing
shellfish safety.[Footnote 9] More recently, USDA began testing
modifications to its slaughter plant inspection system to make the
transition from traditional federal inspections of every carcass to a
risk-based approach that is more consistent with the HACCP concepts.
While we have supported a risk-based approach to food inspections, we
recommended in December 2001 that USDA proceed cautiously with modified
inspections to ensure that, among other things, industry personnel are
adequately trained.[Footnote 10]
Furthermore, in August 2002, we reported that there were continuing
problems with HACCP implementation in meat and poultry plants.[Footnote
11] For example, we reported that USDA inspectors were not consistently
identifying problems and were allowing plants to remain out of
compliance for protracted periods of time. We also noted that the
longer plants are allowed to remain out of compliance with HACCP, the
greater the risk that unsafe food would be produced and marketed. Our
report contained a series of recommendations that were aimed at
strengthening USDA‘s oversight of HACCP and ensuring that plants
promptly and effectively correct violations. USDA agreed with our
recommendations and has initiated or planned implementation actions.
The safety of imported foods continues to pose serious risks. Both USDA
and FDA have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of imported
foods, but as we have previously reported, their approaches differ
significantly. While USDA relies on exporting countries‘ assurances
that their systems are equivalent to the U.S. system, FDA physically
inspects and tests only about 1 percent of all imported foods through a
resource-intensive system of inspections at ports of entry. It is
imperative that a risk-based approach be implemented to strengthen the
safety of imported animals or products that could be infected with
dangerous disease agents such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. As we reported in January
2002, Customs has disclosed significant error rates in importer-
provided information for shipments at risk for BSE, import controls
over bulk mail are weak, and inspection capacity has not kept pace with
the growth in imports.[Footnote 12] However, some of the weaknesses
that we identified should be corrected by Congress‘s actions to enhance
FDA‘s authorities. For example, we previously reported that FDA could
not control imported foods or require that they be kept in a registered
warehouse prior to FDA approval for release into U.S. commerce; as a
result, adulterated imports were released into U.S. commerce.[Footnote
13] FDA now has the authority to temporarily hold products at ports of
entry if they present a threat of serious adverse health consequences.
Furthermore, the June 2002 bioterrorism act protects against the
importation of adulterated food products by generally prohibiting a
product from entering the country at a port of entry if the product had
already been refused admission at another port of entry.
Improving the Integrity of Food Assistance Programs:
USDA continues to face serious challenges in ensuring that eligible
individuals receive the proper benefits from the food assistance
programs administered by its Food and Nutrition Service. Each day, 1 in
every 6 Americans receives nutrition assistance through 1 or more of
the 15 programs administered by this agency. These programs, which
accounted for slightly more than half of USDA‘s budget authority for
fiscal year 2002, provide children and low-income adults with access to
food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. Specifically, for
fiscal year 2002, the Congress appropriated about $38.8 billion to
operate these programs, including the Food Stamp Program and child
nutrition programs, such as the school-breakfast and school-lunch
programs. This high level of support dictates that USDA must
continually address and minimize the amount of fraud and abuse
occurring in these programs in order to ensure their integrity.
USDA‘s challenges are clearly evident in the operation of the Food
Stamp Program--the cornerstone of its nutrition assistance programs. In
fiscal year 2001, this program provided 17.3 million individuals with
more than $15.5 billion in benefits. As noted in the President‘s
Management Agenda, USDA must continue to address the challenge of
accurately issuing food stamp benefits to those who are eligible.
Specifically, USDA estimated that about $1.4 billion in erroneous
payments were made to food stamp recipients in fiscal year 2001--about
$1 billion of the benefits issued were estimated to be overpayments and
more than $370 million were estimated to be underpayments--an error
rate of approximately 9 percent. To deal with the complexity of the
Food Stamp Program and the high error rate, the 2002 Farm Bill
contained a number of administrative and simplification reforms, such
as allowing states to use greater flexibility in considering the income
of recipients for eligibility purposes and to extend simplified
reporting procedures for all program recipients.
In addition to ensuring that eligible individuals receive proper
benefits, USDA faces the formidable challenge of minimizing the fraud
and abuse associated with the misuse of the billions of dollars in food
stamp benefits, which are accepted by about 149,000 authorized retail
food stores. Specifically, individuals sometimes illegally sell their
benefits for cash--a practice known as trafficking. The most recent
report on the level of trafficking, which USDA issued in March 2000,
estimated that stores trafficked about $660 million, or about 3.5 cents
of every dollar of food stamp benefits issued per year from 1996
through 1998. In addition, storeowners generally do not pay the
financial penalties assessed for trafficking. To illustrate this
condition, we reported in May 1999 that USDA and the courts collected
only $11.5 million, or about 13 percent, of the
$78 million in total penalties assessed against storeowners for
violating food stamp regulations from 1993 through 1998.[Footnote 14]
USDA reduced the remaining amount owed by storeowners by about $49
million, or about
55 percent, through waivers, adjustments, and write-offs. While
weaknesses in debt collection practices contribute to low collection
rates, USDA officials noted that these rates also reflect the
difficulties involved in collecting this type of debt, including
problems in locating storeowners who have been removed from the Food
Stamp Program and the refusal of some storeowners to pay their debts.
Better use of information technology has the potential to help USDA
minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in the Food Stamp Program. For
example, in our May 1999 report we recommended that the Food and
Nutrition Service make better use of data from electronic benefit
transfers (EBT) to identify and assess penalties against storeowners
who violate the Food Stamp Program‘s regulations. Also, we recommended
in March 2000 that the Food and Nutrition Service work with the states
to implement best practices for using EBT data to identify and take
action against recipients engaged in trafficking of food stamp
benefits.[Footnote 15] The Food and Nutrition Service has taken some
actions to implement our recommendations, such as assisting states in
the use of EBT data to identify traffickers and has other actions under
way.
USDA also faces serious fraud and abuse challenges in other nutrition
programs, including the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),
which for fiscal year 2002 was funded at $1.8 billion, and the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, which for that year were
funded at $7.4 billion. In fiscal year 2001, CACFP provided subsidized
meals for a daily average of 2.6 million participants in the care of
about 215,000 day care providers. Over the years, USDA‘s OIG has
identified case after case of the intentional misuse of CACFP funds,
including cases in which program sponsors created fictitious day care
providers and inflated the number of meals served. In response to our
November 1999 recommendation[Footnote 16] and reports by the OIG,
legislation was enacted in June 2000 to strengthen CACFP management
controls and to reduce its vulnerability to fraud and abuse. As a
result, the Food and Nutrition Service has intensified its management
evaluations at the state and local levels and has trained its regional
and state agency staff on revised management procedures.
Furthermore, in its strategic plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2005,
USDA specifically identified the challenge it faces in ensuring that
only eligible participants are provided benefits in the National School
Lunch Program. In fiscal year 2001, this program provided nutritionally
balanced, low-cost or free lunches for over 27 million children each
school day in more than 98,000 public and nonprofit private schools and
residential child care institutions. Past reports have disclosed that
the number of children certified as eligible to receive free lunches in
this program was 18 percent greater than the estimated number of
children eligible for this benefit. USDA has taken some initial steps
to develop a cost-effective strategy to address this integrity issue,
such as pilot-testing potential policy changes to improve the
certification process.
Enhancing USDA‘s Ability to Account for Its Financial Activities:
For many years, USDA struggled to improve its financial management
activities, but inadequate accounting systems and related procedures
and controls hampered its ability to get a clean opinion on its
financial statements. After 8 consecutive disclaimers of
opinion,[Footnote 17] USDA‘s OIG issued an unqualified opinion on
USDA‘s fiscal year 2002 financial statements and reported that
significant progress had been made in improving overall financial
management. On an agency-by-agency basis, completed audits of fiscal
year 2002 financial statements were also positive. Specifically,
unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements of
the Forest Service, Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk Management
Agency/Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Rural Development
mission area, and the Rural Telephone Bank. While we commend the
department and its component agencies on their unqualified opinions,
some of these could not have occurred without extraordinary efforts by
the department and its auditors. Before USDA can achieve sustainable
financial accountability, it and its component agencies, particularly
the Forest Service, must address a number of serious problems that
USDA‘s OIG or we have reported.
In order to achieve its unqualified opinion, USDA overcame some major
obstacles over a period of years. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the
first time since 1994, USDA‘s lending agencies were able to estimate
and reestimate loan subsidy costs for the department‘s net credit
program receivables, which totaled about $74 billion as of September
30, 2001. Because of USDA‘s achievement in this area, along with that
of other key lending agencies, this item was no longer a factor
contributing to our disclaimer of opinion on the fiscal year 2001
consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government.[Footnote 18]
In its fiscal year 2002 audit report, the OIG stated that USDA made
significant improvements in its overall financial management, such as
implementation of a departmentwide standard accounting system. However,
if USDA is to achieve and sustain financial accountability, it must
fundamentally improve its underlying internal controls, financial
management systems, and operations to allow for the routine production
of accurate, relevant, and timely data to support program management
and accountability. For example, among other things, USDA needs to
address the problems with its legacy systems to improve integration of
the financial management architecture, reconcile its property system
with the general ledger in a timely manner, and correct inconsistencies
in its accounting processes.
The OIG also noted that USDA made significant progress during fiscal
year 2002 in reconciling its fund balance[Footnote 19] accounts with
the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and that the OIG was able to
validate this line item on USDA‘s fiscal year 2002 financial
statements. However, the OIG continues to report this area as a
material internal control weakness due to continuing deficiencies in
its reconciliation processes.
The OIG, in reporting on USDA‘s compliance with laws and regulations
during fiscal year 2002, stated that USDA does not substantially comply
with the 3 requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement
Act of 1996 (FFMIA), including federal financial systems requirements,
applicable federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Standard General
Ledger at the transaction level. Lack of compliance stems from USDA‘s
many disparate accounting systems that are not integrated; material
internal control weaknesses; and the inability to prepare auditable
financial statements on a routine basis. USDA‘s September 30, 2002,
FFMIA Remediation Plan discussed a number of remedial actions that the
department expects to complete in fiscal year 2006. Additionally, the
OIG reported that USDA‘s systems are not designed to provide the
reliable and timely cost information required to comply with the
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial
Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards. Specifically, the OIG‘s review
of user fees disclosed that two USDA agencies were not including the
full costs of their user fee programs when determining fees and were
not recovering the full costs of performing services for their
individual programs.
Another financial management challenge for USDA is federal nontax
delinquent debt collection. USDA reported holding $6.2 billion of
federal nontax debt that was delinquent more than 180 days as of
September 30, 2001. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 gave
federal agencies a full array of tools to collect such delinquent debt.
Among other things, the Debt Collection Improvement Act provides (1) a
requirement for federal agencies to refer eligible debts delinquent
more than 180 days to the Department of the Treasury for collection
action and (2) authorization for agencies to administratively garnish
the wages of delinquent debtors.
In December 2001, we reported that two USDA agencies, Rural
Development‘s Rural Housing Service and the Farm Service Agency, had
failed to make the Debt Collection Improvement Act a priority since its
enactment in 1996.[Footnote 20] Specifically, the Rural Housing Service
had not implemented an effective and complete process to refer debts to
Treasury mainly because of systems limitations, debt reporting
problems, and lack of regulations needed to refer losses resulting from
claims paid under its guaranteed single family housing loan program.
The Farm Service Agency lacked effective procedures and controls to
identify and promptly refer eligible delinquent debts to Treasury.
Moreover, USDA had not utilized administrative wage garnishment to
collect delinquent nontax debts. Consequently, opportunities for
collecting delinquent nontax debts as contemplated by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act were severely reduced.
USDA officials made a commitment in December 2001 to substantially
improve the department‘s implementation of the Debt Collection
Improvement Act by December 2002, and progress has been made. However,
challenges remain that will require sustained commitment and priority
from top management. For example, the Rural Housing Service still must
complete regulations to refer losses related to its guaranteed single
family housing loans to Treasury and an automated process for such
referrals, and the Farm Service Agency must complete actions needed to
ensure that all of its eligible debt is promptly referred to Treasury.
In addition, USDA must complete regulations that are required to
implement administrative wage garnishment departmentwide and get all of
its component agencies to begin using this debt collection tool to the
fullest extent practicable. The OIG reported material noncompliance
with the Debt Collection Improvement Act in its fiscal year 2002 audit
report, reiterating the need for sustained commitment and priority by
top management.
An area of particular concern within USDA continues to be the Forest
Service. In 1999, we designated financial management at the Forest
Service to be ’high risk“ on the basis of serious financial and
accounting weaknesses that had been identified, but not corrected, in
the agency‘s financial statements for a number of years. The Forest
Service received its first ever unqualified opinion on its fiscal year
2002 financial statements, which represents progress from prior years
when the OIG was unable to express an opinion. But it took heroic
efforts to achieve an unqualified opinion. For example, the Forest
Service still lacks an adequate system to account for its property.
Further, to derive its fund balance with Treasury accounts, the Forest
Service made millions of dollars in adjustments. While the Forest
Service has reached an important milestone by attaining a clean audit
opinion on its financial statements, it has not yet proven it can
sustain this outcome, and it has not reached the end goal of routinely
having timely, accurate, and useful financial information. The Forest
Service continues to commit considerable resources to correcting its
financial management weaknesses; however, much work remains. We
continue to designate financial management at the Forest Service as
’high risk“ on the basis of its serious internal control weaknesses.
While the Forest Service made significant progress in fiscal year 2002
to reconcile its fund balance with Treasury accounts, the financial
statement auditor (auditor) noted significant control deficiencies in
its reconciliation processes. For example, the Forest Service needs to
research a large backlog of unreconciled items and take corrective
actions. In order to bring the Forest Service‘s fund balance with
Treasury accounts into balance with Treasury records as of September
30, 2002, the Forest Service recorded an adjustment of $107 million.
The auditor recommended that the Forest Service document its
reconciliation processes, establish a point of contact at the National
Finance Center to assist in the reconciliation process, analyze and
determine the proper disposition of its budget and clearing accounts,
and allocate the necessary resources to complete monthly
reconciliations in a timely manner.
The auditor also reported material deficiencies in the Forest Service‘s
general controls environment and software application controls. General
controls involve the overall computer operation. For example, the
auditor noted operation controls for determining the trustworthiness of
personnel and limiting access to information systems need improvement.
The internal control weaknesses involving the software application
controls[Footnote 21] related to its procurement, real and personal
property systems. Application controls play a crucial role in the
accuracy, completeness, security, and auditability of these feeder
systems. Without adequate general and application controls the Forest
Service is exposed to the risk of its property records being corrupted,
lost or altered, and errors and omissions not being prevented,
detected, and corrected. The auditors recommended several actions for
improving controls over user access, system interfaces, system edits,
separation of duties, and data accuracy and completeness.
Further, the auditor reported that internal controls related to the
accurate recording of property transactions need improvement. For
example, the auditor noted that the recorded amount of certain
transactions did not agree with the supporting documentation; labor
costs and other costs were improperly capitalized; and critical
information in the initial recording of acquisition cost, in-service
date, and useful life were not reviewed. Internal controls over the
recording of assets are essential to avoid overstating and understating
assets. The auditors made several recommendations to improve internal
controls over its property, plant, and equipment.
The auditor also noted that the Forest Service‘s proposed methodology
for estimating certain liabilities, such as grants, was not accurate
and did not substantially support the unpaid amount of goods that had
been delivered as of the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the
proposed methodology did not consider payments to states, which are
recorded as liabilities as of September 30. If the Forest Service had
used its proposed methodology, both its accrued liabilities and
associated expenses would have been understated for fiscal year 2002.
As a result, sampling methodologies were utilized to project the
September 30 accrued liability balance. The OIG recommended that the
Forest Service develop a new methodology for estimating liabilities and
maintain the supporting documentation used to determine the estimate.
Further, the auditor noted serious automated control deficiencies with
the Forest Service‘s timecard entry system. For example, it allowed the
Forest Service users to submit their time sheets for approval to an
employee who was not the designated supervisor. In some locations the
employee could send the time sheet to him/herself for approval. In
addition, the auditor reported deficiencies in manual controls over the
payroll process, such as missing employee and/or supervisor signatures.
The auditor recommended that the Forest Service implement controls to
ensure that employees‘ supervisors appropriately review and approve
their subordinates time sheets, reinforce the requirement for time
sheets to be signed by both the employee and supervisor, and reconcile
and bi-weekly certify its payroll registers to its personnel listing.
Improving Performance Accountability at the Forest Service:
The Forest Service continues to face challenges involving the
controversial refocusing of its mission from producing goods and
services towards a greater emphasis on restoring and protecting the
health of the forests and rangelands that it is responsible for
managing. The agency also needs to make clear to the Congress and the
public its accomplishments with the funds it expends. Since our January
2001 report, the agency has taken some steps to address the challenges
that it faces in improving performance accountability. However, the
agency may be years away from fully attaining accountability for its
performance, and its recently initiated actions will require close
monitoring by USDA and the Congress. Accountability is critical to the
Forest Service as it undergoes this change in its mission emphasis,
which it believes is necessary because some of the natural resources
under its control are deteriorating. Key to successfully implementing
this new emphasis is determining where or under what circumstances the
agency should actively manage lands to restore them or when it can rely
more on natural ecological processes for restoration. These choices are
technically challenging and controversial and have substantial
consequences for agency funding priorities. Also, this shift in the
Forest Service‘s mission emphasis required new, more ecologically
based, strategic goals and performance measures. As a result, the
agency has had difficulty accounting for its performance both in
providing goods and services and in ensuring the health of the natural
resources under its control.
In our January 2001 report, we noted that the agency‘s lack of
accountability in recent years occurred, at least in part, because it
had not linked its budget and organizational structures, planning
processes, and resource allocations with its strategic goals,
objectives, and performance measures. We also reported that the agency
had difficulty in developing good performance measures and monitoring
progress critical to ensuring accountability as well as in working with
other agencies on common issues where joint action is needed to achieve
goals. In addition, we reported that while the agency had made numerous
promises in recent years to provide the Congress and the public with a
better understanding of what it accomplishes with appropriated funds,
it did not appear to be fully committed to establishing the key
linkages, measures, monitoring, and coordination needed for
accountability.
In fiscal year 2002, the Forest Service announced a series of actions,
collectively termed the Performance Accountability System, that it had
initiated or planned to address its accountability problems more
comprehensively. These actions were undertaken in response to
information in our prior reports and in conjunction with the
initiatives contained in the President‘s Management Agenda and the
Office of Management and Budget‘s call for greater linkage between
budgets and performance within agencies and across agencies dealing
with common issues. For example, the agency said it would establish
common performance measures with other agencies for reducing
catastrophic wildfires in areas where the threats of such wildfires
transcend their individual administrative boundaries. Also, the Forest
Service told us that it had started and planned several activities that
it believed reflect a fuller commitment to providing the Congress and
the public with a better understanding of what it achieves with the
funds it expends. These actions included (1) developing an annual
performance plan before formulating budgets; (2) using the plan to set
priorities and sequence milestones and goals; and (3) developing clear
links among the budget structure, program activities, outputs, annual
goals and measures, and long-term strategic outcomes and measures. In
addition, to better ensure linkage between resource allocations and
accomplishments, agency officials told us that they are considering
developing a monitoring system to track activities and funds.
The Forest Service has acknowledged that, despite efforts underway to
adopt what it regards as a strategy for improving organizational
efficiency, it needs to do much more to become fully accountable.
Agency officials estimate that the first stage of their improvement
efforts will not be completed before fiscal year 2005 and may take much
longer. We agree. For instance, even though the agency has pledged to
work with other agencies and adopt common performance measures for
reducing wildfire threats, the Forest Service officials told us they
did not know if the agency‘s current information systems are able to
generate the data needed to support those measures. If so, it will be
difficult for the Forest Service to develop meaningful links between
these measures and its budget structure, program activities, outputs,
annual goals, and long-term strategic outcomes.
The Forest Service‘s recently initiated and planned actions have not
been evaluated and many obstacles remain to improving its performance
accountability. Until the agency resolves these concerns, some
accountability problems will likely remain in varying degrees. For this
reason, the actions recently taken by the agency to increase
performance accountability will need continued close monitoring by USDA
and the Congress.
Resolving Discrimination Complaints:
USDA‘s Office of Civil Rights continues to experience significant
problems in processing discrimination complaints in a timely manner.
Despite having implemented many recommendations that we and others have
made to improve the resolution of discrimination complaints, the
processing of complaints involving the delivery of program benefits and
services by the Office of Civil Rights continues to exceed the
department‘s time requirement. Key contributing factors to this problem
include high staff turnover and low employee morale. In addition,
USDA‘s processing-time requirement does not address all stages of
complaint resolution. As a result, even if the time requirement were
met, total complaint processing times could stretch out indefinitely.
As such, the resolution of discrimination complaints continues to be a
serious management challenge at USDA.
For many years, USDA‘s Office of Civil Rights has been the subject of
numerous critical reports issued by us, the OIG, and internal task
forces. These reports have a reoccurring theme: the office‘s untimely
processing of discrimination complaints. In January 1999, we reported
that despite USDA efforts to improve processing times, the office did
not meet requirements. In September 2002, we reported that while the
office had made modest progress in the length of time it takes to
process program discrimination complaints, it was still failing to
comply with existing requirements.[Footnote 22] For example, although
the average processing time to complete investigative reports improved
from 365 days to 315 days for complaints resolved in fiscal years 2000
and 2001, respectively, the time frame continues to exceed the
requirement that the reports be completed within 180 days after
accepting a discrimination complaint. Furthermore, because the 180-day
requirement only covers the investigation of a complaint, the total
processing time of complaints was significantly higher. For example,
the requirement does not cover the adjudication phase. When all stages
of complaint resolution are accounted for, average processing times
reached 772 and 676 days for program discrimination complaints resolved
in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, respectively.
The Office of Civil Rights has made only modest progress in improving
its timely processing of complaints because it has yet to address
severe, underlying human capital problems. Specifically, the office has
had long-standing problems in obtaining and retaining staff with the
right mix of skills. The retention problem is evidenced by the fact
that only about two-thirds of the staff engaged in processing program
complaints in fiscal year 2000 was still on board 2 years later. Also,
severe morale problems have exacerbated staff retention problems and
have
adversely affected the productivity of the remaining staff. During
fiscal
years 2000 and 2001, the office had one of the highest rates within
USDA
of discrimination complaints filed by employees. In addition, office
officials told us that some staff have threatened fellow employees or
sabotaged their work. As we reported in September 2002, although the
Director of the Office of Civil Rights believes that the situation has
improved over the past few years, he said that some of the more serious
morale problems have not been resolved.
In light of these problems, we recommended actions to help ensure
USDA‘s timely processing of discrimination complaints. Specifically, in
September 2002 we recommended that, among other things, USDA establish
time frame goals for all stages of the complaint process and develop an
action plan to address ongoing staff turnover and morale problems in
its Office of Civil Rights. The department generally agreed with our
recommendations. In addition, the Congress has taken action to improve
USDA‘s long-standing problems with civil rights. Key among these was a
provision in the 2002 Farm Bill that authorizes the position of
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights within USDA. As a result of this
action, civil rights issues and problems within USDA should receive
greater attention.
[End of section]
GAO Contacts:
Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of biological agents
Protecting against importing animal diseases
Improving the delivery of services to farmers
Enhancing the safety of the nation‘s food supply
Resolving discrimination complaints; Contact person: Lawrence J.
Dyckman, Director; Natural Resources and Environment; (202) 512-3841;
dyckmanl@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of aircraft
Improving performance accountability at the Forest Service; Contact
person: Barry T. Hill, Director; Natural Resources and Environment;
(202) 512-3841; hillb@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of information; Contact
person: Bob Dacey, Director; Information Technology; (202) 512-3317;
daceyb@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Providing food assistance and
improving program integrity; Contact person: Sigurd R. Nilsen,
Director; Education, Workforce and Income; Security; (202) 512-7215;
nilsens@gao.gov.
Subject(s) covered in this report: Enhancing financial management;
Contact person: McCoy Williams, Director; Financial Management and
Assurance; (202) 512-6906; williamsm1@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Performance and Accountability Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective. GAO-01-241. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture. GAO-01-242. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
Ensuring Adequate Security:
Protecting Against Importing Animal Diseases:
Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain
Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding Issues. GAO-02-808. Washington, D.C.:
July 26, 2002.
Security of Information:
USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and
Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington,
D.C.: February 28, 2001.
Information Security: USDA Needs to Implement Its Departmentwide
Information Security Plan. GAO/AIMD-00-217. Washington, D.C.:
August 10, 2000.
Improving the Delivery of Services to Farmers:
Supporting Congressional Oversight: Budgetary Implications of Selected
GAO Work for Fiscal Year 2003. GAO-02-576. Washington, D.C.: April. 26,
2002.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: State Office Collocation.
GAO/RCED-00-208R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.
USDA Reorganization: Progress Mixed in Modernizing the Delivery of
Services. GAO/RCED-00-43. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2000.
Enhancing the Safety of the Nation‘s Food Supply:
Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules
Needed to Reduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses. GAO-02-902. Washington,
D.C.: August 30, 2002.
Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as
Adequate, but FDA‘s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced. GAO-02-566.
Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2002.
Food Safety: Continued Vigilance Needed to Ensure Safety of School
Meals. GAO-02-669T. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other
Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183.
Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2002.
Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be
Addressed Before Implementation. GAO-02-59. Washington, D.C.: December
17, 2001.
Food Safety and Security: Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure Safe
Food. GAO-02-47T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001.
Food Safety: CDC Is Working to Address Limitations in Several of Its
Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems. GAO-01-973. Washington, D.C.:
September 7, 2001.
Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Shellfish Safety Needs Improvement.
GAO-01-702. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.
Food Safety: Overview of Federal and State Expenditures. GAO-01-177.
Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2001.
Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect
Consumers. GAO-01-204. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2001.
Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, Risk-
Based Inspection System. GAO/T-RCED-99-256. Washington, D.C.:
August 4, 1999.
Providing Food Assistance and Improving Program Integrity:
Food Stamp Program: States‘ Use of Options and Waivers to Improve
Program Administration and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington,
D.C.: February 22, 2002.
Food Stamp Program: Implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer
Systems. GAO-02-332. Washington, D.C.: January 16, 2002.
Food Assistance: WIC Faces Challenges in Providing Nutrition Services.
GAO-02-142. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2001.
Food Stamp Program: Program Integrity and Participation Challenges.
GAO-01-881T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2001.
Food Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamp Benefits. GAO/
RCED-00-250. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000.
Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in
Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61.
Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.
Food Assistance: Efforts to Control Fraud and Abuse in the Child and
Adult Care Food Program Should Be Strengthened. GAO/RCED-00-12.
Washington, D.C.: November 29, 1999.
Food Stamp Program: Storeowners Seldom Pay Financial Penalties Owed for
Program Violations. GAO/RCED-99-91. Washington, D.C.:
May 11, 1999.
Enhancing Financial Management:
Financial Management: Effective Implementation of FFMIA Is Key to
Providing Reliable, Useful, and Timely Data. GAO-02-791T. Washington,
D.C.: June 6, 2002.
U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 2001 Results Highlight the
Continuing Need to Accelerate Federal Financial Management Reform. GAO-
02-599T. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2002.
Financial Management: FFMIA Implementation Critical for Federal
Accountability. GAO-02-29. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2001.
Financial Management: Annual Costs of Forest Service‘s Timber Sales
Program Are Not Determinable. GAO-01-1101R. Washington, D.C.: September
21, 2001.
U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 2000 Reporting Underscores the
Need to Accelerate Federal Financial Management Reform.
GAO-01-570T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-01-263. Washington, D.C.: January
2001.
Financial Management: USDA Continues to Face Major Financial Management
Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD-00-334. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2000.
Financial Management: USDA Faces Major Financial Management Challenges.
GAO/T-AIMD-00-115. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2000.
Improving Performance Accountability at the Forest Service:
Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires
Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington,
D.C.: June 13, 2002.
Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better
Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. Washington,
D.C.: March 29, 2002.
Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce
Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2002.
The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to
Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. GAO-01-1022T.
Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.
Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More
Accountable for Its Performance. GAO/T-RCED-00-236. Washington, D.C.:
June 29, 2000.
Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Improve Accountability.
GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-00-93. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2000.
Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability. GAO/RCED/
AIMD-00-2. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.
Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.:
April 2, 1999.
Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving Performance.
GAO/RCED-97-71. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997.
Resolving Discrimination Complaints:
Department of Agriculture: Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers Would
Benefit from Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights
Program. GAO-02-1124T. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2002.
Department of Agriculture: Improvements in the Operations of the Civil
Rights Program Would Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers. GAO-
02-942. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2002.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Resolution of Discrimination Complaints
Involving Farm Credit and Payment Programs.
GAO-01-521R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2001.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems in Processing Discrimination
Complaints. GAO/T-RCED-00-286. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder the Timely
Processing of Discrimination Complaints. GAO/RCED-99-38. Washington,
D.C.: January 29, 1999.
[End of section]
Performance and Accountability and
High-Risk Series:
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective. GAO-03-95.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture. GAO-03-96.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Commerce.
GAO-03-97.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense.
GAO-03-98.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education.
GAO-03-99.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy.
GAO-03-100.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health and
Human Services. GAO-03-101.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Homeland
Security. GAO-03-102.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development. GAO-03-103.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior. GAO-03-104.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice.
GAO-03-105.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor.
GAO-03-106.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State.
GAO-03-107.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation. GAO-03-108.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Treasury. GAO-03-109.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans
Affairs. GAO-03-110.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Agency for
International Development. GAO-03-111.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection
Agency. GAO-03-112.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency
Management Agency. GAO-03-113.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. GAO-03-114.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of Personnel
Management. GAO-03-115.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Small Business
Administration. GAO-03-116.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration. GAO-03-117.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Postal Service.
GAO-03-118.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119.
High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120.
High-Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting the Federal
Government and the Nation‘s Critical Infrastructures.
GAO-03-121.
High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Agriculture, GAO-01-242 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 2001).
[2] Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002.
[3] http://www.usda.gov/farmbill.
[4] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
Oversight and Security of Biological Agents at Laboratories Operated by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Policies and Inventories Are Needed
To Manage Biosecurity, Report No. 50099-13-At (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
29, 2002).
[5] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Review
of Forest Service Security Over Aircraft and Aircraft Facilities,
Report No. 08001-2-HQ (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect
U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding
Issues, GAO-02-808 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: USDA Needs to
Implement Its Departmentwide Information Security Plan, GAO/AIMD-00-
217 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 10, 2000).
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Federal Oversight of
Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect Consumers, GAO-01-204
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2001).
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Federal Oversight of
Shellfish Safety Needs Improvement, GAO-01-702 (Washington, D.C.: July
9, 2001).
[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat
and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be Addressed Before Implementation,
GAO-02-59 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2001).
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Meat and Poultry: Better USDA
Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules Needed to Reduce Risk of
Foodborne Illnesses, GAO-02-902 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002).
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in
the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S.
Prevention Efforts, GAO-02-183 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2002).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety and Security:
Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure Safe Food, GAO-02-47T (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 10, 2001).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Storeowners
Seldom Pay Financial Penalties Owed for Program Violations, GAO/RCED-
99-91 (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 1999).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Better Use of
Electronic Data Could Result in Disqualifying More Recipients Who
Traffic Benefits, GAO/RCED-00-61 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2000).
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Assistance: Efforts to
Control Fraud and Abuse in the Child and Adult Care Food Program Should
Be Strengthened, GAO/RCED-00-12 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 29, 1999).
[17] A disclaimer of opinion means that the auditor is unable to form
an opinion on the financial statements. A disclaimer results when a
pervasive material uncertainty exists or there is a significant
restriction on the scope of the audit.
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Government Financial
Statements: FY2001 Results Highlight the Continuing Need to Accelerate
Federal Financial Management Reform, GAO-02-599T (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 9, 2002).
[19] USDA records its budget authority in asset accounts called Fund
Balance with Treasury and increases or decreases these accounts as it
collects or disburses funds.
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996: Department of Agriculture Faces Challenges Implementing Certain
Key Provisions, GAO-02-277T (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2001).
[21] Application controls are methods and procedures designed to
provide reasonable assurance that data are valid, properly authorized,
and completely and accurately processed.
[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Agriculture:
Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights Program Would
Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers, GAO-02-942 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
