Agricultural Conservation
USDA Should Improve Its Methods for Estimating Technical Assistance Costs Gao ID: GAO-05-58 November 30, 2004The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with state and local partners, provides landowners with technical assistance for multiple programs to plan and implement conservation measures that protect soil, water, and wildlife. For years, the Congress has been seeking detailed cost information on this assistance as it examined USDA budget requests. In part, because NRCS's financial system was not designed for estimating future budgets, in 1998 NRCS began developing additional cost data and a computer model for estimating future technical assistance costs. GAO was asked to (1) review NRCS's technical assistance cost estimates and (2) identify causes of any differences between the estimates and actual costs ultimately reported by NRCS.
In 2003, NRCS started testing its computer model by comparing estimates of technical assistance costs for 10 Farm Bill conservation programs, with actual costs reported by NRCS. GAO's analysis of these comparisons shows that NRCS's model made estimates, program-by-program, which varied considerably from the agency's actual costs. For fiscal year 2003, for example, NRCS's model estimated that the technical assistance costs for seven Farm Bill programs would be higher by 9 to 50 percent, than NRCS ultimately incurred. For three other Farm Bill programs, the estimates were lower than the agency incurred by 16 to 60 percent. Most of the estimates fell outside NRCS's goal of estimating to within 10 percent of the agency's actual costs. In addition, for the 10 Farm Bill conservation programs combined, NRCS estimated its technical assistance costs at $295 million for fiscal year 2003, which is about 15 percent more than the $257 million that NRCS incurred. NRCS officials generally agreed with this analysis. GAO identified several reasons for the differences between the cost estimates and the actual costs. First, some of NRCS's technical assistance work was delayed, occurring later than NRCS assumed when it estimated its costs. This contributed to some overestimation by the model, according to NRCS officials. Second, NRCS's estimates include costs incurred by NRCS's partners. Such costs are generally not included in the actual costs reported by NRCS. Third, some data NRCS uses in its model are based on inaccurate assumptions. For example, when developing estimates about the time it takes NRCS staff to perform technical assistance tasks for use in the model, NRCS assumes, among other things, that its staff are fully trained and perform technical assistance work without interruption. These assumptions do not reflect actual workplace conditions and lead to underestimates. NRCS officials said they would reconsider these and other assumptions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-58, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Methods for Estimating Technical Assistance Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-58
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Methods
for Estimating Technical Assistance Costs' which was released on
January 3, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
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. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives:
November 2004:
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION:
USDA Should Improve Its Methods for Estimating Technical Assistance
Costs:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-58]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-58, a report to the Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), working with state and local partners,
provides landowners with technical assistance for multiple programs to
plan and implement conservation measures that protect soil, water, and
wildlife. For years, the Congress has been seeking detailed cost
information on this assistance as it examined USDA budget requests. In
part, because NRCS‘s financial system was not designed for estimating
future budgets, in 1998 NRCS began developing additional cost data and
a computer model for estimating future technical assistance costs. GAO
was asked to (1) review NRCS‘s technical assistance cost estimates and
(2) identify causes of any differences between the estimates and actual
costs ultimately reported by NRCS.
What GAO Found:
In 2003, NRCS started testing its computer model by comparing estimates
of technical assistance costs for 10 Farm Bill conservation programs,
with actual costs reported by NRCS. GAO‘s analysis of these comparisons
shows that NRCS‘s model made estimates, program-by-program, which
varied considerably from the agency‘s actual costs. For fiscal year
2003, for example, NRCS‘s model estimated that the technical assistance
costs for seven Farm Bill programs would be higher by 9 to 50 percent,
than NRCS ultimately incurred. For three other Farm Bill programs, the
estimates were lower than the agency incurred by 16 to 60 percent. Most
of the estimates fell outside NRCS‘s goal of estimating to within 10
percent of the agency‘s actual costs. In addition, for the 10 Farm Bill
conservation programs combined, NRCS estimated its technical assistance
costs at $295 million for fiscal year 2003, which is about 15 percent
more than the $257 million that NRCS incurred. NRCS officials generally
agreed with this analysis.
GAO identified several reasons for the differences between the cost
estimates and the actual costs.
* First, some of NRCS‘s technical assistance work was delayed,
occurring later than NRCS assumed when it estimated its costs. This
contributed to some overestimation by the model, according to NRCS
officials.
* Second, NRCS‘s estimates include costs incurred by NRCS‘s partners.
Such costs are generally not included in the actual costs reported by
NRCS.
* Third, some data NRCS uses in its model are based on inaccurate
assumptions. For example, when developing estimates about the time it
takes NRCS staff to perform technical assistance tasks for use in the
model, NRCS assumes, among other things, that its staff are fully
trained and perform technical assistance work without interruption.
These assumptions do not reflect actual workplace conditions and lead
to underestimates. NRCS officials said they would reconsider these and
other assumptions.
What GAO Recommends:
To improve NRCS‘s cost estimates, GAO recommends that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to identify the estimated costs
incurred by partners, ensuring that estimates are more comparable with
actual costs when tested, and modify the assumptions for estimating the
time that tasks take to better reflect actual work conditions. NRCS
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and indicated it
would use them as the basis for making improvements to its estimation
methods.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-58.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Lawrence J. Dyckman,
(202) 512-3841, dyckmanl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
NRCS's Technical Assistance Cost Estimates Differ from Actual Costs
Reported by NRCS:
Differences in Estimated and Actual Costs Have Several Causes:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Technical Assistance Costs Estimated by NRCS's
Model and Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Table 2: Costs Estimated by NRCS's Model, with and without Partner
Costs, Compared to Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Year 2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps NRCS Has Taken to Develop a Method for Estimating
Future Technical Assistance Costs and Budgets:
Figure 2: Estimates and Data Used in NRCS's Cost of Programs Model and
Discussed in This Report:
Abbreviations:
CRP: Conservation Reserve Program:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program:
Letter November 30, 2004:
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte:
Chairman:
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Agriculture:
House of Representatives:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts various conservation
programs that help protect our nation's soil, water, and wildlife. In
partnership with state and local agencies, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance to farmers,
ranchers, and others to help them take part in these conservation
programs. For example, through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
the largest program for retiring farmland for conservation purposes,
USDA and its partners provide technical and financial assistance to
eligible farmers who contract with USDA to take such conservation
actions as planting native grasses in place of crops to prevent
erosion.[Footnote 1] This technical assistance generally consists of
making on-site visits to identify the conservation needs of the land,
advising landowners on selection, design, and application of
conservation measures, determining landowners' eligibility to
participate in the program, and developing and monitoring contracts the
agency signs with landowners to implement conservation measures. In
fiscal year 2003--the latest year for which data are available--NRCS
reported that it spent $257 million on technical assistance to
implement this and nine other farm-related conservation programs. In
future years, NRCS officials are anticipating growth in its
conservation programs, and that this growth will sharply increase the
agency's technical assistance costs.[Footnote 2]
For years, the Congress has been seeking more detailed and accurate
technical assistance cost information to better understand NRCS's costs
and how program growth might affect the agency's budget. Although NRCS
has had historical and anecdotal information on its technical
assistance expenditures, its financial system has not contained the
detailed technical assistance cost information by program and contract
that is needed for estimating future program budgets. In response to
congressional concerns about this lack of information about the cost of
NRCS technical assistance work, NRCS began developing a method and the
cost data needed for estimating its future technical assistance costs
and budgets in 1998.[Footnote 3] These efforts include:
* a workload analysis process, which provides estimates of the time
required for technical assistance tasks, and:
* a computer model, called the cost of programs model, which uses time
estimates from the workload analysis and other cost data about NRCS
salaries and expenses, for estimating NRCS's costs and future budgets.
In 2003, NRCS began using cost estimates from its model to provide USDA
and congressional decision makers with detailed information on the cost
of providing technical assistance.[Footnote 4] In 2004, NRCS also used
its model to estimate the agency's budget requirements. When technical
assistance funds exceeded actual costs, the excess funds were converted
to and used as financial assistance to landowners, according to NRCS
officials. In addition, to assess and improve the quality of the
estimates made by the model, NRCS compared the model's program cost
estimates for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to program costs reported by
its information systems for those fiscal years.
Because of your continuing interest in ensuring the development of
accurate information about the costs of NRCS programs, you asked us to
(1) review the technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's
model and (2) identify the causes of any differences between the
estimated costs and the actual costs ultimately reported by NRCS.
To review the technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's
model, we assessed NRCS's comparisons of its model results with costs
reported by NRCS for 10 Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. The 10 conservation programs authorized or
reauthorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the
2002 Farm Bill) and discussed in this report are the Agricultural
Management Assistance Program, the Conservation Reserve
Program,[Footnote 5] the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Ground and Surface Water
Conservation Program, Klamath Basin, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, the Conservation Security Program,
and the Grassland Reserve Program. The Ground and Surface Water
Conservation Program, Klamath Basin, Conservation Security Program, and
Grassland Reserve Program are new programs authorized by this
legislation.
Concerning one key source of the cost information, NRCS's financial
system, we noted, among other things, that USDA obtained an unqualified
opinion on its financial management activities in fiscal years 2002 and
2003. This opinion covers, in part, the salary cost data that NRCS
relies on when reporting its costs. To identify causes of differences
between the estimated costs and the costs reported by NRCS, we reviewed
NRCS's assumptions and data used in the cost estimates. As part of this
effort, we analyzed NRCS's model and related documentation to determine
whether the model appeared to be a logical and reasonable method for
estimating technical assistance costs. To determine the reliability of
workload data used in the model, we evaluated NRCS's instructions for
developing them, and obtained the views of NRCS officials and staff who
led the development of the workload analyses in the 10 states that
performed over half of the agency's CRP technical assistance and over
40 percent of its Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in fiscal year
2002.[Footnote 6] We performed our work between September 2003 and
October 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
The technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's model for 10
Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 varied
considerably from NRCS's actual costs.
* For fiscal year 2002, NRCS's model estimated technical assistance
costs for 8 Farm Bill programs that were then operating. Estimates for
3 of the 8 programs--1 large, established program and 2 small, new
programs--ranged from 48 to 302 percent above actual costs. Estimates
for the 5 other programs ranged from 5 to 36 percent lower than actual
costs. Overall, for the 8 programs, NRCS estimated its technical
assistance costs at $254 million, about 19 percent more than the $213
million ultimately reported by NRCS.
* For fiscal year 2003, NRCS's model estimated technical assistance
costs for the 10 Farm Bill programs. For 7 of these programs, the
estimates were higher than the actual costs by 9 to 50 percent, and for
3 of the programs, the estimates were lower by 16 to 60 percent.
Overall, of the 10 programs, NRCS estimated its technical assistance
costs at $295 million, about 15 percent more than the actual $257
million reported by NRCS.
These results fall outside the agency's goal of achieving estimates
that are within 10 percent (higher or lower) of NRCS's actual costs.
NRCS officials generally agreed with our analysis and continue to work
on improving their estimates.
We identified several reasons for the differences between the estimates
and actual costs. First, because of funding issues, some NRCS technical
assistance work was delayed and occurred later in the year than NRCS
assumed it would when it made its estimates. As a result, NRCS's actual
costs for technical assistance were less than NRCS had estimated. Such
differences are to be expected because the timing of funding is
dependent on a number of congressional and executive actions, which
vary from year to year and cannot be precisely forecast. Second, NRCS's
technical assistance cost estimates include costs incurred by NRCS's
partners, which are generally not reimbursed or otherwise incurred by
NRCS. Including these costs contributed to the model's overestimates.
While partner costs are needed to understand the full costs of
programs, these costs should not be included when NRCS reports its
costs, and should be identified when it compares its cost estimates
with actual costs. Third, some data NRCS uses in its model are based on
inaccurate assumptions. One such assumption is that there is one
"typical" type of technical assistance work in each area for which time
estimates were developed for the model. NRCS staff had difficulty
describing their "typical" work for each area because of the
significant variations in topography, land uses, size of operations,
and conservation practices in many areas. Such problems could cause
either over-or underestimates. Additionally, we found when developing
data about the time it takes NRCS staff to perform technical assistance
tasks for use in the model, NRCS assumes, among other things, that its
staff are fully trained and work without interruption. These
assumptions do not reflect actual workplace conditions and lead to
underestimates. NRCS officials said that they would reconsider these
assumptions.
To improve NRCS's cost estimates, we are recommending that the
Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to clearly identify
the portion of its estimated costs that is incurred by partners and not
paid for by NRCS; modify assumptions about how long it takes to
complete tasks to better reflect actual workplace conditions; and pilot
test any new methods, including those developed to better estimate
typical work in areas of the country with diverse conditions. In
commenting on a draft of this report, NRCS said that they generally
agreed with our findings and recommendations and these would serve as
the basis for improvements they plan to make in their methods.
Background:
In 1994, the Congress established NRCS and gave it jurisdiction over
programs of the former Soil Conservation Service, as well as other USDA
financial or technical assistance programs for natural resource
conservation and rural development.[Footnote 7] With more than 12,000
employees nationwide--about three-fourths located in its state offices
and 2,500 field offices--NRCS focuses primarily on private and other
nonfederal lands. NRCS staff regularly work in partnership with state,
local, and private entities, using the same case files and technical
assistance tools. NRCS's primary partners are state conservation
agencies and the approximately 3,000 conservation districts nationwide.
These conservation districts are units of local government organized to
support local conservation efforts with their own programs and staff.
When asked to do so by farmers and others, NRCS staff assess farmers'
needs--a process that generally involves traveling to the site. NRCS
staff work with the landowner to develop a conservation plan that
describes the strategy to be used, the schedule of activities, and
estimated costs. In some instances, plans are revised several times
until the landowner selects a final alternative. If the landowner
applies to implement the conservation plan under a Farm Bill program
and the land meets the eligibility criteria and is accepted, NRCS
develops a contract. After a contract is developed and signed, NRCS
staff complete paperwork for payments to the landowner. NRCS staff
assist with installation of practices, for example, by surveying land,
providing practice standards and specifications, and ensuring
contractors have carried out the terms of the contract.[Footnote 8] In
addition, NRCS continues to document activities throughout the life of
the contract, which may be years or decades. Staff also periodically
certify that the participant is complying with the contract terms,
depending on the program requirements.
In 1998, the Chief of NRCS called for a new agencywide effort to
improve NRCS's accountability by providing better information and
analyses on how the agency uses its resources and what it achieves with
its funds. As part of these efforts, NRCS has taken steps to estimate
its future technical assistance costs and budgets, as described in
figure 1.
Figure 1: Steps NRCS Has Taken to Develop a Method for Estimating
Future Technical Assistance Costs and Budgets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
NRCS's model for estimating the cost of programs consists of an Excel
spreadsheet that makes program-by-program calculations using such data
as time per task estimates and salary benefits and support costs, as
well as assumptions about the average length of a contract and the
proportion of work that will be performed during each year of the
contract. Figure 2 illustrates the information used in NRCS's cost of
programs model.
Figure 2: Estimates and Data Used in NRCS's Cost of Programs Model and
Discussed in This Report:
[See PDF for image]
Note: NRCS's salary data relies, in part, on data from the time and
attendance system. The model also relies on other data, such as program
participation and number of contracts. The source of some of these data
is the Farm Service Agency, which administers CRP.
[End of figure]
Time Per Task Estimates:
NRCS state offices have overall responsibility for developing the time
per task estimates used in the model. NRCS divided the country into 218
areas and assigned teams of about 7 to 12 NRCS and partner staff to
develop time per task estimates for the work to be done in each area.
According to NRCS's process for developing time per task estimates,
these teams first define the typical work in their area--that is, the
sizes and types of land they work with and the conservation practices
they plan for this land. For example, a Texas team determined that one
type of typical conservation work in its area was planting grass cover
on a 150-acre dairy farm. Using this description, the team discussed
and agreed on estimates of time required for each of the 29 tasks
associated with performing this work, such as the time it would take
them to design a grass-planting plan. Generally, after developing the
time per task estimates, the team leader submits them to the state time
per task leader to review and input into an NRCS database. The methods
of review the state offices use include comparing the areas' estimates
with each other. If the state leader encounters substantial unexplained
differences among estimates, he or she generally contacts the team
leader for an explanation and to have the estimate changed, if
appropriate. The state leader then submits final time per task
estimates to NRCS headquarters, which also reviews them. If questions
arise, headquarters may ask the state office to perform additional
review, and make changes, if warranted.
Since the quality of data entered into a model affects the estimates it
produces, NRCS has worked to increase the reliability of its time per
task estimates by developing new estimates on three separate occasions
and asking for staff feedback on the quality of the estimating process.
In addition, NRCS plans to update its time per task estimates again
because the tasks and the time required to perform them have changed,
along with program requirements and policies, over the past 5 years.
Salary Costs:
NRCS's cost model also includes data on average salary costs, which are
based, in part, on data from NRCS's time and attendance system. NRCS
staff enter hours that they work by program, and by the activities
associated with those programs, biweekly in the time and attendance
system. For example, they might record working 20 hours on CRP and 20
hours on WRP. For the 20 CRP hours, they may record 10 hours to
determine land eligibility for multiple landowners and 10 hours working
with landowners on conservation plans. These data are reviewed first by
supervisors and then at the state office level.
NRCS's Technical Assistance Cost Estimates Differ from Actual Costs
Reported by NRCS:
NRCS tested cost estimates from its model for fiscal years 2002 and
2003 by comparing them with the agency's actual costs. Our analysis of
these comparisons shows that program-by-program estimates from NRCS's
model vary considerably from the agency's actual costs as shown in
table 1. These results do not meet the agency's goal of achieving a
difference of no more than 10 percent between estimates and reported
costs.
Table 1: Comparison of Technical Assistance Costs Estimated by NRCS's
Model and Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Farm Bill Programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $162,220;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $109,885;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: $52,335;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 48;
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $175,932;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $146,675;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: $29,257;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 20.
Farm Bill Programs: Conservation Reserve Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 60,963;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 64,378;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (3,415);
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (5);
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 71,424;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 58,730;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 12,694;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 22.
Farm Bill Programs: Wetlands Reserve Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 16,619;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 21,422;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (4,803);
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (22);
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 20,873;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 24,797;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (3,924);
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (16).
Farm Bill Programs: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 6,171;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 9,477;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (3,306);
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (35);
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 6,396;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 11,388;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (4,992);
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (44).
Farm Bill Programs: Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,093;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 769;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 2,324;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 302;
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 7,811;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 5,292;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 2,519;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 48.
Farm Bill Programs: Grassland Reserve Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: [A];
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: [A];
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: [A];
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: [A];
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 5,206;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 4,447;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 759;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 17.
Farm Bill Programs: Agricultural Management Assistance Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,025;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 4,753;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (1,728);
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (36);
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 1,436;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,314;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 122;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 9.
Farm Bill Programs: Farmland Protection Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 1,562;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,939;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (377);
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (19);
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,180;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 2,387;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 793;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 33.
Farm Bill Programs: Klamath Basin;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 529;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 196;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 333;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 170;
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 2,142;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,432;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: 710;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 50.
Farm Bill Programs: Conservation Security Program;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: [A];
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: [A];
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: [A];
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: [A];
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 125;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 313;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: (188);
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: (60).
Farm Bill Programs: Total;
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $254,182;
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $212,819;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: $41,363;
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 19;
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $294,525;
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $256,775;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Number: $37,750;
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs:
Percent: 15.
Source: NRCS and GAO analysis of NRCS cost estimates.
Note: Klamath Basin and the Ground and Surface Water Conservation
Program are new programs also. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
estimates are included in those for CRP. Fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are
the only year for which NRCS had complete data at the time of our
review. Numbers and percentages in the table may not equal totals
because of rounding.
[A] The Grasslands Reserve Program and the Conservation Security
Program had no technical assistance costs in 2002 because NRCS was in
the process of setting up program rules.
[End of table]
* For fiscal year 2002, the CRP estimate was closest to the actual
costs--it was 5 percent lower than the actual costs reported. Of the
remaining program estimates for 2002, three were higher than the actual
cost data by 48 percent to 302 percent, and four were lower by 19
percent to 36 percent. Altogether, NRCS estimated that its technical
assistance costs for eight of the Farm Bill conservation programs would
be about $254 million, 19 percent higher than its actual costs of about
$213 million. NRCS did not estimate costs for two programs that had not
yet been implemented.
* For fiscal year 2003, the estimate for the Agricultural Management
Assistance Program, a program that provides financial assistance to
producers in 15 states to, among other things, construct or improve
irrigation structures and plant trees, was closest to the reported
costs--it was 9 percent greater than the actual costs. Of the remaining
program estimates for 2003, six were higher than the actual cost data
by 17 percent to 50 percent, and three were lower by 16 percent to 60
percent. Altogether, NRCS estimated its technical assistance costs for
10 Farm Bill conservation programs would be about $295 million, about
15 percent higher than its actual costs of about $257 million. This
estimate was 4 percent closer to total actual costs than in fiscal year
2002.
* For the three largest programs--the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, CRP, and WRP--the estimates varied from the actual cost data
somewhat less in fiscal year 2003 than 2002. In fiscal year 2002, the
estimates had a spread of 70 percent--from a 22 percent underestimate
to a 48 percent overestimate. In fiscal year 2003, the estimates had a
spread of 38 percent--from a 16 percent underestimate to a 22 percent
overestimate.
Differences in Estimated and Actual Costs Have Several Causes:
We identified several reasons for the differences between NRCS's
estimated and actual costs. First, for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the
model estimated costs based on the assumption that programs would be
fully funded in the beginning of the fiscal year. This did not happen,
however, because the 2002 Farm Bill was enacted later than expected and
because USDA operated under a continuing resolution for a good portion
of fiscal year 2003. According to NRCS officials, as a result, less
technical assistance work was performed than the estimates reflected.
Second, NRCS's model includes costs for work performed by partners'
staff and paid for by the partner organizations, while the actual cost
data generally contains only the costs for the work of NRCS's staff.
Third, NRCS's model uses some data that are based on inaccurate
assumptions. This is likely to have contributed to differences between
estimates and actual costs reported by NRCS.
Actual Timing of NRCS Work Differed from Timing Assumed When Estimating
Costs:
In several instances, NRCS performed technical assistance work at
different times than NRCS originally assumed it would when estimating
technical assistance costs. First, NRCS estimates have assumed that
full funding would be available for new contracts at the start of the
fiscal year, but in practice, this has not occurred. For example, in
2002, the Farm Bill was enacted in May, later than NRCS expected, and
OMB apportioned funds to USDA for implementing the Farm Bill programs
in July--about three quarters of the way through the fiscal year. Since
only 2-1/2 months of the fiscal year remained, different work--and in
some cases, less work--was performed under the Farm Bill than NRCS had
anticipated, according to NRCS officials. The general 2002 sign-up
period for CRP contracts did not start until August 2002, limiting the
amount of work performed on new CRP contracts. Moreover, in fiscal year
2003, USDA operated under a continuing resolution until receiving
fiscal year 2003 appropriations in February and an OMB apportionment in
March--about half way through the fiscal year. While NRCS can adjust
its assumptions, it is not possible to eliminate uncertainties and
variances related to the timing of funding approvals that cause
differences between the estimated and actual program costs.[Footnote 9]
NRCS officials said that they have been studying the model's estimates
and modifying some assumptions about workloads to improve the
estimates.
NRCS Model Included Costs for Work Performed by Partners:
Because NRCS's partners' efforts are a relatively important part of
overall technical assistance efforts, NRCS has included its partners'
costs in its model so that it is in a position to estimate total
technical assistance costs to carry out the programs. For example,
according to 1999 NRCS staff estimates, the most recent available,
NRCS's partners were responsible for about 17 percent of total CRP
costs and 15 percent of total WRP costs that year. Using those
percentages, we calculated that NRCS's partners might have added about
$15 million to these two programs' fiscal year 2002 technical
assistance costs.
To further illustrate the effects of including partners' costs, we
conducted two comparisons. First, we compared NRCS's fiscal year 2002
technical assistance cost estimates, which include partners' costs, for
two programs--CRP and WRP--with the costs reported by NRCS. We then
made the same comparison but with partners' costs excluded. (See table
2.) The results show that the differences between the estimated and
actual costs increase when partner costs are excluded. For the CRP
program, for example, the difference between the estimated and reported
costs increases from a 5 percent underestimate to a 22 percent
underestimate when partner costs are excluded. For WRP, the difference
between the estimated and reported costs also increases from a 22
percent underestimate to a 34 percent underestimate when partner costs
are excluded.
Table 2: Costs Estimated by NRCS's Model, with and without Partner
Costs, Compared to Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Year 2002:
Dollars in millions.
Cost comparisons: Including partners' costs in model;
CRP: Costs estimated using model: $61.0;
CRP: Costs reported by information systems: $64.4;
CRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (5);
WRP: Costs estimated using model: $16.6;
WRP: Costs reported by information systems: $21.4;
WRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (22).
Cost comparisons: Excluding partners' costs from model;
CRP: Costs estimated using model: $50.3;
CRP: Costs reported by information systems: $64.4;
CRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (22);
WRP: Costs estimated using model: $14.1;
WRP: Costs reported by information systems: $21.4;
WRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (34).
Source: NRCS and GAO analysis of NRCS costs.
[End of table]
However, NRCS officials believe that the differences between their
estimates, which include partners' costs, and the reported actual costs
are less significant because their partner costs have decreased--they
could not say by how much. This may not be the case, however. An NRCS
briefing document reported in 2000 that NRCS expected its partners to
perform more of its workload than in 1999. Similarly, most of the
officials we spoke with from conservation districts--which are key
partner organizations--reported that conservation districts have
increased the amount of technical assistance work they have performed
in the past few years. Finally, partner's costs should not be included
when NRCS reports its costs, and when it compares its estimated and
actual costs. In commenting on a draft of this report, NRCS officials
noted that it is important to include partner costs when estimating the
full costs of the programs. They also stated that estimated costs are
used for budgetary purposes and actual costs are the only costs charged
to the government and used in final reports.
Time Per Task Data Used in the Model Are Based on Inaccurate
Assumptions:
NRCS's estimates of technical assistance costs for 10 Farm Bill
conservation programs are developed, in part, using time per task data
that are based on inaccurate assumptions. First, NRCS's basic
assumption used for developing its estimates--descriptions of typical
technical assistance work--oversimplifies the situations field staff
encounter to the extent that the resulting estimates do not accurately
represent the time it takes staff to do the work. Second, NRCS's time
per task estimates are based on some assumptions that do not reflect
actual workplace conditions. Finally, some NRCS staff who provide
technical assistance are uncertain about how to allocate the time they
spend traveling to and from field locations among NRCS's programs.
Descriptions of Typical Work:
NRCS uses descriptions of typical work as the basis for its time per
task estimates. NRCS guidance tells teams to develop descriptions of
their typical work, but does not tell them how to do this for areas in
which conditions are diverse. In the absence of more specific guidance,
staff have encountered difficulty with the concept of typical work.
According to one team leader, for example, the guidance does not tell
teams how to determine what is typical when there are significantly
varying land sizes, types of farms, or conservation practices, and
several team leaders told us that such variations made identifying
typical work difficult or impossible. For example, a North Dakota team
leader said that the conservation work in his area varies considerably,
ranging from installing pipelines to creating ponds to building fences.
Moreover, a Wisconsin team leader told us that at least three typical
descriptions would be needed to represent the variety of farms in his
area: one each for dairy, vegetable, and cranberry farms. Other NRCS
staff commented that it may not be possible to describe what is typical
for western rangeland, where operations vary from hundreds of acres to
tens of thousands of acres. Finally, another team leader told us that
NRCS's guidance is vague, and as a result, his team interpreted the
term "typical" to mean average, while another understood it to be the
median or middle value. NRCS staff raised these concerns in 2000, and
NRCS officials are aware of the difficulties staff have encountered in
describing their typical work. According to these officials, the scope
of this estimating problem is nationwide and resolving this concern is
important for making more accurate estimates. NRCS is considering
whether it is possible to resolve difficulties staff face in describing
typical work by enlarging the number of areas for which estimates are
developed or collecting data for more than one "typical" unit per area,
and thereby reducing the extent of diversity within each. Additional
information will be needed to determine whether such an approach will
succeed.
Assumptions about the Workplace:
NRCS has directed its staff to base its time per task estimates on
three assumptions that we believe do not reflect actual workplace
conditions. First, estimating staff are to assume that all NRCS staff
are fully trained. This is not the case, however. About 10 percent of
current NRCS staff were hired between 2001 and 2004. According to one
NRCS official, staff need 1 to 1.5 years to become able to
independently perform most technical assistance for CRP and 3 to 5
years for WRP. Because not all staff are fully trained, assuming that
they are is likely to inappropriately lower the time per task
estimates. The second assumption is that staff are not interrupted
during their workday. Under normal conditions, staff regularly
experience interruptions that decrease productivity. Assuming that this
is not the case is also likely to contribute to inappropriately
lowering the time per task estimates. A third assumption, which would
likely lead to raising the time per task estimates, is that NRCS staff
completely follow NRCS's policies, procedures, and guidance in
performing work. Actually, however, staff sometimes take shortcuts that
do not comply with all policies, procedures, and guidance--thereby
completing tasks faster than expected.
In contrast, NRCS's reported actual costs are based on actual work
conditions. That is, these costs reflect the additional time taken by
new and partially trained staff, the added time caused by interruptions
that staff regularly face, and the timesaving shortcuts that staff
sometimes take. Although we could not determine the precise effects of
these assumptions, some information is available to indicate that they
warrant reexamination. For example, NRCS staff reported that by using
shortcuts, their CRP and WRP work took 24 percent and 31 percent less
time, respectively, than the time they had estimated in their workload
analysis. NRCS officials said that they have adjusted the model to take
into account some policy and procedural changes that reduce the
workloads of NRCS staff and added that they would also reconsider the
assumptions that we identified.
Allocation of Travel Time:
NRCS staff also reported some confusion about how to allocate their
travel time. The guidance directs staff to divide travel time, which
constitutes an important portion of field staff work time, among
different program activities when necessary.[Footnote 10] Staff usually
drive to meet with landowners and view land, often traveling to distant
locations and working on several program activities with several
farmers during a single trip. When this occurs, they must determine how
much travel time they should assign to each program. The guidance
states that travel time should be "prorated" among different program
activities but does not explain how to do this. This lack of guidance
results in reporting inconsistencies. For example, staff often visit
several farms on a single trip making it difficult to determine how to
prorate this time among multiple program activities. NRCS officials
said that they are aware of this problem but have not yet developed a
solution.
Conclusions:
While we recognize that only 2 years of comparative cost data are
available and that NRCS has been striving to improve its technical
assistance cost estimates, NRCS's cost estimates differ enough from
actual costs reported by NRCS to be of concern to those who use these
estimates. NRCS's overall technical assistance cost estimate for 10
Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal year 2003 is closer to the
reported cost than the estimate was for fiscal year 2002, but too much
variation is evident on a program-by-program basis in both years. Until
improvements in NRCS's technical assistance cost estimating are
demonstrated through tests of the model's results, we believe NRCS cost
estimates should be used with caution. Without identifying costs
incurred by its partners when assessing the reasonableness of the
estimates made by its model, NRCS cannot ensure the validity of its
cost comparisons. Also, unless NRCS modifies its assumptions to better
reflect actual workplace conditions, its technical assistance cost
estimates will not be as precise as they could be. Finally, without
pilot testing its plans for improving descriptions of typical work or
other changes in data development, NRCS cannot be assured that its
investment in its next nationwide workload analysis will be well spent.
As NRCS improves the quality of its workload analysis, including its
time per task estimates, and the assumptions used in the model, we
believe more accurate technical assistance cost estimates will be
developed. Moreover, when these improvements have been made, NRCS will
be in a better position to evaluate the overall quality of its
estimating. Further testing in the years ahead may well be needed to
gain a better understanding of the causes of variations in the program-
by-program cost estimates.
Recommendations:
To improve the accuracy, and therefore the usefulness of NRCS's program
cost estimating, we are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of NRCS to take the following three actions:
* clearly identify nonreimbursable costs incurred by NRCS's partners
when presenting estimates of NRCS's costs, ensuring that its model's
estimates are comparable with actual data;
* change the assumptions used for developing time per task data for the
model so that they better reflect actual work conditions; and:
* pilot test the feasibility of proposed changes in the development of
the time per task data, including changes in development of typical
work descriptions in several diverse areas of the country before
proceeding with another nationwide workload analysis.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. We
received oral comments from NRCS, which are summarized below. We also
received technical comments, which are incorporated in this report as
appropriate. NRCS accepted our findings and said they would develop
actions in response to our recommendations. The agency stated that the
report provides the basis for updating the agency's workload analysis,
more accurately estimating partner contributions to NRCS's programs,
and making other necessary adjustments to the assumptions in cost
estimates. NRCS also stated that our report rightly points out that
some assumptions used in estimation were inaccurate, but that portions
of the report had an unnecessarily, negative tone. They noted for
example that the estimates would have been closer to actual costs if
funding had been available at the beginning of fiscal years 2002 and
2003. We agree that earlier funding would have likely helped close the
gap between estimated and actual costs. NRCS also stated that partner
contributions could be excluded from the model's estimates, but that
NRCS wanted to acknowledge the full cost of programs using partner
costs. We agree that partners' costs can and should be excluded from
the model's estimated costs when cost estimates are used for budgetary
purposes or for comparison with actual costs. Lastly, NRCS commented
that we found no problems with the logic of the model. We disagree. The
model's inclusion of costs that the agency did not incur, such as
partners' costs, is inappropriate when comparing estimates to NRCS's
actual cost data.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to interested
congressional committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of
NRCS, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available
to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II.
Signed by:
Lawrence J. Dyckman:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) review the technical assistance cost
estimates produced by the model and (2) identify the sources of
differences that may occur between the estimates and NRCS's reported
costs.
To review the estimates, we assessed the differences between the NRCS's
model results compared with the actual costs reported by NRCS. We
compared NRCS's fiscal years 2002 and 2003 technical assistance cost
estimates by program with the actual costs reported by NRCS, the only
years for which these two sets of costs were available. To identify
sources of difference between these costs, we assessed assumptions and
data used in the cost estimates. To assess NRCS's cost model, we
analyzed the model and related documentation to determine whether the
model appeared to be a reasonable method for estimating program costs.
In addition, we checked whether the model formulas, contained in a MS
Excel file, used the appropriate data, and we reviewed the formulas to
ensure that they were logical. In addition, we replicated the model
formulas using the proper data and ensured that the resulting figures
matched those shown in the model. We interviewed NRCS officials
responsible for developing the cost model to gain an understanding of
the model and its development. These officials were staffed in NRCS's
Budget Planning and Analysis Division, Operations Management and
Oversight Division, and in field offices.
We conducted sensitivity analyses to illustrate the possible importance
of different variables in the model. These sensitivity analyses were
conducted using Monte Carlo simulation, which uses random numbers to
measure the effects of uncertainty on model output--in this case, the
technical assistance cost estimates. Our analysis was based on general
assumptions about the probability distributions characterizing some of
the variables in the model.
Also, we interviewed and requested documentation from 20 officials of
state government agencies and conservation district associations to
assess whether the nonreimbursed contributions of conservation
districts increased or decreased in the past several years. We did so
for each of the 10 states with the most CRP and WRP contracts. The 10
states are Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Of the 20 officials we
contacted, 13 responded to our request and provided some information
about partners' contributions.
To assess NRCS's means for ensuring the reliability of the data used in
the cost model, we traced the time per task and other data to their
respective sources, which included agency reports and databases. Since
information regarding data sources was not always readily available in
writing, we met with NRCS officials who described and provided the
sources of the model's data. Once we identified the source, we verified
that the data had been correctly transferred from the source to the
model. In addition, we performed limited reliability tests, primarily
tests for omitted entries and outliers, of the available source data.
Furthermore, to obtain NRCS's field staff views on the reliability of
the time per task estimates and time and attendance data used in the
model, we used a semistructured interview guide to interview all 10
officials leading estimate development efforts in the 10 states that
had the most CRP and WRP contracts in 2002. The 10 states had over half
of NRCS's total CRP contracts and over 40 percent of its WRP contracts.
Using another semistructured interview guide, we interviewed 10
randomly selected NRCS team leaders (out of 44 leaders) who each led a
team developing time per task estimates in one area in each of the 10
states. However, we could not assess the quality of NRCS's reviews of
its workload analysis at state offices because NRCS state officials
retained insufficient documentation of the reasons for changes in data
made during their reviews.
To assess the reliability of other data used in NRCS's model, we
reviewed NRCS's method for developing overhead cost data and salary
cost data, which relies on the time and attendance system. Overall, we
noted that USDA obtained an unqualified opinion on its financial
management activities in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.[Footnote 11] This
opinion covers, in part, the salary cost data that NRCS relies on when
reporting its costs. In addition, we reviewed NRCS's development of
overhead cost information that is based on Office of Management and
Budget budget object classifications, which include such costs as rent,
utilities, equipment, and supplies. In addition, we reviewed an NRCS
draft report about the quality of NRCS time and attendance data. That
2001 NRCS draft report found that about half of NRCS field offices had
deficiencies in documenting their use of time, but the report did not
provide sufficient detail to reveal the precise extent of the problems.
Since then, NRCS has implemented corrective actions, according to
agency officials, and has verified on a limited basis that improvement
has occurred.
Our issues with the reliability of data are discussed throughout the
report. We performed our work between September 2003 and October 2004
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Lawrence J. Dyckman (202) 512-3841;
Charles M. Adams (202) 512-8010:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Charles W. Bausell Jr.,
Nancy Crothers, Anne E. Dilger, Beverly A. Peterson, Lynne M. Dunlay,
and Judy K. Pagano made key contributions.
(360388):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Farm Service Agency administers this program, and NRCS and its
partners provide technical assistance.
[2] According to USDA, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill) authorized a $17.1 billion increase for
conservation over a 10-year period.
[3] Both congressional and executive officials need timely, accurate,
and consistent financial information to make informed decisions. The
Congress uses program cost estimates to choose among policies and
alternative program designs, and the administration uses these
estimates to develop and adjust program implementation plans. For
example, see GAO, Budget Issues: The Importance of Increased Accuracy
of Budget Outlay Estimates, GAO/AIMD-99-235R (Washington D.C.: Aug. 30,
1999).
[4] For example, NRCS gave the Congress estimates of the average cost
to provide technical assistance over the life of CRP and WRP contracts:
about $1,400 and $15,000, respectively. Technical assistance for WRP
contracts is more expensive than for CRP contracts because wetlands
conservation work is more complex and time consuming than farmland
conservation work.
[5] NRCS includes estimates for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program within the Conservation Reserve Program estimates.
[6] The 10 states are Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.
[7] Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-354 (1994).
[8] NRCS staff provide some technical assistance to landowners even if
the landowner does not apply or qualify for USDA Farm Bill programs.
[9] For example, see Congressional Budget Office, Estimating the Costs
of One-Sided Bets: How CBO Analyzes Proposals with Asymmetric
Uncertainties, (Washington D.C.: Oct. 1999).
[10] Staff travel is an important task--we performed a sensitivity
analysis that suggests travel time has a larger impact on CRP cost
estimates than most other tasks associated with CRP contracts.
[11] GAO, Department of Agriculture: Status of Efforts to Address Major
Financial Management Challenges, GAO-03-871T, June 10, 2003. USDA,
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002, #
50401-51-FM, January 2004.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
