U.S. Department of Agriculture
Recommendations and Options to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gao ID: GAO-09-62 October 22, 2008For decades, numerous federal reports have described serious weaknesses in USDA's civil rights programs--in particular, in resolving discrimination complaints and providing minority farmers with access to programs. In 2002, Congress authorized the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) at USDA to provide leadership for resolving these long-standing problems. GAO was asked to assess USDA's efforts to (1) resolve discrimination complaints, (2) report on minority participation in farm programs, and (3) strategically plan its efforts. GAO also reviewed experiences of other federal agencies to develop options for addressing the issues. This report is based on new and prior work, including analysis of ASCR's discrimination complaint management, strategic planning, and interviews with officials of USDA and other agencies, as well as 20 USDA stakeholder groups.
ASCR's difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist--ASCR has not achieved its goal of preventing backlogs of complaints. The credibility of USDA's efforts has been and continues to be undermined by ASCR's faulty reporting and disparities in ASCR's data. Even such basic information as the backlog of complaints is subject to wide variation in ASCR's reports to the public and Congress. For example, ASCR's public claim in July 2007 that it had successfully reduced a backlog of about 690 discrimination complaints in fiscal year 2004 and held its caseload to manageable levels drew a questionable portrait of progress. By July 2007, ASCR's backlog had surged to 885 complaints and ASCR officials were in the midst of planning to hire attorneys to address that backlog. Also, some steps ASCR had taken to speed up its work may have sometimes been counterproductive and adversely affected the quality of its work. ASCR does not have a plan to correct these problems. USDA published three annual reports on minority farmers' participation in farm programs, as required by law. However, USDA considers much of its data to be unreliable because they are based on employees' visual observations about participants' race and ethnicity that may not be correct. USDA states that it needs the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to collect more reliable data. ASCR started to seek OMB's approval in 2004 but, as of August 2008, had not followed through to obtain approval. ASCR's strategic planning does not address key steps needed to ensure USDA provides fair and equitable services to all customers and upholds the civil rights of its employees. For example, strategic planning should be based to a large extent on the perspectives of stakeholders, but stakeholders' views are not explicitly reflected in ASCR's plan. Also, ASCR could better measure performance to gauge its progress. ASCR's strategic plan also does not link funding with anticipated results or discuss the potential for using performance information for identifying USDA's performance gaps. The experience of other agencies in addressing significant performance issues provides important insights and options that are relevant for addressing certain long-standing ASCR issues. First, Congress required executives at three federal agencies to be subject to statutory performance agreements. Such an agreement for ASCR could be used to achieve specific expectations by providing additional incentives and mandatory public reporting. Second, Congress has authorized oversight boards for a variety of purposes, including one for the Internal Revenue Service to oversee performance. A USDA civil rights oversight board could be authorized to oversee USDA's activities to identify weaknesses that need to be addressed and to provide transparency. Third, an effective USDA ombudsman--one who is independent, impartial, fully capable of conducting meaningful investigations and who can maintain confidentiality--could assist in resolving civil rights concerns at USDA. USDA has some authority to establish an ombudsman but has not done so.
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-09-62, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-62
entitled 'U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options
to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights' which was released on October 22, 2008.
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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2008:
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Recommendations and Options to Address Management Deficiencies in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights:
USDA Civil Rights:
GAO-09-62:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-62, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
For decades, numerous federal reports have described serious weaknesses
in USDA‘s civil rights programs”in particular, in resolving
discrimination complaints and providing minority farmers with access to
programs. In 2002, Congress authorized the position of Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) at USDA to provide leadership for
resolving these long-standing problems. GAO was asked to assess USDA‘s
efforts to (1) resolve discrimination complaints, (2) report on
minority participation in farm programs, and (3) strategically plan its
efforts. GAO also reviewed experiences of other federal agencies to
develop options for addressing the issues. This report is based on new
and prior work, including analysis of ASCR‘s discrimination complaint
management, strategic planning, and interviews with officials of USDA
and other agencies, as well as 20 USDA stakeholder groups.
What GAO Found:
ASCR‘s difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist”ASCR
has not achieved its goal of preventing backlogs of complaints. The
credibility of USDA‘s efforts has been and continues to be undermined
by ASCR‘s faulty reporting and disparities in ASCR‘s data. Even such
basic information as the backlog of complaints is subject to wide
variation in ASCR‘s reports to the public and Congress. For example,
ASCR‘s public claim in July 2007 that it had successfully reduced a
backlog of about 690 discrimination complaints in fiscal year 2004 and
held its caseload to manageable levels drew a questionable portrait of
progress. By July 2007, ASCR‘s backlog had surged to 885 complaints and
ASCR officials were in the midst of planning to hire attorneys to
address that backlog. Also, some steps ASCR had taken to speed up its
work may have sometimes been counterproductive and adversely affected
the quality of its work. ASCR does not have a plan to correct these
problems.
USDA published three annual reports on minority farmers‘ participation
in farm programs, as required by law. However, USDA considers much of
its data to be unreliable because they are based on employees‘ visual
observations about participants‘ race and ethnicity that may not be
correct. USDA states that it needs the Office of Management and
Budget‘s (OMB) approval to collect more reliable data. ASCR started to
seek OMB‘s approval in 2004 but, as of August 2008, had not followed
through to obtain approval.
ASCR‘s strategic planning does not address key steps needed to ensure
USDA provides fair and equitable services to all customers and upholds
the civil rights of its employees. For example, strategic planning
should be based to a large extent on the perspectives of stakeholders,
but stakeholders‘ views are not explicitly reflected in ASCR‘s plan.
Also, ASCR could better measure performance to gauge its progress.
ASCR‘s strategic plan also does not link funding with anticipated
results or discuss the potential for using performance information for
identifying USDA‘s performance gaps.
The experience of other agencies in addressing significant performance
issues provides important insights and options that are relevant for
addressing certain long-standing ASCR issues. First, Congress required
executives at three federal agencies to be subject to statutory
performance agreements. Such an agreement for ASCR could be used to
achieve specific expectations by providing additional incentives and
mandatory public reporting. Second, Congress has authorized oversight
boards for a variety of purposes, including one for the Internal
Revenue Service to oversee performance. A USDA civil rights oversight
board could be authorized to oversee USDA‘s activities to identify
weaknesses that need to be addressed and to provide transparency.
Third, an effective USDA ombudsman”one who is independent, impartial,
fully capable of conducting meaningful investigations and who can
maintain confidentiality”could assist in resolving civil rights
concerns at USDA. USDA has some authority to establish an ombudsman but
has not done so.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that USDA improve its efforts to resolve discrimination
complaints, data reliability, strategic planning, and explore
establishing an ombudsman. Also, Congress may wish to consider
establishing a statutory performance agreement and an oversight board
for ASCR. USDA agreed with most of GAO‘s recommendations but raised
concerns about the options GAO presented to Congress.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-62]. For more
information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Problems Resolving Discrimination Complaints Persist:
ASCR's Reports on Minority Participation in Programs Are Unreliable and
of Limited Usefulness:
ASCR's Strategic Planning Is Limited and Does Not Address Key Steps
Needed to Achieve Its Mission:
Lessons Learned at Other Organizations Suggest Options That May Benefit
USDA's Civil Rights Performance:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: ASCR Initiatives, and Strategic and Priority Plans:
Appendix IV: Interests of Selected USDA Stakeholders in Civil Rights-
Related Matters as Identified by GAO in 2007 and 2008:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2005 Customer Complaint Inventory as Reported by
ASCR in June and July 2007:
Table 2: ASCR Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2004:
Table 3: ASCR Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010:
Table 4: List of Civil Rights Priorities and Selected Initiatives for
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008:
Figure:
Figure 1: Organization of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights:
Abbreviations:
ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution:
ASCR: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights:
EEOC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
GS: general schedule:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
OGC: USDA Office of General Counsel:
OIG: USDA Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 22, 2008:
Congressional Requesters:
For decades, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been the focus of
federal inquiries into allegations of discrimination against minorities
and women both in the programs it administers and in its workforce.
Numerous reports and congressional testimony by officials of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, USDA, GAO, and others have described extensive concerns
about discriminatory behavior in USDA's delivery of services to program
customers--in particular, minority farmers--and its treatment of
minority employees. Many of these reports and testimonies described
serious weaknesses in USDA's management of its civil rights programs--
in particular, weaknesses in providing minorities with access to USDA
programs and in resolving discrimination complaints.
Notable among these many reports was the 1997 report of the Secretary
of Agriculture's Civil Rights Action Team.[Footnote 1] The Secretary's
team--composed of senior USDA officials--reported on USDA's customers'
and employees' concerns about patterns of discrimination in USDA
programs and operations, as well as minority farmers' concerns that
USDA had played a part in the severe decline in minority farm
ownership. Among other things, the report noted that USDA's civil
rights program had been in a "persistent state of chaos" because of
numerous changes since the 1980s and declared that USDA's process for
resolving complaints about the delivery of program benefits and
services was a "failure." The report made many recommendations to
address USDA's organizational structure, management commitment, program
delivery and outreach, and workforce diversity and employment
practices.
In addition, USDA has been and continues to be involved in large class-
action civil rights lawsuits claiming discriminatory behavior on the
part of USDA. In 1999, in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, a settlement
agreement was reached between USDA, the Department of Justice and
African-American farmers. In approving the consent decree settling the
case, the court stated that for decades USDA had discriminated against
African-American farmers by denying or delaying their applications for
farm loan and other credit and benefit programs. Under the consent
decree, as of April 7, 2008, more than 15,400 claims had been approved
for payments and benefits totaling about $972 million, and almost 7,000
claims had been denied. However, about 74,000 people requested
permission from the court to file a claim after the filing deadline of
October 12, 1999. Except for a relatively few extraordinary cases, the
court denied the claims received after the filing deadline as not
timely. In addition, USDA is currently defending itself against similar
lawsuits brought by other customers--Native American, Hispanic, and
women farmers--alleging discrimination in the delivery of farm programs
and lending.[Footnote 2]
A congressional hearing during 2002 focused on the need for USDA to
ensure that, among other things, complaints of discrimination against
USDA by customers and employees are resolved fairly and in a timely
manner, farm programs are accessible to minority and socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and civil rights activities are
conducted transparently so that public scrutiny is possible. That year,
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill)
authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to create the new position of
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, elevating responsibility within
USDA for carrying out USDA's civil rights efforts. Under the 2002 Farm
Bill, the Secretary could delegate responsibility for ensuring that
USDA complies with all civil rights-related laws and considers civil
rights matters in all USDA strategic planning initiatives to the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. In 2003, the position of
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was created with these and other
delegated responsibilities, and these responsibilities are carried out
through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR).
In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill requires USDA to report annually on
minority participation in USDA programs.
In 2002, we reported that USDA's Office of Civil Rights continued to
face significant problems in processing discrimination complaints in a
timely manner.[Footnote 3] We reported that the office had made only
modest progress in processing complaints from customers and employees
because (1) it had not established time frames for resolving complaints
and (2) it had not addressed its severe human capital problems. For
example, the office had long-standing problems in hiring and retaining
staff with the right mix of skills, and severe morale problems were
exacerbating problems with staff productivity and retention. At that
time, we recommended that USDA establish time frames for all stages of
the complaint process and develop an action plan to address its staff
turnover and morale problems. In commenting on our 2002 report, USDA
stated that it had a long-term improvement plan that would address the
human capital problems and agreed to formalize time frames for all
phases of the process.
As requested, this report examines ASCR's (1) progress in resolving
discrimination complaints, (2) reporting on minority participation in
USDA programs, and (3) strategic planning for ensuring USDA's services
and benefits are provided fairly and equitably. The report also reviews
the experiences of other federal agencies and identifies options for
addressing USDA's long standing problems. Also, on May 14, 2008, we
testified on these matters before the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Organization, and Procurement, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives.[Footnote 4] Subsequently,
on June 18, 2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), which contains various provisions that
address USDA civil rights matters and minority farmers' participation
in USDA's programs.
This report is based on new information and previously issued reports.
To assess ASCR's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints, we
conducted interviews with officials of ASCR, USDA's Office of Inspector
General (OIG), USDA's agency-level civil rights offices, and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; examined USDA documents about
efforts to resolve discrimination complaints; and analyzed data
provided by ASCR. To evaluate USDA's reporting on minority
participation in USDA's programs, we reviewed USDA reports and
interviewed officials of USDA, community-based organizations, and
minority groups. To analyze ASCR's strategic planning, we examined
ASCR's strategic plan and other relevant planning documents, and
interviewed USDA officials and representatives of community-based
organizations and minority groups, among others. We also considered
GAO's guidance and reporting on results-oriented management.[Footnote
5] To assess the reliability of data provided by ASCR, we compared
various sources of ASCR data and interviewed ASCR officials. We found
ASCR data to be unreliable and made recommendations accordingly. To
identify options for addressing USDA's long standing problems, we
reviewed our experience in addressing the problems of high-risk,
underperforming agencies,[Footnote 6] as well as our reporting on
results-oriented management. We conducted this performance audit from
December 2006 through September 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. While our efforts were impeded by delays in
gaining access to documents, we believe the evidence obtained provides
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. Additional details on our scope, methodology, and access to
USDA records is included in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
ASCR's difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist--
ASCR has not achieved its goal of preventing future backlogs of
discrimination complaints. At a basic level, the credibility of USDA's
efforts to correct long-standing problems in resolving discrimination
complaints has been and continues to be undermined by faulty reporting
of data on discrimination complaints and disparities we found when
comparing various ASCR sources of data. Even such basic information as
the number of discrimination complaints is subject to wide variation in
ASCR's reports to the public and Congress. For example, fiscal year
2005 data that ASCR reported to the public and to a congressional
subcommittee varied by hundreds of complaint cases, and data provided
to us on its complaint cases varied from one report to another.
Moreover, ASCR's public claim in July 2007 that it had successfully
reduced a backlog of about 690 discrimination complaints in fiscal year
2004 and held its caseload to manageable levels drew a questionable
portrait of progress. By July 2007, ASCR had another backlog on hand,
and this time the backlog had surged to an even higher level of 885
complaints. In fact, before ASCR made its report to the public in 2007,
ASCR officials were planning to hire additional attorneys to address
the backlog of complaints, including some complaints that ASCR was
holding dating from the early 2000s that it had not resolved.
Altogether, these conditions could undermine public confidence in
USDA's upholding of civil rights. In addition, some steps that ASCR had
taken to speed up its investigations and decisions on complaints may
have sometimes been counterproductive and adversely affected the
quality of its work. For example, an ASCR official stated that some
employees' complaints had been addressed without resolving basic
questions of fact, raising concerns about the integrity of the
practice. ASCR does not have a plan to correct the problems we
identified.
Much of the data that USDA reported to Congress and the public on the
participation of minority farmers in USDA programs are unreliable,
according to USDA. USDA has published three annual reports on the
participation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in USDA
programs for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. However, much of the
data are unreliable, according to the statements in USDA's reports,
because USDA's data on racial identity and gender are, for the most
part, based on visual observation of program applicants. Data gathered
in this manner are considered unreliable because individual traits such
as race and ethnicity may not be readily apparent to an observer,
especially ethnicity. To address this inherent shortcoming, according
to USDA's report, the agency needs to collect standardized data
directly from program participants, which requires the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ASCR began to
seek OMB's approval to collect these data in 2004 but did not follow
through and has not obtained final approval. In addition, we found the
data in ASCR's reports to be of limited usefulness because, for
example, ASCR did not include basic reference data, such as the numbers
of farmers in each county. Moreover, the data do not facilitate
analysis because they are published in about 1,370 separate tables and
146 maps in a format that is not searchable. If the data were
searchable, it could facilitate comparison of minority participation by
program, location, and year.
ASCR's strategic planning is limited and does not address key steps
needed to achieve its mission. While ASCR has articulated a compelling
strategic goal--to ensure USDA provides fair and equitable services to
all customers and upholds the civil rights of its employees--its
implementation will require further development. For example, strategic
planning is based to a large extent on the perspectives of
stakeholders. However, ASCR's plans do not reflect ASCR's stakeholders'
interests, which include such things as having USDA improve the
delivery of farm programs to facilitate access by underserved
producers. While ASCR's stakeholders are interested in assuring the
diversity of USDA field office staff to facilitate their interaction
with minority and underserved farmers, ASCR's strategic planning does
not address the diversity of USDA's field staff. In addition, ASCR
could better measure performance to gauge progress and it has not yet
started to use performance information for identifying USDA performance
gaps. For example, ASCR measures USDA efforts to ensure USDA customers
have equal and timely access to programs by reporting on the numbers of
participants at USDA workshops rather than measuring the results of its
outreach efforts on access to benefits and services. ASCR's plans do
not link funding with anticipated results or discuss the potential for
using performance information for identifying USDA's performance gaps.
Moreover, ASCR's plans do not identify the most critical USDA agency
functions that relate to ASCR's strategic goals.
The experience of other federal agencies provides important insights
and options that are relevant to addressing long-standing ASCR issues.
Based on prior experience in improving federal agencies' performance,
we identified three options that are relevant for consideration. The
first two would require action by Congress, whereas the third could
benefit from USDA's attention, although effective implementation may
also require congressional action.
* Option one: Congress could require USDA's Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights to be subject to a statutory performance agreement.
Congress has previously required certain executives of the Departments
of Education and Homeland Security and the U.S. Patent Office to be
subject to statutory performance agreements. For example, the executive
performance agreement required of the Chief Operating Officer of the
Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid was a feature
that Congress required and that assisted in turning around that
organization's poor performance. The expectations in the Chief
Operating Officer's performance agreement with the Secretary of
Education are made public as is the annual progress toward those
expectations. In 2005, we removed the Office of Federal Student Aid
from our high-risk list and reported that this office had made
sustained performance improvements--it had succeeded in achieving
unqualified financial opinions on its financial statements over 3
fiscal years, made progress toward integrating its information systems,
reduced the rate of loan defaults, and addressed its human capital
challenges. Such an agreement for ASCR could assist in achieving
specific expectations by providing additional incentives and mandatory
public reporting.
* Option two: Congress could authorize an oversight board for USDA
civil rights activities. Oversight boards have been used for a wide
variety of purposes by the federal government, including oversight of
public accounting, intelligence matters, civil liberties, and drug
safety. For example, in 1998, Congress established an oversight board
for the Internal Revenue Service to oversee the agency's performance.
The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board operates much like a
corporate board of directors, tailored to fit the public sector. The
board provides independent oversight of IRS administration, management,
conduct, and the direction and supervision of the internal revenue
code. At USDA, a civil rights oversight board could be authorized to
oversee USDA's civil rights activities, to identify weaknesses that
need to be addressed, and to provide transparency.
* Option three: The Secretary could explore establishing an ombudsman
office to address customer and employee concerns about civil rights,
including determining whether legislation is a prerequisite for an
ombudsman to be effective at USDA. Many agencies have already created
ombudsman offices for addressing employees' concerns as authorized by
the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, although USDA is not among
them. Ombudsmen can provide an alternative means of resolving
employees' disputes, and can also handle a wide range of concerns--
including, for example, citizens' concerns about access to programs,
systemic management problems, policy shortcomings, and workplace
issues. Ombudsmen who handle concerns and inquiries from the public--
external ombudsmen--help agencies be more responsive to the public
through impartial and independent investigation of citizens'
complaints, including from people who believe their concerns have not
been dealt with fairly and fully through normal channels. ASCR staff
developed a preliminary background discussion paper about the
feasibility of an ombudsman function at USDA but stated that more
development of the concept would be needed to design an effective USDA
ombudsman function. It also noted that for an ombudsman office to be
minimally effective, its legitimacy and authority must be inherent,
clear, and unequivocal. An ombudsman who is independent, impartial,
fully capable of conducting meaningful investigations and who maintains
confidentiality could assist in resolving civil rights concerns at
USDA.
To provide for fundamental improvements in the performance of USDA's
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, we suggest that
Congress consider (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights subject to a statutory performance agreement and (2)
establishing an agriculture civil rights oversight board. We are also
making recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture aimed at
improving USDA's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints,
including the time frames USDA requires for resolving complaints; the
accuracy, completeness and reliability of ASCR's discrimination
complaint databases; and the investigation of and decision making on
civil right complaints. We are also recommending that the Secretary
improve the collection of accurate data on race and ethnicity for
reporting on minority farmers' participation in USDA programs, improve
USDA's civil rights strategic planning, and give further consideration
to establishing a USDA civil rights ombudsman office.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Secretary of Agriculture
stated that USDA acknowledges many of the problems identified in the
report, but also said that the report does not duly recognize USDA's
significant progress. We believe the report does recognize USDA's
actions, plans, and progress; and it places them in context considering
USDA's performance shortcomings. Concerning our recommendations, USDA
generally agreed with 5 of our 6 recommendations, including those to
prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving discrimination
complaints; to improve the quality of ASCR's databases on customer and
employee complaints; to work to obtain approval to collect the data
necessary for reliable reporting on race and ethnicity; to develop
results oriented, departmental level civil rights strategic plan; as
well as to explore the establishment of an ombudsman office. However,
USDA disagreed with our recommendation to obtain an expert,
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and
adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions on civil rights
complaints. Given the substantial evidence of civil rights case delays
and questions raised in the report about the integrity of the USDA's
civil rights casework, we believe that this recommendation remains
valid and necessary to restore confidence in USDA's civil rights
decisions. We also clarified this recommendation to state that this
examination should include a sample of prior investigations and
decisions.
The Secretary also disagreed with our two options for congressional
consideration. Concerning the establishment of a statutorily-mandated
performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary, the Secretary
stated, in part, that this additional statutory change would usurp the
Secretary's authority. We disagree. The specific terms of a statutory
performance agreement would be developed by the Secretary for the
Assistant Secretary's activities and, as such, it would not limit the
authority of the Secretary to take or direct action. Concerning the
establishment of a USDA civil rights oversight board, the Secretary
stated that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and delay progress.
While we understand such concerns, a well-operated oversight board can
be the source of timely and wise counsel to help raise USDA's civil
rights performance. Taken together, these options would provide a level
of transparency that has been lacking in USDA civil rights matters--
transparency that provides compelling evidence to help direct
improvement efforts and better demonstrate USDA's accomplishments.
USDA's written comments appear in appendix II.
Background:
USDA is responsible for ensuring compliance with all relevant statutes,
regulations, and policies that prohibit discrimination in its programs
and its workplace. USDA's responsibilities extend to the programs that
it delivers directly to customers through local offices throughout the
country, such as the farm loan programs, as well as to programs that
USDA and the states administer jointly, such as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.
USDA's workplace civil rights responsibilities cover about 100,000
employees at headquarters and at USDA offices around the country.
USDA's ASCR was created in 2003. For fiscal year 2007, ASCR had 129
staff and an annual budget of about $24 million. ASCR is composed of
multiple offices, some of which were in existence within USDA prior to
the creation of ASCR.
Figure 1: Organization of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights:
This figure is a diagram of the organization of USDA's office of the
assistant secretary for civil rights.
[See PDF for image]
Source: USDA.
[End of figure]
ASCR's Office of Adjudication and Compliance (formerly the Office of
Civil Rights) is to resolve customers' and employees' complaints of
discrimination and to conduct civil rights compliance reviews of USDA's
agencies. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center is to provide
guidance to USDA agencies on using alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
methods to resolve conflicts. The Office of Outreach and Diversity is
to develop ASCR's diversity initiatives, and it oversees the 1890 and
1994 Programs. The 1890 Program offers educational scholarships to
people seeking degrees at one of the 18 historically black land-grant
institutions and requires 1 year of USDA service for each year of
financial support. Similarly, through the 1994 Program, ASCR is to set
up a comparable program with the 33 tribal colleges and universities
designated as 1994 land-grant institutions. Within ASCR's Office of
Outreach and Diversity, the Office of Outreach is to provide
coordination for USDA agencies on outreach efforts and produce a
required annual report on the rates at which minorities participate in
USDA programs.
The first USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights--Vernon Parker--was
sworn in on April 1, 2003, and served until resigning in January 2006.
At the outset of his tenure, over a 4-month period, ASCR staff
developed 13 initiatives to guide ASCR's actions through fiscal year
2004 and beyond. These initiatives (see appendix III) were intended to
address the most immediate problems occurring at the time and
concentrated on eliminating backlogs of unresolved discrimination
complaints and taking certain steps to reduce complaints in the future.
Most notably, ASCR established annual "partners meetings" to create,
for the first time, a substantive and ongoing dialogue between USDA and
representatives of community-based organizations as a basis for
improving the delivery of USDA benefits and services. The second and
current Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Ms. Margo McKay, was
sworn in on August 21, 2006. Assistant Secretary McKay's priorities and
initiatives are also included in appendix III. These initiatives
include, among other things, a diversity forum to promote a diverse and
inclusive workforce within USDA.
Problems Resolving Discrimination Complaints Persist:
The credibility of USDA's efforts to correct long-standing problems in
resolving discrimination complaints has been and continues to be
undermined by faulty reporting of data on discrimination complaints and
disparities we found when comparing various ASCR sources of
data.[Footnote 7] For example, fiscal year 2005 data that ASCR reported
to the public and to a congressional subcommittee varied by hundreds of
complaint cases, and data reported to GAO on its complaint cases varied
from one report to another. In addition, some steps that ASCR had taken
to speed up its investigations and decisions on complaints may have
sometimes been counter productive and adversely affected the quality of
its work. These ongoing problems are a continuation of the inadequate
conditions that we and USDA's OIG have reported for over a decade. In
June 2008, Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, which, among other
things, states that it is the sense of Congress that all pending claims
and class actions brought against USDA by socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers should be resolved in an expeditious and just
manner.
ASCR Reporting on Backlogs of Discrimination Complaints Has Been Faulty
and Contains Disparities:
When ASCR was created in 2003, there was an existing backlog of
complaints. In recognition of this problem, USDA's Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights made discrimination complaint inventory reduction
ASCR's highest priority initiative. This initiative called for ASCR's
senior managers and employees to make a concerted 12-month, $1.5
million effort to reduce the backlog of complaints they had inherited.
Moreover, according to a briefing book ASCR prepared for the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, this complaint
inventory reduction initiative was to put lasting improvements in place
to prevent future complaint backlogs. It also stated that USDA's Office
of Civil Rights would focus substantial resources on fair, equitable,
and legally supportable resolution of cases.
In July 2007, ASCR released a public report stating that its fiscal
year 2004 backlog reduction initiative was a success.[Footnote 8] The
report stated that the backlog of 690 complaints had been resolved and
that ASCR had held the complaint inventory to manageable levels through
fiscal year 2005. However, the data ASCR reported lack credibility
because a month earlier the office had reported different data to a
congressional subcommittee (see table 1). Specifically, according to
the June report, the numbers of complaints at the beginning of fiscal
year 2005 was 552; according to the July report, the number was 363.
Moreover, the June report cited the number of complaints at the end of
fiscal year 2005 as 1,275, and the July report said it was 404. The
lower numbers reported to the public were not qualified and provided a
more favorable impression than the data reported to the subcommittee.
However, the Assistant Secretary's letter transmitting the data to the
subcommittee contained a footnote qualification stating that USDA's
statistics on customers' complaints were the best available, although
they were incomplete and unreliable. Before that letter was sent,
ASCR's former Director of USDA's Office of Adjudication and
Compliance[Footnote 9] (former Office of Civil Rights), who had
responsibility for the data, cautioned the Assistant Secretary about
the poor data quality and stated that, if questioned, USDA would not be
able to explain its data.
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2005 Customer Complaint Inventory as Reported by
ASCR in June and July 2007:
Number of complaints: At the beginning of FY 2005;
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: 552;
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 363.
Number of complaints: At the end of FY 2005;
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: 1,275;
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 404.
Number of complaints: Resolved during FY 2005;
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: N/A[C];
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 120.
Source: USDA documents.
[A] Letter of Margo M. McKay, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights,
USDA, to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Organization, and Procurement, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, June 29, 2007.
[B] USDA, First 1,000 Days, 2003-2006 (Washington, D.C.: July 2007).
[C] As reported by USDA, without explanation.
[End of table]
Moreover, ASCR's July 2007 report claiming success in addressing the
backlog of 690 complaints is questionable because at least 2 months
earlier, officials of ASCR and USDA's Office of General Counsel (USDA
OGC) had started discussing a plan of "triage" to address a backlog of
complaints that had recurred by hiring additional attorneys to draft
final decisions on those cases. ASCR had identified a backlog of 885
customer and employee discrimination complaints, according to ASCR
data. Furthermore, while claiming success, ASCR was holding old
complaints from customers that it had not resolved. ASCR data show, for
example, that 46 complaints dating from 2002 and earlier remained open
at least until August 2007.[Footnote 10] Based on our interviews, we
attribute the growth of the latest backlogs to the lack of adequate
management controls and vigilance. To address the backlog of customers'
complaints, in August 2007 USDA contracted for six attorneys to draft
final agency decisions, expecting that this effort would be completed
by the end of 2007. To address the backlog of employees' complaints,
USDA anticipated using these attorneys to prepare USDA's case decisions
and to contract with the Postal Service to address USDA employees'
complaints as well, expecting that these cases would be completed by
the end of fiscal year 2008.
In addition to its reporting to Congress and the public, we identified
other disparities in the data reported by ASCR on its inventories of
customer complaints. For example, for fiscal year 2006, data we were
given showed 290 complaints were resolved--less than 30 percent of the
991 shown by an internal briefing document. Significant disparities
were also evident in earlier fiscal years and on individual cases. ASCR
officials and staff recognize that the data they use are unreliable.
They provided us with examples of known data inaccuracies, including
(1) data that are being transferred into the new ASCR database, which
is intended to address the existing data management problems, and (2)
data that USDA reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
on employees' complaints. Other ASCR officials and staff told us that
erroneous data had been migrated to the new database, and start-up
problems with the new system have further contributed to data
inaccuracies. Furthermore, ASCR staff reported that occasionally
customers' case files cannot be readily found, that files were missing
documents, and that sometimes the files incorrectly contained documents
that actually pertain to other cases. Nevertheless, while
correspondence from the former Director of USDA's Office of
Adjudication and Compliance to USDA OIG said that only verified data
were entered into the new system to prevent "garbage in, garbage out,"
USDA OIG reported that ASCR had not implemented a process to validate
the accuracy of its data and did not have sufficient controls over the
entry and validation of data into its new system.
Delays in Resolving Complaints Adversely Affect Complainants:
USDA has not processed certain cases in a timely manner even though it
has been aware that a 2-year time limit may apply. In such cases, when
USDA's processing extends beyond 2 years, USDA may be prevented from
compensating a farmer who has been subject to discrimination. More
specifically, following a January 29, 1998, legal memorandum from the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, USDA will not award
administrative settlements for Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims once
the 2-year statute of limitations for filing such a claim in federal
court has passed, unless the farmer has filed a timely complaint in
federal court.[Footnote 11] We are aware of one such case in which
USDA's final decision found discrimination in 2005 and stated that the
farmer's 1997 farm loan debt would be forgiven. However, a USDA
official informed us that this action has not yet occurred because the
farmer had not filed a timely complaint in federal court, and USDA
decided the case after the 2-year period for filing in federal court
had expired. In addition, ASCR appears to be holding additional cases
that may be similarly affected. An ASCR document identified 92 cases
that were being held in abeyance--that is, ASCR had set these cases
aside from receiving a final decision on the merits because the
complainant is, or could be, a member of a class action lawsuit.
We also identified one active discrimination complaint filed in 1990,
18 years ago. This complaint involves American Indians of the Fort
Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, some of whom have died awaiting a
final decision.[Footnote 12] USDA investigated this case of alleged
discrimination in farm lending in 1999. In June 2008, a USDA
administrative law judge issued a proposed determination finding that
the 1990 complaint was filed in a timely manner, that discrimination
against the lead complainant's family had occurred, and stated that
USDA did not produce any evidence to refute the complainant's charges
of discrimination other than documents from which a negative inference
is necessarily drawn against the agency. The administrative law judge
subsequently awarded the lead complainant $5.2 million as compensation
for the effects of discrimination suffered by the complainant's family.
However, on June 12, 2008, the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights
issued a ruling stating her intention to review the ruling of the
administrative law judge. Subsequently, USDA also required each of the
complainants to explain their complaints in detail and show that they
are entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge, or their
claim would be closed "due to failure to pursue."
Steps ASCR Took to Address Unresolved Complaints May Have Affected
Quality:
We found that as ASCR accelerated the pace of its work to reduce its
backlogs of discrimination complaints in 2004, it took some steps that
may have sometimes been counter productive and adversely affected the
quality of its work. ASCR's plan to accelerate its work did not address
how the quality of its work would be maintained. ASCR's plan called for
USDA's investigators and adjudicators, who prepare agency decisions, to
nearly double their normal pace of casework for about 12 months. One
technique that ASCR adopted was to have its investigators conduct
interviews by phone and interrogatories by e-mail whenever possible.
Civil rights investigative standards indicate that interviews by
telephone are acceptable under certain circumstances, such as when
there is good reason to conclude that the complainant is the only
person affected by the allegations of discrimination.[Footnote 13] ASCR
employees told us it is now usual for ASCR investigations to be
conducted by phone.
ASCR's former Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance,
commented in writing on two other aspects of the quality of USDA's work
on employees' complaints in fiscal year 2004. The former Director
stated that contractors' work in preparing draft decisions was "fair to
average" and required much revision. In addition, the former Director
related that USDA issued many "summary" decisions on employees'
complaints that did not resolve questions of fact, leading to the
appeal of many USDA decisions to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. The former Director expressed concern that such summary
decisions by USDA "could call into question the integrity of the
process because important issues were being overlooked."
Finally, as in the past, inadequate working relationships and
communications within ASCR complicated its efforts to produce quality
work products and adversely affected employees. According to ASCR
documents and our interviews, instability in ASCR's civil rights
offices resulting from reorganizations, management and staff turnover,
low morale, and concerns about the treatment of staff in ASCR's civil
rights offices have been a serious obstacle to improving the management
of these programs. Over the past 5 years, many complaints of
discrimination have been filed against ASCR program managers and
officials. In addition, some staff have feared retaliation for
reporting program and management-related problems or for raising
questions about management actions.
In August 2008, ASCR officials stated that they are developing standard
operating procedures for ASCR's Office of Adjudication and Compliance.
For example, according to ASCR officials, these procedures outline
processes for handling incoming mail, reviewing and distributing
reports of investigation, and handling hearing requests, among others.
In addition, ASCR officials stated that they have attempted to address
employee concerns by holding "town hall" meetings, team-building
efforts, training on communication and conflict management, revival of
the telework program, and establishment of a "worklife" coordinator.
While these are positive steps, they do not directly respond to whether
USDA is adequately investigating complaints, developing complaint
decisions, and addressing the problems that gave rise to complaints of
discrimination within ASCR.
USDA OIG and GAO Have Long Reported on Problems in Resolving
Discrimination Complaints:
USDA's stated policy is to fairly and efficiently respond to
discrimination complaints, but over the past years it has not done so.
USDA's OIG and GAO have together invested heavily in reporting on and
developing recommendations to overcome USDA's untimely handling of
discrimination complaints. In 1999, for example, when we reported that
USDA had exceeded four target dates for closing backlogs of customers'
complaints and three target dates for employees' complaints, we made
recommendations to address USDA's continual management turnover in
civil rights offices, frequent reorganizations, inadequate staff and
managerial expertise, and poor working relationships and communication
within the Office of Civil Rights.[Footnote 14] USDA management agreed
with these reports and committed to implement our recommendations.
In 2002, USDA officials again committed to setting and meeting time
frames for processing discrimination complaints. In 2003, we identified
the processing of discrimination complaints as a significant management
challenge for USDA.[Footnote 15]
However, by 2007, USDA's OIG stated that it was making its seventh
attempt to provide USDA's Office of Civil Rights with constructive ways
to overcome its case processing inefficiencies.[Footnote 16] The OIG
also stated that officials of the Office of Civil Rights had agreed to
a major transformation of the system for processing complaints, but, in
fact, the office did not make any significant changes. The OIG stated
that unless the Office of Civil Rights provided effective leadership,
changed the organizational culture, and addressed its customer focus
and process engineering, it would be questionable whether further
complaints of discrimination would receive due care.
In addition, in 2007, USDA's OIG reported that material weaknesses
persisted in ASCR's civil rights control structure and environment for
processing employees' discrimination complaints. ASCR's former
Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, responded that there
were several causes for these conditions: the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission standards were unrealistic; there was a
substantial backlog of cases; there had been an influx of new cases;
staffing and resource shortages; and individual USDA agencies were not
meeting their responsibilities. ASCR's former Director also claimed
that these weaknesses in resolving employees' discrimination complaints
would be addressed in the next 5 years. However, the OIG observed that
ASCR did not have an effective plan to get this done.
In August 2007, USDA's OIG designated civil rights as a major
management challenge at USDA, and reiterated that challenge in
2008.[Footnote 17] The OIG commented that because of the conditions it
had found, public confidence in USDA's upholding of civil rights might
be lost.
Congress Has Taken Several Recent Actions to Address the Discrimination
Complaints Made against USDA:
In June 2008, Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, which contains three
provisions related to the discrimination complaints filed against
USDA.[Footnote 18] First, the Farm Bill states that it is the sense of
Congress that all pending claims and class actions brought against USDA
by socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers should be resolved in an
expeditious and just manner. Second, the Farm Bill provides that any
claimants in the Pigford case who previously submitted a late filing
request under the original consent decree and have not received a
determination on the merits of their claims may now obtain such a
determination. Prevailing claimants may receive payments and debt
relief, with up to a total of $100 million available for all prevailing
claimants. Third, the Farm Bill requires USDA to report annually on,
among other things, the number of customer and employee discrimination
complaints filed against each USDA agency, and the length of time the
agency took to process each complaint.
ASCR's Reports on Minority Participation in Programs Are Unreliable and
of Limited Usefulness:
ASCR has published three annual reports on the participation rate of
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in USDA programs, which are
required by section 10708 of the 2002 Farm Bill.[Footnote 19] Over
time, these reports could help make more transparent the progress made
by socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in accessing USDA
programs. However, as USDA discloses in these reports, the data USDA
has reported are statistically unreliable. In addition, our analysis of
the USDA reports shows that they do not include basic reference data
needed for understanding the reports and examining trends.
The reports provide statistical data on the participation of farmers
and ranchers in USDA programs by race, ethnicity, and gender, and in
addition, USDA has included descriptions of its success stories in
providing outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers. USDA has stated that, through these reports, it intends to
make clear that it is committed to and accountable for fair and
equitable service to all customers. However, much of the statistical
data USDA reports on program participation are unreliable. USDA stated
that it does not have a uniform method of reporting and tabulating race
and ethnicity data among its component agencies. More specifically,
according to USDA, it does not have approval from OMB to implement
standardized data collection of demographic information directly from
program participants. For example, according to USDA, the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; the Rural Business
and Cooperative Service; and the Risk Management Agency are not
authorized to collect race and ethnicity data for 18 programs. USDA
reported that only the Farm Service Agency's farm loan program collects
reliable and complete information on socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers. Except for the data of the Farm Service Agency, most of
USDA's demographic data are gathered by visual observation of the
applicants, and USDA states in its reports that it considers visual
observation to be unreliable, especially for ethnicity. Individual
traits, such as ethnicity, may not be readily evident to an observer.
In addition, for some Farm Service Agency programs, applicants who
chose not to identify their race were, until 2004, designated as "white
male." When taken together, according to USDA, the mixture of data
available for reporting is statistically unreliable.
In 2004, to overcome these conditions, ASCR published a notice in the
Federal Register seeking public comment on its plan to collect
additional data on race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, and age.
While ASCR received some public comments, it did not follow through and
obtain OMB's approval to collect the data. In a January 2008 briefing
document, an ASCR work group stated that ASCR does not have the staff
or financial resources to proceed with this project. ASCR officials
said, after meeting with GAO in May 2008, they convened an interagency
work group to develop a revised notice to be published in the Federal
Register. As of August 2008, the draft notice is under review within
USDA, according to ASCR officials.
In addition, our analysis of these USDA reports shows that they are of
limited usefulness because they do not include the basic reference data
needed for understanding the reports and examining trends. USDA has
published its demographic data as the percentage of program
participants by county and state. While observers can track the
percentage changes in program participation over time, the data are of
limited usefulness without knowing the actual number of program
participants and the census data for each county and state. In
addition, if the issues regarding ethnicity and race were resolved, and
data were in a searchable format, it could then be possible to compare
minority participation by program, geographic location, and year.
The 2008 Farm Bill Contains Several Important Provisions Related to
Reporting on Minority Farmers' Participation in USDA Programs:
First, the Farm Bill requires USDA to annually compile program
application and participation rate data regarding socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers for each program serving those
farmers. The reports prepared using the technologies and systems of
USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service are to include the raw
numbers and participation rates for the entire United States and for
each state and county. Second, the bill requires the Secretary to
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the Census of
Agriculture and studies carried out by the Economic Research Service
are to accurately document the number, location, and economic
contributions of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in
agricultural production. While the Farm Bill changes require reporting
actual data for states and counties, these provisions do not address
the underlying data reliability issues discussed earlier, and the
potential for USDA to take steps to facilitate data analysis by users.
ASCR's Strategic Planning Is Limited and Does Not Address Key Steps
Needed to Achieve Its Mission:
In light of USDA's civil rights history involving controversial issues-
--including allegations of systemic discrimination against USDA
customers carried out through the design and delivery of USDA programs
as well as discriminatory treatment of USDA employees--strategic
planning is vital for providing proactive ASCR leadership. Results-
oriented strategic planning provides a road map that clearly describes
what an organization is attempting to achieve, and over time, it can
serve as a focal point for communication with Congress and the public
about what has been accomplished.[Footnote 20] Results-oriented
organizations follow three key steps in their strategic planning: (1)
they define a clear mission and desired outcomes, (2) they measure
performance to gauge progress, and (3) they use performance information
for identifying performance gaps and making program improvements. ASCR
has started to develop a results-oriented approach as illustrated in
its first strategic plan, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights:
Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2005-2010, and its ASCR Priorities for
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. The elements of these plans are summarized
in appendix III. However, ASCR's plans do not include fundamental
elements that are required for effective strategic planning.
ASCR Has Designed Its Mission and Strategic Goal:
We found that ASCR has made progress by describing compelling missions
and a strategic goal but has not explicitly described the viewpoints
and interests of its stakeholders, assessed the environment, and
aligned its activities, core processes, and resources to achieve its
strategic goal.
* One of ASCR's missions is to ensure that USDA is in compliance with
civil rights laws and regulations. This mission calls for ASCR to
process employees' discrimination complaints, as required by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and to review USDA agencies'
implementation of civil rights laws and regulations.
* ASCR's second mission is to provide leadership to promote equal
opportunity, equal access, and fair treatment for all USDA employees
and customers.
ASCR's strategic goal is to ensure that USDA provides fair and
equitable services to all customers and upholds the civil rights of its
employees. This two-part strategic goal was the basis for the
development of ASCR's strategic plan.
Results-oriented organizations take several steps to effectively
implement their mission and achieve their desired outcomes. They (1)
involve stakeholders, (2) assess the environment, and (3) align
activities, core processes, and resources. However, we found that
ASCR's planning has several shortcomings. First, results-oriented
organizations base their strategic planning, to a large extent, on the
interests and expectations of their stakeholders. While ASCR's
strategic plan states that ASCR relied on input from a variety of
internal and external customers in developing its strategic plan, the
plan does not identify who provided input or contain a discussion of
their interests and perspectives. ASCR refers to its external
stakeholders as "partners"--which includes representatives of community-
based organizations and minority interest groups. ASCR's external
stakeholders said they have a high degree of interest in ASCR's
planning and have attended ASCR's annual Partners Meetings, where they
discussed their wide-ranging interests in ASCR's mission. However, the
interests of ASCR's partners are not explicitly reflected in ASCR's
strategic plan. We developed a summary of the partners' interests based
on interviews with the representatives of a selection of USDA's
partners' groups, and we also considered issues identified in past
studies of USDA. The interests were often mentioned in our 20
interviews with USDA stakeholder groups and in past studies of USDA
civil rights issues. For example, ASCR's partners are interested in
improvements in (1) USDA's methods of delivering farm programs to
facilitate access by underserved producers; (2) the county committee
system, so that they are better represented in local decisions; and (3)
the diversity of USDA employees who work with minority producers. A
list of these interests is included in appendix IV.
In response, ASCR's Director of Outreach stated that some of ASCR's
fiscal year 2008 priorities for outreach respond to particular
interests of ASCR's partners. The Director referred, for example, to
ASCR's initiatives to coordinate and report on USDA-wide outreach
activities, to help assure that USDA agencies have formal outreach
programs with full-time staff, to train outreach coordinators, and to
improve ASCR's annual reporting on minority participation in USDA
programs.
Second, by building an environmental assessment into the strategic
planning process, results-oriented organizations identify external and
internal factors that can influence the achievement of their long-term
goals. For example, some information about the civil rights environment
as it affects farmers is described in a study of the Mississippi Delta
area by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and in a report on minority
and women farmers by USDA's Economic Research Service.[Footnote 21]
These reports describe, among other things, regional characteristics
and conditions that have adversely impacted minority farmers, such as
limited representation on local county committees, poor relationships
between farmers and USDA's county office staff, and the importance of
extension services for minority farmers. ASCR's report does not discuss
the development or use of such information. An assessment of the
external environment is especially important because, according to
ASCR, its Office of Outreach is to provide national leadership and
coordination for USDA programs and services to ensure equal and timely
access for all of USDA's constituents, especially the underserved. As
for the internal environment, ASCR recognizes the efforts of various
USDA agencies and offices that perform critical functions necessary for
full implementation of ASCR's strategic goal; however, other facets
such as their culture, management practices, and business processes are
not recognized. Getting a good understanding of these facets of USDA
operations could help contribute to determining what ASCR may need to
accomplish and how ASCR could best work with other USDA agencies and
offices. ASCR's Director of Outreach reported that her office is making
some progress in developing relationships with USDA's agencies in their
efforts to improve outreach to minority farmers.
Third, results-oriented organizations align their activities, core
processes, and resources to support their mission and desired outcomes.
Such organizations start by assessing the extent to which their
programs and activities contribute to meeting their mission and make
linkages between levels of funding and their anticipated results. ASCR
used an organizational framework for developing its plan, according to
an ASCR official, and developed objectives for each of ASCR's existing
offices. However, these plans do not reflect consideration of the
extent to which each of its office's activities is to contribute to
ASCR's missions. For example, one ASCR strategic objective is to
strengthen partnerships with historically black land-grant universities
through scholarships provided by USDA, but it is not clear how
scholarships bear significantly on ASCR's strategic mission. Moreover,
the strategic plan does not make linkages between levels of funding and
ASCR's anticipated results--without such a discussion, it is not
possible to determine whether ASCR has the resources needed to achieve
its strategic goal.
ASCR Could Better Measure Performance to Gauge Progress:
Results-oriented organizations establish performance measures that
demonstrate results, are limited to the vital few performance measures,
respond to multiple priorities, and link to responsible programs. In
addition, they pay special attention to issues relating to data
collection and balance the cost of collecting data against the need for
collecting data that are complete, accurate, and consistent enough to
document performance and support decision making at various
organizational levels. In this area, ASCR's plans leave room for many
forward steps.
* While ASCR's Office of Outreach has responsibility for providing
national leadership and coordination for programs and services across
USDA agencies to ensure customers have equal and timely access, the
performance measures it adopted focus on counting participants at USDA
training workshops, rather than on the outcome of its outreach efforts
on access to benefits and services.
* ASCR's plan does not link to the plans of USDA agencies or the
department as a whole and does not discuss the potential for linkages
to be developed.
* To measure progress that USDA agencies make in compliance with
relevant USDA government regulations and laws, ASCR stated it will use
a percentage of agencies in compliance but had not established the
baseline and targets.
ASCR's plans also have an important gap in the area of performance
measurement, especially in an era of limited resources.[Footnote 22]
They do not discuss the kinds of data that USDA agencies collect or
analyze that would demonstrate progress toward ASCR's strategic goal.
To leverage resources, potential sources of data may be USDA's National
Agricultural Statistics Service, which conducts the census of
agriculture, and the Economic Research Service, which analyzes and
reports on trends in agriculture, including social changes.
ASCR's Planning Has Not Considered the Use of Performance Information
for Identifying Performance Gaps:
Results-oriented organizations--after building a performance
measurement system--use performance data to identify gaps in their
performance, report on that performance, and finally, use that
information to improve their performance to better support their
missions. However, the data that ASCR now identifies in its plans, such
as the number of persons who are aware of USDA programs, will
contribute relatively little to an understanding of USDA's performance
gaps in meeting ASCR's strategic goal. For example, such data will not
provide any insight into how well USDA staff work with and assist
minority and limited-resource customers, whether the programs provide
for equitable treatment, and how well USDA upholds the civil rights of
its employees. Also, ASCR will need to work closely with other USDA
agencies, such as the Farm Service Agency; the Natural Resources
Conservation Service; Cooperative State Research, Extension, and
Education Service; but ASCR plans do not discuss how their data can be
used to contribute to identifying gaps in the performance of USDA
agencies. Nevertheless, ASCR officials said they have taken steps in
this direction through annual reviews of the performance of USDA agency
heads. Through these reviews, ASCR officials said they are making some
recommendations for agency change, although the USDA agencies are not
required to follow those recommendations.
The 2008 Farm Bill Reorganizes USDA to Accomplish a Portion of ASCR's
Mission:
First, the bill provides for establishing a USDA Office of Advocacy and
Outreach to ensure access to and equitable participation in USDA's
programs and services. This new office is to (1) establish and monitor
USDA's goals and objectives to increase participation in USDA programs
by small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers;
(2) assess the effectiveness of USDA outreach programs; (3) develop and
implement a plan to coordinate USDA outreach; (4) provide input into
USDA agency and office program and policy decisions; (5) measure
outcomes of relevant USDA programs; (6) recommend new initiatives and
relevant programs; and (7) perform related duties as assigned by the
Secretary. Second, the bill directs the Secretary to establish an
advisory committee on minority farmers to, among other things, advise
the Secretary on methods of maximizing the participation of minority
farmers and ranchers in USDA programs and civil rights activities that
relate to USDA program participants.
Lessons Learned at Other Organizations Suggest Options That May Benefit
USDA's Civil Rights Performance:
Our past work in addressing the problems of high-risk, underperforming
federal agencies, as well as our reporting on results-oriented
management suggests three options. These options were selected based on
our judgment that they (1) can help address recognized and long-
standing problems in USDA's performance, (2) have been used previously
by Congress to improve aspects of agency performance, (3) have
contributed to improved agency performance, and (4) will result in
greater transparency over USDA's civil rights performance. These
options include (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
subject to a statutory performance agreement, (2) establishing an
agriculture civil rights oversight board, and (3) creating an ombudsman
for agriculture civil rights matters. The first two would require
action by Congress, whereas the third could benefit from USDA's
attention, although effective implementation may also require
congressional action.
Statutory Performance Agreement:
USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights could be made subject to a
statutory performance agreement that provides more specific direction
and describes key expectations in critical performance areas, similar
to federal executives in other agencies. Our prior assessment of
performance agreements used at three agencies has shown that
performance agreements have emerging potential benefits that may help
improve the performance of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights.[Footnote 23] The emerging benefits of performance
agreements that may assist USDA include (1) helping to define
accountability for specific goals and align daily operations with
results-oriented programmatic goals, (2) fostering collaboration across
organizational boundaries, (3) enhancing use of performance information
to make program improvements, (4) providing a results- oriented basis
for individual accountability, and (5) helping to maintain continuity
of program goals during leadership transitions.
For example, in 1998 Congress established the Department of Education's
Office of Federal Student Aid as the government's first performance-
based organization.[Footnote 24] Congress did so following long-
standing financial and management weaknesses and placement on GAO's
high-risk list since 1990. Congress required the office's Chief
Operating Officer to have a performance agreement with the Secretary of
Education that is transmitted to congressional committees and made
publicly available. In addition, the office was required to report to
Congress annually on its performance, including the extent to which it
met its performance goals. Based on the extent of progress, the Chief
Operating Officer could receive performance bonuses of up to 50 percent
of the officer's basic pay, which must be disclosed to the public and
could also be removed or reappointed, depending on the extent of
progress. In 2005, due to the sustained improvements made by the Office
of Federal Student Aid in its financial management and in addressing
its internal control weaknesses, we removed our designation of this
program as high risk.[Footnote 25] The office had by then received an
unqualified or "clean" financial opinion on its financial statements
for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, with no material weaknesses
reported in its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 audits. The office had made
progress toward integrating its many disparate information systems,
reducing the rate of student loan defaults, and addressing its human
capital challenges. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been
several other examples of Congress requiring statutory performance
agreements for federal executives, including the Commissioners of the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Under Secretary for Management
of the Department of Homeland Security.[Footnote 26]
The responsibilities assigned to USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights were stated in general terms in both the 2002 Farm Bill and the
Secretary's memorandum establishing this position within USDA. The
Secretary's memorandum stated that the Assistant Secretary reports
directly to the Secretary and is responsible for (1) ensuring USDA's
compliance with all civil rights laws and related laws, (2)
coordinating administration of civil rights laws within USDA, and (3)
ensuring that civil rights components are incorporated in USDA
strategic planning initiatives. While this set of responsibilities is
broad in scope, it does not identify specific performance expectations
for the Assistant Secretary. A statutory performance agreement could
assist in achieving specific expectations by providing additional
incentives and mandatory public reporting.
Oversight Board:
Congress could authorize a USDA civil rights oversight board to
independently monitor, evaluate, approve of, and report on USDA's
administration of civil rights activities, as it has for other federal
activities. Oversight boards have often been used by the federal
government--such as for oversight of public accounting, intelligence
matters, civil liberties, and drug safety--to provide assurance that
important activities are well done, to identify weaknesses that may
need to be addressed, and to provide for transparency. For example,
Congress established the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board in
1998 to oversee the IRS's administration of internal revenue laws and
ensure that its organization and operation allow it to carry out its
mission.[Footnote 27] At that time, the IRS was considered to be an
agency that was not effectively serving the public or meeting
taxpayers' needs. The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board oversees
the IRS by operating much like a corporate board of directors, tailored
to fit the public sector. The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board
provides independent oversight of IRS administration, management,
conduct, and the direction and supervision of the application of the
internal revenue code. Among other things, the Internal Revenue Service
Oversight Board reviews and approves the IRS's strategic plans and
operations, recommends candidates for the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service (as well as the removal of a Commissioner), reviews
compensation provided to senior executives, reviews plans for
reorganization of the IRS, and develops reports for Congress on
Internal Revenue Service activities. We have noted the work of the
Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board--including, for example, the
board's independent analysis of IRS business systems
modernization.[Footnote 28] Currently, there is no comparable
independent oversight of USDA civil rights activities. Such a board
could provide additional assurance that management functions
effectively and efficiently, especially in light of the government's
financial liability for compensating victims of discrimination.
Ombudsman:
An ombudsman (often referred to as an ombuds) for USDA civil rights
matters could be created to address the concerns of USDA customers and
employees. Many agencies have created ombuds offices for addressing
employees' concerns, as authorized by the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act, although USDA is not among them. However, an ombuds is
not merely an alternative means of resolving employees' disputes;
rather, the ombudsman is a neutral party who uses a variety of
procedures, including alternative dispute resolution techniques, to
deal with complaints, concerns, and questions. We stated that ombudsmen
can handle a wide range of concerns--including, for example, citizens'
concerns about access to programs, systemic management problems, policy
shortcomings, human rights, civil rights and workplace issues.
Ombudsmen who handle concerns and inquiries from the public--external
ombudsmen--help agencies be more responsive to the public through
impartial and independent investigation of citizens' complaints,
including people who believe their concerns have not been dealt with
fairly and fully through normal channels. For example, we reported that
ombudsmen at the Environmental Protection Agency serve as points of
contact for members of the public who have concerns about Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (Superfund) activities.[Footnote 29] We
also identified the Transportation Security Administration ombudsman as
one who serves external customers and is responsible for recommending
and influencing systemic change where necessary to improve
Administration operations and customer service.[Footnote 30] We
reported that a key feature distinguishing ombuds from other dispute
resolution practitioners is the ombuds' focus on systemic issues and on
developing strategies for preventing and managing conflict.
Within the federal workplace, ombuds provide an informal alternative to
existing and more formal processes to deal with employees' workplace
conflicts and other organizational climate issues. As of April 2007, 12
federal departments and 9 independent agencies reported having 43
ombudsmen, according to a federal interagency report on the use of
alternative dispute resolution in the workplace.[Footnote 31] In our
study of the role of ombudsmen in dispute resolution, we found some
common approaches as well as some differences in how ombudsmen operated
at the National Institutes of Health, the International Broadcasting
Bureau, and the U.S. Secret Service.[Footnote 32] Common among the
three ombudsmen offices were the high level of their manager, general
schedule (GS) grade 15 or senior executive, and their broad
responsibility and authority to deal with almost any workplace issue,
their ability to bring systemic issues to management's attention, and
the way in which they worked with other agency offices in providing
assistance to employees. We also found that there were structural
differences--such as in the independence of their office, level of
reporting, and budgets. Importantly, we reported that officials at the
three agencies generally viewed the ombudsman programs as beneficial.
They said that the ombuds' offices, through their early intervention,
were particularly helpful in resolving workplace conflicts quickly and
in lightening the caseloads of other offices dealing with complaints
and grievances. The ombudsmen estimated that they resolved between 60
percent and 70 percent of their cases. In addition, the ombudsmen and
other officials identified lessons they learned in establishing and
operating an ombuds office. Chief among these is the need for top-level
support.
Several core aspects of an ombudsman's office make such an office an
option relevant for consideration at USDA. First, USDA faces concerns
of fairness and equity from both customers and employees--a range of
issues that an ombudsman could potentially assist in addressing.
Second, the standards for ombudsmen operations call for them to be
independent, to be impartial in conducting inquiries and
investigations, and to keep information confidential as appropriate--
standards that are consistent with the need to help ensure the
credibility of USDA actions. Third, an ombudsman is in a position to
alert management to systemic problems and can thereby help correct
organizationwide situations and develop strategies for preventing and
managing conflicts. Finally, an ombudsman's office can help an
organization ensure a fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory
environment.
We previously reported information about the potential use of an
ombudsman to address USDA's civil rights issues.[Footnote 33]
Subsequently, ASCR staff developed a preliminary background discussion
paper about the feasibility of an ombudsman function at USDA but stated
that more development of the concept would be needed to design an
effective USDA ombudsman function.[Footnote 34] Although ASCR's
discussion paper included options for further study of an ombudsman
function for USDA, it also stated that an option to establish an
ombudsman office at USDA was not presented because existing conditions
do not suggest a need, interest, or prior momentum toward establishing
such an office. The discussion paper raised concerns about establishing
a USDA departmental ombudsman because such an office would encounter
difficulty establishing its credibility and usefulness, conducting
investigations due to USDA's decentralized and entrenched agency
structure and operations, and obtaining sufficient resources to be
effective in light of the size and breadth of USDA operations. The
paper also stated that for a USDA ombudsman office to be minimally
effective, its legitimacy and authority must be clear and unequivocal.
According to the American Bar Association, an ombuds office must, among
other things, be independent in structure, function and appearance; be
structured in an impartial manner; have full authority to conduct
inquiries and investigations without being thwarted by agency staff; be
able to operate with confidentiality; and have a sufficient legislative
basis to provide for permanence, stability, and some assurance that the
ombudsman is free to criticize without fear that the office will be
abolished or unnecessarily restricted.
Conclusions:
USDA has been addressing allegations of discrimination for decades and
receiving recommendations for improving its civil rights functions
without achieving fundamental improvements. One lawsuit has cost
taxpayers nearly a billion dollars in payouts to date, and several
other groups are seeking redress for similar alleged discrimination.
While ASCR's established policy is to fairly and efficiently respond to
complaints of discrimination, its efforts to establish the management
system necessary to implement the policy have fallen far short. For
example, both we and USDA's OIG have observed that ASCR has not
achieved oversight and control over its inventory of discrimination
complaints--which is vital to effectively manage this important
function. Despite the numerous past efforts to provide this office with
constructive analysis, including recommendations by the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, USDA's
OIG, and GAO, significant deficiencies remain.
Unless USDA addresses several fundamental concerns about resolving
discrimination complaints--including the lack of credible data on the
numbers, status, and management of complaints; the lack of specified
time frames and management controls for resolving complaints; questions
about the quality of complaint investigations; and the integrity of
final decision preparation--the credibility of USDA efforts to resolve
discrimination complaints will remain in doubt. In addition, unless
USDA obtains accurate data on minority participation in USDA programs,
its reports on improving minority participation in USDA programs will
not be reliable or useful. Moreover, ASCR's strategic planning for
civil rights has such significant gaps--in describing and responding to
stakeholder interests, in considering the external and internal
environments that affect the achievement of ASCR's goals, and in
setting up and making use of performance measures that will demonstrate
results--that it appears unlikely that USDA management will be fully
effective in achieving its civil rights mission until better planning
is performed.
In addition to these specific actions that warrant USDA's attention,
there are broader options or actions that merit attention to address
the long-standing problems in USDA's civil rights efforts. These
options could lay a foundation for clarity over the expectations USDA
must meet to restore confidence in its civil rights performance.
Raising the public profile for transparency and accountability through
means such as a statutory performance agreement between the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, a USDA
civil rights oversight board, and an ombudsman for addressing
customers' and employees' civil rights concerns would appear to be
helpful steps because they have proven to be effective in raising the
performance of other federal agencies.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
To better ensure sufficient oversight and management direction are
provided to guide USDA's civil rights efforts, to make responsibility
for improvement clear, and to make USDA's performance more transparent,
we suggest that Congress consider (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights subject to a statutory performance agreement and (2)
establishing a USDA civil rights oversight board.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve USDA efforts to address civil rights issues and the
participation of minority farmers and ranchers in USDA programs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following six
actions:
* Prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving
discrimination complaints that sets time frame goals and provides
management controls for resolving complaints from beginning to end.
* Develop and implement a plan to ensure the accuracy, completeness and
reliability of ASCR's databases on customer and employee complaints,
and that provides for independent validation of ASCR's data quality.
* Obtain an expert, independent, and objective legal examination of the
basis, quality, and adequacy of a sample of USDA's prior investigations
and decisions on civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for
improvement.
* Work expeditiously to obtain OMB's approval to collect the
demographic data necessary for reliable reporting on race and ethnicity
by USDA program.
* Develop a results-oriented department-level strategic plan for civil
rights at USDA that unifies USDA's departmental approach with that of
ASCR and the newly created Office of Advocacy and Outreach and that is
transparent about USDA's efforts to address the concerns of
stakeholders.
* Further explore the potential for an ombudsman office to contribute
to addressing the civil rights concerns of USDA customers and
employees, including seeking legislative authority, as appropriate, to
establish such an office and to ensure its effectiveness, and advise
USDA's congressional oversight committees of the results.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, USDA's Secretary stated that
USDA acknowledges many of the problems identified in the report.
However, the Secretary stated that USDA believes that the report does
not duly recognize the efforts USDA is currently undertaking to address
the issues and the significant progress that USDA has made. For
example, the Secretary stated that we did not give adequate credit to
the strategic plans for outreach and diversity that were under
development during our audit. We believe the report does recognize
USDA's actions, plans, and progress; and it places them in context
considering USDA's substantial shortcomings. During our work, we
obtained drafts and briefing documents on the outreach and diversity
strategic plans, and mentioned them in our report. However, these plans
and their strategies have not been finalized or in effect long enough
to demonstrate accomplishments. The Secretary also stated that the
report overly relies on unsubstantiated comments opined by a few
individuals. We disagree. Our report was based primarily on substantial
documentary evidence supplemented with over 130 interviews conducted
with federal civil rights officials, USDA officials and staff, and USDA
stakeholder groups (see appendix I).
Concerning our recommendations, USDA generally agreed with 5 of our 6
recommendations, including those to prepare and implement an
improvement plan for resolving discrimination complaints; to improve
the quality of ASCR's databases on customer and employee complaints; to
work to obtain approval to collect the data necessary for reliable
reporting on race and ethnicity; to develop a results-oriented
departmental level civil rights strategic plan; and to explore the
establishment of an ombudsman office. However, USDA was silent on one
aspect of our recommendation to improve its complaint resolution
process--that USDA establish time-frames for resolving discrimination
complaints. Until USDA establishes time frames for the entirety of the
civil rights complaint process, it will not have a goal against which
to measure its performance.
USDA also disagreed with our recommendation to obtain an expert,
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and
adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions on civil rights
complaints, along with suggestions for improvement. USDA asserted,
without providing any additional support, that it believes its internal
system of legal sufficiency addresses GAO's concerns, works well, and
is timely and effective, and that the review GAO recommends is
unnecessary, impractical, cost prohibitive, and would add significant
delays. We recognize that the scope of our recommendation may have been
read too broadly by USDA, and therefore we have made a minor
clarification to our recommendation to state that USDA should obtain an
examination of a sample of prior investigations and decisions. Given
the substantial evidence of civil rights case delays and questions
raised in the report about the integrity of the USDA's civil rights
casework, we believe that this recommendation remains valid and
necessary to restore confidence in USDA's civil rights decisions.
The Secretary also disagreed with our two options for congressional
consideration. Concerning the establishment of a statutorily-mandated
performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary, the Secretary stated
the Assistant Secretary's responsibilities are spelled out in the 2002
and 2008 Farm Bill, and that this additional statutory change would
usurp the Secretary's authority. We disagree. The specific terms of a
statutory performance agreement would be developed by the Secretary for
the Assistant Secretary's activities and would not limit the authority
of the Secretary to take or direct action. In addition, a statutory
performance agreement would go beyond the existing legislation by
requiring measurable organizational and individual goals in key
performance areas.
Concerning the establishment of a USDA civil rights oversight board,
the Secretary stated that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and
delay progress. While we note such concerns, a well-operated oversight
board can be the source of timely and wise counsel to help raise USDA's
civil rights performance. Because of the lengthy history of USDA's
difficulties in overcoming civil rights issues, we believe both options
would help focus and improve USDA's performance. They would provide for
a level of transparency that has been lacking in USDA civil rights
matters--transparency that provides compelling evidence to help direct
improvement efforts and better demonstrate USDA's accomplishments.
USDA's written comments appear in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Agriculture, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Lisa Shames:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joe Baca:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and
Forestry:
Committee on Agriculture:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Edolphus Towns:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles Grassley:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
United States Senate:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
During this performance audit, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), USDA's Office of Inspector
General (OIG), the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and GAO, among others. We also
conducted:
* over 50 interviews with officials and staff of USDA's Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights;
* over 65 interviews with staff of USDA's Farm Service Agency; Natural
Resources Conservation Service; Rural Development Mission Area;
Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service; the
National Agricultural Statistics Service; and USDA field offices in
California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington;
* 20 interviews with USDA stakeholder groups, including the Rural
Coalition; United Farmers USA, Federation of Southern Cooperatives,
South East Asian American Farmers Association, Intertribal Agricultural
Council, National Tribal Development Association, Hispanic Farmers and
Ranchers of America, National Black Farmers Association, National Hmong
American Farmers, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees; and:
* three interviews with officials of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To assess ASCR's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints, we
conducted interviews with officials of ASCR, USDA's OIG, USDA's agency-
level civil rights offices, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; examined USDA documents about efforts to resolve
discrimination complaints; and analyzed data provided by ASCR. To
evaluate USDA's reporting on minority participation in USDA's programs,
we reviewed USDA reports and interviewed officials of USDA, community-
based organizations, and minority groups. To analyze ASCR's strategic
planning, we examined ASCR's strategic plan and other relevant planning
documents and interviewed USDA officials and representatives of
community-based organizations and minority groups, among others. We
also considered GAO's guidance and reporting on results-oriented
management.[Footnote 35] To assess the reliability of data provided by
ASCR, we compared various sources of ASCR data and interviewed ASCR
officials.
To identify options for addressing USDA's long-standing problems, we
reviewed our experience in addressing the problems of high-risk,
underperforming agencies,[Footnote 36] as well as our reporting on
results-oriented management. We selected options based on our judgment
that the options (1) would address apparent deficiencies in USDA's
performance, (2) had been used previously by Congress to improve
aspects of agency performance, (3) have contributed to improved agency
performance, and (4) will result in greater transparency over USDA's
civil rights performance.
Unlike our prior reviews of USDA civil rights activities, when we
readily obtained access to records that were necessary for our work, in
this case our efforts were impeded by delays in obtaining records. We
made repeated requests for USDA records--including requests directly to
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and the Deputy Secretary.
These requests concerned records relating to ASCR's priorities, ASCR's
strategic plan, ASCR civil rights-related performance assessments of
agency heads, correspondence between ASCR and USDA's Office of General
Counsel, unresolved discrimination complaints, outreach, ASCR office
budgets, and USDA's request for the Office of Management and Budget's
approval to collect data needed for reporting on minority farmer
participation in USDA programs, among others. In January 2008, we
requested the Deputy Secretary's cooperation and assistance in
arranging for access to USDA records, and we subsequently received
many, but not all, of the records we sought. Nevertheless, the records
we received were sufficient for our work to meet generally accepted
government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2006 through
September 2008.
Furthermore, starting in January 2008, several USDA employees contacted
us with certain allegations pertinent to our work, such as the possible
destruction of records and manipulation of discrimination complaint
data related to GAO's engagement. Consequently, we and USDA's OIG
conducted a number of additional interviews with agency staff. Based on
the interviews we conducted, we learned of additional deficiencies in
the handling of discrimination complaints, among other things, but did
not find evidence that our work had been purposely undermined. We
referred allegations not directly related to our work to USDA's OIG.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Office of the Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20250:
October 1, 2008:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Acting Comptroller General:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW., Room 2T23:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Comptroller General: I am in receipt of the draft GAO Report
(GAO-08-1049) dated September 5, 2008, entitled U.S. Department Of
Agriculture, Recommendations and Options to Address Management
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
(OASCR). Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I have enclosed
specific responses to each recommendation posed in the draft report
(Enclosure 1). I request that this letter and its enclosures be
published with the final report in its entirety.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is in general agreement with many
of the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
regarding the need to continue to improve management controls for all
phases of the complaint process, quality control within data management
systems, collection of demographic data, and strategic planning. USDA
also agrees to continue to explore the establishment of an
ombudsperson. USDA does not concur with GAO's recommendations to
establish a statutory performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights (ASCR), nor with the establishment of an oversight
board.
USDA, through OASCR, has taken action to address the issues that have
challenged the Department in the past, and will continue to do so.
Significant progress has been made in civil rights at USDA since
creation of the ASCR position in 2003. See enclosed list of OASCR
accomplishments (Enclosure 2).
GAO, in its draft report, did not take into account efforts that are
already underway at the Department, and overly relied on
unsubstantiated comments opined by a few individuals. For example, GAO
did not give adequate credit for strategic plans developed by OASCR
subsequent to the initial five-year plan, such as the comprehensive,
Department-wide Outreach Strategic Plan, and Department-wide Workplace
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan that were in clearance during
the pendency of the audit. In developing these strategic plans, USDA
consulted extensively with stakeholders and incorporated their input.
In addition, for reasons outlined in the enclosed responses, USDA
disagrees with GAO's conclusions that OASCR does not have a plan to
ensure timely case processing and prevent future complaint backlogs.
USDA acknowledges the intent of GAO's recommendation to establish a
statutorily- mandated performance agreement; however, we believe that
it is unnecessary because Congress has already clearly spelled out the
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in Section 10704 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and various sections
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Assistant
Secretary reports directly to me and regularly briefs me on her goals,
performance plan, and accomplishments. Additional statutory change is
unnecessary and would usurp my authority to manage the Department's
civil rights program. Be assured that the Assistant Secretary, other
leaders, and I are dedicated to accomplishing the intent of the law in
the Farm Bill.
Likewise, USDA does not believe that establishing a statutorily-
mandated oversight board is warranted. Establishing such a board would
add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Responding to and developing
reports for such a Board would have the effect of delaying and
impeding, rather than promoting progress. ASCR and I are accountable
for providing oversight of OASCR plans, performance, and progress.
In summary, USDA acknowledges many of the problems pointed out in the
GAO draft report, however, we do not believe that the report duly
recognizes the efforts currently being undertaken by the Department to
address these issues and the significant progress to date. We are well
on our way to making a difference in many of the challenges that we
face, and have implementation strategies in place to address concerns
brought forth by our stakeholders, GAO, and the Office of Inspector
General.
Let me assure you of my personal commitment to USDA's civil rights,
equal employment opportunity, and diversity policies. In my civil
rights statement to all employees, I emphasized that all employees,
applicants, customers, and stakeholders must and will have equal access
to the opportunities, programs, and services offered by this great
Department.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Edward T. Schafer:
Secretary:
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1:
USDA Responses to GAO Recommendations:
GAO Recommendation:
Prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving discrimination
complaints that sets timeframe goals and provides management controls
for resolving complaints from beginning to end.
Departmental Response:
Since the creation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights (OASCR) significant efforts have been employed to provide better
management controls for resolving complaints and to ensure timely case
processing. This is an ongoing project and there are more improvements
to come. The plan includes: (1) concentrated efforts to eliminate the
complaint backlog and adhere to time standards for current cases; (2)
more involvement by senior leadership for quality control; (3) an
automated, Web-based, enterprise-wide case management and reporting
tool; (4) development of a centralized intake process; (5) more focus
on records management; (6) providing adequate resources, training,
performance standards, and timetables for OASCR staff and contractors;
(7) holding agencies responsible for timely submission of counselor
reports, agency positions statements and reports of investigation; (8)
increased use of alternative dispute resolution techniques; and (9) an
independent review of organizational structure, workload, workflow,
processes, and standards, in the Office of Adjudication and Compliance
(OAC), which is responsible for complaint processing.
(1) As pointed out in GAO's report, OASCR undertook an "Inventory
Reduction Initiative" in 2004. OASCR pointed out in its first annual
report, published in July 2007, which covered the time period of the
first ASCR from 2003 to 2006, that the 2004 inventory reduction
initiative was largely successful. OASCR started fiscal year 2003 with
2,001 pending employment complaints and resolved 1,016 of those cases.
During the year, OASCR received an additional 658 employment
complaints, of which 199 were resolved. The Office started the year
with 481 pending program complaints, and resolved 341. During the year,
the Office received an additional 1,755 program complaints, of which
1,487 were resolved. This was deemed a manageable level at the time.
There was no claim to the public that the complaint backlog had been
eliminated. Due to various factors, the backlog remained and grew.
In 2007, OASCR implemented a "Final Agency Decision (FAD) Backlog
Elimination" plan, utilizing contracting services and setting a
timetable to complete issuance of FADs in all program and employment
complaints where investigations had been completed. The established
goals have been reached. The backlog of program FADs was eliminated by
December 2007. The backlog of employment FADs was eliminated by
September 30, 2008.
In addition, OASCR has taken steps to prevent future backlogs.
Specifically, OASCR has entered into an interagency agreement with the
National Equal Employment Opportunity Investigative Services in the
U.S. Postal Service to process overflow cases that cannot be timely
processed by staff, and has begun to assess USDA agencies for the
preparation of FADs pursuant to language in the Appropriations Act for
the Department.
GAO makes reference to OASCR's use of summary decisions on employee
complaints during the 2004 inventory reduction initiative. Summary
decisions were issued in instances where there were no factual
disputes, or, the facts, even if true, would not constitute a violation
of law or policy. The ASCR's interpretation of the former director's
concern is that the lay person may not understand the process in
reaching such decisions and think that issues were overlooked.
GAO makes reference to Office of Inspector General's (OIG) observation
that OASCR did not have an effective plan to address case processing
inefficiencies. OASCR has been working with OIG and has submitted a
plan and achieved management decision on all open recommendations in
the 2007 OIG audit, for final action to occur by September 30, 2009.
(2) OASCR leadership personally reviews weekly reports of case
inventory, productivity, and backlog elimination.
(3) OASCR has fully implemented and continues to enhance the Civil
Rights Enterprise System (CRES), an automated, Web-based Department-
wide system for monitoring, tracking, managing, and reporting of
program for employment discrimination complaints and alternative
dispute resolutions. Ongoing activities include training for OASCR and
USDA agency staff and regular end-user meetings. CRES enables users to
input complaints faster, track and manage complaints better, provide
better customer service through auto-generated acknowledgements, and
generate more accurate reports. Upcoming enhancements include e-filing
and a centralized automated intake system. Within 12 months,
complainants should be able to file online and see the status of their
complaints in real time. This is in addition to the option of calling
OASCR's customer service center.
(4) OASCR is currently developing a centralized intake system in order
to determine the jurisdictional placement of complaints, and get them
to the proper place for processing faster. This will enhance timeliness
and efficient complaint processing.
(5) OASCR has hired a trained Records Manager, and is implementing
procedures to ensure its records management program is in compliance
with applicable Departmental regulations.
(6) OASCR has established performance standards for OAC staff, by
level, and holds OAC employees accountable through performance
management. OASCR further provides its employees training, professional
development tools and team-building activities. The GAO report
acknowledges the Assistant Secretary's attempts to provide resources
and tools in order to improve morale of OASCR employees, through such
activities as improved communication, team-building, worklife
coordination, telework and professional development, but then dismisses
such efforts because GAO does not see the relationship to increased
productivity and reduced complaints. I have noticed marked improvement
in performance by OASCR employees since these initiatives began.
GAO makes reference to employee fears of retaliation. Retaliation is
not condoned at USDA, as evidenced by our zero-tolerance policy towards
it. One of USDA's two mandatory civil rights training courses in 2007
was on the subject of retaliation. Claims of retaliation can be heard
in the complaint process, and any proven retaliation would be referred
for disciplinary action.
(7) The timely processing of complaints within USDA is a joint
responsibility between OASCR and the agencies. The process relies upon
timely submission by USDA agencies of agency position statements,
counselor reports, and reports of investigations. USDA agency heads are
held accountable for timely processing of complaints through Annual
Agency Head Civil Rights Performance Assessments. OASCR develops and
communicates civil rights performance standards for agencies each year,
and then, evaluates them against those standards, and submits a
proposed rating to the rater and the Performance Review Board. Recent
changes have been made to improve accountability even further. For
example, certain standards are absolute and, if not achieved, will
result in a lower score. The four absolute standards are to: (i)
conduct compliance reviews, (ii) submit timely Agency Position
Statements, (iii) submit timely Equal Opportunity Counselor Reports;
and (iv) submit timely Reports of Investigation. Also, if agency heads
are rated differently from that submitted by OASCR, the rater must
submit a written justification.
(8) In addition to focusing on better management and timely disposition
of complaints, OASCR has placed an emphasis on prevention of
complaints. One way of preventing complaints is to encourage better
communication and earlier and faster resolution of conflict through
alternative dispute resolution techniques. USDA has an Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) policy which requires agencies to offer ADR at
the informal complaint stage and strongly encourages ADR at the formal
stage. OASCR has encouraged agencies to employ dedicated full-time ADR
Program Managers. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, within
OASCR, conducts training for managers, practitioners, and employees and
conducts various other activities to encourage more use of ADR. For
example, additional ADR training is being offered through Webinar
technology, and compliance reviews are conducted on agency ADR
programs.
(9) OASCR has contracted for an independent organizational assessment
of OAC to examine workload and work flow; assess knowledge and skills
of staff; identify the operations, processes and systems of
performance; evaluate efficiency and productivity; and, recommend areas
of the organization in need of improvement. This organizational
assessment will allow OASCR to better determine workload projections
and resource requirements and employ more efficient processes and best
practices. The results of the assessment will provide a footing for
OASCR's Implementation and Improvement Plan for resolving and timely
processing of discrimination complaints.
USDA is confident that all of these developments will enable OASCR to
build upon the progress of recent years and achieve even greater
success in the future towards the goal of processing all complaints in
a timely and efficient manner and avoiding future backlogs.
GAO Recommendation:
Develop and implement a plan to assure accuracy, completeness, and
reliability of ASCR's data bases on customer and employee complaints to
include the independent validation of the ASCR's data quality.
Departmental Response:
OASCR acknowledges that, in years past, due to various ways of defining
what is a complaint under various leaders and due to ineffective stand-
alone legacy systems, USDA reports have been inconsistent. However,
USDA has addressed this problem by investing in the CRES, a state-of-
the-art, Department-wide Web-based complaint tracking system with
standardized business rules. We expect current and future reports to be
more accurate and lend themselves to better trend analysis. As
mentioned above, appropriate OASCR staff and agency users have been
trained and are being held accountable for timely and proper use of
CRES. Any instances of poor data entry are addressed through training
and performance management. Claims of data system failures have not
been substantiated.
Nonetheless, OASCR is undertaking several initiatives to ensure
accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the customer and employee
complaint databases within CRES. OASCR has proposed revisions to its
civil rights compliance regulations, currently in clearance, to
incorporate a quality control function of these databases. The proposed
regulation mandates that data integrity checks become an essential part
of civil rights compliance reviews throughout the Department. This will
ensure stronger internal controls of data management. OASCR has
contracted with a commercial vendor to create a set of dashboard
reports that will function as a tool for OAC managers to monitor
complaint status, workload and workflow. In addition, USDA has
established an accountability function within OASCR to oversee
independent quality control reviews of both databases.
GAO Recommendation:
Obtain an expert, independent, and objective legal examination of the
basis, quality, and adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions
on civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for improvement.
Departmental Response:
USDA does not agree with the recommendation to engage contractual
services for an independent legal examination of investigations and
decisions. USDA employs an internal system of legal sufficiency reviews
both within the OASCR and by the Civil Rights Policy Division within
the Office of General Counsel. This system works well, is timely and
effective, and addresses GAO concerns. Employing an external legal
examination of each case, or even a sampling of cases, is unnecessary
and would be impractical, cost prohibitive, and add significant delays.
GAO Recommendation:
Work expeditiously to obtain Office of Management Budget's (OMB)
approval to collect demographic data necessary for reliable reporting
on race and ethnicity by USDA program.
Departmental Response:
OASCR agrees with this recommendation and has already convened a cross-
agency working group to work on a plan to obtain OMB approval for all
USDA agencies to collect data on race, ethnicity, sex, national origin,
disability, and age (RESNODA). This group is working towards
publication of RESNODA in the Federal Register to alert the public of
this collection.
GAO Recommendation:
Develop a results-oriented Department-level strategic plan for civil
rights at USDA that unifies USDA's Departmental approach with that of
ASCR and the newly created Office of Advocacy and Outreach, and that is
transparent about USDA's efforts to address the concerns of
stakeholders.
Departmental Response:
Upon revision of OASCR's five-year strategic plan, USDA will ensure
that the plan incorporates a comprehensive, results-oriented,
Department-wide strategy for civil rights, and addresses the concerns
of customers and stakeholders.
While the initial five-year strategic plan developed in 2005 may not
have incorporated the views of stakeholders, subsequent implementation
did incorporate stakeholder input. Both Assistant Secretaries conducted
extensive listening tours of external and internal stakeholders before
developing their initiatives and priorities, and have incorporated
their views in subsequent strategic plans.
For example, after consulting with socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers, the first Assistant Secretary established the annual partners
meeting, at which farmers, ranchers, producers, and representatives of
community-based organizations are provided the opportunity to meet with
key USDA officials and program staff to discuss access to USDA programs
and services, identify problems, and propose solutions. The success of
these meetings is reflected by a significant increase in attendance of
over 500 participants, and results in real, tangible progress towards
outreach and equal access for our customers.
In addition, the Assistant Secretary holds regular meetings with
representatives of USDA- recognized Employee Organizations and adopted
many of their ideas when formulating the Department's Workplace
Diversity and Inclusion strategy now being implemented. The GAO Report
mentions one activity, "the Diversity Forum;" however, that is just one
aspect of a major initiative currently being undertaken at USDA to make
workplace diversity and inclusion a core value and address diversity of
employee representation throughout USDA, including field offices. Other
activities include: (1) A new Office of Workplace Diversity and
Inclusion was established and reports directly to the Associate
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; (2) a new Director for
Departmental Diversity and staff was hired/reassigned; (3) Diversity
Awareness Training has been developed and is mandatory for all USDA
employees in 2008; (4) a Diversity Speaker Series, a forum through
which the Office of Diversity invites leaders and executives from the
public and private sectors to share their workplace and diversity-
related experiences through dialogue with attendees. This information
exchange empowers USDA employees to take responsibility for creating
and maintaining a productive work environment in learning to value
differences; (5) a biennial Civil Rights and Diversity Conference to
update USDA executives, managers, supervisors, employees and human
resources, civil rights, ADR and Outreach practitioners on civil rights
and diversity policies; (6) a Diversity and Inclusion Forum, a
communication vehicle and sounding board to foster dialogue between
USDA employees and senior management. The Forum consists of
representatives from senior management, USDA recognized employee
organizations, Departmental and Agency Civil Rights and Diversity
Program Managers; and (7) a biennial ADR Conference for USDA conflict
management practitioners to enhance skill and knowledge to
constructively address workplace disputes.
GAO Recommendation:
Further explore the potential for an ombudsman office to contribute to
addressing the civil rights concerns of USDA customers and employees,
including seeking legislative authority as appropriate to establish
such an office and to assure its effectiveness, and advise USDA's
congressional oversight committees of the results.
Departmental Response:
As the GAO Report points out, USDA is currently considering whether to
employ an ombudsperson to help represent employee interests. OASCR is
benchmarking best practices of established ombudsperson offices in
other Federal agencies ” the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Food and Drug
Administration. Upon completion of our evaluation, USDA will advise
appropriate congressional committees of the results.
Enclosure 2:
U.S. Department Of Agriculture Office Of The Assistant Secretary For
Civil Rights Highlights Of Major Accomplishments 2003 – 2008:
* Issued a Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Policy
Statement.
* Consolidated, elevated, and staffed functions with a civil rights
focus to a higher organizational structural level.
* Created and implemented the USDA Civil Rights Enterprise System – a
Web-based automated system to track, manage, and report employment and
program complaints, and alternative dispute resolution Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) matters. Established a centralized customer
service unit.
* Implemented an "Inventory Reduction Initiative" and "Final Agency
Decision Backlog Elimination Plan."
* Issued a USDA Accountability Policy to hold all managers and
employees accountable for discriminatory actions.
* Established a uniform performance standard for USDA employees at all
levels in the areas of civil rights, equal employment opportunity, and
diversity.
* Amended the USDA ADR policy to enhance employment and program
complaint processes. Held a Conflict Resolution Day to disseminate
information on alternative resolution techniques. Conducted USDA-wide
training conference on ADR.
* Developed annual mandatory civil rights and diversity awareness
training for all USDA employees. Developed other civil rights training
modules for AgLearn, such as Sexual Orientation, and incorporated civil
rights and diversity modules in USDA management and leadership
development training.
* Convened Department-wide training conferences to update USDA
executives, managers, supervisors, employees and human resources, civil
rights, ADR and Outreach practitioners on civil rights, equal
employment opportunity, and diversity policies.
* Established a new Office of Diversity to coordinate and manage
diversity initiatives at the Department level, and ensure "workplace
diversity and inclusion" is incorporated as a core value in USDA's
organizational culture. Conducted Employee survey; Issued a USDA
Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Policy Statement; and, Developed a
Department-wide Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.
* Conducted monthly Diversity Speaker Series to share workplace and
diversity-related experiences through dialogue with employees.
* Conducted regular meetings with USDA-recognized Employee
Organizations.
* Established a standing committee, called the "Diversity and Inclusion
Forum," to foster dialogue between USDA employees and senior
management.
* Conducted a facilitated retreat for all Agency Outreach Coordinators,
and Developed a comprehensive Department-wide Outreach Strategic Plan.
* Convened annual partners meetings with community-based organizations
to address equal access to USDA programs and activities for socially
and economically disadvantaged groups.
* Established the Center for Minority Farmers to provide information,
referrals, and technical assistance to socially and economically
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
* Launched Minority Farm Register to promote equal access to USDA farm
programs and services for minority and underserved farmland owners,
farmers, ranchers, tenants, and other individuals who participate in
agriculture. This database enables USDA to make direct contact with
farmers and ranchers who choose to register for information and
outreach services. Marketed and expanded the use of the Minority Farm
Register for use by the entire Department.
* Enhanced the market access of socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers through a certification training program. • Provided outreach,
technical assistance, scholarships, internships, and employment
opportunities to Minority-serving Institutions, Land-grant colleges and
universities and their students in order to improve diversity of the
workforce pipeline.
* Served as Co-chair of the USDA/1890 Task Force and provided
leadership on the 1890 National Scholars Program; Agricultural Liaison
Program; Centers of Excellence; and, work priorities for the Task Force
including the establishment of a consortium for three major
initiatives: (1) Nutrition, Health, Wellness, and Obesity in
Underserved Populations, (2) Biofuel Research and Development and, (3)
Food Biosecurity. Updated Memorandum of Understanding with Council of
1890 Presidents in 2007.
* Developed a Memorandum of Agreement with the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium (AIHEC) to strengthen educational and research
capacity in Tribal Colleges and Universities. Served as Chair of the
USDA/AIHEC Leadership Group. Developed a strategic plan; Established a
Scholarship Program; Hired Tribal Liaisons; and, Conducted a tour of
tribal colleges and universities for USDA agency officials to gain a
better understanding of the needs of these constituents.
* Entered into Memoranda of Understanding with other civil rights and
advocacy organizations to further mutual goals.
* Published an annual report and other materials to highlight the role,
objectives and activities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights in order to increase public awareness.
* Presented Awards to internal and external stakeholders for civil
rights best practices.
[End of section]
Appendix III: ASCR Initiatives, and Strategic and Priority Plans:
Table 2: ASCR Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2004:
Challenges: Organization;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Consolidate USDA offices with civil rights
focus into ASCR;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Organization;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Temporarily assign staff to address
discrimination complaints;
Status as of Dec. 2007: ChallengesSystems: Complete.
Challenges: Systems;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Develop a professional system for managing
discrimination complaints;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing.
Challenges: Procedural;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Draft regulations to address the
relationship between USDA's Office of General Counsel and ASCR's Office
of Adjudication and Compliance;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing.
Challenges: Operational;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Create a unit to handle incoming phone
calls for ASCR;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Operational;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Reduce backlogs of customer and employee
discrimination complaints;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Operational;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Amend USDA's alternative dispute
resolution policy to enhance the use of alternative dispute resolution;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Operational;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Conduct a public awareness campaign--
several public forums and listening sessions to discuss partnerships,
the Minority Farm Registry, the Notice of Farm Loan Application
Receipts, and the 2008 Farm Bill;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing.
Challenges: Accountability;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Prevent program complaints--ASCR has
convened three Partners Meetings with community based organizations and
groups representing minority and limited resource farmers to address
concerns about access to farm programs;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing.
Challenges: Accountability;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Prevent employee complaints-- training for
managers on equal employment opportunity is mandatory, and employee
development programs are being implemented;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing.
Challenges: Accountability;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Implement the "No FEAR Act"-- Public Law
107-174 requires federal agencies to be held accountable for violations
of anti-discrimination laws--USDA reported that its quarterly reports
are being posted on time, and all employees have received training;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Accountability;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Develop ASCR accountability policy for
USDA--USDA's Office of Human Resources will ensure that all USDA
managers are held accountable for discriminatory actions;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Challenges: Accountability;
Initiatives/accomplishments: Initiatives/accomplishments: Convene
annual civil rights conference;
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete.
Source: USDA.
[End of table]
Table 3: ASCR Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010:
Objective: Strengthen partnerships between USDA and 1890 Community
(historically black land grant institutions);
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase student
scholarships provided by USDA from 25 to 33.
Objective: Strengthen partnerships between USDA and 1994 land grant
institutions (Native American tribal colleges);
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase student
scholarships provided by USDA from 5 to 9 by 2010.
Objective: Enhance the Office of the Secretary and Departmental Office
employees' knowledge of the fairness, neutrality, and confidentiality
of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) usage;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase the knowledge of
employees familiar with alternative dispute resolution from 100 to 950.
Objective: Ensure USDA agencies and offices are in compliance with USDA
regulations and government-wide ADR laws and regulations;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Percentage of agencies in
compliance-- baseline and targets to be determined.
Objective: Achieve an efficient USDA-wide outreach program for all
customers;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Numbers of socially and
economically disadvantaged persons who received training for the first
time--baseline and targets to be determined.
Objective: Create and strengthen partnerships with community and faith-
based organizations, corporations, foundations, educational
institutions and other targeted communities to build coalitions for
USDA programs and opportunities;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase number of
partnerships and coalitions from 10 to 50.
Objective: Increase the awareness of USDA programs and opportunities
for socially and economically disadvantaged persons and also
underrepresented persons;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase number of
individuals aware of participation requirements from 100,000 to
160,000.
Objective: Develop and implement an efficient complaint process that
adheres to civil rights laws and regulations;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase the cases
processed within regulatory timeframes from 40 percent to 100 percent
for employee complaints and from 16 percent to 100 percent for customer
complaints.
Objective: Ensure USDA agencies and offices are in compliance with EEO
laws;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Percentage of USDA
agencies brought into compliance--baseline and targets to be
determined.
Objective: Meet EEOC standards for a Model EEO Program;
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase percentage of
EEOC indicators that are met from 33 percent to 100 percent by 2009.
Source: USDA.
[End of table]
Table 4: List of Civil Rights Priorities and Selected Initiatives for
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008:
Priority: Diversity;
Initiatives: Fill senior executive position to lead ASCR's Outreach and
Diversity Division.
Priority: Diversity;
Initiatives: Add workplace diversity as a core value.
Priority: Diversity;
Initiatives: Develop and conduct mandatory Diversity Awareness Training
for all supervisors and employees.
Priority: Diversity;
Initiatives: Offer training, including a disability training conference
and an AgLearn training module on sexual orientation.
Priority: Diversity;
Initiatives: Establish a diversity forum to foster communication
between USDA senior management and internal customers of USDA.
Priority: Outreach;
Initiatives: Develop and implement a comprehensive USDA-wide outreach
plan.
Priority: Outreach;
Initiatives: Provide oversight and coordination of minority
participation data.
Priority: Outreach;
Initiatives: Conflict prevention and resolution: Conduct a joint review
with USDA's Agricultural Research Service of the Hispanic Serving
Institutions' National Program.
Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution;
Initiatives: Create an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) video on
mediation.
Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution;
Initiatives: Recommend establishing dedicated ADR Director positions in
USDA agencies.
Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution;
Initiatives: Conduct a USDA-wide ADR awareness survey.
Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives;
Initiatives: Comply with No FEAR Act requirements.
Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives;
Initiatives: Update civil rights directives, regulations, and policies
as needed.
Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives;
Initiatives: Continue to strive to ensure that Final Agency Decisions
meet legal sufficiency standards and time requirements.
Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives;
Initiatives: Communications and public awareness: Convene biennial USDA
Civil Rights Conference in 2008.
Priority: Communications and public awareness;
Initiatives: Create a strategic marketing campaign focused on ASCR
goals and civil rights accomplishments by USDA agencies.
Priority: Communications and public awareness;
Initiatives: Recognize and award internal and external stakeholders for
civil rights best practices.
Source: USDA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Interests of Selected USDA Stakeholders in Civil Rights-
Related Matters as Identified by GAO in 2007 and 2008:
Table 5:
Category of interest: Outreach programs;
Stakeholder interests: USDA outreach programs for underserved producers
could be much better.
Category of interest: Outreach programs;
Stakeholder interests: Systematic data on minority participation in
USDA programs are not available.
Category of interest: Outreach programs;
Stakeholder interests: The 10708 Report and Minority Farm Register have
been ineffective.
Category of interest: Outreach programs;
Stakeholder interests: Partnerships with community-based organizations
could be better used.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: Methods of USDA program delivery need to better
facilitate the participation of underserved producers and address their
needs.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: USDA could do more to provide assistance in
accessing markets and programs.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: USDA could better address cultural and language
differences for providing services.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: Some USDA program rules and features hinder
participation by underserved producers.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: Some USDA employees have little incentive to
work with small and minority producers.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: County offices working with underserved
producers continue to lack diversity, and some have poor customer
service or display discriminatory behaviors toward underserved
producers.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: USDA lacks a program that addresses farmworker
needs.
Category of interest: Program delivery;
Stakeholder interests: There continues to be reports of cases where
USDA has not processed loans for underserved producers; Some Hmong
poultry farmers with guaranteed loans facilitated by USDA are
experiencing foreclosures.
Category of interest: County system;
Stakeholder interests: The county committee system does not represent
minority producers well.
Category of interest: County system;
Stakeholder interests: Minority advisers are ineffective because they
have no voting power.
Category of interest: County system;
Stakeholder interests: USDA has not done enough to make underserved
producers fully aware of county committee elections, and underserved
producers have difficulties winning elections.
Category of interest: Investment;
Stakeholder interests: There is a lack of USDA investment in research
and extension services that would determine the extent of minority
needs.
Category of interest: Census of Agriculture;
Stakeholder interests: The Census of Agriculture needs to better count
minority producers.
Category of interest: Foreclosure;
Stakeholder interests: USDA may continue to be foreclosing on farms
belonging to producers who are awaiting decisions on discrimination
complaints.
Category of interest: Authority;
Stakeholder interests: ASCR needs authority to exercise leadership for
making changes at USDA.
Category of interest: Resources;
Stakeholder interests: USDA and ASCR need additional resources to carry
out civil rights functions.
Category of interest: Diversity;
Stakeholder interests: Greater diversity among USDA employees would
facilitate USDA's work with minority producers.
Category of interest: Access;
Stakeholder interests: Producers must still access services through
some USDA employees who discriminated against them.
Category of interest: Management structure;
Stakeholder interests: The Office of Adjudication and Compliance needs
better management structure and function.
Category of interest: Management structure;
Stakeholder interests: Backlogs of discrimination complaints need to be
addressed.
Category of interest: Management structure;
Stakeholder interests: Alternative dispute resolution techniques to
resolve informal employee complaints should be used consistently and
documented.
Category of interest: Management structure;
Stakeholder interests: Civil rights compliance reviews of USDA agencies
are behind schedule and should be conducted.
Category of interest: General Counsel Review;
Stakeholder interests: USDA's Office of General Counsel continues to be
involved in complaint cases.
Source: GAO analysis of documents and interviews.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact listed above, Charles M. Adams (Assistant
Director), Kevin Bray, Bob Cramer, Nancy Crothers, Richard Egan, Ronald
Fecso, Bart Fischer, Cardell Johnson, Elizabeth Johnston, Karen Keegan,
Barbara Lewis, Kerry Lipsitz, Nhi Nguyen, Andrew O'Connell, Terry
Richardson, and Susan Sawtelle made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. Department of Agriculture,Civil Rights at the United States
Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team
(Washington, D.C., February 1997).
[2] These cases include Keepseagle v. Schafer, Civil Action No. 99-
03119 (D.D.C.); Garcia v. Schafer, Civil Action No. 00-02445 (D.D.C.);
and Love v. Schafer. Civil Action No. 00-02502 (D.D.C.)
[3] GAO, 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).
[4] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Management of Civil Rights
Continues to Be Deficient Despite Years of Attention, GAO-08-755T
(Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2008).
[5] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington D.C.: June
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998); and
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation
for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10,
2004).
[6] For example, see GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207
(Washington D.C.: January 2005).
[7] ASCR's backlogs of discrimination complaints generally consist of
numbers of complaints for which ASCR has insufficient capacity to
adjudicate promptly.
[8] USDA, First 1,000 Days, 2003-2006 (Washington, D.C., July 2007).
[9] We conducted our interviews with the former Director, Office of
Adjudication and Compliance, prior to her resignation near the end of
August 2007.
[10] In addition, ASCR held complaints associated with pending and
potential class action litigation in abeyance during this time period.
[11] Customers may file a complaint (1) with the agency, (2) in federal
court, or (3) both. They need not file a claim with the agency before
filing in federal court.
[12] A second and separate case involving American Indians of the Fort
Berthold Reservation is incorporated within the Keepseagle class action
case.
[13] Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Investigation
Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints
Alleging Violations of Title VI and Other Nondiscrimination Statutes
(Washington, D.C., September 1998). In addition, the Quality Standards
for Investigations of the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (December 2003), calls for using due professional care in
performing investigations by, among other things, achieving
thoroughness through the application of appropriate techniques.
[14] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder
the Timely Processing of Discrimination Complaints, GAO/RCED-99-38
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 1999).
[15] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture, GAO-03-96 (Washington D.C.: January 2003).
[16] USDA Office of Inspector General, Office of Civil Rights: Status
of the Implementation of Recommendations Made in Prior Evaluations of
Program Complaints, Audit Report No. 60801-4-Hq (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
10, 2007).
[17] USDA Office of Inspector General, Management Challenges
(Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007); and Management Challenges
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2008). USDA's OIG previously identified
civil rights as a major management challenge for USDA in August 2004.
[18] Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246 §§
14010-14012, 122 Stat. 1651, 2209.
[19] USDA, Bridges to the Future: 2003 Annual Report of the
Participation of Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA
Programs, The Section 10708 Report (Washington D.C., December 2004);
Bridges to the Future: 2004 Annual Report of the Participation of
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA Programs, The
Section 10708 Report (Washington, D.C., December 2005); and Bridges to
the Future: 2005 Annual Report of the Participation of Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA Programs, The Section 10708
Report (Washington, D.C., June 2007).
[20] GAO/GGD-96-118.
[21] U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in
American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume
VII: The Mississippi Delta Report (Washington, D.C., February 2001);
and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Minority
& Women Farmers in the U.S. (Washington, D.C., May 1998).
[22] Measuring racial discrimination is important to understanding
where it occurs, the extent of its impact, and what to do about it.
Researchers have recommended that agencies explore the use of field
studies, such as has been done since the 1970s to detect racially based
discrimination in housing. See National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences, Measuring Racial Discrimination (Washington, D.C.,
2004).
[23] The three agencies include the Office of Federal Student Aid, the
Department of Transportation, and the Veterans Health Administration.
GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits from Selected Agencies'
Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 30,
2000).
[24] Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244 § 101(a),
112 Stat. 1581 (amending 20 U.S.C. § 1018).
[25] GAO-05-207.
[26] Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 1000(a)(9) (§ 4713), 113 Stat. 1501, 1536,
1501A-21, 1501A-575 (1999) (amending 35 U.S.C. § 3); Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53
§ 2405(b), 121 Stat. 266, 548 (amending 6 U.S.C. §341(c)).
[27] Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. No. 105-206 § 1101(a), 112 Stat. 685, 691 (amending 26 U.S.C. §
7802).
[28] GAO, Business Systems Modernization: Internal Revenue Service
Needs to Further Strengthen Program Management, GAO-04-438T (Washington
D.C.: Feb. 12, 2004).
[29] The Superfund Program provides support to investigate and clean up
hazardous waste sites nationwide.
[30] GAO, Transportation Security Administration: Actions and Plans to
Develop a Results-Oriented Culture, GAO-03-190 (Washington D.C.: Jan.
17, 2003).
[31] Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Sections, et al, Report for the President on the Use and Results of
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Branch of the Federal
Government (Washington, D.C.: April 2007).
[32] GAO, Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution,
GAO-01-446 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2001).
[33] GAO, Pigford Settlement: The Role of the Court-Appointed Monitor,
GAO-06-469R (Washington D.C., Mar. 17, 2006).
[34] USDA, Federal Ombudsman at USDA: A Preliminary Background and
Discussion Paper (Washington, D.C; March 2007).
[35] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington D.C.: June
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998); and
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation
for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10,
2004).
[36] For example, see GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207
(Washington D.C.: January 2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
