U.S. Department of Agriculture
Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs Gao ID: GAO-10-82 October 20, 2009The Senate report accompanying the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) fiscal year 2008 appropriations expressed concern that USDA's Greenbook charges--the transfer of funds authority USDA used to charge the appropriations accounts of its agencies and staff offices for programs to centrally provide certain services--had grown excessively. USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) oversees Greenbook charges. The report directed GAO to review these charges and USDA to report on them. This report identifies the agencies and offices assessed Greenbook charges, the amounts of the charges, and the programs supported by Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. It also (1) assesses how USDA selected programs and monitored Greenbook charges and (2) describes the benefits of the programs, as reported by USDA. GAO reviewed and assessed USDA budget and program documents and discussed processes with officials.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2009, all 15 USDA agencies and 12 staff offices were charged more than $372 million in Greenbook charges--less than 1/1000 of a percent of USDA's funding for the period. Greenbook charges and programs have increased substantially--from about $5.4 million for 5 programs in 1999 to an estimated $61.2 million for 30 programs in 2009. Because charges for most programs are based on the number of staff, three agencies--Forest Service, Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service--were charged about half of all Greenbook charges; while, three E-government programs accounted for about 52 percent of all Greenbook charges. USDA's process for selecting Greenbook programs and monitoring Greenbook charges is not documented. According to OCFO, representatives from five offices and one agency contract out or provide Greenbook programs in-house and handle billing agencies and offices for Greenbook charges. They annually nominate new and continuing Greenbook programs. Senior managers then discuss the proposed programs in light of USDA's overall funding and recommend a list of programs to the Office of the Secretary for approval. However, decisions were not consistently documented to explain what was done and why, and OCFO could locate only half the annual lists of approved programs and funding. Under federal internal control standards, agencies are to have control activities for the accurate and timely recording of transactions and events and appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. USDA's recent initiatives to obtain information for reporting Greenbook charges to Congress are important, but they do not include the documentation required by the federal control standards to help ensure the integrity of OCFO's process for selecting programs and monitoring Greenbook charges. OCFO has not tracked the benefits of Greenbook programs. Under federal control standards, managers are to compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant differences.
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-10-82, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-82
entitled 'U.S. Department of Agriculture: Internal Control Would
Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook)
Programs' which was released on October 21, 2009.
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.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-82],
a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Senate report accompanying the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s
(USDA) fiscal year 2008 appropriations expressed concern that USDA‘s
Greenbook charges”the transfer of funds authority USDA used to charge
the appropriations accounts of its agencies and staff offices for
programs to centrally provide certain services”had grown excessively.
USDA‘s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) oversees Greenbook
charges. The report directed GAO to review these charges and USDA to
report on them. This report identifies the agencies and offices
assessed Greenbook charges, the amounts of the charges, and the
programs supported by Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through
2009. It also (1) assesses how USDA selected programs and monitored
Greenbook charges and (2) describes the benefits of the programs, as
reported by USDA. GAO reviewed and assessed USDA budget and program
documents and discussed processes with officials.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal years 1999 through 2009, all 15 USDA agencies and 12 staff
offices were charged more than $372 million in Greenbook charges”less
than 1/1000 of a percent of USDA‘s funding for the period. Greenbook
charges and programs have increased substantially”from about $5.4
million for 5 programs in 1999 to an estimated $61.2 million for 30
programs in 2009. Because charges for most programs are based on the
number of staff, three agencies”Forest Service, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service”were
charged about half of all Greenbook charges; while, three E-government
programs accounted for about 52 percent of all Greenbook charges.
Figure: Greenbrook Charges in Constant 2009, Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1999;
Dollars in millions: 5.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Dollars in millions: 12.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Dollars in millions: 7.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Dollars in millions: 8.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Dollars in millions: 7.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Dollars in millions: 21.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Dollars in millions: 43.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Dollars in millions: 71.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Dollars in millions: 76.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Dollars in millions: 60.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Dollars in millions: 61.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
Note: Fiscal year 2009 charges are estimated.
[End of figure]
USDA‘s process for selecting Greenbook programs and monitoring
Greenbook charges is not documented. According to OCFO, representatives
from five offices and one agency contract out or provide Greenbook
programs in-house and handle billing agencies and offices for Greenbook
charges. They annually nominate new and continuing Greenbook programs.
Senior managers then discuss the proposed programs in light of USDA‘s
overall funding and recommend a list of programs to the Office of the
Secretary for approval. However, decisions were not consistently
documented to explain what was done and why, and OCFO could locate only
half the annual lists of approved programs and funding. Under federal
internal control standards, agencies are to have control activities for
the accurate and timely recording of transactions and events and
appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. USDA‘s
recent initiatives to obtain information for reporting Greenbook
charges to Congress are important, but they do not include the
documentation required by the federal control standards to help ensure
the integrity of OCFO‘s process for selecting programs and monitoring
Greenbook charges.
OCFO has not tracked the benefits of Greenbook programs. Under federal
control standards, managers are to compare actual program performance
to planned or expected results and analyze significant differences.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that USDA establish and document control activities
for managing Greenbook programs and charges and track the benefits of
Greenbook programs to its agencies and offices. In commenting on a
draft of this report, USDA agreed with the recommendations and said the
report provided valuable insights to help improve management of the
programs.
[End of section]
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2009:
U.S. Department Of Agriculture:
Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally
Provided (Greenbook) Programs:
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
GAO-10-82:
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
All USDA Agencies and Staff Offices Have Been Charged Greenbook
Charges:
USDA's Process for Selecting Greenbook Programs and Monitoring
Greenbook Charges Is Not Documented, and Control Activities Would Help
Ensure Accountability:
OCFO Has Not Tracked the Benefits of Greenbook Programs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Greenbook Programs Introduced Since Fiscal Year 1999:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Appendix IV: Greenbook Charges and Program Funding for Fiscal Years
1999- 2009:
Tables:
Table 1: USDA Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
Table 2: Greenbook Charges to USDA's Agencies and Offices, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2009:
Table 3: Greenbook Charges by Program in Constant 2009 Dollars for
Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
Table 4: Greenbook Charges to USDA Agencies and Offices in Constant
2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Greenbook Charges in Constant 2009 Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009:
Figure 2: The Number of Active Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009:
Figure 3: Share of Total Greenbook Charges by Program, Fiscal Years
1999-2009:
Figure 4: Percentage of Greenbook Charges Billed, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009.
Abbreviations:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
IT: information technology:
OBPA: Office of Budget and Program Analysis:
OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
OCIO: Office of the Chief Information Officer:
OIG: Office of the Inspector General:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 20, 2009:
The Honorable Herb Kohl:
Chairman:
The Honorable Sam Brownback:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Rosa DeLauro:
Chair:
The Honorable Jack Kingston:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Federal agencies receive funding through appropriations that are for a
specific purpose and amount, and need specific statutory authority to
transfer or share resources across appropriations accounts. Many
agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), have
such authority available to them through a working capital fund, which
is a funding mechanism used to finance businesslike activities, such as
purchasing office supplies and telephone and networking services. USDA
also has transfer of funds authority that allows it to charge the
appropriations accounts of its agencies and staff offices in order to
provide certain programs centrally that benefit those agencies and
offices.[Footnote 1] USDA uses these charges, known as "Greenbook"
charges, to support several e-government, educational, and presidential
initiatives and the USDA visitors' information center, and to fund
programs that provide activities and services that USDA's agencies and
staff offices would otherwise have to obtain individually, such as sign
language interpreter services and a drug testing program.
USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has primary
responsibility for Greenbook charges. OCFO officials told us that USDA
used this transfer of funds authority for a period in the 1970s and
1980s but, following a departmental review, the programs were
eliminated or moved to another funding source, such as USDA's working
capital fund. According to the officials, USDA began using Greenbook
charges again in fiscal year 1999, primarily to facilitate the
collection of billing information from USDA agencies and staff offices
at a time when USDA was implementing a new accounting system.
The Senate report accompanying USDA's fiscal year 2008 appropriations,
as reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee,[Footnote 2]
expressed concern that Greenbook charges have grown excessively over
the last few years. Noting that the disclosure of these charges to
Congress has been limited and that the charges may affect the delivery
of agencies' mission-related programs, the Senate report directed that
we review USDA's Greenbook charges. Additionally, the Senate report
directed that USDA report Greenbook charges--including previous and
current fiscal year charges and a description of how the charges are
assessed--in future annual budget justifications.
This report identifies USDA's Greenbook charges, the USDA agencies and
offices that have been assessed Greenbook charges, the amount of the
charges, and the programs supported by Greenbook charges for fiscal
years 1999 through 2009. We also (1) assessed how USDA selected
programs and monitored Greenbook charges and (2) described the benefits
of the programs, as reported by USDA. Appendix I provides a list of
programs supported by Greenbook charges by their common names and with
brief descriptions; and appendix IV provides two tables summarizing (1)
Greenbook charges by program for fiscal years 1999 through 2009 and (2)
total annual Greenbook charges by agencies and staff offices for the
period. In addition, a complete listing of Greenbook charges by program
for the individual USDA agencies and staff offices that were charged
Greenbook charges for the period is provided in an electronic
supplement to this report.[Footnote 3]
For this report, we analyzed USDA Greenbook charges for fiscal years
1999 through 2008 and estimated charges for fiscal year 2009. Unless
stated otherwise, all financial data are expressed in constant 2009
dollars. We use the term "Greenbook programs" throughout the report to
refer to programs funded through Greenbook charges. To identify
Greenbook charges, agencies and offices that were charged Greenbook
charges, the amounts charged, and the programs funded through Greenbook
charges, we analyzed publicly reported budget data and OCFO data. We
obtained perspectives on changes or trends from OCFO and the Office of
Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO), and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). To assess
how USDA selected programs and monitored Greenbook charges, we reviewed
available documentation on justifications for programs and Greenbook
charges; discussed the process used for selecting programs and for
monitoring and ensuring the accuracy of charges with officials in OCFO,
OBPA, OCIO, and OIG; and compared these activities with the federal
standards for internal control.[Footnote 4] To describe benefits of
programs, as reported by USDA, we (1) reviewed documentation, such as
program reports and evaluations; (2) reviewed new program
justifications for program descriptions; the specific benefit, impact,
or result expected; and the rationale for establishing the program and
justifications for funding increases, for information on how additional
funding would be used; and (3) discussed efforts to track and document
program benefits with OCFO officials.
To assess the reliability of Greenbook data, we reviewed audits
performed by USDA's OIG on USDA's consolidated financial statements for
fiscal years 1999 through 2008, the USDA working capital fund, and
Greenbook charges. Over the past 10 years, OIG offered one qualified
opinion, three disclaimers of opinion, and six unqualified opinions.
None of these opinions cited the Greenbook data as a concern. In
addition to reviewing the OIG reports, we performed some quality
testing of the data by comparing the Greenbook data to USDA accounting
records. The results of our tests indicated that there were
discrepancies between some of the Greenbook data and the accounting
records, especially in the earlier years. We contacted USDA officials
about these discrepancies, and they reported that the data provided to
us for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 were actual data obtained from
historical records. Since the Greenbook data were based upon historical
records, we were unable to conclude whether the discrepancies were the
result of inaccuracies in the Greenbook data or the accounting records.
We noted that the discrepancies have diminished over time and that in
the last 5 years, the difference between the accounting and Greenbook
data has been less than 2 percent of the total Greenbook charges. By
the last year of our analysis period, we found no discrepancies between
the two data sources. USDA confirmed that the data for fiscal years
2002 through 2008 were obtained from the current USDA accounting system
and from agency administered records. Consequently, we determined that
the Greenbook data used in this report are sufficiently reliable for
our purposes.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through October
2009 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.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
USDA comprises 15 agencies in seven broad mission areas responsible
for, among other things, assisting farmers and rural communities,
overseeing the safety of meat and poultry, providing access to
nutritious food for low-income families, and protecting the nation's
forests. Twelve staff offices support these mission activities. With a
workforce of about 105,540 employees across the country, USDA is
expected to spend about $116 billion in fiscal year 2009 to carry out
its responsibilities.
USDA uses its working capital fund, which was authorized in
1943,[Footnote 5] to support various services (e.g., purchasing office
supplies and telephone service) for USDA agencies as well as for a
large number of non-USDA entities. For example, USDA is the payroll
agent for about 140 federal agencies; the agencies reimburse USDA for
the cost of those services. Working capital funds are a form of
revolving fund that authorizes an agency to retain receipts and deposit
them into the fund to finance the fund's operations. These funds must
be created by Congress and are generally self-sustaining. Many agencies
use working capital funds. One office will ask to purchase a good or
service through the working capital fund and will provide funds to the
working capital fund to pay for the good or service.
A number of agencies also use the account adjustment statute,[Footnote
6] which provides transfer of funds authority for an agency to charge
one appropriation account for some administrative-type activity that
benefits more than one account within the agency, and then allocate the
costs to the benefiting accounts. Similar to the account adjustment
authority, Congress gave USDA transfer of funds authority in
1965.[Footnote 7] Specifically:
"Subject to limitations applicable with respect to each appropriation
concerned, each appropriation available to the Department of
Agriculture may be charged, at any time during a fiscal year, for the
benefit of any other appropriation available to the Department, for the
purpose of financing the procurement of materials and services, or
financing activities or other costs, for which funds are available both
in the financing appropriation so charged and in the appropriation so
benefited; except that such expenses so financed shall be charged on a
final basis, as of a date not later than the close of such fiscal year,
to the appropriations so benefited, with appropriate credit to the
financing appropriation."
The OCFO, which has primary responsibility for Greenbook programs and
charges, cites this 1965 law as its authority for Greenbook charges.
All USDA Agencies and Staff Offices Have Been Charged Greenbook
Charges:
USDA's 15 agencies and 12 staff offices have been charged more than
$372 million in Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009,
according to OCFO data. While the number of agencies and offices
charged Greenbook charges has remained relatively stable since 1999,
the amount of Greenbook charges and number of Greenbook programs have
increased substantially--from about $5.4 million for 5 programs in 1999
to an estimated $61.2 million for 30 programs in 2009. Greenbook
charges peaked in fiscal year 2007 at $76 million for 30 programs.
Greenbook charges generally followed an upward trend in fiscal years
1999 through 2007, increasing more than 1,000 percent--from $5.4
million to about $76 million--before decreasing by about 20 percent to
$60 million in fiscal year 2008. USDA estimates that charges for fiscal
year 2009 will increase to $61.2 million, or slightly more than the
previous year. Total Greenbook charges accounted for less than 1/1000
of a percent of USDA's annual funding over this period. Figure 1 shows
annual Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
Figure 1: Greenbook Charges in Constant 2009 Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1999;
Dollars in millions: 5.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Dollars in millions: 12.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Dollars in millions: 7.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Dollars in millions: 8.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Dollars in millions: 7.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Dollars in millions: 21.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Dollars in millions: 43.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Dollars in millions: 71.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Dollars in millions: 76.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Dollars in millions: 60.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Dollars in millions: 61.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
Note: Fiscal year 2009 charges are estimated.
[End of figure]
Likewise, the trend in the number of active programs in each fiscal
year since 1999 has been generally upward (see fig. 2). Starting with 5
programs in fiscal year 1999, programs were added and dropped through
fiscal year 2005, when the total number reached 12. That number more
than doubled--to 26 active programs--in fiscal year 2006. The number
increased again--to 30 active programs--in fiscal year 2007 and
remained at 30 in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Figure 2: The Number of Active Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1999;
Dollars in millions: 5.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Dollars in millions: 8.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Dollars in millions: 9.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Dollars in millions: 12.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Dollars in millions: 13.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Dollars in millions: 13.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Dollars in millions: 12.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Dollars in millions: 26.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Dollars in millions: 30.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Dollars in millions: 30.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Dollars in millions: 30.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of figure]
Although no more than 30 programs have been active in any 1 year, USDA
has introduced a total of 39 Greenbook programs since fiscal year 1999.
And once introduced, the majority of programs continued to be funded
year after year. Table 1 shows the fiscal year each of the 39 programs
program was first introduced. As noted in the table, some of the
programs never received funding, some were funded for only 1 or 2
years, some were transferred to the working capital fund, and one was
absorbed into another program. See appendix I for a description of each
of the 39 programs.
Table 1: USDA Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 1999;
Program: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Program: 1890 USDA Initiatives;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Program: Sign Language Interpreter Services;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Program: TARGET Center;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Program: Preauthorized Funding;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Program: Advisory Committee Liaison Services;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Program: Hispanic Advisory Council;
Status: Became part of the Diversity Council in 2001.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Program: Security;
Status: Funding stopped in 2001.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Program: Diversity Council;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Program: American Indian Higher Education Consortium;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Program: USDA Visitor Information Center;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Program: USDA Secretary Honor Awards;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Program: Employee Express;
Status: Funding stopped in 2004.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Program: USDA Drug Testing Program;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Program: Senior Executive Service (SES) Candidate Development Program;
Status: Funding stopped in 2005.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E- Authentication;
Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: USDA Tribal Liaison;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Faith-Based and Community Initiatives;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: American Consumer Satisfaction Index;
Status: Never received funding.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Services;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Emergency Operations Center;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Labor and Employee Relations System;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Continuity of Operations Planning;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Federal Biobased Products Procurement Program;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Personnel and Document Security;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Radiation Safety;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Flexible Spending Accounts;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: Self Service Dashboard Web Applications;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives-Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD)12;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Program: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Program: Financial Management Improvement/ Modernization Initiative;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives-Content Management;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers Ag Learn;
Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services;
Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Program: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance;
Status: Never received funding.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Program: Enterprise Network Messaging;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Program: USDA IT Infrastructure Security;
Status: Active.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Program: E-Gov Enablers-Cyber Security;
Status: Active.
Source: USDA data.
Note: No programs were added in fiscal year 2009.
[End of table]
Three programs have accounted for about 52 percent of total Greenbook
charges: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E-Authentication (18.5
percent), which was transferred to the working capital fund in 2008; E-
Gov Presidential Initiatives (17.2 percent); and E-Gov Presidential
Initiatives HSPD12 (16.2 percent). Nine programs have accounted for
about 75 percent of total Greenbook charges: these three plus the 1890
USDA Initiatives, Preauthorized Funding, Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities, E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise
Services, Enterprise Network Messaging, and TARGET Center. Figure 3
shows the share of fiscal year 1999 through 2009 Greenbook charges
spent on individual programs.
Figure 3: Share of Total Greenbook Charges by Program, Fiscal Years
1999-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie chart]
1890 USDA Initiatives: 5.8%;
Preauthorized funding: 4.5%;
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities: 3.8%;
E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services: 3.1%;
Enterprise network messaging: 3.0%;
TARGET center: 2.8%;
Other programs: 23.2;
Other E-Gov programs: 2.0%;
USDA E-Gov enablers E-Gov initiative E-authentication: 18.5%;
E-Gov Presidential Initiatives: 17.2%;
E-Gov Presidential Initiatives HSPD12: 16.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of figure]
Appendix IV presents annual Greenbook charges by program for fiscal
years 1999 through 2009. The appendix shows, among other things, that
charges for a program may have varied from year to year and that some
programs were not active in certain years.
For most programs, Greenbook charges have been allocated on the basis
of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in the agencies
and staff offices. As a result, the Forest Service, which has had the
largest number of FTEs, has been charged the largest percentage--about
32 percent--of Greenbook charges every fiscal year from 1999 through
2009. The top three agencies in terms of the number of FTEs--the Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Food Safety and
Inspection Service--have together been charged from 42 to 56 percent of
Greenbook charges annually during this period. Table 2 shows the amount
and percentage of Greenbook charges that have been assessed against the
appropriations of each USDA mission-oriented agency and staff office
for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. The Forest Service has been charged
nearly $120 million of the approximately $372 million in total
Greenbook charges for this period.
Table 2: Greenbook Charges to USDA's Agencies and Offices, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2009:
Agencies and offices: Forest Service;
Greenbook charges: $119,695,489;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 32.2%.
Agencies and offices: Farm Service Agency;
Greenbook charges: 40,272,423;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 10.8%.
Agencies and offices: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Greenbook charges: 34,506,025;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 9.3%.
Agencies and offices: Food Safety and Inspection Service;
Greenbook charges: 28,126,579;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.6%.
Agencies and offices: Agricultural Research Service;
Greenbook charges: 26,838,649;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.2%.
Agencies and offices: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service;
Greenbook charges: 26,265,246;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.1%.
Agencies and offices: Rural Development;
Greenbook charges: 23,808,277;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 6.4%.
Agencies and offices: Office of the Chief Information Officer;
Greenbook charges: 21,074,004;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 5.7%.
Agencies and offices: Agricultural Marketing Service;
Greenbook charges: 8,921,305;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 2.4%.
Agencies and offices: Food and Nutrition Service;
Greenbook charges: 7,124,722;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.9%.
Agencies and offices: Foreign Agricultural Service;
Greenbook charges: 6,552,889;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.8%.
Agencies and offices: Office of the Chief Financial Officer;
Greenbook charges: 5,523,535;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.5%.
Agencies and offices: National Agricultural Statistics Service;
Greenbook charges: 4,406,856;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.2%.
Agencies and offices: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration;
Greenbook charges: 3,232,980;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.9%.
Agencies and offices: Office of the Inspector General;
Greenbook charges: 2,740,328;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.7%.
Agencies and offices: Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service;
Greenbook charges: 2,449,178;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.7%.
Agencies and offices: Risk Management Agency;
Greenbook charges: 2,268,463;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.6%.
Agencies and offices: Departmental Administration;
Greenbook charges: 2,206,674;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.6%.
Agencies and offices: Economic Research Service;
Greenbook charges: 1,562,884;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.4%.
Agencies and offices: Office of Chief Economist;
Greenbook charges: 1,485,835;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.4%.
Agencies and offices: Office of General Counsel;
Greenbook charges: 1,200,430;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.3%.
Agencies and offices: Office of Civil Rights;
Greenbook charges: 491,994;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%.
Agencies and offices: Office of Communications;
Greenbook charges: 419,741;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%.
Agencies and offices: National Appeals Division;
Greenbook charges: 377,935;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%.
Agencies and offices: Office of the Secretary;
Greenbook charges: 310,055;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%.
Agencies and offices: Office of Budget and Program Analysis;
Greenbook charges: 269,835;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%.
Agencies and offices: Office of Executive Secretary;
Greenbook charges: 130,962;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.0%.
Agencies and offices: Total;
Greenbook charges: $372,263,295;
Percentage of total Greenbook charges: a.
Source: USDA data.
Note: Charges for fiscal year 2009 are estimated.
[A] Percentage does not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
According to OCFO, the Agricultural Research Service, Departmental
Administration, OCFO, and the offices of the Secretary, the Chief
Information Officer, and Civil Rights serve as sponsors for the
Greenbook programs. They may contract for the services or activities of
the program or use their own staff to provide the services or
activities. As shown in figure 4, the Greenbook programs sponsored in
the Office of the Chief Information Officer have accounted for about 63
percent of all Greenbook charges--about $233 million--for fiscal years
1999 through 2009.
Figure 4: Percentage of Greenbook Charges Billed, Fiscal Years 1999-
2009.
[Refer PDF for image: pie graph]
Office of Civil Rights: 9.0%;
Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 6.7%;
Agricultural Research Service: 3.8;
Office of the Secretary: 0.9%;
Office of the Chief Information Officer: 62.8%;
Departmental Administration: 16.8%.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of figure]
For additional details on Greenbook charges, see appendixes IV and the
e-supplement.[Footnote 8] Appendix IV provides total annual Greenbook
charges by the agencies and staff offices for fiscal years 1999 through
2009. The e-supplement contains separate tables for each of USDA's 15
mission-related agencies and 12 staff offices, showing annual Greenbook
charges for the individual programs in which they participated, for
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
USDA's Process for Selecting Greenbook Programs and Monitoring
Greenbook Charges Is Not Documented, and Control Activities Would Help
Ensure Accountability:
USDA's process for selecting Greenbook programs and monitoring
Greenbook charges is not documented. According to OCFO officials, as
noted above, representatives from the Agricultural Research Service,
Departmental Administration, OCFO, and the offices of the Secretary,
the Chief Information Officer, and Civil Rights have served as contact
points for the individual Greenbook programs and charges. These
representatives:
* identify and nominate new programs, and their funding levels, cost
allocation methods, and the agencies and staff offices that should
participate, for consideration for Greenbook funding for the next
fiscal year;
* identify the active programs that should be continued, and any
adjustments needed to funding level, cost allocation method, or
participants;
* contract for services or provide staff for the active programs; and:
* handle the billing of Greenbook charges to the agencies and staff
offices that participate in the programs.
A group composed of senior managers, representing the undersecretaries
and assistant secretaries from the department's seven mission areas and
its larger staff offices, and chaired by the CFO, meets at least
annually to consider the nominations for new Greenbook programs and the
proposals for changes in active programs. According to OCFO officials,
this group of senior managers discusses and considers the proposals in
the context of USDA's overall funding picture to develop a
recommendation for Greenbook programs to fund for the next fiscal year.
This recommendation, which includes proposed levels of funding, cost
allocation methods, and the agency and staff office participants, goes
to the Office of the Secretary for approval. Then, officials in the
Office of the Secretary review, and may further revise, the
recommendation from the senior managers and give it to the Secretary or
his/her designee, for final approval. The final approved lists of
programs and funding details are sent out to USDA's agencies and staff
offices in a memo from the Office of the Secretary.
According to OCFO, this process has been in place since the beginning
of fiscal year 2006. Prior to that time, OCFO did not have a process
for approving new Greenbook programs or requests for increases in
funding for existing programs. Those decisions were made by the Deputy
Secretary; the group of senior managers was not involved.
Even with the current process in place, however, decisions about
Greenbook programs and charges have not been consistently documented to
explain what was done and why. Under the federal internal control
standards, agencies are to employ control activities, such as accurate
and timely recording of transactions and events and the appropriate
documentation of transactions and internal control. Without such
control activities, agencies do not have the necessary framework to
provide reasonable assurance that they are operating effectively and
efficiently and that program results will be achieved. Examples of
control activities relevant to USDA's Greenbook processes include the
following:
* Accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. OCFO has
not documented the events involved in selecting programs and monitoring
Greenbook charges and funding levels. Because the events were not
documented, OCFO officials could not tell us how representatives and
senior managers identified programs that should continue and nominated
new programs. In addition, OCFO could not find all memos from the
Office of the Secretary documenting the final approved Greenbook
programs and funding levels for each fiscal year. In fact, about half
of the memos were missing for the 11-year period reviewed. Also, OCFO
has not maintained documentation on the mid-year funding adjustments to
Greenbook charges issued when, for example, USDA was operating under a
continuing budget resolution. Such documentation would help OCFO ensure
that the programs and charges for the year were consistent with what
had been approved.
* Appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. OCFO
does not specify the controlling operations on Greenbook charges and
programs in management directives, administrative policies, or
operating manuals. Such directives, with criteria to consider in
nominating and recommending Greenbook programs and monitoring Greenbook
charges, would help inform decisions and help OCFO ensure it has
documentation on decisions that are reached on Greenbook programs and
charges. In contrast, OCFO has a management directive for the working
capital fund that includes internal control activities to help ensure
accountability in identifying and monitoring programs supported through
the fund that could serve as a model.
OCFO officials told us they have relied on their undocumented process
and professional accounting and financial standards to manage Greenbook
programs and charges. However, under federal standards, control
activities need to be an integral part of any program planning,
implementing, and reviewing endeavor. USDA's OIG recently reported that
USDA agencies have a history of reacting to individual control issues
rather than addressing the overall weaknesses of their internal control
systems. Noting that internal control weaknesses continued to impair
the utility of USDA's financial information, the OIG reported that the
department needed to improve internal controls over financial
management systems and processes to ensure that accurate financial data
were available to managers administering and operating USDA
programs.[Footnote 9] When we met with OCFO officials in May 2009 to
discuss our preliminary findings, they told us that in the current
budget climate they need to take every measure to reduce costs, and
that controls such as written policies and procedures for selecting
programs and overseeing Greenbook charges would probably help ensure,
among other things, that unspent Greenbook charges are returned to
participating agencies and staff offices or to the U.S. Treasury.
OCFO has implemented initiatives to develop the data it will need to
report Greenbook charges in future annual budget justifications, as
Congress directed in 2007. Specifically:
* OCFO has developed an Excel spreadsheet to collect information on new
programs, such as the programs' cost allocation methods and proposed
staffing, and budget justifications for funding increases. However, our
review of the information submitted on new and continuing programs for
fiscal year 2007 and later found that the information was not filled in
consistently or completely. The data OCFO required included
justifications for programs added in 2007. No new program
justifications were provided for 2008 and no programs added for 2009.
* OCFO has issued guidelines for collecting information for fiscal
years 2008 and 2009 on hardware and software costs in all USDA's
information technology (IT) programs, including in Greenbook programs.
According to OCFO officials, USDA is to use this information to create
a snapshot of IT-related investments department-wide.
OCFO also started an internal Web site in 2004 where USDA agencies and
staff offices can view their estimated Greenbook charges and enter
information on the Greenbook programs.
While these initiatives are important, they do not include the
documentation required by the federal internal control standards to
help ensure the integrity of OCFO's process for selecting programs and
monitoring Greenbook charges.
OCFO Has Not Tracked the Benefits of Greenbook Programs:
According to OCFO officials, USDA has not tracked program benefits to
be sure the Greenbook programs continue to benefit participating
agencies and staff offices and do so at appropriate costs. OCFO has not
established program evaluation metrics for Greenbook programs, such as
the extent to which agencies and staff offices would use the programs
and the benefits they should expect to gain. It also has no information
on planned program benefits and comparisons with alternative programs,
whether prior programs have achieved desired results, and whether a
Greenbook program would replace an existing comparable program within
an agency or staff office.
Under the federal standards for internal control, managers are to
compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and
analyze significant differences. Such assessments help managers
identify problems in a program's design and delivery and make timely
decisions to correct or replace the program. Information on such
assessments would allow OCFO to determine whether a Greenbook program
was operating as intended--that is, that it efficiently and effectively
achieved planned or expected results--or that it was not doing so.
OCFO officials told us that periodic program assessments to ensure
programs continue to provide benefits at an appropriate cost would be
worthwhile, but they did not indicate whether they planned to track
these assessments. Tracking program benefits would help ensure
accountability for Greenbook programs and funding and could facilitate
USDA-wide Greenbook funding decisions among worthy programs.
In the September 30, 2009, Conference Report accompanying USDA's fiscal
year 2010 appropriations, Senate and House Appropriations Committee
conferees reiterated their concern about USDA's handling of Greenbook
charges and programs.[Footnote 10] This concern focused on both the
level of spending for Greenbook programs and the lack of transparency
in funding Greenbook activities. The conferees noted their expectation
that USDA will comply with any recommendations we make and implement
them in a timely manner. The conferees directed USDA to provide a
report to the Committees on the steps being taken to implement our
recommendations and the actions to increase transparency into the
funding and decision-making mechanisms associated with the Greenbook
process. USDA's report is to also highlight steps being taken to
evaluate the performance of ongoing Greenbook activities to determine
the benefit to the Department of continuing such activities, and
include a discussion of returning assessments to levels consistent with
fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
Conclusions:
The numbers of Greenbook programs and the charges have increased over
the last 11 years. Yet, OCFO does not have control activities for
managing these programs and charges, including appropriate
documentation of transactions and internal control and the accurate and
timely recording of transactions and events. Nor does OCFO track the
benefits of the programs to determine whether they are operating as
intended. Documentation for Greenbook programs would help OCFO oversee
the effective and efficient use of Greenbook charges and the benefits
of Greenbook programs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure accountability in selecting programs, overseeing
Greenbook charges, and achieving program benefits, we are recommending
that the Secretary of Agriculture direct OCFO to take the following two
actions:
* establish and document control activities for managing Greenbook
programs and charges, and:
* track the benefits of Greenbook programs to the agencies and staff
offices that are charged Greenbook charges.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. In
written comments from the Chief Financial Officer, USDA stated that our
report provided valuable insights and recommendations to help USDA
improve management of its Greenbook programs.
USDA also agreed with our recommendations. With respect to our
recommendation to establish and document control activities for
managing Greenbook programs and charges, USDA stated that, for the sake
of transparency, a documented decision process would be beneficial.
USDA commented that it will develop guidelines for the decision-making
process related to funding Greenbook programs and document the
decisions that are made. USDA further commented that it has already
taken steps to document and provide a more formal process for the
annual budget review.
Regarding our recommendation to track the benefits of Greenbook
programs to the agencies and staff offices that are charged Greenbook
charges, USDA acknowledged that its most recent efforts fell short but
it will continue its efforts. USDA issued formal budget requirements
for fiscal year 2011--with budget guidance that provided specific
requirements for performance measures and analysis of the benefits of
Greenbook activities. Based on the budget submissions, USDA stated that
this was an area that will need to be developed more fully to measure
the value of individual Greenbook programs. USDA also stated that it
plans to issue guidelines for making decisions related to adding or
removing programs from Greenbook that will strengthen oversight of
those activities and require that decisions made during the budget
process are documented.
USDA's written comments appear in appendix II. USDA also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture
and other interested parties. 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
Office of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may now be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Lisa Shames Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Greenbook Programs Introduced Since Fiscal Year 1999:
Short program title: 1890 USDA Initiatives (1890 Programs);
Program description: Attracts students to careers in agriculture and
related fields, including food and agricultural sciences and, among
other things, increases the involvement of the eighteen 1890 Land Grant
Universities in the delivery of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
programs.
Short program title: Advisory Committee Liaison Services;
Program description: Provides guidance and direction to USDA agencies
on advisory committees and boards.
Short program title: American Consumer Satisfaction Index;
Program description: Supports rating USDA's Web site home page, to meet
an Office of Management and Budget requirement to measure and report
customer satisfaction.
Short program title: American Indian Higher Education Consortium (1994
Program);
Program description: Promotes, fosters, and encourages the
implementation of programs for improving postsecondary and higher
education opportunities for American Indians, and establishes
information centers for those education institutions.
Short program title: Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP);
Program description: Ensures that USDA has in place a comprehensive and
effective program to ensure the survival of the constitutional form of
government and continuity of essential federal functions under all
circumstances and provides for USDA COOP activities, including
awareness training, exercises, and COOP plan reviews.
Short program title: Diversity Council;
Program description: Enhances the recruitment and retention of a
diverse workforce in USDA through a broad range of program forums
designed to, among other things, discuss and resolve barriers,
implement mandatory diversity training, and support groups that provide
the Secretary ongoing advice on matters affecting their communities.
Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiative HSPD12;
Program description: Supports the implementation of the Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12--the Common Identification Standard
for Federal Employees and Contractors to create a common standard form
of identification and facilitate issuance to USDA employees and
contractors.
Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives;
Program description: Assists with improving information technology (IT)
planning by expanding electronic government to deliver significant
productivity and performance gains across all federal departments. USDA
participates in 30 Presidential Initiatives and Lines of Business.
Short program title: E-Gov USDA Enablers - Ag Learn;
Program description: Provides a centralized infrastructure for
deploying enterprise-wide and agency-specific courses, and enables
employees and supervisors to manage learning functions (e.g.,
registration, course delivery, and skills assessment). Moved to the
working capital fund in 2008.
Short program title: E-Gov USDA Enablers - Cyber Security;
Program description: Administers Cyber Security Assessment and
Management, a comprehensive compliance tool to enable federal agencies
to identify threats and vulnerabilities through use of the embedded
National Institute for Standards and Technology control requirements
for IT systems, and supports the President's Management Agenda by,
among other things, providing better risk management tools.
Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Content
Management;
Program description: Supports the conversion to Enterprise Content
Management from USDA's legacy correspondence management application
(Staff Action), to facilitate the sharing of documents and access to
information.
Short program title: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program
(ECPP);
Program description: Enhances the department's critical infrastructure
recovery and reconstitution capabilities through the development,
maintenance, and use of contingency plans for all USDA critical
infrastructure; combines the Contingency Planning Suite software,
processes, and USDA staff to meet contingency planning required in
legislative and executive mandates.
Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Enterprise
Services;
Program description: Provides a suite of technology tools and
accompanying business processes that enable USDA to achieve its goals
and objectives for leveraging its e-Government investments and
delivering government services in a more citizen-center manner. Moved
to the working capital fund in 2008.
Short program title: Emergency Operations Center;
Program description: Provides a highly trained and secure emergency
operations capability on a 24/7 basis. Center provides critical
communications and coordination systems.
Short program title: Employee Express;
Program description: Allows USDA employees to use the system to make
changes in their federal health benefit plan and thrift savings plan
enrollments.
Short program title: Enterprise Network Messaging;
Program description: Provides a transport mechanism to provide
information or data to end users.
Short program title: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance;
Program description: Implements a single, standard enterprise-wide time
and attendance system that will offer cost savings, resource
reductions, training, and helpdesk support.
Short program title: Faith-Based and Community Initiatives;
Program description: Provides departmental oversight of the USDA
efforts in this area and supports the White House Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives regional outreach conferences.
Short program title: Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement
Program;
Program description: Supports the completion of a model procurement
plan, the development of a unified bio-based Web site, and the
establishment of a bio-based research center to provide information
resources to public and federal agencies.
Short program title: Financial Management Improvement / Modernization
Initiative;
Program description: Supports beginning procurement for a new Core
Financial Management System through the Financial Management
Modernization Initiative.
Short program title: Flexible Spending Accounts;
Program description: Administers the Federal Flexible Benefits Plan.
Short program title: Hispanic Advisory Council;
Program description: Provides leadership on Hispanic issues. Became
part of the Diversity Council in 2001.
Short program title: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities;
Program description: Fosters educational excellence in the Hispanic
community and promotes Hispanic participation in fulfilling the USDA
mission through recruitment and educational efforts.
Short program title: Labor and Employee Relations System;
Program description: Supports the department-wide Web-based Labor and
Employee Relations Case Tracking and Reporting System. (The system is
scheduled to be absorbed into the EmpowHR system.)
Short program title: Personnel and Document Security;
Program description: Ensures the proper protection of classified
national security information.
Short program title: Preauthorized Funding;
Program description: Provides a funding mechanism for reimbursable
activities that cost less than $100,000.
Short program title: Radiation Safety;
Program description: Implements a comprehensive radiation safety and
radiological emergency response coordination program that ensures the
safe use of radioactive materials in departmental programs.
Short program title: Security;
Program description: Provides protective operations and guard services
for the physical security of the headquarters building and owned and
leased facilities.
Short program title: Self Service Dashboard Web Application;
Program description: Serves as an e-authenticated single sign-on portal
for several USDA human resource systems that enables employees to
calculate several retirement scenarios.
Short program title: Senior Executive Service Candidate Development
Program;
Program description: Prepares future executives to assume key positions
in targeted occupational areas.
Short program title: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific
Services;
Program description: Provides sign language interpreting services upon
agency request, and the costs are paid by the agency.
Short program title: Sign Language Interpreter Services;
Program description: Provides sign language interpretive services to
facilitate communications between USDA employees who are deaf or hard
of hearing and their hearing co-workers.
Short program title: TARGET (Technology Accessible Resources Gives
Employment Today) Center;
Program description: Provides information to ensure equal access to
electronic technologies and automated systems essential to today's jobs
for people with visual, hearing, speech, mobility, or dexterity
impairments in support of USDA's workforce diversity and Federal
Workforce 2001 policies.
Short program title: USDA Drug Testing Program;
Program description: Helps ensure a drug-free work place through random
testing, testing with reasonable suspicion and after an accident, and
testing for volunteers and job applicants.
Short program title: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E-
Authentication;
Program description: Provides single sign-on capability for access to
Web applications, management of user credentials, and verification of
identity for employees and customers. Moved to the working capital fund
in 2008.
Short program title: USDA IT Infrastructure Security;
Program description: Provides security tools to monitor and detect and
report information in agency systems, to monitor changes in network
security baseline configurations, and to reverse changes if needed.
Short program title: USDA Secretary Honor Awards;
Program description: Recognizes significant accomplishments of USDA
employees at all grade levels as well as private citizens for their
support of the USDA mission through the department's highest honor
awards program.
Short program title: USDA Tribal Liaison Services;
Program description: Provides for travel for the national program
director, support for an intern or other personnel, and other services
and related programs.
Short program title: USDA Visitor Information Center;
Program description: Presents information on USDA programs and
initiatives and provides program-related literature when requested via
the mail.
[End of table]
Source: USDA data.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
October 15, 2009:
Ms. Lisa Shames: D
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C.
20250 441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Shames:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-09-914, "Internal Control
Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook)
Programs." The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) generally
agrees with GAO's findings and recommendations in the draft report.
This report identifies the agencies and staff offices assessed
"Greenbook" charges for reimbursable programs at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). GAO reviewed the amount of the charges and the
reimbursable programs supported by "Greenbook" charges for Fiscal Years
(FY) 1999 through 2009. However, for most reimbursable programs,
charges are allocated based on the number of full-time equivalent
employees in the USDA agencies or staff offices.
GAO recommended that USDA establish and document control activities for
managing reimbursable program charges. It added that the Department
should track the benefits from these programs.
The Department agrees that for the sake of transparency, a documented
decision process would be beneficial. The Department will develop
guidelines for the decision-making process related to the funding of
"Greenbook" reimbursable activities. It will document the decisions
that are made.
The Department has already taken steps to document and provide a more
formal process for the annual budget review. USDA has issued formal
budget requirements for the FY 2011 budget. The FY 2011 budget guidance
provided specific requirements for performance measures and analysis of
the benefits of "Greenbook" activities. Based on the budget
submissions, this is an area that will need to be developed more fully
to measure the value of the individual activities to USDA.
This year, an interagency review board, consisting of representatives
appointed by the seven USDA mission area Under Secretaries, chaired by
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, was established to
review the FY 2011 budgets for the "Greenbook" reimbursable activities.
The Board held a series of budget review meetings. Reimbursable program
managers presented their budget and responded to questions from the
Board members. The Board has completed its review and will submit its
recommendations via the Chief Financial Officer to the Assistant
Secretary for Administration for use in making final funding decisions.
The Department plans to continue building on the progress that has been
made this year in developing the "Greenbook" budgets. While working
with its agencies, USDA will issue guidelines for decision-making
related to activities that are added to or removed from the
"Greenbook." These guidelines will strengthen the oversight of the
activities and will require that decisions made during the budget
process are documented.
We appreciate GAO's time and efforts during this audit to provide
valuable insights and recommendations to help USDA improve management
of its reimbursable programs.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 720-5539,
or have a member of your staff contact Kathy Donaldson, ()CFO Audit
Liaison Officer at, (202) 720-1893.
Sincerely.
Signed by:
Evan J. Seagal:
Chief Financial Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Erin Lansburgh (Assistant
Director), Les Mahagan, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key
contributions to this report.
Other team members, including Aldoria (Camille) Adebayo, Karen Burke,
Robert Lunsford, and Ellery Scott, made important contributions to
producing this report and the accompanying electronic supplement.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Greenbook Charges and Program Funding for Fiscal Years
1999-2009:
This appendix contains two summary tables. The first, table 3, has
Greenbook charges to USDA's agencies and staff offices for fiscal years
1999 through 2009. The second, table 4, has annual Greenbook charges by
program for the period. The amounts shown for fiscal years 1999 through
2008 are actual, while those for fiscal year 2009 are estimates. All
amounts are expressed in constant 2009 dollars.
Table 3: Greenbook Charges by Program in Constant 2009 Dollars for
Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
Program: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1,041,857;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1,102,530;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1,068,512;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1,084,298;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1,086,509;
Fiscal year: 2004: $1,093,782;
Fiscal year: 2005: $1,670,825;
Fiscal year: 2006: $1,611,673;
Fiscal year: 2007: $1,574,489;
Fiscal year: 2008: $1,449,217;
Fiscal year: 2009: $1,442,000;
Fiscal year: Total: $14,225,692.
Program: 1890 USDA Initiatives;
Fiscal year: 1999: 2,708,827;
Fiscal year: 2000: 2,250,615;
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,104,783;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2,214,378;
Fiscal year: 2003: 389,944;
Fiscal year: 2004: 610,252;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,384,720;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,204,260;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,992,434;
Fiscal year: 2008: 2,412,195;
Fiscal year: 2009: 2,425,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 21,697,407.
Program: Sign Language Interpreter Services;
Fiscal year: 1999: 285,208;
Fiscal year: 2000: 164,048;
Fiscal year: 2001: 158,932;
Fiscal year: 2002: 161,440;
Fiscal year: 2003: 138,078;
Fiscal year: 2004: 164,088;
Fiscal year: 2005: 162,627;
Fiscal year: 2006: 193,696;
Fiscal year: 2007: 230,614;
Fiscal year: 2008: 225,948;
Fiscal year: 2009: 231,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 2,115,680.
Program: TARGET Center;
Fiscal year: 1999: 744,927;
Fiscal year: 2000: 721,812;
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,040,393;
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,056,588;
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,058,257;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,021,454;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,030,352;
Fiscal year: 2006: 928,264;
Fiscal year: 2007: 969,614;
Fiscal year: 2008: 917,914;
Fiscal year: 2009: 927,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 10,416,577.
Program: Preauthorized funding;
Fiscal year: 1999: 651,160;
Fiscal year: 2000: 757,146;
Fiscal year: 2001: 611,277;
Fiscal year: 2002: 240,262;
Fiscal year: 2003: 644,960;
Fiscal year: 2004: 567,813;
Fiscal year: 2005: 818,163;
Fiscal year: 2006: 584,821;
Fiscal year: 2007: 6,436,207;
Fiscal year: 2008: 2,867,405;
Fiscal year: 2009: 2,600,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 16,779,213.
Program: Advisory Committee Liaison Services;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 201,905;
Fiscal year: 2001: 146,706;
Fiscal year: 2002: 214,450;
Fiscal year: 2003: 88,016;
Fiscal year: 2004: 201,955;
Fiscal year: 2005: 214,337;
Fiscal year: 2006: 200,000;
Fiscal year: 2007: 202,584;
Fiscal year: 2008: 190,395;
Fiscal year: 2009: 199,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 1,859,349.
Program: Hispanic Advisory Council;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 474,459;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 474,459.
Program: Security;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 6,753,738;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 6,753,738.
Program: Diversity Council;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001:1,057,509;
Fiscal year: 2002:1,737,287;
Fiscal year: 2003:1,586,206;
Fiscal year: 2004:1,541,337;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,155,578;
Fiscal year: 2006: 439,125;
Fiscal year: 2007: 521,924;
Fiscal year: 2008: 480,051;
Fiscal year: 2009: 513,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 9,032,017.
Program: American Indian Higher Education Consortium;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 133,096;
Fiscal year: 2002: 160,235;
Fiscal year: 2003: 161,269;
Fiscal year: 2004: 163,320;
Fiscal year: 2005: 161,513;
Fiscal year: 2006: 158,007;
Fiscal year: 2007: 384,790;
Fiscal year: 2008: 420,107;
Fiscal year: 2009: 580,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 2,322,338.
Program: Visitors Center;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 424,226;
Fiscal year: 2002: 430,105;
Fiscal year: 2003: 415,115;
Fiscal year: 2004: 239,020;
Fiscal year: 2005: 170,585;
Fiscal year: 2006: 118,428;
Fiscal year: 2007: 254,789;
Fiscal year: 2008: 188,963;
Fiscal year: 2009: 268,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 2,509,230.
Program: Honor Awards;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 154,211;
Fiscal year: 2003: 129,218;
Fiscal year: 2004: 153,074;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2005: 47,024;
Fiscal year: 2007: 83,868;
Fiscal year: 2008: 75,528;
Fiscal year: 2009: 80,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 722,923.
Program: Employee Express;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 451,791;
Fiscal year: 2003: 470,860;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 922,651.
Program: Drug Testing Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 163,849;
Fiscal year: 2003: 176,820;
Fiscal year: 2004: 194,597;
Fiscal year: 2005: 138,951;
Fiscal year: 2006: 127,682;
Fiscal year: 2007: 82,209;
Fiscal year: 2008: 85,042;
Fiscal year: 2009: 100,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 1,069,150.
Program: Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 631,990;
Fiscal year: 2004: 177,728;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 809,718.
Program: E-GOV Presidential Initiatives;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 10,550,375;
Fiscal year: 2005: 9,551,095;
Fiscal year: 2006: 11,479,280;
Fiscal year: 2007: 9,446,934;
Fiscal year: 2008: 11,733,253;
Fiscal year: 2009: 11,185,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 63,945,937.
Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E-Authentication;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Fiscal year: 20030;
Fiscal year: 2004: 4,800,123;
Fiscal year: 2005: 25,423,013;
Fiscal year: 2006: 27,055,647;
Fiscal year: 2007: 11,546,253;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 68,825,036.
Program: USDA Tribal Liaison;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 75,322;
Fiscal year: 2007: 55,537;
Fiscal year: 2008: 67,833;
Fiscal year: 2009: 69,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 267,692.
Program: Faith-Based Initiatives;
Fiscal year: 1990;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 245,717;
Fiscal year: 2007: 252,324;
Fiscal year: 2008: 357,820;
Fiscal year: 2009: 400,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 1,255,861.
Program: American Consumer Satisfaction Index;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.
Program: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Services;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Fiscal year: 2003;
Fiscal year: 2004;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 562,607;
Fiscal year: 2007: 614,650;
Fiscal year: 2008: 637,130;
Fiscal year: 2009: 505,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 2,319,387.
Program: Emergency Operations Center;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,981,120;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,985,987;
Fiscal year: 2008: 2,206,007;
Fiscal year: 2009: 2,205,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 8,378,114.
Program: Labor and Employee Relations Case Tracking and Reporting
System;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 80,480;
Fiscal year: 2007: 73,362;
Fiscal year: 2008: 20,080;
Fiscal year: 2009: 72,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 245,922.
Program: Continuity of Operations Planning;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,061,689;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,684,612;
Fiscal year: 2008: 1,539,131;
Fiscal year: 2009: 1,820,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 6,105,432.
Program: Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 414,729;
Fiscal year: 2007: 357,200;
Fiscal year: 2008: 350,053;
Fiscal year: 2009: 350,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 1,471,982.
Program: Personnel and Document Security;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,141,013;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,641,658;
Fiscal year: 2008: 1,648,706;
Fiscal year: 2009: 1,648,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 6,079,376.
Program: Radiation Safety;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 953,220;
Fiscal year: 2007: 944,693;
Fiscal year: 2008: 931,640;
Fiscal year: 2009: 927,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 3,756,553.
Program: Flexible Spending Accounts FSAFEDS;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,554,359;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,611,788;
Fiscal year: 2008: 2,075,399;
Fiscal year: 2009: 2,065,065;
Fiscal year: Total: 7,306,611.
Program: Self Service Dashboard and Retirement Processor Web
Application;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Fiscal year: 2003;
Fiscal year: 2004;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 368,061;
Fiscal year: 2007: 343,202;
Fiscal year: 2008: 339,686;
Fiscal year: 2009: 338,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 1,388,948.
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives HSPD12;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 15,905,227;
Fiscal year: 2007: 16,634,085;
Fiscal year: 2008: 14,877,243;
Fiscal year: 2009: 12,783,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 60,199,554.
Program: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,242,733;
Fiscal year: 2007: 884,756;
Fiscal year: 2008: 878,806;
Fiscal year: 2009: 880,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 3,886,295.
Program: Financial Management Improvement Initiative;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,309,187;
Fiscal year: 2008: 1,980,680;
Fiscal year: 2009: 5,000,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 8,289,866.
Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Content Management;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,333,067;
Fiscal year: 2008: 1,316,556;
Fiscal year: 2009: 1,500,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 4,149,624.
Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers Ag Learn;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 991,127;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 991,127.
Program: E-GOV Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 11,546,253;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 11,546,253.
Program: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 0;
Fiscal year: 2009: 0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.
Program: Enterprise Network Messaging;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 5,508,427;
Fiscal year: 2009: 5,500,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 11,008,427.
Program: USDA IT Infrastructure Security;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 3,015,015;
Fiscal year: 2009: 3,000,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 6,015,015.
Program: E-Gov Enablers-Cyber Security;
Fiscal year: 1999: 0;
Fiscal year: 2000: 0;
Fiscal year: 2001: 0;
Fiscal year: 2002: 0;
Fiscal year: 2003: 0;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0;
Fiscal year: 2007: 0;
Fiscal year: 2008: 1,527,137;
Fiscal year: 2009: 1,593,000;
Fiscal year: Total: 3,120,137.
Program: Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $5,431,980;
Fiscal year: 2000: $12,426,254;
Fiscal year: 2001: $6,745,434;
Fiscal year: 2002: $8,068,894;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6,977,241;
Fiscal year: 2004: $21,478,918;
Fiscal year: 2005: $42,881,759;
Fiscal year: 2006: $70,734,184;
Fiscal year: 2007: $75,990,201;
Fiscal year: 2008: $60,323,365;
Fiscal year: 2009: $61,205,065;
Fiscal year: Total: $372,263,295.
Source: GAO's analysis of USDA budget data.
[End of table]
Table 4: Greenbook Charges to USDA Agencies and Offices in Constant
2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for table]
Source: GAO's analysis of USDA budget data.
[End of table]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 89-106, § 8, 79 Stat. 431, 432 (1965) (codified at 7
U.S.C. § 2263).
[2] S. Rep. No. 110-134, at 7 (2007).
[3] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Charges to Agencies and
Offices for Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs for Fiscal Years
1999 through 2009, [[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
10-83SP] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2009).
[4] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
[5] 7 U.S.C. § 2235.
[6] 31 U.S.C. § 1534.
[7] Pub. L. No. 89-106 § 8, 79 Stat. 431,432 (1965) (codified at 7.
U.S.C. § 2263).
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-83SP].
[9] USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General:
Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2008).
[10] H.R. Rep. No. 111-279, at 53 (2009).
[End of section]
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
