This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-96 
entitled 'Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 
Agriculture' which was released on January 01, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Performance and Accountability Series:



January 2003:



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:



Department of Agriculture:



GAO-03-96:



A Glance at the Agency Covered in This Report:



The U.S. Department of Agriculture is one of the federal government’s 

largest entities. The department’s overall mission is complex, covering 

a wide range of areas including;



* enhancing the quality of life for the American people by directly 

supporting the agricultural sector;



* ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply;



* caring for agricultural land, forests, and rangelands;



* supporting sound development of rural communities;



* providing economic opportunities for farm and rural residents;



* expanding global markets for U.S. agricultural and forest products 

and services; and



* working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.



Figure: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Budgetary and Staff 

Resources:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



This Series:



This report is part of a special GAO series, first issued in 1999 and 

updated in 2001, entitled the Performance and Accountability Series: 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks. The 2003 Performance 

and Accountability Series contains separate reports covering each 
cabinet 

department, most major independent agencies, and the U.S. Postal 
Service. 

The series also includes a governmentwide perspective on what is needed 

to transform the way the government does business to meet 21st century 

challenges and long-term fiscal needs. The companion 2003 High-Risk 

Update identifies areas at high risk due to either their greater 

vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or major 

challenges associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness.



GAO Highlights: 



Highlights of GAO-03-96, a report to Congress included as part of 

GAO’s Performance and Accountability Series:



January 2003:



Performance and Accountability Series:



Department of Agriculture:



Why GAO Did This Report:



In its 2001 performance and accountability report on the U.S. 
Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), GAO identified important security, 
modernization, 

food safety, food assistance, and other issues facing the department. 

The information GAO presents in this report is intended to help to 
sustain 

congressional attention and a departmental focus on continuing to make 

progress in addressing these challenges and ultimately overcoming them. 

This report is part of a special series of reports on governmentwide 
and 

agency-specific issues.



What GAO Found:



USDA has taken steps to address some of the specific performance and 

management challenges that GAO previously identified.  However, a 
variety 

of challenges continue, including a significant expansion of the one 

involving security.



* Ensuring adequate security. USDA has taken actions when security 

problems are brought to its attention. However, it needs to be 
proactive 

in identifying and correcting an expanding array of weaknesses, such as 

a recently identified one involving biological agents at its 
laboratories 

as well as in correcting a long-standing one involving information 
security.



* Improving the delivery of services to farmers. USDA is progressing 
with 

its field office modernization effort to improve efficiency and 
customer 

service. However, it needs to complete this task on a number of fronts, 

including the automation of its application processes and the 
integration 

of field operations across its various agencies.



* Enhancing the safety of the nation’s food supply. USDA and other 
federal 

agencies responsible for food safety have implemented an inspection 
program 

intended to enhance food safety. However, because of the millions of 
instances 

of foodborne illnesses and 5,000 related deaths that occur annually, we 
believe 

the responsibilities of USDA and other agencies for ensuring the safety 
of the 

nation’s food supply need to be brought together in a single food 
safety agency.



* Providing food assistance and improving program integrity. USDA has 
actions 

underway to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in its food assistance 
programs. 

However, it needs to reduce further the errors that occur in these 
programs, 

which, among other things, lead to significant overpayments and 
underpayments 

to benefit recipients.



* Enhancing financial management. USDA has achieved an unqualified 
opinion 

on its financial statements for the first time in 9 years.  However, 
more 

needs to be done, especially in the Forest Service, which continues to 
be 

“high risk” due to serious financial and accounting weaknesses.



* Improving performance accountability at the Forest Service. The 
Forest 

Service has initiated or planned actions to address how it accounts for 
and 

reports on its operations, accomplishments, and expenditures. However, 
the 

agency has a continuing need to make significant improvements in its 

performance accountability.



* Resolving discrimination complaints. USDA has made modest progress in 

processing discrimination complaints.  However, it has a continuing 
need to 

resolve complaints in a more timely manner.



What Remains to Be Done:



GAO believes that USDA should;



* conduct reviews of its infrastructure, equipment, and programs to 
identify 

and correct security weaknesses and



* continue to work on completing its modernization and on other 
challenges 

involving food assistance, financial management, the performance and 

accountability of the Forest Service, and the resolution of 
discrimination 

complaints.



GAO also believes food safety should be regulated by a single federal 
agency.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-96.



To view the full report, click on the link above.



For more information, contact Robert A. Robinson at 202-512-3841 or at 

robinsonr@gao.gov.



Contents:



Transmittal Letter:



Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:



GAO Contacts:



Related GAO Products:



Performance and Accountability and 

High-Risk Series:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to 

copyright protection in the United States. It may be 

reproduced and distributed  in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, 

images or other materials. Permission from the copyright 

holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.



Transmittal Letter:



January 2003:



The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives:



This report addresses the major management challenges and program risks 

facing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as it works to carry 

out its multiple and highly diverse missions. The report discusses the 

actions that USDA has taken and that are under way to address the 

challenges GAO identified in its Performance and Accountability Series 

2 years ago and major events that have occurred that significantly 

influence the environment in which the department carries out its 

mission. Also, GAO summarizes the challenges that remain and further 

actions that GAO believes are needed.



This analysis should help the new Congress and the administration carry 

out their responsibilities and improve government for the benefit of 

the American people. For additional information about this report, 

please contact Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment, at (202) 512-3841 or at robinsonr@gao.gov.



David M. Walker

Comptroller General

of the United States:



Signed by David M. Walker:



[End of section]



Major Performance and Accountability Challenges:



In our January 2001 report,[Footnote 1] we identified the following 

specific performance and accountability challenges that the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) faced: (1) it needed to strengthen 

departmentwide information security; (2) the delivery of services to 

farmers had improved, but challenges remain; (3) fundamental changes 

were needed to minimize foodborne illnesses; (4) USDA needed to 

effectively and efficiently provide food assistance benefits to 

eligible individuals while maintaining program integrity; (5) USDA 

continued to lack financial accountability over billions of dollars in 

assets; (6) the Forest Service must provide the Congress and the public 

with a better understanding of what it accomplishes with appropriated 

funds; and (7) problems persisted in processing discrimination 

complaints. In addition, we reported that while USDA’s farm loan 

programs remained vulnerable to loss, we were removing this issue from 

our “high-risk” listing because the Congress and USDA had taken actions 

to address the underlying causes of the programs’ past weaknesses and 

because the financial condition of the loan portfolio had improved 

significantly.



Since our January 2001 report, two major events have occurred that 

greatly influence USDA’s contemporary overall mission and present 

challenges to effectively address its multiple functions and 

activities. First, the September 11, 2001, attacks have raised concerns 

over the devastating impacts that terrorist actions and threats could 

have on the overall infrastructure of production agriculture and food 

safety and on USDA’s facilities, equipment, and employees. Second, the 

enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 

2002 Farm Bill)[Footnote 2] provides for, among other things, 

significant changes in the federal government’s support of production 

agriculture and requires USDA to implement numerous provisions that 

change existing programs and establish new programs. Specifically, the 

2002 Farm Bill has requirements for USDA involving programs that cover 

commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural 

development, research, forestry, energy, and a variety of miscellaneous 

provisions, such as those for crop insurance, disaster assistance, and 

livestock.



USDA’s management recognized the difficulty that implementing the 2002 

Farm Bill placed on the department and, as such, took early steps to 

address the act’s requirements. For example, on the day after it was 

enacted, USDA launched a Web site providing detailed information on the 

requirements of the act, including program details, application and 

sign-up forms, and information and materials on 

implementation.[Footnote 3] The next day, the Secretary of Agriculture 

announced the establishment of its Farm Bill Working Group, consisting 

of top and lower-level USDA officials, to oversee the planning, 

coordination, and implementation of the act. The following week, USDA 

announced a pilot program to allow producers in selected counties in 21 

states to apply for and receive loan deficiency payments via the 

Internet. In early June 2002, the Secretary announced that 1,000 

temporary employees would be hired to aid field offices around the 

country to implement the act.



Furthermore, since our January 2001 report, USDA has taken steps to 

address some of the specific performance and accountability challenges 

that we previously reported. For example, USDA continues to work on 

implementing a departmentwide action plan to improve information 

security and on its field office reorganization and modernization 

effort, which is aimed at achieving greater economy and efficiency and 

better customer service. The department has actions underway to 

minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in the food assistance programs of the 

Food and Nutrition Service and has initiated or planned actions to 

address the performance accountability of the Forest Service. Also, 

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an unqualified opinion 

on USDA’s financial statements for the first time in nine years.



Although this report does not include new management challenges, it 

does address important remaining issues with the challenges we 

previously identified, including a significant expansion of the 

challenge involving security. The major performance and accountability 

challenges USDA continues to face are as follows:



Figure:



[See PDF for image] 



[End of figure] 



Ensuring Adequate Security:



In a period of heightened concerns about terrorist actions and threats, 

USDA’s managers need to conduct reviews of the infrastructure, 

equipment, and programs they manage and operate so as to identify 

potential security weaknesses and, when and where necessary, take 

corrective actions aimed at avoiding serious consequences, rather than 

waiting for others to bring highly serious problems to their attention. 

Specifically, USDA’s managers are often unaware of highly serious 

security problems that exist within the department until these problems 

are brought to their attention by others. Also, USDA’s managers do not 

always take the necessary first steps to prevent serious problems from 

occurring. Recent studies have identified significant problems and 

weaknesses involving the security of biological agents at USDA 

laboratories throughout the country, the security of aircraft used by 

the Forest Service in firefighting operations, and the timeliness of 

providing guidance to protect against the possible introduction of foot 

and mouth disease into the United States. In addition, the security of 

automated information throughout the department continues to be a 

significant problem area.



Security of biological agents. A March 2002 report by the department’s 

OIG disclosed that security of biological agents--living organisms in 

their microbial form that are used in research and diagnostics and that 

are generally pathogenic, or disease-producing--at USDA laboratories 

generally needed improvement.[Footnote 4] Specifically, the OIG found 

that, among other things, USDA had no policies or procedures for 

agencies to follow to manage security at laboratories; the department 

lacked a consolidated database to identify the location and risk levels 

of the biological agents at laboratories; and some laboratories failed 

to follow requirements to maintain an inventory of their biological 

agents and other laboratories had inaccurate inventories. Also, many of 

the laboratories reviewed lacked alarm systems, security fences, and 

surveillance cameras. Furthermore, USDA did not adequately control 

access to biological agents by unauthorized personnel and did not have 

procedures for reporting incidences of unauthorized access.



Recognizing the need for greater biosecurity following the September 

11, 2001, terrorist attacks, USDA developed policies and procedures for 

biosecurity issues, which were in process of being implemented when the 

OIG issued its report in March 2002. However, the OIG also reported 

that more needs to be done in several key areas, such as developing a 

centralized database to ensure department-level management of 

biological agents and consolidating inventories of biological agents at 

the agency and the department level. Furthermore, the OIG’s report 

contained 10 specific recommendations for management action in areas 

such as controlling access to biological agents and requiring a report 

of any break-in or vandalism. Agreements between the department’s 

managers and the OIG on actions to address 9 of those recommendations 

had not been reached as of early October 2002.



Security of aircraft. A March 2002 OIG report disclosed security 

problems involving aircraft that are owned or operated under contract 

by the Forest Service and used in firefighting operations, including 

air tankers with a 3,000-gallon liquid capacity, and with air bases 

used by the Forest Service.[Footnote 5] Specifically, the OIG reported 

that the aircraft are vulnerable to theft and that the Forest Service 

had not assessed the risks of theft and misuse by terrorists because 

the agency did not consider the risk to be significant. Furthermore, 

the agency had not provided guidance to air tanker contractors about 

potential threats against aircraft. The agency also lacked standards 

for securing the bases used by its aircraft and by air tankers and had 

not assessed the measures needed to secure the facilities.



The OIG concluded that the Forest Service needed to immediately conduct 

a risk analysis to identify significant threats and potential actions 

to mitigate the threats. The agency also needed to develop security 

standards for the facilities where the aircraft are based and to 

determine the measures needed to meet those standards. In commenting on 

a draft of the OIG’s report, the Forest Service stated that it agreed 

with the OIG’s assessment and was taking steps to improve the security 

of the aircraft and facilities. The OIG, in turn, agreed with the 

agency’s plans to implement the eight recommendations contained in the 

report, which were directed at securing the aircraft from use by 

terrorists or others engaging in criminal activity and at securing the 

air bases.



Protecting against importing animal diseases. Concerning the security 

of the agricultural sector, we recently reported on problems involving 

the timeliness of providing guidance to protect against the possible 

introduction of foot and mouth disease into the United States. 

Specifically, we reported in July 2002 that after foot and mouth 

disease struck the United Kingdom in 2001, USDA’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did not provide the U.S. Customs 

Service (Customs) with guidance on restricting or prohibiting certain 

products from entering the country or on screening arriving 

international passengers until after Customs had requested inspection 

guidance.[Footnote 6] The lack of proactive action by APHIS occurred 

because the agency incorrectly assumed that Customs inspectors knew how 

to address this very serious disease outbreak.



Specifically, APHIS is responsible for preventing animal diseases from 

entering the country and has inspectors stationed at 144 ports of 

entry. Customs, which has inspectors stationed at all 301 ports of 

entry, is to perform inspections where APHIS does not have a presence. 

The duties performed by APHIS and Customs inspectors include checking 

commercial cargo shipments as well as passengers and their luggage to 

prevent the introduction of, among other things, animal diseases that 

could adversely affect U.S. livestock. The effectiveness of the 

inspections performed by Customs depends, in part, on timely and 

adequate guidance from APHIS on how to check for specific animal 

diseases.



As we reported in July 2002, APHIS received notice from the United 

Kingdom in February 2001 of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. In 

mid-March 2001, Customs asked APHIS for guidance on inspecting cargo 

and passengers to detect and prevent the disease from being introduced 

into the United States. APHIS responded in late March 2001 by providing 

guidance on inspecting products and passengers and then in early April 

by providing guidance on detaining specific at-risk products at entry 

ports. As a result of these delays, many Customs inspectors, who are 

not specialists in animal diseases, were ill equipped to adequately 

process cargo and passengers at ports of entry during the initial 

stages of the outbreak. According to APHIS, in May 2002, it added a 

Customs official to its notification list for any future foreign 

outbreaks of the disease. While this action should be beneficial, we 

reported that it does not go far enough and recommended that APHIS 

develop a formal agreement with Customs. This agreement should clearly 

delineate the communication process for notifications of future foreign 

outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. We further recommended that APHIS 

develop uniform, nontechnical procedures that Customs inspectors can 

use to process cargo and passengers arriving from countries affected by 

the foot and mouth virus.



Security of information. USDA continues to face security challenges in 

protecting its computer systems from serious threats and cyber attacks. 

To protect these systems, which process sensitive data and support 

billions of dollars in benefits, we recommended in August 2000 that 

USDA strengthen its information security.[Footnote 7] USDA is taking 

steps to implement a departmentwide action plan to improve information 

security, but work on these improvements is not complete, and security 

vulnerabilities and weaknesses continue to place USDA’s computer 

systems at significant risk.



In August 2000, we reported that USDA had developed an action plan in 

August 1999 to strengthen its information security, but had made little 

progress in implementing the planned improvements. Since our 2000 

report, USDA has taken more actions to implement improvements called 

for in its 1999 action plan. For example, under the leadership of 

USDA’s Associate Chief Information Officer for Cyber Security, the 

department has expanded its in-house cyber-security staff, performed 

security reviews at key agency computer facilities, started to develop 

standardized risk assessment tools, revised a number of security-

related policies, and developed plans to implement departmentwide 

security awareness and certification/accreditation programs. However, 

in USDA’s fiscal year 2001 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

report, the department identified its information security weaknesses 

and lack of an information security management program as a material 

internal control weakness, and it listed actions planned or being taken 

to address this weakness.



USDA’s actions to strengthen information security are encouraging, but 

more needs to be done. In recognition of this, the department is 

developing revised time frames and milestones for completing all its 

departmentwide security improvements. Until it completes these 

improvements, however, computer systems and networks across USDA remain 

vulnerable to unlawful and destructive penetration and disruption. For 

example, since we included the need for USDA to strengthen information 

security in our January 2001 report, USDA’s OIG has identified 

thousands of additional security vulnerabilities throughout the 

department’s agencies and offices. Among others, the OIG found that 

agencies’ networks and systems were vulnerable to internal and external 

intrusion, mission assets and sensitive computer data were not properly 

protected, security training was not adequate, and plans were not 

prepared and tested for minimizing the impact of potential disruptions 

on the continuity of critical agency operations. In addition, 

assessments in 2001 conducted by the OIG and USDA’s Office of the Chief 

Information Officer identified material weaknesses in general areas, 

such as the physical security of facilities, configuration management, 

and contingency planning.



Improving the Delivery of Services to Farmers:



USDA has achieved some success in implementing its reorganization and 

modernization efforts but more needs to be done. Specifically, since 

1995, USDA has been engaged in a reorganization and modernization 

effort targeted at achieving greater economy and efficiency and better 

customer service by its service-center agencies--the Farm Service 

Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Rural 

Development mission area’s Rural Housing Service. Service center agency 

staff total about 36,000 employees and account for nearly one-third of 

the entire USDA workforce. USDA’s efforts consist of five interrelated 

initiatives: 



(1) collocation--locating the agencies’ county offices at one site 

within each county and their state offices at one location in each 

state; (2) administrative convergence--merging the agencies’ 
administrative 

functions at the state and headquarters levels under a single support 

organization; (3) business-process reengineering--redesigning how the 

agencies perform their work; (4) information technology modernization-

-providing an updated communications network and a common computing 

environment in order that the employees of all the agencies can use 

compatible computer hardware and software to share information; and 

(5) cultural change--improving customer service by implementing a 

seamless interagency approach to delivering services, increasing 

outreach efforts to customers, and working cooperatively with other 

service providers, such as state and local governments and private 

organizations.



USDA has made some progress in its efforts. For example, it has closed 

over 1,000 of its 3,726 county office locations and established 

collocated service centers throughout the nation. It has also made 

substantial progress in deploying personal computers and a 

telecommunications network to link its service centers and recently 

deployed a shared network server, which supports shared data. However, 

the full range of service delivery efficiencies has not yet been 

realized because the agencies’ program applications are not fully 

integrated--the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, for example, are only beginning to electronically 

share key farm information--and some staff are still being trained on a 

number of the software packages that are used to record and monitor 

farm information. USDA currently estimates that by June 2003, all 

common technology equipment and software will be operable in its 

service centers and that all service center employees will be trained 

on the systems’ use.



In addition, it is unclear whether USDA will achieve the seamless 

approach to service delivery that it has sought because each of its 

agencies emphasizes a different client base and the delivery of 

different programs. Consequently, little has changed in how the three 

agencies work together to serve their customers, particularly in terms 

of cross-servicing and sharing of information. Each agency has only 

limited knowledge of the others’ programs and program requirements. 

Also, the very nature of the service provided by each is different. For 

example, the Farm Service Agency provides largely administrative and 

financial services to agricultural producers; the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service provides largely technical services to producers 

and others in the community; and the Rural Housing Service provides 

largely financial services to rural homeowners.



Furthermore, although the service centers’ client base continues to 

change, USDA’s basic approach to delivering services to farmers has 

been the same for 70 years. In 2001, the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service reported that there were 2,157,780 farms in America. 

Of this total, about 16 percent of the farms accounted for about 58 

percent of the land farmed and reported annual sales in excess of 

$100,000. More than half of the farms in existence in 2001--1.2 

million--reported sales of less than $10,000. In terms of the delivery 

of programs to farmers, USDA processes and requirements are generally 

the same regardless of farm size. In some cases, this can lead to 

service delivery costs exceeding the price of the service delivered.



As required by legislation enacted in 2000--the Freedom to E-File Act-

-USDA made a new electronic filing system available to the clients of 

its service centers on June 17, 2002. Specifically, the act required 

the USDA service center agencies to establish by June 20, 2002, a 

system that would allow farmers, ranchers, and other customers to 

electronically retrieve and file through the Internet the forms 

required to participate in the programs operated by the centers. At 

this time, it is unclear how many clients of the service centers have 

the equipment and know-how to take advantage of this new online 

resource, and it is unclear how this new technology will affect service 

delivery and resource needs at USDA’s service centers.



Concerns also continue about the adequacy of staffing at the service 

centers to meet farmers’ needs, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Among other things, this act makes a number of changes affecting 

current record keeping and establishes new program requirements for the 

Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

USDA announced in June 2002 that 1,000 temporary employees would be 

hired to assist in implementing the act. However, there is a sense at 

the service centers that more resources will be needed to meet the 

act’s requirements. In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill requires the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service to undertake a major change in 

its operations as it begins to facilitate the use of third party 

vendors to carry out a number of conservation planning and program 

technical requirements. It is unclear what impact the implementation of 

this requirement will have on service center operations and the 

delivery of these services.



Finally, because of the overall value of USDA’s farm programs--more 

than $55 billion annually--and the number of resources that have been 

committed to these programs--about one-third of its total workforce--

the department has to continually evaluate its processes for delivering 

services. As its client base changes, USDA needs to consider 

alternative delivery approaches. In this regard, the service center 

agencies need to reassess the types of services they now provide and 

how they can work more efficiently to deliver these services in the 

future.



Enhancing the Safety of the Nation’s Food Supply:



USDA is one of several Executive Branch departments and agencies that 

have a key role in ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply. The 

level of foodborne illnesses, however, continues to raise concerns 

about the federal government’s effectiveness in ensuring the safety of 

both domestic and imported foods. And now, the risk of bioterrorism 

intensifies concerns about the ability of our system to protect the 

food supply against deliberate contamination. As we stated in numerous 

reports and testimonies, the food safety system contains key 

weaknesses, including the fragmented nature of the regulatory system; 

differences in the federal agencies’ authorities to enforce food safety 

requirements; inconsistencies in, and the unreliability of, federal 

efforts to ensure imported food safety; and significant problems with 

the effective implementation of a relatively new science-based 

inspection system--the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

system (HACCP)--that was intended to enhance food safety. These 

continuing weaknesses could also affect the government’s ability to 

detect and respond quickly to deliberate contamination of the food 

supply. Therefore, we continue to maintain, as we have since 1992, that 

the federal food safety system needs to be replaced with an effective 

risk-based inspection system under a single food safety agency. 

Otherwise, the food supply will continue to be subject to inconsistent 

oversight, poor coordination, and inefficient allocation of resources. 

With the now-recognized vulnerability of the food supply to potential 

terrorist attacks, there exists an even stronger need to consolidate 

federal food safety and security activities and resources.



Specifically, although the American food supply is regarded as one of 

the safest in the world, foodborne illnesses in the United States 

continue to be an extensive and costly problem. The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, an agency of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), estimates that there are as many as 76 million food-

related illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the 

United States annually from the consumption of foods contaminated with 

harmful bacteria, toxins, and/or chemicals. USDA estimates that the 

costs associated with foodborne illnesses range from $7 billion to $37 

billion annually.



In January 2001, we reported that a number of factors heightened 

concerns about the federal government’s effectiveness in ensuring the 

safety of the nation’s food supply. These include the emergence of new 

foodborne pathogens, the recognition of the long-term health effects of 

foodborne illness, the globalization of the food industry, and the 

growing segment of the U.S. population at increased risk of disease. In 

addition, we reported on our concerns about the differences in 

agencies’ authorities to enforce food safety requirements and the 

resulting uneven enforcement of food regulations. We noted that, for 

example, USDA has the authority to require food firms to register so 

that they can be inspected and that it can temporarily detain any 

suspect foods, but that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an 

agency of HHS, had no comparable authorities. Since our January 2001 

report, the Congress has addressed some of these differences by 

strengthening FDA’s regulatory and enforcement authorities. For 

example, legislation enacted in June 2002--the Public Health Security 

and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002--provides HHS 

with the authority to require food facilities to register with it and 

FDA with the authority to detain products suspected of contamination.



To address heightened concerns about the federal government’s 

effectiveness in ensuring the safety of the domestic food supply, and 

in line with our prior recommendations, the federal agencies 

responsible for food safety implemented a science-based program 

intended to enhance food safety and reduce foodborne illnesses. 

Specifically, the HACCP system regulations adopted by USDA and FDA 

require that meat, poultry, and seafood plants use this system to 

better ensure the safety of their products. In addition, the HACCP 

regulations require that USDA and federally inspected meat and poultry 

processing plants test for the presence of dangerous pathogens, such as 

E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes. These actions 

were important steps to improve the safety of our food supply.



However, some of our recent work identified weaknesses in HACCP 

implementation and enforcement that, if left uncorrected, could 

undermine a primary goal of the HACCP system--that is, controlling 

hazards in the production process before the product reaches the 

market. As a result, U.S. consumers may continue to be placed at risk 

of contracting foodborne illness from contaminated foods. For example, 

our January 2001 report on FDA’s seafood safety program showed that, 

although seafood processing firms had made some progress in 

implementing the HACCP system, many firms had still not implemented the 

HACCP system and that in many cases FDA had not issued warning letters 

even though there were serious safety violations.[Footnote 8] 

Similarly, our July 2001 report on FDA’s shellfish safety program 

showed that the agency lacks a risk-based approach to overseeing 

shellfish safety.[Footnote 9] More recently, USDA began testing 

modifications to its slaughter plant inspection system to make the 

transition from traditional federal inspections of every carcass to a 

risk-based approach that is more consistent with the HACCP concepts. 

While we have supported a risk-based approach to food inspections, we 

recommended in December 2001 that USDA proceed cautiously with modified 

inspections to ensure that, among other things, industry personnel are 

adequately trained.[Footnote 10]



Furthermore, in August 2002, we reported that there were continuing 

problems with HACCP implementation in meat and poultry plants.[Footnote 

11] For example, we reported that USDA inspectors were not consistently 

identifying problems and were allowing plants to remain out of 

compliance for protracted periods of time. We also noted that the 

longer plants are allowed to remain out of compliance with HACCP, the 

greater the risk that unsafe food would be produced and marketed. Our 

report contained a series of recommendations that were aimed at 

strengthening USDA’s oversight of HACCP and ensuring that plants 

promptly and effectively correct violations. USDA agreed with our 

recommendations and has initiated or planned implementation actions.



The safety of imported foods continues to pose serious risks. Both USDA 

and FDA have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of imported 

foods, but as we have previously reported, their approaches differ 

significantly. While USDA relies on exporting countries’ assurances 

that their systems are equivalent to the U.S. system, FDA physically 

inspects and tests only about 1 percent of all imported foods through a 

resource-intensive system of inspections at ports of entry. It is 

imperative that a risk-based approach be implemented to strengthen the 

safety of imported animals or products that could be infected with 

dangerous disease agents such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

(BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. As we reported in January 

2002, Customs has disclosed significant error rates in importer-

provided information for shipments at risk for BSE, import controls 

over bulk mail are weak, and inspection capacity has not kept pace with 

the growth in imports.[Footnote 12] However, some of the weaknesses 

that we identified should be corrected by Congress’s actions to enhance 

FDA’s authorities. For example, we previously reported that FDA could 

not control imported foods or require that they be kept in a registered 

warehouse prior to FDA approval for release into U.S. commerce; as a 

result, adulterated imports were released into U.S. commerce.[Footnote 

13] FDA now has the authority to temporarily hold products at ports of 

entry if they present a threat of serious adverse health consequences. 

Furthermore, the June 2002 bioterrorism act protects against the 

importation of adulterated food products by generally prohibiting a 

product from entering the country at a port of entry if the product had 

already been refused admission at another port of entry.



Improving the Integrity of Food Assistance Programs:



USDA continues to face serious challenges in ensuring that eligible 

individuals receive the proper benefits from the food assistance 

programs administered by its Food and Nutrition Service. Each day, 1 in 

every 6 Americans receives nutrition assistance through 1 or more of 

the 15 programs administered by this agency. These programs, which 

accounted for slightly more than half of USDA’s budget authority for 

fiscal year 2002, provide children and low-income adults with access to 

food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. Specifically, for 

fiscal year 2002, the Congress appropriated about $38.8 billion to 

operate these programs, including the Food Stamp Program and child 

nutrition programs, such as the school-breakfast and school-lunch 

programs. This high level of support dictates that USDA must 

continually address and minimize the amount of fraud and abuse 

occurring in these programs in order to ensure their integrity.



USDA’s challenges are clearly evident in the operation of the Food 

Stamp Program--the cornerstone of its nutrition assistance programs. In 

fiscal year 2001, this program provided 17.3 million individuals with 

more than $15.5 billion in benefits. As noted in the President’s 

Management Agenda, USDA must continue to address the challenge of 

accurately issuing food stamp benefits to those who are eligible. 

Specifically, USDA estimated that about $1.4 billion in erroneous 

payments were made to food stamp recipients in fiscal year 2001--about 

$1 billion of the benefits issued were estimated to be overpayments and 

more than $370 million were estimated to be underpayments--an error 

rate of approximately 9 percent. To deal with the complexity of the 

Food Stamp Program and the high error rate, the 2002 Farm Bill 

contained a number of administrative and simplification reforms, such 

as allowing states to use greater flexibility in considering the income 

of recipients for eligibility purposes and to extend simplified 

reporting procedures for all program recipients.



In addition to ensuring that eligible individuals receive proper 

benefits, USDA faces the formidable challenge of minimizing the fraud 

and abuse associated with the misuse of the billions of dollars in food 

stamp benefits, which are accepted by about 149,000 authorized retail 

food stores. Specifically, individuals sometimes illegally sell their 

benefits for cash--a practice known as trafficking. The most recent 

report on the level of trafficking, which USDA issued in March 2000, 

estimated that stores trafficked about $660 million, or about 3.5 cents 

of every dollar of food stamp benefits issued per year from 1996 

through 1998. In addition, storeowners generally do not pay the 

financial penalties assessed for trafficking. To illustrate this 

condition, we reported in May 1999 that USDA and the courts collected 

only $11.5 million, or about 13 percent, of the 

$78 million in total penalties assessed against storeowners for 

violating food stamp regulations from 1993 through 1998.[Footnote 14] 

USDA reduced the remaining amount owed by storeowners by about $49 

million, or about 

55 percent, through waivers, adjustments, and write-offs. While 

weaknesses in debt collection practices contribute to low collection 

rates, USDA officials noted that these rates also reflect the 

difficulties involved in collecting this type of debt, including 

problems in locating storeowners who have been removed from the Food 

Stamp Program and the refusal of some storeowners to pay their debts.



Better use of information technology has the potential to help USDA 

minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in the Food Stamp Program. For 

example, in our May 1999 report we recommended that the Food and 

Nutrition Service make better use of data from electronic benefit 

transfers (EBT) to identify and assess penalties against storeowners 

who violate the Food Stamp Program’s regulations. Also, we recommended 

in March 2000 that the Food and Nutrition Service work with the states 

to implement best practices for using EBT data to identify and take 

action against recipients engaged in trafficking of food stamp 

benefits.[Footnote 15] The Food and Nutrition Service has taken some 

actions to implement our recommendations, such as assisting states in 

the use of EBT data to identify traffickers and has other actions under 

way.



USDA also faces serious fraud and abuse challenges in other nutrition 

programs, including the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), 

which for fiscal year 2002 was funded at $1.8 billion, and the National 

School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, which for that year were 

funded at $7.4 billion. In fiscal year 2001, CACFP provided subsidized 

meals for a daily average of 2.6 million participants in the care of 

about 215,000 day care providers. Over the years, USDA’s OIG has 

identified case after case of the intentional misuse of CACFP funds, 

including cases in which program sponsors created fictitious day care 

providers and inflated the number of meals served. In response to our 

November 1999 recommendation[Footnote 16] and reports by the OIG, 

legislation was enacted in June 2000 to strengthen CACFP management 

controls and to reduce its vulnerability to fraud and abuse. As a 

result, the Food and Nutrition Service has intensified its management 

evaluations at the state and local levels and has trained its regional 

and state agency staff on revised management procedures.



Furthermore, in its strategic plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2005, 

USDA specifically identified the challenge it faces in ensuring that 

only eligible participants are provided benefits in the National School 

Lunch Program. In fiscal year 2001, this program provided nutritionally 

balanced, low-cost or free lunches for over 27 million children each 

school day in more than 98,000 public and nonprofit private schools and 

residential child care institutions. Past reports have disclosed that 

the number of children certified as eligible to receive free lunches in 

this program was 18 percent greater than the estimated number of 

children eligible for this benefit. USDA has taken some initial steps 

to develop a cost-effective strategy to address this integrity issue, 

such as pilot-testing potential policy changes to improve the 

certification process.



Enhancing USDA’s Ability to Account for Its Financial Activities:



For many years, USDA struggled to improve its financial management 

activities, but inadequate accounting systems and related procedures 

and controls hampered its ability to get a clean opinion on its 

financial statements. After 8 consecutive disclaimers of 

opinion,[Footnote 17] USDA’s OIG issued an unqualified opinion on 

USDA’s fiscal year 2002 financial statements and reported that 

significant progress had been made in improving overall financial 

management. On an agency-by-agency basis, completed audits of fiscal 

year 2002 financial statements were also positive. Specifically, 

unqualified audit opinions were issued on the financial statements of 

the Forest Service, Commodity Credit Corporation, Risk Management 

Agency/Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Rural Development 

mission area, and the Rural Telephone Bank. While we commend the 

department and its component agencies on their unqualified opinions, 

some of these could not have occurred without extraordinary efforts by 

the department and its auditors. Before USDA can achieve sustainable 

financial accountability, it and its component agencies, particularly 

the Forest Service, must address a number of serious problems that 

USDA’s OIG or we have reported.



In order to achieve its unqualified opinion, USDA overcame some major 

obstacles over a period of years. For example, in fiscal year 2001, the 

first time since 1994, USDA’s lending agencies were able to estimate 

and reestimate loan subsidy costs for the department’s net credit 

program receivables, which totaled about $74 billion as of September 

30, 2001. Because of USDA’s achievement in this area, along with that 

of other key lending agencies, this item was no longer a factor 

contributing to our disclaimer of opinion on the fiscal year 2001 

consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government.[Footnote 18]



In its fiscal year 2002 audit report, the OIG stated that USDA made 

significant improvements in its overall financial management, such as 

implementation of a departmentwide standard accounting system. However, 

if USDA is to achieve and sustain financial accountability, it must 

fundamentally improve its underlying internal controls, financial 

management systems, and operations to allow for the routine production 

of accurate, relevant, and timely data to support program management 

and accountability. For example, among other things, USDA needs to 

address the problems with its legacy systems to improve integration of 

the financial management architecture, reconcile its property system 

with the general ledger in a timely manner, and correct inconsistencies 

in its accounting processes.



The OIG also noted that USDA made significant progress during fiscal 

year 2002 in reconciling its fund balance[Footnote 19] accounts with 

the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and that the OIG was able to 

validate this line item on USDA’s fiscal year 2002 financial 

statements. However, the OIG continues to report this area as a 

material internal control weakness due to continuing deficiencies in 

its reconciliation processes.



The OIG, in reporting on USDA’s compliance with laws and regulations 

during fiscal year 2002, stated that USDA does not substantially comply 

with the 3 requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act of 1996 (FFMIA), including federal financial systems requirements, 

applicable federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Standard General 

Ledger at the transaction level. Lack of compliance stems from USDA’s 

many disparate accounting systems that are not integrated; material 

internal control weaknesses; and the inability to prepare auditable 

financial statements on a routine basis. USDA’s September 30, 2002, 

FFMIA Remediation Plan discussed a number of remedial actions that the 

department expects to complete in fiscal year 2006. Additionally, the 

OIG reported that USDA’s systems are not designed to provide the 

reliable and timely cost information required to comply with the 

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial 

Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards. Specifically, the OIG’s review 

of user fees disclosed that two USDA agencies were not including the 

full costs of their user fee programs when determining fees and were 

not recovering the full costs of performing services for their 

individual programs.



Another financial management challenge for USDA is federal nontax 

delinquent debt collection. USDA reported holding $6.2 billion of 

federal nontax debt that was delinquent more than 180 days as of 

September 30, 2001. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 gave 

federal agencies a full array of tools to collect such delinquent debt. 

Among other things, the Debt Collection Improvement Act provides (1) a 

requirement for federal agencies to refer eligible debts delinquent 

more than 180 days to the Department of the Treasury for collection 

action and (2) authorization for agencies to administratively garnish 

the wages of delinquent debtors.



In December 2001, we reported that two USDA agencies, Rural 

Development’s Rural Housing Service and the Farm Service Agency, had 

failed to make the Debt Collection Improvement Act a priority since its 

enactment in 1996.[Footnote 20] Specifically, the Rural Housing Service 

had not implemented an effective and complete process to refer debts to 

Treasury mainly because of systems limitations, debt reporting 

problems, and lack of regulations needed to refer losses resulting from 

claims paid under its guaranteed single family housing loan program. 

The Farm Service Agency lacked effective procedures and controls to 

identify and promptly refer eligible delinquent debts to Treasury. 

Moreover, USDA had not utilized administrative wage garnishment to 

collect delinquent nontax debts. Consequently, opportunities for 

collecting delinquent nontax debts as contemplated by the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act were severely reduced.



USDA officials made a commitment in December 2001 to substantially 

improve the department’s implementation of the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act by December 2002, and progress has been made. However, 

challenges remain that will require sustained commitment and priority 

from top management. For example, the Rural Housing Service still must 

complete regulations to refer losses related to its guaranteed single 

family housing loans to Treasury and an automated process for such 

referrals, and the Farm Service Agency must complete actions needed to 

ensure that all of its eligible debt is promptly referred to Treasury. 

In addition, USDA must complete regulations that are required to 

implement administrative wage garnishment departmentwide and get all of 

its component agencies to begin using this debt collection tool to the 

fullest extent practicable.  The OIG reported material noncompliance 

with the Debt Collection Improvement Act in its fiscal year 2002 audit 

report, reiterating the need for sustained commitment and priority by 

top management.



An area of particular concern within USDA continues to be the Forest 

Service. In 1999, we designated financial management at the Forest 

Service to be “high risk” on the basis of serious financial and 

accounting weaknesses that had been identified, but not corrected, in 

the agency’s financial statements for a number of years. The Forest 

Service received its first ever unqualified opinion on its fiscal year 

2002 financial statements, which represents progress from prior years 

when the OIG was unable to express an opinion. But it took heroic 

efforts to achieve an unqualified opinion. For example, the Forest 

Service still lacks an adequate system to account for its property. 

Further, to derive its fund balance with Treasury accounts, the Forest 

Service made millions of dollars in adjustments. While the Forest 

Service has reached an important milestone by attaining a clean audit 

opinion on its financial statements, it has not yet proven it can 

sustain this outcome, and it has not reached the end goal of routinely 

having timely, accurate, and useful financial information. The Forest 

Service continues to commit considerable resources to correcting its 

financial management weaknesses; however, much work remains. We 

continue to designate financial management at the Forest Service as 

“high risk” on the basis of its serious internal control weaknesses.



While the Forest Service made significant progress in fiscal year 2002 

to reconcile its fund balance with Treasury accounts, the financial 

statement auditor (auditor) noted significant control deficiencies in 

its reconciliation processes. For example, the Forest Service needs to 

research a large backlog of unreconciled items and take corrective 

actions. In order to bring the Forest Service’s fund balance with 

Treasury accounts into balance with Treasury records as of September 

30, 2002, the Forest Service recorded an adjustment of $107 million. 

The auditor recommended that the Forest Service document its 

reconciliation processes, establish a point of contact at the National 

Finance Center to assist in the reconciliation process, analyze and 

determine the proper disposition of its budget and clearing accounts, 

and allocate the necessary resources to complete monthly 

reconciliations in a timely manner.



The auditor also reported material deficiencies in the Forest Service’s 

general controls environment and software application controls. General 

controls involve the overall computer operation. For example, the 

auditor noted operation controls for determining the trustworthiness of 

personnel and limiting access to information systems need improvement. 

The internal control weaknesses involving the software application 

controls[Footnote 21] related to its procurement, real and personal 

property systems. Application controls play a crucial role in the 

accuracy, completeness, security, and auditability of these feeder 

systems. Without adequate general and application controls the Forest 

Service is exposed to the risk of its property records being corrupted, 

lost or altered, and errors and omissions not being prevented, 

detected, and corrected. The auditors recommended several actions for 

improving controls over user access, system interfaces, system edits, 

separation of duties, and data accuracy and completeness.



Further, the auditor reported that internal controls related to the 

accurate recording of property transactions need improvement. For 

example, the auditor noted that the recorded amount of certain 

transactions did not agree with the supporting documentation; labor 

costs and other costs were improperly capitalized; and critical 

information in the initial recording of acquisition cost, in-service 

date, and useful life were not reviewed. Internal controls over the 

recording of assets are essential to avoid overstating and understating 

assets. The auditors made several recommendations to improve internal 

controls over its property, plant, and equipment.



The auditor also noted that the Forest Service’s proposed methodology 

for estimating certain liabilities, such as grants, was not accurate 

and did not substantially support the unpaid amount of goods that had 

been delivered as of the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the 

proposed methodology did not consider payments to states, which are 

recorded as liabilities as of September 30. If the Forest Service had 

used its proposed methodology, both its accrued liabilities and 

associated expenses would have been understated for fiscal year 2002. 

As a result, sampling methodologies were utilized to project the 

September 30 accrued liability balance. The OIG recommended that the 

Forest Service develop a new methodology for estimating liabilities and 

maintain the supporting documentation used to determine the estimate.



Further, the auditor noted serious automated control deficiencies with 

the Forest Service’s timecard entry system. For example, it allowed the 

Forest Service users to submit their time sheets for approval to an 

employee who was not the designated supervisor. In some locations the 

employee could send the time sheet to him/herself for approval. In 

addition, the auditor reported deficiencies in manual controls over the 

payroll process, such as missing employee and/or supervisor signatures. 

The auditor recommended that the Forest Service implement controls to 

ensure that employees’ supervisors appropriately review and approve 

their subordinates time sheets, reinforce the requirement for time 

sheets to be signed by both the employee and supervisor, and reconcile 

and bi-weekly certify its payroll registers to its personnel listing.



Improving Performance Accountability at the Forest Service:



The Forest Service continues to face challenges involving the 

controversial refocusing of its mission from producing goods and 

services towards a greater emphasis on restoring and protecting the 

health of the forests and rangelands that it is responsible for 

managing. The agency also needs to make clear to the Congress and the 

public its accomplishments with the funds it expends. Since our January 

2001 report, the agency has taken some steps to address the challenges 

that it faces in improving performance accountability. However, the 

agency may be years away from fully attaining accountability for its 

performance, and its recently initiated actions will require close 

monitoring by USDA and the Congress. Accountability is critical to the 

Forest Service as it undergoes this change in its mission emphasis, 

which it believes is necessary because some of the natural resources 

under its control are deteriorating. Key to successfully implementing 

this new emphasis is determining where or under what circumstances the 

agency should actively manage lands to restore them or when it can rely 

more on natural ecological processes for restoration. These choices are 

technically challenging and controversial and have substantial 

consequences for agency funding priorities. Also, this shift in the 

Forest Service’s mission emphasis required new, more ecologically 

based, strategic goals and performance measures. As a result, the 

agency has had difficulty accounting for its performance both in 

providing goods and services and in ensuring the health of the natural 

resources under its control.



In our January 2001 report, we noted that the agency’s lack of 

accountability in recent years occurred, at least in part, because it 

had not linked its budget and organizational structures, planning 

processes, and resource allocations with its strategic goals, 

objectives, and performance measures. We also reported that the agency 

had difficulty in developing good performance measures and monitoring 

progress critical to ensuring accountability as well as in working with 

other agencies on common issues where joint action is needed to achieve 

goals. In addition, we reported that while the agency had made numerous 

promises in recent years to provide the Congress and the public with a 

better understanding of what it accomplishes with appropriated funds, 

it did not appear to be fully committed to establishing the key 

linkages, measures, monitoring, and coordination needed for 

accountability.



In fiscal year 2002, the Forest Service announced a series of actions, 

collectively termed the Performance Accountability System, that it had 

initiated or planned to address its accountability problems more 

comprehensively. These actions were undertaken in response to 

information in our prior reports and in conjunction with the 

initiatives contained in the President’s Management Agenda and the 

Office of Management and Budget’s call for greater linkage between 

budgets and performance within agencies and across agencies dealing 

with common issues. For example, the agency said it would establish 

common performance measures with other agencies for reducing 

catastrophic wildfires in areas where the threats of such wildfires 

transcend their individual administrative boundaries. Also, the Forest 

Service told us that it had started and planned several activities that 

it believed reflect a fuller commitment to providing the Congress and 

the public with a better understanding of what it achieves with the 

funds it expends. These actions included (1) developing an annual 

performance plan before formulating budgets; (2) using the plan to set 

priorities and sequence milestones and goals; and (3) developing clear 

links among the budget structure, program activities, outputs, annual 

goals and measures, and long-term strategic outcomes and measures. In 

addition, to better ensure linkage between resource allocations and 

accomplishments, agency officials told us that they are considering 

developing a monitoring system to track activities and funds.



The Forest Service has acknowledged that, despite efforts underway to 

adopt what it regards as a strategy for improving organizational 

efficiency, it needs to do much more to become fully accountable. 

Agency officials estimate that the first stage of their improvement 

efforts will not be completed before fiscal year 2005 and may take much 

longer. We agree. For instance, even though the agency has pledged to 

work with other agencies and adopt common performance measures for 

reducing wildfire threats, the Forest Service officials told us they 

did not know if the agency’s current information systems are able to 

generate the data needed to support those measures. If so, it will be 

difficult for the Forest Service to develop meaningful links between 

these measures and its budget structure, program activities, outputs, 

annual goals, and long-term strategic outcomes.



The Forest Service’s recently initiated and planned actions have not 

been evaluated and many obstacles remain to improving its performance 

accountability. Until the agency resolves these concerns, some 

accountability problems will likely remain in varying degrees. For this 

reason, the actions recently taken by the agency to increase 

performance accountability will need continued close monitoring by USDA 

and the Congress.



Resolving Discrimination Complaints:



USDA’s Office of Civil Rights continues to experience significant 

problems in processing discrimination complaints in a timely manner. 

Despite having implemented many recommendations that we and others have 

made to improve the resolution of discrimination complaints, the 

processing of complaints involving the delivery of program benefits and 

services by the Office of Civil Rights continues to exceed the 

department’s time requirement. Key contributing factors to this problem 

include high staff turnover and low employee morale. In addition, 

USDA’s processing-time requirement does not address all stages of 

complaint resolution. As a result, even if the time requirement were 

met, total complaint processing times could stretch out indefinitely. 

As such, the resolution of discrimination complaints continues to be a 

serious management challenge at USDA.



For many years, USDA’s Office of Civil Rights has been the subject of 

numerous critical reports issued by us, the OIG, and internal task 

forces. These reports have a reoccurring theme: the office’s untimely 

processing of discrimination complaints. In January 1999, we reported 

that despite USDA efforts to improve processing times, the office did 

not meet requirements. In September 2002, we reported that while the 

office had made modest progress in the length of time it takes to 

process program discrimination complaints, it was still failing to 

comply with existing requirements.[Footnote 22] For example, although 

the average processing time to complete investigative reports improved 

from 365 days to 315 days for complaints resolved in fiscal years 2000 

and 2001, respectively, the time frame continues to exceed the 

requirement that the reports be completed within 180 days after 

accepting a discrimination complaint. Furthermore, because the 180-day 

requirement only covers the investigation of a complaint, the total 

processing time of complaints was significantly higher. For example, 

the requirement does not cover the adjudication phase. When all stages 

of complaint resolution are accounted for, average processing times 

reached 772 and 676 days for program discrimination complaints resolved 

in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, respectively.



The Office of Civil Rights has made only modest progress in improving 

its timely processing of complaints because it has yet to address 

severe, underlying human capital problems. Specifically, the office has 

had long-standing problems in obtaining and retaining staff with the 

right mix of skills. The retention problem is evidenced by the fact 

that only about two-thirds of the staff engaged in processing program 

complaints in fiscal year 2000 was still on board 2 years later. Also, 

severe morale problems have exacerbated staff retention problems and 
have 

adversely affected the productivity of the remaining staff. During 
fiscal 

years 2000 and 2001, the office had one of the highest rates within 
USDA 

of discrimination complaints filed by employees. In addition, office 

officials told us that some staff have threatened fellow employees or 

sabotaged their work. As we reported in September 2002, although the 

Director of the Office of Civil Rights believes that the situation has 

improved over the past few years, he said that some of the more serious 

morale problems have not been resolved.



In light of these problems, we recommended actions to help ensure 

USDA’s timely processing of discrimination complaints. Specifically, in 

September 2002 we recommended that, among other things, USDA establish 

time frame goals for all stages of the complaint process and develop an 

action plan to address ongoing staff turnover and morale problems in 

its Office of Civil Rights. The department generally agreed with our 

recommendations. In addition, the Congress has taken action to improve 

USDA’s long-standing problems with civil rights. Key among these was a 

provision in the 2002 Farm Bill that authorizes the position of 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights within USDA. As a result of this 

action, civil rights issues and problems within USDA should receive 

greater attention.



[End of section]



GAO Contacts:



Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of biological agents

Protecting against importing animal diseases

Improving the delivery of services to farmers

Enhancing the safety of the nation’s food supply

Resolving discrimination complaints; Contact person: Lawrence J. 

Dyckman, Director; Natural Resources and Environment; (202) 512-3841; 

dyckmanl@gao.gov.



Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of aircraft

Improving performance accountability at the Forest Service; Contact 

person: Barry T. Hill, Director; Natural Resources and Environment; 

(202) 512-3841; hillb@gao.gov.



Subject(s) covered in this report: Security of information; Contact 

person: Bob Dacey, Director; Information Technology; (202) 512-3317; 

daceyb@gao.gov.



Subject(s) covered in this report: Providing food assistance and 

improving program integrity; Contact person: Sigurd R. Nilsen, 

Director; Education, Workforce and Income; Security; (202) 512-7215; 

nilsens@gao.gov.



Subject(s) covered in this report: Enhancing financial management; 

Contact person: McCoy Williams, Director; Financial Management and 

Assurance; (202) 512-6906; williamsm1@gao.gov.



[End of section]



Related GAO Products:



Performance and Accountability Series:



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide 

Perspective. GAO-01-241. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Agriculture. GAO-01-242. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.



Ensuring Adequate Security:



Protecting Against Importing Animal Diseases:



Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain 

Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding Issues. GAO-02-808. Washington, D.C.: 

July 26, 2002.



Security of Information:



USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and 

Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington, 

D.C.: February 28, 2001.



Information Security: USDA Needs to Implement Its Departmentwide 

Information Security Plan. GAO/AIMD-00-217. Washington, D.C.: 

August 10, 2000.



Improving the Delivery of Services to Farmers:



Supporting Congressional Oversight: Budgetary Implications of Selected 

GAO Work for Fiscal Year 2003. GAO-02-576. Washington, D.C.: April. 26, 

2002.



U.S. Department of Agriculture: State Office Collocation. 

GAO/RCED-00-208R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.



USDA Reorganization: Progress Mixed in Modernizing the Delivery of 

Services. GAO/RCED-00-43. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2000.



Enhancing the Safety of the Nation’s Food Supply:



Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules 

Needed to Reduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses. GAO-02-902. Washington, 

D.C.: August 30, 2002.



Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as 

Adequate, but FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced. GAO-02-566. 

Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2002.



Food Safety: Continued Vigilance Needed to Ensure Safety of School 

Meals. GAO-02-669T. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.



Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and Other 

Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts. GAO-02-183. 

Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2002.



Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be 

Addressed Before Implementation. GAO-02-59. Washington, D.C.: December 

17, 2001.



Food Safety and Security: Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure Safe 

Food. GAO-02-47T. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2001.



Food Safety: CDC Is Working to Address Limitations in Several of Its 

Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems. GAO-01-973. Washington, D.C.: 

September 7, 2001.



Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Shellfish Safety Needs Improvement. 

GAO-01-702. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2001.



Food Safety: Overview of Federal and State Expenditures. GAO-01-177. 

Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2001.



Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect 

Consumers. GAO-01-204. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2001.



Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, Risk-

Based Inspection System. GAO/T-RCED-99-256. Washington, D.C.: 

August 4, 1999.



Providing Food Assistance and Improving Program Integrity:



Food Stamp Program: States’ Use of Options and Waivers to Improve 

Program Administration and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington, 

D.C.: February 22, 2002.



Food Stamp Program: Implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer 

Systems. GAO-02-332. Washington, D.C.: January 16, 2002.



Food Assistance: WIC Faces Challenges in Providing Nutrition Services. 

GAO-02-142. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2001.



Food Stamp Program: Program Integrity and Participation Challenges. 

GAO-01-881T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2001.



Food Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamp Benefits. GAO/

RCED-00-250. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000.



Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in 

Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61. 

Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.



Food Assistance: Efforts to Control Fraud and Abuse in the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program Should Be Strengthened. GAO/RCED-00-12. 

Washington, D.C.: November 29, 1999.



Food Stamp Program: Storeowners Seldom Pay Financial Penalties Owed for 

Program Violations. GAO/RCED-99-91. Washington, D.C.: 

May 11, 1999.



Enhancing Financial Management:



Financial Management: Effective Implementation of FFMIA Is Key to 

Providing Reliable, Useful, and Timely Data. GAO-02-791T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 6, 2002.



U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 2001 Results Highlight the 

Continuing Need to Accelerate Federal Financial Management Reform. GAO-

02-599T. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2002.



Financial Management: FFMIA Implementation Critical for Federal 

Accountability. GAO-02-29. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2001.



Financial Management: Annual Costs of Forest Service’s Timber Sales 

Program Are Not Determinable. GAO-01-1101R. Washington, D.C.: September 

21, 2001.



U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 2000 Reporting Underscores the 

Need to Accelerate Federal Financial Management Reform. 

GAO-01-570T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001.



High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-01-263. Washington, D.C.: January 

2001.



Financial Management: USDA Continues to Face Major Financial Management 

Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD-00-334. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2000.



Financial Management: USDA Faces Major Financial Management Challenges. 

GAO/T-AIMD-00-115. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2000.



Improving Performance Accountability at the Forest Service:



Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires 

Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 13, 2002.



Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better 

Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. Washington, 

D.C.: March 29, 2002.



Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce 

Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2002.



The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to 

Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. GAO-01-1022T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.



Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More 

Accountable for Its Performance. GAO/T-RCED-00-236. Washington, D.C.: 

June 29, 2000.



Forest Service: Status of Efforts to Improve Accountability. 

GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-00-93. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2000.



Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability. GAO/RCED/

AIMD-00-2. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.



Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address 

Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.: 

April 2, 1999.



Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving Performance. 

GAO/RCED-97-71. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 1997.



Resolving Discrimination Complaints:



Department of Agriculture: Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers Would 

Benefit from Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights 

Program. GAO-02-1124T. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2002.



Department of Agriculture: Improvements in the Operations of the Civil 

Rights Program Would Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers. GAO-

02-942. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2002.



U.S. Department of Agriculture: Resolution of Discrimination Complaints 

Involving Farm Credit and Payment Programs. 

GAO-01-521R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2001.



U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems in Processing Discrimination 

Complaints. GAO/T-RCED-00-286. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2000.



U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder the Timely 

Processing of Discrimination Complaints. GAO/RCED-99-38. Washington, 

D.C.: January 29, 1999.



[End of section]



Performance and Accountability and 

High-Risk Series:



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide 

Perspective. GAO-03-95.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Agriculture. GAO-03-96.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Commerce. 

GAO-03-97.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense. 

GAO-03-98.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Education. 

GAO-03-99.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy. 

GAO-03-100.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health and 

Human Services. GAO-03-101.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Homeland 

Security. GAO-03-102.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. GAO-03-103.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the 

Interior. GAO-03-104.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice. 

GAO-03-105.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor. 

GAO-03-106.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State. 

GAO-03-107.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Transportation. GAO-03-108.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the 

Treasury. GAO-03-109.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans 

Affairs. GAO-03-110.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Agency for 

International Development. GAO-03-111.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection 

Agency. GAO-03-112.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. GAO-03-113.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. GAO-03-114.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of Personnel 

Management. GAO-03-115.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Small Business 

Administration. GAO-03-116.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security 

Administration. GAO-03-117.



Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Postal Service. 

GAO-03-118.



High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119.



High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120.



High-Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting the Federal 

Government and the Nation’s Critical Infrastructures. 

GAO-03-121.



High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122.



FOOTNOTES



[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and 

Program Risks: Department of Agriculture, GAO-01-242 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 2001).



[2] Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002.



[3] http://www.usda.gov/farmbill.



[4] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, 

Oversight and Security of Biological Agents at Laboratories Operated by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Policies and Inventories Are Needed 

To Manage Biosecurity, Report No. 50099-13-At (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

29, 2002).



[5] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Review 

of Forest Service Security Over Aircraft and Aircraft Facilities, 

Report No. 08001-2-HQ (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).



[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect 

U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding 

Issues, GAO-02-808 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002).



[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: USDA Needs to 

Implement Its Departmentwide Information Security Plan, GAO/AIMD-00-

217 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 10, 2000).



[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Federal Oversight of 

Seafood Does Not Sufficiently Protect Consumers, GAO-01-204 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2001).



[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Federal Oversight of 

Shellfish Safety Needs Improvement, GAO-01-702 (Washington, D.C.: July 

9, 2001).



[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: Weaknesses in Meat 

and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be Addressed Before Implementation, 

GAO-02-59 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2001).



[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Meat and Poultry: Better USDA 

Oversight and Enforcement of Safety Rules Needed to Reduce Risk of 

Foodborne Illnesses, GAO-02-902 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002).



[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Mad Cow Disease: Improvements in 

the Animal Feed Ban and Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. 

Prevention Efforts, GAO-02-183 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2002).



[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety and Security: 

Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure Safe Food, GAO-02-47T (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 10, 2001).



[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Storeowners 

Seldom Pay Financial Penalties Owed for Program Violations, GAO/RCED-

99-91 (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 1999).



[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Better Use of 

Electronic Data Could Result in Disqualifying More Recipients Who 

Traffic Benefits, GAO/RCED-00-61 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2000).



[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Assistance: Efforts to 

Control Fraud and Abuse in the Child and Adult Care Food Program Should 

Be Strengthened, GAO/RCED-00-12 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 29, 1999).



[17] A disclaimer of opinion means that the auditor is unable to form 

an opinion on the financial statements. A disclaimer results when a 

pervasive material uncertainty exists or there is a significant 

restriction on the scope of the audit.



[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Government Financial 

Statements: FY2001 Results Highlight the Continuing Need to Accelerate 

Federal Financial Management Reform, GAO-02-599T (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2002).



[19] USDA records its budget authority in asset accounts called Fund 

Balance with Treasury and increases or decreases these accounts as it 

collects or disburses funds.



[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Debt Collection Improvement Act of 

1996: Department of Agriculture Faces Challenges Implementing Certain 

Key Provisions, GAO-02-277T (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2001).



[21] Application controls are methods and procedures designed to 

provide reasonable assurance that data are valid, properly authorized, 

and completely and accurately processed.



[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Agriculture: 

Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights Program Would 

Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers, GAO-02-942 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002).



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: