This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-320
entitled 'Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and 
Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution 
Regulation, and Public Health Systems' which was released on December 
20, 2002. 

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. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

December 2002: 

Results-Oriented Management: 

Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty, 
Financial Institution Regulation, and Public Health Systems: 

GAO-03-320: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-03-320, a report to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

GAO’s work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program 
overlap are widespread in the federal government. Implementation of 
federal crosscutting programs is often characterized by numerous 
individual agency efforts that are implemented with little apparent 
regard for the presence and efforts of related activities. GAO has in 
the past offered possible approaches for managing crosscutting 
programs, and has stated that the Government Performance and Results 
Act could provide a framework for addressing crosscutting efforts. GAO 
was asked to examine the actions and plans agencies reported in 
addressing the crosscutting issues of drug control, family poverty, 
financial institution regulation, and public health systems. GAO 
reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports and fiscal year 2003 
performance plans for the major agencies involved in these issues. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO did not independently verify or assess the information it obtained 
from agency performance reports and plans. On the basis of the reports 
and plans, GAO found the following: 

* Most agencies involved in the crosscutting issues discussed 
coordination with other agencies in their performance reports and 
plans, although the extent of coordination and level of detail provided 
varied considerably. 

* Most of the agencies we reviewed reported mixed progress in achieving
their fiscal year 2001 goals—meeting some goals, missing others, or not
reporting on progress. Some of the agencies that did not meet their
goals provided reasonable explanations and/or strategies that appeared
reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future. 

* The agencies GAO reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal
year 2003 similar to those in 2001, although some agencies added new
goals, dropped existing goals, or dropped goals altogether. Many
agencies discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Table: Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for
Coordination: 

Agency Involved: Agriculture; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Check]. 

Agency Involved: Federal Reserve; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: HHS; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Check]. 

Agency Involved: HUD; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Labor; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Justice; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: National Credit Union Administration; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: State; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Transportation; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Treasury; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved: Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-320]. 

To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at 
(202)-512-6806. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Results in Brief: 

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for
Coordination: 

Drug Control: 

Family Poverty: 

Financial Institution Regulation: 

Public Health Systems: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Drug Control: 

Appendix II: Family Poverty: 

Appendix III: Financial Institution Regulation: 

Appendix IV: Public Health Systems: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area: 

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug Control 
as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Table 4: Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for 
Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 
Performance Plans: 

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Family Poverty 
as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 
Plans: 

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data reported by Agencies Involved 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Financial 
Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal 
Year 2001 Performance Reports: 

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 
2001 Performance Reports: 

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Public Health 
Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and 
Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports: 

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 
Performance Plans: 

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports: 

Abbreviations: 

ACF: Administration for Children and Families: 

ACD: Advisory Committee to the Director: 

AETC: AIDS education and training center: 

CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CIA: Central Intelligence Agency: 

CMS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 

CRA: Community Reinvestment Act: 

DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration: 

DTO: drug trafficking organization: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

EZ/EC: empowerment zone/enterprise communities: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: 

FDICIA: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act: 

FFEIC: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HRSA: Health Resources and Services Administration: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IC: Institutes and Centers: 

INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service: 

NCUA: National Credit Union Administration: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

OCC: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: 

OCDETF: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

ONDCP: Office of National Drug Control Policy: 

OTS: Office of Thrift Supervision: 

PDTO: priority targeted drug trafficking organizations: 

SBP: School Breakfast Program: 

SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program: 

SFSP: Summer Food Service Program: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

WIC: Women, Infants, and Children Program: 

WtW: Welfare-to-Work: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

December 20, 2002: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Fred Thompson: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Although federal programs have been designed for different purposes or
targeted for different population groups, coordination among federal
programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and
effectively meet national concerns. Uncoordinated program efforts can
waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit 
the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results, as 
envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(Results Act), implies that federal programs contributing to the same 
or similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals 
are consistent and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually 
reinforcing. This means that federal agencies are to look beyond their 
organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure 
that their efforts are aligned. 

This report is in response to your request that we examine the actions 
and plans agencies reported in addressing the crosscutting program 
areas you identified: drug control, family poverty, financial 
institution regulation, and public health systems. Specifically, for 
each of the crosscutting program areas the objectives of this report 
were to describe (1) the major agencies involved, (2) the type of 
coordination these agencies discussed in their performance reports and 
plans, (3) the progress these agencies reported in their fiscal year 
2001 performance reports and, for unmet goals, whether the agencies 
provide explanations and strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving the unmet goals in the future, (4) the progress these agencies
planned to make in fiscal year 2003 and whether agencies describe 
strategies that are reasonably linked to achieving their goals, and (5) 
how agencies discussed the completeness, reliability, and credibility 
of their performance data, known shortcomings in the data, and 
strategies for addressing those shortcomings. In fulfilling the 
request, except as otherwise noted, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 
performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan required by 
the Results Act for the major agencies involved in these crosscutting 
areas. The Department of Defense was not included in this review since 
it had not issued its combined performance report and performance plan. 

Background: 

Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program
overlap are widespread in the federal government. [Footnote 1] In 1998 
and 1999, we found that this situation existed in 12 federal mission 
areas, ranging from agriculture to natural resources and environment. 
We also identified, in 1998 and 1999, 8 new areas of program overlap, 
including 50 programs for the homeless that were administered by 8 
federal agencies. These programs provided services for the homeless 
that appeared to be similar. For example, 23 programs operated by 4 
agencies offered housing services, and 26 programs administered by 6 
agencies offered food and nutrition services. Although our work 
indicates that the potential for inefficiency and waste exists, it also 
shows areas where the intentional participation by multiple agencies 
may be a reasonable response to a complex public problem. In either 
situation, implementation of federal crosscutting programs is often 
characterized by numerous individual agency efforts that are 
implemented with little apparent regard for the presence of efforts of
related activities. 

In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for better
managing crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, 
integration, and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals are
consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 
appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used as a 
basis for management. One of our oft-cited proposals is to consolidate 
the fragmented federal system to ensure the safety and quality of food. 

Perhaps most important, however, we have stated that the Results Act
could provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, and
Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting
program efforts. OMB, for example, could use the governmentwide
performance plan, which is a key component of this framework, to
integrate expected agency-level performance. It could also be used to 
more clearly relate and address the contributions of alternative federal
strategies. Agencies, in turn, could use the annual performance planning
cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight 
crosscutting program efforts and to provide evidence of the 
coordination of those efforts. 

OMB guidance to agencies on the Results Act states that, at a minimum, 
an agency’s annual plan should identify those programs or activities 
that are being undertaken with other agencies to achieve a common 
purpose or objective, that is, interagency and cross-cutting programs. 
This identification need cover only programs and activities that 
represent a significant agency effort. An agency should also review the 
fiscal year 2003 performance plans of other agencies participating with 
it in a crosscutting program or activity to ensure that related 
performance goals and indicators for a crosscutting program are 
consistent and harmonious. As appropriate, agencies should modify 
performance goals to bring about greater synergy and interagency 
support in achieving mutual goals. [Footnote 2] 

In April 2002, as part of its spring budget planning guidance to 
agencies for preparing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, 
OMB stated that it is working to develop uniform evaluation metrics, or 
“common measures” for programs with similar goals. OMB asked agencies 
to work with OMB staff to develop evaluation metrics for several major
crosscutting, governmentwide functions as part of their September budget
submissions. According to OMB, such measures can help raise important
questions and help inform decisions about how to direct funding and how
to improve performance in specific programs. OMB’s common measures
initiative initially focused on the following crosscutting program 
areas: 

* low-income housing assistance; 
* job training and employment; 
* wildland fire management; 
* flood mitigation; 
* disaster insurance, and; 
* health. 

We recently reported that one of the purposes of the Reports 
Consolidation Act of 2000 is to improve the quality of agency financial 
and performance data. [Footnote 3] We found that only 5 of the 24 CFO 
Act agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports included assessments 
of the completeness and reliability of their performance data in their 
transmittal letters. The other 19 agencies discussed, at least to some 
degree, the quality of their performance data elsewhere in their 
performance reports. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each 
crosscutting program area as follows: 

* Drug control focuses on major federal efforts to control the supply of
illegal drugs through interdiction and seizure, eradication, and 
arrests. 

* Family poverty focuses on major federal efforts to address the needs 
of families in poverty through programs aimed at enhancing family
independence and well-being. We focused on agencies that provide key
support and transition tools associated with the income, health, and
food support and assistance to poor families. 

* Financial institution regulation focuses on major federal efforts to
supervise and regulate depository institutions. Supervision involves
monitoring, inspecting, and examining depository institutions to assess
their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
Regulation of depository institutions involves making and issuing
specific regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct
of banking. 

* Public health systems focuses on major federal efforts to prevent and
control infectious diseases within the United States. 

To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on our previous
work and confirmed the agencies involved by reviewing the fiscal year 
2001 Results Act performance report and fiscal year 2003 Results Act
performance plans for each agency identified as contributing to the
crosscutting program area. To address the remaining objectives, we
reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports and fiscal year 2003
performance plans and used criteria contained in the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000 and OMB guidance. The act requires that an
agency’s performance report include a transmittal letter from the agency
head containing, in addition to any other content, an assessment of the
completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data used 
in the report. It also requires that the assessment describe any 
material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of the data 
and the actions the agency can take and is taking to resolve such 
inadequacies. [Footnote 4] 

OMB guidance states that agency annual plans should include a 
description of how the agency intends to verify and validate the 
measured values of actual performance. The means used should be 
sufficiently credible and specific to support the general accuracy and 
reliability of the performance information that is recorded, collected, 
and reported. [Footnote 5] 

We did not include any changes or modifications the agencies may have
made to the reports or plans after they were issued, except in cases in
which agency comments provided information from a published update to
a report or plan. Furthermore, because of the scope and timing of this
review, information on the progress agencies may have made in addressing
their management challenges during fiscal year 2002 was not yet 
available. 

We did not independently verify or assess the information we obtained
from agency performance reports and plans. Also, that an agency chose
not to discuss its efforts to coordinate in these crosscutting areas in 
its performance reports or plans does not necessarily mean that the 
agency is not coordinating with the appropriate agencies. 

We conducted our review from September through November 2002, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Our review of agency performance reports and plans for the four 
crosscutting areas revealed that there are multiple players within these
areas pursuing similar or complementary goals and strategies, suggesting
significant opportunities for coordination to achieve common objectives.
As we have reported previously, agencies could use the annual 
performance planning cycle to ensure that crosscutting goals are 
consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 
appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used as a 
basis for management. Annual performance reports and plans could then 
serve as a vehicle to highlight crosscutting program efforts and to 
provide evidence of the coordination of those efforts. 

We found most agencies identified the agencies with which they 
coordinated on the crosscutting areas in their performance reports and
plans, although the specific areas of coordination and level of detail
provided varied considerably. For example, the Department of 
Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Customs Service to
finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect that interdiction 
has on drug trafficking organizations. In contrast, in the area of 
family poverty, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a component of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS), stated that they coordinated with 
other agencies, but did not specify the agencies or the types of 
coordination efforts. 

The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001
performance goals across the four crosscutting areas also varied
considerably. Of the agencies we reviewed, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) in the area of public health systems and the National 
Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the Office of Thrift Supervision 
(OTS) in the area of financial institution regulation reported meeting 
all of their goals in these areas. However, most of the agencies we 
reviewed reported mixed progress in achieving their fiscal year 2001 
goals. For example, CMS reported meeting two goals, partially meeting 
one goal, and not meeting a fourth goal related to family poverty. Some 
of the agencies were unable to report on progress against specific 
targets—either because, like the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), they were establishing baselines for new measures or 
because, like the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), there 
were delays in receiving performance data from state and local partner 
agencies. 

Some of the agencies that did not meet one or more of their fiscal year 
2001 performance goals, such as the Department of Labor in the area of 
family poverty, provided reasonable explanations as well as strategies 
that appear reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future. The 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a component of HHS, provided a 
reasonable explanation for not meeting one of its goal related to 
public health systems, but did not discuss any strategies for achieving 
the goal in the future. 

The agencies we reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal 
year 2003 that were similar to those they pursued in fiscal year 2001, 
with targets adjusted to reflect either higher or lower levels of 
performance than were planned for fiscal year 2001. Some agencies added 
new goals, modified existing goals, or dropped goals altogether from 
their fiscal year 2003 performance plans. Many agencies discussed 
strategies for achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals that appeared to 
be reasonably linked to the performance goals to be achieved. Others, 
such as NIH and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 
components of HHS in the area of public health systems did not discuss 
any strategies for achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Eight of the 12 agencies we reviewed for all the crosscutting areas—
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, 
Transportation, and Treasury, and OCC and OTS—commented on the overall 
quality and reliability of the data in their performance reports. For
example, the Secretary’s message in the Department of the Treasury’s 
fiscal year 2001 performance report stated that, as required by the 
Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the Secretary had assessed the data 
in the report and determined that the data were reliable and complete 
with noted exceptions. Beyond such overarching statements, we also 
found more detailed discussion of the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of the performance data reported. For example, 
Transportation reported its data verification and validation procedures 
for each of its performance measures. In contrast, the Department of 
State in the area of drug control and the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System (the Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC), and NCUA in the area of financial institution 
regulation did not discuss potential shortcomings to their data or 
whether the data used in their performance reports were complete, 
reliable, and credible. 

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for 
Coordination: 

As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved in each of the
crosscutting program areas we reviewed. 

Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area: 

Agency Involved[A]: Agriculture; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Check]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Federal Reserve[C]; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: HHS[D]; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Check]. 

Agency Involved[A]: HUD; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Labor; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Justice; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: National Credit Union Administration; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: State; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Transportation[E]; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Treasury[F]; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Agency Involved[A]: Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision; 
Crosscutting program area: Drug Control[B]: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Family Poverty: [Empty]; 
Crosscutting program area: Financial institution regulation: [Check]; 
Crosscutting program area: Public health systems: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] Although our review focused primarily on department-level reports 
and plans, in some cases our review also focused on bureau-level 
sections of the reports and plans as indicated in the notes that 
follow. 

[B] ONDCP is an executive office of the President and is not required 
to issue a performance plan or report under the Results Act. Instead, 
we reviewed the following ONDCP documents for this analysis: 2002 Final 
Report on the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy; Performance Measures 
of Effectiveness: 2000 Report; The National Drug Control Strategy, 
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Summary; and The National Drug Control 
Strategy: 2001 Annual Report. 

[C] The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, 
but it has chosen to voluntarily comply with the act. The Board issued 
both its performance report and performance plans biannually rather 
than annually to reflect its budget process, which occurs biannually. 

[D] Within HHS, we looked at ACF and CMS for family poverty and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH for 
public health. 

[E] Within Transportation, we looked at the Coast Guard in the area of 
drug control. 

[F] Within Treasury, we looked at the Customs Service in the area of 
drug control. 

[End of table] 

The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed
information contained in the tables that appear in appendixes I through 
IV. 

Drug Control: 

Fourteen million Americans use illegal drugs regularly, and drug-related
illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $110 billion
annually. From 1990 through 1997, there were more than 100,000 drug-
induced deaths in the United States. [Footnote 6] Despite U.S. and 
Colombian efforts, the illegal narcotics threat from Colombia continues 
to grow and become more complex. From 1995 through 1999, coca 
cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia more than doubled and 
Colombia became a major supplier of the heroin consumed in the United 
States. Moreover, over time, the drug threat has become more difficult 
to address. [Footnote 7] ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988 to set policies, priorities, and objectives for the 
nation's drug control program. The Director of ONDCP is charged with 
producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which directs the 
nation's antidrug efforts and establishes a budget and guidelines for 
cooperation among federal, state, and local entities. ONDCP’s 2001 
Annual Report discussed two strategic goals that pertain to controlling 
the supply of drugs that enter the United States, including (1) 
“shielding U.S. borders from the drug threat” and (2) “reducing the 
supply of illegal drugs.” ONDCP reported two performance goals under 
the strategic goals—reduce the rate of illicit drug flow through 
transit zones and reduce the shipment rate of illicit drugs from 
arrival zones and supply
zones. 

For fiscal year 2001, all the agencies we reviewed—Justice, State,
Transportation, and Treasury—discussed coordination with other agencies
in the area of drug control, although the level of detail varied. For 
example, Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP 
and Customs to finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect 
that interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Also, Justice 
reported that it collaborated with Transportation to prosecute cases 
that relate to maritime drug smuggling. In contrast, State identified 
the lead and partner agencies it coordinated with to accomplish its 
goals, but it did not discuss specific coordination efforts. None of 
the agencies distinguished between coordination efforts that occurred 
in fiscal year 2001 and those that were planned for fiscal year 2003. 

None of the agencies reported having met all of their goals and measures
relating to drug control in fiscal year 2001. Customs reported that it 
met eight of its nine measures for seizures of cocaine, marijuana, and 
heroin. Customs reported that it did not meet its target for number of 
marijuana seizures. State reported that it met the targets for its goal 
of increasing foreign governments’ effectiveness in dissolving major 
drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting and convicting major 
traffickers. For the other goal—increasing foreign governments’ 
effectiveness in reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and 
marijuana—State did not meet two of its four targets. For its two 
measures, Transportation reported that it did not establish a target 
for one, the amount of drugs that are seized or destroyed at sea, and 
it did not meet its target for the other, the seizure rate for cocaine 
that is shipped through the transit zone. Justice reported that it 
exceeded the target for one measure—number of priority drug trafficking
organizations dismantled or disrupted by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA)—and did not meet one of two targets for the second
measure—the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

The four agencies we reviewed—Justice, State, Transportation, and
Treasury—provided explanations for not meeting their fiscal year 2001
goals that appeared reasonable. For example, Customs which is under
Treasury stated that although it did not meet its target for the number 
of marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of marijuana in fiscal 
year 2001 than in any other year. Customs stated that it believes that 
the number of seizures dropped because of an overall increase in sizes 
of marijuana loads. Furthermore, it stated that the heightened state of 
alert on the border following the events of September 11, 2001, might 
have deterred the entrance into the country of hundreds of smaller, 
personal-sized loads. However, none of the agencies discussed 
strategies for achieving the unmet goals and measures in the future. 

According to their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, the agencies we
reviewed expected to make progress on goals similar to those established
for fiscal year 2001. All of Treasury’s performance targets were 
adjusted to reflect higher anticipated levels of performance. Justice 
and State reflected a mixture of higher and lower anticipated levels of 
performance. Although its goals remained the same, Transportation had 
measures that differed from those reported in fiscal year 2001. Justice 
and Transportation provided strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving their goals for fiscal year 2003. For the goal of reducing 
the supply and use of drugs in the United States, Justice stated that 
the nine Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams 
would coordinate to develop a national priority target list of the most 
significant drug and money laundering organizations. As drug 
organizations are dismantled and more organizations are identified, the 
OCDETF teams will monitor their progress and modify the target list. To 
achieve its target for the amount of drugs seized or destroyed at 
sea—Transportation stated that the Coast Guard will (1) operate along 
maritime routes to deter attempts to smuggle drugs and (2) finalize an 
interagency study that focuses on the deterrent impact that 
interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Customs did not 
discuss any strategies for achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. State 
provided only general statements about how it planned to achieve its 
fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Justice, Transportation, and Treasury each commented on the overall
quality and reliability of its data. For example, in its combined 
report and plan, Justice states that to ensure that data contained in 
this document are reliable, each reporting component was surveyed to 
ensure that the data reported met the OMB standard for data 
reliability. Data that did not meet this standard were not included in 
the report and plan. These agencies also discussed the quality of 
specific performance data in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports 
to various degrees. In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, Justice 
provided a discussion of data verification and validation for each 
performance measure. For example, for the measure of drug trafficking 
organizations dismantled by the FBI, an FBI field manager reviewed and 
approved data that were entered into the system and the data were 
verified through the FBI’s inspection process. Transportation reported 
that it used data entry software to ensure data quality and consistency 
by employing selection lists and logic checks. Also, Transportation 
stated that internal analysis and review of published data by external 
parties helps identify errors. Furthermore, Customs reported on the 
completeness, reliability, and credibility of its performance data by 
discussing how it verifies the data for each performance measure. State
did not report on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of its
performance data. 

While Justice, Transportation, and Treasury acknowledged shortcomings in
their performance data, they did not report steps to resolve or minimize
these shortcomings. Justice reported one shortcoming which was the need
to improve its reporting system for one measure—number of priority drug
trafficking organizations dismantled or disrupted by DEA. Transportation
stated that although data verification and validation occurs several 
times in the data reporting process, a potential limitation to the 
accuracy of its data could stem from data duplication and coding 
errors. Customs reported that while its data could be considered 
reliable, the data could be subject to input errors or duplicative 
reporting not identified by reviewers. State did not report on 
shortcomings in its performance data. 

Family Poverty: 

Federal government agencies have major programs aimed at supporting
families classified as poor. For example, HHS’s Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program makes $16.8 billion in federal funds
available to states each year. [Footnote 8] While TANF delegates wide 
discretion to the states to design and implement the program, it does 
specify four broad program goals that focus on children and families: 

* providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared 
for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 

* ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by
promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; 

* preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;
and; 

* encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. 
[Footnote 9] 

In addition, Agriculture’s Food Stamp Program helps low-income 
individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing
their incomes with food stamp benefits. Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition
Service and the states jointly implement the Food Stamp Program, which
provided about $15 billion in benefits to over 17 million low-income
individuals in the United States during fiscal year 2000. [Footnote 10] 
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) to 
consolidate services of many employment and training programs, 
mandating that states and localities use a centralized service delivery 
structure—the one-stop center system—to provide most federally funded 
employment and training assistance. We previously reported that several 
challenges, including program differences between TANF and WIA and 
different information systems used by welfare and workforce agencies, 
inhibit state and local coordination efforts. [Footnote 11] For 
example, different program definitions, such as what constitutes work, 
as well as complex reporting requirements under TANF and WIA hamper 
state and local coordination efforts. Though some states and localities 
have found creative ways to work around these issues, the differences 
remain barriers to coordination for many others. For example, 
antiquated welfare and workforce information systems are often not 
equipped to share data with each other, and as a result, sometimes one-
stop center staff members have to enter the same client data into two
separate systems. Although HHS and Labor have each provided some
assistance to the states on how to coordinate services, available 
guidance has not specifically addressed the challenges that many 
continue to face. Moreover, HHS and Labor have not addressed 
differences in program definitions and reporting requirements under 
TANF and WIA. To address the obstacles to coordination, we recommended 
that HHS and Labor work together to develop ways to jointly disseminate 
information on how some states and localities have taken advantage of 
the flexibility afforded to them under TANF and WIA to pursue 
coordination strategies to address some of these obstacles to 
coordination. We also recommended that HHS and Labor, either 
individually or jointly, promote research that would examine the role 
of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients. 

The agencies we reviewed generally discussed in their performance 
reports and plans their efforts to coordinate with other federal 
agencies on programs that address family poverty. Three major 
interagency task forces bring all of the agencies we reviewed, plus 
others, together to coordinate on such programs: (1) the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless, which includes such federal entities as HUD, 
HHS, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Justice, Labor, Defense, 
Transportation, Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the General Services 
Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service, (2) OMB’s Workforce 
Investment Act Committee, which includes HUD, Labor, HHS, and 
Education, to address the nation’s employment issues, and (3) the 
Workforce Excellence Network, which comprises Education, HHS, and 
Labor, conducts two major national conferences each year, in which 
Labor is able to “showcase” its best WIA programs. In addition, three 
of the five agencies we reviewed identified individual coordination 
efforts outside these task forces and specified the programs on which 
they coordinated. For example, HHS’s ACF reported that it works with 
Labor in Welfare-to-Work (WtW) and WIA efforts, Transportation in their 
Access to Jobs program, Education in providing education and training 
services, and HUD in providing housing assistance. Agriculture and 
HHS’s CMS stated that they coordinated with other agencies, but did not 
specify the agencies or the types of coordination efforts. 

The agencies we reviewed reported varied progress in achieving their 
fiscal year 2001 goals and measures. For example, CMS reported meeting 
two goals, partially meeting one goal, and not meeting a fourth goal 
related to family poverty. For its goal of promoting self-sufficiency 
and asset development, HUD reported meeting the targets for seven of its
performance indicators, missing or expecting to miss six targets, not
having enough data for one target, and establishing baselines for 4 of 
its 18 performance indicators. Incomplete data prevented Agriculture, 
ACF, and HUD from reporting on all of their measures. For example, ACF 
was unable to report on its progress for 18 of its 23 performance 
indicators related to three of its goals linked to family poverty due 
to the time lag in receiving and validating data from states, 
localities, and other program partners. However, ACF was able to report 
that it fell short in achieving its targets for the 5 performance 
indicators related to two of its goals: improving the quality of child 
care and the Head Start Health Status program. 

All of the agencies provided explanations that appeared reasonable for 
not meeting their goals. For example, ACF reported that two factors
contributed to its failure to meet two of the three targets for its 
goal of improving Head Start Health Status: (1) a high student turnover 
rate hindered the students’ receipt of health care despite Head Start’s 
medical referrals and (2) Medicaid’s inability to cover dental and 
mental health treatment for Head Start students prevented them from 
receiving proper care. In addition, these agencies generally provided 
strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goals 
in the future. For example, Labor outlined strategies to address its 
two unmet goals relating to higher wages for and retention of WtW 
participants in the workforce and increasing the number of child care 
apprenticeship programs and apprentices. Specifically, Labor proposed 
making retention of WtW participants more attractive by increasing 
grantees’ use of tax credits and continuing the Pathways to Advancement 
pilot project, which subsidizes employers, upgrades and advances 
current TANF “alumni,” and validates data at the program level, among 
other strategies. 

For their fiscal year 2003 plan, the agencies we reviewed generally set 
goals similar to those established for fiscal year 2001, but increased 
the targets to reflect anticipated higher levels of performance. The 
exception to this consistency was HUD, which reported that the draft of 
its updated strategic plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 affected 
the fiscal year 2003 performance plan framework. The new framework 
introduced eight strategic goals, two of which addressed family 
poverty. Objectives included helping families in public and assisted 
housing make progress toward self-sufficiency and become homeowners, 
ending chronic homelessness in 10 years, and helping homeless 
individuals and families move to permanent housing. Four of the five 
agencies we reviewed—Agriculture, ACF, HUD, and Labor—provided 
reasonable strategies for achieving at least one of their fiscal year 
2003 goals related to family poverty. For example, Labor lists 
departmentwide means and strategies for meeting all of its goals, most 
of which are to continue or improve preexisting efforts. Following the 
list, Labor describes eight significant new or enhanced efforts in 
fiscal year 2003. For its goal of having states develop a baseline and 
methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-year-old children under 
Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the development of each state’s 
baseline measure and reporting methodology, but it does not describe 
specific strategies for how it intends to achieve its targets for this 
area. 

All of the agencies we reviewed addressed data quality issues in some 
form, although the degree to which such issues were addressed varied. 
Three of the five agencies—Agriculture, HUD, and Labor—included a broad
statement at the beginning or end of their reports or plans stating 
that the reported data were generally reliable. Because all of the 
agencies we reviewed rely on data from the states and other grantees to 
report on performance for at least one of their goals, they reported on 
the difficulty of obtaining quality data in a timely manner. However, 
all of the agencies reported that they have methods for reviewing the 
performance data for consistency and completeness. For example, CMS 
stated that it had built-in quality assurance checks, technical 
consultants, and a review of data by CMS personnel. In addition, the 
agencies generally acknowledged shortcomings in the data and discussed 
steps they were taking to resolve or minimize the shortcomings. For 
example, HUD reported that it is discontinuing or updating the 18 
performance indicators we reviewed in its fiscal year 2001 report 
because of its inability to address data reliability issues and because 
the connection between the indicators and the outcome measure was 
unknown, among other reasons. For the estimated data, HUD stated that 
accurate numbers would be reported in its fiscal year 2002 performance 
report if adjustments were necessary. 

Financial Institution Regulation: 

Financial regulation of depository institutions in the United States is 
a highly complex system. Federal responsibilities for regulation and
supervision are assigned to five federal regulators: FDIC, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, [Footnote 12] NCUA, OCC, and 
OTS.[Footnote 13] FDIC is the primary federal regulator and supervisor 
for federally insured state-chartered banks that are not members of the 
Federal Reserve System and for state savings banks whose deposits are 
federally insured. The Board is the federal regulator and supervisor 
for bank-holding companies and is the primary federal regulator for 
state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. 
OCC is the primary regulator of federally chartered banks or national 
banks. OTS is the primary regulator of all federal and state-chartered 
thrifts whose deposits are federally insured and their holding 
companies. NCUA is the primary federal regulator for credit
unions. 

A primary objective of federal depository institution regulators is to 
ensure the safe and sound practices and operations of individual 
depository institutions through regulation and supervision. [Footnote 
14] Regulation of depository institutions involves making and issuing 
specific regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct 
of banking. Supervision involves the monitoring, inspecting, and 
examining of depository institutions to assess their condition and 
their compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Each federal 
depository regulator is responsible for its respective institutions; 
for example, the Board examines and regulates state member banks and 
OCC examines and regulates national banks. 

Although the Board, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA are responsible for
specific depository institutions, all of the agencies have similar 
oversight responsibilities for developing and implementing regulations, 
conducting examinations and off-site monitoring, and taking enforcement 
actions for those institutions that are under their respective purview. 
To ensure that depository institutions are receiving consistent 
treatment in examinations, enforcement actions, and regulatory 
decisions, coordination among the regulators is essential. In 1979, 
Congress established the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 
Council (FFIEC) to promote uniformity in the supervision of depository 
institutions by the Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and OTS. It is a formal 
interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, 
and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions 
and to make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of 
financial institutions. 

Generally, the performance reports and plans of the federal depository
institutions regulators discussed possible coordination on crosscutting
goals. [Footnote 15] The performance reports and plans of FDIC, OCC, 
and OTS described the types of coordination that they conduct with the 
other regulators. The Board’s 2002-2003 plan includes a section on 
interagency coordination of crosscutting issues. For instance, the 
section of the plan entitled, “Interagency Coordination of Crosscutting 
Issues” stated that the Board formally coordinates with other federal 
depository institutions regulators through the FFIEC and its 
participation with the Results Act Financial Institutions Regulatory 
Working Group, a coordinating committee of the depository institution 
regulators to address and report on issues of mutual concern. The 
performance report and plan of NCUA did not include any discussion of 
coordination efforts with the other federal depository institution 
regulators. 

In 2001 and 2002, the federal depository institution regulators jointly 
issued guidance or regulations on a number of occasions. For example, 
the regulators often jointly issue guidance in areas such as the risks 
of brokered and other rate-sensitive deposits, temporary balance sheet
growth, clarification on the accounting and reporting for loans held for
sale, and consumer privacy. In addition, earlier this year, the federal
depository institution regulators jointly issued proposed regulations to
implement section 326 of the USA Patriot Act on customer identification.
In 2001, they jointly issued guidelines on safeguarding confidential
customer information. 

On the basis of their fiscal year 2001 performance reports, all the 
federal depository institution regulators reported they made progress 
in achieving their fiscal year 2001 goals for the supervision and 
regulation function. The Board, FDIC, and OCC each reported meeting all 
of their goals except for one related to the examinations of depository 
institutions that were due for a safety and soundness examination in 
2001. However, each of the three agencies provided a reasonable 
explanation for not achieving the goal. FDIC was unable to examine 11 
banks that were scheduled for an examination for the following reasons: 
some institutions merged or converted their charters, some institutions 
moved into or changed their capital categories requiring a change in 
examination intervals, and one institution converted its information 
system. The Board did not meet its goal because it failed to complete 
17 bank examinations, as required by statute and on the basis of their 
financial condition in 2001, but the Board provided an appropriate 
reason for the delay—scheduling problems with state bank regulatory 
agencies. The Board reported that it is implementing a new scheduling 
system that will partially resolve these problems. NCUA reported it 
generally met its performance goals, although out of its four strategic 
goals, it missed one out of five outcome goals for two and was unable 
to report on most of the outcome goals for another. OTS reported 
meeting all of its goals. 

On the basis of their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, three of the 
five federal depository institution regulators designed strategies to 
achieve their performance goals that appear to be reasonable. Similar 
to the fiscal year 2001 performance reports, the performance goals 
focused on the scheduling of examinations under specific time frames, 
enforcement actions, and reviewing compliance with consumer protection 
statutes relating to consumer financial transactions. The Board’s 
performance plan outlined strategies that appeared reasonably linked to 
achieving its goals and objectives for promoting a safe, sound, 
competitive, and accessible banking system. For example, the Board’s 
plan proposed focusing on the areas of highest risk, promoting sound 
risk management practices, understanding and accommodating the effects 
of financial innovation and technology, improving international banking 
and supervisory practices, and refining and strengthening the foreign 
bank organizations program, among other strategies. The FDIC 
performance plan included a strategy for achieving its planned 
performance goals that also appeared reasonable. For example, FDIC 
plans to analyze examination-related data collected in the System of 
Uniform Reporting of Compliance and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) 
Examination to determine whether it achieved targeted performance 
levels during the reporting period. In its performance plan, OCC 
discussed strategies for each of its strategic goals. OTS discussed 
general strategies, which were not clearly linked to particular 
performance goals. 

Of the five regulators, only the performance reports of OCC and OTS
commented on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the data 
for the supervision and regulation function. OCC’s performance report 
for fiscal year 2001 concluded the data were accurate for some of the
performance measurements used in the report. In its fiscal year 2001
performance report, OTS concluded that the data for its performance
measures met standards for accuracy and auditability. The performance
reports issued by the Board, FDIC, and NCUA did not discuss whether the
performance data for the supervision and regulation areas used in the
reports were complete, reliable, and credible. None of their performance
reports commented on the potential shortcomings of these data. 

Public Health Systems: 

Broadly speaking, federal involvement in the area of public health 
systems encompasses a mix of efforts to maintain the health of a diverse
population, such as directly providing health services, regulating 
prescription drugs, or paying for medical services provided to the aged 
and the needy. In this report, we focused one aspect of the public 
health system—federal efforts to prevent and control infectious 
diseases within the United States. The spread of infectious diseases is 
a public health problem once thought to be largely under control. 
However, outbreaks over the last decade illustrate that infectious 
diseases remain a serious public health threat. [Footnote 16] For 
example, foodborne disease in the United States annually causes an 
estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and about 
5,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). [Footnote 17] The resurgence of some infectious 
diseases is particularly alarming because previously effective forms of 
control are breaking down. For example, some pathogens (disease-causing 
organisms) have become resistant to antibiotics used to bring them 
under control or have developed strains that no longer respond to the 
antibiotics. The need for concerted efforts to prevent such diseases is 
critical to reducing this threat to the public. We have previously 
reported on various aspects of protecting public health, such as 
ensuring the vaccination of children through the Vaccines for Children 
program [Footnote 18] and limitations in several of CDC’s foodborne 
disease surveillance systems. [Footnote 19] 

Agriculture and each of the five components of HHS we reviewed—CDC, 
CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH—discussed in their performance reports and 
performance plans coordination efforts with other agencies related to
preventing infectious diseases. For example, CDC reported that it 
coordinated with (1) Agriculture and FDA on its food safety programs,
(2) HRSA, CMS, FDA, and NIH, among others, on its immunization 
objectives, and (3) NIH and FDA on the development of new diagnostic and
treatment tools and better vaccines for tuberculosis. Also, Agriculture
reported that it coordinated with HHS and the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding the goal to protect the public health by reducing the
incidence of foodborne illnesses. However, none of the agencies 
discussed specific details about the coordination. 

According to its combined fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal
year 2003 performance plan, NIH was the only agency that reported
achieving its public health systems goal—to develop new or improved
approaches for preventing or delaying the onset or progression of 
disease and disability. Agriculture, FDA, and CDC each reported missing 
some of its performance targets. In addition, CDC, CMS, and HRSA lacked 
data to report on some or all of their performance goals for fiscal 
year 2001. For example, HRSA indicated that the performance data for 
its goal—increase the proportion of the national AIDS education and 
training center (AETC) interventions provided to minority health care 
providers—will not be collected until February 2003. Three 
agencies—CDC, FDA, and Agriculture—provided explanations for not 
meeting a measure or goal that appeared reasonable. For example, FDA 
reported that it missed its target—inspect 90 percent of high-risk 
domestic food establishments each year—because the agency purposefully 
diverted resources for these inspections to focus on the even greater 
threat of bovine spongiform encephalopathy that was breaking out in 
Europe at the time. None of these agencies discussed strategies to 
achieve the unmet goals in the future. 

For fiscal year 2003, HHS’s CDC, CMS, FDA, and HRSA, and Agriculture,
reported they expect to make progress on goals that were generally the
same as those they reported on in fiscal year 2001. NIH developed two 
new subgoals for its goal of developing new or improved approaches to
preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease and 
disability, but did not indicate targets for the new goals. CDC 
developed a new goal of conducting research to identify and assess 
community-based prevention interventions. HRSA plans to drop one of its 
goals—“increase the number of minority health care and social service 
providers who receive training in AETCs”—because measuring the 
percentage of training interventions provided to minority health 
providers was determined to be a more accurate and appropriate method 
to measure the program’s progress in training health care providers. 
CMS and HRSA reported that they expected to achieve higher levels of 
performance for all of their targets. CDC, FDA, and Agriculture planned 
for a mixture of higher and lower levels of performance in fiscal year 
2003. 

Agriculture and three of the five HHS components we reviewed discussed
strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal 
year 2003 goals. For example, Agriculture reported that its performance 
goal—create a coordinated national and international food safety risk
management system to ensure safety of U.S. meat and poultry—has a set of
specifically outlined strategies to follow in order to accomplish the 
goal, including (1) develop national performance standards for ready-to-
eat meat and poultry items, (2) ensure food safety requirements are 
followed by monitoring slaughter and process plants, and (3) increase 
reviews of foreign inspection systems to ensure the safety of imported 
meat, poultry, and egg products. In contrast, NIH and HRSA did not 
discuss strategies for achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Agriculture and NIH commented on the overall quality and reliability of 
the performance data in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports. For
example, NIH progress toward meetings its goals was assessed by its GPRA
Assessment Working Group, which reviewed the performance data. In
addition, CDC, CMS, and Agriculture discussed aspects of data quality 
for each of their performance measures. For example, CDC’s combined 
report and plan addresses data verification and validation for each 
data source corresponding to each goal. FDA and HRSA discussed narrow 
aspects of data quality for certain measures. 

FDA and HRSA acknowledged shortcomings in their performance data and
reported steps to resolve or minimize those shortcomings. For example,
FDA stated that existing public health data systems are not adequate to
provide accurate and comprehensive baseline data needed to draw direct
relationships between FDA’s regulatory activities and changes in the
number and types of foodborne illnesses that occur annually in the 
United States. Therefore, through coordination with CDC and 
Agriculture, FDA reported developing an improved food safety 
surveillance program called FoodNet. HRSA reported limitations related 
to its HIV/AIDS data collection efforts. For example, the reporting 
system that holds the data contains duplicate data about individuals 
that prevents accurate conclusions from being made. To minimize the 
limitations, HRSA reported it allows grantees the option of 
participating in a client-level reporting system. CDC and CMS 
acknowledged shortcomings in their data but did not discuss steps to 
minimize the shortcomings. NIH and Agriculture did not discuss any 
limitations to their performance data in the area of public health 
systems. 

Concluding Observations: 

We have previously stated that the Results Act could provide OMB, 
agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing 
crosscutting program efforts. In its guidance, OMB clearly encourages
agencies to use their performance plans as a tool to communicate and
coordinate with other agencies on programs being undertaken for common
purposes to ensure that related performance goals and indicators are
consistent and harmonious. We have also stated that the Results Act 
could also be used as a vehicle to more clearly relate and address the
contributions of alternative federal strategies. The President’s common
measures initiative, by developing metrics that can be used to compare 
the performance of different agencies contributing to common objectives,
appears to be a step in this direction. 

Some of the agencies we reviewed appear to be using their performance
reports and plans as a vehicle to assist in collaborating and 
coordinating program areas that are crosscutting in nature. Those that 
provided more detailed information on the nature of their coordination 
provided greater confidence that they are working in concert with other 
agencies to achieve common objectives. Other agencies do not appear to 
be using their plans and reports to the extent they could to describe 
their coordination efforts to Congress, citizens, and other agencies. 

Furthermore the quality of the performance information reported—how 
agencies explain unmet goals and discuss strategies for achieving 
performance goals in the future, and overall descriptions of the 
completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance 
information reported—varied considerably. Although we found a number of 
agencies that provided detailed information about how they verify and 
validate individual measures, only 5 of the 10 agencies we reviewed for 
all the crosscutting areas commented on the overall quality and 
reliability of the data in their performance reports consistent with 
the requirements of the Reports Consolidation Act. Without such 
statements, performance information lacks the credibility needed to 
provide transparency of government operations so that Congress, program 
managers, and other decision makers can use the information. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We sent drafts of this report to the respective agencies for comments. 
We received comments from Agriculture, the Board, FDIC, HHS, HUD, Labor,
and Treasury, including OCC and OTS. The agencies generally agreed with 
our findings. The comments we received were mostly technical and we
have incorporated them where appropriate. 

Regarding drug control, Justice, through its Office of Legal Policy,
commented that, as of November 2002, Justice had formalized increased
cooperation with ONDCP on drug policy and operations. 

Regarding public health systems, the NIH component of HHS commented
that the prevention goal GAO looked at is one of five goals that 
together that give a comprehensive picture of the performance of NIH’s 
research program. Furthermore, NIH commented that there are many formal 
and informal ways in which it coordinates its work in the prevention 
arena that are not reflected in its performance plan. For example, NIH 
cites the Next-Generation Smallpox Vaccine Initiative, an 
intradepartmental task force consisting of representatives from the 
Office of Public Health Policy, CDC, FDA, and NIH. We acknowledge this 
limitation in the scope and methodology section of the report. 

Regarding family poverty, HUD commented that, although GAO’s review
focused on two of HUD’s eight goals, it believes all of its goals and 
many of its indicators have an impact on family poverty. We do not 
dispute HUD’s assertion that many of its goal address family poverty 
broadly. However, we focused on the goals that appeared to be most 
directly related to the scope we defined in our scope and methodology 
section. 

Regarding financial institution regulation, FDIC commented that a lack 
of specific reference in the performance report regarding the 
completeness, reliability and credibility of the data should not lead 
to a negative inference. 

We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, the congressional leadership, other
Members of Congress, and the heads of major departments and agencies.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or 
Elizabeth Curda on (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov. Major 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Patricia A. Dalton: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Drug Control: 

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug Control 
as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Agency: Department of Justice[A]; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? Justice’s combined report and plan provided a 
discussion of crosscutting activities for each performance goal. 
Justice stated that its annual goal—to reduce the threat, trafficking, 
and related violence of illegal drugs by disrupting drug trafficking
organizations—had two performance goals under it. The two performance 
goals were (1) reduction in the supply and use of drugs within the 
United States and (2) disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking 
criminal enterprises. Pertaining to the annual goal, Justice reported 
that it collaborated with the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
(ONDCP) and the intelligence community to support the work of the 
National Drug Intelligence Center. In order to achieve the two 
performance goals, Justice reported collaboration with the Department 
of Transportation to prosecute cases that relate to maritime drug 
smuggling. Justice reported that it coordinated with the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI), the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the
Department of Defense to create the Special Operations Division that 
produces data analyses of priority targeted drug trafficking 
organizations (PDTO).
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Justice makes no distinction between coordination
efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those that are planned 
for fiscal year 2003. 

Agency: Department of State; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? State’s fiscal year 2001 performance report 
identified agencies with which it coordinated on two performance goals 
relating to drug control— (1) increase foreign governments’ 
effectiveness in reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and
marijuana and (2) increase foreign governments’ effectiveness in 
dissolving major drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting and 
convicting major traffickers. For the first goal, State identified lead 
and partner agencies that it coordinated with to accomplish the goal, 
including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the 
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and DEA. Also, for the second goal, 
State identified lead and partner agencies such as USAID, DEA, Customs, 
Coast Guard, and CIA. The report did not discuss specific efforts on 
which State and the other listed agencies collaborated. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? State reported no planned coordination efforts
among agencies that relate to drug control for fiscal year 2003. 

Agency: Department of Transportation[B]; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? In its combined performance report and plan,
Transportation reported coordinating with other agencies on issues 
related to drug control. It stated that the Coast Guard worked with 
ONDCP and Customs to finalize an interagency study of the deterrent 
effect that interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Also, 
the Coast Guard and Customs coordinated to provide in-depth law 
enforcement defense against drug traffickers. Defense provided 
detection and monitoring support, and provided ships to support 
interdiction efforts at sea. Transportation worked with Justice to 
coordinate drug intelligence. State provided diplomatic liaison with 
other countries and supported Transportation’s efforts in bilateral 
agreements to counter drug smuggling. In addition, Transportation 
identified drug goals established by ONDCP. However, the link between
the strategic goals from ONDCP and Transportation’s performance 
measures was not clear. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Transportation makes no distinction between 
coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those that 
are planned for fiscal year 2003. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury[C]; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? In Treasury’s report, it stated that Customs 
coordinated with the Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as 
other law enforcement and inspection agencies around and along the 
borders. In Customs’ combined report and plan, it said that Customs 
coordinated with ONDCP and the International Crime Control Strategy.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Customs makes no distinction between coordination
efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those that are planned 
for fiscal year 2003. 

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 
Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program Performance 
Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of 
State, U.S. Department of State Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation, 
Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and 
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 
Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury Program 
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); United 
States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 
President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
4, 2002). 

[A] Justice issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report 
and fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[B] Transportation issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance 
report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[C] The U.S. Customs Service, a bureau within the Department of the 
Treasury, issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. Because Treasury did not issue a 
fiscal year 2003 departmentwide performance plan, we reviewed the 
consolidated report and plan for Customs and the fiscal year 2001 
Treasury report. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Department or agency: Justice; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Justice reported two performance goals related to drug 
control: (1) reduce the supply and use of drugs in the United States 
and (2) disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking organizations. 
Justice stated that the measure for the first goal was newly 
established for fiscal year 2002 when the baselines of estimates of the 
consumption amount of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana 
were to be developed. According to the combined report and plan, 
Justice reported on two measures pertaining to the goal of disrupting 
and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations: 1. number of 
PDTOs dismantled or disrupted by DEA and; 2. number of drug trafficking 
organizations dismantled by the FBI. Justice exceeded the target for 
the first measure. Justice exceeded one of the two targets for the
second measure—the number of identified drug trafficking organizations 
linked to national PDTOs. Justice reported that it did not meet the 
other target—the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by 
the FBI. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
According to its combined plan and report, Justice provided an 
explanation for not meeting the target for the measure of the number of 
drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the FBI that appeared 
reasonable. Justice stated that its rationale for not achieving the 
target was the need to address other priorities, resulting in a 
reduction of 91 special agent positions associated with counterdrug 
activities. However, the department did not discuss strategies to meet 
the measure in the future. Justice provided an overall strategy for 
achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Department or agency: State; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? State reported that it exceeded four of six targets for
the performance measures under the two goals related to drug control, 
which were: 1. increase foreign governments’ effectiveness in reducing 
the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and marijuana and; 2. increase 
foreign governments’ effectiveness in dissolving major drug trafficking 
organizations and prosecuting and convicting major traffickers. For the 
first goal, State exceeded two targets: 1. number of hectares of 
illicit opium under cultivation and; 2. number of prevention summits.
State did not meet two other targets for the first goal: 1. number of 
hectares of illicit coca under cultivation and; 2. number of hectares 
of marijuana under cultivation. Also, State exceeded both targets for 
the second goal: 1. number of countries that ratified the 1988 United
Nations Drug Convention and; 2. number of trained law enforcement 
personnel. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? For the 
two performance targets not achieved, State provided an explanation 
that appeared reasonable. State reported that political strife and 
violence against eradication authorities in countries such as Colombia, 
Bolivia, and Peru hindered its drug eradication efforts. State did not 
provide specific strategies to meet the measures in the future. 

Department or agency: Transportation; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Transportation reported four performance goals related to 
drug control that were derived from the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy: 1. reduce the current drug use among 12-to 17-year-olds by 10 
percent by the year 2005; 2. reduce the current drug use among 18-year-
olds and older by 10 percent by the year 2005; 3. reduce the current 
drug use among 12-to 17-year-olds by 25 percent by the year 2008, and; 
4. reduce the current drug use among 18-year-olds and older by 25 
percent by the year 2008. The department did not provide a discussion 
of its progress in achieving these performance goals. Rather, it 
reported on two measures that are not clearly linked to the four ONDCP 
goals: 1. the amount of drugs that are seized or destroyed at sea and; 
2. the seizure rate for cocaine that is shipped through the transit 
zone. Transportation did not establish a target for the first measure. 
Transportation reported that it did not meet the target of 15 percent 
for the second measure.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? In its 
combined report and plan, Transportation provided an explanation for 
not meeting the fiscal year 2001 performance target for the measure—
seizure rate for cocaine that is shipped through the transit zone—that 
appeared reasonable. It stated that it did not meet the target of 15 
percent for the measure because the previous years’ increase in the
total flow of cocaine through the transit zone had outpaced the 
increase in the Coast Guard’s drug interdiction efforts. Transportation 
did not provide specific strategies for meeting this target in the 
future. 

Department or agency: Treasury; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? In its combined performance plan and report, Customs 
reported on the performance goal to reduce the quantity of illegal 
drugs entering the United States. Customs exceeded eight of nine 
measures reflecting the thousands of pounds seized, number of seizures, 
and pounds of drugs per seizures for the following three drugs: 
cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. Customs reported that it did not meet 
the target for the number of marijuana seizures. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Treasury’s fiscal year 2001 report provided an explanation for Customs 
not achieving the target for the number of marijuana seizures. Customs 
stated that, although it did not meet its target for the number of 
marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of marijuana in fiscal year 
2001 than in any other year. Customs stated it believes that the number 
of seizures dropped because of an overall increase in sizes of 
marijuana loads. Furthermore, it stated that the heightened state of 
alert on the border following the events of September 11, 2001, might 
have deterred the entrance into the country of hundreds of smaller, 
personal-sized loads. There is no discussion of strategies to meet the 
unmet measure in the future. 

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 
Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program Performance 
Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of 
Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal 
Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury 
Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal 
Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002). 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for 
Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 
Performance Plans: 

Department or agency: Justice; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
Justice reports that it expects to continue to improve its performance 
on three performance measures under the two goals relating to drug 
control, which are (1) reduction in the supply of drugs in the United 
States, (2) number of dismantled/disrupted PDTOs, and (3) reduction in 
number of dismantled drug trafficking organizations that are U.S.-based.
For the first goal of reducing the supply and use of drugs in the 
United States, Justice plans to establish a baseline for the 
measure—reduction in the supply of drugs entering the United States—in 
fiscal year 2002. In its plan, Justice developed the fiscal year 2003 
target of reducing the supply of drugs entering the U.S. by 5 percent, 
but notes that the figure may be subject to change to reflect the 
fiscal year 2002 baseline. Pertaining to the second goal of 
dismantling/disrupting major drug trafficking criminal enterprises, 
Justice plans to achieve a 7 percent reduction in PDTOs by 
dismantling/disrupting 45 PDTOs. For the measure of dismantling drug
trafficking organizations linked to national PDTOs, Justice states that 
it will identify 250 drug trafficking organizations and dismantle 13 of 
them.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? Justice’s discussion of strategies to 
achieve its fiscal year 2003 goals appears reasonably linked to 
achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. For the goal of reducing the 
supply and use of drugs in the United States, Justice states that the 
nine Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams will
coordinate to develop a national priority target list of the most 
significant drug and money-laundering organizations. As drug 
organizations are dismantled and more organizations are identified, the 
OCDETF teams will monitor their progress and modify the target list. 
Also, Justice plans to identify and attack the control and 
communications links that are important to PDTOs operations in order to 
achieve the second goal—disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking 
criminal enterprises. 

Department or agency: State; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
State’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan indicates it will report on 
the same six measures as it did in fiscal year 2001 for the two goals 
aimed at reducing the entry of illegal drug in the United States: 1. 
reduce foreign cultivation of opium poppies, coca, and marijuana and; 
2. dissolve major DTOs and investigate, prosecute, and convict 
significant narcotics criminals. The targets for the measures indicate 
State’s plans to further reduce the illegal drug supply by targeting 
drug production and by dismantling major drug trafficking organizations 
(DTOs).
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? In the fiscal year 2003 plan, State 
discusses strategies that appear reasonable in achieving its fiscal 
year 2003 goals. State reports on what it plans to emphasize for fiscal 
year 2003. Pertaining to the first goal—reduce foreign cultivation of 
opium poppies, coca, and marijuana—State plans to focus on the 
rebuilding of Afghanistan in areas such as reducing opium poppy 
cultivation. For the second goal—dissolve major DTOs and investigate,
prosecute, and convict significant narcotics criminals—State plans to 
improve relationships with foreign governments’ counternarcotics 
agencies. For example, State expects to dismantle the international
drug cartels that supply the majority of the drugs entering the United 
States. 

Department or agency: Transportation; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? For 
fiscal year 2003, Transportation plans to report on one performance 
measure relating to the drug goal—amount of drugs seized or destroyed 
at sea. Transportation reports that it expects to seize or destroy 76 
metric tons of drugs (cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin) 
at sea.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? Transportation lists strategies that 
appear reasonable in achieving its fiscal year 2003 performance goal. 
For example, the Coast Guard plans to: 1. operate along maritime routes 
to deter attempts to smuggle drugs and; 2. finalize an interagency 
study that focuses on the deterrent impact that interdiction has on 
DTOs. 

Department or agency: Treasury; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
Customs reports that it plans to increase the targets for the same nine 
measures reported in fiscal year 2001 that relate to reducing the 
amount of illegal drugs entering the United States. In its combined 
report and plan, Customs states that it anticipates continued increase 
in maritime and air cargo smuggling and seizure activity. Also, Customs
asserts that, because of increased security at U.S. ports of entry, it 
will be more difficult for traffickers to smuggle narcotics into the 
country which contributes to the decrease in seizures. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? Although Customs provides a lengthy 
discussion of the activities it has planned for fiscal year 2003 in the
area “drug and other enforcement,” the discussion emphasizes terrorism 
prevention and does not specifically address strategies related to drug
control. 

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 
Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of State, U.S. Department of State Performance Plan Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation, 
Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and 
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 
United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal 
Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002). 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Department or agency: Justice; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? Justice’s combined report and 
plan discusses data completeness, reliability, and credibility by
addressing data verification and validation for each performance 
measure. The Chief of Operations Division at DEA validated the targets 
for the measure—number of dismantled or disrupted PDTOs by DEA. Also, 
for the measure of DTOs dismantled by the FBI, an FBI field manager
reviewed and approved data that were entered into the system and the 
data was verified through the FBI’s inspection process. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? Justice reported one shortcoming 
which was the need to improve its reporting system for the 
measure—number of PDTOs dismantled or disrupted by DEA. Justice did not 
discuss any plans to resolve this shortcoming. 

Department or agency: State; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? State did not report on the 
completeness, reliability, and credibility of its performance data. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? State did not report on 
shortcomings in its performance data. 

Department or agency: Transportation; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? Regarding data quality, 
Transportation reported on the completeness, credibility, and 
reliability of its reported data by addressing data verification and
validation. Data entry software ensures data quality and consistency by 
employing selection lists and logic checks. Internal analysis and 
review of published data by external parties help identify errors. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? Transportation discussed 
shortcoming in its performance data. It stated that, although data
verification and validation occurs several times in the data reporting 
process, a small but possible limitation to the accuracy of the data 
could stem from duplication and coding errors. Transportation did not
provide specific steps to minimize this shortcoming. 

Department or agency: Treasury; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? Customs reported on the 
completeness, reliability, and credibility of its performance data by 
discussing data verification for each performance measure. For example, 
the measure pertaining to seized narcotics is followed by a discussion 
on data verification. The discussion included identifying the Treasury
Enforcement Communication System as the data source and stating that 
Customs personnel conduct periodic data reviews. In addition, 
Treasury’s fiscal year 2001 performance report stated that the report
meets the standards for reliability established by the Office of 
Management and Budget. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? In its report and plan, Customs 
acknowledged shortcomings, but did not discuss steps to minimize them. 
For example, Customs reported that while its data can be considered 
reliable, they can be subject to error, such as input errors or 
duplicative reporting not identified by reviewers. In Treasury’s 
performance report, it discussed initiatives to improve the quality of 
performance data. For example, Customs conducted its Self Inspections 
Program in fiscal year 2001, with managers performing self-assessments 
of methods, procedures, and performance measurements. 

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 
Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program Performance 
Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of 
Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal 
Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury 
Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal 
Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Family Poverty: 

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Family Poverty 
as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? For the Food Stamp program, Agriculture’s fiscal 
year 2001 performance report mentions efforts to coordinate with other 
federal agencies, but does not specify the agencies. For example, 
Agriculture mentions (1) test projects to improve access to the program 
by combining the Food Stamp and Social Security application processes 
and (2) efforts to coordinate with other federal agencies to develop a 
web-based multiprogram eligibility pre-screening tool. Agriculture’s 
report does not discuss interagency coordination efforts for the other
programs we looked at such as Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, 
Infants and Children (WIC), National School Lunch, School Breakfast 
(SBP), Child and Adult Care Food (CACFP), and Summer Food Service (SFSP)
programs.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Agriculture notes a strategy to coordinate with other
federal agencies to seek long-term solutions to address world hunger 
and malnutrition but does not specify the agencies. Agriculture 
identifies strategies to improve its stewardship of federal nutrition
assistance programs and mentions its efforts to work with state 
agencies but does not specifically mention its coordination efforts 
with other federal agencies. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)[A]; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
within HHS reports it coordinates with the following departments: Labor 
in Welfare-to-Work Partnership and Workforce Investment Act efforts, 
Transportation in its Access to Jobs program, Education in providing 
education and training services, and Housing and Urban Development in 
providing housing assistance. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services (CMS), a component of HHS that includes family poverty 
programs such as Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP), identifies its coordination efforts with other components 
within HHS, such as with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The 
report-plan also mentions coordination efforts with states, and other
private groups and associations but does not provide information on 
collaboration with federal agencies. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? See previous column. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? HUD reports it partners with HHS, the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs (VA), and “a number of agencies” in the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless to address homelessness. In addition, HUD 
attributes its success on this objective to the substantial support it
receives from Labor and HHS in the measure of improving employment 
rates of entry-level job seekers in central cities. The Interagency 
Council on the Homeless includes the departments of HHS, Agriculture, 
Commerce, Education, Energy, Justice, Labor, Defense, Transportation, 
and VA; and the Social Security Administration, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, General Services Administration, and the Postmaster 
General. HUD states that the purpose of the council is to minimize
duplication and improve overall results by coordinating federal 
programs supporting homelessness.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? In its plan, HUD describes a number of coordination
efforts. HUD is a member of the Office of Management and Budget’s 
Interagency Workforce Investment Act Committee, which brings Labor, HHS,
and Education together to address the nation’s employment issues. HUD 
states it will also continue to be involved in Labor’s Workforce 
Investment Act Interagency Coordinating Committee. HUD reports it will 
collaborate with HHS and Labor in a number of initiatives including 
educating communities, organizations, and state and local agencies about
the Workforce Investment Act and federal welfare regulations. 
Concerning its objective to end homelessness, HUD states it is a member 
of the Interagency Council on the Homeless. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? Labor reports it is a part of the Workforce 
Excellence Network, comprising Education, HHS, and Labor. The Workforce 
Excellence Network conducts two major national conferences each year, 
in which Labor is able to “showcase” its best Workforce Investment Act 
(WIA) programs. In addition, at DOL’s Summit on 21st Century Workforce, 
the agency announced a joint proposal to work with the Department of 
Education on establishing a Job Corps distance-learning program.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Labor states it plans to engage Education, HUD,
DOT, and Justice for support in its apprenticeship program. Labor 
reports it will continue to be a part of the OMB’s Interagency 
Workforce Investment Act Committee, which brings HHS, HUD, Education, 
and Department of State together to develop and refine common 
performance measures to ensure optimal service delivery for programs 
under the WIA. Labor plans to be involved with the departments of
Education and Defense’s Education Activity program for Job Corps 
diploma attainment. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 
Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance 
Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
2002); Administration for Children and Families, Administration for 
Children and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, 
Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 
Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual 
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & 
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002); U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. 
Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report on 
Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002); U.S. 
Department of Labor , United States Department of Labor Final Fiscal 
Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002). 

[A] The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue a 
consolidated fiscal year 2001 report or fiscal year 2003 performance 
plan for the entire agency but produced its fiscal year 2001 reports and
fiscal year 2003 plans as a combined document for each component of the 
agency. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Agriculture says the numbers in its report for fiscal
year 2001 are based on projected results because states have not 
reported all of their data. Goals include expanding program access and 
benefit delivery for Food and Nutrition Service programs, such as Food 
Stamps and WIC. Agriculture reports that it anticipates meeting one 
goal and one of its six performance indicators it established for 
addressing family poverty. Goals Agriculture anticipates meeting 
included: (1) WIC participation exceeding its target of serving 7.25 
million people by reaching 7.30 million participants and (2) increasing 
assistance to the neediest rural communities by surpassing the 7:1 or
greater ratio of non-empowerment zone and enterprise communities 
(EZ/EC) grants to EZ/EC grants invested in EZ/EC communities to a ratio 
of 17.77:1. Agriculture does not expect to meet targets for five of the 
six performance indicators relating to the goal of expanding program 
access and benefit delivery for Agriculture nutrition assistance 
programs. These indicators include increased participation in the
following programs: Food Stamp Program, National School Lunch Program, 
SBP, CACFP, and SFSP. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Agriculture reported that its target numbers were based on assumptions 
about economic and other factors affecting eligible populations. 
Agriculture identified barriers to Food Stamp Program participation 
such as drawbacks in program policies, local agency procedures, and 
participants’ lack of information about eligibility requirements. For
CACFP, Agriculture attributed shortcomings to the lack of growth in 
meals served and to changes in the economy. To reach its goals in the 
future, Agriculture reports it plans to continue its work in making 
access to programs easier by reducing reporting requirements for 
working families whose income fluctuates frequently, conducting program 
access reviews, and testing to review the program application process. 
To help reach its goals for the SFSP, Agriculture reports it will 
provide various forms of technical assistance as well as conduct 
outreach initiatives. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a
component of HHS, which includes such family poverty programs as 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Services Block 
Grant, Child Care, and Head Start, reported the following goals related 
to family poverty: 1. improving TANF welfare reform; 2. maintaining 
outreach and funding through Social Services Block Grant; 3. increasing 
child care affordability, 4. improving child care quality, and; 5. 
improving Head Start Health Status. ACF stated that it was not able to 
report completely on its fiscal year 2001 progress on the first three
goals because it lacked fiscal year 2001 performance data for 18 of the 
23 performance indicators related to those goals. ACF was unable to 
obtain these data due to the time lag in receiving and validating data
reports from states, localities, and other program partners.[A] ACF 
was, however, able to report that it fell short in achieving its 
targets for the five performance indicators related to two of its goals:
improving child care quality and improving the Head Start Health Status 
program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): CMS 
fully met two, and partially met one and did not meet another of its 
four goals related to family poverty. CMS successfully provided linked 
data files for dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid recipients to all 
56 states and territories and increased the number of children enrolled 
in Medicaid and SCHIP over its goal of one million to almost 3.5 
million. CMS partially met its developmental goal of increasing the 
percentage of Medicaid 2-year old children who are fully immunized. 
This goal, being in its developmental state, has three main performance
indicators, all of which set targets to accomplish a particular 
objective by a set date. For one of these performance indictors, CMS 
did not establish all targeted baselines, thereby only partially 
meeting its goal. In addition, CMS did not establish the feasibility of 
conducting pilot projects with the states to measure, and ultimately 
reduce Medicaid payment error rates. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? ACF: ACF 
provides a reasonable explanation in its report-plan for one of its 
unmet performance indicators related to the goal of improving the 
quality of child care—increasing the number of classroom teachers with 
a degree in early childhood, or similar training as identified by ACF. 
It attributes missing this target to staff turnover and limited access 
to training and credentialing opportunities in certain parts of the
country. However, ACF’s report-plan does not provide an explanation for 
missing the other child care quality indicator—maintaining the percent 
of Head Start employees who have children in Head Start. ACF reports 
that two factors contributed to its failure to meet two of its three 
indicators for the goal of improving Head Start Health Status: (1) high 
student turnover rate hinders the students’ receipt of health care 
despite Head Starts’ medical referrals and (2) Medicaid’s inability to 
cover dental and mental health treatment for Head Start students 
prevented them from receiving proper care. In its fiscal year 2001 
report-plan ACF reports that Head Start is working in conjunction with 
higher education institutions to provide training for teachers. In 
addition, ACF states it sets aside funds for training and technical 
assistance to help local projects meet the Head Start program 
performance standards and maintain and improve the quality of local 
programs. Also, Head Start conducts research, demonstration, and 
evaluation activities to test innovative program models and to asses 
program effectiveness. However, for its other unmet performance 
indicators under the goal of Head Start Health Status, ACF does not 
provide strategies for meeting the goal in the future. CMS: For the 
goal that CMS met partially, the report-plan provides justification for 
its shortcomings. CMS states that more time was needed for states to 
fully develop their measurement methodologies because of the variations 
in state reporting cycles for immunization data, data problems, and 
staff and resource limitations. CMS discusses time frames for the 
development of each state’s baseline measure and reporting methodology, 
but CMS does not describe specifically how it intends to achieve its
targets for this area in the future. As a general trend among these 
goals, CMS also identified barriers to continual success and outlined
additional strategies. For example, CMS faces some problems because of 
reporting techniques and dependence on states for information as well as
delays in funding. Strategies for addressing such barriers include 
refocusing efforts on the low income Medicare beneficiaries beginning 
in fiscal year 2002 with a new performance goal measuring their 
increased of awareness of the Medicare Savings Program. 

Department or agency: HUD; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? For its performance measures related to family poverty, 
HUD reported it: 
* met or, based on preliminary data, anticipates meeting seven of its 
performance indicators; 
* missed or, based on preliminary data, anticipates missing six of its 
performance indicators, including: 1. at least 90 percent of (EZ/ECs) 
achieve local goals in serving homeless persons; 2. at least 90 percent 
of EZ/ECs achieve local goals in providing social services; 3. 154,000 
jobs created or retained through Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) and Section 108; 4. 11,080 youths are trained in construction 
trades through Youthbuild; 5. increase by 1 percentage point to 30 
percent, the share of welfare families that move from welfare to work 
while residing in public housing, and; 6. increase by 2 percentage 
points to 34 percent the share of welfare families that move from
welfare to work assisted by tenant-based Section 8: 
* does not have enough data to determine the outcome of one of its 
indicators, and; 
* either established or will be establishing a baseline for four of its 
indicators. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? Of the 
six goals HUD did not meet or anticipated not meeting in fiscal year 
2001, HUD provides reasonable explanations such as a lack of 
anticipated funding, external factors such as the weakening job 
markets, and limits on program participation because of funding and 
access to programs, among other explanations. Strategies for four of 
its unmet goals are outlined. Such strategies include improving 
technical assistance to EZ/EC communities to advise in developing 
completed projects and link them to successful communities; and public 
housing authorities have been promoting work through earned income 
disregards, Family Self-Sufficiency accounts, and employment-related 
supportive services, among other strategies. The two goals for which 
HUD does not describe strategies are (1) 154,000 jobs created or 
retained through CDBG and Section 108 and (2) 11,080 youths are trained 
in construction trades through Youthbuild. HUD states that it will no 
longer track 14 of the 18 performance measures we renewed after fiscal 
year 2002 or fiscal year 2003 for reasons such as matured success, 
technical difficulties in reporting, to better reflect impact, an 
uncertain effect on outcome indicators, and a need for more accurate 
measures. 

Department or agency: Labor; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Of its six performance indicators related to family 
poverty, Labor reported it met three, failed to meet two, and 
substantially met one of its goals.[B] The two goals Labor reports it 
did not meet are: (1) of those Welfare-to-Work participants placed in 
unsubsidized employment, 66 percent remain in the workforce for 6 
months with 59 percent average earnings increase by the second quarter 
following the placement quarter and (2) increase the number of states 
with registered child care apprenticeship programs to 49 and the 
percent of new child care apprentices by 20 percent over fiscal year 
2000. For the goal to increase its childcare apprentice programs and
participants, Labor did not increase the number of states with 
apprentice programs but did successfully increase the number of new 
childcare apprentices. Labor reported that the number of states with
apprentice programs did not increase but remained at 39. The goal Labor 
substantially met was to attain a 50 percent rate of placement in 
employment or other training activities for 14-18 year-olds in the WIA
program. For this goal, Labor achieved a rate of 47.4 percent of youth 
either employed or in other educational or training activities.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? For 
Labor’s unmet goal of retention and wage increases among Welfare-to-
Work (WtW) participants, it reported two contributing factors: 
employment declined in the service and retail sectors, both of which 
were a significant source of entry-level placements, and WtW grantees 
were reporting questionable data. Labor identifies strategies for 
addressing the employment needs of participants in order to improve the 
retention rate and average earnings increase for WtW participants. Such 
strategies include making retention more attractive, magnifying and 
extending service provisions, continuing the Pathways to Advancement
pilot project, which subsidizes employers, upgrades and advances 
current TANF “alumni,” and validates data at the program level. 
According to Labor, it was conducting a review of childcare grant and 
program performance and therefore did not increase the number of states 
with childcare apprentice programs. Labor revised this goal in fiscal 
year 2002 to expand the apprenticeship program into areas where they 
had not traditionally been used. Labor reported that its focus on
increasing the number of childcare apprentices would continue in 2002 
but the program results would be integrated into its new performance
measures. Explanations for the goal substantially met, assisting youth 
in making the transition to work, are reasonable because Labor 
attributes its shortfall to (1) preliminary data, as only 42 of the 53 
states and jurisdictions reported final data and (2) inaccurate data, 
as the data used to complete this measure are based on youth who are 
terminated during the program, with only one quarter of data from the 
WIA program. Labor introduced to states a new performance data 
reporting system with WIA, causing difficulties in state reporting. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 
Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 
Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children
and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final 
Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 
Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual 
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & 
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of 
Labor, U.S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report 
on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002). 

[A] In its comments, ACF stated that as data come available, they are 
posted to the Web site. 

[B] DOL labels goals as substantially met if achievement toward that 
goal was made but not fully attained. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 
Plans: 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
According to its plan, Agriculture expects to continue achieving its 
goal of program access and benefit delivery expansion for its nutrition 
assistance programs in fiscal year 2003 by increasing the target 
numbers from its fiscal year 2001 report. In addition, Agriculture is 
continuing to increase assistance to the neediest rural communities by
increasing the ratio of non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC grants invested in 
EZ/EC communities. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? Agriculture’s reported 
strategies for achieving fiscal year 2003 goals generally are a 
continuation of their current efforts. However, the fiscal year 2003 
plan does identify additional strategies necessary for enhancing 
performance, such as strengthening relations with other organizations, 
seeking additional funding, and proposing legislation. To meet its goal
regarding assisting the neediest rural communities, Agriculture 
identifies the following strategies: using special initiatives, such as 
EZ/EC to reach needy areas, encouraging strategic planning at the local
level, providing enhanced technical assistance, and targeting limited 
federal resources. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
ACF’s 2003 report-plan includes performance measures for the following 
goals related to family poverty: 1. improving TANF welfare reform; 
2. maintaining outreach and funding through Social Services Block 
Grant; 3. increasing child care affordability; 4. improving child care 
quality, and; 5. improving Head Start Health Status. However, for its 
performance measures related to child care affordability, ACF does not 
identify targets for fiscal year 2003. The Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services (CMS): CMS states it will continue to assist states in
developing state-specific measures of childhood immunization. As part 
of a new goal for fiscal year 2003, CMS reports it plans to begin 
working with states on the Performance Measurement Partnership Project.
With this project, CMS states it plans to develop evidence-based 
Medicaid health improvement priorities that will include performance 
measures and targets. CMS discontinues its goal to link Medicaid and
Medicare files for those dually eligible because it was met and further 
follow-up is not necessary. In addition, CMS states it did not yet 
determine a goal for decreasing the number of uninsured children 
through the SCHIP program because it is currently reevaluating the goal.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? ACF reports that it will 
continue to use current strategies such as providing bonuses to states 
that meet performance targets and helping states to meet desired 
outcomes through improved communication, technical assistance, and 
guidance. In addition, ACF is reportedly working on improving its own
performance through training and improved organization, and procedures 
that will, in turn, give the states better resources for meeting their 
goals. For its goal of having states develop a baseline and methodology 
for measuring the immunization of 2-year-old children under Medicaid, 
CMS discusses time frames for the development of each state’s baseline
measure and reporting methodology, but CMS does not describe specific 
strategies for how it intends to achieve its targets for this area. CMS 
reports it is working with states to develop a strategy for the 
coordinated use of performance measures within and across Medicaid and 
SCHIP to improve health care quality. 

Department or agency: HUD; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
Because HUD made an interim adjustment to its fiscal year 2000-2006 
strategic plan, which is still in draft, the framework for its fiscal 
year 2003 performance plan changed from what it reported in fiscal year 
2001. The new framework introduces eight strategic goals, two of which 
address family poverty. HUD’s Goal 3, to “improve the quality of public 
assisted housing and provide more choices for its residents,” and Goal 
5, to “effectively address the challenge of homelessness” introduce 
seven new performance indicators and update four that relate to family 
poverty. Objectives include helping families in public and assisted 
housing make progress toward self-sufficiency and becoming homeowners, 
ending chronic homelessness in 10 years, and helping homeless 
individuals and families move to permanent housing.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? To help meet its fiscal year 
2003 performance goal of helping families in public and assisted 
housing make progress toward self-sufficiency and becoming homeowners, 
HUD identifies strategies. These strategies appear reasonably linked to 
its goals. For example, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, HUD states it will
focus on expanding participation in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program 
and the Section 8 homeownership program in order to meet its fiscal 
year 2003 goals. HUD does identify two clear strategies for its goal of
ending chronic homelessness in 10 years: (1) streamline HUD programs in 
order to have more flexibility to target resources and (2) increase the 
focus of HUD’s housing resources while increasing coordination with 
other agencies through the reauthorization of the Interagency Council on
Homeless. For its objective of helping homeless individuals and 
families move to permanent housing, HUD plans to continue developing a 
client-level reporting system and supporting and enacting other 
programs. In addition, HUD describes increasing coordination efforts to 
provide assistance in tracking homeless persons moving through various 
programs. 

Department or agency: Labor; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
Labor reorganized its goals in its fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 
Goals include increase employment retention rates and earnings of 
individuals under the WIA adult programs, strengthen registered 
apprenticeship system to meet the training needs of business and 
workers by increasing apprenticeship programs and participants, and 
increase entrance and retention youth registered under the WIA youth 
program in education or employment. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? In the beginning of its fiscal 
year 2003 Performance Plan, Labor lists department-wide means and
strategies for meeting all of its goals, most of which are to continue 
or improve existing efforts. Following the list, Labor describes eight 
significant new or enhanced efforts in fiscal year 2003. Such 
strategies include improving data quality, and providing technical
assistance to national and regional offices to improve the performance 
accountability system. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 
Performance Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for Children and Families, 
Administration for Children and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 
Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and 
Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Final 
Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002); 
U.S. Department of Labor , United States Department of Labor Final 
Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 
2002). 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data reported by Agencies Involved 
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Reports: 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? According to its fiscal year 
2001 performance report, Agriculture does not describe its methods for
reviewing the performance data it receives from states for nutrition 
assistance programs, but states that it does review information for 
consistency and completeness.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? At the beginning of Agriculture’s 
fiscal year 2001 performance report, it states that all data are “of
sufficient quality and reliability except where otherwise noted in this 
document.” For the nutrition assistance performance indictors, 
Agriculture states that the actual numbers are based on preliminary
data, which Agriculture defines, as “incomplete data .” For the 
performance indictor increasing the ratio of non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC 
grants invested in EZ/EC communities, Agriculture reports that “these
data are considered to be final and reliable” but does not give any 
indication as to how the data are collected, the types of limitations 
on the data or how to minimize them, or the method for assessing the
data’s reliability. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? For TANF and Head Start 
programs, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reports it has 
been able to automate the data collection process. In addition, ACF 
reports consistency and validity regarding its data because of such 
procedures as edits, special data computation runs, and data trend
analysis. Data for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 
measures come from state reporting systems such as quarterly and annual
statistical forms. CMS reports built-in quality assurance checks, 
technical consultants, and a review of data by CMS personnel.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? For program data ACF did not 
identify as complete, reliable, and credible, such as Social Services 
Block Grant, and child care, dependence on states and other grantees to 
provide individual performance data makes validation and verification 
more difficult in that data sometimes comes in late or incomplete. In 
some instances, systems and quality control problems and technological 
delays occur. However, ACF states it tried to assist states in their 
ability to report through technological assistance and data review 
efforts. CMS’ report-plan identifies shortcomings in one of the four 
performance indicators, decreasing the number of uninsured children by 
working with states to implement SCHIP and by enrolling children in 
Medicaid. CMS stated it would, along with the Centers for Disease 
Control, provide technical assistance to help states address data 
reliability. In addition, CMS said it is looking to closely monitor
data issues that arise with the SCHIP performance indicator. 

Department or agency: HUD; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? HUD reports that the “department 
has made substantial advances in improving the completeness, accuracy 
and reliability of performance data.” The report states that the 
readers can rely on the data reported to assess the department’s 
achievements. In addition, HUD states it could not report data with 
complete confidence on four of the indicators because the data is 
estimated, based on incomplete data sets. HUD’s report does not, 
however, outline methods for verifying the quality of its data.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? In the fiscal year 2002 or fiscal 
year 2003 reports performance report, HUD is discontinuing or updating 
the 18 performance indicators that we reviewed in its fiscal year 2001 
report because of its inability to address data reliability issues and 
the unknown connection with the outcome measure, among other reasons. 
For the estimated data, HUD states accurate numbers will be reported in 
the fiscal year 2002 performance report if adjustments are necessary. 

Department or agency: Labor; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? Labor reports on the data 
quality of each of the performance indicators in its “analysis of 
results” section. For example, for its goal of assisting youth in 
making the transition to work, Labor reports that it relies on 
performance data from 53 states and jurisdictions. Of the 53 states and 
jurisdictions, Labor reports that 7 of the states submitted data that 
are questionable. In its Management and Performance Challenges section 
of the report, Labor states it is limited in its ability to control the 
quality of results data.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? Labor acknowledges shortcomings in 
its data, such as the questionable quality of some state data. Labor 
has described steps to resolve the problem, such as its proposed 
validation project to address the questionable data from states. Labor 
reports its validation project will create more precise programming 
specification standards for use in validating state data. Labor has 
placed a performance and reporting software package on its department 
website to help grantees prepare their program reports which will be 
followed by an additional software package to assist in further 
analysis of data quality. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 
Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 
Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children
and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final 
Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 
Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual 
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & 
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of 
Labor, U.S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report 
on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Financial Institution Regulation: 

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Financial 
Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Agency: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The report included a section on crosscutting
coordination efforts. It reported that the OCC works closely with the 
other four federal regulators (the Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OTS). The 
report noted that the OCC works with the other federal depository 
regulators the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council 
(FFIEC). The FFIEC is an interagency group that is empowered to 
prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for federal 
examinations of financial institutions and to make recommendations to 
promote uniformity in the supervision of depository institutions. In 
addition, the report stated that the OCC participates in the GPRA 
Interagency Working Group (a group that works on issues related to the 
general goals and objectives that cross the programs and activities of 
federal regulatory agencies as well as other general GPRA requirements, 
Basel Committee (a forum for international cooperation on matters 
relating to financial institution supervision), Interagency Country 
Exposure Risk Committee (provides an objective opinion on the degree of 
transfer risk inherent in cross-border and cross-currency lending by 
U.S. depository institutions), and Shared National Credits Program (an 
interagency effort to perform a uniform credit review of depository 
institutions loans that exceed $20 million and are shared by three or 
more depository institutions).
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? OCC’s 2002 performance plan reported similar 
crosscutting efforts as the OCC performance report. It stated that the 
OCC works with the other federal depository institutions regulators 
through FFIEC, Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee, Shared 
National Credit Program, and GPRA Interagency Working Group. 

Agency: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The report did not mention coordinating with the
other depository institution regulators. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? The plan included a section on Interagency 
Coordination of Cross-cutting Issues. It reported that the Board has 
been working closely with the other federal agencies to address 
programs that transcend jurisdictions. It also reported that the Board 
formally coordinates with the other federal depository institution 
regulatory agencies through the Federal Financial Examination Council 
(FFIEC). The report stated that the FFIEC also provides uniform 
examiner training and has taken a lead in developing standardized 
software needed for major data collection programs to support 
requirements in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Community
Reinvestment Act. The plan also reported on the Board’s participation in
the Government Performance and Results Act Interagency Working Group.
According to the Board’s plan, interagency coordination is to be an 
operational process. Moreover, the plan stated that at the most senior
levels, the Board’s work and plans have been closely coordinated with 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), OCC, and Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS). 

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? In its performance report, FDIC[A] described the
various federal regulatory working groups in which it has participated: 
FFIEC, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Interagency Country 
Exposure Risk Committee, Shared National Credit Program Joint Agency 
Task Force on Discrimination in Lending, and the Results Act Financial 
Institutions’ Regulatory Working Group. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? FDIC’s 2002 plan reported that FDIC works closely
with the Federal Reserve, OCC, Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and 
the National Credit Union Administration. The report noted that FDIC
participated in the following interagency groups related to its 
supervision and regulation function: FFIEC, Basel Committee on Banking 
Supervision, Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee, Shared 
National Credit Program, Fraud and Money Laundering, the Results Act 
Financial Institutions Regulatory Working Group. 

Agency: Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The report stated that OTS participates in two
interagency groups related to crosscutting issues, FFIEC and the 
Results Act Financial Institution Regulatory Working Group. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? OTS’ 2002 plan reported similar crosscutting efforts.
It stated that OTS participates in two interagency groups related to 
crosscutting issues, FFIEC and the Results Act Financial Institution 
Regulatory Working Group. 

Agency: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)[B]; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The report did not have a specific section 
outlining crosscutting programs. However, NCUA states that it will work 
with “other federal agencies to further its goal of increasing the 
number of expansions into investment areas by 20 percent.” (This refers 
to membership expansion for under served communities.)
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? The plan did not contain a section on crosscutting
coordination with other agencies. 

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government 
Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2002); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
Government Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002-
2003 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2002 Annual Performance Plan 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, 
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002). 

[A] We used FDIC’s 2002 performance plan because it is the most recent. 

[B] Information is from NCUA’s Combined Annual Performance Report 2001 
and Initial Annual Performance Plan 2003. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal 
Year 2001 Performance Reports: 

Department or agency: OCC; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? OCC reported four performance goals related to the
supervision and regulation function. They are (1) identifying and 
communicating risks to large and mid-size bank management, (2) 
achieving effective compliance with Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) examination schedule requirements 
for community banks, (3) continuing to improve corporate application
processes to achieve maximum efficiency and responsiveness, consistent 
with safety and soundness, and (4) effectively responding to bank 
customer complaints and consumer inquiries in a timely manner. On the 
basis of its performance report, OCC did not meet one of its goals,
compliance with FDICIA-mandated examination schedule. According to its 
report, OCC’s goal was to examine 95 percent of community banks in
accordance with the FDICIA mandated schedule. It completed 94 percent 
of the examinations. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? OCC 
reported that it missed its goal of examining 95 percent of community 
banks in accordance with the FDICIA mandated schedule because as a 
result of the conversion and migration of data to a new examination 
monitoring and tracking system, minor data inaccuracies caused a small 
percentage of examinations to begin shortly after their “official” due
dates under the FDICIA. Moreover, OCC’s report stated that during the 
first part of the year, data integrity validation corrected the issue. 

Department or agency: FDIC; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? FDIC reported that it achieved five of six performance 
goals in the financial regulation program: (1) taking prompt 
supervisory actions to address problems; (2) providing technical 
assistance and training on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), fair 
lending, and community development; (3) responding effectively to 
written consumer complaints and inquiries; (4) conducting comprehensive 
and compliance-only examination in accordance with FDIC examination 
frequency policy; (5) and taking prompt supervisory actions and 
monitoring on all institutions rated “4” or “5” for compliance.
The report stated that FDIC did not achieve its goal of conducting on-
site safety and soundness examinations to assess the overall financial 
condition of its banks. Eleven banks due for examination were not 
examined during 2001.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? The 
agency provided a reasonable explanation for not achieving one goal. 
Eleven institutions, which were scheduled for examinations, were not 
examined for the following reasons: some institutions merged or 
converted their charters, changes in examination intervals because of 
asset growth or change in capital category, and an institution’s 
information system conversion. In addition, the plan provided a 
reasonable strategy for achieving the measures in the future, stating 
that the remaining institutions will be examined in the following year. 

Department or agency: Federal Reserve Board[A]; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? The report indicated that the Board generally met its
goals for 2000 through 2001. The report listed four goals related to 
banking supervision and regulation function: (1) promote overall 
financial stability, management, and containment of systemic risk and
ensure that emerging threats to the health of the financial system are 
identified early and are successfully resolved, (2) provide a safe, 
sound, competitive, and accessible banking system through comprehensive 
and effective supervision of U.S. banks, bank-holding companies, U.S. 
operations of foreign banking organizations, and related entities, (3) 
improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and consistency of the 
supervisory process while reducing the burden on supervised 
institutions, and (4) promote compliance with consumer protection 
statutes and assure fair access to financial services. The Board 
reported that it had met most of its goals for 2001. It completed 
financial institution examinations as required by statute and dictated 
by review of supervisory data on the institutions’ financial condition, 
completed reports of examinations within established Federal Reserve
time frames, and processed applications and completed compliance 
examinations within time frames it had established.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? The 
Board did not meet its goal of completing depository institution 
examinations in the required time frame. In 2000, 26 examinations of 
state member banks were not conducted in the required time frame and 
approximately 17 examinations were not conducted in 2001. The Board 
provided an appropriate reason for the delay—scheduling problems with 
state bank regulatory agencies. According to the report, the Board is 
implementing a new scheduling system that will partially resolve these 
problems. 

Department or agency: OTS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? The OTS report listed six performance goals in the
area of supervision and regulation: (1) for all thrift institutions 
scheduled to receive examinations, conduct at least 95 percent for 
safety and soundness, 95 percent of compliance, and 90 percent of 
holding company, and 90 percent of trust and information systems, (2) 
ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions operate 
soundly or that OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or enforcement 
action, (3) ensure that at least 99 percent of OTS examination reports 
reviewed comply with OTS examination policies and procedures, (4) 
ensure that at least 95 percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions 
rate examination process as “satisfactory” or above, (5) ensure that 
100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions comply with consumer 
protection, fair lending, community reinvestment, bank secrecy, and 
other public policy laws and regulations or that OTS has taken 
appropriate supervisory or enforcement action, and (6) ensure that 100 
percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions are at least “adequately 
capitalized” or operating within an approved capital plan within 150
days of becoming under capitalized. The report indicated that OTS had 
met all six goals. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? Since 
the OTS report indicated that the agency met its goals, it did not need 
to provide strategies on how it would achieve any of its missed goals. 

Department or agency: NCUA; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? NCUA reported that it generally met its performance
goals. For strategic goal 1, “Promote a system of financially healthy, 
well-managed federally insured credit unions able to withstand economic 
volatility,” NCUA met four out of five outcome goals. For strategic 
goal 2, “Ensure credit unions are prepared to safely integrate 
financial services and emerging technology in order to meet the changing
expectations of their members,” NCUA was unable to show if it had met 
all but one outcome goal because data for these goals were not 
collected prior to 2001. According to the report, the only outcome goal 
met under this strategic goal was “Increase the number of credit unions 
offering interactive services by 10 percent.” For strategic goal 3, 
“Create a regulatory environment that will facilitate credit union 
innovation to meet member financial service expectations,” the report 
listed that the agency met four of five goals. For strategic goal 4, 
“Enable credit unions to leverage their unique place in the American 
financial services sector to make service available to all Americans 
who are not currently being served, particularly those of modest 
means,” the report stated that NCUA met all four outcome goals.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? The 
agency provided reasonable explanations for not achieving the goals.
The agency was unable to meet the outcome goal for strategic goal 3, 
“Increase by 5 percent the number of credit union financial services as 
an indicator of service and convenience to members,” because there were 
no data available for measurement. It did not provide strategies on how 
it would achieve the goals in the future. 

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government 
Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2001 Program 
Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, 
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of 
Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of 
Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, 
D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002). 

[A] The performance report is biannual rather than annual because the 
Board uses a biannual budget. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal 
Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Department or agency: OCC; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? In 
terms of financial regulation, OCC listed the following performance 
goals related to the supervision and regulation function: (1) identify 
and communicate risks to large and midsize bank management, (2) achieve 
effective compliance with FDICIA examination schedule requirements for 
community banks, (3) continue to improve corporate application 
processes to achieve maximum efficiency and responsiveness, consistent 
with safety and soundness, and (4) effectively respond to bank customer 
complaints and consumer inquiries in a timely manner.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? The OCC 2002 performance plan 
did not provide strategies that were linked to the specific performance
goals. However, the plan provided strategies that were linked to the 
strategic goal, ensuring a safe and sound national banking system. They 
included regularly monitoring risk and refining “Examiner View”, a bank
supervision database that allows the collection and analysis of 
systemic and bank specific data and regularly reassessing, and changing 
if necessary, supervision strategies to adjust to changing risk and 
other environmental factors. 

Department or agency: FDIC; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? In 
terms of supervision and regulation, the 2002 report listed 5 
performance goals: (1) conduct on-site safety and soundness 
examinations to assess an FDIC-supervised insured depository 
institution’s overall financial condition, management practices and
policies, and compliance with applicable regulations, (2) ensure that 
prompt supervisory actions are taken to address problems identified 
during examination of FDIC-supervised institutions identified as problem
insured depository institutions, (3) provide effective outreach and 
technical assistance on topics related to CRA, fair lending, and 
community development, (4) effectively meet the statutory mandate to
investigate and respond to consumer complaints about FDIC-supervised 
financial institutions, (5) conduct comprehensive and compliance-only 
examinations in accordance with FDIC examination frequency policy, and 
(6) ensure that prompt supervisory actions are taken and monitored on 
all institutions rated a “4” or “5” for compliance to address problems 
identified during the examinations. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? FDIC’s plan discussed the 
operational and human resource strategies it would use to achieve its 
stated performance goals for fiscal year 2002. The strategies appear to 
be reasonable. For the first goal, FDIC stated it would conduct 100 
percent of the required examinations in accordance with statutes and 
FDIC policy. When it identifies problems, FDIC may take informal and 
formal enforcement actions against the institution or responsible 
individuals. Staffing and training needs are to be continually reviewed.
For the second goal, FDIC stated that it would do a follow-up 
examination within 12 months of completion of the prior examination for 
problem banks. For the third goal, FDIC stated that it would assess 
participants’ understanding of financial topics after attending 
education workshops at model sites featuring FDIC’s adult education 
training curriculum called Money Smart. FDIC will gather and analyze 
post-seminar self-evaluations from these participants and will review 
how they rated the degree to which they increased their understanding 
of personal finance topics from the model sites. Also, FDIC is 
establishing a certification training program for its community 
affairs. For the fourth goal, FDIC stated that it will respond to 90 
percent of written complaints within time frames established by policy. 
FDIC plans to monitor the timeliness of its responses. For the fifth 
goal, FDIC stated that it would conduct the required examinations in 
accordance with statute and FDIC policy. FDIC will analyze examination-
related data collected in the System of Uniform Reporting of Compliance 
and CRA Examination to determine whether it achieved targeted 
performance levels during the reporting period. For the sixth goal, 
FDIC stated that it would conduct a follow-up examination or related 
activity within 12 months of the date of a formal enforcement action to
confirm that the institution was complying with the action. FDIC is 
enhancing its compliance examination process to focus on the 
effectiveness of the financial institution compliance program’s 
management. This change will add value to the examination process but
will necessitate additional training of examination staff. 

Department or agency: Federal Reserve Board; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? For 
the supervision and regulation function, the Board’s plan listed only 
one goal: promote a safe, sound, competitive, and accessible banking 
system and stable financial markets. The Board report outlined five 
objectives for the goal for 2002 through 2003: (1) provide 
comprehensive and effective supervision of U.S. banks, bank-holding 
companies, U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, and 
related entities, (2) promote overall financial stability, manage and 
contain systemic risk, and ensure that emerging financial crises are 
identified early and successfully resolved, (3) improve efficiency and
effectiveness and reduce the burden on supervised institutions, (4) 
promote equal access to banking services, and (5) administer and ensure 
compliance with consumer protection statutes relating to consumer 
financial transactions. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? The Board’s plan discussed 
strategies for meeting its planned objectives. These strategies appear 
to be reasonable. For the first objective, the Board intends to focus on
the areas of highest risk, promote sound risk management practices, 
understand and accommodate the effects of financial innovation and 
technology, improve international banking and supervisory practices, 
and refine and strengthen the foreign bank organizations program. For 
the second objective, the Board plans to maintain adequate expertise 
and involvement through a consistent emphasis on identifying its 
training needs and developing suitable courses and improve preparedness 
by developing and implementing policies and procedures that ensure the 
Board retains the flexibility necessary to respond to emerging problems.
For the third objective, the Board plans to conduct seamless 
supervision of state-chartered banks through ongoing and improved 
coordination with state and federal bank regulators; remove unnecessary 
or ineffective policies and procedures, consistent with safety and 
soundness of banking organizations, harness benefits of technology; 
improve employment of resources; and maintain staff with adequate 
experience and skills. For the fourth and fifth objectives, the Board 
plans to support and oversee the Reserve banks’ supervisory efforts to 
ensure that compliance is fully and fairly enforced, implement a risk-
focused compliance examination component that will reduce the regulatory
burden on state-chartered banks without compromising the overall 
effectiveness of the consumer compliance supervision program, and
review bank and bank-holding company applications for adverse CRA, 
privacy, and compliance issues. 

Department or agency: OTS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? OTS 
is designed to maintain a safe and sound thrift industry that meets its 
responsibilities. Its 2002 performance plan listed four performance 
goals: (1) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions 
operate soundly or that OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or 
enforcement action, (2) ensure that at least 95 percent of OTS-regulated
thrift institutions rate the value of the examination process as 
“satisfactory” or above, (3) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated 
thrift institutions comply with consumer protection, fair lending, 
community reinvestment, bank secrecy, and other public policy laws and 
regulations or that OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or 
enforcement action, and (4) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated 
thrift institutions are at least “adequately capitalized,” are under a 
prompt corrective action directive, or are recapitalized to the 
“adequately capitalized” level or operating within an approved capital 
plan within 150 days of becoming undercapitalized. To actively support 
the thrift industry’s efforts to expand the full range of housing, the 
report outlined two performance goals to (1) provide educational and
technical assistance to industry representatives, the OTS examination 
staff, and other relevant parties on community development issues and 
needs and opportunities and (2) promote and help facilitate 
partnerships among financial institutions, community organizations, and 
others as a means of improving the availability of and access to credit 
and financial services.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? The OTS 2002 performance plan 
provided general strategies for achieving annual performance goals 
related to the supervision and regulation function. However, the 
strategies in the plan were not linked to the specific performance 
goals. For example, the plan included the following strategies: (1) 
ensure that the supervisory corrective strategies for 100% of the high
risk institutions are presented at least semi-annually to the OTS 
Director, Deputy Director and other senior staff in Washington; (2) 
creatively and effectively deal with problem thrift institutions; and 
(3) review the examination follow-up and corrective action process
for greater efficiency and effectiveness, as well as more consistency 
among regions. 

Department or agency: NCUA; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? NCUA 
reported that it generally met its performance goals. To promote a 
system of financially healthy, well-managed federally insured credit 
unions able to withstand economic volatility, NCUA plan listed the
following performance goals: (1) review one-third of its regulations 
annually for needed changes, (2) complete the program review phase of 
the transition to a risk-focused examination process, (3) monitor and 
assess the percentage of federally insured credit unions with long-
standing unresolved problems that threaten their safety and soundness, 
and (4) ensure that NCUA’s communication processes, including 
examinations, serve as an effective means to provide credit unions with 
critical and other valuable information. To facilitate credit unions’ 
ability to safely integrate financial services and emerging technology 
in order to meet the changing expectations of their members, the NCUA 
plan outlined the following performance goals: (1) enhance the training 
program for NCUA and State Supervisory Authority Information Systems and
Technology Subject Matter Examiners and (2) enhance the credit union 
community’s use and understanding of technology plans, due diligence
expectations, and best practices. To create a regulatory environment 
that will facilitate innovations in credit unions to meet members’ 
financial service expectations, the NCUA plan listed three performance 
goals: (1) review one-third of NCUA regulations annually for needed 
changes, (2) review examination and supervision procedures to ensure
that they are efficient, effective, flexible and helpful in a 
competitive environment yet maintain safety and soundness, and (3) 
create a regulatory environment that allows credit unions to enhance 
financial services by reducing regulatory barriers and sharing 
information and legislative efforts. To enable credit unions to 
leverage their unique place in the American financial system to extend 
the availability of services to all who seek them, while encouraging 
and recognizing the historical emphasis credit unions have placed on 
serving those of modest means, the NCUA plan (1) expands the 
availability of financial services, (2) implements a process to identify
emerging demographic trends and share this information, and (3) 
implements a review process of the success and difficulties encountered 
by new charters.
Do the agencies provide strategies that are reasonably linked to 
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals? The NCUA report described how 
NCUA will meet some of its goals, but it did not provide a description
for all the goals. To ensure NCUA’s communication processes, including 
examinations, serve as an effective means to provide credit unions with 
critical and other valuable information, NCUA will measure satisfaction 
by a 4.4 average rating on the NCUA Examination Survey. To enhance the 
training program for NCUA Information Systems and Technology Subject 
Matter Examiners, NCUA will provide training to all NCUA information 
systems and technology subject matter examiners. To review one-third of 
NCUA regulations annually for needed changes, NCUA will complete the 
review of the regulations identified by the Office of General Counsel, 
the Office of Examination and Insurance, and the regional offices for 
2003. To implement a review process of the successes and difficulties 
encountered by new charters and identify common themes or reasons for 
success and failure, NCUA will implement a review process to analyze the
success or failure of a credit union meeting the definition of “new” in 
conjunction with the Office of Examination and Insurance’s risk 
management postmortem review process. 

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government 
Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002-2003 
(Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 
2002 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of 
the Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 for the 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of the Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 
2003 for the Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report for 
Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, 
D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for 
Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, 
D.C.: 2002). 

[End of table] 

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 
2001 Performance Reports: 

Department or agency: OCC; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? The report commented that the 
data had reasonable accuracy. The data were considered accurate for the 
following performance measurements: the percentage of bank examinations 
conducted as scheduled, percentage of regulations and handbooks drafted 
that incorporated plain language criteria, and percentage of corporate 
applications processed on time. An independent reviewer periodically
compares samples of large and midsize bank examination reports to the 
system data to ensure accuracy. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? The report did not comment on any 
shortcomings in the data used to measure the results for the 
supervision and regulation function. 

Department or agency: FDIC; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? The report did not comment on 
the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the FDIC data or 
include a discussion of the standards and methods used to assess the 
data quality. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? The report did not comment on any 
potential shortcomings related to the data on the supervision and 
regulation function. 

Department or agency: Federal Reserve Board; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? The report did not comment on 
the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the Board’s data or
include a discussion of the standards and methods used to assess the 
data quality. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? The report did not comment on any 
potential shortcomings related to the data on the supervision and 
regulation function presented in the report. 

Department or agency: OTS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? The report commented that the 
performance data used in the report had reasonable accuracy. The
report stated that the performance measure data met the accurate and 
auditable standards. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? The report did not comment on any 
potential shortcomings related to the data on the supervision and 
regulation function. 

Department or agency: NCUA; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? Although the report did not 
comment on the completeness and reliability of data, it did include a
discussion of the standards and methods used to assess data quality. 
Data integrity is maintained through multilayered processes that 
include the continuous training of staff, the use of software controls 
and screen logic for error prevention, data integrity analysis on all 
reports, reviews by senior staff of all reports, and the maintenance of 
strict system security controls. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? The report did not comment on any 
potential shortcomings related to the data on the supervision and 
regulation function. 

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government 
Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington,
D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 
2001 for the Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report of
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift 
Supervision, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 
2002). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Public Health Systems: 

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Public Health 
Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and 
Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans: 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? Within HHS, there are five components that have
activities related to the prevention of infectious diseases in the 
United States. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? Within HHS, there are five components that have
activities related to the prevention of infectious diseases in the 
United States. 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)[A]: According to its combined report and plan, CDC coordinated 
with several agencies on issues pertaining to public health systems. 
For example, in its mission to protect the public from infectious
disease threats, CDC reported that it collaborated with the Department 
of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on food 
safety programs. For the immunization objectives, CDC reported that it
partnered with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), FDA, and the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) among others. To develop new 
diagnostic and treatment tools and better vaccines for tuberculosis, 
CDC reported working with NIH and FDA.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? CDC: CDC does not distinguish between its reported 
and planned coordination efforts. 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? CMS[B]: According to its combined report and plan,
CMS worked with other agencies within and outside of HHS on various 
issues. For example, CMS worked with CDC to increase the rate of 
influenza and pneumococcal vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries. 
Also, CMS reported working with states, CDC, and the American Public 
Human Services Association to develop strategies for the goal to 
increase the percentage of fully immunized 2-year-old children under 
Medicaid.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? CMS: CMS does not distinguish between its reported 
and planned coordination efforts. 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? FDA[C]: The combined report and plan provided a
discussion on FDA coordination efforts with other federal agencies in 
the prevention of infectious diseases. FDA’s combined report and plan 
reported that its scientists coordinate with various national, 
international, and interagency organizations such as the National 
Vaccine Advisory Committee and the World Health Organization to develop 
vaccine policy. Also, FDA stated that it worked with CDC and 
Agriculture to establish the National Antimicrobial Resistance 
Monitoring System to determine what foodborne pathogens develop 
resistance to drug treatment. Through coordination with CDC and 
Agriculture, FDA developed an improved food safety surveillance program 
called FoodNet.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? FDA: FDA does not distinguish between its reported
and planned coordination efforts. 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? HRSA[D]: HRSA’s combined report and plan discussed 
coordination efforts with CDC pertaining to disease prevention and 
health promotion activities, including immunization efforts.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? HRSA: HRSA does not distinguish between its reported 
and planned coordination efforts. 

Agency: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? NIH[E]: NIH’s combined report and plan discussed
coordination with other agencies within HHS, such as FDA, CDC, and the 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The combined performance 
plan and report did not provide specific information on how NIH 
coordinates with other entities on efforts related to public health 
systems.
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? NIH: NIH does not distinguish between its reported
and planned coordination efforts. 

Agency: Agriculture; 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 
performance reports? Agriculture reported that it coordinated with HHS 
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the goal to 
protect the public health by reducing the incidence of foodborne 
illnesses. However, Agriculture did not discuss specific coordination 
efforts with HHS or EPA related to protecting the public health. 
What types of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with 
each crosscutting program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 
performance plans? In the plan, Agriculture reported that it intends to
collaborate with HHS and EPA the same way as it did in fiscal year 
2001. 

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 
Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA 
Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 
Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services 
Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 
2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance 
Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual 
Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 
and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 
2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for 
FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

[A] CDC issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[B] CMS issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[C] FDA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[D] HRSA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[E] NIH issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and 
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. 

[End of table] 

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports: 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? CDC: CDC reported that it has achieved 25 of the
39 measures, did not meet 3 of the measures, and did not have data to 
report on 11 of the measures for the goals relating to the prevention 
of infectious diseases. CDC discussed the following performance goals 
that related to public health systems: 1. improve epidemiological and 
laboratory capacity to recognize, respond to, and monitor infectious 
diseases; 2. protect the American people from priority infectious 
diseases; 3. apply scientific findings to prevent and control 
infectious diseases; 4. reduce the number of indigenous cases of 
vaccine-preventable diseases; 5. ensure that 2-year-olds are 
appropriately vaccinated; 6. reduce the number of cases of HIV infection
and AIDS by implementing HIV prevention programs; 7. increase the 
capacity of community-based organizations providing HIV prevention 
services to persons of color; 8. reduce the percentage of HIV/AIDS-
related risk behaviors among school-aged youth through dissemination of 
HIV prevention education programs; 9. strengthen the ability to obtain 
and disseminate extramural research findings to partners, public health 
practitioners, and the public through a prevention research 
communications program, and; 10. increase input from the external 
scientific community on extramural prevention research. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? CDC: CDC 
provided explanations for not meeting its measures that appeared 
reasonable. For the fourth goal, CDC reported that full vaccination for 
Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis is dependent on the varying states’ 
requirements for the four-dose vaccination schedule, which may have 
resulted in the slower increase in coverage. For the ninth goal, CDC 
reported that an assessment was not completed due to the reevaluation 
of communication strategies and targets by new program leadership. For 
11 of the performance measures, CDC did not report any data at the time 
of the report’s issuance. In addition, CDC did not discuss strategies 
to meet the unmet goals in the future. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? CMS: CMS reported on two performance goals: (1) increase 
the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries who are 65 years and older and
receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations and (2) increase the 
percentage of Medicaid children aged 2 years who are fully 
immunized.[B] For the first goal, CMS’s report did not include data 
concerning the goal of vaccinating 72 percent of Medicare beneficiaries 
aged 65 years and older for influenza and 63 percent for pneumococcal 
infections in fiscal year 2001. CMS stated that the data would be 
available next year. For the second goal, CMS reported that it 
established a series of
targets for states to achieve within the phase-in process to accomplish 
the goal—to increase the percentage of Medicaid children who are fully
immunized. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? CMS: CMS 
did not report on the performance results of its first goal. For the 
second goal that CMS met partially, CMS explains that more time was 
needed for states to fully develop their measurement methodologies 
because of the variations in state reporting cycles for immunization 
data, data problems, and staff and resource limitations. CMS discusses
time frames for the development of each state’s baseline measure and 
reporting methodology, but CMS does not describe specifically how it 
intends to achieve its targets for this area in the future. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each 
program area? FDA: Relating to food safety, FDA reported that it met 
two of the six performance goals: (1) to achieve adoption of the Food 
Code by at least one state agency in 33 states and (2) to assure that
inspections of domestic food establishments indicate that more than 90 
percent of the establishments conform with FDA requirements. FDA did 
not meet targets for the following four performance goals: 1. to 
inspect 90 percent of high-risk domestic food establishments each year; 
2. to increase the number of import exams on food products; 3. to 
increase the number of audits and assessments of foreign food safety 
systems of high volume exporters to the United States, and; 4. to 
maintain the current level of monitoring for pesticides and 
environmental contaminants in foods through analysis of a targeted 
cohort of 8,000 samples. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? FDA: FDA 
provided a reasonable explanation for why three of the four goals were 
not met. For example, for the unmet goal to inspect 90 percent of high-
risk domestic food establishments each year, FDA asserts that the goal 
was missed because the agency purposefully diverted resources for these 
inspections to focus on an even greater threat of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy[C] that was breaking out in Europe at the time. Also, 
for the unmet goal to increase the number of exams on imported food 
products, FDA reported that it established a new goal starting fiscal 
year 2002 that will be more indicative of the effort to reduce health 
risks at the border. The agency reported that the reallocation of 
resources to other issues contributed to not meeting the goal of 
increasing the number of audits of foreign food safety systems of main 
exporters to the United States. FDA did not provide an explanation as 
to why it did not achieve the fourth unmet performance goal—to maintain 
the current level of monitoring for pesticides and environmental 
contaminants in foods through analysis of a targeted cohort of 8,000 
samples. FDA provided no discussion of strategies for how it would meet 
the unmet goals in the future. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? HRSA: HRSA reported that it established measures for two 
performance goals related to improving public health and health care 
systems under the objective to promote AIDS education and training of
the public health and health care workforce. The two performance goals 
are increase proportion of the national AIDS education and training 
centers (AETC) training interventions provided to minority health care 
providers and increase the number of minority health care and social 
service providers who receive training in AETCs. HRSA did not report
performance data for these goals. For the first goal, HRSA indicated 
that the fiscal year 2001 performance data would be available in 
February 2003. For the second goal, HRSA did not report fiscal year 
2001 performance data. However, it noted that this measure is to be 
deleted. 
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? HRSA: 
HRSA did not report on the performance results of the goals. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? NIH: NIH reported on one goal that pertained to the
prevention of infectious disease—develop new or improved approaches for 
preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease and 
disability. According to the combined report and plan, the fiscal year 
2001 measure for this goal was the progress in developing new or 
improved approaches for preventing or delaying the onset of diseases and
disabilities. NIH reported that the measure for the goal was 
substantially exceeded. NIH reported 127 scientific advances that 
support the goal. For example, NIH stated that recombinant DNA 
technology and naked DNA are now used to generate new vaccines. 
Vaccines for diseases such as Ebola, tuberculosis, and AIDS are being
produced and a more effective tuberculosis vaccine is under development.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? NIH: Not 
applicable. 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the respective agencies make 
toward achieving the goals and measures they established for each
program area? Agriculture reported on three performance goals related 
to protecting the public health by reducing the incidence of foodborne 
hazards: 1. provide leadership towards the creation and utilization of 
risk assessment capacity for meat, poultry, and egg products that is 
supported by the latest research and technology; 2. create a 
coordinated national and international food safety risk management 
system to ensure the safety of U.S. meat and poultry products from farm 
to table, and; 3. conduct a comprehensive national and international 
communication program that is an open exchange of information and 
opinions about food safety risks. Agriculture reported that it achieved 
six of seven performance targets under these three performance goals. 
For example, the actual performance of 150 million for the 
measure—number of people reached with food safety information through 
media stories, circulation reports, visiting Agriculture’s Food Safety
and Inspection Service Web site, and Agriculture Meat & Poultry Hotline 
calls—surpassed the target of 87 million in fiscal year 2001. The 
department reported that it did not achieve the target for the measure 
prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens (percentage) which is 
under the performance goal to create a coordinated food safety risk 
management system to ensure the safety of meat and poultry products.
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or 
measure, does the agency provide a reasonable explanation for not 
achieving the goal/measure and describe a strategy that appears 
reasonably linked to achieving the goal/measure in the future? In its 
report, Agriculture provides a reasonable explanation for not achieving 
the performance target for the measure to reduce the prevalence of 
Salmonella on broiler chickens (percentage). Agriculture suggests that 
there may be data problems due to random sampling of plants to check for
prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens. Agriculture said it is 
giving serious consideration to increasing its activities to include 
not only random sampling, but also sampling when there is an indication 
that problems exist in a plant. Agriculture said it also was giving 
serious consideration to deleting this indicator, as additional 
sampling results would skew the salmonella prevalence targets. However, 
it did not state any strategies to achieve the unmet goal in the 
future. 

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 
Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA 
Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 
Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services 
Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 
2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance 
Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual 
Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 
and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 
2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for 
FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

[A] States have varying requirements for the four-dose vaccine schedule 
for Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis. 

[B] According to CMS’s fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal 
year 2003 performance plan, the term “fully immunized” is used to 
describe the “complete series of vaccinations in the first two years of
life...to prevent certain diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella, 
polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and meningitis.” 

[C] Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a chronic, degenerative 
disorder affecting the central nervous system of cattle and is known as 
“Mad Cow Disease.” 

[End of table] 

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 
Performance Plans: 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? CDC: 
For fiscal year 2003, CDC plans to report on generally its goals and 
measures from fiscal year 2001 that pertain to prevention of infectious
diseases with updated targets. For example, the performance measure to 
monitor influenza viruses in domestic and global sites in order to 
improve detection of viruses has projected to monitor 900 sites for 
fiscal year 2003, which is an increase from the fiscal year 2001 target 
of 514. CDC developed a new goal in fiscal year 2002 that is to conduct
research to identify and assess community-based prevention 
interventions.
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? CDC: CDC provides strategies that 
appear reasonably linked to achieving its goals for fiscal year 2003. 
For example, pertaining to the goal to strengthen epidemiological and 
laboratory capacity to recognize, respond to, and monitor infectious
diseases, CDC plans to maintain and improve the U.S. Sentinel Physician 
surveillance system in order to continue to monitor influenza viruses 
in the United States. CDC reports that maintaining the surveillance
system is a priority because it is the primary source for measuring the 
impact of the virus. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? CMS: 
In CMS’s fiscal year 2003 plan, it has increased its performance 
targets for its two performance goals that pertain to vaccinating 
elderly Medicare beneficiaries and children who are under Medicaid. For 
its first goal—vaccinating Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and 
older for influenza and pneumococcal infections—the targets for fiscal
year 2003 are 72.5 percent and 69 percent, respectively. For its second 
goal, CMS plans to have all states develop their own baselines and 
methodologies for measuring immunization rates for 2-year-old children 
who are under Medicaid. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? CMS: For its first goal of achieving 
particular immunization rates for Medicare beneficiaries, CMS discusses 
strategies, including working in collaboration with providers, 
community groups, and other interested partners to design and implement
immunization quality improvement projects. For example, they report the 
most effective strategy for achieving higher vaccinations is the 
implementation by medical facilities of standing orders—i.e., the use 
of a protocol by non-physician personnel to vaccinate Medicare 
beneficiaries. For its second goal of having states develop a baseline 
and methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-year-old children
under Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the development of each 
state’s baseline measure and reporting methodology, but CMS does not 
describe specifically how it intends to achieve its targets for this 
area. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? FDA: 
FDA plans to report on five goals related to the strategic goal of 
reducing the health risks by preventing exposure to foodborne hazards. 
The five goals include: 1. achieve adoption of the Food Code[A] by 33
states; 2. inspect 95 percent of high-risk domestic food establishments 
each year; 3. increase the count of physical exams by 100 percent to 
48,000 exams and conduct sample analyses on products; 4. improve the 
productivity at 45 additional ports through training, and; 5. maintain 
the current level of monitoring for pesticides and environmental 
contaminants in foods through analysis of a targeted 8,000 samples. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? FDA: FDA’s strategies appear 
reasonably linked to achieving the strategic goal of reducing health 
risks associated with food products by preventing human exposure to 
hazards. For example, one of the prevention strategies states that FDA 
will be working with states and the food industry to develop and 
implement food production and preventive control systems that are 
appropriate to specific product hazard combinations and to establish 
regular processes and systems to more effectively and efficiently 
monitor the food supply. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? NIH: 
For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NIH developed two subgoals for the goal 
to develop new or improved approaches for preventing or delaying the 
onset or progression of disease and disability. The two subgoals are to 
(1) identify modifiable risk factors for disease/disability and (2) 
identify, develop, and test new/improved medications for the prevention 
of disease/disability. For each of the two subgoals, NIH reports on 
identical performance measure that will assess the status of achieving 
the subgoals—annual milestones that include scientific advances and 
discoveries. NIH does not report targets for fiscal year 2003 for this 
measure. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? NIH: NIH does not discuss the 
strategies it will use to achieve the goals. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? 
HRSA: HRSA’s plan will report on the same goal related to improving 
public health and health care systems that it reported on in fiscal 
year 2001—increase proportion of AETC training interventions provided 
to minority health care providers. HRSA plans to drop the goal to 
increase the number of minority health care and social service providers
who receive training in AETCs because measuring the percentage of 
training interventions provided to minority health providers was 
determined to be a more accurate and appropriate method to measure the 
program’s progress in training health care providers. According to 
HRSA’s plan, it will increase the proportion of AETCs provided to 
minority health care providers to 41 percent in fiscal year 2003
compared to the targeted 40 percent in fiscal year 2001. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? HRSA: HRSA’s plan does not discuss 
the strategies it will use to achieve the goal. 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
What progress did the agencies expect to make in fiscal year 2003? In 
the fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture will report on the same three 
performance goals related to reducing the prevalence of foodborne 
illnesses as in fiscal year 2001: 1. provide leadership towards the 
creation and utilization of risk assessment for meat, poultry, and egg 
products; 2. create a coordinated national and international food 
safety risk management system to ensure safety of U.S. meat and 
poultry, and; 3. conduct a comprehensive national and international 
communication program to serve as a medium of exchanging information 
about food safety. 
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear reasonably linked to 
achieving fiscal year 2003 goals? Agriculture’s plan provides 
strategies that appear reasonably linked to achieving each performance 
goal. For example, Agriculture reports that its performance goal to 
create a coordinated national and international food safety risk 
management system to ensure safety of U.S. meat and poultry has a set 
of outlined strategies to follow in order to accomplish the goal,
including: 1. develop national performance standards for ready-to-eat 
meat and poultry items; 2. ensure food safety requirements are followed 
by monitoring slaughter and process plants, and; 3. increase reviews of 
foreign inspection systems to ensure the safety of imported meat, 
poultry, and egg products. 

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 
Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA 
Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 
Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services 
Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 
2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance 
Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual 
Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 
and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 
2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for 
FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

[A] According to FDA, the Food Code is a document that regulatory 
agencies use as a reference for overseeing food safety in 
establishments such as restaurants and grocery stores. The Food Code is
not a federal law but can be adopted by any agency at any level of 
government. 

[End of table] 

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved 
in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Reports: 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? CDC: CDC’s combined report and 
plan provides discussions of data completeness, reliability, and 
credibility by addressing data verification and validation for each 
data source corresponding to each goal. For example, the goal to 
utilize scientific findings to prevent and control infectious diseases 
is followed by a discussion on verification of the data. The discussion 
includes (1) identifying that states are the sources of data, (2) 
conducting regular visits and progress reviews in order to verify 
performance of the goal, and (3) listing data systems utilized for
verification. Also, CDC stated that it had 85 percent completeness in 
reporting the diagnosed AIDS cases for the performance goal to reduce 
the number of cases of HIV infection and AIDS by implementing HIV 
prevention programs. For all the performance goals, CDC’s combined 
report and plan discusses the source of data and includes an 
explanation of the data systems utilized by CDC.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? CDC: While CDC acknowledged 
shortcomings, it did not discuss steps to minimize them. For example, 
CDC recognizes the 85 percent completeness in reporting diagnosed AIDS 
cases. It attributes this lack of completeness to the variation in 
reporting of the data by states. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? CMS: In CMS’s plan and report, 
it includes a discussion of data reliability and verification for each
performance goal. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? CMS: CMS acknowledged shortcomings 
in its performance data and sometimes discusses steps to minimize these 
shortcomings. Data verification and validation for immunization will 
depend on each state’s methodology for data collection. Also, CMS 
reports that immunization coverage levels will not be directly 
comparable across the states because of the different reporting and 
data collection methodologies used by the states, but did not report
steps to minimize the shortcomings in the future. CMS states that a key 
part of the technical assistance provided by CMS and CDC includes 
helping state address data reliability. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? NIH: NIH’s progress toward 
meeting this goal has been assessed by a working group of the Advisory
Committee to the Director (ACD). The GRPA Assessment Working Group was 
composed of members of the ACD, the NIH’s Council of Public 
Representatives, and selected members of the Institutes and Centers 
(ICs) national advisory councils. The assessment of NIH’s research was
based on data provided by the ICs that describes the new findings and 
theories forthcoming from the research that NIH conducts and supports. 
Key references were provided for all science advances, science 
capsules, and stories of discovery. NIH also provided copies of full 
articles to the assessment working group whenever requested. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? NIH: NIH did not report on 
shortcomings related to data quality. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? FDA: FDA discussed aspects of 
the quality of its performance data. For example, FDA stated that it
developed FoodNet to improve food safety surveillance. FDA asserted 
that the FoodNet sites provide much better data on the number of 
foodborne illnesses and trends in terms of the types of contaminants 
that are causing these illnesses. In 2002, when the data will be 
sufficient in volume and quality to establish baselines against which to
measure changes in foodborne illnesses, FDA will be in a better 
position to establish broad-scope outcome goals that are essential to 
effective performance planning. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? FDA: FDA acknowledged shortcomings 
and addressed steps to minimize them. It stated that the public health 
data systems are not currently adequate to provide accurate and 
comprehensive baseline data needed to draw direct relationships between 
FDA’s regulatory activities and changes in the number and types of 
foodborne illnesses that occur annually in the United States. FDA 
reported the need for improved data on food-related illnesses. Through 
coordination with the CDC and Agriculture, FDA developed an improved 
food safety surveillance program called FoodNet. 

Department or agency: HHS; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? HRSA: HRSA reported that data 
from the HIV/AIDS Bureau comes from grantees who receive funding from 
Titles I, II, III, or IV. It reports that grantees complete the Ryan 
White CARE Act Data Report according to their preferred format. Then 
the data are sent to the Office of Science and Epidemiology so its 
staff members can edit and screen the data for accuracy.
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? HRSA: HRSA reported on two data 
limitations related to the HIV/AIDS data collection efforts and 
provided a discussion on how to minimize these limitations. First, 
because the data are reported in the aggregate, the types of questions 
that can be answered using the data are limited. Also, the reporting 
system that holds the data contains duplicate data about individuals 
that prevents accurate conclusions being made. To minimize these data 
limitations, HRSA reports allowing grantees the option to participate 
in a client-level reporting system that will address the concern of 
relationship across variables for the individual clients. 

Department or agency: Agriculture; 
How did the agencies discuss the completeness, reliability, and 
credibility of their performance data? For each performance goal, 
Agriculture discussed the validity and accuracy of its performance data.
For example, in the section “data assessment” for the performance 
indicator number of cumulative risk assessments used to inform risk 
management decisionmaking and policy, Agriculture stated that the data 
are reliable. 
Are known shortcomings in the data acknowledged and steps to resolve or 
minimize the shortcomings described? Agriculture did not discuss data 
limitations for its goals related to foodborne illnesses. 

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 
Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA 
Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 
Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services 
Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 
2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance 
Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual 
Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 
and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 
2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for 
FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Elizabeth H. Curda, (202) 512-4040: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals 
made significant contributions to this report: Steven J. Berke, Lisa M. 
Brown, Amy M. Choi, Peter J. Del Toro, Nancy M. Eibeck, and Debra L. 
Johnson. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the 
Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, 
GAO/AIMD-97-146 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997) and U.S. General 
Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency 
Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000). 

[2] OMB Circular A-11, section 220.3g. 

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Reporting: Few Agencies 
Reported on the Completeness and Reliability of Performance Data, GAO-
02-372 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2002). 

[4] 31 U.S.C. § 3516(e). 

[5] OMB Circular A-11, section 220.5a. 

[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: Assets DOD 
Contributes to Reducing the Illegal Drug Supply Have Declined, 
GAO/NSIAD-00-9 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 1999). 

[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U.S. Assistance to 
Colombia Will Take Years to Produce Results, GAO-01-26 (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 17, 2000). 

[8] Although the TANF block grant program was due to expire on 
September 30, 2002, Congress provided for an extension of the program 
until January 11, 2003. By that time, Congress must either reauthorize 
the program or provide for an additional extension. 

[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Data Available to 
Assess TANF’s Progress, GAO-01-298 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2001). 

[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Program 
Integrity and Participation Challenges, GAO-01-881T (Washington, D.C.: 
June 27, 2001). 

[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: States 
and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but 
Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches, GAO-02-696 
(Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002). 

[12] The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, 
but it has chosen to voluntarily comply with the act. The Board issued 
both its performance report and performance plans biannually rather 
than annually to reflect its budget process, which occurs biannually. 

[13] State-chartered banks are supervised jointly by their respective 
federal regulators and the state bank regulator. 

[14] FDIC and the Board have other responsibilities in addition to 
their supervision and regulation functions. For example, FDIC is 
responsible for federal deposit insurance funds. The Board’s 
responsibilities include monetary policy development and implementation 
and payments and settlements’ system operation and oversight. 

[15] We reviewed OCC and OTS’s fiscal year 2002 performance plans 
instead of their fiscal year 2003 performance plans because their 
fiscal year 2003 plans were still in draft form. 

[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Emerging Infectious Diseases: 
Consensus on Needed Laboratory Capacity Could Strengthen Surveillance, 
GAO/HEHS-99-26 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5, 1999). 

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: CDC Is Working to 
Address Limitations in Several of Its Foodborne Disease Surveillance 
Systems, GAO-01-973 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2001). 

[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Vaccines for Children: 
Reexamination of Program Goals and Implementation Needed to Ensure 
Vaccination, GAO/PEMD-95-22 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 1995). 

[19] GAO-01-973. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports Order GAO 
Products heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. 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: [hyperlink, http://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: