This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-58 
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Methods 
for Estimating Technical Assistance Costs' which was released on 
January 3, 2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives: 

November 2004: 

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION: 

USDA Should Improve Its Methods for Estimating Technical Assistance 
Costs: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-58]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-58, a report to the Committee on Agriculture, 
House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), working with state and local partners, 
provides landowners with technical assistance for multiple programs to 
plan and implement conservation measures that protect soil, water, and 
wildlife. For years, the Congress has been seeking detailed cost 
information on this assistance as it examined USDA budget requests. In 
part, because NRCS’s financial system was not designed for estimating 
future budgets, in 1998 NRCS began developing additional cost data and 
a computer model for estimating future technical assistance costs. GAO 
was asked to (1) review NRCS’s technical assistance cost estimates and 
(2) identify causes of any differences between the estimates and actual 
costs ultimately reported by NRCS.

What GAO Found: 

In 2003, NRCS started testing its computer model by comparing estimates 
of technical assistance costs for 10 Farm Bill conservation programs, 
with actual costs reported by NRCS. GAO’s analysis of these comparisons 
shows that NRCS’s model made estimates, program-by-program, which 
varied considerably from the agency’s actual costs. For fiscal year 
2003, for example, NRCS’s model estimated that the technical assistance 
costs for seven Farm Bill programs would be higher by 9 to 50 percent, 
than NRCS ultimately incurred. For three other Farm Bill programs, the 
estimates were lower than the agency incurred by 16 to 60 percent. Most 
of the estimates fell outside NRCS’s goal of estimating to within 10 
percent of the agency’s actual costs. In addition, for the 10 Farm Bill 
conservation programs combined, NRCS estimated its technical assistance 
costs at $295 million for fiscal year 2003, which is about 15 percent 
more than the $257 million that NRCS incurred. NRCS officials generally 
agreed with this analysis. 

GAO identified several reasons for the differences between the cost 
estimates and the actual costs. 

* First, some of NRCS’s technical assistance work was delayed, 
occurring later than NRCS assumed when it estimated its costs. This 
contributed to some overestimation by the model, according to NRCS 
officials.

* Second, NRCS’s estimates include costs incurred by NRCS’s partners. 
Such costs are generally not included in the actual costs reported by 
NRCS. 

* Third, some data NRCS uses in its model are based on inaccurate 
assumptions. For example, when developing estimates about the time it 
takes NRCS staff to perform technical assistance tasks for use in the 
model, NRCS assumes, among other things, that its staff are fully 
trained and perform technical assistance work without interruption. 
These assumptions do not reflect actual workplace conditions and lead 
to underestimates. NRCS officials said they would reconsider these and 
other assumptions.

What GAO Recommends: 

To improve NRCS’s cost estimates, GAO recommends that the Secretary of 
Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to identify the estimated costs 
incurred by partners, ensuring that estimates are more comparable with 
actual costs when tested, and modify the assumptions for estimating the 
time that tasks take to better reflect actual work conditions. NRCS 
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and indicated it 
would use them as the basis for making improvements to its estimation 
methods. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-58.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Lawrence J. Dyckman, 
(202) 512-3841, dyckmanl@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

NRCS's Technical Assistance Cost Estimates Differ from Actual Costs 
Reported by NRCS: 

Differences in Estimated and Actual Costs Have Several Causes: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of Technical Assistance Costs Estimated by NRCS's 
Model and Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003: 

Table 2: Costs Estimated by NRCS's Model, with and without Partner 
Costs, Compared to Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Year 2002: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Steps NRCS Has Taken to Develop a Method for Estimating 
Future Technical Assistance Costs and Budgets: 

Figure 2: Estimates and Data Used in NRCS's Cost of Programs Model and 
Discussed in This Report: 

Abbreviations: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

Letter November 30, 2004: 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm: 
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Agriculture: 
House of Representatives: 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducts various conservation 
programs that help protect our nation's soil, water, and wildlife. In 
partnership with state and local agencies, USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance to farmers, 
ranchers, and others to help them take part in these conservation 
programs. For example, through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 
the largest program for retiring farmland for conservation purposes, 
USDA and its partners provide technical and financial assistance to 
eligible farmers who contract with USDA to take such conservation 
actions as planting native grasses in place of crops to prevent 
erosion.[Footnote 1] This technical assistance generally consists of 
making on-site visits to identify the conservation needs of the land, 
advising landowners on selection, design, and application of 
conservation measures, determining landowners' eligibility to 
participate in the program, and developing and monitoring contracts the 
agency signs with landowners to implement conservation measures. In 
fiscal year 2003--the latest year for which data are available--NRCS 
reported that it spent $257 million on technical assistance to 
implement this and nine other farm-related conservation programs. In 
future years, NRCS officials are anticipating growth in its 
conservation programs, and that this growth will sharply increase the 
agency's technical assistance costs.[Footnote 2]

For years, the Congress has been seeking more detailed and accurate 
technical assistance cost information to better understand NRCS's costs 
and how program growth might affect the agency's budget. Although NRCS 
has had historical and anecdotal information on its technical 
assistance expenditures, its financial system has not contained the 
detailed technical assistance cost information by program and contract 
that is needed for estimating future program budgets. In response to 
congressional concerns about this lack of information about the cost of 
NRCS technical assistance work, NRCS began developing a method and the 
cost data needed for estimating its future technical assistance costs 
and budgets in 1998.[Footnote 3] These efforts include: 

* a workload analysis process, which provides estimates of the time 
required for technical assistance tasks, and: 

* a computer model, called the cost of programs model, which uses time 
estimates from the workload analysis and other cost data about NRCS 
salaries and expenses, for estimating NRCS's costs and future budgets.

In 2003, NRCS began using cost estimates from its model to provide USDA 
and congressional decision makers with detailed information on the cost 
of providing technical assistance.[Footnote 4] In 2004, NRCS also used 
its model to estimate the agency's budget requirements. When technical 
assistance funds exceeded actual costs, the excess funds were converted 
to and used as financial assistance to landowners, according to NRCS 
officials. In addition, to assess and improve the quality of the 
estimates made by the model, NRCS compared the model's program cost 
estimates for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to program costs reported by 
its information systems for those fiscal years.

Because of your continuing interest in ensuring the development of 
accurate information about the costs of NRCS programs, you asked us to 
(1) review the technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's 
model and (2) identify the causes of any differences between the 
estimated costs and the actual costs ultimately reported by NRCS.

To review the technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's 
model, we assessed NRCS's comparisons of its model results with costs 
reported by NRCS for 10 Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal 
years 2002 and 2003. The 10 conservation programs authorized or 
reauthorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 
2002 Farm Bill) and discussed in this report are the Agricultural 
Management Assistance Program, the Conservation Reserve 
Program,[Footnote 5] the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the 
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Ground and Surface Water 
Conservation Program, Klamath Basin, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, the Conservation Security Program, 
and the Grassland Reserve Program. The Ground and Surface Water 
Conservation Program, Klamath Basin, Conservation Security Program, and 
Grassland Reserve Program are new programs authorized by this 
legislation.

Concerning one key source of the cost information, NRCS's financial 
system, we noted, among other things, that USDA obtained an unqualified 
opinion on its financial management activities in fiscal years 2002 and 
2003. This opinion covers, in part, the salary cost data that NRCS 
relies on when reporting its costs. To identify causes of differences 
between the estimated costs and the costs reported by NRCS, we reviewed 
NRCS's assumptions and data used in the cost estimates. As part of this 
effort, we analyzed NRCS's model and related documentation to determine 
whether the model appeared to be a logical and reasonable method for 
estimating technical assistance costs. To determine the reliability of 
workload data used in the model, we evaluated NRCS's instructions for 
developing them, and obtained the views of NRCS officials and staff who 
led the development of the workload analyses in the 10 states that 
performed over half of the agency's CRP technical assistance and over 
40 percent of its Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in fiscal year 
2002.[Footnote 6] We performed our work between September 2003 and 
October 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief: 

The technical assistance cost estimates produced by NRCS's model for 10 
Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 varied 
considerably from NRCS's actual costs.

* For fiscal year 2002, NRCS's model estimated technical assistance 
costs for 8 Farm Bill programs that were then operating. Estimates for 
3 of the 8 programs--1 large, established program and 2 small, new 
programs--ranged from 48 to 302 percent above actual costs. Estimates 
for the 5 other programs ranged from 5 to 36 percent lower than actual 
costs. Overall, for the 8 programs, NRCS estimated its technical 
assistance costs at $254 million, about 19 percent more than the $213 
million ultimately reported by NRCS.

* For fiscal year 2003, NRCS's model estimated technical assistance 
costs for the 10 Farm Bill programs. For 7 of these programs, the 
estimates were higher than the actual costs by 9 to 50 percent, and for 
3 of the programs, the estimates were lower by 16 to 60 percent. 
Overall, of the 10 programs, NRCS estimated its technical assistance 
costs at $295 million, about 15 percent more than the actual $257 
million reported by NRCS.

These results fall outside the agency's goal of achieving estimates 
that are within 10 percent (higher or lower) of NRCS's actual costs. 
NRCS officials generally agreed with our analysis and continue to work 
on improving their estimates.

We identified several reasons for the differences between the estimates 
and actual costs. First, because of funding issues, some NRCS technical 
assistance work was delayed and occurred later in the year than NRCS 
assumed it would when it made its estimates. As a result, NRCS's actual 
costs for technical assistance were less than NRCS had estimated. Such 
differences are to be expected because the timing of funding is 
dependent on a number of congressional and executive actions, which 
vary from year to year and cannot be precisely forecast. Second, NRCS's 
technical assistance cost estimates include costs incurred by NRCS's 
partners, which are generally not reimbursed or otherwise incurred by 
NRCS. Including these costs contributed to the model's overestimates. 
While partner costs are needed to understand the full costs of 
programs, these costs should not be included when NRCS reports its 
costs, and should be identified when it compares its cost estimates 
with actual costs. Third, some data NRCS uses in its model are based on 
inaccurate assumptions. One such assumption is that there is one 
"typical" type of technical assistance work in each area for which time 
estimates were developed for the model. NRCS staff had difficulty 
describing their "typical" work for each area because of the 
significant variations in topography, land uses, size of operations, 
and conservation practices in many areas. Such problems could cause 
either over-or underestimates. Additionally, we found when developing 
data about the time it takes NRCS staff to perform technical assistance 
tasks for use in the model, NRCS assumes, among other things, that its 
staff are fully trained and work without interruption. These 
assumptions do not reflect actual workplace conditions and lead to 
underestimates. NRCS officials said that they would reconsider these 
assumptions.

To improve NRCS's cost estimates, we are recommending that the 
Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to clearly identify 
the portion of its estimated costs that is incurred by partners and not 
paid for by NRCS; modify assumptions about how long it takes to 
complete tasks to better reflect actual workplace conditions; and pilot 
test any new methods, including those developed to better estimate 
typical work in areas of the country with diverse conditions. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, NRCS said that they generally 
agreed with our findings and recommendations and these would serve as 
the basis for improvements they plan to make in their methods.

Background: 

In 1994, the Congress established NRCS and gave it jurisdiction over 
programs of the former Soil Conservation Service, as well as other USDA 
financial or technical assistance programs for natural resource 
conservation and rural development.[Footnote 7] With more than 12,000 
employees nationwide--about three-fourths located in its state offices 
and 2,500 field offices--NRCS focuses primarily on private and other 
nonfederal lands. NRCS staff regularly work in partnership with state, 
local, and private entities, using the same case files and technical 
assistance tools. NRCS's primary partners are state conservation 
agencies and the approximately 3,000 conservation districts nationwide. 
These conservation districts are units of local government organized to 
support local conservation efforts with their own programs and staff.

When asked to do so by farmers and others, NRCS staff assess farmers' 
needs--a process that generally involves traveling to the site. NRCS 
staff work with the landowner to develop a conservation plan that 
describes the strategy to be used, the schedule of activities, and 
estimated costs. In some instances, plans are revised several times 
until the landowner selects a final alternative. If the landowner 
applies to implement the conservation plan under a Farm Bill program 
and the land meets the eligibility criteria and is accepted, NRCS 
develops a contract. After a contract is developed and signed, NRCS 
staff complete paperwork for payments to the landowner. NRCS staff 
assist with installation of practices, for example, by surveying land, 
providing practice standards and specifications, and ensuring 
contractors have carried out the terms of the contract.[Footnote 8] In 
addition, NRCS continues to document activities throughout the life of 
the contract, which may be years or decades. Staff also periodically 
certify that the participant is complying with the contract terms, 
depending on the program requirements.

In 1998, the Chief of NRCS called for a new agencywide effort to 
improve NRCS's accountability by providing better information and 
analyses on how the agency uses its resources and what it achieves with 
its funds. As part of these efforts, NRCS has taken steps to estimate 
its future technical assistance costs and budgets, as described in 
figure 1.

Figure 1: Steps NRCS Has Taken to Develop a Method for Estimating 
Future Technical Assistance Costs and Budgets: 

[See PDF for image]  

[End of figure]  

NRCS's model for estimating the cost of programs consists of an Excel 
spreadsheet that makes program-by-program calculations using such data 
as time per task estimates and salary benefits and support costs, as 
well as assumptions about the average length of a contract and the 
proportion of work that will be performed during each year of the 
contract. Figure 2 illustrates the information used in NRCS's cost of 
programs model.

Figure 2: Estimates and Data Used in NRCS's Cost of Programs Model and 
Discussed in This Report: 

[See PDF for image]  

Note: NRCS's salary data relies, in part, on data from the time and 
attendance system. The model also relies on other data, such as program 
participation and number of contracts. The source of some of these data 
is the Farm Service Agency, which administers CRP.

[End of figure] 

Time Per Task Estimates: 

NRCS state offices have overall responsibility for developing the time 
per task estimates used in the model. NRCS divided the country into 218 
areas and assigned teams of about 7 to 12 NRCS and partner staff to 
develop time per task estimates for the work to be done in each area. 
According to NRCS's process for developing time per task estimates, 
these teams first define the typical work in their area--that is, the 
sizes and types of land they work with and the conservation practices 
they plan for this land. For example, a Texas team determined that one 
type of typical conservation work in its area was planting grass cover 
on a 150-acre dairy farm. Using this description, the team discussed 
and agreed on estimates of time required for each of the 29 tasks 
associated with performing this work, such as the time it would take 
them to design a grass-planting plan. Generally, after developing the 
time per task estimates, the team leader submits them to the state time 
per task leader to review and input into an NRCS database. The methods 
of review the state offices use include comparing the areas' estimates 
with each other. If the state leader encounters substantial unexplained 
differences among estimates, he or she generally contacts the team 
leader for an explanation and to have the estimate changed, if 
appropriate. The state leader then submits final time per task 
estimates to NRCS headquarters, which also reviews them. If questions 
arise, headquarters may ask the state office to perform additional 
review, and make changes, if warranted.

Since the quality of data entered into a model affects the estimates it 
produces, NRCS has worked to increase the reliability of its time per 
task estimates by developing new estimates on three separate occasions 
and asking for staff feedback on the quality of the estimating process. 
In addition, NRCS plans to update its time per task estimates again 
because the tasks and the time required to perform them have changed, 
along with program requirements and policies, over the past 5 years.

Salary Costs: 

NRCS's cost model also includes data on average salary costs, which are 
based, in part, on data from NRCS's time and attendance system. NRCS 
staff enter hours that they work by program, and by the activities 
associated with those programs, biweekly in the time and attendance 
system. For example, they might record working 20 hours on CRP and 20 
hours on WRP. For the 20 CRP hours, they may record 10 hours to 
determine land eligibility for multiple landowners and 10 hours working 
with landowners on conservation plans. These data are reviewed first by 
supervisors and then at the state office level.

NRCS's Technical Assistance Cost Estimates Differ from Actual Costs 
Reported by NRCS: 

NRCS tested cost estimates from its model for fiscal years 2002 and 
2003 by comparing them with the agency's actual costs. Our analysis of 
these comparisons shows that program-by-program estimates from NRCS's 
model vary considerably from the agency's actual costs as shown in 
table 1. These results do not meet the agency's goal of achieving a 
difference of no more than 10 percent between estimates and reported 
costs.

Table 1: Comparison of Technical Assistance Costs Estimated by NRCS's 
Model and Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003: 

Dollars in thousands.

Farm Bill Programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $162,220; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $109,885; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: $52,335; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 48; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $175,932; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $146,675; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: $29,257; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 20.

Farm Bill Programs: Conservation Reserve Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 60,963; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 64,378; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (3,415); 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (5); 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 71,424; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 58,730; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 12,694; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 22.

Farm Bill Programs: Wetlands Reserve Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 16,619; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 21,422; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (4,803); 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (22); 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 20,873; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 24,797; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (3,924); 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (16).

Farm Bill Programs: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 6,171; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 9,477; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (3,306); 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (35); 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 6,396; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 11,388; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (4,992); 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (44).

Farm Bill Programs: Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,093; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 769; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 2,324; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 302; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 7,811; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 5,292; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 2,519; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 48.

Farm Bill Programs: Grassland Reserve Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: [A]; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: [A]; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: [A]; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: [A]; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 5,206; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 4,447; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 759; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 17.

Farm Bill Programs: Agricultural Management Assistance Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,025; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 4,753; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (1,728); 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (36); 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 1,436; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,314; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 122; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 9.

Farm Bill Programs: Farmland Protection Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 1,562; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,939; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (377); 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (19); 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 3,180; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 2,387; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 793; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 33.

Farm Bill Programs: Klamath Basin; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 529; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 196; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 333; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 170; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 2,142; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 1,432; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: 710; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 50.

Farm Bill Programs: Conservation Security Program; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: [A]; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: [A]; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: [A]; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: [A]; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: 125; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: 313; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: (188); 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: (60).

Farm Bill Programs: Total; 
2002: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $254,182; 
2002: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $212,819; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: $41,363; 
2002: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 19; 
2003: Costs estimated by NRCS model: $294,525; 
2003: Costs reported by NRCS information systems: $256,775; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Number: $37,750; 
2003: Difference that estimates are over or (under) reported costs: 
Percent: 15. 

Source: NRCS and GAO analysis of NRCS cost estimates.

Note: Klamath Basin and the Ground and Surface Water Conservation 
Program are new programs also. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
estimates are included in those for CRP. Fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are 
the only year for which NRCS had complete data at the time of our 
review. Numbers and percentages in the table may not equal totals 
because of rounding.

[A] The Grasslands Reserve Program and the Conservation Security 
Program had no technical assistance costs in 2002 because NRCS was in 
the process of setting up program rules.

[End of table]

* For fiscal year 2002, the CRP estimate was closest to the actual 
costs--it was 5 percent lower than the actual costs reported. Of the 
remaining program estimates for 2002, three were higher than the actual 
cost data by 48 percent to 302 percent, and four were lower by 19 
percent to 36 percent. Altogether, NRCS estimated that its technical 
assistance costs for eight of the Farm Bill conservation programs would 
be about $254 million, 19 percent higher than its actual costs of about 
$213 million. NRCS did not estimate costs for two programs that had not 
yet been implemented.

* For fiscal year 2003, the estimate for the Agricultural Management 
Assistance Program, a program that provides financial assistance to 
producers in 15 states to, among other things, construct or improve 
irrigation structures and plant trees, was closest to the reported 
costs--it was 9 percent greater than the actual costs. Of the remaining 
program estimates for 2003, six were higher than the actual cost data 
by 17 percent to 50 percent, and three were lower by 16 percent to 60 
percent. Altogether, NRCS estimated its technical assistance costs for 
10 Farm Bill conservation programs would be about $295 million, about 
15 percent higher than its actual costs of about $257 million. This 
estimate was 4 percent closer to total actual costs than in fiscal year 
2002.

* For the three largest programs--the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, CRP, and WRP--the estimates varied from the actual cost data 
somewhat less in fiscal year 2003 than 2002. In fiscal year 2002, the 
estimates had a spread of 70 percent--from a 22 percent underestimate 
to a 48 percent overestimate. In fiscal year 2003, the estimates had a 
spread of 38 percent--from a 16 percent underestimate to a 22 percent 
overestimate.

Differences in Estimated and Actual Costs Have Several Causes: 

We identified several reasons for the differences between NRCS's 
estimated and actual costs. First, for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the 
model estimated costs based on the assumption that programs would be 
fully funded in the beginning of the fiscal year. This did not happen, 
however, because the 2002 Farm Bill was enacted later than expected and 
because USDA operated under a continuing resolution for a good portion 
of fiscal year 2003. According to NRCS officials, as a result, less 
technical assistance work was performed than the estimates reflected. 
Second, NRCS's model includes costs for work performed by partners' 
staff and paid for by the partner organizations, while the actual cost 
data generally contains only the costs for the work of NRCS's staff. 
Third, NRCS's model uses some data that are based on inaccurate 
assumptions. This is likely to have contributed to differences between 
estimates and actual costs reported by NRCS.

Actual Timing of NRCS Work Differed from Timing Assumed When Estimating 
Costs: 

In several instances, NRCS performed technical assistance work at 
different times than NRCS originally assumed it would when estimating 
technical assistance costs. First, NRCS estimates have assumed that 
full funding would be available for new contracts at the start of the 
fiscal year, but in practice, this has not occurred. For example, in 
2002, the Farm Bill was enacted in May, later than NRCS expected, and 
OMB apportioned funds to USDA for implementing the Farm Bill programs 
in July--about three quarters of the way through the fiscal year. Since 
only 2-1/2 months of the fiscal year remained, different work--and in 
some cases, less work--was performed under the Farm Bill than NRCS had 
anticipated, according to NRCS officials. The general 2002 sign-up 
period for CRP contracts did not start until August 2002, limiting the 
amount of work performed on new CRP contracts. Moreover, in fiscal year 
2003, USDA operated under a continuing resolution until receiving 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations in February and an OMB apportionment in 
March--about half way through the fiscal year. While NRCS can adjust 
its assumptions, it is not possible to eliminate uncertainties and 
variances related to the timing of funding approvals that cause 
differences between the estimated and actual program costs.[Footnote 9] 
NRCS officials said that they have been studying the model's estimates 
and modifying some assumptions about workloads to improve the 
estimates.

NRCS Model Included Costs for Work Performed by Partners: 

Because NRCS's partners' efforts are a relatively important part of 
overall technical assistance efforts, NRCS has included its partners' 
costs in its model so that it is in a position to estimate total 
technical assistance costs to carry out the programs. For example, 
according to 1999 NRCS staff estimates, the most recent available, 
NRCS's partners were responsible for about 17 percent of total CRP 
costs and 15 percent of total WRP costs that year. Using those 
percentages, we calculated that NRCS's partners might have added about 
$15 million to these two programs' fiscal year 2002 technical 
assistance costs.

To further illustrate the effects of including partners' costs, we 
conducted two comparisons. First, we compared NRCS's fiscal year 2002 
technical assistance cost estimates, which include partners' costs, for 
two programs--CRP and WRP--with the costs reported by NRCS. We then 
made the same comparison but with partners' costs excluded. (See table 
2.) The results show that the differences between the estimated and 
actual costs increase when partner costs are excluded. For the CRP 
program, for example, the difference between the estimated and reported 
costs increases from a 5 percent underestimate to a 22 percent 
underestimate when partner costs are excluded. For WRP, the difference 
between the estimated and reported costs also increases from a 22 
percent underestimate to a 34 percent underestimate when partner costs 
are excluded.

Table 2: Costs Estimated by NRCS's Model, with and without Partner 
Costs, Compared to Actual Costs Reported by NRCS, Fiscal Year 2002: 

Dollars in millions.

Cost comparisons: Including partners' costs in model; 
CRP: Costs estimated using model: $61.0; 
CRP: Costs reported by information systems: $64.4; 
CRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (5); 
WRP: Costs estimated using model: $16.6; 
WRP: Costs reported by information systems: $21.4; 
WRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (22).

Cost comparisons: Excluding partners' costs from model; 
CRP: Costs estimated using model: $50.3; 
CRP: Costs reported by information systems: $64.4; 
CRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (22); 
WRP: Costs estimated using model: $14.1; 
WRP: Costs reported by information systems: $21.4; 
WRP: Percentage over or (under) reported costs: (34). 

Source: NRCS and GAO analysis of NRCS costs.

[End of table]

However, NRCS officials believe that the differences between their 
estimates, which include partners' costs, and the reported actual costs 
are less significant because their partner costs have decreased--they 
could not say by how much. This may not be the case, however. An NRCS 
briefing document reported in 2000 that NRCS expected its partners to 
perform more of its workload than in 1999. Similarly, most of the 
officials we spoke with from conservation districts--which are key 
partner organizations--reported that conservation districts have 
increased the amount of technical assistance work they have performed 
in the past few years. Finally, partner's costs should not be included 
when NRCS reports its costs, and when it compares its estimated and 
actual costs. In commenting on a draft of this report, NRCS officials 
noted that it is important to include partner costs when estimating the 
full costs of the programs. They also stated that estimated costs are 
used for budgetary purposes and actual costs are the only costs charged 
to the government and used in final reports.

Time Per Task Data Used in the Model Are Based on Inaccurate 
Assumptions: 

NRCS's estimates of technical assistance costs for 10 Farm Bill 
conservation programs are developed, in part, using time per task data 
that are based on inaccurate assumptions. First, NRCS's basic 
assumption used for developing its estimates--descriptions of typical 
technical assistance work--oversimplifies the situations field staff 
encounter to the extent that the resulting estimates do not accurately 
represent the time it takes staff to do the work. Second, NRCS's time 
per task estimates are based on some assumptions that do not reflect 
actual workplace conditions. Finally, some NRCS staff who provide 
technical assistance are uncertain about how to allocate the time they 
spend traveling to and from field locations among NRCS's programs.

Descriptions of Typical Work: 

NRCS uses descriptions of typical work as the basis for its time per 
task estimates. NRCS guidance tells teams to develop descriptions of 
their typical work, but does not tell them how to do this for areas in 
which conditions are diverse. In the absence of more specific guidance, 
staff have encountered difficulty with the concept of typical work. 
According to one team leader, for example, the guidance does not tell 
teams how to determine what is typical when there are significantly 
varying land sizes, types of farms, or conservation practices, and 
several team leaders told us that such variations made identifying 
typical work difficult or impossible. For example, a North Dakota team 
leader said that the conservation work in his area varies considerably, 
ranging from installing pipelines to creating ponds to building fences. 
Moreover, a Wisconsin team leader told us that at least three typical 
descriptions would be needed to represent the variety of farms in his 
area: one each for dairy, vegetable, and cranberry farms. Other NRCS 
staff commented that it may not be possible to describe what is typical 
for western rangeland, where operations vary from hundreds of acres to 
tens of thousands of acres. Finally, another team leader told us that 
NRCS's guidance is vague, and as a result, his team interpreted the 
term "typical" to mean average, while another understood it to be the 
median or middle value. NRCS staff raised these concerns in 2000, and 
NRCS officials are aware of the difficulties staff have encountered in 
describing their typical work. According to these officials, the scope 
of this estimating problem is nationwide and resolving this concern is 
important for making more accurate estimates. NRCS is considering 
whether it is possible to resolve difficulties staff face in describing 
typical work by enlarging the number of areas for which estimates are 
developed or collecting data for more than one "typical" unit per area, 
and thereby reducing the extent of diversity within each. Additional 
information will be needed to determine whether such an approach will 
succeed.

Assumptions about the Workplace: 

NRCS has directed its staff to base its time per task estimates on 
three assumptions that we believe do not reflect actual workplace 
conditions. First, estimating staff are to assume that all NRCS staff 
are fully trained. This is not the case, however. About 10 percent of 
current NRCS staff were hired between 2001 and 2004. According to one 
NRCS official, staff need 1 to 1.5 years to become able to 
independently perform most technical assistance for CRP and 3 to 5 
years for WRP. Because not all staff are fully trained, assuming that 
they are is likely to inappropriately lower the time per task 
estimates. The second assumption is that staff are not interrupted 
during their workday. Under normal conditions, staff regularly 
experience interruptions that decrease productivity. Assuming that this 
is not the case is also likely to contribute to inappropriately 
lowering the time per task estimates. A third assumption, which would 
likely lead to raising the time per task estimates, is that NRCS staff 
completely follow NRCS's policies, procedures, and guidance in 
performing work. Actually, however, staff sometimes take shortcuts that 
do not comply with all policies, procedures, and guidance--thereby 
completing tasks faster than expected.

In contrast, NRCS's reported actual costs are based on actual work 
conditions. That is, these costs reflect the additional time taken by 
new and partially trained staff, the added time caused by interruptions 
that staff regularly face, and the timesaving shortcuts that staff 
sometimes take. Although we could not determine the precise effects of 
these assumptions, some information is available to indicate that they 
warrant reexamination. For example, NRCS staff reported that by using 
shortcuts, their CRP and WRP work took 24 percent and 31 percent less 
time, respectively, than the time they had estimated in their workload 
analysis. NRCS officials said that they have adjusted the model to take 
into account some policy and procedural changes that reduce the 
workloads of NRCS staff and added that they would also reconsider the 
assumptions that we identified.

Allocation of Travel Time: 

NRCS staff also reported some confusion about how to allocate their 
travel time. The guidance directs staff to divide travel time, which 
constitutes an important portion of field staff work time, among 
different program activities when necessary.[Footnote 10] Staff usually 
drive to meet with landowners and view land, often traveling to distant 
locations and working on several program activities with several 
farmers during a single trip. When this occurs, they must determine how 
much travel time they should assign to each program. The guidance 
states that travel time should be "prorated" among different program 
activities but does not explain how to do this. This lack of guidance 
results in reporting inconsistencies. For example, staff often visit 
several farms on a single trip making it difficult to determine how to 
prorate this time among multiple program activities. NRCS officials 
said that they are aware of this problem but have not yet developed a 
solution.

Conclusions: 

While we recognize that only 2 years of comparative cost data are 
available and that NRCS has been striving to improve its technical 
assistance cost estimates, NRCS's cost estimates differ enough from 
actual costs reported by NRCS to be of concern to those who use these 
estimates. NRCS's overall technical assistance cost estimate for 10 
Farm Bill conservation programs for fiscal year 2003 is closer to the 
reported cost than the estimate was for fiscal year 2002, but too much 
variation is evident on a program-by-program basis in both years. Until 
improvements in NRCS's technical assistance cost estimating are 
demonstrated through tests of the model's results, we believe NRCS cost 
estimates should be used with caution. Without identifying costs 
incurred by its partners when assessing the reasonableness of the 
estimates made by its model, NRCS cannot ensure the validity of its 
cost comparisons. Also, unless NRCS modifies its assumptions to better 
reflect actual workplace conditions, its technical assistance cost 
estimates will not be as precise as they could be. Finally, without 
pilot testing its plans for improving descriptions of typical work or 
other changes in data development, NRCS cannot be assured that its 
investment in its next nationwide workload analysis will be well spent. 
As NRCS improves the quality of its workload analysis, including its 
time per task estimates, and the assumptions used in the model, we 
believe more accurate technical assistance cost estimates will be 
developed. Moreover, when these improvements have been made, NRCS will 
be in a better position to evaluate the overall quality of its 
estimating. Further testing in the years ahead may well be needed to 
gain a better understanding of the causes of variations in the program-
by-program cost estimates.

Recommendations: 

To improve the accuracy, and therefore the usefulness of NRCS's program 
cost estimating, we are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture 
direct the Chief of NRCS to take the following three actions: 

* clearly identify nonreimbursable costs incurred by NRCS's partners 
when presenting estimates of NRCS's costs, ensuring that its model's 
estimates are comparable with actual data;

* change the assumptions used for developing time per task data for the 
model so that they better reflect actual work conditions; and: 

* pilot test the feasibility of proposed changes in the development of 
the time per task data, including changes in development of typical 
work descriptions in several diverse areas of the country before 
proceeding with another nationwide workload analysis.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. We 
received oral comments from NRCS, which are summarized below. We also 
received technical comments, which are incorporated in this report as 
appropriate. NRCS accepted our findings and said they would develop 
actions in response to our recommendations. The agency stated that the 
report provides the basis for updating the agency's workload analysis, 
more accurately estimating partner contributions to NRCS's programs, 
and making other necessary adjustments to the assumptions in cost 
estimates. NRCS also stated that our report rightly points out that 
some assumptions used in estimation were inaccurate, but that portions 
of the report had an unnecessarily, negative tone. They noted for 
example that the estimates would have been closer to actual costs if 
funding had been available at the beginning of fiscal years 2002 and 
2003. We agree that earlier funding would have likely helped close the 
gap between estimated and actual costs. NRCS also stated that partner 
contributions could be excluded from the model's estimates, but that 
NRCS wanted to acknowledge the full cost of programs using partner 
costs. We agree that partners' costs can and should be excluded from 
the model's estimated costs when cost estimates are used for budgetary 
purposes or for comparison with actual costs. Lastly, NRCS commented 
that we found no problems with the logic of the model. We disagree. The 
model's inclusion of costs that the agency did not incur, such as 
partners' costs, is inappropriate when comparing estimates to NRCS's 
actual cost data.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to interested 
congressional committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of 
NRCS, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available 
to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call 
me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix II.

Signed by: 

Lawrence J. Dyckman: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) review the technical assistance cost 
estimates produced by the model and (2) identify the sources of 
differences that may occur between the estimates and NRCS's reported 
costs.

To review the estimates, we assessed the differences between the NRCS's 
model results compared with the actual costs reported by NRCS. We 
compared NRCS's fiscal years 2002 and 2003 technical assistance cost 
estimates by program with the actual costs reported by NRCS, the only 
years for which these two sets of costs were available. To identify 
sources of difference between these costs, we assessed assumptions and 
data used in the cost estimates. To assess NRCS's cost model, we 
analyzed the model and related documentation to determine whether the 
model appeared to be a reasonable method for estimating program costs. 
In addition, we checked whether the model formulas, contained in a MS 
Excel file, used the appropriate data, and we reviewed the formulas to 
ensure that they were logical. In addition, we replicated the model 
formulas using the proper data and ensured that the resulting figures 
matched those shown in the model. We interviewed NRCS officials 
responsible for developing the cost model to gain an understanding of 
the model and its development. These officials were staffed in NRCS's 
Budget Planning and Analysis Division, Operations Management and 
Oversight Division, and in field offices.

We conducted sensitivity analyses to illustrate the possible importance 
of different variables in the model. These sensitivity analyses were 
conducted using Monte Carlo simulation, which uses random numbers to 
measure the effects of uncertainty on model output--in this case, the 
technical assistance cost estimates. Our analysis was based on general 
assumptions about the probability distributions characterizing some of 
the variables in the model.

Also, we interviewed and requested documentation from 20 officials of 
state government agencies and conservation district associations to 
assess whether the nonreimbursed contributions of conservation 
districts increased or decreased in the past several years. We did so 
for each of the 10 states with the most CRP and WRP contracts. The 10 
states are Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Missouri, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Of the 20 officials we 
contacted, 13 responded to our request and provided some information 
about partners' contributions.

To assess NRCS's means for ensuring the reliability of the data used in 
the cost model, we traced the time per task and other data to their 
respective sources, which included agency reports and databases. Since 
information regarding data sources was not always readily available in 
writing, we met with NRCS officials who described and provided the 
sources of the model's data. Once we identified the source, we verified 
that the data had been correctly transferred from the source to the 
model. In addition, we performed limited reliability tests, primarily 
tests for omitted entries and outliers, of the available source data. 
Furthermore, to obtain NRCS's field staff views on the reliability of 
the time per task estimates and time and attendance data used in the 
model, we used a semistructured interview guide to interview all 10 
officials leading estimate development efforts in the 10 states that 
had the most CRP and WRP contracts in 2002. The 10 states had over half 
of NRCS's total CRP contracts and over 40 percent of its WRP contracts. 
Using another semistructured interview guide, we interviewed 10 
randomly selected NRCS team leaders (out of 44 leaders) who each led a 
team developing time per task estimates in one area in each of the 10 
states. However, we could not assess the quality of NRCS's reviews of 
its workload analysis at state offices because NRCS state officials 
retained insufficient documentation of the reasons for changes in data 
made during their reviews.

To assess the reliability of other data used in NRCS's model, we 
reviewed NRCS's method for developing overhead cost data and salary 
cost data, which relies on the time and attendance system. Overall, we 
noted that USDA obtained an unqualified opinion on its financial 
management activities in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.[Footnote 11] This 
opinion covers, in part, the salary cost data that NRCS relies on when 
reporting its costs. In addition, we reviewed NRCS's development of 
overhead cost information that is based on Office of Management and 
Budget budget object classifications, which include such costs as rent, 
utilities, equipment, and supplies. In addition, we reviewed an NRCS 
draft report about the quality of NRCS time and attendance data. That 
2001 NRCS draft report found that about half of NRCS field offices had 
deficiencies in documenting their use of time, but the report did not 
provide sufficient detail to reveal the precise extent of the problems. 
Since then, NRCS has implemented corrective actions, according to 
agency officials, and has verified on a limited basis that improvement 
has occurred.

Our issues with the reliability of data are discussed throughout the 
report. We performed our work between September 2003 and October 2004 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Lawrence J. Dyckman (202) 512-3841; 
Charles M. Adams (202) 512-8010: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Charles W. Bausell Jr., 
Nancy Crothers, Anne E. Dilger, Beverly A. Peterson, Lynne M. Dunlay, 
and Judy K. Pagano made key contributions.

(360388): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Farm Service Agency administers this program, and NRCS and its 
partners provide technical assistance.

[2] According to USDA, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill) authorized a $17.1 billion increase for 
conservation over a 10-year period.

[3] Both congressional and executive officials need timely, accurate, 
and consistent financial information to make informed decisions. The 
Congress uses program cost estimates to choose among policies and 
alternative program designs, and the administration uses these 
estimates to develop and adjust program implementation plans. For 
example, see GAO, Budget Issues: The Importance of Increased Accuracy 
of Budget Outlay Estimates, GAO/AIMD-99-235R (Washington D.C.: Aug. 30, 
1999).

[4] For example, NRCS gave the Congress estimates of the average cost 
to provide technical assistance over the life of CRP and WRP contracts: 
about $1,400 and $15,000, respectively. Technical assistance for WRP 
contracts is more expensive than for CRP contracts because wetlands 
conservation work is more complex and time consuming than farmland 
conservation work. 

[5] NRCS includes estimates for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
Program within the Conservation Reserve Program estimates.

[6] The 10 states are Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.

[7] Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-354 (1994).

[8] NRCS staff provide some technical assistance to landowners even if 
the landowner does not apply or qualify for USDA Farm Bill programs.

[9] For example, see Congressional Budget Office, Estimating the Costs 
of One-Sided Bets: How CBO Analyzes Proposals with Asymmetric 
Uncertainties, (Washington D.C.: Oct. 1999).

[10] Staff travel is an important task--we performed a sensitivity 
analysis that suggests travel time has a larger impact on CRP cost 
estimates than most other tasks associated with CRP contracts. 

[11] GAO, Department of Agriculture: Status of Efforts to Address Major 
Financial Management Challenges, GAO-03-871T, June 10, 2003. USDA, 
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002, # 
50401-51-FM, January 2004. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: