Detailed Information on the
Market News and Marketing Services Assessment

Expand the market news portal to include dairy and poultry commodities to improve electronic access to market information.

Expand reporting of market data on US organic agricultural production to improve transparency.

Develop an automated system to collect and post Market News price data.

Clarify long-term and annual measures to better demonstrate progress toward outcome-based performance goals.

Address strategic planning and management deficiencies through improved reporting and documentation of relevant program action.

Measure: Percentage of target audience that use AMS information to influence their marketing/transportation decisions.

Explanation:Measure under development. A survey is required and will be used to determine the percentage of the target audience (i.e., participants in the marketing chain, from industry buyers and sellers) that not only receives AMS information, but uses it to make decisions related to marketing including: dispute resolution, value determination, market strategies, production intentions, analyzing market trends, and policy determinations.

Measure: Percentage of regulated entities found to be in compliance with applicable Federal statutes or program regulations with no enforcement action required.

Explanation:The compliance programs inspect their regulated entities; most programs do this through sampling. This measure indicates that the entities are sufficiently informed about their responsibilities to be able to comply and are sufficiently motivated to do so without enforcement actions being required. (Pesticide recordkeeping, shell egg, Federal Seed (2004 and after) Organic (2005 and after)) Note: Drop in compliance rate is due to Organic reporting its data for the first time, which affected the overall rate.

Measure: Farmer's Market sales. ($ billions)

Explanation:Marketing services information helps producers and suppliers enter and expand their presence in the direct marketing arena. One of the direct marketing arenas are Farmers Markets which AMS tracks (other arenas are tracked differently and data for them is not available). This measure indicates the growth accomplished in the Farmer's Market sector which provides increased market access for many small to medium-sized farming operations.

Measure: Percentage of regulated entitities with violations that were in compliance at next inspection.

Explanation:Regulated entities that are found in violation are subsequently re-inspected. This measure tracks whether the corrective actions (including additional education) associated with the inspection process encourage behavioral changes to conform to the regulations. (Pesticide recordkeeping, and shell egg. Organic will collect in the future and their 2006 and beyond targets are included)

Measure: Percentage of valid complaints/cases where appropriate action was determined within 30 days.

Explanation:Measuring timeliness of reaction to complaints/cases indicates AMS' responsiveness to correcting compliance issues. (Federal Seed (2004 and beyond), and shell egg (all years). Pesticide recordkeeping will collect in the future and their 2007 and beyond targets are included)) Note: Dip in 2007 target is because this is first year, pesticide recordkeeping is anticipated to contribute to this measure. The targets are a little lower during this initial year bringing down the overall average.

Measure: Number of eViews for marketing and transportation information (annual)

Explanation:This measure reflects the interest that exists regarding market and transportation information. It is a reflection that our audience is using the information to influence their business decisions (our long-term measure which is under development.) For State Marketing and Farmers Market data, web visits are used. A single web visit constitutes the complete duration of a user's activity at the website, unlike hits which count each "click". Farmer's Market web visit averaged over 4 minutes in duration. For Market News, eViews are counted. E-Views include the various technological means users access data electronically. This has four components: users of the Portal, subscribers to push technology, reports delivered via email, and the number of website hits. Two of the technology enhancements are "push" technology and the new Market News Portal. The push technology, developed in coordination with Cornell University, allows users to self subscribe to any of the full range of market reports available. The reports are automatically delivered via email to subscribers upon release. The Portal allows users to customize the information they view on the internet site upon logging in as a registered user and to run their own queries against the Market News database. Therefore, customers are getting access to data, as opposed to market reports. Note: statistics for State Marketing and Farmers Market information are included beginning in 2005.

Measure: Average processing time (days) for administrative or enforcement actions

Explanation:The average processing time (in days) to execute administrative or enforcement actions. This measure indicates the ability of the compliance programs to provide responsive actions (within legal requirements). The seeds' enforcement process begins when it has been determined that a violation occurred. Its process includes notification to, response from, and negotiation with the violator. (shell eggs, seeds, and Organic (2004 and beyond))

Measure: Cost (measured in dollars) per market news report issued.

Explanation:This efficiency measure evaluates the cost to produce market news price data and other informational reports. The measure is calculated by dividing the total number of reports issued by the market news budget, adjusted for inflation.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Marketing Services Program (MSP) is to: 1.) provide timely and unbiased market information - including technical assistance through State agencies (Market News; Transportation Services; Wholesale, Farmers, and Alternative Market Development; and the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program); and 2.) standards, monitoring, and verification (Egg Surveillance; Federal Seed Act; Country of Origin Labeling; Organic Standards; and Pesticide Recordkeeping). AMS-published price data increases transparency in the marketplace and contributes to fair trade. The program also contributes to an effective food marketing system, improving market access for growers with small to medium-sized farms, and promoting regional economic development.

Evidence: Authority for AMS' Marketing Services programs comes under several different statutes: Section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (information gathering and price reporting); the Egg Products Inspection Act (egg surveillance); the Federal Seed Act (labeling of agricultural and vegetable seeds); the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (country of origin labeling); the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended (national standards for, and labeling of, organic foods); the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (pesticide recordkeeping); and Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Symmetry of information is a problem that exists in the marketplace for many agricultural goods and services. The Market News Program provides agricultural producers with access to nationwide information that is necessary to determine contract values, dispute resolution, and reporting under trade agreements. Government action is also needed to assure the development and enforcement of organic standards and appropriate seed labeling across State lines and in international markets.

Evidence: Market News reports are used in judicial proceedings and when the International Trade Commission is considering dumping allegations with respect to agricultural commodities and products entering the country. U.S. Customs and Border Protection use AMS price data to assess the value of products entering the United States. Agricultural commodity and product contracts are routinely linked to the spot market prices reported by Market News. Organic Standards and Federal Seed programs ensure accurate labeling while the Shell Egg Surveillance program verifies that consumers receive eggs that are fit for human consumption. And, the Pesticide Recordkeeping program monitors the maintenance of required records of Federally-restricted pesticides by certified applicators. The memorandum of agreement between AMS, FSIS, and NASS, dated January 1, 2005, for the Interchange of Data and Statistical Information demonstrates that the data is used by the other agencies.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: MSP is the only nationwide mechanism for gathering and publishing price data on the agricultural commodities covered. The program also provides the only mechanism that ensures consistent Federal standards for commodities across all State and local markets. The program works cooperatively with State agencies to ensure truth in labeling for seed and other product samples. These similar State run programs provide local services that feed into and support the National program.

Evidence: The Market News portal provides a web-based search engine that allows users to query the Market News database for market information and to tailor reports by commodity, variety, shipping point, and destination market.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Marketing Services program responds to the needs of the marketplace by gathering and making available price information and by responding to changing technology and information dissemination requirements. MSP also works with industry in developing standards, inspection, and recordkeeping activities and to ensure that standards and their enforcement are consistent across producers and regions. The current means of collecting daily market news information represents a design flaw. The program has recently made price data information widely available and easily accessible through its' Market News portal; however, the collection of this data is done manually. The agency employs roughly 55 full-time employees to collect this information daily, much of it through phone calls. This labor-intensive means of collecting data highlights a design flaw and an area where the agency could leverage information technology to ease and speed the collection of data through an on-line interface. Such a system could, in turn, reduce the need for such a large number of staff to manually collect daily price information and would result in a more efficient use of resources.

Evidence: USDA OIG Reports on MSP have not identified major design flaws. When implementation issues have been identified (as in the July 2005 OIG report on the National Organic Program, Report No. 01001-02-Hy) AMS agreed with all 10 OIG recommendations. AMS has developed and implemented eight recommendations: (1) a protocol for working with the National Organic Standards Board that defines the Board's responsibility and explains its role under FACA; (2) a protocol for resolving conflicts between the Board and NOP staff; (3) National List revision procedure; (4) procedures for reviewing and validating Audit, Review and Compliance certifying agent accreditation recommendations; (5) procedures for creating and issuing program regulation clarifications; (6) reviewing and adjudicating noncompliance appeals; (7) a protocol for evaluating and resolving complaints; and (9) procedures for maintaining and controlling cost-share programs. The remaining items: (8) resolved the complaints from FY 2003 that required NOP regulation interpretations and (10) procedures for making equivalency determinations will be implemented by July 31, 2006.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Market News, the largest single activity in the MSP budget, provides, via the Internet and electronic information transfer, information on certain agricultural commodities directly to the public and market participants. This data is provided free of charge so that all market participants have access to resources to inform their business transactions. MSP organic standards, inspection, and recordkeeping efforts assure level playing fields for producers. Financial controls are in place through USDA budget management and execution systems that ensure funds are used for intended purposes. Market News data is based upon hundreds of daily phone interviews where the agency determines the prevailing price for a variety of commodities based upon certain grade and quality standards. A small unintended subsidy or "free rider" benefit may exist for those who use the data to inform their marketing decisions, but do not provide AMS with price data.

Evidence: USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) has found that accurate, widely available information of the kind provided by MSP: (1) causes prices in similar transactions to converge to a market price; and (2) provides important signals such as value differences, regional price differences, and available quantities to buyers and sellers alike. The ERS report is "The 'Market' for Market Information: Customer Feedback Creates New Directions" presented to the Research, Economics, and Extension Advisory Boards, October 30, 2002. The Memorandum of Agreement between AMS, FSIS and NASS, dated January 1, 2005, for the Interchange of Data and Statistical Information also demonstrates that this data is used by other agencies.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: MSP has recently developed the following long-term performance measures that support the purpose of the program: (1) percentage of target audience that use AMS information to influence their marketing/transportation decisions; 2) percentage of regulated entities found to be in compliance with applicable Federal statutes or program regulations with no enforcement required; and 3) farmer's market sales. These measures will become operational in 2006 and 2007. AMS assists localities with the technical aspects of operating a farmers market. The farmer's market sales measure is an output, but is an acceptable measure of the increase in demand for farm-grown produce and related items through these outlets.

Evidence: Currently, the long-term measure that evaluates compliance with statutes and regulations is in place with respect to pesticide recordkeeping, shell eggs, seeds (2004 and thereafter) and organic products (2005 and thereafter). This measure will become operational for country of origin labeling by 2007. The measure that attempts to quantify the usage of information by producers has been approved and data collection instruments are being developed. AMS will coordinate the development of its customer survey with OMB. The farmer's market measure is in place.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Because the survey instrument has yet to be approved, designed and transmitted, AMS has not developed baselines and targets for the first long-term measure (percentage of target audience that uses AMS information to influence their marketing/transportation decisions). MSP has developed specific quantified targets and baselines for the second measure described in the answer to Question 2.1. All measures are explained in detail in the measures section and include baselines and targets that extend beyond 2008 for the Farmer's Market sales measure.

Evidence: Currently, the long-term measure that evaluates compliance with statutes and regulations is in place with respect to pesticide recordkeeping, shell eggs, seeds (2004 and thereafter) and organic products (2005 and thereafter). This measure will become operational for country of origin labeling by 2007. The compliance programs utilize statistically valid and random sample selection processes to inspect their respective regulated entities. For example, all shell egg handlers are subject to a shell egg surveillance inspection quarterly. The procedure to select statistically valid random samples to determine compliance with shell egg surveillance tolerances is provided in Section 4, VII, E, 6 of the Shell Egg Regulatory Inspectors Handbook which is authorized by the Regulations Governing the Inspection of Eggs at 7 CFR Part 57 and the Egg Products Inspection Act at 21 U.S.C. 1031-1056. In 1992 the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) worked with the Pesticide Recordkeeping program to outline a statistically sound sampling number for States that conduct inspections. The measure that attempts to quantify the usage of information by producers has been approved and data collection instruments are being developed. AMS will coordinate the development of its customer survey with OMB. The farmer's market measure is in place.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: MSP has recently developed a limited number of annual performance measures that will allow it to assess progress towards its long-term goals identified in response to Question 2.1 and the targets identified in the response to Question 2.2. These annual measures will become operational in 2006 and 2007. The measures build on, and improve, existing measures that monitor output, delivery, and efficiency.

Evidence: The new measure, with respect to market and transportation information, is: (1) the number of eViews (described in detail in the measure section). While an output, the number of eViews provides an indication of interest in AMS marketing and transportation information. The new measures relating to compliance with laws and regulations (the second long-term measure), are: (1) the percentage of regulated entities with violations that are in compliance at the next inspection (to show improvements in compliance), and (2) the percentage of valid complaints/cases where appropriate action is determined within 30 days. Baselines and targets for these measures are in place with respect to pesticide recordkeeping, shell egg, Federal seed (2004 and after) and organic products (2004 and after). They will be in place for country of origin labeling by 2007.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Acceptable baselines and targets have been established for some of the annual measures identified in the response to Question 2.3. The annual performance measures have historical and current performance data, though in some cases it has been provided by some, not all, of the compliance programs. For example, for the measure "% valid complaints/cases where appropriate action was determined within 30 days" data was provided on the Federal Seed and Shell Egg programs, but in the future, the Pesticide Recordkeeping program will also report this information.

Evidence: The program is targeting (1) an increase in the number of eViews from 22.6 million in 2003 to 28.9 million in 2010; (2) an increase in the number of published peer-reviewed research reports; and (3) an increase in the percentage of regulated entities with violations that are in compliance at the next inspection from 76% in 2005 to 86% in 2010; and (4) an increase in the percentage of valid complaints/cases where appropriate action was determined within 30 days from 95% in 2005 to 98% in 2010.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: MSP coordinates with a number of public sector interests such as USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) as well as state agencies and industry users to accomplish programmatic objectives through shared goals.

Evidence: AMS works with FSIS to ensure that shell egg requirements meet egg product inspection requirements. Other USDA agencies, including ERS and NASS, use AMS Market News data in carrying out their programs. NASS surveys use the data monitored by the AMS Pesticide Recordkeeping program. The AMS Transportation Services program works in coordination with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and the Army Corps of Engineers on the movement of agricultural products. Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) grantees work under Federal guidelines and are required to publish reports, suitable for public distribution, that summarize the results of marketing projects funded by the program. The National Organic Program provides an up-to-date list of accredited certifying agents and their clients to NASS and ERS staff each year for research purposes.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Some aspects of the program have received evaluations either through the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) or Government Accountability Office (GAO) to support program improvements. But no independent evaluation has been conducted to determine the effectiveness or relevance for the program as a whole. In addition, the agency needs to fully implement (including providing documentation) recommendations contained in recent USDA OIG audits.

Evidence: 1.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-04-TE). The audit recommended, with respect to the Livestock Mandatory Reporting System, controls to strengthen access privileges, report modifications, supervisory reviews, technical documentation, and application monitoring. AMS has concurred in, and implemented, some of the OIG recommendations, with the remainder to be implemented in FY 2006. 2.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-28-AT). This audit of the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Program concluded that AMS has established effective and efficient controls for administering and monitoring the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Programs, and has implemented corrective actions recommended in our prior audits that have enhanced program operations. 3.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01001-02-HY). This review of the National Organic Program (NOP) was conducted to identify and evaluate management controls over the NOP. AMS has begun to act upon the OIG recommendations. The NOP certifying agent accreditation program was also audited in January 2005 by the American National Standards Institute. All recommendations consistent with government standards and regulations have been instituted.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Each of the individual line items in the budget represents an MSP program. The new long-term and annual measures included in this review will be incorporated into future budget submissions. The program's performance measures are new, or in some cases under development, therefore credit for this question is not possible at this time. In addition, the agency does not report all direct and indirect cost in a transparent manner.

Evidence: The FY 2007 Budget Appendix - AMS Section reports: (1) the percentage of market news reports released on time; (2) the percentage of non-complying shell egg lots that are reprocessed or diverted; (3) the number of pesticide recordkeeping inspections conducted and the percentage of the sampling goal the program attained; (4) the number of Federal Seed investigations, samples tested, and percentage of cases completed; and (5) the number of market development and transportation projects completed. In addition, AMS includes projected performance results with proposed budget increases. For example, the FY 2007 Budget requested additional funding: to allow the Federal Seed program to reduce seed mislabeling in States without active programs by five percent a year; and the National Organic Program to complete 100 percent of accredited certifier reviews, act on all advisory board recommendations, close 150 non-compliance investigations, and complete 20 scientific reviews within one year.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: In 2006, AMS will begin to revise its strategic plan. To support its new long-term and annual goals, in 2007, the Agency will initiate a survey of industry partners (as users of MSP information and as objects of MSP regulation and compliance) to improve its' assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the information that the program provides and to increase compliance with required statues.

Evidence: The new metrics will be promulgated by the AMS Administrator as program goals and targets in mid-2006. The survey instrument will be cleared with OMB in 2007 and will be completed by 2008.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Until recently, program partners' performance has been based on how well they supported AMS program goals and accomplished contractual requirements. Future program management decisions will be based on the new performance measures.

Evidence: Industry and the States provide information and compliance reporting to AMS regarding the covered commodities. This information is used in both MSP reports and in associated program performance metrics. Legislative authority supports cooperative arrangements between AMS and State agencies to accomplish Federal program goals. These the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; Egg Products Inspection Act; Federal Seed Act; Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002; Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended; and Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. Cooperative agreements include performance requirements. An example is the "Cooperative Agreement between AMS and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, #12-25-A-4683, dated January 1, 2006, on Cooperative Pesticide Recordkeeping Program."

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: AMS identifies managers responsible for achieving key program results and defines performance standards for those managers. Beginning in FY 2007, the new measures identified in the responses to Questions 2.1 and 2.3 will be reflected in program manager's performance evaluations. Though not currently available, AMS plans to institute a reporting system in FY 2007 to evaluate the performance of program partners against the new measures.

Evidence: AMS has undertaken an agency-wide effort to link its strategic goals to program managers' individual performance elements. These links were reviewed and approved by OPM in 2005 and 2006. For example, the performance plan for AMS Deputy Administrators links to the AMS Strategic Plan and its program performance measures, including being evaluated on the timely release of market news reports and on decreasing compliance violations. In addition, cooperator agreements with State agencies spell out specific partner requirements and conditions, and assure that separate records of costs of inspections are maintained for at least three years. Examples of cooperative agreements include "Cooperative Agreement between AMS and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, #12-25-A-4683, dated January 1, 2006, on Cooperative Pesticide Recordkeeping Program" and the "Cooperative Agreement between AMS and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, #12-25-A-3317, dated January 1, 2005, on Federal-State Poultry Grading Service."

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: AMS obligates Federal funding in the USDA accounting system in a manner consistent with the overall program plan; establishes schedules that properly correspond to the resource needs of the program plan; and assures adequate procedures for reporting actual expenditures and comparing them with intended use. Through the Federal State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) AMS provides matching funds to state departments of agriculture to conduct marketing studies and fund projects that develop innovative approaches to the marketing of agricultural products. These funds are provided to recipients accurately and on a timely basis.

Evidence: USDA maintains control over funds budgeted and obligated. AMS adheres to the requirements set forth by the USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Foundation Financial Information System, and the AMS Funds Control Directive. AMS year-end budget and financial procedures evaluate quarterly and year-end spending reports and expenditure reports that draw intended purpose from Congressional justifications, appropriations, and program operating plans and match them against actual spending. This program's financial information is reported to Treasury and OMB on a quarterly basis within the Department's Consolidated Financial Statements. These reports include the Balance Sheet, Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Changes in Net Cost, Statement of Budgetary Resources, and Statement of Finance. In addition, the agency's budget office reviews specific Statements of Budgetary Resources and the SF-133 Report on a monthly basis to ensure the accuracy of the financial data reported. Program partners who are reimbursed for services are required to submit financial reports. Budget submissions such as Congressional Justifications report actual program spending for comparison with budget requests which draw intended purpose from Congressional Justifications.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: MSP has two efficiency measures with baselines and targets. The program leveraged information technology to develop the Market News portal that will allow users to query the Market News database for market information and to tailor reports by commodity, variety, shipping point, and destination market. The portal became operational in October 2005, making Fruit and Vegetable, Livestock, and Grain reports immediately available for users (with other AMS commodities to be added in coming months). Many MSP activities outsource to State agencies to conduct the Federal program more efficiently. These include Pesticide Recordkeeping, Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), Shell Egg Surveillance and some Market News activities. Where States are willing and able, they are supervised and reimbursed for the Federal work that they provide.

Evidence: The program's efficiency measures include: the processing time for administrative or enforcement actions; and the dollar value per market news report. While the Agency's progress in developing acceptable efficiency measures is noted, other modifications could provide additional efficiencies such as the process in which Market News information is collected.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: AMS cooperates with Federal and State agencies, agricultural organizations, other stakeholders, researchers, and the public to carry out its' programs. Interested Federal and State agencies include: State Departments of Agriculture and related State agencies; international trade organizations; the Food Safety and Inspection Service; the Foreign Agricultural Service; the Agricultural Research Service; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Trade Representative; the Department of Homeland Security; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. AMS cooperates with State departments of agriculture to carry out shell egg surveillance activities, pesticide recordkeeping educational and compliance activities, and the reporting of Federal Seed Act violations. AMS depends on the cooperation of State agricultural agencies in carrying out Pesticide Recordkeeping activities. AMS works with the National Agriculture Statistics Services (NASS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the responsibilities and roles of each agency pertaining to pesticide records, surveys, and reporting.

Evidence: In FY 2005, AMS had 41 cooperative agreements with State agencies for Market News, 31 for Pesticide Recordkeeping, 50 for the Federal Seed Act, 42 for the National Organic program, 59 for FSMIP, and 5 for Transportation Services. As required by AMS Directive 201.1, each agreement includes a statement of responsibilities for the Federal agency and the State agency, and describes what resources each will furnish, how the project or program will be managed, the degree of Federal involvement, where the work will be done, who will direct the work, the financial arrangements, and the applicable Federal regulations. FSMIP is evaluated on performance data and its activities are included in the current information-related annual measure.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: USDA monitors and controls funds budgeted and obligated. MSP: (1) has procedures in place to ensure payments are made properly; (2) financial management systems that meet statutory requirements; (3) financial information that is accurate and timely; (4) integrated financial and performance systems that support day-to-day operations; and (5) no other non-compliances with financial management laws and regulations.

Evidence: AMS adheres to the requirements set forth by the USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Foundation Financial Information System, and the AMS Funds Control Directive.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: MSP is in the process of improving its long-term and annual performance measures. The program is also responding to OIG audit findings. MSP is provided a "No" pending evidence of final action in response to OIG audits pertaining to the Livestock Mandatory Reporting System and the National Organic Program. Once evidence has been provided that all the management decsions have been implemented, the program will recieve credit for this question. In addition, MSP must provide additional information regarding their internal review program that identifies and corrects management deficiencies.

Evidence: 1.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-04-TE). The audit recommended, with respect to the Livestock Mandatory Reporting System, controls to strengthen access privileges, report modifications, supervisory reviews, technical documentation, and application monitoring. AMS has concurred in, and implemented, some of the OIG recommendations. The remainder will be implemented in FY 2006. 2.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-28-AT). This audit of the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Program concluded that AMS established effective and efficient controls for administering and monitoring the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Programs, and has implemented corrective actions recommended in prior audits that have enhanced program operations. 3.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01001-02-HY). This audit of the National Organic Program found that AMS needs to strengthen controls to administer the program such as protocols for working with the Board to include defining the scope of the Board's responsibility. In addition, AMS should direct the NOP to establish procedures for receiving, reviewing, and implementing recommendations from the Board. AMS also needs to develop and implement internal operating procedures for such things as the resolution of complaints to govern program operations. Finally, AMS needs to resolve the eight complaints made in FY 2003 that require an interpretation of NOP regulations. AMS is in the process of acting upon the OIG recommendations.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program has the following long-term measures: (1) percentage of target audience that use AMS information to influence their marketing/transportation decisions (currently under development); (2) percentage of regulated entities found to be in compliance with applicable Federal statutes or program regulations with no enforcement required; and (3) a direct marketing sales measure. The compliance related measure and the direct marketing measure is in place. A "Small Extent" is provided in recognition of the program's progress in developing long-term performance measures. However, one long-term measure is currently under development and the methodology, baselines and targets that support the compliance related measures require clarification.

Evidence: The percentage of regulated entities found to be in compliance with applicable Federal statutes or program regulations with no enforcement action required was 80% in 2005 (vs. a target of 79%) notwithstanding the addition of the National Organic Program (a relatively new program) results to this measure. MSP has set an ambitious target of 87% for 2010. Farmer's market sales have increased from $1.2 billion in 2004 to $1.4 billion in 2005 and targets are set at $2.6 billion in 2010.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The new annual measures related to marketing and transportation information include: (1) number of eViews. The new measures related to compliance with laws and regulations, include: (1) percentage of regulated entities with violations that are in compliance at the next inspection (to show improvements in compliance), and (2) percentage of valid complaints/cases where appropriate action was determined within 30 days. Data indicates most regulated entities correct their procedures when it is determined that they are in violation. AMS maintains a high rate of timeliness with regard to responding to complaints and cases. A "Small Extent" is provided as recognition of the program's work in developing annual performance measures.

Evidence: In 2005, MSP achieved: (1) over 28 million eViews (2) a 76% rate of regulated entities with violations that were in compliance at the next inspection, and (3) a 95% rate for appropriate actions being determined within 30 days in the case of valid complaints/cases.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: MSP has developed two measures of efficiency. The first measure tracks the number of days for administrative or enforcement actions. The second measure tracks the dollar value per market news report. A "Small Extent" is provided in recognition of the agency's progress in developing acceptable efficiency measures. There are also other program areas where modifications could provide additional savings such as the process in which Market News information is collected. The development of an automated system to collect and post price data would result in a more efficient use of resources.

Evidence: Data available to date indicates that AMS is achieving its program goal to improve efficiency. The average processing time for administrative and enforcement actions has declined from 336 days in 2003 to 116 days in 2005, with the goal of reducing it to 76 days by 2010.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Market News: No comparable Federal, state, local or private sector program exists that provides the breadth of market information on a daily basis covering as many commodities nationwide. The National Agriculture Statistical Service (NASS) provides similar information on a monthly basis covering far fewer commodities. However, the purpose of the Market News Service is to provide an unbiased source of market price information to assist agricultural producers and industry on a real time basis. The NASS statistics would not be a suitable alternative to the Market News Service data. Product Standards: While there are state programs that develop standards for commodities, the basis for those standards are the AMS commodity standards, therefore not a suitable source for comparison. Individual packers and processors do routinely develop and employ more restrictive internal standards but these are to facilitate the movement of product into specific markets and price categories, again not a suitable comparison. National Organic Program: No other program provides consistent standards nationwide for an agricultural practice.

Evidence: N/A

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Some aspects of the program have received independent evaluations either through the OIG or GAO, but no independent evaluation has been conducted for the program as a whole.

Evidence: 1.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-04-TE). The audit recommended, with respect to the Livestock Mandatory Reporting System, controls to strengthen access privileges, report modifications, supervisory reviews, technical documentation, and application monitoring. AMS has concurred in, and implemented, some of the OIG recommendations. The remainder will be implemented in FY 2006. 2.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01099-28-AT). This audit of the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Program concluded that AMS has effective and efficient controls for administering and monitoring the Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Programs, and has implemented corrective actions recommended in prior audits that have enhanced program operations. 3.) USDA OIG Audit (Report No: 01001-02-HY). This audit was conducted to identify and evaluate AMS management controls over the National Organic Program. AMS is in the process of acting upon the OIG recommendations. The NOP certifying agent accreditation program was also audited in January 2005 by the American National Standards Institute. All recommendations consistent with government standards and regulations have been instituted.