Non-Discrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If 

you believe you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating 

in a USDA program, or participating in a program that receives financial assistance from USDA, 

you may file a complaint with USDA. Information about how to file a discrimination complaint is 

available from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign, and mail a program discrimination 

complaint form, available at any USDA office location or online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/, or 

write to:

USDA

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410

Or, call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate office, 

or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities 

may contact USDA through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in 

Spanish).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Only Federal employees participated in the preparation of the performance and financial 

information contained in this report.
About This Report

Historically, USDA has published consolidated financial and performance information in the 

Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). In fiscal year (FY) 2012, the Department 

issued an Agency Financial Report (AFR), an alternative approach to the PAR. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A136, “Financial Reporting Requirements,” 

Section II, “Performance and Accountability Report or Agency Financial Report,” describes this 

alternative. This circular states that agencies may choose either to produce a consolidated PAR, 

or a separate AFR and Annual Performance Report (APR) and a Summary of Performance and 

Financial Information (SPFI). 

The AFR is a report on the agency end-of-fiscal-year financial position that includes, but is not 

limited to, financial statements, notes to the financial statements, and a report of the independent 

auditors. The AFR also includes a performance summary. The AFR was issued on November 15, 

2012.

This report, the APR, is a detailed report on USDA’s progress toward achieving the strategic 

goals and objectives described in the agency’s strategic plan and annual performance plan, 

including progress on agency priority goals. OMB Circular No. A-136, II.3, “Performance 

Section – PAR/APR Section 2,” and OMB Circular No. A-11, “Preparation, Submission, and 

Execution of the Budget,” Part 6, “Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual 

Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports,” Section 260, “Annual 

Performance Reporting,” provide specific guidance on this report.

The SPFI includes the most relevant performance and financial information in a brief, userfriendly format that is easily understood by a reader with little technical background in these 

areas. This report was previously known as the Citizen’s Report. The goal of this summary is to 

increase accountability of agency heads and program managers. It will make the financial and 

performance information more transparent and accessible to Congress, the public, and other key 

constituencies. 

The AFR, APR, and SPFI are posted on these Web sites: http://www.performance.gov/ and 

http://www.usda.gov/ourperformance.
 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report i

Table of Contents

Message from the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Section 1: Agency and Mission Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mission, Vision and Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Management Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Scope of Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Organization Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Organizational Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Section 2: Cross-Agency Priority Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Cross-Agency Priority Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section 3: Strategic Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 3: Strategic Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Strategic Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Section 4: Strategic Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Strategic Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

External Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Management Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Section 5: Agency Priority Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Agency Priority Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Section 6: Performance Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Performance Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Performance Progress Update and Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Section 7: Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Cross-Agency Collaborations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Selected Program Evaluations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Selected Results in Research, Extension, and Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Revisions to Performance Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
ii 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Message from the Secretary

In fulfillment of its duty to the people, the President, and Congress, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) respectfully submits the Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2012 Annual Performance Report. 

This year, we have had an opportunity to remember the rich history of 

the Department, which celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2012. On 

May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an Act of Congress establishing 

USDA. Two and a half years after he established the Department, in what would be his final 

annual message to Congress, Lincoln called USDA “The People’s Department.”

President Lincoln knew the importance of agriculture to our prosperity — particularly at a time 

when about half of all Americans lived on farms. We believe that the values shared by folks in 

our small towns and rural communities are at the heart of our American values.

As the United States has changed and evolved over the years, at USDA, we have not lost sight 

of Lincoln’s vision. Through our work on food, agriculture, economic development, science, 

natural resource conservation, and a host of other issues, the Department has impacted the lives 

of generations of Americans.

Like any organization, it is an imperative that USDA always ensures that we are serving our 

customers to the greatest possible extent. This fiscal year, the Department of Agriculture has 

been defined by the efforts of our hardworking employees to continue delivering services 

to Americans at a record pace — even in a time of reduced operating budgets and staffing 

constraints in many agencies.

This year, we had to take a hard look at the ways in which we do business — because, like 

any American family or business, USDA must ensure that we are executing our mission while 

balancing our checkbook. This year, the Department continues our efforts to look forward to the 

future, ensuring that USDA is a 21st-century service provider and employer, while managing a 

Department of nearly 100,000 employees who deliver services to Americans across the country.

In January 2011, USDA responded to these needs by announcing a “Blueprint for Stronger 

Service” that is aimed at modernizing the Department, reducing paperwork, improving the 

experience of USDA customers, and helping bring the Department’s operating costs within the 

budget and staffing constraints predicated by decreasing congressional appropriations.

Meanwhile, USDA’s employees have worked hard to manage the challenges we face, always 

sharing a commitment to providing the best possible service for producers, communities, and 

American families. Our employees have achieved historic results since 2009, and this year has 

been no different.

USDA implements safety net programs authorized by Congress to help keep American 

agriculture secure from the market and weather uncertainties that our farmers and ranchers face 

every day. This year, the Department’s response to the drought that is sweeping across much of 

America stands as one important example of our commitment. USDA implemented a number of 
 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report iii

administrative actions to help drought-stricken producers by expediting assistance for farmers 

and ranchers who were struggling. 

Through its network of more than 140 international offices, USDA continued its work to open 

markets for quality U.S. products abroad. USDA implemented new free trade agreements 

(FTAs) with South Korea and Columbia and has worked hard to help secure implementation of 

the Panama FTA. These three trade agreements will support 20,000 American jobs and create 

more than $2.3 billion in additional agricultural trade. Exports of U.S. food and agricultural 

products are expected to reach $145 billion in FY 2013, well above the record set in FY 2011 and 

$9.2 billion more than FY 2012 exports. Since 2009, U.S. agricultural exports have made gains of 

50 percent.

Our farmers and ranchers are the leading stewards of our land and water. USDA has continued 

supporting their work through technical assistance and conservation programs — applying the 

most effective programs in the best places to achieve the best possible results. In 2012, USDA 

continued its work with more than 500,000 landowners around the United States, providing 

additional efforts for producers to enter into contracts under the Conservation Reserve Program, 

while reaching its 50 millionth acre enrolled under the Conservation Stewardship Program. 

In America’s National Forests, USDA is hard at work to reduce the risk of devastating wildfire 

and improve water quality. In April 2012, the Department finalized its new Land Management 

Planning Rule to help better organize the management of more than 193 million acres of National 

Forest lands, ensuring the protection of our forests for years to come. 

USDA continued our record level of investment in rural America and the rural communities 

that millions call home by investing in community facilities, providing loans for rural small 

businesses, helping rural families buy or repair homes, and helping to ensure communities have 

access to critical infrastructure.

The Department is leading the way for renewable energy, supporting the infrastructure we 

will need in a new energy economy. By working directly with farmers, ranchers, and rural 

homeowners, USDA is helping folks save money by implementing new energysaving technology. 

In 2012, for example, we reached an important goal of $250 million in Smart Grid electric 

investments to help rural electric cooperatives better serve their customers. USDA also continues 

to lead the way in research, as USDA researchers have partnered with folks across the country to 

develop the next generation of renewable energy and find solutions to some of America’s greatest 

scientific challenges.

The Department ensures a safe food supply through its network of Federal inspectors in more 

than 6,000 locations nationwide. In June of this year, USDA finalized its zerotolerance policy for 

raw beef products containing six additional strains of shiga-toxin producing E. coli O157:H7.

In February 2011, the Government Accountability Office reported in its High-Risk Series Update 

that food safety agencies have not developed a Government-wide performance plan that includes 

results-oriented performance measures, which would be a leap forward with regard to measuring 

our progress in preventing foodborne illness from meat, poultry, and processed egg products. 

In September 2011, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published its strategic plan, 
iv 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

which includes results-oriented performance measures. For example, FSIS has made attribution 

estimates of the total number of illnesses from meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and 

developed a key performance measure of our progress toward preventing these illnesses. FSIS’ 

strategic plan includes 30 distinct, quantifiable performance measures that support 8 larger goals. 

In support of this strategic plan and the core principles of President Barack Obama’s Food Safety 

Working Group, USDA’s FSIS has announced several new measures to prevent foodborne illness, 

empower people, strengthen infrastructure, and understand and influence the farm-to-table 

continuum.

USDA delivers critical nutrition assistance to Americans struggling to put food on the table 

by providing breakfast and lunch to nearly 32 million schoolchildren each day. This year, the 

Department fed these children nearly 44 million breakfasts and lunches per day, while providing 

food assistance to nearly 1 in 4 Americans, a record high proportion that will decline as the 

economy improves. FY 2012 marks the first of 3 years in which new, healthier school meals 

standards authorized under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 are being implemented.

And, USDA continues to lead the way in America’s agricultural research. USDA partnered with 

researchers across the country to develop the next generation of renewable energy and to solve 

some of America’s greatest scientific challenges.

As we commemorate 150 years of accomplishments, USDA is looking to the future. In the years 

to come, we will help address the changing needs of agriculture and rural America. We will 

continue to help provide a safe, ample food supply for our Nation and the world. As we promote 

innovation, we will help create jobs and support economic growth; promote healthy families and 

communities; and contribute to a stronger Nation. To meet those goals, we are working to make 

USDA a more modern and effective service provider, delivering the best possible results for all 

Americans.

Thank you for your interest in the Department. I salute USDA employees for their outstanding 

work and am proud to share this information with our stakeholders. We will continue to serve the 

needs of the people every day.

Thomas J. Vilsack 

Secretary of Agriculture
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 1

Section 1: Agency and Mission Information

Introduction

This Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report (APR) is the year-end progress report of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Department reviews its strategic goals, 

objectives, and performance measures set for itself at the beginning of the fiscal year. USDA then 

compares these targets to the year’s performance. The data used by the Department to measure 

performance are collected using a standardized methodology. This methodology has been vetted 

by federally employed scientists and policymakers, and, ultimately, the Under Secretaries of the 

respective mission areas. All attest to the completeness, reliability, and quality of the data.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization 

Act of 2010 are the Federal statutes that form the basis of Federal agency planning and reporting. 

These laws and executive branch guidance drive the planning and reporting process in this 

fashion: the 4-year Strategic Plan is used to craft the Annual Performance Plan, and progress on 

the Annual Performance Plan is reported in the APR. All plans and reports are available at 

http://www.usda.gov/ourperformance.

Mission Statement

We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and 

related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management.

Vision Statement

To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote 

agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed 

others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation’s natural resources through 

restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.
Section 1: Agency and Mission Information

2 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Core Values

Our success depends on the following: 

•	 Transparency — Making the Department’s management processes more open so that the 

public can learn how USDA supports Americans every day in every way.

•	 Participation — Providing opportunities for USDA constituents to shape and improve 

services provided by the Department.

•	 Collaboration — Working cooperatively at all governmental levels domestically and 

internationally on policy matters affecting a broad audience.

•	 Accountability — Ensuring that the performance of all employees is measured against 

the achievement of the Department’s strategic goals.

•	 Customer Focus — Serving USDA’s constituents by delivering programs that address 

their diverse needs.

•	 Professionalism — Building and maintaining a highly skilled, diverse, and 

compassionate workforce.

•	 Results Orientation — Measuring performance and making management decisions to 

direct resources to where they are used most effectively.

Management Initiatives

The Department is working to transform itself into a model organization. By strengthening 

management operations and engaging employees, USDA will improve customer service, 

increase employment satisfaction, and develop and implement strategies to enhance leadership, 

performance, diversity, and inclusion. The transformation will result in process improvements 

and increased performance. To achieve this transformation, USDA plans to do the following:

• Engage USDA employees to transform USDA into a model agency;

• Provide civil rights services to USDA employees and customers;

• Coordinate outreach and improve consultation and collaboration efforts to increase access 

to USDA programs and services;

• Leverage USDA Departmental Management to increase performance, efficiency, and 

alignment;

• Optimize information technology (IT) policy and applications;

• Optimize USDA “green” or sustainable operations;

• Enhance USDA homeland security and emergency preparedness to protect USDA 

employees and the public;

• Enhance the USDA human resources process to recruit and hire skilled, diverse 

individuals to meet the program needs of USDA; and

• Enhance collaboration and coordination on critical issues through cross-cutting 

Departmentwide initiatives.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 3

Scope of Responsibilities

USDA was founded by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862, when more than half of the Nation’s 

population lived and worked on farms. The population has increased approximately tenfold and 

now exceeds 307 million people — the vast majority of whom do not live on farms or in rural 

areas.

Today, USDA improves the Nation’s economy and quality of life by touching the lives of almost 

every person in America, every day. Nearly 100,000 employees deliver more than $144 billion 

in public services through the Department’s more than 300 programs worldwide, providing 

leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues 

based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management. Through its 

programs and mission areas, USDA does the following:

• Expands economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive;

• Promotes agricultural production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed 

others throughout the world; and

• Preserves and conserves our Nation’s natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands. Because America’s food and fiber 

producers operate in a global, technologically advanced, rapidly diversifying, and highly 

competitive business environment, USDA is constantly evolving to better help agricultural producers meet the needs of the Nation.
Section 1: Agency and Mission Information

4 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture Organization Chart

SECRETARY

Deputy 

Secretary

Assistant 

Secretary for 

Congressional 

Relations

Assistant 

Secretary for 

Civil Rights

Chief Information 

Officer

Executive 

Operations

Chief Financial 

Officer

Assistant 

Secretary for 

Administration

Director of 

Communications

Inspector 

General

Chief 

Economist

Director, National 

Appeals Division

General 

Counsel

Under Secretary 

for Farm and 

Foreign Agricultural 

Services

 Farm Service 

Agency

 Foreign 

Agricultural 

Service

 Risk 

Management 

Agency

Under Secretary 

for Rural 

Development

 Rural Utilities 

Service

 Rural Housing 

Service

 Rural Business 

Cooperative 

Service

Under Secretary 

for Food, Nutrition, 

and Consumer 

Services

 Food and 

Nutrition 

Service

 Center for 

Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion

Under Secretary 

for Food Safety

 Food Safety and 

Inspection 

Service

Under Secretary 

for Natural 

Resources and 

Environment

 Forest Service

 Natural 

Resources 

Conservation 

Service

 Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service

 Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

 Grain Inspection 

Packers and 

Stockyards 

Administration

Under Secretary 

for Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

 Agricultural 

Research 

Service

 National 

Institute of Food 

and Agriculture

 Economic 

Research Service

 National 

Agricultural 

Library

 National 

Agricultural 

Statistics 

Service

Under Secretary 

for Research, 

Education, and 

Economics

Exhibit 1: Organization Chart

Source: USDA’s Web site, September 29, 2012

This image displays the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Headquarters Organization, 

including the Secretary, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and Chief Officers for various 

agencies within USDA. In addition to its Headquarters Organization, USDA has a network of 

offices, facilities, and laboratories across the country and overseas.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 5

Organizational Structure

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) work is organized by mission areas, which 

are collections of agencies that work together to achieve its strategic goals. Descriptions of the 

Department’s seven mission areas, Departmental Management, and Office of Inspector General 

follow.

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission area helps keep America’s farmers 

and ranchers in business as they face the uncertainties of weather and markets. FFAS delivers 

programs that support a sustainable and competitive U.S. agricultural system. This mission area 

is comprised of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), and 

the Risk Management Agency (RMA). FSA administers and manages commodity, farm credit, 

conservation, and disaster programs through a network of Federal, State, and county offices. FSA 

provides administrative support for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The CCC is a 

Government-owned entity, which funds most of the commodity, export, and some conservation 

programs of USDA. FAS works to improve international market access for U.S. products, build 

new markets, improve the competitive position of domestic agriculture in the global marketplace, 

and provide food aid and technical assistance to other countries. RMA helps producers manage 

their business risks through effective, marketbased, riskmanagement solutions. In addition, RMA 

manages the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to improve the economic stability of agriculture 

through a sound system of crop insurance.

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

The Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) mission area works to harness the Nation’s 

agricultural abundance to reduce hunger and improve nutritional intake and health in the 

United States. FNCS is comprised of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). FNS administers USDA’s 15 Federal nutrition assistance 

programs. CNPP works to improve the health and well-being of Americans by developing and 

promoting dietary guidance that links scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers.

Food Safety

The Food Safety mission area ensures that the Nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged. It also plays a key 

role in the President’s Food Safety Working Group, a coordinated, Government-wide initiative 

to ensure a safe food supply for the American people for the 21st century. USDA’s partners 

in the working group include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and a number of other Government agencies. The Food Safety 

mission area is comprised of a single agency, the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Section 1: Agency and Mission Information

6 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

The Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) mission area facilitates the domestic and 

international marketing of U.S. agricultural products, and ensures the health and care of animals 

and plants. MRP is made up of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards 

Administration (GIPSA). AMS administers programs that facilitate the efficient, fair marketing 

of U.S. agricultural products, including food, fiber, and specialty crops. APHIS provides 

leadership in ensuring the health and care of animals and plants. GIPSA facilitates the marketing 

of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products.

Natural Resources and Environment

The Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) mission area ensures the health of the land 

through sustainable management. Its agencies work to conserve natural resources and prevent 

damage to the environment, restore the ecosystems, and promote good land management. 

NRE consists of the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

The Forest Service manages public lands in national forests and grasslands, which encompass 

193 million acres and assists States in managing State and private forestlands. NRCS provides 

leadership in a partnership effort to help America’s private landowners and managers conserve 

their soil, water, and other natural resources. Both agencies work in partnership with other 

Federal agencies, State, local, and Tribal Governments, as well as community-related groups to 

protect soils, watersheds, and ecosystems.

Research, Education, and Economics

The Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area helps create a safe, sustainable, 

and competitive U.S. food and fiber system, as well as develop strong communities, families, and 

youth through integrated research, analysis, and education. REE is comprised of the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Economic Research 

Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The National Agricultural Library is a 

component of ARS.

Rural Development

The Rural Development (RD) mission area helps improve the economy and quality of life in 

all of rural America. RD provides financial support for the development of essential public 

facilities and services such as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency 

service facilities, and electric and telephone services. RD also promotes economic development 

by providing direct loans and loan guarantees to businesses through private sector financial 

institutions. In addition, RD provides grants, loan guarantees, and payments to farmers, ranchers, 

and rural small businesses to develop renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency 

improvements. RD is comprised of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service, the Rural 

Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities Service.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 7

Departmental Management

Departmental Management’s (DM) mission ensures that USDA administrative functions, 

policies, advice, and counsel meet the needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with 

laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers. DM is 

comprised of the following offices: Office of Administrative Law Judges; Office of Advocacy 

and Outreach; Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Office of the Chief Information Officer; 

Office of the Executive Secretariat; Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination; 

Office of Human Resources Management; Office of the Judicial Officer; Office of Operations; 

Office of Procurement and Property Management; and Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization.

Office of Inspector General

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was legislatively established in 1978 with the enactment 

of the Inspector General Act (Public Law 95-452). The act requires the Inspector General 

to independently and objectively do the following: perform audits and investigations of the 

Department’s programs and operations; work with the Department’s management team in 

activities that promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness or that prevent and detect fraud and 

abuse in programs and operations, both within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

in nonfederal entities that receive USDA assistance; and report OIG activities to the Secretary 

and the U.S. Congress semiannually as of March 31 and September 30 each year.

OIG accomplishes its mission by doing the following: investigating allegations of fraud and 

abuse; using preventive audit approaches, such as reviews of systems under development; 

conducting audits of the adequacy and vulnerability of management and program control 

systems; and auditing the adequacy of large USDA payments, such as insurance and deficiency 

payments, major loans, and retailer food stamp redemptions.

OIG is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has regional offices located in Atlanta, Georgia; 

Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; Oakland, California; and Temple, Texas. Its Financial 

and Automated Data Processing operations sub-office is located in Kansas City, Missouri.
Section 2: Cross-Agency Priority Goals

8 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Section 2: Cross-Agency Priority Goals

The Federal Government has adopted a limited number of Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals to 

improve cross-agency coordination and best practice sharing. Per the Government Performance 

and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, the Department is required to address CAP Goals in 

its strategic plan, annual performance plan, and annual performance report. Please refer to http://

www.performance.gov/ for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) contributions to the 

interdepartmental CAP goals and progress, where applicable. USDA currently contributes to the 

following CAP Goals:

Exports: Double U.S. exports by the end of calendar year 2014;

Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Increase Federal services to entrepreneurs and small 

businesses with an emphasis on 1) startups and growing firms, and 2) underserved markets;

Broadband: As part of expanding all broadband capabilities, ensure 4G broadband coverage for 

98 percent of Americans by 2016;

Sustainability: By 2020, the Federal Government will reduce its direct greenhouse gas 

emissions by 28 percent, and reduce its indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent (from 

2008 baseline);

Real Property: The Federal Government will manage real property effectively to generate 

$3 billion in cost savings by the end of 2012;

Improper Payments: The Federal Government will reduce the Governmentwide improper 

payment rate by at least two percentage points by fiscal year (FY) 2014;

Data Center Consolidation: Improve IT service delivery, reduce waste, and save $3 billion in 

taxpayer dollars by closing at least 1,200 data centers by FY 2015;

Strategic Sourcing: Reduce the costs of acquiring common products and services by agencies’ 

strategic sourcing of at least two new commodities or services in both 2013 and 2014, that yield at 

least a 10percent savings; and

Closing Skill Gaps: Close critical skills gaps in the Federal workforce to improve mission 

performance. By September 30, 2013, close the skills gaps by 50 percent for 3 to 5 critical 

Federal Government occupations or competencies, and close additional agency-specific, highrisk 

occupation, and competency gaps.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 9

Section 3: Strategic Goals

The Department has established a variety of short and longterm performance goals to 

drive progress toward key outcomes. Long-term goals and objectives are outlined in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Strategic Plan Fiscal Year (FY) 20102015. Annual 

performance goals are outlined in USDA’s FY 2013 Budget Summary and Annual Performance 

Plan. USDA has the following strategic goals:

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So They are Self-Sustaining, 

Repopulating, and Economically Thriving.

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands are Conserved, 

Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing 

Our Water Resources.

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports 

as America Works to Increase Food Security.

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children Have Access to Safe, Nutritious, and 

Balanced Meals.

These four goals mirror USDA’s commitment to provide first-class service and state-of-the-art 

science through consistent management excellence across the Department. Although change 

has been a constant in the evolution of the United States farm and food sector, the current 

marketplace emphasizes the growing importance of consumer preferences and the reach of 

global markets. USDA’s objectives reflect this evolution. 

USDA is working to transform itself into a model organization. By strengthening management 

operations and engaging employees, the Department will improve customer service, increase 

employment satisfaction, and develop and implement strategies to enhance leadership, 

performance, diversity, and inclusion. The transformation will result in process improvements 

and increased performance.

The following exhibit, USDA’s Strategic Planning Framework, illustrates the relationship of 

USDA’s mission, strategic goals and objectives, and agency priority goals.
Section 3: Strategic Goals

10 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 2: USDA’s Strategic Planning Framework

Our Mission: We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, 

nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and 

efficient management.

GOAL 1

Assist Rural Communities to Create 

Prosperity So They Are Self 

Sustaining, Repopulating, and 

Economically Thriving

GOAL 2

Ensure Our National Forests and 

Private Working Lands are Conserved, 

Restored, and Made More Resilient to 

Climate Change, While Enhancing Our 

Water Resources

 GOAL 3

Help America Promote Agricultural 

Production and Biotechnology 

Exports as America Works to 

Increase Food Security

GOAL 4

Ensure That All of America’s 

Children Have Access to Safe, 

Nutritious, and Balanced Meals 

Enhance Rural Prosperity

Create Thriving 

Communities

Support a Sustainable 

and Competitive 

Agricultural System

Agency Priority Goal: 

Expand U.S. agricultural 

exports to at least $150 

billion by September 2013

Restore and Conserve the 

Nation’s Forests, Farms, 

Ranches, and Grasslands

Enhance American’s Ability 

to Develop and Trade 

Agricultural Products 

Derived from New 

Technologies

Increase Access to 

Nutritious Foods

Promote Healthy Diet and 

Physical Activity Behavior

Protect Public Health by 

Ensuring Food is Safe

Protect Agricultural Health 

by Minimizing Major 

Diseases and Pests, 

Ensuring Access to Safe, 

Plentiful, and Nutritious Food

Agency Priority Goal: Further 

improve payment accuracy 

in the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP)

Ensure U.S. Agricultural 

Resources Contribute to 

Enhanced Global Food 

Security

Support Sustainable 

Agriculture Production in 

Food-Insecure Nations

Lead Efforts to Mitigate 

and Adapt to Climate 

Change

Protect and Enhance 

America’s Water 

Resources

Reduce Risk from 

Catastrophic Wildfire and 

Restore Fire to its 

Appropriate Place on the 

Landscape

Agency Priority Goal: 

Accelerate the protection of 

clean, abundant water 

resources by advancing 

USDA’s capacity to measure 

the effectiveness of 

conservation investments in 

addressing water resource 

concerns
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 11

Section 4: Strategic Objectives

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) strategic objectives break down broader strategic 

goals to a level that reflects the outcome or impact the Department is trying to achieve as well 

as the specific results of contributing programs. Strategic objectives contribute to the broader 

impact described in the strategic goal statement while also expressing how an aspect of the 

strategic goals will be achieved by the Department and its delivery partners. 

Strategic objectives, in turn, cascade down to a set of performance goals and indicators 

established to help USDA monitor, evaluate, and understand its progress. Strategic objectives 

are the primary unit of analysis for assessing how USDA is achieving its mission and serving 

its customers. The following exhibit lists the strategic objectives that support the Department in 

managing its resources across goals maximizing its contribution to common outcomes.

Exhibit 3: Strategic Objectives 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So 

They Are Self Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving

1.1 Enhance Rural Prosperity 1.1.1 Number of jobs created or saved through USDA financing of businesses

1.1.2 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved telecommunication 

services (millions)

1.2 Create Thriving Communities 1.2.1 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved service from agencyfunded water facility (millions)

1.2.2 Homeownership opportunities provided

1.2.3 Percentage of customers who are provided access to new and/or improved 

essential community facilities

•	 Health Facilities

•	 Safety Facilities

•	 Educational Facilities

1.2.4 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new and/or improved electric facilities 

(millions)

1.3 Support a Sustainable and 

Competitive Agricultural 

System

1.3.1 Percentage of beginning farmers, racial and ethnic minority farmers, and women 

farmers financed by the Farm Service Agency

1.3.2 Maintain or increase percentage of Farm Service Agency program delivery 

applications at USDA Service Centers that are Web enabled

1.3.3 Value of trade preserved annually through USDA staff interventions leading to 

resolution of barriers created by Sanitary/Phytosanitary or Technical Barriers to 

Trade measures ($billions)

1.3.4 Value of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) risk protection coverage 

provided through FCICsponsored insurance ($billions)

1.3.5 Normalized value of FCIC risk protection coverage provided through 

FCICsponsored insurance ($billions)

1.3.6 Percent of industry compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act
Section 4: Strategic Objectives

12 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 3: Strategic Objectives (continued)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands Are Conserved, Restored, and 

Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water Resources

2.1 Restore and Conserve the Nation’s Forests, 

Farms, Ranches, and Grasslands

2.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program: Restored wetland acreage 

(millions of acres)

2.1.2 Conservation Technical Assistance: Cropland with conservation 

applied to improve soil quality (millions of acres)

2.1.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Cropland with 

conservation applied to improve soil quality (millions of acres)

2.1.4 Conservation Technical Assistance: Grazing land and forest land 

with conservation applied to protect and improve the resource base 

(millions of acres)

2.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Grazing land and 

forest land with conservation applied to protect and improve the 

resource base (millions of acres)

2.1.6 Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program: Prime, unique, or 

important farmland protected from conversion to non-agricultural 

uses by conservation easements (thousands of acres)

2.1.7 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat quality 

(thousands of acres)

2.1.8 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Non-Federal land 

with conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat 

quality (millions of acres)

2.1.9 Acres protected from conversion through easements and fee-simple 

purchases (thousands of acres)

2.2 Protect and Enhance America’s Water 

Resources

2.2.1 Conservation Technical Assistance: Land with conservation 

applied to improve water quality (millions of acres)

2.2.2 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Land with 

conservation applied to improve water quality (millions of acres)

2.2.3 Wetlands Reserve Program: Wetlands created, restored, or 

enhanced (thousands of acres)

2.3 Reduce Risk from Catastrophic Wildfire 

and Restore Fire to its Appropriate Place on 

the Landscape

2.3.1 Acres of WildlandUrban Interface fuels treated to reduce the risk 

of catastrophic fire (millions of acres)

2.3.2 Percentage of acres treated in the WildlandUrban Interface that 

have been identified in Community Wildfire Protection Plans

2.3.3 Cumulative acres in the National Forest System that are in a 

desired condition relative to fire regime (millions of acres)

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production and 

Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food Security

3.1 Enhance America’s Ability to Develop and 

Trade Agricultural Products Derived from 

New Technologies

3.1.1 Cumulative number of genetically engineered plant lines reviewed 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and found safe for use in the 

environment
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 13

Exhibit 3: Strategic Objectives (continued)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children 

Have Access to Safe, Nutritious, and Balanced Meals

4.1 Increase Access to Nutritious Foods 4.1.1 Participation rates for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per month): Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program

4.1.2 SNAP payment accuracy rate (percent)

4.1.3 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per day):

•	 National School Lunch Program

•	 School Breakfast Program

4.1.4 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per month): The Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and Children (average)

4.2 Promote Healthy Diet and Physical 

Activity Behavior

4.2.1 Application and usage level of nutrition guidance tools (billions of 

pieces of nutrition guidance distributed)

4.3 Protect Public Health by Ensuring Food 

is Safe

4.3.1 Percent of broiler plants passing the carcass Salmonella Verification 

Testing Standard

4.3.2 Total illnesses from all Food Safety and Inspection Service products

4.3.3 Percent of establishments with a functional food defense plan

4.4 Protect Agricultural Health by 

Minimizing Major Diseases and Pests, 

Ensuring Access to Safe, Plentiful, and 

Nutritious Food

4.4.1 Value of damage prevented and mitigated annually as a result of 

selected plant and animal health monitoring and surveillance efforts 

($billions)

Management Initiative: Enhance the USDA Human Resources Process to Recruit and Hire Skilled, Diverse 

Individuals to Meet the Program Needs of USDA

Increasing Diversity in the USDA Workforce

Percent of all new hires who are minorities

Percent of all new hires who are veterans

Percent of all new hires who are minorities
Section 4: Strategic Objectives

14 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

External Factors

The external factors that influenced USDA’s progress on strategic objectives are aligned under 

the four strategic goals of the Department as follows:

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So They Are SelfSustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving.

External Factors

Many external factors influence the outcome of this strategic goal. These factors include changes 

in environmental conditions such as climate change, changing weather patterns, and ecosystem 

health. Other factors are natural disasters, animal and plant pests and disease outbreaks, and 

intentional food contamination. Production-level factors include the volatility of farm commodity 

prices, workforce skills and competencies, and increasing operating costs for farms. Economic 

factors are also important, including unemployment levels, inflation, changes in the relative 

value of the U.S. dollar to foreign currencies, and changes in the market demand for organic or 

biobased products. Other influences include international concerns such as international trade 

policies and regulatory developments.

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands Are 

Conserved, Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water 

Resources.

External Factors

A number of outside factors affect USDA’s ability to achieve Goal 2. These factors include 

extreme weather, climate fluctuation, or environmental change beyond the natural range of 

variability that affects ecological productivity and resilience. Other factors are increasing 

population, urban development, and sprawl, all of which result in increases in impervious 

surfaces, such as roads and parking lots. Point source pollution, which is contamination that 

enters the environment through any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a 

smokestack, and non-point source pollution, such as water contamination from excess fertilizer 

and animal waste, beyond what the Department can influence through its programs, impact the 

Department’s ability to reach this goal. The following factors also influence the outcome of 

Strategic Goal 2: the success of, and level of participation in, markets for ecosystem services; 

unpredictable economic fluctuations or commodity price changes that affect market conditions; 

budgetary, legal, and regulatory constraints; and international crises or homeland security issues 

that alter domestic program allocations or immediate public needs.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 15

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology 

Exports as America Works to Increase Food Security.

External Factors

America’s ability to promote sustainable agricultural production practices and exports derived 

from using biotechnology and other emergent technologies, while increasing food security 

at home and abroad, is affected by a number of external factors. These factors include the 

following: the failure of “change management” efforts to shift existing agricultural production 

technology practices toward more sustainable production methods; evolving scientific advances 

and industry practices; resistance both at home and abroad to foods produced through the use 

of biotechnology; the effects on worldwide food security from global climate change and the 

increasing variability of the weather; and political instability in food-insecure countries.

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children Have Access to Safe, Nutritious, 

and Balanced Meals.

External Factors

USDA’s ability to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, nutritious, and plentiful food 

supplies is impacted by several external factors. These factors include the following: the 

effectiveness of State and local organizations that deliver benefits for nutrition-assistance 

programs; the collaborative efforts of other Federal agencies that deliver or support health, 

human services, and education benefits; problems with food handling or preparation that lead 

to outbreaks of foodborne illness; increases in the volume and types of food products available 

on the market; food terrorism and intentional contamination and infestation of the food supply; 

changing human consumption trends; gaps in food safety recordkeeping by outside parties; and 

increased risks of pest and disease introductions through globalization and more open trade 

practices.

Management Challenges

The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to 

report annually on the most serious management challenges USDA and its agencies face. To 

identify these Departmental challenges, OIG examined previously issued audit reports where 

corrective actions have yet to be taken. It also assessed ongoing investigative and audit work to 

ascertain significant vulnerabilities, and analyzed new programs and activities that could pose 

significant challenges due to their range and complexity. Nine challenges were included in OIG’s 

report this year. The challenges, and a discussion of how those challenges are being addressed, 

can be found on page 154 of the Agency Financial Report, which is located at http://www.usda.

gov/documents/USDA_AFR_2012.pdf
Section 5: Agency Priority Goals

16 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Section 5: Agency Priority Goals

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified a limited number of 2year Agency 

Priority Goals in the fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget, which align with the strategic goals and 

objectives. Agency Priority Goals target areas where agency leaders want to achieve nearterm 

performance acceleration through focused senior leadership attention. USDA is pursuing 

three Agency Priority Goals in FY 2012 and FY 2013. A summary of progress for each goal is 

provided below.

Further information on USDA’s priority goals is available on http://www.performance.gov/

Agency Priority Goal 1: Further improve payment accuracy in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP).

Agency Priority Goal 2: Expand U.S. agricultural exports to at least $150 billion by September 

2013.

Agency Priority Goal 3: Accelerate the protection of clean, abundant water resources 

by advancing USDA’s capacity to measure the effectiveness of 

conservation investments in addressing water resource concerns. 

Agency Priority Goal 1: Further improve payment accuracy in the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Overview

SNAP puts healthy food on the table for millions of lowincome Americans every month. The 

program supplements the budgets of low-income people by providing benefits via an electronic 

benefit card that is used like a debit card at most food retailers. Through nutrition education 

partners, the program helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices. 

Finally, SNAP also provides a significant boost to local economies. For every $5 in SNAP benefit 

spending, $9.20 is generated in total economic activity. It is essential that the program operate 

with accuracy and integrity so that only eligible people receive benefits, and only in the proper 

amount—not too much and not too little.

Improper payments in FY 2011 were 3.80 percent (2.99 percent were overpayments; 0.81 

were underpayments). The 2011 rate is less than half the rate from 2000, when it was 8.91 

percent. This lower error rate reduced improper payments by $3.7 billion in 2011 as compared 

to the higher rate. However, since the program is so large, even small percentage reductions in 

improper payment rates reduce expenses substantially.

This Agency Priority Goal is also one of the Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) key 

performance measures (Measure 4.1.2, SNAP payment accuracy rate).
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 17

Progress Update

In 2012, USDA’s FNS continued to work to improve payment accuracy through partnerships 

with States, and by rewarding exemplary performance while holding low-performing states 

accountable. FNS uses an early detection system to target states that may be experiencing a 

higher incidence of payment errors. FNS then intervenes to address situations identified in 

individual states. FNS provides technical assistance and knowledge to State agencies to improve 

payment accuracy. FNS encourages business process improvements and reengineering for SNAP 

administration by States. These initiatives have been shown to increase efficiency and improve 

program accountability.

Indicators

The payment accuracy rate for FY 2012 will be posted on http://www.performance.gov/ when it 

is available, about 9 months after the end of the fiscal year.

External Factors

Success in improving payment accuracy and program access can be achieved only through 

the efforts of State agencies and other program partners. SNAP is administered through State 

agencies. Sustaining existing levels of payment accuracy requires a State agency commitment 

and a willingness and ability to bring their resources to bear. States continue to face fiscal 

challenges in the wake of the recent recession. As a result, the need to improve State business 

processes, modernize Information Technology infrastructure, and ensure adequate staffing to 

maintain payment accuracy will face competition for limited State resources.

Agency Priority Goal 2: Expand U.S. agricultural exports to at least 

$150 billion by September 2013

Overview

The vitality of rural America is heavily dependent on agricultural exports, with one-third of 

all U.S. agricultural cash receipts coming from export sales. USDA is the leading advocate 

for rural America. One of the primary ways that the Department supports rural communities 

is by expanding economic opportunities through increased trade and market access. For every 

$1 billion of agricultural exports, an estimated 7,800 jobs are supported and an additional 

$1.34 billion in economic activity is generated. 

Progress Update

Efforts to boost exports in FY 2012 included the following: approval of free trade agreements 

(FTAs) with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; trade shows that lead to direct export sales; 

and successful resolution of barriers to market access. The South Korea FTA took effect on 

March 15, 2012, and upon full implementation of the agreement will expand annual agricultural 

exports by an estimated $1.9 billion. The Colombia FTA took effect on May 15, 2012, and upon 
Section 5: Agency Priority Goals

18 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

full implementation of the agreement is expected to expand annual agricultural exports by more 

than $370 million. USDA has continued to support Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. 

Invitations to join TPP were extended to Canada and Mexico in FY 2012, bringing the number of 

participating countries to 11.

Indicators

In FY 2012, agricultural exports totaled $135.8 billion, close to last year’s record level of 

$137.4 billion. In FY 2012, USDA’s work to resolve foreign market access issues preserved 

$4 billion in trade. Additionally, a total of 1,042 companies participated in USDAsponsored trade 

shows, a 3percent increase from FY 2011.

External Factors

Although export figures are strong, the global economy has not recovered as expected when the 

original goal was set. Thus, it may be a challenge to meet the $150 billion target by the end of 

FY 2013. The drought may also affect export volumes and values. The current FY 2013 official 

forecast is for U.S. agricultural exports to reach $145 billion.

Agency Priority Goal 3: Accelerate the protection of clean, 

abundant water resources by advancing USDA’s capacity to measure 

the effectiveness of conservation investments in addressing water 

resource concerns

Overview

With 87 percent of America’s surface supply of drinking water originating on land that USDA 

programs impact in some way, the Department has a key role to play in water quality. While the 

agricultural and forestry communities have made notable progress in reducing their impacts on 

water quality, challenges remain. Accelerating progress on reducing nonpoint source pollution 

is critical to meeting goals for safe drinking water, protected watersheds and habitat, and clean 

lakes, streams, and rivers. By targeting USDA’s resources in critical watersheds and bringing 

a unified approach to measuring results, the Department is moving toward resultsbased, 

landscapescale conservation investments.

Progress Update

In 2012, USDA formed a cross-agency work group that established criteria for choosing 

pilot watersheds and selected the St. Joseph’s River watershed in Indiana and La Cienega 

watershed in Arizona. The Department has developed project plans for the pilots and expects to 

implement them in FY 2013. In each project, USDA is utilizing a history of monitoring practice 

implementation and management actions to develop the metrics for describing the relationship 

between conservation investments and water quality. Examples of the indicators being developed 

include broad measures such as indices of watershed health and more specific measures like edge 

of field losses of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 19

USDA is also tracking a secondary goal: implementing highimpact targeted (HIT) practices to 

improve water quality on 4 million acres within critical and/or impaired watersheds in FY 2012 

and 2013. In FY 2012, USDA implemented HIT practices on 1.8 million acres. Examples of HIT 

practices include the following: restoring wetlands and stream banks, installing or preserving 

vegetative buffers at the edges of fields, fencing cattle out of streams, good management of soils 

and fertilizers, use of cover crops, controlling invasive species, practicing conservation tillage, 

and improving fish passage around manmade structures.

External Factors

Weather events, such as extreme drought and flooding, may extend the required time period for 

monitoring data in the watersheds.
Section 6: Performance Goals

20 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Section 6: Performance Goals

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has 42 performance goals. Each of these goals 

contains a measurable value (performance indicator), target, and timeframe to define the level of 

performance to be achieved. 

The performance goals information in Exhibits 4 and 5, organized by USDA’ strategic goals and 

objectives, provides a summary of the Department’s yearend actual performance results. Of the 

42 performance measures contained in USDA’s FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan, 37 were met 

or exceeded, and 5 were unmet.

Exhibit 4: Fiscal Year 2012 Performance Results
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 21

Exhibit 5: Performance Goals Information

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals Result

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So 

They are Self Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving

1.1 Enhance Rural Prosperity 1.1.1 Number of jobs created or saved through USDA’s financing of 

businesses Exceeded

1.1.2 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved 

telecommunication services (millions) Unmet

1.2 Create Thriving 

Communities

1.2.1 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved service 

from agencyfunded water facility (millions) Exceeded

1.2.2 Homeownership opportunities provided Met

1.2.3 Percentage of customers who are provided access to new and/or 

improved essential community facilities

•	 Health Facilities Exceeded

•	 Safety Facilities Unmet

•	 Educational Facilities Exceeded

1.2.4 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new and/or improved 

electric facilities (millions) Exceeded

1.3 Support a Sustainable and 

Competitive Agricultural 

System

1.3.1 Percentage of beginning farmers, racial and ethnic minority farmers, 

and women farmers financed by the Farm Service Agency Exceeded

1.3.2 Maintain or increase percentage of Farm Service Agency program 

delivery applications at USDA Service Centers that are Web enabled Met

1.3 Support a Sustainable and 

Competitive Agricultural 

System

1.3.3 Value of trade preserved annually through USDA staff interventions 

leading to resolution of barriers created by Sanitary/Phytosanitary or 

Technical Barriers to Trade measures ($billions)

Met

1.3.4 Value of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) risk protection 

coverage provided through FCICsponsored insurance ($billions) Exceeded

1.3.5 Normalized value of FCIC risk protection coverage provided through 

FCICsponsored insurance ($billions) Exceeded

1.3.6 Percentage of industry compliance with the Packers and Stockyards 

Act Exceeded
Section 6: Performance Goals

22 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 5: Performance Goals Information (continued)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals Result

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands Are Conserved, Restored, and 

Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water Resources

2.1 Restore and Conserve the Nation’s 

Forests, Farms, Ranches, and 

Grasslands

2.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program: Restored wetland acreage 

(millions of acres) Exceeded

2.1.2 Conservation Technical Assistance: Cropland with 

conservation applied to improve soil quality (millions of 

acres)

Exceeded

2.1.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Cropland with 

conservation applied to improve soil quality (millions of 

acres)

Met

2.1.4 Conservation Technical Assistance: Grazing land and forest 

land with conservation applied to protect and improve the 

resource base (millions of acres)

Exceeded

2.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Grazing land and 

forest land with conservation applied to protect and improve 

the resource base (millions of acres)

Met

2.1.6 Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program: Prime, unique, 

or important farmland protected from conversion to nonagricultural uses by conservation easements (thousands of 

acres)

Met

2.1.7 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat 

quality (thousands of acres)

Exceeded

2.1.8 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Non-Federal land 

with conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat 

quality (millions of acres)

Exceeded

2.1.9 Acres protected from conversion through easements and feesimple purchases (thousands of acres) Met

2.2 Protect and Enhance America’s 

Water Resources

2.2.1 Conservation Technical Assistance: Land with conservation 

applied to improve water quality (millions of acres) Exceeded

2.2.2 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Land with 

conservation applied to improve water quality (millions of 

acres)

Unmet

2.2.3 Wetlands Reserve Program: Wetlands created, restored, or 

enhanced (thousands of acres) Met

2.3 Reduce Risk from Catastrophic 

Wildfire and Restore Fire to 

its Appropriate Place on the 

Landscape

2.3.1 Acres of WildlandUrban Interface fuels treated to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic fire (millions of acres) Exceeded

2.3.2 Percentage of acres treated in the WildlandUrban Interface 

that have been identified in Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans

Exceeded

2.3.3 Cumulative acres in the National Forest System that are in a 

desired condition relative to fire regime (millions of acres) Met
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 23

Exhibit 5: Performance Goals Information (continued)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals Result

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production and 

Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food Security

3.1 Enhance America’s Ability to 

Develop and Trade Agricultural 

Products Derived from New 

Technologies

3.1.1 Cumulative number of genetically engineered plant lines 

reviewed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and found safe 

for use in the environment Exceeded

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children 

Have Access to Safe, Nutritious, and Balanced Meals

4.1 Increase Access to Nutritious 

Foods

4.1.1 Participation rates for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per month): Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP)

Met

4.1.2 SNAP payment accuracy rate (percent) Met

4.1.3 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per day):

•	 National School Lunch Program Met

•	 School Breakfast Program Met

4.1.4 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per month): The Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (average)

Met

4.2 Promote Healthy Diet and 

Physical Activity Behavior

4.2.1 Application and usage level of nutrition guidance tools 

(billions of pieces of nutrition guidance distributed) Exceeded

4.3 Protect Public Health by 

Ensuring Food is Safe

4.3.1 Percent of broiler plants passing the carcass Salmonella

Verification Testing Standard Met

4.3.2 Total illnesses from all Food Safety and Inspection Service 

products Unmet

4.3.3 Percent of establishments with a functional food defense plan Exceeded

4.4 Protect Agricultural Health by 

Minimizing Major Diseases and 

Pests, Ensuring Access to Safe, 

Plentiful, and Nutritious Food

4.4.1 Value of damage prevented and mitigated annually as a 

result of selected plant and animal health monitoring and 

surveillance efforts ($billions) Met

Management Initiative: Enhance the USDA Human Resources Process to Recruit and Hire Skilled, Diverse 

Individuals to Meet the Program Needs of USDA

Increasing Diversity in the USDA 

Workforce

Percent of all new hires who are veterans Exceeded

Percent of all new hires who are minorities Unmet
Section 6: Performance Goals

24 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Performance Goals Progress Update and Results

USDA’s performance goals tell us how well we are fulfilling our mission. The goals are divided 

by objectives, which are supported by performance indicators. These measures track activities 

and determine if a program met targets for the fiscal year just ended. These targets were established at the beginning of the fiscal year and published in USDA’s Budget Summary and Annual 

Performance Plan. Actual performance is compared with target levels of performance for the 

prior 5 years. The causes of variance, as well as reasons for not meeting targets, are explained in 

the Annual Performance Report. These results are used to make informed management decisions. 

The actual results of USDA’s performance are provided in Exhibits 6 to 38.

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So 

They Are Self-Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving

Objective 1.1: Enhance Rural Prosperity

1.1.1	 Number of jobs created or saved through USDA financing of businesses

Overview

USDA invests financial resources and provides technical assistance that help foster an economic 

climate in rural areas where businesses can thrive and be competitive in the global marketplace. 

Financial assistance is provided to rural businesses, non-profits, and public entities in the form of 

grants, loans, and loan guarantees. The ultimate goal is to enhance rural prosperity by supporting 

rural businesses and stimulating rural economic activity through job creation. Success toward 

reaching this goal is measured by jobs created and saved.

USDA’s Rural Business and Cooperative Programs offer an array of economic development loan 

and grant options. These options are delivered through cooperatives, non-profit organizations, 

institutions of higher learning, local and Tribal Governments, and other rural business and 

economic development stakeholders. For example, Rural Business Enterprise Grants fund the 

development of industrial parks that support small and emerging private businesses in rural 

areas. Value Added Producer Grants take a common produce or service, modify it, and create a 

new or expanded product or market.

Rural Business and Cooperative Programs include the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan 

Program (B&I). The B&I program provides capital in the form of loan guarantees designed to 

improve, develop, or finance business, industry, and employment. These guarantees also help 

improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. These actions bolstered 

the existing private credit structure through the guarantee of quality loans, which provide 

lasting community benefits. During FY 2012, B&I obligated approximately $1.055 billion in 

guaranteed loans. It also helped create approximately 20,510 jobs. These loans assisted 406 small 

businesses. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 25

Renewable energy projects funded by USDA loans and grants also improve the local economy. 

They create jobs at energy plants, enhance the tax base, and increase local business profits. 

Recent funds allowed many agricultural producers and rural small business owners to lower their 

energy consumption and increase their profit margins.

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) provides grants and loan guarantees to rural 

residents, agricultural producers, and rural small businesses. REAP assists with purchasing and 

installing renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. These grants can 

also support energy audits and technical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

projects. The program funds projects ranging from biofuels to wind, solar, geothermal, methane 

gas recovery, advanced hydro, biomass, and ocean energy sources.

REAP obligated $18.4 million in grants and $26.7 million in guaranteed loans. This work 

generated and saved a cumulative total of 1,133 million kilowatt hours of renewable energy 

and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This work also helps reduce America’s dependence on 

foreign oil.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure by more than 18 percent. The 

Department’s efforts to create and save jobs included the following:

• Funding projects of highest priority, which is reflected when jobs are created and saved, 

while emphasizing quality production in loan and grant making;

• Emphasizing the importance of correlating the data used in priority scoring applications 

with those used in reporting performance measures;

• Providing additional guidance and training to agency field offices to reinforce Guaranteed 

Loan System (GLS) data integrity, combined with weekly monitoring by the national 

office; and

• Extending the processing time for grants of $20,000 or less from 15 to 60 days, thereby 

ensuring a more comprehensive agency review.
Section 6: Performance Goals

26 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 6: Performance Goal 1.1.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007[1] 2008 2009 2010 2011Target

Fiscal Year 2012

Actual Result

1.1.1 Number of jobs created or saved 

through USDA financing of 

businesses

N/A N/A N/A N/A 66,824 42,288 52,468 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be “met” is 5 percent or from 40,174 to 44,402. Jobs 

data are projected based on historic results. The number of jobs created/saved by each project is gathered when projects are 

obligated in the Guaranteed Loan System (GLS) data warehouse. Final job counts are verified later in the life of the project 

upon closing the loan and grant. 

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.1.1

Completeness of Data — Business program data are considered final and complete.

Reliability of Data — Data for jobs created or saved are obtained by State office staff from borrowers and lenders. They are 

entered into the GLS when obligations are recorded. Overall, the data on jobs created and saved are reliable. USDA is refining 

the policy for how jobs created and saved are counted. The new policy will provide the States with definitive guidance that 

will increase consistency and accuracy of the data. For example, the new policy seeks to ensure that projects with joint funding 

from multiple programs are not double counted.

Quality of Data — While the quality of the data on jobs created and saved is satisfactory, USDA seeks to improve the data 

quality, and, as previously mentioned, is refining the policy for how jobs created and saved are counted. The new policy will 

provide the States with definitive guidance that will increase consistency of the data. For example, the policy provides specific 

direction on how to quantify jobs. 

[1] In FY 2012, USDA’s target for jobs created/saved is estimated at a significantly lower level than FY 2011. USDA is implementing a new methodology that 

presents a more accurate picture of total jobs created/saved. The goal of the refined methodology is to improve the integrity and consistency of the jobs data. 

For instance, the new methodology eliminates double counting of jobs associated with projects that are jointly funded from multiple programs. Additionally, the 

methodology is currently being further refined to provide clear definitions of “job saved” and “direct job.” The new methodology is more definitive and will provide 

a more accurate number of jobs created/saved. The jobs data in years 2007-2011 were collected in a different manner from that in 2012.

Challenges for the Future

While rural communities are diverse and their economic challenges vary based on the condition 

of the industries that drive their economies, generally speaking, for more than a decade, those 

that rely heavily on the manufacturing and agricultural industries have struggled to remain 

competitive in the global economy. Furthermore, rural areas typically have underdeveloped 

public services that make it difficult to attract or retain businesses. The persistent lack of wellpaying job opportunities — and the related local tax base ramifications — place many rural 

county and municipal governments under great stress.

1.1.2	 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved

telecommunication services

Overview

The telecommunications program provides loans and grants specifically targeted for the 

deployment of high-speed broadband service in rural underserved communities. This program 

helps build strong rural economies and supports the increasing bandwidth needs of educational, 

health care, and public safety institutions and providers serving rural communities across the 

Nation. It finances broadband services that support the economic growth of rural communities, 

including the creation or retention of rural businesses and jobs. All facilities financed must 

be capable of providing high-speed broadband services. Matching funds from loan and grant 

participants provide opportunities to leverage Federal funding with private financial resources. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 27

Analysis of Results

USDA did not meet the target for this performance measure. Loan application levels and 

processing were affected by two major issues:

• New regulations for the broadband loan program took effect in March 2011. This change 

required all pending applications submitted prior to the publication of the regulations to 

be revised and resubmitted; and 

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new rules governing Universal 

Service Fund (USF) and inter-carrier compensation (ICC) distributions to rural carriers in 

2012.

These rules caused reductions in Federal support to existing telecommunications providers 

serving rural communities and Tribal lands. The FCC created USF to meet congressional 

universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act states 

that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service 

in some equitable and non-discriminatory manner. It also mandates specific, predictable, and 

sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, and that 

all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to 

advanced telecommunications services. ICC refers to the charges that one carrier pays to another 

carrier to originate, transport, and/or terminate telecommunications traffic.

The level of uncertainty caused by the new USF and ICC revisions directly impacted the level 

of demand for the infrastructure loan program. Consequently, the program did not obligate all 

available funding in FY 2012.

The Obama Administration is committed to bringing broadband to rural and underserved 

areas. USDA continues to work closely with the FCC to develop models in which the 

telecommunications programs align with commission rules. As such, continued funding for 

agency infrastructure and broadband loan programs remains a vital source of capital to sustain 

existing infrastructure and upgrades for highcapacity bandwidth needed to maintain the pace of 

investment in health, education, public safety, and economic growth.
Section 6: Performance Goals

28 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 7: Performance Goal 1.1.2. Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.1.2 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving 

new or improved telecommunication 

services (millions)

0.36 0.78 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.06 Unmet

Allowable Data Range for Met: Annual targets for this measure are based on historic activity and adjusted according to the 

program level received each fiscal year. The allowable data range for this measure to be considered met is +/– 7-percent or 

from 0.20 to 0.24.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.1.2 

Completeness of Data — Data are actual, final, and complete. The subscriber data are collected from each approved loan 

application. Applicants are required to detail their proposed service territories and subscribers. Loan funds are advanced only 

for approved purposes. Measuring the extent to which broadband service is deployed in rural America will enable USDA 

to assess improved economic conditions because of the availability of high-speed telecommunications network access for 

residents and businesses. The data on the number of subscribers to be served for each loan are derived from applicants’ loan 

applications. Data must be complete before loans can be approved. 

Reliability of Data — While in many cases applicants are required to perform market surveys of their proposed service 

areas, the actual subscribers served may vary from the plan if all funds are not used, or the borrower later requests a change of 

purpose from the original loan application. Overall, data on subscribers are reliable.

Quality of Data — All applications undergo an extensive review to determine eligibility. Additionally, all approved 

applications must show feasibility from a financial and technical standpoint. Applicants also are required to perform market 

surveys of their proposed service areas. Therefore, the data are reliable. As previously noted, the data on the number of 

subscribers to be served for each loan approved come from the applicant’s loan application. The data depend on the borrower 

drawing down loan funds and constructing the system as portrayed in the applicant’s loan design. Loan funds may be used only 

for the approved purposes for which the loan was made. Variance may result if a borrower does not draw down all loan funds 

or request approval for a change of purpose from the original loan. This could result in a different number of subscribers from 

the number specified in the plan.

Description of Actions for Unmet Measures

Despite the uncertainty, a certain level of investment is required annually by program borrowers 

and prospective borrowers. USDA anticipates that loan demand for FY 2013 will be strong 

and on par with previous fiscal years. The Department also believes that programs such as 

public safety/911 funding, which was expanded under the 2008 Farm Bill, will encourage new 

participation in the telecommunications infrastructure loan program. FCC rules provide carriers 

adversely affected by the USF rule changes the option of requesting a waiver from some of the 

new requirements. To date, one waiver request has been processed and partially granted to an 

existing program borrower. USDA is working to develop standardized financial models to help 

the agency better analyze loan applications and evaluate portfolio risk. It will monitor the impact 

of the USF program changes on loan demand and determine if adjustments are required to 

FY 2013 performance targets.

Challenges for the Future

USDA’s telecommunications program portfolio rose by more than $3 billion in American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding. The hundreds of new ARRA 

broadband projects must be monitored to ensure the projects’ completion within the required 

timeframe. The Department will coordinate with the FCC as it reviews and moves toward 

implementing the National Broadband Plan and USF regulations. USDA must incorporate 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 29

existing and proposed USF program changes into its underwriting process and determine the 

impact on its loan portfolio. The Department must also evaluate the impact of USF program 

changes and uncertainty in the industry on demand for telecom loan programs in the next few 

years. 

Objective 1.2: Create Thriving Communities

1.2.1 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved service from

agencyfunded water facility

Overview

The water and environmental programs provide rural communities with modern, affordable water 

and waste-disposal services. USDA directs technical and financial program resources to rural 

communities with the greatest need. These communities may be poverty-stricken because of outmigration, natural disasters, or economic stress. Despite such events, all rural communities can 

sustain economic development and improve the quality of life for their residents with dependable 

water and waste services and infrastructure. 

A network of 47 USDA State offices, supported by area and local offices, delivers these 

programs. This network provides such technical assistance as reviewing projects for engineering, 

environmental, and financial feasibility. Credit advice and assistance is provided to the 

applicants and borrowers throughout the loan making, construction, and system management and 

maintenance processes. Staff works closely with program participants, their project engineers, 

and State regulatory agencies to ensure that projects are reasonable, affordable, and based on 

commonly accepted engineering practices. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. Communities awarded loans and grants 

had an average population of 3,531 residents. Priority is given to communities with populations 

of 5,500 or fewer.
Section 6: Performance Goals

30 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 8: Performance Goal 1.2.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.2.1 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving 

new or improved service from agencyfunded water facility (millions)1.3 4.4 3.4 3.9 4.5 2.4 4.2 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Annual targets for this measure are based on historical activity and are adjusted according 

to the program level received each fiscal year. The allowable data range for this measure to be considered met will be +/- 

5-percent or from 2.28 to 2.52.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.2.1

Completeness of Data — The Water and Environmental Programs (WEP) collect data initially through the Community 

Programs Application Processing (CPAP) system. CPAP is a non-financial system in which agency field staff input data about 

applicants, borrowers, funding, and services provided. The data obligations flow through the Commercial Loan Servicing 

System to the Program Loan Accounting System, and through a data server to a data warehouse.

Reliability of Data — USDA’s data warehouse stores historical information on Department programs and such non-agency 

data as census information. Program data are downloaded to the warehouse every evening from several accounting databases. 

Data generally are current through the previous day. The warehouse provides data about obligations and can be used to measure 

the number of loans, loan amounts, number of borrowers, and funds advanced. The warehouse is an easy, accessible online 

method of extracting information and data for reports and analyses.

Quality of Data — Based on information in CPAP, the number of subscribers receiving new or improved water or wastewater 

service can be extrapolated from the data warehouse. The WEP national office and USDA field offices use data from CPAP, the 

data warehouse, and Department accounting systems to review or evaluate the financial, operational, and managerial programs 

of the utilities serving rural customers.

Challenges for the Future

Rural communities must invest in modern water and wastewater facilities to attract families and 

businesses vital to thriving communities. The communities must decide how to balance investing 

in new facilities to serve new or proposed customers with investing in upgrades to facilities that 

serve existing customers. They must weigh growing their customer base, controlling costs, and 

modernizing or upgrading aging facilities. Gaining access to credit markets and leveraging funds 

from Federal, State, and private sources will continue to challenge rural communities.

1.2.2 Homeownership Opportunities Provided

Overview

Homeownership remains important to strong, vibrant rural communities. USDA’s Single Family 

Housing Programs (SFH) continue to make the American dream possible for thousands, as this 

assistance fills a void in the Nation’s housing financing. Since the first housing loan in 1950, 

more than 3.4 million rural families received benefits from more than $183 billion in assistance, 

including 158,000 loans, grants, and guarantees totaling $23 billion in FY 2012.

This assistance goes to families with limited incomes who are unable to receive assistance 

elsewhere (or to obtain a home loan without a guarantee). Even so, loan delinquency 

and foreclosure rates remain well below other similar programs. Continued sensible loan 

underwriting and common sense servicing — which ensures families will remain successful 

homeowners — allow these programs to succeed.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 31

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. SFH enjoyed a successful year and provided 

a record level of homeownership opportunities.

FY 2011 marked the first full year SFH operated as a budget-neutral program. At that time, an 

upfront guarantee fee of 3.5 percent was introduced. To keep the program operating in a budgetneutral status in FY 2012, the President’s budget implemented an annual fee with a reduction in 

the up-front guarantee fee to 2 percent — down 1.5 percent from FY 2011. The reduced upfront 

guarantee fee is making homeownership more affordable for many rural customers by reducing 

the cash needed to close their loans. 

President Obama also announced a Rural Refinance Pilot Loan Program in FY 2012. This pilot 

program allowed existing USDA direct and guaranteed loan customers in the 19 hardest hit 

States, as determined by the U.S. Department of Treasury, to take advantage of recordlow interest 

rates. The program provided customers with streamlined refinancing opportunities, without the 

requirement of current credit reports, appraisals, or property inspections. Thus, rural homeowners 

lacking sufficient home equity to obtain conventional financing could refinance their homes at a 

more affordable interest rate, reducing their overall housing costs.

Exhibit 9: Performance Goal 1.2.2 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.2.2 Homeownership 

opportunities provided 43,942 67,420 56,613 127,735 140,100 190,186 153,027 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Historically, the number of homes financed by the Guaranteed and Direct Single Family 

Housing Loan Programs has varied. The allowable data range for this measure to be considered “Met” is +/- 20 percent or from 

152,149 to 228,223.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.2.2

Completeness of Data — Homeownership data are complete and final. Homeownership data are entered in the Web-based 

Dedicated Loan Origination and Servicing (DLOS) system. This centralized server application ensures viable data collection. 

DLOS tracks performance and can be used to forecast needs. Information is entered into UniFi and uploaded nightly to 

MortgageServe System. This system obligates funds, establishes closed loans, administers escrow accounts, and performs other 

administrative functions. Hyperion, a query and reporting tool, serves as the interface between the data warehouse and USDA 

staff.

Reliability of Data — Homeownership data originate in systems used to obligate funding and are reliable. Data for initial 

placement of households into their own home are reliable. They are linked directly to homeownership loans maintained in 

USDA’s financial accounting systems. No adjustments are made for later defaults and the resulting loss of homeownership.

Quality of Data — Homeownership data are based on loan obligations collected in DLOS, and stored in USDA’s data 

warehouse. Thus, the data on the number of households are auditable. Data represent the population served based on the 

available U.S. Census Data.

Challenges for the Future

Demand for the single-family loan programs remains strong. USDA’s first challenge is the ability 

to manage its increased application volume with reduced staffing levels. Early retirement that 

was offered in December 2011 to address congressionally mandated reductions to salary and 

expenses significantly reduced available staff needed to administer the housing programs. Thus, 
Section 6: Performance Goals

32 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

the Department must create efficiencies that will allow it to effectively deliver its programs at 

current levels. 

The Department is planning enhancements to the Guaranteed Underwriting Systems (GUS), 

which will move the approval and servicing of loan guarantees to an increasingly efficient, and 

eventually paperless, process.

1.2.3 Percentage of customers who are provided access to new and/or improved

essential community facilities

Overview

The Community Facilities (CF) Program provides direct and guaranteed loans for the 

development of essential facilities in communities with a population of less than 20,000. 

Essential community facilities include hospitals, schools, libraries, nursing homes, and assistedliving facilities. Buildings, vehicles, and equipment for police, fire, rescue, and other public 

safety services are also included. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the targets for the Health and Educational Facilities performance measures. 

However, the target for Safety Facilities was not met. Community programs have chosen 

1) health care, 2) fire, rescue, and public safety, and 3) education facilities as proxies for 

measuring the program’s effectiveness. These three areas have historically been the areas of 

greatest demand for funding.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 33

Exhibit 10: Performance Goal 1.2.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.2.3 Percentage of customers who are provided 

access to new and/or improved essential 

community facilities

• Health Facilities 5.2 5.3 5.4 3.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 Exceeded

• Safety Facilities 2.7 2.8 5.0 3.2 4.3 4.7 3.7 Unmet

• Educational Facilities N/A N/A 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.5 6.4 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Given the range of eligible Community Facility (CF) project types and the varying service 

area to be expected for each, developing a rationale is difficult. Results within 0.2 points on either side of the target are 

considered as “met” goal: Health Facilities Met Range: 5.3 to 5.7; Safety Facilities Met Range: 4.5 to 4.9; Educational 

Facilities Met Range: 4.3 to 4.7.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.2.3

Completeness of Data — Program data are complete and final. The finance office records and reports total loan and grant 

obligations as of the date of obligations. Additionally, USDA collects information for management and evaluation purposes. 

Data on delinquencies are reported by the finance office for CF direct loans, and by lenders for CF guaranteed loans.

Reliability of Data — CF data are entered into the Community Programs Application Processing (CPAP) system by field staff 

as the program funds are obligated. These data are final, complete, and reliable. They include the population served based on 

available U.S. census information. The service area for each facility is based on estimates. USDA screens the data regularly 

for irregularities. Given the variety of areas served by different types of community facilities, estimating the service is not a 

precise science. Population estimates are based on engineering studies used for the design of new or expanded facilities. The 

Department is developing mapping technologies to improve this process.

Quality of Data — Data are projected on historical performance. The target information uses data dependent upon the baseline 

projections from numerous Department agencies.

Description of Actions for Unmet Measures

Despite the record-breaking performance in total Community Facility (CF) obligations in 

FY 2012, the CF grant program was unable to meet the FY 2012 goal for safety facilities. 

Because many public safety projects rely heavily on grant funding to meet the needs of their 

community, there is a direct correlation between the available grant funding and the percentage 

of rural residents who are provided access to new and/or improved Safety Facilities. As a result 

of a significant decrease in overall CF grant funding from FY 2011 to 2012, increased targeted 

investments in community infrastructure, economic growth and quality jobs, and a shift in 

critical needs of rural communities toward investment in education and health care, the CF 

program fell short of meeting its performance goal for Safety Facilities.

Challenges for the Future

Historically, a large portion of the CF portfolio supports public safety projects. In recent years, 

the CF program experienced decreases in annual funding levels. Should this downward trend 

continue, the ability to adequately meet the CF targeted safety goals will, likewise, continue to 

decline. Health care and education projects generally receive most of their funding through the 

Community Facilities Direct and Guaranteed loan programs, while the public safety projects 

generally rely heavily on the grant programs for support due to community needs. Public safety 

projects funded with CF dollars largely consist of the purchasing of public safety vehicles 
Section 6: Performance Goals

34 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

and safety equipment. These projects typically require less of a long-term investment from 

the Government, and considerably fewer overall program dollars, making safety vehicles and 

equipment for public safety ideal projects for funding under the CF grant programs. As grant 

funds for CF become considerably more competitive, the program may be required to alter its 

public safety target goals in accordance with the level of funding provided.

1.2.4 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new and/or improved electric

facilities

Overview

The continued availability of clean, reliable, and affordable electricity is essential to the present 

and future economic well-being and quality of life for all rural residents. USDA’s electric loan 

program provides leadership and capital to upgrade, expand, maintain, and replace America’s 

vast rural electric infrastructure. The program makes direct loans and loan guarantees to electric 

utilities and other entities that provide retail electric service in rural areas and/or supply the 

power needs of rural electric distribution systems. These loans and loan guarantees help finance 

electric distribution, transmission, and generation facilities to serve rural areas. Eligible loan 

purposes also include new construction; system improvements and replacement; demand-side 

management; energy efficiency and conservation programs; and on-grid and off-grid renewable 

energy systems. Eligible borrowers include the following: (1) corporations, States, territories, 

municipalities, people’s utility districts, and Tribal utilities, and (2) cooperative, nonprofit, 

limited-dividend, or mutual associations.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. Department electric loans help 

borrowers provide new or improved electric service to more than 6.1 million retail consumers. 

The projected $4 billion in new electric loans approved in FY 2012 is a primary funding source 

for the modernization of electric systems serving rural communities. At the end of FY 2012, 

USDA estimates that there were approximately $2 billion in pending loan applications on hand 

for FY 2013, which were under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and other 

required pre-loan evaluations.

The Department has invested more than $980 million in renewable electricity generation in 

rural areas since 2009. In July 2012, USDA published proposed rules for a new proposed 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program. This program will help borrowers finance 

customer energy efficiency improvements. USDA exceeded its 2-year commitment of providing 

$250 million in new loans for smart grid technologies.1[1] More than $1.6 billion of new 

investments in improved electric transmission and distribution facilities was approved through 

July 2012.

[1] In June 2011, Secretary Vilsack announced a new USDA Rural Development goal to invest at least $250 million in rural smart grid infrastructure in 

FY 2011FY 2012 to support grid modernization efforts across rural America. The announcement accompanied the release of the Administration’s Smart Grid Policy 

Framework. Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, a Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: Enabling Our Secure Energy 

Future, June 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc-smart-grid-june2011.pdf.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 35

Exhibit 11: Performance Goal 1.2.4 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.2.4 Number of borrowers/subscribers 

receiving new and/or improved electric 

facilities (millions)

5.8 8.1 9.8 9.4 7.1 6.1 8.3 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Annual targets for this measure are based on historical activity and are adjusted according 

to the program level received each fiscal year. The allowable data range for this measure to be considered met will be +/- 5 

percent or from 5.8 to 6.4.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.2.4

Completeness of Data — The electric program’s performance data are collected from various agency documents, including 

agency Form 740c, Borrower’s Statistical Profile, Information Publication 201-1, borrower annual operating reports, and loan 

applications. The data are complete and accurate, and collected at the time of loan approval and/or reported annually. 

Reliability of Data — First-time loan applicants must submit extensive financial and electric system data in support of their 

loans. Existing borrowers are required to report financial and operating data annually to the agency. The data are used to 

administer Department loan funds and ensure the security of the loans. Borrower information and loan and grant obligations 

and advances are tracked in the Commercial Loan Servicing System. Borrower financial and system reports and information 

are collected and maintained through the data collection system in the Rural Development data warehouse.

Quality of Data — Performance goal data on the number of borrowers receiving new or upgraded electric service are derived 

from information in loan applications and annual reports. All applications are reviewed for compliance with all eligibility 

requirements for the various electric programs’ loans, guarantees, and grants. All approved applications must demonstrate 

financial feasibility and adequate loan security. Loan funds may be used only for approved purposes for which the loan was 

made. Borrower loan applications and annual submissions are reviewed by field representatives and Headquarters staff for 

completeness and accuracy and are subject to audit by program accounting staff.

Challenges for the Future

Rural electric providers face many challenges and uncertainties because of economic conditions, 

as well as new environmental and energy policy initiatives that will increase retail rates. The 

availability of low-cost financing through the electric program helps moderate those cost 

impacts.

Since FY 2007, the electric program has not approved any loans for new baseload electric 

generation to meet future needs or replace aging plants. USDA anticipates that borrowers 

will have to make substantial investments in new electric transmission lines, new generation 

capacity, and pollution controls on existing plants to meet customer demand growth in an 

economic recovery, replacing aging plants in the near future. The Department has experienced a 

reduction in loan requests, reflecting the broader economic slowdown and deferred investment 

in utility plants. Trends in loan volume are expected to reverse, placing additional demands on 

the program. Meeting customer needs with limited program staffing and resources will be a 

challenge as major new projects will require detailed reviews to comply with NEPA.
Section 6: Performance Goals

36 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Objective 1.3: Support a Sustainable and Competitive Agricultural System 

1.3.1 Percentage of beginning farmers, racial and ethnic minority farmers, and

women farmers financed by the Farm Service Agency

Overview

USDA loan programs provide access to credit for farmers and ranchers temporarily unable to 

obtain financing from a commercial source at reasonable rates and terms. Through direct and 

guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans, the Department assists tens of thousands of 

family farmers each year in starting and maintaining profitable farm businesses. Loan funds may 

be used to pay normal operating or family living expenses, make capital improvements, refinance 

certain debts, and purchase farmland, livestock, equipment, feed, and other materials essential 

to farm and ranch operations. The loan programs are particularly important to beginning, 

minority, and women farmers. These farmers typically have fewer available resources. Thus, 

they tend to be less likely to qualify for commercial credit. USDA services extend beyond the 

typical loan by offering customers ongoing consultation, advice, and creative ways to make their 

farm businesses thrive. The Department is the lender of first opportunity because it provides 

agricultural producers needing assistance an entry into agriculture production.

Analysis of Results

While overall Departmental lending decreased in FY 2012, USDA exceeded its target for this 

performance measure. USDA issued more than 29,000 direct and guaranteed farm loans totaling 

more than $4.1 billion. This figure represents a 10percent decline from the number of loans 

issued in FY 2011. Nationally, the demand for agricultural credit from all sources decreased 

over the past year. This decrease may be attributed to record-high farm incomes in 2011. These 

incomes have significantly elevated the level of cash on the balance sheets of many producers. 

This level of cash is sufficiently high to curtail a strong desire by most farmers to borrow more, 

even at historically low interest rates. At this time, it is unclear how the widespread drought in 

FY 2012 has impacted producer balance sheets or if loan demand will subsequently increase in 

the future.

Despite the overall decrease in lending, USDA increased the number of loans issued to minority 

and women farmers in FY 2012 to more than 6,500 loans valued at $570 million. This figure 

compares to 5,900 loans valued at $565 million in FY 2011. The Department also increased its 

lending to beginning farmers, issuing nearly 16,500 loans valued at $1.8 billion. This figure is 

an increase of more than 1,600 loans from FY 2011. As of the end of FY 2012, USDA has nearly 

60,000 beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers in its loan portfolio.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 37

Exhibit 12: Performance Goal 1.3.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.1 Percentage of beginning farmers, racial 

and ethnic minority farmers and women 

farmers financed by FSA

15.9 16.2 17.4 19.9 21.0 18.1 22.0 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: +/-.5 percent or 17.6 to 18.6 percent.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.1

Farm Loan Programs (FLP) data reside in the Program Loan Accounting System, Guaranteed Loan System, Direct Loan 

System, and FLP databases. Information obtained from the 2002 Census of Agriculture is also used for this performance 

measure. The measure is calculated by taking the total number of minority, women, and beginning farmers in the loan portfolio, 

and dividing it by the numbers of members of these three groups listed in the 2002 Census of Agriculture with at least $10,000 

in sales. These sales figures exclude hobby farms, which are not the intended market for FLPs.

Completeness of Data — The FY 2012 result is based on actual final data.

Reliability of Data — Data are considered reliable. System enhancements and built-in edits coupled with comprehensive 

internal control review programs help ensure data reliability and quality. While Census of Agriculture data are considered 

reliable, the resulting percentage reported likely understates the importance of the USDA service to those targeted groups. 

Despite this limitation, these data are the best available for estimating the Department performance in reaching the targeted 

groups.

Quality of Data — FLP data are of high quality. Most FLP data originate from accounting systems, which are subject to Office 

of Inspector General audit. FLP data are collected for multiple purposes and gathered throughout the normal lending process. 

Data derived from the 2002 Census of Agriculture were developed in FY 2006. This measure will be replaced during the FY 

2014 budget submission. At that time, more current Census of Agriculture data will be used. 

Challenges for the Future

The U.S. agricultural sector continues to change. Farms are growing and becoming increasingly 

dependent on technology. Thus, entry into farming is much more capital intensive. Farm operating costs also continue to rise, resulting in significant barriers and challenges for the groups that 

USDA Farm Loan Programs (FLPs) are intended to assist.

USDA has implemented multiple FLP process improvement initiatives in recent years, resulting 

in improved operational effectiveness and efficiency. Additional process improvement initiatives 

are underway; these are increasingly important as program demand remains strong and program 

resources are expected to decline in the coming years. Process improvement efforts will help ensure continued high-quality service for farmers and ranchers, allowing the Department to achieve 

program goals and objectives. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

38 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

1.3.2 Maintain or increase percentage of FSA program delivery applications at

USDA Service Centers that are Web enabled

Overview

A key performance measure for Information Technology (IT) modernization is the percentage 

of program delivery applications at USDA Service Centers that are Web enabled and not reliant 

upon obsolete legacy technology. Web-enabled applications provide a timelier, more accurate, 

and more reliable delivery of benefits to producers. Improving the broad array of IT systems, 

including those for farm programs, farm loan programs, disaster assistance, and conservation 

programs enhances services provided to producers. It also alleviates the risk of IT system failure 

due to outmoded technology. As the Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural 

Systems (MIDAS) program becomes operational in FY 2013, it will support farm programs’ 

delivery with streamlined business processes and integrated applications that share information 

and resources efficiently. MIDAS is designed to improve the delivery of FSA farm programs’ 

benefits and services through the re-engineering of farm programs business processes.

Analysis of Results

USDA met its target for this performance measure. Web-enabled applications allow users to 

access the information systems applications via standard Web browsers. They also enable 

additional Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) and conservation program 

processes on the Web. NAP provides financial assistance to producers of noninsurable crops 

when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented planting occur due to a natural disaster.

Exhibit 13: Performance Goal 1.3.2 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.2 Maintain or increase percentage of FSA

program delivery applications at USDA 

Service Centers that are Web enabled 

N/A 54 51 57 68 73 73 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The allowable data range is +/-.5 percent or 72.5 to 73.5 percent.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.2

Completeness of Data — Data reported are final results for the fiscal year. The FSA System Inventory Report includes all 

systems used by FSA for delivering its assigned missions. An active stewardship process is in place to ensure that new or 

retired systems are promptly recorded.

Reliability of Data — Data are considered reliable. The measurement process involves counting the number of Web-enabled 

program delivery applications used in the service centers identified in the FSA Systems Inventory Report. That number is then 

divided by the total number of program delivery applications used in the Service Centers to calculate the percentage of these 

program delivery applications that are Web enabled. The report is updated weekly. The numerator is the number of Webenabled program delivery applications used at USDA service centers. The denominator is the total number of Service Center 

program delivery applications in use.

Quality of Data — The FSA Systems Inventory Report is derived from the MEGA Enterprise Architecture Repository. The 

data are reviewed regularly by the system custodians. Changes are approved by a change control board and incorporated prior 

to the developing and reporting of this measure.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 39

Challenges for the Future

USDA is retiring or replacing applications that depend on a previously used system that is now 

obsolete. Applications are targeted for modernization to the Web and MIDAS. The archiving 

of all historical data and the full decommissioning of the hardware is expected to span beyond 

FY 2014. 

1.3.3 Value of trade preserved annually through USDA staff interventions

leading to resolution of barriers created by Sanitary and Phytosanitary or

Technical Barriers to Trade measures

Overview

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures are those imposed by Governments to protect human, 

animal, and plant health from pests, diseases, and contaminants. In addition, exported products 

must comply with numerous foreign labeling, registration, certification, and quality standard 

requirements that may be technical barriers to trade (TBT). USDA works closely with the 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other agencies to pursue and enforce trade agreements. 

This work ensures that SPS and technical measures achieve their intended goals without 

unnecessarily impeding trade. USDA staff working on such issues in more than 90 countries 

includes veterinarians, economists, marketing experts, plant pathologists, and others. USTR 

negotiates directly with international Governments to create trade agreements, resolve disputes, 

and participate in global trade policy organizations. 

USDA resolved numerous SPS and TBT issues in FY 2012. Significant accomplishments in this 

area included the following:

• Negotiating expanded market access for meat and poultry products with Albania, Chile, 

Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Macedonia, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United Arab 

Emirates; 

• Negotiating continued/expanded market access for horticultural products in Australia 

(cherries), China (grapes), Indonesia (fresh foods of plant origin), Japan (Genetically Engineered [GE] papayas, and potatoes), and South Korea (cherries, citrus, and potatoes);

• Negotiating an exemption to China’s new international food facility registration requirements that would have affected all U.S. food producers and processors that export there;

• Successfully campaigning for the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s adoption of standards for the veterinary drug ractopamine, and successfully nominating zilpaterol, another important veterinary drug, for Codex evaluation (Codex establishes international food 

standards that protect consumer health and ensure fair trade practices);

• Implementing an organic equivalence agreement with the European Union;

• Preparing for and supporting the implementation of Free Trade Agreements with 

South Korea, Colombia, and Panama; and

• Supporting the accession of Russia to the World Trade Organization. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

40 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. Barriers created by SPS or TBT limit exports 

and impose additional costs on exporters that can range from a few thousand to billions of 

dollars. These barriers reduce farm income and prevent job growth in the U.S. agricultural sector. 

The Department measures the value of trade preserved by resolving trade barriers arising from 

SPS and TBT measures imposed by international Governments. Trade issues and their impact 

on U.S. exports depend primarily on international action. Sometimes this action is in response 

to domestic events such as a livestock disease outbreak. Both the problems and the solutions 

are difficult to predict. Solutions can range from a quick agreement with officials at the port of 

entry, to a long negotiation process followed by a lengthy regulatory or legislative process in the 

importing country. 

Although USDA can establish priorities in advance for known barriers, unforeseen events will 

occur that require realigning priorities. In addition, volatile exchange rates affect the results 

reported for this measure.

Exhibit 14: Performance Goal 1.3.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.3 Value of trade preserved annually through 

USDA staff interventions leading to 

resolution of barriers created by Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary (SPS) or Technical Barriers to 

Trade (TBT) measures ($billions).

2.5 7.3 9.5 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The target for this measure is controlled by foreign parties. It reflects U.S. expectations for 

addressing compliance with existing trade agreements and resolving trade access issues that arise so that domestic exports can 

continue. A met or exceeded target reflects USDA successes in addressing these barriers. An unmet target may conceal that 

USDA monitoring activities prevented noncompliance. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number 

in the range $3.4-3.8 (billions).

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.3

Completeness of Data: USDA uses a performance tracking system to collect and analyze actual performance data. The data 

are collected from the Department’s network of overseas offices and headquarters staff. The staff conducts trade compliance 

and enforcement activities, and provides trade negotiation support to the U.S. Trade Representative

Reliability of Data: Data are reliable and used by agency officials to highlight successes in the trade policy arena.

Quality of Data: In addition to audits and internal control review of the performance tracking system, an established 

procedure is maintained to verify each reported success and prevent double counting

Challenges for the Future

Meat and poultry exports continue to be hampered by a variety of unjustified SPS barriers 

including those related to animal diseases (e.g., bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE] and 

avian influenza), maximum residue limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs, zero-tolerance pathogen 

standards, and onerous slaughter and processing plant requirements, particularly international 

insistence on plant-by-plant approvals. Many of these problems manifest themselves in 

international export certification requirements that are not science based or consistent with 

international guidelines. The largest single technical trade issue of concern to USDA remains the 

normalization of beef trade after the market closures caused by the findings of BSE in the U.S. 

since 2003.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 41

Trade barriers related to biotechnology also require continual attention from USDA as U.S. 

development and approval of biotechnological innovations in agriculture often outpace 

international approvals. To date, the most broadly accepted new technology has been genetically 

engineered (GE) crops (soybeans, corn, and cotton) and products derived from these crops (oils, 

meal, and feed). Together, they comprise about one-third of total U.S. agricultural exports. In 

addition, it is estimated that some 80 percent of processed foods sold in the United States contain 

ingredients from GE crops. 

Finally, country-by-country variation in MRLs for pesticides poses a significant ongoing 

risk to U.S. fruit and vegetable exports to many countries. As with biotechnology, while the 

United States is a global leader in developing and approving safer and more effective pesticides, 

their approval in other countries and by Codex (which has made immense progress in recent 

years in streamlining the MRL review process) often lags behind the United States. The variation 

in approved pesticides between trading partners appears to be growing, increasing the potential 

for disruption to U.S. agricultural trade as new pesticides are introduced. Specialty crop products 

have a particularly high risk of incurring MRL violations because they require extensive pest 

control measures.

1.3.4 Value of FCIC risk protection coverage provided through FCICsponsored insurance

Overview

USDA uses the value of risk protection to measure the effectiveness of risk management. 

The value of risk protection denotes the amount of crop insurance in effect. This insurance 

protects and stabilizes individual producers’ incomes and, consequently, rural communities and 

economies.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. The high commodity prices observed 

last year did not decrease as much as expected for this year due in part to the widespread 

drought. High commodity prices directly increase the total value of risk protection provided. 

The total amount of planted and insured acres increased compared to last year. USDA also 

implemented a new program that allows corn and soybean growers in selected States to adjust 

their insurance guarantees to reflect long-term yield trends. This change created coverage that 

better matched growers’ true expected levels of production.
Section 6: Performance Goals

42 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 15: Performance Goal 1.3.4 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.4 Value of FCIC risk protection coverage 

provided through FCIC-sponsored 

insurance ($billions)

67.3 89.9 79.6 78.1 113.5 105.9 116.2 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Annual targets for this measure have consistently had a variation of +/ - 4.4 or from 101.2 to 

110.6.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.4

The value of risk protection denotes the amount of insurance in effect protecting and stabilizing the agricultural economy. 

USDA’s value projection target is based on projections developed in November 2010, forecasted participation, and conditions 

current at that time. The baseline model uses the latest information from the crop insurance program and combines it with 

Department baseline projections for major crops. These crops include corn, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, barley, rice, and cotton. 

In making the projections, the model holds various factors constant, such as premium rates and average coverage level. The 

model assumes that all non-major crops produce yields consistent with USDA projections for major crops. The baseline model 

is a tool for developing budget projections contained in Presidential budget requests. The budget and performance projections 

for the crop insurance program depend on baseline projections from numerous Department agencies.

Completeness of Data — The data used in conjunction with performance information are based on actual information. The 

Department receives the actual data from insurance companies. It then maintains data through two integrated processing 

systems that validate the information. The data then are sent through the system to generate all accounting functions. These 

processing systems ensure that data received are accurate, errors are corrected quickly, and timely monthly accounting reports 

are provided.

Reliability of Data — USDA deems this information to be reliable. The insurance companies receive data from the producers 

and transmit them to the Department. Once received, USDA takes extensive steps to verify the data’s accuracy and validity. 

The Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) also provides reinsured companies with disincentives for not following 

prescribed guidelines and procedures. 

Quality of Data — Data are projected based on historical performance. The target information uses data dependent upon the 

baseline projections from numerous USDA agencies. To the extent that any of the Department’s projections are inaccurate, the 

projection of value will also be inaccurate.

Challenges for the Future

To the extent that commodity prices decrease in the future, so will the value of risk 

protection. USDA will need to find ways to continue enhancing participation in the crop 

insurance program, especially in the South and underserved States. Given the success of the yield 

trend adjustment, the Department plans to expand this option to other crops and areas next year.

1.3.5 Normalized value of FCIC risk protection coverage provided through

FCIC-sponsored insurance

Overview

The normalized value uses a 5-year average for commodity prices to negate the impact of 

potentially large swings in commodity prices from year to year.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 43

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. As previously mentioned in Exhibit 14 

the total amount of planted and insured acres increased compared to last year, likely due to 

continued high commodity prices. Also, the Department’s new program that allows corn and 

soybean growers in selected States to adjust their insurance guarantees to reflect long-term yield 

trends resulted in coverage that better matches their true expected level of production. Thus, the 

amount of risk protection for those growers increased and, likely, boosted participation in the 

crop insurance program.

Exhibit 16: Performance Goal 1.3.5 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.5 Normalized value of FCIC risk 

protection coverage provided through 

FCIC-sponsored insurance ($billions)

50.6 51.6 53.9 55.0 56.3 54.4 62.1 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Annual targets for this measure have consistently had a variation of plus + or minus - 4.4 or 

from 52 to 56.8.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.5

The value of risk protection denotes the amount of insurance in effect protecting and stabilizing the agricultural economy. 

USDA’s value projection target is based on projections developed in November 2009, forecasted participation, and conditions 

current at that time. The baseline model uses the latest information from the crop insurance program, and combines it with 

USDA baseline projections for major crops. These crops include corn, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, barley, rice, and cotton. In 

making the projections, the model holds various factors constant, such as premium rates and average coverage level. The model 

assumes that all non-major crops produce yields consistent with USDA projections for major crops. The baseline model is a 

tool for developing budget projections contained in Presidential budget requests. The budget and performance projections for 

the crop insurance program depend on baseline projections from numerous USDA agencies.

Completeness of Data — The data used in conjunction with performance information are based on actual results. Analysis 

has shown that normally 99 percent of the final actual data will be reported to USDA during the first quarter of the next fiscal 

year. USDA receives the actual data from insurance companies. It then maintains data through two integrated processing 

systems that validate the information. The data then are sent through the system to generate all accounting functions. These 

processing systems ensure that data received are accurate, errors are corrected quickly, and timely monthly accounting reports 

are provided.

Reliability of Data — USDA deems this information to be reliable. The insurance companies receive data from the producers 

and transmit them to the Department. Once received, USDA takes extensive steps to verify the data’s accuracy and validity.

Quality of Data — Data are projected based on historical performance. The target information uses data dependent upon the 

baseline projections from numerous Department agencies. To the extent that any of USDA’s projections are inaccurate, the 

projection of value will also be inaccurate.

Challenges for the Future

As the average level of coverage increases, continued increases will become more difficult to 

attain. Should commodity prices decrease, there could potentially be a decrease in acres planted 

and the normalized value of risk protection. USDA plans to expand the trend adjustment option 

to other crops and areas next year, potentially increasing the amount of risk protection.
Section 6: Performance Goals

44 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

1.3.6 Percent of industry compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act

Overview

USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Program (P&SP) measures its overall performance by annually 

measuring regulated entities’ compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&SA). The Act 

prohibits unfair, deceptive, discriminatory, and fraudulent practices. It also bans regulated 

businesses from engaging in specific anti-competitive practices. The performance measure 

encompasses activities the Department conducts that directly or indirectly influences industry 

compliance. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. Industry compliance with P&SA 

remained at 81 percent in 2012, sustaining 2008’s improvement over the 75percent rate in 2007. 

Results of the individual component inspections and audits that comprise the aggregate index 

show a yeartoyear increase in all compliance rates compared to 2008. 

Exhibit 17: Performance Goal 1.3.6 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

1.3.6 Percent of industry compliance 

with the Packers and Stockyards 

Act

75 80 80 80 76 81 87 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The variance is +/- 7 percent which is a range of 75 to 87. This higher-than-expected rate 

is attributed to greater awareness within P&SP and the industry of the compliance rate. For example, reports are circulated 

internally to P&SP staff of non-random inspection and review outcomes. Management has emphasized to industry its own 

performance and announced its intention to start posting inspection and financial reviews results online at http://www.gipsa.

usda.gov/.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 1.3.6

Completeness of Data — The industry compliance rate is a composite index taken as the simple average from five compliance 

areas: 1) the percent compliance of prompt payment by livestock markets, dealers, and packers; 2) custodial account 

compliance of livestock markets; 3) livestock scale checks for packers slaughtering more than 1,000 head; 4) livestock scale 

checks of livestock markets, dealers, and live poultry dealers; and 5) poultry contract payment compliance reviews. The 

data represent a complete statistical sample to achieve a 90-percent confidence level for the industry as a whole based on the 

samples of each of the five sample areas.

Reliability of Data — The compliance levels for random sample audits are done with a 90-percent confidence level for each 

of the five component areas. Data reliability appears strong as the measure is subject to replication and confirmation with a 

larger non-random sample set of data of all field inspections. Overall standard deviations are relatively small but subject to 

uncontrolled external factors, such as the economy and how that affects regulated firms.

Quality of Data — In addition to the standard deviation of the estimates, an annual independent review of the sampling 

process is conducted to ensure that the established standard operation procedures are followed during the onsite sampling 

process.

Challenges for the Future

While additional focus on activities to achieve industry compliance has resulted in increased 

compliance, general economic conditions within the industry will also affect yeartoyear 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 45

compliance. Weak economic conditions may increase the incentive for industry non compliance 

more quickly in the financial components than in the business practice areas. The full effect of 

these external conditions on the compliance rate is unknown. This measure has only a 5-year 

history, so understanding the interaction of these variables on the overall compliance rate and its 

variance will be a challenge that USDA will assess in future years.

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working 

Lands are Conserved, Restored, and Made More Resilient to 

Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water Resources

Objective 2.1: Restore and Conserve the Nation’s Forests, Farms, Ranches 

and Grasslands

2.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program: Restored wetland acreage

Overview

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) allows producers to plant long-term, resourceconserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife 

habitat on land. In return, the Department provides participants with rental payments and costshare assistance. Contract terms run between 10 and 15 years. CRP is designed to restore and 

enhance wetland areas, increase sediment trapping efficiencies, improve water quality, prevent 

soil erosion, and provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife.

The program includes several initiatives for wetland restoration and enhancement. 

In March 2012, Secretary Vilsack announced 350,000 additional acres of wetland initiatives. 

CRP wetland initiatives now include a 600,000-acre Floodplain Restoration Initiative, a 

250,000 - acre Bottomland Hardwood Timber Initiative, a 350,000 - acre Non-Floodplain and 

Playa Wetland Restoration Initiative, and a 300,000 - acre Prairie Pothole Duck Nesting Habitat 

Initiative. 

Analysis of Results

USDA has exceeded its target for this performance measure. The Department has made 

substantial progress in protecting watershed health and enhancing soil quality. Total CRP 

enrollment stood at 29.5 million acres at the end of FY 2012. These acres annually reduce soil 

erosion by 325 million tons, and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment by more than 85 percent. 

CRP also contributes to increased wildlife populations. It has added more than 2 million ducks 

to the Prairie Pothole Region annually, protected sage grouse populations in eastern Washington 

and lesser prairie chicken populations in the Great Plains, and increased ring-necked pheasant 

and other grassland bird populations.
Section 6: Performance Goals

46 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 18: Performance Goal 2.1.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.1 CRP Restored wetland acreage 

(millions of acres)

2.08 1.98 2.04 2.05 2.23 2.23 2.29 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The allowable data range is +/-.05 or 2.18 to 2.28.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure

The data source for this measure is the National Conservation Reserve Program Contract Data Files.

Completeness of Data — The targets and actual data are annual. Data reported are based on final results for the fiscal year. 

The measure reports national acres under contract with the following wetland practices: wetland restoration, marginal 

pastureland buffers, bottomland trees, shallow water areas for wildlife, duck nesting habitat, and farmable wetlands programs. 

There are no known data limitations. Acres reported include associated upland buffers. Estimated FY 2012 final enrollment is 

based on fourth-quarter CRP wetland enrollment in previous years. 

Reliability of Data — USDA considers the data to be reliable. CRP is authorized through FY 2012.

Quality of Data — Overall, the quality of the data is acceptable. There are no known data limitations. Acres reported include 

associated upland buffers.

Challenges for the Future

Relatively high commodity prices may impact enrollment in CRP. USDA remains strongly 

committed to attaining its conservation objectives. Special focus will be placed on accelerating 

the protection of clean, abundant water resources, which is one of the Department’s priority 

goals. USDA will seek wetland contracts for more than 50,000 acres in FY 2013. The 

Department will also continue to support initiatives designed to improve wildlife habitat, 

including the 500,000 - acre upland bird buffer, the 300,000 - acre Duck Nesting Habitat 

Initiative, and the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement Initiative (a 1.25 million - acre initiative 

announced in FY 2007 and enhanced in 2012 to improve habitat for endangered, threatened, 

or high-priority fish and wildlife species). In addition, USDA will continue the 250,000 - acre 

initiative to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 47

2.1.2 Conservation Technical Assistance: Cropland with conservation applied to

improve soil quality and

2.1.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Cropland with conservation

applied to improve soil quality

Overview

USDA assists private landowners and managers to improve soil quality. Soil is the foundation 

for maintaining working productive farms and ranches. The Department measures the impact 

of maintaining or enhancing sustained production of a safe, healthy, and abundant food supply. 

USDA focuses on ensuring that soil quality on cropland reduces erosion and increases organic 

matter. Reducing soil erosion saves topsoil. Topsoil is the rich upper layer that supports the 

majority of the plant’s life cycle. Intensive agriculture can reduce soil organic matter (carbon) 

over time; this process reduces the soil’s ability to efficiently hold nutrients and water. 

Maintaining and increasing the percentage of organic matter in our soils is vital to retaining the 

ability to feed our Nation.

USDA accomplishes these tasks through two programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) and Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). EQIP is a voluntary program 

that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers through contracts up to 

a maximum term of 10 years in length. CTA provides conservation technical assistance to private 

landowners, conservation districts, Tribes, and other organizations. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the CTA target and met the EQIP target for these performance measures. 

Through agency assistance and funding, the application of soil quality-related conservation 

practices was completed by agricultural producers, resulting in such measurable progress as 

reduced erosion and nutrient inputs. This process helps ease the effects of flood and drought. 

It also reduces nutrient and sediment loading to streams and rivers.

Conservation practices that improve soil quality keep the soil from eroding off the land, 

improve infiltration of water, reduce soil temperature, and increase soil carbon. The Department 

establishes technical specifications for conservation practices, ensuring that public investment for 

conservation is in accordance with scientific data demonstrating the desired outcome.
Section 6: Performance Goals

48 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 19: Performance Goals 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.2 Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA): 

Cropland with conservation applied to improve 

soil quality (millions of acres)

7.3 8.3 7.6 8.2 8.2 7.3 8.7 Exceeded

2.1.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP): Cropland with conservation applied to 

improve soil quality (millions of acres)

5.3 5.6 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.6 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 6.6 (90 percent) – 8.0 (110 

percent) for CTA and 4.3 (90 percent) – 5.3 (110 percent) for EQIP. 

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.1.2 and 2.1.3

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2012, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data. 

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staffs, trained and skilled in conservation planning and 

application suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. Error 

checking enhancements and reports within the PRS application maintain data quality, allowing users at local, State, and 

national levels to monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because 

the conservation program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. 

The same land unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple 

practices are applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.

Challenges for the Future

Improved soil quality on America’s cropland is vital to meeting the challenges of the future, 

especially with respect to climate change. Organic matter increases the capacity of the soil 

to take in and hold onto water. Thus, during periods of heavier rainfall, the soil retains more 

water. During periods of lesser rainfall, the water can be extracted by the plant, much in the 

same manner as a sponge releases water when squeezed. Increasing organic matter through 

carbon sequestration reduces the amount of carbon dioxide (considered a greenhouse gas) in the 

atmosphere, possibly mitigating impacts of carbon emissions elsewhere. 

Demands for agricultural products, food, fiber, and energy continue to increase as populations 

rise. These demands can adversely impact soil heath and quality, reducing its ability to produce 

at previous levels. Sustainable agriculture, producing agricultural products in a manner such that 

the natural resources are maintained or enhanced, is necessary to prepare to meet the demands of 

tomorrow.

Drought will have a negative impact on soil quality. Exposed and dry topsoil are more 

susceptible to erosion due to dry surface conditions as well as reduced crop residues and 

vegetation that prevent soil movement. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 49

2.1.4 Conservation Technical Assistance: Grazing land and forest land with

conservation applied to protect and improve the resource base and

2.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Grazing land and forest land

with conservation applied to protect and improve the resource base

Overview

Grazed forest, range, and grasslands comprise nearly 55 percent of the Nation’s total land area. 

Applying properly planned conservation practices to improve and protect these lands is essential 

to maintaining productive working farms and ranches for an ever-increasing population. This 

process ensures the health and prosperity of the rural communities that depend on agriculture. 

Maintaining the ability to produce an affordable and bountiful supply of food and fiber will allow 

people in the United States to continue to have the lowest percentage of annual income spent on 

food, clothing, and shelter of any nation in the world.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the CTA target and met the EQIP target for these performance measures. 

The Department’s conservation practices provide the public with the benefits of sustained grazing 

and forest land ecological health while making the resource base more resilient to climate. These 

benefits include improved water quantity, less run-off and soil erosion, increased carbon removal, 

and more protection from invasive species on native plants. 

Forest land, range, and grasslands further enhance the quality of rural life through additional 

environmental benefits. These benefits include clean air, abundant wildlife habitat, and a reduced 

wildfire threat.
Section 6: Performance Goals

50 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 20: Performance Goals 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.4 CTA: Grazing land and forest land with 

conservation applied to protect and improve 

the resource base (millions of acres)

12.2 16.0 16.0 17.6 17.1 15.1 17.1 Exceeded

2.1.5 EQIP: Grazing land and forest land with 

conservation practices applied to protect and 

improve the resource base (millions of acres)

16.5 16.9 17.2 17.5 16.3 16.2 17.2 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 13.6 (90 percent) – 16.6 

(110 percent) for CTA and 14.6 (90 percent) – 17.8 (110 percent) for EQIP.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.1.4 and 2.1.5

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2012, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data.

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staffs, trained and skilled in conservation planning and 

application suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. Error 

checking enhancements and reports within PRS maintain data quality, allowing users at local, State, and national levels to 

monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because the conservation 

program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. The same land 

unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple practices are 

applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.

Challenges for the Future

Producers’ willingness and ability to implement conservation measures on private forest 

land, range, and grasslands is affected by economic conditions, climate variability, drought, 

and invasive species. While drought conditions may create long-term interest in adopting 

conservation treatments for grazing and forest land, operators in grazing and forest lands will 

face increased management challenges short term. Such a scenario reduces the ability to apply 

conservation on their land. An uncertain economic climate will increase the threat of conversion 

of these lands to non-agricultural uses. [In many areas, especially in the West, watersheds and 

landscapes include public lands managed by several Federal agencies. These public lands are 

intermingled with private, State, and Tribal lands.] Protecting the natural resources in these areas 

requires cooperation among a large number of stakeholders, especially when taking a watershed 

approach. The watershed approach is a comprehensive interrelated approach to watershed and 

natural resources management. It examines and recognizes the needs of all available resources—

soil, water, air, plants, animals, and people—in relation to local social, cultural, and economic 

factors.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 51

2.1.6 Farm and Ranch Protection Program: Prime, unique, or important

farmland protected from conversion to nonagricultural uses by conservation

easements

Overview

Prime, unique, and important farmland is critical to sustainable food production and the Nation’s 

food security. Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food and fiber. USDA maintains productive working farms and ranches by providing 

the financial and technical assistance to protect prime, unique, and important farmland from 

conversion to other uses. Through the Farm and Ranch Protection Program (FRPP), USDA 

partners with private farm and ranch land owners, State and local Governments, and non-profit 

organizations to preserve working farms permanently.

Analysis of Results

USDA met its target for this performance measure. The growth of State and local programs and 

landowner demand ensure that every dollar allocated will protect farmland. Protecting prime, 

unique, and important farmland results in sustained and healthy agricultural communities. 

Strong agricultural communities support farmers’ markets, restaurants, grocery stores, school 

cafeterias, and communities across America. The farms and ranches enrolled in FRPP ensure the 

preservation of open space along with the natural amenities that farms and ranches provide.

Exhibit 21: Performance Goal 2.1.6 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.6 FRPP: Prime, unique, or important farmland 

protected from conversion to nonagricultural 

uses by conservation easements (thousands of 

acres)

38.5 27.4 38.3 53.9 51.5 45.0 45.2 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 40.5 (90 percent) – 49.5 

(110 percent).

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.1.6

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2012, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data.

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staffs, trained and skilled in conservation planning and 

application suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. Error 

checking enhancements and reports within the PRS application maintain data quality, allowing users at local, State, and 

national levels to monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because 

the conservation program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. 

The same land unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple 

practices are applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.
Section 6: Performance Goals

52 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Challenges for the Future

The value of farmland is increasing, which may decrease the amount of prime, unique, and 

important farmland acreage FRPP can protect. Although local farmland protection programs have 

grown in the last decade, the demand for agricultural easements outpaces available funds. Budget 

challenges in State and local Governments will affect their ability to match FRPP funds, along 

with declining non-Federal revenues in programs that raise matching funds. 

2.1.7 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with conservation

applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat quality (millions of acres) and

2.1.8 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with

conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat quality (millions of

acres)

Overview

Nearly 70 percent of the fish and wildlife habitat in the United States is on privately owned 

lands. Through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), USDA provides private 

landowners financial and onsite technical assistance for assessing the quality of wildlife habitat, 

the practices necessary to restore or enhance that habitat, and a management plan to sustain it. 

With reduced WHIP funding in FY 2012, the Department made EQIP technical and financial 

assistance available to eligible applicants to address resource concerns in meeting wildlife 

conservation objectives. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded these performance targets. Expanded wildlife initiatives generated additional 

interest this fiscal year. Thus, there has been much more participation. The habitat improvements 

were focused on Federal and State threatened and endangered species, as well as other species of 

concern, including the sage grouse, migratory birds, longleaf pine, and the lesser prairie chicken.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 53

Exhibit 22: Performance Goals 2.1.7 and 2.1.8 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.7 WHIP: Non-federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and 

wildlife habitat quality (millions of acres)

0.4 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.9 Exceeded

2.1.8 EQIP: Non-federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and 

wildlife habitat quality (millions of acres)

1.3 4.8 5.2 6.0 4.8 5.0 6.2 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 0.6 (90 percent) – 0.8 (110 

percent) for WHIP and 4.5 (90 percent) – 5.5 (110 percent) for EQIP.

Measure definition was revised in FY 2010 from 3 wildlife management practices to the full suite of 17 practices used to 

provide improvements to wildlife habitat. While these practices have always been used for wildlife habitat improvement, they 

were excluded from the measure definition. Values for FY 2007 through FY 2009 are estimates based on the revised definition, 

and reflect the long-term use of these practices.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.1.7 and 2.1.8

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2012, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data.

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staffs, trained and skilled in conservation planning and 

application suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. Error 

checking enhancements and reports within the PRS application maintain data quality, allowing users at local, State, and 

national levels to monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because 

the conservation program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. 

The same land unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple 

practices are applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.

Challenges for the Future

USDA works with other agencies and private organizations to provide producers with technical 

and financial assistance, information, and other resources. This work helps evaluate and 

encourage the adoption of conservation measures and management practices beneficial to 

wildlife. Many wildlife projects are supported by a combination of Federal, State, local, and 

private funds. Because of continuing State and local budget issues, constraints may impact 

project evaluations and implementation. Commodity prices, economic conditions, weather, 

wildfires, and developmental pressures can impact the ability and willingness of agricultural 

producers to invest in wildlife habitat unless there are clearly multiple benefits. The impacts 

of drought on agency performance for wildlife habitat improvement will be in line with 

other economic limitations that agricultural producers face after a major disaster, along with 

maintaining and enhancing habitats for wildlife and other land management activities. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

54 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Performance of this measure in 2013 will be captured through species-focused initiatives that 

target limited funds to the highest-quality habitat for threatened and endangered species. The 

challenge in this measure is to include a high level of certainty in the form of agreements at the 

Federal, State, and local level to provide assurances for landowners as they engage in activities 

related to the Endangered Species Act. The act is designed to protect critically imperiled species 

from extinction as a “consequence of economic growth and development untempered by 

adequate concern and conservation.”

2.1.9 Acres protected from conversion through easements and fee-simple

purchases

Overview

USDA works with farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to maintain working lands and 

preserve open space. Conservation across a landscape is essential to address large-scale 

conservation issues such as resilience to climate change, conservation of water resources, 

reduction of wildfire risk, and protection of at-risk species. Conservation also ensures that the 

traditional uses of private lands and public values of forest resources are protected for future 

generations. 

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. The Department makes strategic investments 

to purchase land or conservation easements. These projects are focused on areas where public 

benefits are highest; conversion to non-forest uses is likely; watershed and critical habitat is 

protected; wetlands are maintained; cultural resources are preserved; and previous conservation 

investments are leveraged. 

Exhibit 23: Performance Goal 2.1.9 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.1.9 Acres protected from conversion through 

easements and fee-simple purchases 

(thousands of acres)

1,574 1,727 1,924 2,225 2,494 2,828 2,549 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be met is +/- 10 percent due to the unpredictable 

timing of real estate transaction closings.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.1.9

The data for open space conservation are reliable and of good quality.

Completeness of Data — Values shown for FY 2012 include actual results.

Reliability of Data — All data for land acquisition programs are reported through the National Forest System (NFS). Forest 

Legacy and land acquisition program managers collect, compile, and analyze the data.

Quality of Data — The Forest Service has a control system to ensure performance data quality and validity. This framework 

includes measure change control, performance oversight reviews, regional data self-reviews, and year-end certification of the 

data.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 55

Challenges for the Future

Because real estate negotiations are very unpredictable, it can take longer for a project to be 

completed than originally predicted. In addition, real estate transactions typically take about 

2 years to close. Thus, there can be a time lag between annual funding and accomplishments.

Objective 2.2: Protect and Enhance America’s Water Resources

2.2.1 Conservation Technical Assistance: Land with conservation applied to

improve water quality and

2.2.2 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Land with conservation

applied to improve water quality

Overview

USDA strives to keep the soil, nutrients, and water on agricultural operations clean and on site. 

The Department also has been conserving water resources. Water running off or infiltrating into 

the ground from agricultural operations can carry a number of pollutants into streams, lakes, 

groundwater, and estuaries. States and Tribes have identified sediment and nutrients as the 

greatest agricultural contaminants affecting surfacewater quality. Nutrients and agrichemicals are 

the major concerns for groundwater. 

Agriculture is one of the largest users of the Nation’s surfacewater and groundwater. Agriculture 

accounts for 80 percent of the Nation’s consumptive water use — more than 90 percent in many 

western States. The surfacewater and groundwater are greatly used for irrigation. In fact, in arid 

and semi-arid areas, crop production depends almost entirely on irrigation. 

Farm-level irrigation water management (IWM) involves managing water and related inputs 

in irrigated crop production for financial returns — often in energy savings — and minimizing 

environmental impacts. IWM improvements and expansion are essential to reducing 

agriculturally induced water impairments and conservation of groundwater and surfacewater. 

Analysis of Results

While USDA exceeded its target for helping producers apply conservation practices to improve 

water quality for CTA, it did not meet the target for EQIP.
Section 6: Performance Goals

56 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 24: Performance Goals 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.2.1 CTA: Land with conservation applied 

to improve water quality (millions of 

acres) 

6.4 8.7 20.5 22.3 24.0 20.0 23.8 Exceeded

2.2.2 EQIP: Land with conservation 

applied to improve water quality 

(millions of acres)

13.6 14.8 14.5 14.2 14.5 16.0 13.6 Unmet

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 18.0 (90 percent) – 22.0 

(110 percent) for CTA and 14.4 (90 percent) – 17.6 (110 percent) for EQIP.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.2.1 and 2.2.2

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2012, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data. 

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staff, trained and skilled in conservation planning and application 

of conservation methods suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. 

Error checking enhancements and reports within the PRS application maintain data quality allowing users at local, State, and 

national levels to monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because 

the conservation program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. 

The same land unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple 

practices are applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.

Description of Actions for Unmet Measures

In FY 2012, USDA met its target for helping producers apply conservation practices to improve 

water quality for the CTA program but did not meet the target for EQIP. While the Department 

did assist producers with implementing an estimated 13.6 million EQIP conservation acres to 

improve water quality, it was short by 2.4 million acres. 

Several factors contributed to the shortfall this year. Severe drought conditions and projected 

reduced income for producers impeded conservation practice implementation during the 2012 

crop season. EQIP is a voluntary program, and since the drought created urgent operational 

needs, such as irrigation management, many producers chose to immediately implement only 

those practices that facilitated drought impact mitigation and to delay water quality related 

conservation practices. Many of the vegetative practices that were implemented did not 

establish due to lack of rainfall and will need to be reseeded in 2013, which will delay water 

quality benefits until subsequent years. Finally, the Water Quality Initiative was delivered late 

in the spring, delaying associated conservation practice implementation until fiscal year 2013. 

Considerable improvement in the number of acres with improved water quality resulting from 

the Water Quality Initiative is thus anticipated for 2013.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 57

Challenges for the Future

The quality of groundwater and surfacewater to support intended uses is a continuing concern. 

The supply of these waters to meet expanding demand also is a challenge. The landowner costshare capital investment for conservation structures to address water quality is a challenge in 

the current economic environment. USDA use of outcome-based performance measures will 

encourage producers to see the cost and benefits of their conservation investments.

To further evaluate the outcomes of Departmental investments, USDA uses the multi-agency 

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) to quantify the environmental benefits of 

conservation practices. Private landowners are cooperating with the Department in the CEAP

effort. Watershed-based assessments are directed at evaluating interactions among practices and 

hydrology in the landscape. With additional knowledge of the dynamic relationship between 

conservation activities undertaken on individual farms and ranches, and the resulting offsite 

benefits, USDA can more effectively utilize its programs. Much of this effort is focused on the 

impacts of livestock; irrigation and drainage management; and conservation practices, with 

significant watershed level impacts.

While water conservation has always been considered a major factor in reducing soil erosion, 

runoff, and leaching of nutrients from cropland, as the focus has shifted to consumptive use 

of water, USDA has accelerated water conservation efforts on agricultural operations. The 

Department is developing an additional performance measure for assisting agricultural producers 

with irrigation efficiencies. This measure will be implemented nationwide in 2013.

2.2.3 Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): Wetlands created, restored, or

enhanced

Overview

The continental United States has lost more than 50 percent of the historical 220 million wetland 

acres that once existed. Some States have lost more than 90 percent of their wetland acreage. 

Protection and restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetland ecosystems is important in 

protecting source water. These methods also improve water quality, provide fish and wildlife 

habitat, remove carbon, store floodwaters, and maintain surfacewater flows during seasonal dry 

periods. The greatest potential for wetland restoration exists on private lands since more than 

70 percent of the Nation’s land is privately owned. 

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. The restoration, creation, or enhancement 

of wetlands (and their associated functions and values) provides a direct impact to the protection 

and enhancement of America’s water resources. These methods reduce impairments to water 

bodies, streams, and rivers. Healthy and productive wetland ecosystems filter sediment and other 

pollutants from surfacewater and groundwater, slow runoff, aid groundwater re-charge, and 

reduce the overall temperature in surrounding waters.
Section 6: Performance Goals

58 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

These restored, created, or enhanced wetlands also provide critical habitat for wildlife, especially 

threatened or endangered species. More than one-third of listed threatened and endangered 

species depend on wetlands. Wetlands serve as home to almost one-third of plant species. A study 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) examined the effect of wildlife land restoration in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern Montana. FWS estimated that the duck population 

grew by an average of 2 million birds annually between 1994 and 2004, a 30percent increase 

compared to the same area without USDA’s assistance. Wetlands are also a valuable source of 

recreational benefits. They generate billions of dollars a year in wetland-related hunting, fishing, 

and non-consumptive wildlife related activities.

Exhibit 25: Performance Goal 2.2.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.2.3 Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): 

Wetlands created, restored, or enhanced 

(thousands of acres)

149.3 128.9 106.4 129.1 131.8 175.0 189.0 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Actual performance October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. The allowable data range 

is +/- 10 percent. Data assessment metrics to meet the target allow for an actual number in the range 157.5 (90 percent) – 192.5 

(110 percent).

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.2.3

The sources of data for all performance measures are the National Conservation Planning Database (NCP), the Program 

Contracts Database (ProTracts), and the Performance Results System (PRS).

Completeness of Data — The performance reported for these measures is based on actual data reported for FY 2012. 

Numerous data quality mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entered into the system. 

All conservation practices that are applied have been certified in NCP by a qualified conservation planner, and certified as 

complete and final by the State Conservationist by September 30 of each fiscal year. 

Reliability of Data — For FY 2011, the data reported for these performance measures were calculated within PRS based 

on information validated and retrieved from NCP and ProTracts. Conservation practices are planned in consultation with the 

customer and included in conservation plans stored in NCP. Periodic reviews are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported 

data.

Quality of Data — Overall, quality of the data is good. Field staffs, trained and skilled in conservation planning and 

application suited to the local resource conditions, report performance where the conservation work is occurring. Error 

checking enhancements and reports within PRS maintain data quality, allowing users at local, State, and national levels to 

monitor data inputs. Data on the linkage of programs and conservation practices applied are accurate because the conservation 

program responsible for applying each practice is documented in the conservation plan developed in Toolkit. The same land 

unit may benefit from the application of more than one conservation practice and program. Where multiple practices are 

applied with multiple programs on the same land unit, each program is credited under the performance measure.

Challenges for the Future

Commodity prices, economic conditions, weather, and developmental pressures can impact the 

ability and willingness of agricultural producers to restore and protect wetland and habitat areas. 

In hard or uncertain economic times, producers are less willing to make long-term commitments 

regarding the use of their land, particularly when it requires removing land from direct 

production of food and fiber. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 59

Objective 2.3: Reduce Risk from Catastrophic Wildfire and Restore Fire to its 

Appropriate Place on the Landscape

2.3.1 Acres of WildlandUrban Interface fuels treated to reduce the risk of

catastrophic fire

Overview

USDA’s hazardous fuel-reduction program treats lands to restore and maintain fire-adapted 

ecosystems and reduce wildfire risk. Fuel treatments focus on activities designed to ease hazards 

and enhance the ability to control fires in the WildlandUrban Interface (WUI). Funding supports 

communities that (1) are working to achieve Firewise® standards; (2) have identified acres to 

be treated in Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) or equivalent plans; and (3) have 

invested in implementing local solutions to protect against wildland fire. Firewise®, a program 

co-sponsored by USDA and the Fire Protection Association, focuses on adapting communities to 

living with wildfire. It also encourages neighbors to work together to take preventative actions 

before a wildfire occurs in their area. CWPPs are designed to enable communities to determine 

the best ways to reduce the risks posed by wildfire. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. The Department provides cost-effective 

protection to communities and resources by shifting its focus to the highest priority areas.

Exhibit 26: Performance Goal 2.3.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.3.1 Acres of WUI fuels treated to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic fire (millions 

of acres)

1.138 1.944 2.190 1.955 1.600 1.200 1.867 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be met is +/- 10 percent or from 1.08 to 1.32.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.3.1

Values shown for FY 2012 are actual data.

Completeness of Data — The data for hazardous fuels treatments are reliable, of good quality, and certified by the respective 

line officer. USDA wildfire and other program managers collected, compiled, and analyzed the data.

Reliability of Data — All data for hazardous fuels were reported through the National Fire Plan Operations Reporting 

System. USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior land-management agencies co-developed the system. Its data are collected, 

compiled, and analyzed by program managers, and certified by the respective line officer.

Quality of Data — The quality of these data is monitored continuously, and improved with focused training and 

policy direction on reporting requirements. Data are projected based on historical performance and year-to-date actual 

accomplishments. If information is not entered into the systems of record immediately upon completion of the project, the 

quality of the projection will be compromised. USDA uses clear business rules and program direction to ensure the timely entry 

of project completions. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

60 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Challenges for the Future

WUI treatments have become more expensive and increasingly more complex. They are 

challenging because of the treatment proximity to communities and infrastructure, as well as 

associated air quality regulations and safety concerns. In FY 2013, USDA will focus on complex 

high-priority work in WUIs where CWPPs or equivalent plans have been completed. 

WUI treatment costs per acre are more than four times higher than other areas because most of 

the treatment is done mechanically — by hand crews or with machinery. There is no economy of 

scale when working on lands adjacent to or in between homes.

2.3.2 Percentage of acres treated in the WUI that have been identified in

Community Wildfire Protection Plans

Overview

USDA works with other Federal and State foresters, local communities, and non-Governmental 

organizations in developing CWPPs or equivalent plans, particularly those being developed to 

implement the National Wildland Fire Cohesive Strategy. This collaboration helps establish clear 

objectives for hazardous-fuel reduction and wildfire prevention efforts. 

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. The Department places significant 

focus on treating hazardous fuel acres identified in CWPPs. It works closely with communities 

at risk in the WUI. CWPPs that include Federal land are more common in the western regions of 

the United States. This factor was key in USDA’s exceeding the target.

Exhibit 27: Performance Goal 2.3.2 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.3.2 Percentage of acres treated in the WUI 

that have been identified in Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans

25 36 41 45 61 75 93 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be met is 20 percent. This measure has a wider 

tolerance range due to the variability of CWPPs across regions. The regions in the Eastern United States have fewer CWPPs in 

place than in the Western Region of the country.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.3.2

Values shown for FY 2012 are actual data results.

Completeness of Data — The data for hazardous fuels treatments are reliable, of good quality, and certified by the respective 

line officer. USDA wildfire and other program managers collected, compiled, and analyzed the data.

Reliability of Data — All data for hazardous fuels were reported through the National Fire Plan Operations Reporting 

System. USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior land-management agencies co-developed the system. Its data are collected, 

compiled, and analyzed by program managers, and certified by the respective line officer.

Quality of Data — All data for hazardous fuels were reported through the National Fire Plan Operations Reporting System. 

USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior land-management agencies co-developed the system. Its data are collected, 

compiled, and analyzed by program managers, and certified by the respective line officer.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 61

Challenges for the Future

A continued emphasis on high-priority WUI treatments is planned. These treatments will take 

place in more costly and complex areas.

2.3.3 Cumulative acres in the National Forest System that are in a desired

condition relative to fire regime

Overview

USDA develops and implements hazardous fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration projects 

to reduce the risk of unnaturally severe fire, making lands more resilient. The Department 

emphasizes restoring or maintaining National Forest System (NFS) lands in a condition that 

is within their natural (historical) range of variability in vegetation characteristics and fuel 

composition, as well as fire frequency, severity of effects, and pattern. NFS refers to the largely 

forest and woodland areas owned by the Federal Government and managed by USDA. The 

Department also strategically and safely manages wildfire. USDA promotes the appropriate use 

of prescribed fire to restore a natural ecological process on the landscape, improve forest and 

habitat conditions, and reduce fuel loads and unnaturally severe fire risk.

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. A variety of factors influence the ability to 

meet this goal, including weather, resource availability, and the number of treatments required. It 

often takes multiple treatments to move an area toward its desired condition.

Exhibit 28: Performance Goal 2.3.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

2.3.3 Cumulative acres in the National 

Forest System that are in a desired 

condition relative to fire regime 

(millions of acres)

N/A 58.300 58.500 58.800 59.600 60.1 59.5 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be met is 1 percent or from 59.5 to 60.7.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 2.3.3

The data for desired condition relative to fire regime are of good quality. USDA wildfire and other program managers collected, 

compiled, and analyzed the data.

Completeness of Data — Values shown for FY 2012 include actual data through third- and fourth-quarter projections based on 

historical data.

Reliability of Data — This measure is derived from the FACTS database by hazardous fuels program managers. It is 

calculated so that it accounts for cumulative changes from year to year.

Challenges for the Future

Rising costs, such as fuel and aviation, contribute to increased expenditures. Not all of these 

expenditures can be offset by cost-management actions. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

62 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production 

and Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food 

Security 

Objective 3.1: Enhance America’s Ability to Develop and Trade Agricultural 

Products Derived from New Technologies

3.1.1 Cumulative number of genetically engineered plant lines reviewed by

USDA and found safe for use in the environment

Overview

USDA plays a key role in ensuring that products produced through biotechnology are safe 

to grow, and are accepted both domestically and internationally. The Department oversees a 

science-based regulatory system to address the importation, interstate movement, and field 

release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that may threaten plant health. Once a GE 

organism is issued a determination of nonregulated status, the developer is free to sell the product 

without oversight, making it available to growers for commercial use. Thus, new and innovative 

GE technologies can enter markets to meet both grower needs and support consumer 

choices. The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology ensures that complex 

decisions regarding GE products are coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure by issuing additional determinations 

for nonregulated status plant lines. This action brought the cumulative total to 93 determinations 

consisting of 156 plant lines. The determinations included one variety of herbicide-tolerant, 

insect-resistant cotton, three varieties of soybeans (insect resistant, improved fatty acid, and 

stearidonic acid), drought-tolerant corn, and herbicide-tolerant sugar beets.

The Department improved its review process of petitions for nonregulated status. USDA 

identified ways to improve the biotechnology petition process. It changed the process to decrease 

its length and variability — without compromising the quality of the analysis supporting 

Departmental decision making. This change made agricultural products more readily available to 

producers and growers. The Department estimates that, with these new process improvements, 

it can determine nonregulated status in approximately 14 to 16 months. Previously, this activity 

would have taken at least 3 years.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 63

Exhibit 29: Performance Goal 3.1.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

3.1.1 Cumulative number of genetically 

engineered plant lines reviewed by USDA 

and found safe for use in the environment 74 78 80 81 85 91 93 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: USDA conducts a thorough scientific analysis and considers public comments for each 

submitted petition. If the GE organism is reviewed and found safe for use in the environment, the Department may determine 

nonregulated status. USDA then publishes a Federal Register notice announcing its determination of nonregulated status. There 

is no allowable range for this target as it is a whole positive integer that is verified and tracked as a count at the end of the fiscal 

year as publications in the Federal Register. A successful measure will be met or exceeded. The cumulative number of GE 

plant lines reviewed by the Department and found safe for use in the environment is an indicator of GE technologies that can 

be commercialized by developers.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 3.1.1

Completeness of Data — USDA maintains a Web site that is updated weekly. When a determination of nonregulated status is 

made, the Web site is updated to reflect the decision.

Reliability of Data — These data are used by both internal managers and external stakeholders as authoritative sources of 

information.

Quality of Data — USDA conducts a thorough scientific analysis and considers public comments for each submitted petition. 

Once the Department determines nonregulated status, it publishes the determination and associated environmental documents 

in the Federal Register and on its Web site to ensure transparency of regulatory decision making.

Challenges for the Future

Biotechnology is an ever-changing field of science, and the cost of developing GE products is 

significant. As issues such as climate change or dependence on international oil continue to be 

explored, it is reasonable to expect that the biotechnology sector will look for opportunities to 

meet existing needs or to take advantage of new markets.

Technology continues to expand and develop. New scientific advances open up new approaches 

to biotechnology. These advances may challenge USDA to determine its role in the regulation of 

technologies that were not anticipated when its current regulatory system was established. 

Other countries continue to invest in biotechnology, both in the public and private sectors. As 

GE organisms are developed in other countries and are imported into the United States, it is 

important to have adequate domestic regulatory systems in place to address their safety. In turn, 

it is important to coordinate with other countries to allow exports of GE products.
Section 6: Performance Goals

64 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure that All of America’s Children Have Access 

to Safe, Nutritious, and Balanced Meals

Objective 4.1: Increase Access to Nutritious Foods

4.1.1 Participation rates for the major Federal nutrition assistance programs: 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Overview

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the foundation of America’s nutrition 

assistance program system. SNAP provides benefits that can be used to purchase food at 

authorized retailers for preparation and consumption at home. It makes food resources available 

to most households with little income. Benefit levels are based on the Thrifty Food Plan. The 

plan shows how a nutritious diet may be achieved with limited resources. The amount received 

by a household depends on their income, expenses, and household size.

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure. The Department estimates the number of 

people eligible for the program along with the rate at which those eligible are participating. 

The latest study shows that, in 2009, 72 percent of all persons eligible for SNAP participated. 

The number of those eligible has shown rapid growth: levels in 2008 increased by 5.5 percent 

over 2007, and the number of participants increased by 7 percent from 2008 to 2009. Also, in 

2009, since actual participants tended to be those most in need among all eligible persons, the 

participants received 91 percent of the benefits that would have been paid, if every eligible 

person participated. This number indicates that the program is effectively reaching those most in 

need.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 65

Exhibit 30: Performance Goal 4.1.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.1.1 Participation levels for the major Federal 

nutrition assistance programs (millions per 

month): Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program

26.5 28.4 33.5 40.3 44.7 47.1 46.3 Met

2012 Allowable Data Range for Met: The actual number represents information as of June 30. Thresholds for 4.1.1 reflect 

the margin of error in forecasts of future participation. For SNAP participation, results from 2 independent assessments suggest 

that predictions of the number of SNAP participants are accurate to within +/- 7.5 percent on average. This percentage thus 

allows for actual performance that meets the target range of 43.6 to 50.6 million for SNAP.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.1.1

SNAP participation data are drawn from USDA administrative records. State agency reports are certified accurate and 

submitted to regional offices. There, they are reviewed for completeness and consistency. If the data are acceptable, the 

regional analyst posts them to the National Data Bank (NDB) Preload System. NDB is a holding area for data review prior to 

release. Otherwise, regional-office personnel reject the report, and the State agency is contacted. The Department reviews data 

posted by regional personnel into NDB. If data are reasonable and consistent with previous reports, they will be downloaded 

to NDB for public release. If not, USDA works with regional offices and States to resolve problems and inconsistencies. This 

process of review and revision ensures that the data are as accurate and reliable as possible.

Completeness of Data — Final figures represent 12-month fiscal year averages. Participation data are collected and validated 

monthly before being declared annual data. Reported estimates are based on data through May 31, 2012, as available 

September 2012.

Reliability of Data — Participation-data reporting is used to support program financial operations. All of the data are used 

in published analyses, studies, and reports. They also are used to support dialogue with, and information requests from, the 

Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of Management and Budget.

Quality of Data — As described above, the data used to develop this measure are used widely for multiple purposes, both 

within and outside USDA. The measure itself is reported in stand-alone publications as an important, high-quality indicator of 

program performance.

Challenges for the Future

Studies and analyses show many SNAP-eligible people who do not participate may be unaware 

of their eligibility. Efforts to improve access to and promote awareness of SNAP, as well as 

seek improvements in policy and operations to make applying easier, are ongoing challenges for 

USDA.

The quality of program delivery by third parties — hundreds of thousands of State and local 

Government workers and their cooperators — is critical to USDA’s efforts to reduce hunger and 

improve nutrition. Proper program administration, including timely determination of eligibility, 

is of special concern.
Section 6: Performance Goals

66 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

4.1.2 SNAP payment accuracy rate

Overview

Ensuring that SNAP and other Federal nutrition assistance programs are administered with 

integrity is central to USDA’s mission. SNAP payment accuracy is one of USDA’s Agency 

Priority Goals. Waste and abuse draw scarce resources away from those who need them the most. 

Just as importantly, the programs are ultimately not sustainable without public confidence that 

benefits go to those who qualify, are used appropriately, and achieve their intended purposes. The 

Department seeks to increase food security and reduce hunger in a manner that inspires public 

confidence that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

While participation in the program has recently grown and benefits have increased, USDA

remains strongly committed to program integrity. The Department takes its stewardship 

responsibilities for taxpayer dollars seriously through an established Quality Control (QC) 

system and longstanding support for payment accuracy initiatives. USDA continuously works 

to improve payment accuracy through partnerships with States. It also reviews regulatory 

and statutory requirements for a system that rewards exemplary program performance, as 

well as holding low-performing States accountable. In addition, the Department uses an early 

detection system to target States that may be experiencing a higher incidence of errors based on 

preliminary QC data. Actions are then taken by regional offices to address these situations in the 

individual States.

Analysis of Results

SNAP payment accuracy reached a record high of 96.2 percent in 2011, the latest for which data 

are available. The number reflects the excellent performance by State agencies in administering 

the program. This combined rate reflects 2.99 percent in overpayments and 0.81 percent in 

underpayments, for a total of 3.80 percent in erroneous payments.

Forty-seven States had a payment accuracy rate greater than 94 percent. Twenty-three of these 

States had rates greater than 96 percent. This figure matches the same number of States with 94 

percent accuracy and 6 fewer States with 96 percent accuracy from the previous year.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 67

Exhibit 31: Performance Goal 4.1.2 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.1.2 SNAP Payment Accuracy 

Rate Baseline: 2001 = 

91.34%

94.40% 94.99% 95.64% 96.19% 96.19% 96.20% 96.20% Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The 95-percent confidence interval around the estimate of payment accuracy is 

+/- .33. For 2012, this confidence level allows for actual performance that meets the target in the range 95.9 – 96.5 percent.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.1.2

SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program, uses annual payment accuracy data from the QC process to support its management. 

The data are based upon statistically valid methodology. The QC process uses a systematic random sampling of SNAP 

participants to determine a combined payment error rate for each State. The combined error rate is composed of over- and 

under-issuances of SNAP benefits. A regression formula is applied to the results of the reviews to calculate official error rates. 

State agencies review selected cases monthly to determine the accuracy of the eligibility and benefit-level determination. The 

process includes a client interview and verification of all elements of eligibility and the basis of issuance. Federal reviewers 

validate a sample of the State’s reviews by conducting a rereview.

Completeness of Data —The most current data available for this measure are for FY 2011. The payment accuracy rate of 

96.20 percent exceeded the performance goal/measure target. FY 2012 performance will be reported in next year’s report.

Reliability of Data — QC data are valid and accepted by State SNAP agencies as a basis for performance-incentive payments 

and penalties. The U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General also use it regularly.

Quality of Data — As described above, the data used to develop this measure are used widely for multiple purposes, 

both within and outside USDA. The measure itself is frequently cited as an important, high-quality indicator of program 

performance.

Challenges for the Future

The most critical challenge impacting future success is continuing resource limitations for State 

agencies. State budgets have been, and will continue to be, extremely tight. This factor could hurt 

State performance in payment accuracy. USDA will continue to provide technical assistance and 

support to maintain payment accuracy in the context of this difficult program environment.

4.1.3 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance programs

Overview

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) support 

schools in ensuring access to nutritious food for the children they serve. The programs provide 

per-meal reimbursement to State and local Governments for meals and snacks served. All meals 

must meet Federal nutrition standards to qualify for reimbursement.

In FY 2011, NSLP served lunches and snacks in more than 100,700 schools and residential 

childcare facilities. More than 66 percent of meals are served to low-income children for free or 

at a reduced price.

SBP helps schoolchildren start the day ready to learn by serving breakfast in more than 88,700 

schools and residential childcare facilities. Nearly 84 percent of meals are served free or at 

reduced price to low-income children.
Section 6: Performance Goals

68 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Analysis of Results

USDA met the targets for this performance measure. The increased use of direct certification 

for free school meals for children enrolled in means-tested programs such as SNAP or the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has helped to provide easy access 

to school meal benefits. During the 2009–2010 school year, 82 percent of school districts used 

direct certification, up from 78 percent in the prior year. TANF provides financial assistance for 

children and their parents or relatives who are living with them. The numbers detailed below for 

NSLP and SBP participation show a continuing trend of increases over the last several years.

Exhibit 32: Performance Goal 4.1.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.1.3 Participation levels for the major 

Federal nutrition assistance programs (millions 

per day)

•	 National School Lunch Program 30.5 30.9 31.2 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.0 Met

•	 School Breakfast Program 10.1 8.7 11.7 11.6 12.1 12.7 12.8 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Thresholds for 4.1.3 reflect the margin of error in forecasts of future participation, which 

are estimated at +/- 5 percent for school meals programs. This figure reflects the pattern of variance between actual and target 

performance for both programs during the past 5 years. For FY 2012, this percentage range allows for actual performance that 

meets the targets in the range of 30.4-33.6 million for NSLP and 12.1-13.3 million for SBP.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.1.3

School meals participation data are drawn from USDA administrative records. State agency reports are certified accurate and 

submitted to regional offices. There, they are reviewed for completeness and consistency. If the data are acceptable, the regional 

analyst posts them to the National Data Bank (NDB) Preload System. NDB is a holding area for data review prior to release. 

Otherwise, regional-office personnel reject the report, and the State agency is contacted. Data posted by regional personnel into 

NDB are reviewed at USDA. If data are reasonable and consistent with previous reports, they will be downloaded to NDB for 

public release. If not, USDA works with regional offices and States to resolve problems and inconsistencies. This process of 

review and revision ensures that the data are as accurate and reliable as possible.

Completeness of Data — Figures for NSLP and SBP are based on 9-month (school year) averages. Participation data are 

collected and validated monthly before being declared annual data. 

Reliability of Data — Participation-data reporting used in published analyses, studies, and reports. They also are used to 

support dialogue with, and information requests from, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, 

and the Office of Management and Budget.

Quality of Data — As described above, the data used to develop this measure are used widely for multiple purposes, both 

within and outside USDA. The measure itself is reported in stand-alone publications as an important high-quality indicator of 

program performance.

Challenges for the Future

While almost all schoolchildren have access to Federally-subsidized school lunches, significantly 

fewer schools operate SBPs. USDA will continue to pursue strategies to ensure that all students 

are able to start the day with a nutritious breakfast, at home or at school.

As with other nutrition assistance programs, the Department relies on its partnerships with third 

parties—hundreds of thousands of State and local Government workers and their cooperators— 

to sustain effective school meals program delivery.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 69

4.1.4 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition assistance programs: 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children

Overview

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a 

critical component of the nutrition assistance safety net. WIC’s major objective is to address 

the nutrition needs of low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and 

children up to 5 years of age who are found to be at nutritional risk.

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure, showing its ongoing commitment to 

providing sufficient program resources to support participation for all eligible people who apply 

for benefits.

The Department estimates the number of WIC-eligible people and calculates the rate at which 

they are participating. The latest study shows that, in 2007, WIC served an estimated 59 percent 

of the population eligible for benefits. This figure reflects participation by more than 80 percent 

of eligible infants, 66 percent of eligible pregnant women, more than 85 percent of eligible 

breastfeeding women, and 71 percent of eligible postpartum women.

Exhibit 33: Performance Goal 4.1.4 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.1.4 Participation levels for the major Federal 

nutrition assistance programs (millions per 

month): WIC Program (average)

8.3 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.0 9.0 8.9 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: Thresholds for 4.1.4 reflect the margin of error in forecast of future participation, estimated 

at 3 percent for the WIC program. This reflects the pattern of variance between actual and target performance over the past 5 

years. For FY 2012, this percentage thus allows for actual performance that meets the target in the range of 8.6-9.4 million for 

WIC.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.1.4

WIC participation data are drawn from USDA administrative records. State agency reports are certified accurate and submitted 

to regional offices. There, they are reviewed for completeness and consistency. If the data are acceptable, the regional 

analyst posts them to the National Data Bank (NDB) Preload System. NDB is a holding area for data review prior to release. 

Otherwise, regional-office personnel reject the report, and the State agency is contacted. Data posted by regional personnel into 

NDB are reviewed at USDA. If data are reasonable and consistent with previous reports, they will be downloaded to NDB for 

public release. If not, USDA works with regional offices and States to resolve problems and inconsistencies. This process of 

review and revision ensures that the data are as accurate and reliable as possible.

Completeness of Data — Figures represent 12-month, fiscal year averages. Participation data are collected and validated 

monthly before being declared annual data.

Reliability of Data — Participation-data reporting is used to support program financial operations. All of the data are used 

in published analyses, studies, and reports. They also are used to support dialogue with and information requests from the 

Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of Management and Budget.

Quality of Data — As described above, the data used to develop this measure are used widely for multiple purposes, both 

within and outside USDA. The measure itself is reported in stand-alone publications as an important high-quality indicator of 

program performance.
Section 6: Performance Goals

70 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Challenges for the Future

Ensuring that adequate, timely funding is available to USDA’s program partners to support 

participation among all eligible applicants is an ongoing challenge. The Department and its 

partners must continue to work together to manage funds carefully and maintain efficient 

operations to serve all those in need.

Objective 4.2: Promote Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behavior

4.2.1 Application and usage level of nutritional guidance tools

Linking science-based information to the needs of consumers through effective translation 

is important for policy development and implementation. USDA designed, developed, and 

implemented the MyPlate food icon. This icon is supported by a multi-modal, comprehensive 

communications program to make the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans available and 

operational for all Americans, including children, to achieve healthy diets and lifestyles. The 

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ Web site and its wealth of resources, including the new dietary 

assessment online tool, SuperTracker, promote the personalized application of the Guidelines to 

empower all consumers to make better food choices, balanced with adequate exercise. 

Overview

Good nutrition and regular physical activity are important throughout one’s life. These 

good habits can help reduce the rate of obesity in the U.S. population, especially among the 

Nation’s children. Both good nutrition and physical activity are also essential to helping 

prevent dietrelated chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and high blood 

pressure. Thus, achieving and sustaining appropriate body weight across the lifespan is vital to 

maintaining good health and quality of life.

USDA established the Dietary Guidelines for Americans jointly with HHS to form the basis 

of Federal nutrition policy, education, outreach, and food-assistance programs. The Dietary 

Guidelines are available at http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/. The Department uses 

electronic tools, print materials, and other resources to communicate the importance of healthy 

eating and physical activity to consumers. 

The MyPlate icon, guidance materials, and tools at http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ are important 

resources USDA uses to help empower the American public with actionable information to make 

healthy food choices and achieve healthy, active lifestyles. The Department also continues to 

encourage “information multipliers” — community and national strategic partners — to extend 

the reach and impact of nutrition guidance messages, both with Federal nutrition assistance 

programs and with the general public.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 71

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. The Department continued to meet its 

commitment to link science-based information to the nutrition needs of Americans across the life 

cycle. It successfully reached Americans through the use of print materials and electronic tools. 

The Department also used social media and partnerships, as well as http://www.choosemyplate.

gov/, http://nutritionevidencelibrary.gov/, and the Food and Nutrition Information center at http://

fnic.nal.usda.gov/, to provide information that consumers can use to improve their diets and 

maintain active lifestyles.

Exhibit 34: Performance Goal 4.2.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, 

and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.2.1 Application and usage level of nutrition 

guidance tools (billions of pieces of 

nutrition guidance distributed) Baseline: 

2006 = 1.5

2.6 3.2 3.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 6.6 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The precision of USDA’s tracking system and forecasting allows for determination of the 

degree to which the 2012 target range of 3.5 to 4.5 billion is met. Thresholds reflect trends of usage levels at http://www.

choosemyplate.gov/, http://nutritionevidencelibrary.gov/, other USDA Web sites, such as SNAP-ED Connection at http://snap.

nal.usda.gov/, as well as the distribution of MyPlate and Dietary Guidelines print materials. 

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.2.1

Data on the application and usage level of nutrition guidance tools are drawn from electronic records associated with http://

www.choosemyplate.gov/, http://nutritionevidencelibrary.gov/, the Food and Nutrition Information Center (FNIC) at the 

National Agricultural Library at http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/, and from inventory records of print materials.

Completeness of Data — Data related to http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ are collected instantaneously, indicating the 

number of e-hits to the Web site and the number of registrations to the SuperTracker. For print materials, data from national 

headquarters represent counts of what was distributed among divisions of USDA and FNIC.

Reliability of Data — The electronic data are instantaneously recorded, and the number of distributed print materials is 

tracked.

Quality of Data — The data report on the use of information and tools at http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ and http://

nutritionevidencelibrary.gov/. Because of the simultaneous recording of data, the Department is able to estimate accurately 

the degree to which consumers are using or requesting nutrition materials at http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ and http://

nutritionevidencelibrary.gov/, and other Department Web sites that provide materials related to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 

Challenges for the Future

Individuals and families make choices every day about what they will eat and drink and their 

level of physical activity. Today, Americans must make these choices within a social environment 

that often promotes overconsumption of calories and discourages physical activity. The ability 

of existing nutrition guidance and promotional materials to achieve behavior change remains 

challenging. Physical activity and other lifestyle issues also significantly impact body weight and 

health.

Crafting understandable, science-based, consistent, and consumer-friendly nutrition messages 

and education programs that help people make better food choices will continue to be 

challenging. The relationships between choices people make and their attitudes toward and 

knowledge of diet/health links are key factors that must be addressed. The data that can address 

this information gap, however, are limited. Work is planned to develop helpful metrics to 

measure the success of communications and promotion programs. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

72 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Objective 4.3: Protect Public Health by Ensuring Food is Safe

4.3.1 Percent of broiler plants passing the carcass Salmonella Verification

Testing Standard,

4.3.2 Total illnesses from all Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

products, and

4.3.3 Percent of establishments with a functional food defense plan

Overview

USDA focuses on preventing illnesses from Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria monocytogenes 

(Lm), E. coli O157:H7, and six non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serogroups 

(STECs). These bacterial pathogens are known to cause human illness, hospitalization, and even 

death. 

The Department uses three key measures to assess its performance to ensure that regulated food 

is safe:

• Increase the percentage of broiler establishments passing the carcass Salmonella Verification Testing Standard, thereby reducing overall public exposure to generic Salmonella 

from young chicken carcasses. This metric measures the increase in the percentage of 

USDA young chicken establishments that pass the new standard;

• Reduce total Salmonella, Lm, and E. coli O157:H7 illnesses from all USDA-regulated 

products (All-Illness Measure). This measure is used to assess Department efforts to 

reduce Salmonella, Lm, and E. coli O157:H7 estimated illnesses from USDA-regulated 

products. (Of the illnesses attributed to USDA-regulated products in the third quarter of 

FY 2012, 95.7 percent of estimated illnesses came from Salmonella, 0.2 percent came 

from Lm, and 4.1 percent came from E. coli O157:H7l); and

• Increase the percentage of federally inspected establishments (large, small, and very 

small establishments) with a functional food defense plan. These plans assist industry in 

preventing intentional contamination of food products. This process protects public health 

and reduces the negative economic impact on the food infrastructure.

Analysis of Results

USDA met its goal for 4.3.1, did not meet its goal for 4.3.2, and exceeded its goal for 4.3.3.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 73

4.3.1 Percent of Broiler Plants Passing the Carcass Salmonella Verification

Testing Standard

In July 2011, USDA updated Salmonella standards and established new Campylobacter 

performance standards for young chickens and turkeys that took effect with agency verification 

sample sets. The new Salmonella standards are lower than previous standards and are based on 

recent USDA baseline data. The Department also implemented the Salmonella Initiative Program 

(SIP). SIP encourages slaughter establishments to test for microbial pathogens and respond to 

the ongoing results by taking any necessary steps to regain process control and minimize the 

presence of pathogens. SIP also allows USDA to use establishment data to enhance public health 

protection. Establishments working to meet the new standard will also likely improve Salmonella

controls as part of the necessary overall food safety system improvements.

4.3.2 Total Illnesses from All FSIS Products

The Department calculates a measure that estimates all foodborne illnesses for Salmonella, 

Lm, and E. coli O157:H7 from FSIS-regulated products. This measure was updated to reflect 

newly published illness estimates and data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), and new national HHS Healthy People 2020 goals. Healthy People 2020

provides a set of goals and objectives with 10-year targets, designed to guide national health 

promotion and disease prevention efforts, improving the health of all people in the United States. 

Estimates of total illness from all USDA-regulated products are based on case rates from CDC’s 

FoodNet data. They also are based on simple food attribution estimates derived from the CDC’s 

Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System outbreak database. These estimates then are 

linked to the HHS Healthy People 2020 pathogen reduction goals. 

4.3.3 Percent of Establishments with a functional food defense plan

The food defense measure was developed to increase the number of establishments with 

functional food defense plans. USDA considers such an increase important to prevent intentional 

product adulteration. To be considered functional, plans should be developed, written, 

implemented, assessed, and maintained by establishments. The Department has developed and 

distributed guidance materials for establishments to assist in the development and understanding 

of what constitutes a functional food defense plan. This performance metric is measured by a 

USDA survey that collects data on industry’s voluntary adoption of food defense plans. Results 

from the first survey, conducted in August 2006, established a baseline adoption rate of food 

defense plans, by industry, of 34 percent of all establishments (large, small, and very small). The 

Department’s goal for the voluntary adoption of functional food defense plans by FY 2015 is 

90 percent.
Section 6: Performance Goals

74 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 35: Performance Goals 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.3.1 Percent of broiler plants 

passing the carcass Salmonella

Verification Testing Standard

NA NA NA NA 89 90 90 Met

4.3.2 Total illnesses for all FSIS 

Products 423,126 457,797 428,280 470,137 491,353 405,178 479,621 Unmet

4.3.3 Increase percent of 

establishments with a food 

defense plan

39 46 62 74 75 76 77 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: There is no range of tolerance for FSIS measures.

4.3.1 - The target of 90 percent was set as an attainable target based on the agency’s baseline assessment of industry 

performance in 2009, and past agency experience with industry’s response to Salmonella policies (see the “New Performance 

Standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter in Young Chicken and Turkey Slaughter Establishments; New Compliance 

Guides” Federal Register Notice for further details).

4.3.2 - Estimates of total illness from all USDA-regulated products are based on case rates from CDC’s FoodNet data, simple 

food attribution estimates derived from the Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System outbreak database. They are 

linked to the HHS Healthy People 2020 pathogen reduction goals.

4.3.3 - Data for 2007 and 2008 represent the percentage of facilities with a written plan. The data from 2009-2012 represent 

the percentage of facilities with a functional plan, as defined above. USDA has been working with establishments to encourage 

them to voluntarily adopt functional food defense plans. While the Department has informed industry that mandatory plans 

are preferable, it recognizes that the rulemaking process would likely take several years. The voluntary adoption of functional 

food defense plans by 90 percent or more of industry is considered by USDA to be a level at which rulemaking would not be 

warranted. Thus, the Department established a goal of getting 90 percent of industry to adopt food defense plans by 2015.

Data Assessment of Performance Measures 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3

Completeness of Data

4.3.1 - Results are based upon USDA’s laboratory final results. 

4.3.2 - Actual FY 2012 data are presented. CDC FoodNet case rates lag by one quarter, meaning that illness estimates lag by 

one quarter. 

4.3.3 - The Food Defense Plan Survey is conducted annually. The FY 2012 survey is currently being conducted, and results will 

be reported by the end of FY 2012. 

Reliability of Data

4.3.1 - The data are reliable because they are based on testing and verification from the USDA’s field service laboratories for 

regulated establishments. Each sample is subjected to highly specific verification testing. The primary goal of the Salmonella

sampling program is to monitor how well each establishment is maintaining control of food safety through its Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control Points program, sanitation, and supporting programs. USDA recognizes that its verification testing samples 

for Salmonella in raw classes of product are biased in favor of being collected at establishments with poor process controls and/

or higher volume. This factor may result in over-estimates of public exposure to this pathogen. 

4.3.2 - The CDC FoodNet program is active, population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed infections. However, these 

data are subject to limitations.

4.3.3 - USDA Inspection Program Personnel complete the food defense plan survey based on discussions with establishment 

management. 

Quality of Data

4.3.1 - FSIS collects pathogen verification samples at a range of establishments. Testing is conducted to verify establishment 

pathogen reduction activities. 

4.3.2 - The CDC FoodNet data include 10 States and about 15 percent of the U.S. population. The surveillance area is generally 

representative of the U.S. population, although Hispanics are slightly underrepresented.

4.3.3 - USDA Inspection Program Personnel complete the food defense plan survey based on discussions with establishment 

management. The data are complete, with surveys conducted at approximately 99 percent of targeted establishments.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 75

Description of Actions for Unmet Measures

USDA achieves success when its estimate of actual illnesses is below the year-end target. 

Measure 4.3.2 is dominated by Salmonella-related illnesses. Thus, the Department’s efforts in 

that area will have the greatest impact on the measure. 

For Salmonella, USDA has tightened the performance standards for young chicken 

establishments. It is also testing all establishments over the next 2 years and gathering new data 

to update the performance standards for Salmonella in ground beef and ground poultry products. 

In addition, it is updating end-of-set letters, which go to establishments to inform them of the 

presence of Salmonella in their products. USDA also recently set performance standards for 

Campylobacter in broilers and turkeys, which will also help decrease illness numbers. Although 

this is a different pathogen than Salmonella, it occurs in poultry products similar to Salmonella. 

Establishments focusing on meeting the new Campylobacter standard will also likely improve 

Salmonella controls as part of their overall food safety system improvements.

USDA is also taking steps to reduce the pathogen E.coli O157 which is also included in the 

All-Illness performance measure. USDA has changed its E. coli O157 sampling program so that 

it could increase the likelihood of detecting the pathogen in beef manufacturing trimmings. The 

Department also has developed new draft guidance to help very small meat and poultry plants 

meet initial validation requirements. In response to an outbreak investigation, USDA provided 

process guidance to plant personnel regarding critical operational parameters that should closely 

match more scientific methods. The Department has also begun analyzing certain samples of beef 

manufacturing trimmings collected under certain existing E. coli O157:H7 verification sampling 

programs, analyzed for the six non-O157 STECs. In summary, these actions are designed to 

reduce the presence of pathogens, improve the protection of the food supply and reduce the 

overall number of foodborne illnesses experienced by American consumers. 

Challenges for the Future

Ensuring the safety of the Nation’s food supply is a significant challenge that requires a strong 

and robust infrastructure coupled with sound science. USDA uses a data-driven, scientific 

approach to food safety. It incorporates public health data critical to combating evolving threats. 

Educating producers about best practices on the farm, and educating retailers and the public on 

the best food-handling practices, are important tools for the Department to utilize.

While USDA firmly believes that its day-to-day activities directly impact the prevention of 

foodborne illness in this country, it is often challenging to link Department activities, such as 

pathogen verification testing, to reductions in foodborne illness. 

In the future, USDA intends to establish specific illness reduction performance goals for 

Campylobacter and E. coli non-O157 STEC. It also plans to incorporate illnesses associated 

with these pathogens into the all-illness measure. In addition, the Department has teamed with 

CDC and the Food and Drug Administration to form the Interagency Food Safety Analytics 

Collaboration (IFSAC). IFSAC’s primary objective is to better estimate source attribution of 

infections to specific foods and settings. Better estimation of the attribution of illnesses across the 

broad range of commodities and points in the food chain will help improve food safety practices. 
Section 6: Performance Goals

76 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

USDA is working with its food safety partners to revise attribution fractions based on the most 

current outbreak data. It is anticipated that results from attribution projects developed out of the 

IFSAC initiative will be incorporated here in the future.

Objective 4.4: Protect Agricultural Health by Minimizing Major Diseases and 

Pests to Ensure Access to Safe, Plentiful, and Nutritious Food

4.4.1 Value of damage prevented and mitigated annually as a result of selected

plant and animal health monitoring and surveillance efforts

Overview

USDA ensures access to a diverse supply of fruits, vegetables, meat, and poultry. The 

Department protects the agriculture production system and defends against plant and animal 

pests and diseases. Several programs contribute to preventing and easing economic and 

environmental damage to U.S. agricultural resources. USDA’s monitoring and surveillance 

programs assist with documenting the health status of U.S. agricultural products. This work 

results in the prevention and early detection of plant and animal pests and diseases. The 

Department also uses various pest and disease programs to limit the damage caused by known 

pests and diseases. Together, these efforts contribute toward the Nation’s overall agricultural 

health. USDA monitors the health status of agricultural resources and quickly detects and 

responds to pests and diseases to prevent their spread.

Analysis of Results

USDA met the target for this performance measure by preventing and mitigating $1.19 billion 

— thanks to selected plant and animal health monitoring and surveillance efforts. There were no 

significant outbreaks of animal diseases that spread beyond the point of introduction in FY 2012. 

The Department focuses on controlling the spread of animal diseases to preserve animal health, 

improve the Nation’s economy, and minimize the spread of diseases from animals to humans. 

While once the most prevalent infectious diseases of domestic cattle, bovine tuberculosis (TB) 

has nearly been eradicated from the U.S livestock population. TB is a contagious disease that 

primarily affects cattle but can be transmitted to other animals. USDA has also been highly 

successful in eradicating brucellosis from domestic cattle and bison. The Greater Yellowstone 

Area remains the last known reservoir of brucellosis in the United States. Brucellosis is a 

contagious, costly disease of ruminant animals that also affects humans. 

USDA takes a similar approach to plant pests and diseases. It focuses on the early detection of 

new introductions, the prevention of outbreaks, and the eradication or mitigation of economically 

significant pests and diseases. The Department also documents pest and disease status to support 

farmers in the export of their products. These activities help ensure the availability of fresh 

fruits and vegetables for U.S. consumers and those abroad by preventing crop damage. USDA 

supported surveys in all 50 States and 2 United States territories for exotic pests. Survey targets 

included pests of a variety of specialty crops, including grapes, citrus, stone fruits, and tomatoes, 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 77

as well as honeybee pests. The Department also monitors risks to domestic agriculture that 

originate beyond United States borders and acts on those that directly threaten production. For 

example, in response to detections of the Mexican fruit fly (a serious pest of citrus and other 

crops) in Tijuana, Mexico, USDA increased production of sterile Mexican fruit flies to prevent 

the outbreak from spreading into California. The Department is releasing 5 million sterile flies 

weekly over a 14-square-mile area to protect U.S. citrus growing areas and other specialty crops.

Exhibit 36: Performance Goal 4.4.1 Results

Annual Performance Goals, Indicators, and 

Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

4.4.1 Value of damage prevented and mitigated 

annually as a result of selected plant and 

animal health monitoring and surveillance 

efforts ($billions)

1.37 1.38 1.05 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.19 Met

Allowable Data Range for Met: The aggregate value of protected agricultural resources fluctuates every year due to the size 

and scope of pest/disease outbreaks and the annual price levels of resources. For FY 2012, the allowable data range for the 

aggregate value of protected agricultural resources is estimated to be between $1.07 billion to $1.23 billion.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.4.1

Data for animal health programs are entered by State partners into a USDA database. They are verified by agency officials 

to document the results of surveillance efforts and the health status of the U.S. herd. Data for plant health programs are 

maintained in the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey program database. The estimated value of savings is a calculation 

of the costs associated with conducting monitoring and surveillance programs, versus potential losses of not having these 

programs in place.

Completeness of Data — Reported data are actual results.

Reliability of Data — The surveillance results are used by both internal managers and external partners and stakeholders as an 

authoritative source of information.

Quality of Data — USDA ensures the information reported on its Web site accurately reflects the status of U.S. plant and 

animal health. 

Challenges for the Future

USDA must continually prioritize the list of major pest and disease threats. Such threats are 

increasing domestically and internationally. In addition, the Department’s monitoring and 

surveillance efforts will need to be adjusted to respond to these threats. This action will protect 

agricultural resources and help ensure that America has access to nutritious foods. 

National security is a significant, ongoing priority for the Department. USDA is working with 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to help protect agriculture from intentional and 

accidental acts that might impact America’s food supply or natural resources.

Future Demands, Risks, Uncertainties, Events, Conditions, and Trends

Farmers and ranchers operate in highly competitive markets, both domestically and 

internationally. Rapid shifts in consumer demands associated with quality, convenience, taste, 

and nutrition dictate that farming, ranching, and marketing infrastructures become more fluid and 

responsive.
Section 6: Performance Goals

78 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

External factors that challenge USDA’s ability to achieve its goals include the following:

• Weather-related hardships and other uncontrollable events domestically and abroad;

• Domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including consumer purchasing power, the strength of the U.S. dollar, and political changes abroad that could impact domestic and global markets greatly at any time;

• Sharp fluctuations in farm prices, interest rates, and unemployment that could impact the 

ability of farmers, other rural residents, communities, and businesses to qualify for credit 

and manage their debts;

• The impact of future economic conditions and actions by a variety of Federal, State, and 

local Governments that could influence the sustainability of rural infrastructure;

• The increased movement of people and goods, which provides the opportunity for crop 

and animal pests and diseases, such as avian influenza, to move quickly across domestic 

and international boundaries;

• Potential exposure to hazardous substances, which may threaten human health and the 

environment, and the ability of the public and private sectors to collaborate effectively on 

food safety, security, and related emergency preparedness efforts; and

• The risk of catastrophic fire, depending on weather, drought conditions, and the expanding number of communities in the Wildland-Urban interface.

Management Initiative: Enhance the USDA Human Resources Process to 

Recruit and Hire Skilled, Diverse Individuals to Meet the Program Needs of 

USDA

Overview

USDA provides the overall direction, leadership, and coordination for its management of human 

resources. The Department is committed to building an inclusive, diverse workforce that allows 

for an improved work environment, increased performance, and enhanced customer service. 

Under the Cultural Transformation Initiative, the Department is addressing these issues through 

many avenues. USDA is committed to recruiting and retaining a high-performing workforce, 

better honoring and supporting the sacrifices and service of veterans, and building a workforce 

more reflective of the Nation it serves.

A core goal of the USDA Cultural Transformation Initiative is to recruit, hire, retain, and promote 

a diverse, high-performing workforce. This goal is a key component of the Department’s 

Workforce and Succession Planning. The 2012-2015 Diversity and Inclusion Plan defines 

USDA’s strategic focus to cultivate a diverse and inclusive work environment that ensures 

the equality of opportunity for all. This plan provides a framework consistent with current 

Administration Initiatives. It also incorporates the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 

emphasis on increasing the Federal employment of veterans and people with disabilities. Success 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 79

toward reaching this goal is measured by the percentage of diverse employees, people with 

disabilities, and veterans hired.

A diverse workforce is critical for any organization that seeks to improve and maintain a 

competitive advantage. Focusing on diversity and looking for ways to achieve an inclusive 

environment makes good business sense. A diverse workforce offers greater productivity and 

a competitive edge. Diversity improves workforce quality and offers a higher return on our 

investment in human capital. USDA’s future depends on the quality of employees it recruits 

today. New employees often consider an organization’s diversity efforts when deciding whether 

to accept or reject an employment offer. Diverse perspectives increase creativity as they offer 

different points of view, ideas, and solutions.

Analysis of Results

USDA exceeded the target for this performance measure. The Department’s efforts to recruit 

veterans included the following:

• Establishing a memorandum of understanding with the American Legion;

• Requiring all senior officials, hiring managers, recruiters, and human resource managers 

to complete annual training on the use of special hiring authorities available for veteran 

hires; and

• Maintaining an employee in each mission area responsible for veteran recruitment.

Exhibit 37: Performance Goal Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

Percent of all new hires that are veterans N/A N/A N/A N/A 7% 7 29.6 Exceeded

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be “met” is +/- 5 percent or from 16.2 percent to 17.9 

percent. Jobs data were based on results as provided in the monthly Cultural Milestones and Metrics Report. Final job counts 

are verified against data received from the National Finance Center (NFC).

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.4.1

Data for animal health programs are entered by State partners into a USDA database. They are verified by agency officials 

to document the results of surveillance efforts and the health status of the U.S. herd. Data for plant health programs are 

maintained in the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey program database. The estimated value of savings is a calculation 

of the costs associated with conducting monitoring and surveillance programs, versus potential losses of not having these 

programs in place.

Completeness of Data — Business program data are considered final and complete.

Reliability of Data — Data for jobs are obtained by staff from the National Finance Center Database. They are entered into the 

Guaranteed Loan System (GLS) at the same time obligations are recorded. Overall, the data created and saved are reliable. 

Quality of Data — The quality of the data is reliable and accurate because the information is taken from the personnel 

database required for all employment actions.
Section 6: Performance Goals

80 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Challenges for the Future

USDA continues to experience low participation rates of veterans in temporary and studentintern positions. Thus, the Department’s veteran-hire percentage drops between 6 and 7 percent 

during the summer and fall months. However, when looking at permanent veterans alone, 

USDA’s numbers are always higher than the Department’s goal of 17 percent and the interagency 

goal of 12.8 percent. In FY 2013, USDA will conduct extensive outreach/recruitment to increase 

veteran participation in temporary and student positions.

Analysis of Results

USDA did not meet the target for this performance measure. The Department’s efforts to recruit 

minority employees include the following:

• Establishing a memorandum of understanding with employee affinity groups;

• Providing guidance and training regarding the use of special hiring authorities available 

for disability hiring;

• Developing a diversity hiring action plan;

• Monitoring and reporting on diversity hiring in the monthly Cultural Transformation 

Milestones and Metrics Report; 

• Holding quarterly cultural transformation meetings; and

• Designating employees responsible for special emphasis programs.

Exhibit 38: Performance Goal Results

Annual Performance Goals, 

Indicators, and Trends 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal Year 2012

Target Actual Result

Percent of all new hires that are 

minorities N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 35 19.5 Unmet

Allowable Data Range for Met: The tolerance range for the measure to be “met” is +/- 5 percent or from 33.3 percent to 36.8 

percent. Jobs data were based on results as provided in the monthly Cultural Milestones and Metrics Report. Final job counts 

are verified against data received from NFC.

Data Assessment of Performance Measure 4.4.1

Data for animal health programs are entered by State partners into a USDA database. They are verified by agency officials 

to document the results of surveillance efforts and the health status of the U.S. herd. Data for plant health programs are 

maintained in the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey program database. The estimated value of savings is a calculation 

of the costs associated with conducting monitoring and surveillance programs, versus potential losses of not having these 

programs in place.

Completeness of Data — Data are considered final and complete.

Reliability of Data — Data are obtained by staff from the NFC Database. Overall, the data are reliable. 

Quality of Data — The quality of the data is reliable and accurate because the information is taken from the personnel data 

base required for all employment actions. 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 81

Description of Actions for Unmet Measures

USDA anticipates improvement in the hiring of diverse individuals. Continued education and 

involvement with mission areas and agencies will provide a strong foundation for the coming 

year. The Department believes that programs, such as the Diversity and Inclusion Plan, the 

cultural transformation officers’ quarterly meeting, and the continued monitoring of the cultural 

milestones and metrics will encourage the hiring of diverse individuals. USDA is working to 

develop standardized models to help the agency better recruit and hire diverse individuals by 

targeting areas of recruitment to fit the Department’s needs. USDA will monitor the impact of the 

program changes on diversity and determine if adjustments to FY 2013 performance targets are 

required.

Challenges for the Future

Because of budget constraints, many agencies and mission areas will need to closely monitor 

their ability to fill vacant positions. These budget constraints will likely remain for USDA for the 

foreseeable future. Many employees are recurrent seasonal/temporary workers that have been 

with the Department for several years. 
Section 7: Other Information

82 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Section 7: Other Information

Cross-Agency Collaborations

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the following management initiative to 

address cross-agency collaborations:

Enhance Collaboration and Coordination on Critical Issues through 

Cross-cutting Departmentwide initiatives 

More than ever, the problems facing our customers require a holistic response. To enable 

agencies and programs to more effectively and efficiently achieve the strategic goals established 

in this plan, USDA will utilize cross-cutting initiatives to focus on the most critical and complex 

challenges. Initiatives do not perform programmatic activities; rather, they enhance the work 

already being done by USDA by offering an innovative environment for learning, sharing, and 

problem solving across traditional organizational boundaries. Examples of current collaborative, 

cross-cutting initiatives include the Biotechnology Working Group; Know Your Farmer, Know 

Your Food; and Let’s Move!

USDA’s plans include the following: 

• Establishing cross-cutting initiatives to more effectively address critical challenges;

• Identifying opportunities for collaboration across agencies; and 

• Creating new, results-based reporting mechanisms to improve communication, problem 

solving, and decision making.

Selected Program Evaluations

External assessments, such as evaluations and peer reviews, can be helpful to determine data 

or information gaps, and whether changes in performance trends are attributable, in whole or 

in part, to agency action or to other factors. This section presents a summary of findings from 

agency-funded evaluations or other research completed during the fiscal year. It also includes 

evaluations and other research relevant to the Department’s understanding of the performance 

of its programs, the problems the program is trying to address, and the identification of external 

factors that might influence agency performance. The summaries of the evaluations include links 

to the complete evaluation.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 83

Exhibit 39: Program Evaluations

Fiscal Year 2012 Program Evaluations

Program or 

Objective Title Findings and Recommendations/Actions

Farm and Ranch 

Lands Protection 

Program

Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) Audit# 

10099-6-SF Farm and 

Ranch Lands Protection 

Program (FRPP), Review 

of Non-Governmental 

Organizations (NGOs)

Closed 4/13/12

Finding: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) needs to 

improve management oversight of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program (FRPP) and monitoring of NGOs’ compliance with program 

regulations.

Recommendations: 

NRCS needs to verify that NGOs do not use landowner funds to pay 

for their share of easements’ purchase price. NRCS should establish a 

compliance program that includes reviews of NGOs’ administration and 

management of FRPP. NRCS should inform landowners of program 

regulations relating to landowner donations before obligating funds, and 

require landowners to provide a signed statement acknowledging that they 

have been informed of these requirements. It also should require State 

offices, prior to easement closing, to contact the landowner to verify the 

accuracy of the amount of any landowner donation reported by the NGO 

on its self-certification form.

NRCS should establish standards over NGOs obtaining funds from 

landowners for easement-related costs. NRCS should establish standards 

relating to acceptable ranges and types of easement acquisition and 

stewardship costs that may be paid by landowners. Incorporate these 

requirements into FRPP policies and procedures, as well as standard 

cooperative agreement language. Require NGOs to include information 

about their general policies relating to landowner payments of, and 

donations for, easement acquisition and stewardship costs in their 

application packages. Also, require that all arrangements relating to 

landowners’ payments of NGOs’ acquisition and stewardship costs 

be disclosed to State offices before easement closing. The disclosures 

should specify the purposes and amounts of the landowners’ payments. 

NRCS should require State offices, before accepting an NGO’s offer, to 

inform landowners of requirements relating to landowner payment of 

costs associated with easement acquisition and stewardship, and require 

landowners to provide a signed statement acknowledging that they have 

been informed of these requirements.

Conclusions:

The recommended objectives were achieved, and final action was accepted 

by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, April 13, 2012.

Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/10099-6-SF.pdf
Section 7: Other Information

84 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 39: Program Evaluations (continued)

Fiscal Year 2012 Program Evaluations

Program or 

Objective Title Findings and Recommendations/Actions

Farm and Ranch 

Lands Protection 

Program

OIG Audit# 10099-03-

Ch, Controls Over the 

Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program 

(FRPP) in Michigan 

Closed 3/21/12

Finding 1: NRCS approved conservation easements for closure based on 

invalid or unsupported appraisals.

Recommendations: 

Review all pending FRPP conservation easements in Michigan to ensure 

that all appraisals have gone through the required review process so 

conservation easements can be properly closed. Assess the NRCS State 

office’s appraisal review process, determine why the review process was 

not followed, and take the appropriate corrective action. Require the State 

Conservationist to develop conservation easement procedures to ensure that 

appraisals meet standards and FRPP requirements. Monitor implementation 

of the corrective actions and new procedures until assured that appraisals 

are adequately reviewed approving a conservation easement for closure. 

Finding 2: The NRCS State Office approved the closing of conservation 

easements based on outdated appraisals.

Recommendations: 

Develop and implement a process to ensure key FRPP requirements, such 

as appraisal dates, are met. Monitor the new process until assured that 

program requirements, particularly appraisal dates, are met. Until such 

time that a permanent process as stated in the above recommendations is 

in place, require the Regional Conservationist to review and ensure that 

conservation easement files in Michigan contain appraisals that are less 

than 12 months old at closing. 

Conclusions: The recommended objectives were achieved, and final action 

was accepted by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, March 21, 2012.

Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/10099-3-CH.pdf

Beef Trim Testing OIG Report 24601-001-

03, issued April 13, 2012, 

Application of FSIS 

Sampling Protocol for 

Testing Beef Trim for E. 

coli O157:H7

Finding: OIG found that FSIS could provide more specific guidance 

concerning how plants should respond when they have multiple positive 

E. coli test results in a given day. It recommended that FSIS determine if 

testing resources could be used to test more beef trim instead of ground, 

and then take steps to ensure that small plants regulated by State meat 

inspection agencies are being held to the same sanitary standards as the rest 

of the beef industry.

Actions: FSIS updated industry guidance on procedures to assess the 

effectiveness of controls for preventing contamination during the slaughter 

operation. FSIS is making certain changes to its trim sampling program 

to make it risk based. FSIS will also evaluate the appropriateness of its 

agency performance standards in the context of any changes to sampling 

algorithms or sample allocations.Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/

webdocs/24601-0001-31.pdf

In-Commerce 

Surveillance

OIG Report 24601-80-

AT, issued September 30, 

2011, Food Safety and 

Inspection Service InCommerce System

Finding: OIG examined the effectiveness of the FSIS In-Commerce 

Surveillance Program. While it found that FSIS conducts surveillance 

reviews and follows up appropriately, the agency can improve its 

methodology for selecting firms for surveillance. The In-Commerce 

System (ICS) had a significant number of duplicate or inactive firms listed.

Actions: FSIS updated the tier structure in the ICS. It is updating its 

instructions for prioritizing surveillance activities. FSIS will also provide 

additional guidance on preventing and eliminating duplicates from the 

system and formalizing its process for identifying duplicates, inactive and 

closed firms, and those that do not handle amenable products. Available at 

http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/24601-8-AT.pdf
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 85

Exhibit 39: Program Evaluations (continued)

Fiscal Year 2012 Program Evaluations

Program or 

Objective Program or Objective Program or Objective

E. coli Testing Government 

Accountability Office 

(GAO) Report No. 

GAO-12-257, issued 

March 2012, Food 

Safety: Preslaughter 

Interventions Could 

Reduce E.coli in Cattle

Finding: GAO reviewed interventions before slaughter that may help 

reduce Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in cattle, and the extent to 

which STEC strains have been determined to be adulterants in beef and 

the status of tests to detect them. GAO identified several treatments that 

could reduce STEC in cattle, and noted that, in September 2011, USDA 

determined that six other STEC strains were adulterants in raw ground 

beef and beef trim. GAO determined that USDA has tests for these six 

strains and planned to use them in June 2012.

Actions: On June 4, 2012, FSIS began testing for the six additional STEC 

strains. It is working to improve the tests and to find a commercial supplier 

for one key test component.

Available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589160.pdf

Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance 

Program

Reaching Those in Need: 

State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance 

Program Participation 

Rates in 2009

Released in FY 2012, this report presents estimates of State participation 

rates for eligible low-income households, as well as specific estimates for 

participation among the working poor.

Findings: Participation rates vary widely from State to State. Eighteen 

States had rates significantly higher than the national rate. Twelve had 

significantly lower rates. The data show that the working poor continue to 

participate at rates significantly lower than those for all eligible people.

Actions: No recommendations for action.

Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/

Participation/Reaching2009.pdf

Direct Single 

Family Housing 

Loan Program

OIG Report No. 04703-

0003-KC issued June 13, 

2012. SFH Direct Loans 

Recovery Act Controls – 

Compliance Review

Finding: OIG evaluated the Rural Housing Services’ controls related 

to borrower and property eligibility determinations and presented three 

findings and four recommendations.

Actions: USDA is implementing recommendations, as agreed upon in the 

management decision.

Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/04703-0003-KC.pdf

RBS Business and 

Industry Guaranteed 

Loan (B&I) 

Program

American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act 

– Business& Industry 

Guaranteed Loans – 

Phase 2

Finding: Rural Development needs to improve instructions and 

provide training in support of those instructions so that it can operate 

the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program more effectively. Specifically, OIG 

recommends that the agency improve its priority point score sheets 

by clarifying terms and ensuring that instructions are consistent with 

regulations, and improve instructions/procedures for assessing collateral, 

repayment ability, and loan purposes during reviews.

Actions: In its response dated December 30, 2011, Rural Development 

generally agreed with the findings and recommendations as presented 

in the report. It issued additional guidance and proposed regulation 

enhancements and training, which should improve its prioritization process 

and evaluation of loan applications. OIG agreed with Rural Development’s 

proposed corrective actions and accepted management decision on 

the report’s recommendations.Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/

webdocs/34703-0002-Te.pdf
Section 7: Other Information

86 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Exhibit 39: Program Evaluations (continued)

Fiscal Year 2012 Program Evaluations

Program or 

Objective Program or Objective Program or Objective

Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services

Petition Process 

Improvements

Finding: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) used 

Lean Six Sigma business process improvement techniques to identify 

and address root causes of the length and variability of the petition 

review process for nonregulated status of certain genetically engineered 

organisms. It also developed improvements to address those underlying 

root causes.

Actions: USDA has implemented changes that have dramatically 

decreased the length and variability of the process, without compromising 

the quality of the analysis supporting our decision making. APHIS has 

implemented a streamlined, more efficient internal process; developed 

tools to help managers assign staff and more effectively track progress on 

individual petitions; expedited internal review and clearance of decision 

making documents; and provided additional opportunities for public input 

on petitions.

Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/pet_proc_imp.shtml
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 87

Selected Results in Research, Extension, and Statistics

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) engages in scientific research and extension work 

that helps farmers and others involved in producing food and fiber. The Department also provides 

statistical analysis designed to aid understanding of agricultural issues. This important facet of 

USDA’s role supports its mission through its strategic goals, as outlined below. The examples 

provided are a small selection from a large effort to further our understanding.

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So 

They Are Self-Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving

Extension and Research Programs are Increasing Economic Returns. Small businesses in 

rural areas face special difficulties in establishing a market presence and competing in today’s 

economy. In 2011, USDA and Oklahoma State University officials trained more than 230 small 

businesses in 13 workshops on how to plan, launch, and promote their Web sites. After the 

training, 95 percent of respondents planned their Web efforts. Ninety-three percent indicated that 

they would change the way they marketed their Web site. Further analysis suggests that these 

practices can increase small business sales from 20 to more than 200 percent. With average sales 

of $150,000, this figure implies that the e-commerce training program increased the revenue of 

small businesses in Oklahoma by between $7.1 million and $71 million.

Biodiesel’s five-to-one Return on Fossil Energy. The relative value of different biofuels is 

often based on their total life cycle net energy return. USDA and university collaborators have 

completed a life-cycle analysis of soybean biodiesel production. They showed that, for every 

British thermal unit (BTU) of fossil energy used to produce biodiesel, 5.5 BTUs of biodiesel are 

produced. A BTU is a traditional unit of energy that is roughly equivalent to the energy needed 

to heat a pound of water. The unit is most often used in the power, steam generation, heating, 

and air conditioning industries. A previous assessment, based largely on pre-1990 data, estimated 

a net return of 3.2 BTUs. The new study also determined that the new, higher energy return for 

biodiesel results from three major improvements since the earlier assessment: (1) soybeancrushing facilities and biodiesel production plants have become increasingly energy efficient; 

(2) soybean farmers have adopted more enhanced energy-saving farm practices; and (3) soybean 

yields have increased. 

Development of Feedstock Readiness Level Tool. Air industry experts recognized disconnects 

between the level of development for fuel conversion processes and the availability of plantbased feedstocks for producing aviation biofuels. The commercial air transportation industry 

requested that USDA develop a feedstock readiness level tool to complement the internationally 

recognized Commercial Air Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) Fuel Readiness Tool. USDA, 

the Federal Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Department of Transportation created the 

feedstock readiness level to track progress on the development of agricultural- and forest-based 

feedstocks needed to produce alternative jet fuel. The trio completed the feedstock readiness 

level tool in November 2011. This tool helps biomass producers, seed companies, bio-refineries, 

and biofuel users understand when new feedstocks will be available so accurate business plans 

can be developed.
Section 7: Other Information

88 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Promoting Local Community Sustainability. USDA launched the Iowa Living Roadways 

Community Visioning Program to provide community enhancement services to rural Iowans. 

The program provided technical landscape and transportation planning assistance to 12 Iowa 

communities. Projects included roadside plantings, signage or signage improvements, streetscape 

enhancements, downtown area improvements, parks, and other infrastructure improvements. 

These improvements included storm-water drainage, welcome centers, and historic areas. 

These projects help ensure that rural Iowans maintain a stake in enhancing and improving their 

communities and receive economic opportunities.

Elite Germplasm for Fuel Production. Germplasm refers to the collection of genetic resources 

for an organism. For plants, the germplasm may be stored as a seed collection or, for trees, in a 

nursery. Pennycress (Thlaspi arvense) is an annual winter cover crop that produces superior oil 

for renewable diesel or biodiesel production. It has a lower cloud point and is more oxidatively 

stable than soy-based biodiesel. Because pennycress can be double-cropped with soybeans, 

it does not compete with food production. USDA selected an elite germplasm line exhibiting 

germination rates of greater than 90 percent, versus rates as low as 20 percent for varieties that 

were previously used. The new variety also yields up to 30 percent more seed with 6-percentgreater oil content than current lines. Thus, its oil yield per acre is about twice that of soybeans. 

The Department is currently working with companies to commercialize the production of this 

new pennycress variety for conversion into biobased jet fuel.

Comprehensive Application Technology and Strategy to Reduce Pesticide Use. Pesticide 

applications are critical to ensuring healthy, unblemished ornamental nursery plants. 

Conventional spray application practices recommend the modification of carrier volume for 

preparations of spray mixtures. USDA demonstrated that growers could use their existing spray 

equipment to reduce pesticide and water use by 50 percent by properly changing spray nozzles, 

at no extra cost, and still achieve effective pest and disease control. This action equates to 

doubling the pesticide application efficiency while reducing pesticide costs and health risks to 

applicators, and negative effects to the environment. Other benefits accrued with this approach 

included greater operational efficiency (the area sprayed is doubled, thus the frequency, travel, 

and time needed for tank refilling are reduced), lower costs for energy consumption and new 

equipment, and a reduced risk of pesticide exposure to workers. By using the half-rate practice, 

growers reported savings of more than $200 to $500 per acre.

First Alfalfa Gene Index Assembled. USDA conducted an in-depth analysis of the genes 

active during cell-wall development. The Department assembled the first alfalfa gene index that 

identifies most of the plant’s genes. Two major components of alfalfa stems are cellulose (a sugar 

molecule that is easily converted to ethanol) and lignin (a cross-linking molecule that interferes 

with conversion of cellulose to ethanol). Several genes associated with the regulation of lignin 

and cellulose biosynthesis were identified that, along with the new gene index, can allow plant 

breeders to increase cellulose and decrease lignin expressed in cell walls. This process would 

increase alfalfa’s value as a bioenergy crop.

Marketing of Local Foods. Local marketing of farm products is a major USDA interest and 

initiative, as indicated by the USDA-wide Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Task Force. 

A Department report updated previous research on local marketing of foods and expanded the 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 89

concept to include both direct marketing (e.g., farm stands and farmers markets) and indirect 

marketing through restaurants, regional sellers, and other intermediaries. The analysis provided 

details about regional differences in the extent of local foods marketing and the types of foods 

involved, as well as rural-urban differences. Research findings help support the Department’s 

Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative. For more information, visit http://www.ers.usda.

gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err128.aspx. 

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working 

Lands are Conserved, Restored, and Made More Resilient to 

Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water Resources

Cooperative Extension is Conserving the Nation’s Farmland, State by State. USDA 

helped launch the Working Lands Alliance (WLA) in Connecticut to halt the loss of that State’s 

remaining farmland. WLA, a coalition that includes Connecticut Cooperative Extension System 

educators, distributed more than $35 million in grants and loans, which was further leveraged 

by an additional $76 million. These funds were used for the Connecticut State Department of 

Agriculture’s Farm Enhancement Program. This program helps Connecticut farms diversify and 

expand through cost-sharing grants.

USDA working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

competitive grant titled “A National Crop Progress Monitoring System Based on NASA 

Earth Science Results.” USDA continued work on a NASA competitive grant titled “National 

Crop Progress Monitoring System Based on NASA Earth Science Results.” The Department, 

working cooperatively with George Mason University, developed crop progress field procedures 

for managing weekly data collection for 10 selected fields in Iowa. Data collection procedures 

included monitoring crop progress stages via digital GPS cameras, soil moisture meters, and 

observations regarding crop health. The collected data will be analyzed with satellite imagery to 

develop an enhanced crop progress monitoring system for the future.

Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change. The impacts of climate change on Washington 

State could be significant. Mountain snows that melt earlier in the season could result in spring 

flooding and low stream flow during the summer and fall months. USDA and Washington State 

University (WSU) specialists coordinated a multidimensional educational campaign to deliver 

research-based information about the effects of climate change to communities around the 

State. Eighty-five percent of program participants reported increased knowledge and awareness 

of climate change and the associated issues, including ways to adapt to future changes that are 

predicted by WSU researchers.

Desiccation in Warmed Semiarid Rangelands Eliminated with Carbon Dioxide. Desiccation 

refers to the state of extreme dryness or the process of extreme drying. While climate change 

is expected to bring warmer, dry conditions to many world rangelands, the direct effect of 

rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels has not been considered in analyses. USDA believes that 

rising CO2 would improve plant water use efficiency. Thus, the negative effects of warminginduced desiccation would be offset. The Department, with collaborators from the University of 

Wyoming, discovered that combined elevated CO2 and warmer temperatures favored the growth 
Section 7: Other Information

90 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

of warm-season perennial grasses. They also found that additional CO2 completely reversed the 

desiccating effects of the warmer temperature in a typical native semiarid prairie environment. 

These results are helping climate-change scientists make better predictions about how rising 

CO2 will affect the responses of rangelands to climate change. They are using this information to 

develop climate change-adaptive management strategies for ranchers and public land managers.

Watershed Protection. USDA supported Iowa State University and University of Nebraska 

staff in helping victims of the 2011 Missouri River flood by protecting the environment and 

restoring productivity to the hundreds of thousands of acres impacted by the disaster. More than 

500 landowners, farmers, agribusiness operators, and others attended webinars, and received new 

publications created to address flood recovery. Participants learned about environmentally safe 

sediment and debris management, and agronomically sound flooded soil syndrome management 

strategies. Additionally, 55 percent of clients reported either having planted or intending to plant 

cover crops to protect soil from erosion. Clients indicated the value of the information of the 

webinars at $18.1 million.

Improved Model Simulating Water Quality in Large River Basins. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and State environmental agencies have identified approximately 15,000 

water quality-impaired water bodies in the United States. At the same time, USDA is mandated 

to do the following: (1) conduct a thorough analysis of the risks and benefits of its conservation 

programs to human health, safety, and the environment; (2) determine alternative ways of 

reducing risk; and (3) conduct cost-benefit assessments of these programs and alternatives. To 

help address these issues, the Department developed a number of new algorithms for the river 

basin scale model with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). USDA uses SWAT to 

simulate onsite septic systems, streamsediment routing, urban management practices, improved 

phosphorus fate and transport, and stream health. It has been validated at more than 70 U.S. 

Geological Service stream gauges across the country to ensure realistic simulation of stream 

flow, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide (atrazine) loads. Final SWAT validation and scenario 

analyses were completed for the Upper Mississippi River basin, the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 

the Ohio-Tennessee River basin, and the Great Lakes watershed. USDA is reviewing final draft 

reports. The reports can be found at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/

technical/nra/ceap.

Implications of Climate Change for Crop Production. An ERS report examined potential 

implications of a suite of 2,030 climate scenarios on U.S. crop production. Study findings 

suggested that, while impacts are highly sensitive to uncertain climate projections, farmers 

have considerable flexibility to adapt to changes in local weather, resource conditions, and price 

signals by adjusting crops, rotations, and production practices. Such adaptation, using existing 

crop production technologies, can partially mitigate the impacts of climate change on national 

agricultural markets. The introduction of crop varieties better adapted to new growing conditions 

could facilitate this transition. Adaptive redistribution of production, however, may have 

significant implications for both regional land use and environmental quality. Further, increases 

in pest pressures associated with climate change could increase costs to farmers. Findings 

were included in the National Climate Assessment and contributed to the interdepartmental 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. The report can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err-economic-research-report/err136.aspx.
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 91

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production 

and Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food 

Security 

Objective 3.1: Enhance America’s Ability to Develop and Trade Agricultural 

Products Derived from New Technologies

Improved Emergency Aid Food. Ready-to-eat foods made for emergencies may suffer from 

reduced sensory and nutritional quality when they are delivered for use in hot, tropical climates 

unless storage conditions are adequate. USDA has developed a new instant corn and soy blend 

with superior properties and a 1-year shelf life. Twenty metric tons of this new emergency-aid 

food product was shipped to Haiti in 2011 through a grant from the National Institute for the 

Severely Handicapped. The emergency food is feeding more than 3,000 malnourished children. 

It also provides jobs for 128 disabled employees in the United States.

Potential Major Cause of Reproductive Failure in Beef Cattle. Feed and care for 

unproductive cows that fail to achieve pregnancy is a major cost in beef production. A test 

capable of identifying young cows with a low likelihood of conceiving and producing a live calf 

would substantially affect the efficiency of beef production. During a study to identify genes that 

produce a variation in reproductive efficiency, USDA discovered that as many as 30 percent of 

cows that had low success achieving pregnancy appeared to carry portions of the male-specific 

Y chromosome. Because only bulls are expected to have the Y chromosome, this research 

suggests that the transmission of a Y chromosome to female offspring (via a chromosomal 

crossover event) may be a significant contributor to reproductive failures. This discovery will 

now be used to develop a test that identifies beef heifers and cows that should not be used for 

breeding. A robust test for Y chromosome in breeding herds of beef cattle will lead to better 

reproductive efficiency and lower production costs. This process will increase economic returns 

to producers, lower beef prices, and enhance beef exports. 

Faster growing Atlantic Salmon Germplasm Released to Commercial Producers. Increasing 

harvest size and reducing the time to harvest of Atlantic salmon are two goals of salmon 

producers in North America. U.S. commercial salmon producers use stocks that are not many 

generations removed from wild, unselected stocks. They also are legally required to culture 

stocks certified to be of North American origin. USDA, in collaboration with industry, evaluated 

the growth of salmon from their breeding program in commercial sea cages. A salmon line 

selected for faster growth and greater weight was produced, and germplasm was released to 

commercial producers. Utilization of improved germplasm will reduce the time to harvest, 

increase the profitability and sustainability of U.S. coldwater marine aquaculture, and provide a 

quality seafood product to U.S. consumers.

Global Food Security. A USDA analysis finds that food security is estimated to improve slightly 

in 2012 as the number of food-insecure people in the 76 countries declines from 814 million 

in 2011 to 802 million in 2012. The share of the population that is food insecure remains at 
Section 7: Other Information

92 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

24 percent. While the share of the population that is food insecure is projected to decline from 

24 percent in 2012 to 21 percent in 2022, the number of food-insecure people is projected to 

increase by 37 million. Regionally, food insecurity is projected to remain most severe in SubSaharan Africa. These annual reports are used by U.S. policymakers in deciding programming 

and budgetary allocations among developing countries. For more information, visit http://www.

ers.usda.gov/publications/gfa-food-security-assessment-situation-and-outlook/gfa22.aspx. 

International Competitiveness Starts with Global Awareness. USDA and West Virginia 

University officials look to keep that State’s residents aware of their role in the global dimension. 

Extension educators and West Virginia 4-H have supported outreach programs in Mexico and 

Chile, and invited international students into their communities to report on their experiences. 

A survey found that 486 adult community members have changed their perceptions about 

cultures that are different from their own. They also have encouraged youth to participate in 

international opportunities.

Quality Testing Method for Cake Flour with Zero Trans Fat. Standard methods for assessing 

the quality of baking flours had been based on the use of partially hydrogenated trans fats in end 

products (i.e., baked goods). Because the baking industry is phasing out the use of unhealthy 

trans fats, USDA developed a new method for testing end products without trans fats. The new 

method has already been adopted by flour-testing and industrial baking laboratories to assess the 

performance of new wheat varieties and flour milling methods in cake baking.

Outreach in Iraq and Afghanistan. USDA’s Iraq Agricultural Extension Revitalization (IAER) 

project focuses on strengthening Iraqi agriculture by revitalizing the country’s extension and 

educational training capacity. By rebuilding the skills of Iraqi extension experts so that they may 

better serve the needs of farmers, processors, and marketers, the project will foster a healthy 

agricultural sector that contributes to national stability. Completed in 2011, the project trained 

more than 700 Iraqi faculty and extension personnel. Ninety-seven percent of those trainees 

reported learning new information. Ninety-two percent used this knowledge to develop programs 

that address the needs of clientele. This project helped build credibility for extension in Iraq and 

public trust in the Government. Outreach to both women and youth also increased as a result 

of the project. IAER trainees have gone on to implement projects, obtain funding, introduce 

new technologies, and change farmer behavior. Curriculum to train the next generation of 

extension personnel was developed in collaboration with Iraqi universities in Baghdad and in the 

Kurdish region. In addition, a grants program for trainees provided funding for 25 small-scale 

demonstration projects. The project was implemented by a consortium of land-grant universities 

led by Texas A&M University.

Discovery of 10 New Species for Science. During field explorations for target pests and their 

natural enemies in their native land, a number of organisms are usually found and collected for 

testing as potential candidates for biological control of invasive target pests in the United States. 

Prior to the testing process, properly identifying natural enemies by traditional procedures or 

more sophisticated molecular methods is key to the project’s success. During the extensive field 

explorations in Argentina, USDA discovered 10 species of insects new to science. Recently, 
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 93

experts, in close collaboration with the Department, have described and named some of these 

new species. The descriptions of the remaining ones are in progress. These accomplishments 

will greatly increase the chances of success of the respective biological control programs in the 

United States. They also will contribute to the knowledge of the biological diversity in Argentina 

and globally.

International Technical Assistance Provided. USDA provided technical assistance and training 

to improve agricultural statistics programs in 13 countries. Short-term assignments supported 

work in Afghanistan, Armenia, Georgia, Haiti, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nigeria, 

Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa, and Tanzania. The technical assistance ranged from basic survey 

concepts and procedures to complete national Census of Agriculture support. In addition, the 

Department coordinated and/or conducted training programs in the United States for 131 visitors 

representing 20 countries. These assistance and training activities promote better quality data and 

improved access to data from other countries. Thus, U.S. analysts gain a better understanding 

of the world supply and demand situation. Improved analysis supports trade and more efficient 

marketing of U.S. agricultural products.

Improving International Agricultural Statistics. USDA agencies worked together to support 

the Department’s role in the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. FTF confronts 

the growing challenges of global poverty, disease, water scarcity, climate change and depleting 

natural resources. With funding from USAID, USDA experts assessed agricultural statistical 

systems in Ghana, Tanzania, and Rwanda. They evaluated the extent to which national systems 

are generating the data needed to effectively monitor their food-security situations. This work is 

designed to provide information to support evaluations of the effectiveness of donor programs 

to improve food security. They also identified strengths and weaknesses of the countries’ data 

collection systems, and recommended steps that might be taken to help strengthen the systems. 

USDA worked to strengthen the capacity of Haiti’s Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, 

and Rural Development as it develops a more reliable system for the collection and analysis of 

agricultural statistics and market information. The Department conducted training programs to 

help staff build a food-security model separated from the commodity level. It also developed a 

methodology for food-basket analysis that can provide an early warning of impending problems 

with food security.

Brazilian Agriculture. A USDA study finds that investments by Brazil, a major producer and 

exporter of agricultural products, in infrastructure and agricultural research, have resulted in 

productivity growth. Agricultural research investments focusing on commodities over a national 

scope have helped Brazil’s most efficient farms, while investments in rural credit, transportation 

infrastructure, and primary school infrastructure boosted the productivity growth of its average 

farms. This research helps senior policymakers obtain a more detailed understanding of how 

Brazilian agricultural policies have affected productivity growth among the country’s producers 

and its agricultural productive potential. For more information, visit http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err-economic-research-report/err137.aspx.
Section 7: Other Information

94 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children Have 

Access to Safe, Nutritious, and Balanced Meals

Extension Aims to Help Citizens Choose Healthy Diets. USDA and West Virginia State 

University helped limited-resource families improve their knowledge, skills, and attitudes about 

nutrition and healthy lifestyles. Teen and preteen participants engaged in hands-on activities 

related to their interests, such as appearance and fitting in with their peers. For adults, the 

Cent$ible Nutrition Program provided a series of hands-on cooking classes, presentations, field 

trips, and yoga classes.

Costs of Healthier Foods. A USDA report examined how different methods used to measure the 

cost of food affect results related to the cost of healthier food choices. Americans consume diets 

that do not meet Federal dietary recommendations. A common explanation is that healthier foods 

are more expensive than less healthy foods. The authors compared prices of healthy and less 

healthy foods using three different price metrics: the price per calorie, the price per 100 edible 

grams, and the price of an average portion. For all metrics except the price of food energy, the 

authors found that healthy foods generally cost less than less healthy foods (defined for this study 

as foods that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, and/or sodium, or that contribute little to 

meeting dietary recommendations). Findings from the report have been widely cited, educating 

the public about the affordability of healthier food choices. For more information, visit http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib96.aspx.

American’s Diet Quality. A USDA report examined the change in Americans’ subjective 

perceptions of their own diet quality between 1989-91 and 2005-08. It found that Americans 

have become more realistic about their diet quality. A significantly smaller fraction of Americans 

rated their diets as “Excellent” or “Very Good” with respect to healthfulness in the later 

period, despite the fact that the underlying diet quality did not change much. On the whole, 

the percentage of persons who rated their diet this way dropped 9.1 percentage points. The 

study also offered suggestive evidence that nutrition education has played a role in improving 

consumers’ diet perceptions. Among those with the steepest declines in excellent and very good 

diet ratings were underweight, overweight, and obese persons. Each of these groups saw declines 

in the probability of rating their own diets as “Excellent” or “Very Good” by approximately 

10 percentage points. For more information, visit http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eibeconomic-information-bulletin/eib83.aspx.

EFNEP Continues to Be the Premier Nutrition Education Program. The Expanded Food 

and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is designed to assist limited resource audiences 

in acquiring the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and changed behavior necessary for nutritionally 

sound diets, and contribute to their personal development and the improvement of the total 

family diet and nutritional well-being. This USDA program continues to be highly effective in 

changing participants’ behaviors and improving their daily life skills. In 2011, 94 percent of 

adult participants reported consuming the equivalent of nearly one additional cup of fruits and 

vegetables each day. Eighty-three percent improved food management practices, 89 percent 

improved nutrition practices, and 66 percent improved food safety practices. Multiple cost-
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 95

benefit studies in past years show that every dollar invested in EFNEP resulted in $3.63 to $10.64 

in saved health care costs, and $2.48 saved in food expenditures.

Caloric Content of Restaurant Food. Reversing the rising incidence of obesity requires that 

consumers reduce their caloric intake. This process requires knowing the caloric content of 

particular foods. The proportion of food eaten away from home, particularly at restaurants, 

is steadily increasing. While some restaurants provide caloric information for their foods, 

the accuracy of these data is unknown. USDA-supported scientists compared laboratory 

measurements of calories for 269 fast-food and sit-down chain restaurant food items collected 

at multiple locations across multiple States, with the calories listed on menus and Web sites. On 

average, while the analyzed items were only 10 calories higher than stated, 19 percent of those 

tested were under-reported by more than 100 calories. This problem was especially prevalent for 

items listed at less than 300 calories. This information will induce restaurants to more accurately 

state the caloric content of their food. Thus, the consumer has help in lowering his or her caloric 

intake.

Increasing Efficiency in the Food Safety System. Disease agents threaten cheese and ready-toeat foods. Researchers at the New York Agricultural Experiment Station and Cornell University 

looked at whether they could combine pulsed-light technology with natural protectants against 

listeria and mold growth. Test results showed no significant listeria on ready-to-eat foods over 

28 days of refrigerated storage. In addition, mold on cheese was reduced by up to 40 percent. 

These findings could lead to safer, more nutritious food with longer shelf life, overall cost 

savings for consumers and the food industry, and a better reputation for industry.

Reduction of Salmonella in Swine and Poultry Using Organic Acids. Salmonella bacteria are 

human pathogens that can reside in the gut of food animals such as swine, cattle, and poultry. 

They also can contaminate meat products reaching the consumer, causing illness or even death. 

Organic acids are a dietary additive that can improve animal growth efficiency and change the 

microbial population of the intestinal tract. USDA demonstrated that adding specific organic 

acids in the diets of pigs and chickens could reduce populations of Salmonella from 10- to 100-

fold in the live animals. This work has important food safety implications. It identifies another 

tool to help producers reduce the carriage of foodborne pathogens in meat-producing animals, 

and provides an alternative to antibiotics. Reduced pathogen loads in animals at slaughter will 

result in microbiologically safer meat products reaching the consumer.

National Networks of Labs Detect Diseases Early. USDA helped fund and provide leadership 

to establish the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN). NAHLN is a 

multifaceted network comprised of sets of laboratories that focus on different diseases using 

common testing methods and software platforms to process diagnostic requests and share 

information. While this network of laboratories focuses on different diseases, it uses common 

testing methods and software platforms to process diagnostic requests and share information. 

USDA funding has enabled NAHLN to increase the number of specific animal diseases 

it can detect from 3 in 2004 to 11 in 2012. USDA has also helped fund the National Plant 

Diagnostic Network’s (NPDN) links to laboratories in every State. NPDN quickly detects and 

identifies high-consequence pests and pathogens in agricultural and natural ecosystems. It then 

immediately reports the findings to the appropriate responders and decision makers.
Section 7: Other Information

96 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

Revisions to Performance Criteria

The following exhibit illustrates the eleven changes in performance goals as compared to the 

fiscal year 2011 performance report.

Exhibit 40: Changes to Performance Goals

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives Strategic 

Goal 1 

Changes Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 1: Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity So 

They Are Self Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving

1.1 Enhance Rural 

Prosperity

1.1.1 Number of jobs created or saved through USDA financing of businesses None

1.1.2 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved 

telecommunication services (millions) None

1.2 Create Thriving 

Communities

1.2.1 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new or improved service 

from agency-funded water facilities (millions) None

1.2.2 Homeownership opportunities provided None

1.2.3 Percentage of customers who are provided access to new and/or improved 

essential community facilities None

•	 Health Facilities None

•	 Safety Facilities None

•	 Educational Facilities None

1.2.4 Number of borrowers/subscribers receiving new and/or improved electric 

facilities (millions) None

1.3 Support a Sustainable 

and Competitive 

Agricultural System

1.3.1 Percentage of beginning farmers, racial and ethnic minority farmers, and 

women farmers financed by the Farm Service Agency None

1.3.2 Maintain or increase percentage of Farm Service Agency program 

delivery applications at USDA Service Centers that are Web enabled None

1.3.3 Value of trade preserved annually through USDA staff interventions 

leading to resolution of barriers created by Sanitary/Phytosanitary (SPS) 

or Technical Barriers to Trade measures ($billions)

None

Removed:

(Was 1.3.4 in fiscal year [FY] 2011) Fiscal Year Dollar value of agriculture 

trade preserved through trade agreement negotiation, and enforcement of non 

SPS activities

Removed

1.3 Support a Sustainable 

and Competitive 

Agricultural System

1.3.4 (was 1.3.5 in FY 2011) Value of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 

(FCIC) risk protection coverage provided through FCICsponsored 

insurance ($billions)

Renumbered

1.3.5 (was 1.3.6 in FY 2011) Normalized value of FCIC risk protection 

coverage provided through FCICsponsored insurance ($billions) Renumbered

1.3.6 (was 1.3.7 in FY 2011) Percent of industry compliance with the Packers 

and Stockyards Act None
USDA: Managing for Results in Performing Its Many Vital Public Functions

 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 97

Exhibit 40: Changes to Performance Goals (continued)

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Goal 2 

Changes

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands are Conserved, 

Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing

2.1 Restore and Conserve 

the Nation’s Forests, 

Farms, Ranches, and 

Grasslands

2.1.1 Conservation Reserve Program: Restored wetland acreage (millions 

of acres) None

2.1.2 Conservation Technical Assistance: Cropland with conservation 

applied to improve soil quality (millions of acres) None

2.1.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Cropland with 

conservation applied to improve soil quality (millions of acres) None

2.1.4 Conservation Technical Assistance: Grazing land and forest land 

with conservation applied to protect and improve the resource base 

(millions of acres)

None

2.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Grazing land and forest 

land with conservation applied to protect and improve the resource 

base (millions of acres)

None

2.1.6 Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program: Prime, unique, or 

important farmland protected from conversion to non-agricultural 

uses by conservation easements (thousands of acres)

None

2.1.7 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat quality 

(thousands of acres)

None

2.1.8 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Non-Federal land with 

conservation applied to improve fish and wildlife habitat quality 

(millions of acres)

New in FY 2012

2.1.9 (was 2.1.8 in FY 2011) Acres protected from conversion through 

easements and fee-simple purchases (thousands of acres)

Renumbered, 

moved to Forest 

Service in FY 2012 

(was NRCS in 

FY 2011)

2.2 Protect and Enhance 

America’s Water 

Resources

2.2.1 Conservation Technical Assistance: Land with conservation applied 

to improve water quality (millions of acres)

Reworded in FY 

2012

2.2.2 Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Land with conservation 

applied to improve water quality (millions of acres)

Reworded in FY 

2012

2.2.3 (was 2.2.4 in FY 2011): Wetlands Reserve Program: Wetlands 

created, restored, or enhanced (thousands of acres)

Renumbered in 

FY 2012

Agency Priority Goal (APG) (was 2.2.3 in FY 2011): Priority landscapes 

with high-impact targeted conservation practices applied to improve water 

quality (CTA, millions of acres)

An APG in FY 

2012

(formerly a 

performance goal)

Removed:

2.2.5 Acres of highimpact targeted practices implemented on NFS and 

private lands in priority landscapes to protect clean, abundant water

Removed

Removed:

2.2.6 Annual economic contribution of recreation on National Forest 

System lands

Removed
Section 7: Other Information

98 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture Strategic Objectives

Strategic Goal 2 

Changes

Strategic Objectives Annual Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands are Conserved, 

Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing

2.3 Reduce Risk from Catastrophic 

Wildfire and Restore Fire to 

its Appropriate Place on the 

Landscape

2.3.1 Acres of WildlandUrban Interface fuels treated to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic fire (millions of acres) None

2.3.2 Percentage of acres treated in the WidlandUrban Interface 

that have been identified in Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans

None

2.3.3 Cumulative acres in the National Forest System that are in a 

desired condition relative to fire regime (millions of acres) None

Strategic Goal 3: Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports as 

America Works to Increase Food Security

Strategic Goal 3 

Changes

3.1 Enhance America’s Ability to 

Develop and Trade Agricultural 

Products Derived from New 

Technologies

3.1.1 Cumulative number of genetically engineered plant lines 

reviewed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and found 

safe for use in the environment None

Strategic Goal 4: Ensure That All of America’s Children Have Access to Safe, Nutritious, and 

Balanced Meals

Strategic Goal 4 

Changes

4.1 Increase Access to Nutritious 

Foods

4.1.1 Participation rates for the major Federal nutrition assistance 

programs (millions per month): Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program

None

4.1.2 SNAP payment accuracy rate (percent) None

4.1.3 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition 

assistance programs (millions per day):

•	 National School Lunch Program None

•	 School Breakfast Program None

4.1.4 Participation levels for the major Federal nutrition 

assistance programs (millions per month): The Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (average)

None

4.2 Promote Healthy Diet and 

Physical Activity Behavior

4.2.1 Application and usage level of nutrition guidance tools 

(billions of pieces of nutrition guidance distributed) None

4.3 Protect Public Health by 

Ensuring Food is Safe

4.3.1 Percent of broiler plants passing the carcass Salmonella

Verification Testing Standard*

Reworded in FY 

2012

4.3.2 Total illnesses from all Food Safety and Inspection Service 

products None

4.3.3 Percent of establishments with a functional food defense 

plan None

4.4 Protect Agricultural Health by 

Minimizing Major Diseases and 

Pests, Ensuring Access to Safe, 

Plentiful, and Nutritious Food

4.4.1 Value of damage prevented and mitigated annually as a 

result of selected plant and animal health monitoring and 

surveillance efforts ($billions) None

Management Initiative: Enhance the USDA Human Resources Process to Recruit and Hire Skilled, 

Diverse Individuals to Meet the Program Needs of USDA

Management 

Initiative 

Changes

Increasing Diversity in the USDA 

Workforce

Percent of all new hires who are veterans New in FY 2012

Percent of all new hires who are minorities New in FY 2012
 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 99

Acronyms

A

AFR—Agency Financial Report 

AMS—Agricultural Marketing Service

APG—Agency Priority Goal

APHIS—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APR—Annual Performance Report

ARRA—American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 

2009

B

B&I—Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan 

Program

C

CAP—Cross-Agency Priority Goal

CCC—Commodity Credit Corporation

CDC—United States Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention

CEAP—Conservation Effects Assessment Project

CF—Community Facilites

CNPP—Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

COTS—Commercial Off-the-Shelf

CPAP—Community Programs Application Processing

CRP—Conservation Reserve Program

CTA—Conservation Technical Assistance

CWPP—Community Wildfire Protection Plan

D

DAFO—Deputy Administrator of Field Operations

DLOS—Dedicated Loan Origination and Servicing

DM—Departmental Management

E

EQIP—Environmental Quality Incentives Program EU—European Union

F

FAS—Foreign Agricultural Service

FCC—Federal Communications Commission

FCIC—Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

FDOSS—Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance 

System

FFAS—Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service

FLP—Farm Loan Program

FNCS—Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

FNIC—Food and Nutrition Information Center 

FNS—Food and Nutrition Service

FRPP—Farm and Ranch Protection Program

FSA—Farm Service Agency

FSIS—Food Safety and Inspection Service

FTA—Free Trade Agreement

FWS—The United States Fish and Wildlife Service

FY—Fiscal Year
100 150th Anniversary | United States Department of Agriculture

G

GE—Genetically Engineered

GIPSA—Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration

GLS—Guaranteed Loan System

GPRA—Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993

GUS—Guaranteed Underwriting Systems

H

HHS—United States Department of Health and Human 

Services 

HIT—High-Impact Targeted

I

ICC—Inter-Carrier Compensation

IFSAC—Interagency Food Safety Analytics 

Collaboration

IT—Information Technology

IWM—Irrigation Water Management

K

kWh—Kilowatt Hour

L

Lm—Listeria monocytogenes

M

MIDAS—Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of 

Agricultural Systems

MRP—Marketing and Regulatory Programs

N

NAP—Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program

NASA—National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NCP—National Conservation Planning Database

NDB—National Data Bank

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS—National Forest System

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRE—Natural Resources and Environment

NSLP—National School Lunch Program

O

OIG—Office of Inspector General OMB—Office of Management and Budget

P

P&SA—Packers and Stockyards Act

P&SP—Packers and Stockyards Program

PAR—Performance and Accountability Report

PRS—Performance Results System

ProTracts—Program Contracts Database
 Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Performance Report 101

Q

QC—Quality Control

R

RD—Rural Development

REAP—Rural Energy for America Program

REE—Research, Education, and Economics 

RMA—Risk Management Agency

S 

SBP—School Breakfast Program

SFH—Single Family Housing

SIP—Salmonella Initaitive Program

SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SP—Special Publication

SPA—Special Program Area

SPFI—Summary of Performance and Financial 

Information

SPS—Sanitary and Phytosanitary

SRA—Standard Reinsurance Agreement

STEC—Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli 

serogroup

T

TANF—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TB—Tuberculosis

TBT—Technical Barriers to Trade

TPP—Trans Pacific Partnership

U

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture

USF—Universal Service Fund

USTR—United States Trade Representative

W

WEP—Water and Environmental Programs

WHIP—Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

WIC—Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children

WRP—Wetlands Reserve Program

WSU— Washington State University

WUI—Wildland-Urban Interface