GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Agriculture, House of Representatives

April 2000 NATURAL

RESOURCES

CONSERVATION

SERVICE

Additional Actions

Needed to Strengthen

Program and Financial

Accountability

GAO/RCED-00-83

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: NRCS’ Strategic Objectives and Related Multiyear

and Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Targets 30

Appendix II: NRCS’ Organization Chart 32

Tables Table 1: NRCS’ New Accountability Databases—Types of Data

Collected, Planned Uses, and Status 13

Figures Figure 1: The Major Components of NRCS’ New Accountability

Approach 8

Abbreviations

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

O&E Oversight and Evaluation

PRMS Performance and Results Measurement System

TCAS Total Cost Accounting System

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WLA Workload Analysis System
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284675 Letr

April 7, 2000

Honorable Larry Combest

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) is the federal agency primarily responsible for conserving

and protecting natural resources on private lands, which constitute about

75 percent of all acreage in the contiguous United States. NRCS’ $1 billion

budget funds a variety of technical and financial assistance programs to

help farmers, ranchers, other landowners/managers, and communities

conserve and protect soil, water, and related resources on these lands.

NRCS has nearly 11,000 employees—with about three-fourths located in its

2,500 county offices—who work with individuals and communities to

develop conservation plans and apply conservation or resource

management practices on the land. The agency has not been successful in

gathering and analyzing information from these county offices to provide a

comprehensive picture of its activities and accomplishments. As a result,

the Congress, NRCS staff, and others have questioned the agency’s

accountability for how it spends its funds and what it has accomplished.

In 1998, in response to these criticisms, the Chief of NRCS called for a new

agencywide effort to improve accountability by providing better

information and analyses on how the agency uses its resources and what it

achieves with its funds. This information is needed internally to ensure that

NRCS is making effective use of its resources and externally for the

reporting needed to demonstrate this accountability to the Congress and

others.

Because of your interest in improved NRCS accountability, you asked us to

(1) describe the agency’s new approach and the status of its

implementation and (2) assess the extent to which the approach will

improve accountability. As NRCS was developing its approach to improving

accountability, it was also implementing the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), which seeks to improve the management

of federal programs by shifting the focus of decisionmaking from staffing

and activity levels to the results of federal programs. Under the Results Act,
B-284675

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

agencies are required to prepare strategic plans, annual performance plans,

and annual performance reports.

Results in Brief NRCS’ new approach to improving accountability is based principally on

implementing the requirements of the Results Act and establishing four

new databases to compile better information on the (1) agency’s

accomplishments, (2) full cost of programs and activities, (3) workload at

the local level, and (4) future workforce needs. In addition, NRCS’

Oversight and Evaluation staff, who conduct reviews to assess quality,

accountability, effectiveness, and consistency in the agency’s delivery of

conservation assistance, is an important part of the agency’s approach.

NRCS plans to use the information from its new databases to, among other

things, measure its progress towards meeting its strategic objectives, more

accurately account for staff time and funding, analyze workload to develop

budget proposals, and estimate future staffing levels and skills needs.

NRCS has taken substantial steps to put its new accountability approach in

place, but critical implementation tasks remain. NRCS has prepared

agencywide strategic and annual performance plans, as part of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s strategic and annual performance plans, which

were submitted to the President and the Congress. Its state offices have

also begun developing annual performance and business plans. The agency

has also used its performance goals to guide its allocation of fiscal year

2000 funds to its state offices. Equally important, NRCS has largely

completed the databases and begun using some of the information for

agency decisionmaking and reporting on its performance. However, the

databases do not yet contain all the data NRCS plans to include, and NRCS

has not yet completed verification and validation efforts to ensure that the

data are credible. These efforts are likely to take a year or longer.

Because NRCS’ new approach has not been fully implemented, it is too

early to determine the extent to which the approach will improve

accountability. If implemented as currently planned, NRCS’ approach is

likely to improve accountability by providing better information and

analyses on how the agency uses its resources and what it accomplishes.

However, we identified additional actions that NRCS could take to

strengthen its efforts. First, and most importantly, the agency could better

integrate the financial management function and the accountability

approach. Although NRCS’ accountability policy states that it is critical for

the agency to ensure accountability in its use of public funds, NRCS has not

included the financial management function—budget execution, funds

control, and financial reporting—in this policy. Moreover, responsibilities
B-284675

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

for NRCS’ accountability approach and for financial management are

organizationally separated. Financial management is an essential

ingredient of accountability, and without this integration, NRCS and the

Congress cannot be certain that the agency’s efforts to ensure

accountability for financial management and for program performance are

closely linked, are consistent, and support each other. For example, a key

element of financial management is providing reliable information on the

full cost of federal programs. While NRCS has taken actions to more

accurately account for its staff costs by program for its internal use, it

needs to develop methods to better account for other costs, such as

transportation and rent, and then fully incorporate these more accurate

cost data into its financial reporting. Unless the agency more accurately

accounts for its costs, it will continue to lack the financial information

needed for internal decisionmaking and for external reports to the

Congress and other stakeholders that demonstrate NRCS is implementing

its programs cost effectively.

Second, with respect to planning, the agency could make its annual

performance goals more results-oriented and better indicate progress made

during the fiscal year toward achieving its strategic, or long-term,

objectives. NRCS’ performance goals are primarily output-oriented, such as

conservation practices implemented on a certain number of acres. More

results-oriented performance goals, such as increasing the portion of the

nation’s grazing land without serious ecological or management problems,

would be more useful in judging NRCS’ (1) performance in carrying out its

mission to help conserve the soil, water, and related resources on private

lands and (2) achievements with a given level of funding. Although NRCS’

strategic and annual performance plans recognize the important

contributions that the agency’s partners, such as state conservation

agencies, make to achieving its strategic objectives and performance goals,

these plans could better articulate the extent to which achieving the

objectives and performance goals depends on these partnerships.

Finally, NRCS’ Oversight and Evaluation staff—who provide an important

internal review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s

programs, activities, and operations—could be more independent if they

were to report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief of NRCS, rather than

to one of the managers subject to review by the staff.

We are recommending that NRCS strengthen its approach to improving its

accountability by taking actions to improve financial management,
B-284675

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

strategic and performance planning, and the oversight and evaluation of its

programs and activities.

Background The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 established NRCS by combining the authorities

of the former Soil Conservation Service and other U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) financial or technical assistance programs for natural

resource conservation and rural development into the new agency. The

agency and its predecessor have carried out a program of soil and water

conservation on the nation’s private and nonfederal land since 1935. NRCS

is a decentralized agency, and its programs are principally implemented at

the state and local levels.

NRCS’ staff provide technical assistance to land managers and

communities in planning the use of, and protecting the soil, water, and

related resources on, private and nonfederal lands. For example, NRCS

staff advise farmers and ranchers on actions they can take to reduce soil

erosion; better manage their cattle, hog, and poultry wastes; and preserve

wildlife habitat. The staff also assist in other activities, such as installing

levees and repairing stream banks to help protect communities from flood

damage.

NRCS’ primary partners are state conservation agencies and local

conservation districts.1 Conservation districts, which total about 3,000

nationwide, are units of local government organized by citizens under state

law. According to NRCS, there are about 8,000 district and state

government employees, and in some field offices these employees

outnumber NRCS staff. These organizations support local conservation

efforts with their own programs and staff, who work closely with NRCS

staff to promote conservation on private lands. For example, NRCS, state,

and local employees, according to NRCS, work as a team, using the same

case files and technical assistance tools, such as computer programs for

predicting soil erosion and the effects of grazing practices on the health of

rangeland, to serve the local community.

1

According to NRCS, the agency also works closely with Resource Conservation and

Development Councils, which are composed of volunteers representing many units of

government and civic organizations within an area. These councils serve as catalysts for

drawing resources together from the private sector and all levels of government to solve

problems in their areas.
B-284675

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

NRCS Has Taken

Substantial Steps to

Put Its New

Accountability

Approach in Place, but

Critical

Implementation Tasks

Remain

NRCS is revising its processes for planning, budgeting, and performance

reporting to focus more directly on setting agencywide goals and holding

itself accountable for achieving these goals. The agency is creating new

databases to support these processes with better information on the

agency’s operations, especially at the local level, where most of its

employees work and where it primarily implements its programs. The

purpose of this information—including data on natural resource needs and

workload at the local level, program activities and accomplishments, full

cost of programs and activities, and staffing levels and skills—is to enable

agency managers to make more informed decisions about what the

agency’s goals should be, how they will assign responsibility for achieving

these goals to different parts of the organization, and what resources and

strategies they need to achieve the goals. NRCS also plans to use the

information to assess and report on its performance in achieving its goals

and to respond to congressional and other stakeholders’ requests for

specific data on conservation needs and agency programs and activities.

NRCS has revised its planning, budgeting, and performance reporting

processes and is beginning to use some of the information from the

databases. However, it still needs to complete the databases and take

actions to ensure that the information produced is accurate and credible.

According to NRCS officials, additional changes or adjustments in

planning, budgeting, and performance reporting may be needed to integrate

the information from the new databases and as the agency gains

experience with using the processes. As a result, it may be several years

before NRCS’ new approach will be fully operational.

NRCS Is Revising Its

Planning, Budgeting,

and Performance Reporting

Processes

to Focus on Achieving

Results

NRCS’ changes in its planning, budgeting, and performance reporting

processes are intended to address internal and stakeholders’ concerns

about its accountability and to implement the requirements of the Results

Act.2 Figure 1 shows the major components of NRCS’ approach and

illustrates how they are to be linked through the agency’s strategic

objectives and performance goals.

2

NRCS is also implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and legislation on

reforming information technology, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The Congress

enacted the Results Act in conjunction with these acts to instill performance-based

management in the federal government and to address the need for more effective and less

costly government.
B-284675

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Figure 1: The Major Components of NRCS’ New Accountability Approach

Note: This figure is based on information provided by NRCS officials. Its purpose is to show how these

components are linked by NRCS’ strategic objectives and annual performance goals. The figure does

not detail all the elements of each component or all the requirements of the Results Act.

Strategic Plan

Establishes long-term or strategic goals and objectives to achieve the agency's mission

Annual Performance Plan

Establishes performance goals for the fiscal year for each strategic objective in 

the strategic plan

Annual Budget

Provides the resources for the agency to achieve the performance goals for the fiscal year 

Budget Allocation

Distributes resources to the agency's organizational units to achieve their share of 

the performance goals for the fiscal year

State Performance Plans

Identify, by program, the portion of the agency's performance goals for the fiscal 

year to be achieved in each state

State Business Plans

Identify major actions, resources, and schedules to achieve the fiscal year performance goals 

Provide the mechanism for recording progress and maintaining funds integrity

Annual Performance Report

Discusses the agency's performance in achieving the fiscal year performance goals
B-284675

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

As the figure shows, NRCS’ approach attempts to integrate planning,

budgeting, and performance reporting through the use of strategic

objectives and annual performance goals. (See app. I for NRCS’ strategic

and fiscal year 2000 performance goals.) In addition to preparing

agencywide strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual

performance reports, NRCS is requiring its state offices to prepare annual

performance and business plans to help ensure that critical parts of the

organization are accountable for achieving the agency’s goals.3 Each state

office’s performance plan is to identify the portion of the overall agency

goals for which it is responsible. The state office’s business plan is to set

out how it will conduct its operations to achieve its performance goals.

When NRCS headquarters allocates budgetary resources to the state

offices, it is to include performance goals to be achieved with the

resources. These goals, which are subject to negotiation, are to represent

the state office’s share of the agency’s annual performance goals. Each

NRCS state office is to use the agreed-to performance goals to develop a

final performance plan. As these additional requirements suggest, NRCS’

field office employees are primarily responsible for carrying out the

activities needed to achieve the annual performance goals.

These strategic, performance, and business plans are to be the basis for

assessing the agency’s and the individual units’ performance. NRCS’ annual

performance report to the President and the Congress is the major

document for reporting on its performance in meeting its strategic

objectives and annual performance goals. In addition to this report, various

performance reports are to be provided internally to the agency’s

management and leadership. This information will be used to respond to

the Congress; USDA; and other stakeholders, such as the Office of

Management and Budget; on NRCS’ operations and accomplishments.

The status of NRCS’ efforts to improve its planning, budgeting, and

performance measurement and reporting processes in order to achieve

greater accountability is outlined below:

• Strategic planning. NRCS issued its first strategic plan under the Results

Act in September 1997, as a component of USDA’s plan. NRCS’ plan,

which covers fiscal years 1997 through 2002, described the agency’s

mission, established general goals and objectives, and set out strategies

3

NRCS is also requiring other parts of the agency, such as its regional and program offices, to

prepare business plans.
B-284675

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

and performance targets to achieve these goals and objectives. NRCS

expects to issue an updated plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 by

September 2000. According to the NRCS officials responsible for

strategic planning, the agency’s initial strategic plan was almost entirely

developed in response to departmental guidance, thus meeting broad

departmental needs but falling short of NRCS’ more detailed needs for

strategic planning. According to these officials, NRCS expects to

develop a strategic plan that meets departmental needs and provides the

greater detail and resource analysis it needs to guide its activities.

• Annual performance planning. NRCS has issued performance plans for

fiscal years 1999 (the first year required under the Results Act), 2000,

and 2001. These plans set out annual performance goals for the longterm goals in the strategic plan, present the strategies and resources to

accomplish these goals, and describe procedures to verify and validate

the agency’s performance information. NRCS officials said that the

availability of the new databases will make the performance plan a more

useful document for managing the agency. For example, NRCS officials

expect that the Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS),

which is the agency’s new database for its staff and partners to report on

program activities and accomplishments, will be used to determine if

performance on a specific element in the plan is behind or ahead of

schedule.

• Annual budget formulation. According to NRCS officials, the fiscal year

2001 budget formulation process has stressed identifying and providing

the resources to achieve the performance goals in the fiscal year 2001

performance plan. The performance goals will be revised, as necessary,

if the budget approved by the Congress differs substantially from the

request. NRCS officials said that the factors they consider in developing

their budget proposals include congressional direction; the agency’s

strategic and performance plans; the priorities of the NRCS Chief, the

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President; workload requirements;

partners’ recommendations and local resource conservation concerns;

and federal budget constraints.

• Budget allocation. According to NRCS officials, the agency allocated the

fiscal year 2000 funds to its organizational units on the basis of the

resources the units need to achieve their portion of NRCS’ performance

goals for the year. NRCS used a budget allocation team to provide

information to the NRCS managers responsible for recommending the

allocations to the Chief. According to the head of the allocation team,

this information included available performance data and data from the

workload analysis system on current staffing in NRCS’ field offices,

natural resource conservation needs in each state, the programs
B-284675

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

available to address these needs, and the accomplishments possible

under the programs in light of the resources needed to carry out

program activities. NRCS tested this process using its budget request for

fiscal year 2000.

• State performance and business planning. When NRCS informed its

state offices of the budget funds that they would receive for fiscal year

2000, it attached a set of draft performance goals that were based on

these offices’ share of the agency’s annual performance goals and

management initiatives. The state offices were to use these goals in

developing their performance and business plans for the fiscal year. In

January 2000, NRCS provided its state offices with a computerized

application for preparing their performance and business plans for fiscal

year 2000. This application was designed to ensure that the state offices

follow a consistent method in developing and maintaining their

performance and business plans. The resulting automation of the plans

will allow NRCS headquarters to monitor compliance with the

requirements for the plans and the state offices’ progress in

implementing them. According to NRCS officials involved in developing

the application, the agency was concerned that the state offices were

inconsistent in their development and use of these plans.

• Performance reporting. NRCS anticipates that its performance report

for fiscal year 1999 will be issued by March 31, 2000, as part of USDA’s

performance report under the Results Act. The agency is primarily using

information from its new database—the PRMS—on the agency’s

accomplishments to report on its progress in achieving its fiscal year

1999 performance goals. NRCS’ report is primarily based on data, by

performance goals, reported by 287 sample counties that began entering

information into the new database on October 1, 1998.

NRCS Has to Complete Its

New Accountability

Databases and Verify the

Information

In order to increase its accountability for the funds it spends and what it

accomplishes, NRCS is developing four new databases to obtain better

information on its (1) accomplishments, (2) full costs of programs and

activities, (3) workload at the local level, and (4) future workforce needs.

The databases are largely complete, but some important work remains to

be done. For example, NRCS has not developed a methodology for

incorporating nonpersonnel costs into its Total Cost Accounting System

(TCAS). These costs, which are estimated to represent 30 to 40 percent of

the agency’s costs, are needed to identify the full cost of programs and the

cost of achieving agency goals. In addition, NRCS has to verify and validate

the data to ensure that they are reliable and integrate the databases so that

reports and analyses can be produced using data from one or more of the
B-284675

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

databases. According to NRCS officials, the agency spent $793,000 during

fiscal years 1998 and 1999 on developing its new accountability databases.

The agency plans to spend about $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and may

need to conduct additional work beyond fiscal year 2000. At the same time,

NRCS staff need additional training on how to use the databases.

According to NRCS officials, this training is scheduled to begin in June

2000.

Table 1 describes the data to be collected by the new databases, planned

uses for these data, and the status of each database.
B-284675

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Table 1: NRCS’ New Accountability Databases—Types of Data Collected, Planned Uses, and Status

Database Examples of data to be collected Planned uses Status

Performance and Results

Measurement System

(PRMS)a

• Number of customers

assisted.

• Type of assistance

provided.

• Conservation practices or

treatments planned and

installed.

• Program results or

outcomes obtained from

other databases, such as

the National Resources

Inventory on natural

resource conditions.

• Contributions of NRCS’

partners, such as

conservation district staff.

• Measure progress

toward the goals in

NRCS’ strategic and

annual performance

plans.

• Support program

management, agency

accountability, and

resource allocation.

• Communicate NRCS’

accomplishments

internally and to the

Congress and other

stakeholders.

• On October 1, 1998, 287

NRCS field offices

began entering data.

These offices were

statistically selected to

be able to project

NRCS’ national

performance for fiscal

year 1999.

• As of February 2000,

approximately 2,100, or

84 percent, of field

offices were entering

data.

• Remaining 400 field

offices are scheduled to

begin entering data by

the end of June 2000,

when

telecommunication

problems associated

with accessing and

using the Internet are to

be resolved.

• NRCS state offices

began entering data in

February 2000. NRCS to

provide related training

to state-level staff

during February and

March 2000.

• NRCS to provide

additional training to

partnership staff in

fiscal year 2000, after

telecommunication

problems are resolved.

Continued
B-284675

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Total Cost Accounting

System (TCAS)

• NRCS employees’ time

charges reported on a

biweekly basis by 30

programs and 10 activities.

(The Actual Cost Recovery

Evaluation System

summarizes the data and

calculates the personnel

costs of programs.)

• Data on nonpersonnel

costs, such as office space

and transportation, from

NRCS’ financial

management system.

• Enhance accountability

over how NRCS staff

use their time by

program and activity.

• Determine actual costs

of NRCS’ programs.

This information to be

used in setting

priorities, establishing

strategic and annual

performance goals, and

determining what

budgetary resources are

needed to accomplish

goals.

• Data on fiscal year 1999

time charges collected

but not made available

to agency managers

because of incomplete

data. Fiscal year 2000

data being made

available to managers

beginning in January

2000.

• NRCS employees

generally do not enter

their time charges

directly into TCAS via

the Internet, which is

planned to save costs

and reduce the number

of errors. NRCS to

provide additional

training to staff and

phase in Internet entry

from June 2000 to

January 2001.

• Data on nonpersonnel

costs, which may

account for 30 to 40

percent of the agency’s

costs, according to an

NRCS official, have not

been incorporated.

NRCS has not selected

the methodology for

incorporating these

costs. NRCS is

uncertain when it will

complete this task

because it is focusing its

efforts on implementing

USDA’s new financial

management system in

NRCS by October 1,

2000.

Database Examples of data to be collected Planned uses Status
B-284675

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Workload Analysis System

(WLA)

• Resource conservation

problems or needs at the

local level.

• Time required by discipline

for employees’ activities at

the field level to address

resource conservation

problems, as defined by 28

core work activities or

products.

• NRCS’ and partners’ staff

by office, location, and

discipline.

• Determine the shortand long-term

conservation workload

and the human resource

needs of NRCS and its

partners at the field

level.

• This information to be

used in strategic

planning to identify

future staffing needs

and in deciding on

strategic goals and

objectives.

• Budget formulation, to

consider the impacts of

budget proposals.

• Budget allocation and

performance planning,

to determine what can

be accomplished with

available staff resources

and to make staffing

plan modifications.

• Program management,

to estimate the effects

of alternative staffing

levels and priorities and

to identify workforce

gaps.

• Workload analyses

completed for fiscal

years 1999, 2000, and

2001. The 2001 data

made available to

managers in February

2000. Hereafter,

analyses are planned for

every 3 years.

• A blue ribbon panel is to

review and validate the

latest WLA data during

fiscal year 2000.

• By May 2000, NRCS to

develop and implement

a process for updating

and maintaining

staffing/office

information.

Database Examples of data to be collected Planned uses Status

Continued from Previous Page
B-284675

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

a

These data can be entered on a real-time basis via the Internet.

These new databases are replacing other agency databases that were

ineffective or difficult to use. For instance, according to NRCS officials, the

previous system that employees used to report their time charges for

specific programs and activities consisted of seven separate systems that

generated inconsistent data and lacked detailed information on how time

was spent. The prior performance measurement system, the National

Information Measurement System, collected more data but, according to

NRCS officials, was difficult to use and required an excessive amount of

time, both for data entry and for validation and verification to ensure

consistent national data. NRCS is integrating its databases in a phased

approach that began in June 1998 and is expected to continue through June

2000.

NRCS has not completed the task of verifying and validating the data from

its new accountability databases. Completing this task is critical to

ensuring that the data are accurate and reliable and therefore useful.

Credible performance information is essential for accurately assessing an

agency’s progress towards achieving its goals—the cornerstone of

performance reporting. NRCS’ effort to verify and validate the data will

take time. For example, to verify the data in each of its accountability

database systems, NRCS began to develop and implement a quality

assurance strategy in November 1999, and this effort is expected to

continue through at least fiscal year 2000.

Workforce Planning System

(WFP)

• Staffing levels and skills

needed to address

resource conservation

needs and priorities over

the next 5-year period,

gaps in what staff and

skills are available, and

strategies to bridge the

gap.

• Estimate future staffing

and skill needs. Similar

to the WLA, these data

to be used in strategic

planning, budget

formulation and

allocation, and

performance planning.

• Pilot test of the WFP

completed in October

1999. First 5-year WFP

to be completed in

October 2000. To be

updated annually.

• During February and

March 2000, NRCS is

providing training to its

regional and state staff

on the workforce

planning process and

using the automated

computer system.

Database Examples of data to be collected Planned uses Status

Continued from Previous Page
B-284675

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

As part of this strategy, NRCS plans to have its Oversight and Evaluation

staff extensively review the accuracy of data from the databases at the end

of fiscal year 2000.4 Earlier, in fiscal year 1999, the staff’s limited survey

found data accuracy problems with three of the databases—PRMS, TCAS,

and WLA—in the eight field offices reviewed. The staff reported that if

these problems are widespread, the data will be of limited use for agency

decisionmaking, financial reporting, and supporting congressional budget

initiatives. According to NRCS officials, training for all field-level

employees on how to use the accountability databases will occur during

the summer of 2000 in response to the staff’s findings. The officials said

that this 1 to 2 days of training should help to improve the quality of the

data in the databases.

Fully Implementing

NRCS’ Planned

Approach Can Improve

the Agency’s

Accountability, but

Additional Actions

Could Strengthen It

Because NRCS’ new approach has not been fully implemented, it is too

early to determine the extent to which it will improve accountability. For

example, NRCS has to complete the new databases and ensure that the

information they produce for agency managers and stakeholders is

accurate and reliable. Even if the databases, which are critical to the

success of NRCS’ approach, produce the right types of information, their

usefulness is limited if the data are not credible. It appears that the

approach, if implemented as currently planned, will provide NRCS with the

means to set agencywide goals, determine the resources and strategies

needed to achieve them, hold the different parts of the agency responsible

for achieving the goals, and report on its performance. Under the approach,

the agency’s strategic, annual performance, and business plans are

established as key accountability documents. According to NRCS, the goals

set out by these plans are commitments that are the basis for assessing the

agency’s performance in carrying out its mission. In addition, the new

databases, when completed, will provide considerable data on the agency’s

use of its staff and other resources and its program activities and

accomplishments so that agency managers and stakeholders can make

more informed decisions.

Nonetheless, in reviewing NRCS’ planned approach to improving

accountability, we identified three ways that the agency can strengthen the

approach: (1) better integrating its financial management policies and

4 NRCS’ Oversight and Evaluation staff, who are located in the agency’s Operations

Management and Oversight Division, review quality, accountability, effectiveness, and

consistency in the agency’s delivery of conservation assistance.
B-284675

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

procedures and the approach; (2) enhancing its planning process to include

more outcome-oriented goals, better tracking of progress towards these

goals, and better reporting of partners’ contributions; and (3) enhancing the

independence of its oversight and evaluation staff.

NRCS Has Not Fully

Integrated Financial

Management and the New

Approach

While effective financial management is critical to the success of NRCS’

approach to improving accountability, NRCS has not fully integrated

financial management and its approach. NRCS’ accountability policy states

that it is critical for NRCS to ensure accountability in its use of public

funds, but NRCS did not include the financial management function—

budget execution, funds control, and financial reporting—in this policy.

Organizationally, responsibilities for accountability and for financial

management are separate. The Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and

Accountability has the lead on developing NRCS’ approach to improving

accountability, while the Deputy Chief for Management is responsible for

financial management and other management functions. (See app. II for

NRCS’ organization chart.) Until financial management and NRCS’

approach are fully integrated, NRCS and the Congress cannot be certain

that NRCS’ efforts to ensure accountability for financial management and

for program performance are closely linked, are consistent, and support

each other.

To be fully accountable for its funds, NRCS needs to be able to effectively

control and provide reliable, useful, and timely information on how it

spends them. Neither NRCS nor USDA’s Inspector General has conducted a

comprehensive review of the agency’s financial management system,

financial statements, or financial management polices and practices.

Nevertheless, the Inspector General found problems with certain aspects

of NRCS’ financial management system in an audit performed in response

to a whistleblower complaint. Specifically, an Inspector General’s review

during fiscal year 1999 found a number of material weaknesses in NRCS’

financial management system. These weaknesses allowed an employee to

make payments from NRCS’ financial management system to himself or

others and then change the payee’s name to disguise the improper

payment. In this case, as of March 10, 1999, the Inspector General had

found more than $300,000 in improper payments from August 1994 through

October 1998. According to an official in the Office of the Inspector

General, NRCS has actions under way to correct these problems.
B-284675

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

The USDA Inspector General’s report on the Department’s consolidated

financial statement, issued in February 1999, concluded that it is difficult to

know how well or poorly an agency within USDA has performed financially

because USDA’s current financial management system is unable to provide

accurate and timely accounting and financial reporting.5 The Inspector

General and we have both reported on USDA’s long-standing history of

financial management deficiencies and its lack of financial accountability

over billions of dollars in assets. 6 According to the Inspector General,

USDA has efforts under way to implement a new departmentwide financial

management system.7 But the Inspector General believes that USDA’s

financial management problems will continue at least until 2002, and

possibly longer.

A key element of financial management is providing reliable information on

the full cost of federal programs. During the course of our review, we

identified an NRCS financial management policy that can misstate the

actual costs of individual programs or activities—charging staff time as

budgeted rather than actually worked.8 Some NRCS staff work on different

programs and activities during the year that are funded by different

appropriation accounts, according to NRCS officials. However, although an

individual employee may work on more than one program, that employee’s

time will be charged to one funding account throughout the fiscal year. In

addition, other expenses, such as travel, training, rent, printing and

supplies, are assigned to one funding account at the beginning of the fiscal

year. As a result, costs are accounted for throughout the fiscal year as

planned at the start of the fiscal year rather than on the basis of actual

costs.

5

U.S. Department of Agriculture Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 1998

(Audit Report No. 50401-30-FM, Feb. 1999).

6

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Agriculture (GAO/OCG99-2, Jan. 1999); Forest Service: Barriers to Financial Accountability Remain (GAO/AIMD99-1, Oct. 2, 1998); Forest Service: Status of Progress Toward Financial Accountability

(GAO/AIMD-98-84, Feb. 27, 1998).

7

USDA’s new financial management system is called the Foundation Financial Information

System.

8

NRCS refers to this as its “Offset Policy; Base Offset Method.”
B-284675

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

As we reported on the Forest Service in October 1999,9 the policy of

charging as budgeted and not as worked often misstates a project’s costs by

underestimating the costs to one account and overstating the costs to

another. In addition, this practice precludes NRCS from providing the

Congress and other interested parties with meaningful, useful, and reliable

information on the costs of its programs and activities. Moreover, the

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires that

federal agencies follow federal financial accounting standards and that

financial management systems support disclosure of the full cost of federal

programs and activities. Specifically, the Statement of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards, is

aimed at providing reliable information on the full cost of federal programs,

their activities, and their outputs.

NRCS has been following its charged-as-budgeted-but-not-as-worked policy

for the last 13 years, according to an NRCS official. Originally, this policy

was instituted to reduce the administrative burden on field staff. NRCS

recognizes the importance of collecting data on actual time worked. Since

October 1998, NRCS has required field staff to report their time charges by

programs and activities—currently, 30 programs and 10 activities—into

TCAS but has not changed its financial management policy to report actual

time worked in its financial management system. NRCS is reviewing its

current financial policies and procedures as part of its process of

implementing USDA’s new financial management system in NRCS by

October 1, 2000. According to USDA and NRCS officials, this review

presents an opportunity for NRCS to consider revising this policy.

NRCS Can Enhance Its

Planning Process

While we found that NRCS’ strategic and annual performance plans provide

a foundation for directing the agency’s activities and assessing its

performance, we believe that the plans could be improved in three areas:

(1) making strategic objectives and annual performance goals more

outcome-oriented, (2) using annual performance goals to track progress

toward strategic objectives, and (3) having annual performance plans

better indicate how NRCS’ partners are to contribute to the agency’s

performance goals. First, the plans’ annual performance goals and strategic

objectives could be oriented more to achieving outcomes, rather than

9

Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability (GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2, Oct.

13, 1999); Forest Service Management: Little Has Changed as a Result of the Fiscal Year 1995

Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec. 2, 1998).
B-284675

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

outputs, which are the direct products and services delivered by a program,

such as the development of a conservation plan for a landowner. In

contrast, outcomes are the results of these products and services, such as

reduced soil erosion or more productive land. Goals are more useful to the

agency, the Congress, and other decisionmakers in judging the results to be

achieved for a given level of resources if they are not expressed as program

outputs but rather as program outcomes.

According to NRCS, the agency’s activities contribute to three broad

national outcomes: (1) sustainable, productive, and prosperous farms,

ranches, and communities; (2) healthy people; and (3) a healthy natural

environment. These broad, overarching outcomes, which are the ultimate

desired effects of the agency’s programs, are referred to by NRCS as end

outcomes. They are long-term and often depend on subjective or qualitative

measures to assess progress. Intermediate outcomes support the

achievement of end outcomes and are based on more discrete and

quantifiable components of the end outcomes. For example, an

intermediate outcome under the first broad national outcome is a reduction

in soil erosion from wind and water. Soil erosion ultimately can adversely

affect the land’s productivity and farmers’ prosperity.

According to our analysis of NRCS goals, its annual performance goals are

primarily expressed as outputs, such as resource management systems

applied on a certain number of acres. Additional outcome goals in the

annual performance plan, such as the amount of soil erosion prevented or

the net gain in wetlands acreage, would better communicate the program

results the agency intends to achieve for the fiscal year with the budgetary

resources it receives. However, the annual data on natural resource

conditions that would be needed to use outcome measures in annual

performance plans have not been routinely available. For example, NRCS’

National Resources Inventory of natural resource trends, such as soil

erosion and the loss of wetlands, has been done every 5 years—the last 2 in

1992 and 1997. According to NRCS officials, the agency has efforts under

way to implement an inventory approach that includes collecting these

data on a continuing basis, which would provide frequently updated

information on natural resource conditions. The availability of timely data

on natural resource conditions could make it possible to include more

outcome goals in annual performance plans. At a minimum, it would allow

NRCS to increase its reporting on outcomes in its annual performance

reports.
B-284675

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Unlike its annual performance goals, NRCS’ strategic objectives in its

strategic plan are generally expressed as outcomes. However, they are

expressed as intermediate outcomes, rather than as the end outcomes that

could better indicate the agency’s performance in carrying out its mission

of helping people conserve, improve, and sustain the nation’s natural

resources and environment. According to NRCS officials, in early 1999 the

agency identified 18 potential outcomes to be considered for use in future

strategic planning. These potential outcomes, according to the officials,

include end outcomes, such as the number of healthy watersheds, and

additional intermediate outcomes, such as reductions in the amount of

agricultural nutrients and pesticides that end up in surface and

groundwater. The agency has established technical teams to develop

strategies for developing these outcome measures.

Second, NRCS’ strategic and annual performance plans would be more

useful if the annual performance goals could more easily be used to track

the progress made during a particular fiscal year toward achieving the longterm strategic objectives. For example, NRCS has a strategic objective of

“45 percent of U.S. rangeland having no serious ecological or management

problems by 2002.” A related annual performance goal in NRCS’ fiscal year

2000 performance plan is that resource management systems will be used

on 5.8 million acres of grazing land.10 It is not clear from the performance

plan that the use of these resource management systems will result in the

grazing land’s having no serious ecological or management problems. The

performance plan also does not readily indicate what portion the 5.8

million acres of grazing land represents of the 45 percent of rangeland with

no serious problems. NRCS’ increased use of outcome goals in annual

performance plans would provide a greater opportunity to better link

annual performance goals to strategic objectives.

Finally, NRCS could improve its performance plans if it better conveyed

how its partners, such as state agencies and local conservation districts,

are to contribute to the agency’s performance. According to NRCS’ fiscal

year 2000 performance plan, partnership is key to the agency’s

conservation efforts. NRCS officials told us that the agency and its partners

often work together in providing technical assistance to an individual

landowner or community. The officials said that NRCS and its partners

10NRCS defines resource management systems as a combination of conservation practices

and management that, when implemented, prevents resource degradation and permits

sustained use.
B-284675

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

have begun to use PRMS to report on these accomplishments. According to

the officials, although NRCS’ and its partners’ portion of these individual

accomplishments cannot easily be quantified, this information on the

accomplishments achieved jointly by NRCS and its partners could help

convey how partners are contributing to NRCS’ goals. (See app. I for NRCS’

strategic objectives and fiscal year 2000 performance goals.)

Current Organizational

Placement of NRCS’

Oversight and Evaluation

Staff Reduces Their

Independence

NRCS’ Oversight and Evaluation (O&E) staff provide an important internal

review function for the agency. These staff conduct surveys and

comprehensive and limited studies to assess quality, accountability,

effectiveness, and consistency in delivering conservation assistance.

Because of NRCS’ decentralized organization, the oversight and evaluation

function is an important feedback mechanism on how well agency policies

and requirements are being implemented. It is also an important part of

NRCS’ approach to improving accountability because internal reviews

provide information on the agency’s performance by evaluating the

effectiveness and efficiency of NRCS’ programs, activities, and operations.

Given the importance of this function and the need for independence from

the activities it reviews, O&E staff should be reporting to the Chief or

Associate Chief of NRCS. Instead, in October 1999, the oversight and

evaluation function was centralized at NRCS headquarters within the

Operations Management and Oversight Division. The head of this division

reports to the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability. The

Deputy Chief is to establish the agency’s oversight and evaluation priorities

semiannually for review by and concurrence with the agency’s leadership.

Review proposals can be offered to the Operations Management and

Oversight Division at any time. The O&E staff plan and implement the

reviews. (See app. II for the agency’s organization chart.)

Considering the major role that the oversight and evaluation function has in

NRCS’ approach to improving accountability, it is important that the O&E

staff and their work continue to be viewed within and outside the agency as

unbiased and credible. We are concerned that over time the O&E staff’s

independence will be reduced because the staff report to one of the deputy

chiefs responsible for activities that are subject to review by the office.

That is, this official—the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and

Accountability—manages and establishes NRCS’ policies and procedures

for the agency’s strategic and annual performance planning, budget

formulation and allocation, and performance measurement and reporting

processes. These policies, procedures, and processes are subject to review
B-284675

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

by the O&E staff. For example, during 1999, this staff reviewed the

accuracy of the agency’s new accountability databases. The O&E staff plan

a more comprehensive review of the databases at the end of fiscal year

2000.

In addition, the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability

coordinates the priority-setting and budget allocation processes. The

results of oversight and evaluation reviews are to be used, along with other

evaluative information, in assessing the performance of the agency’s

organizational units and programs. Performance is a factor in deciding on

priorities and the allocation of funds to individual units. In our opinion,

over time, as planning and budget allocation decisions are made, these

units may perceive that the deputy chief is (1) competing with them for

resources or (2) has preconceived views on performance, priorities, and

the allocation of funds.

Independence is generally recognized as a key component of the evaluation

function. Generally accepted government auditing standards used by

federal inspector generals, other federal auditors, and nonfederal auditors

when auditing federal organizations, programs, activities, and functions

require independence in all matters related to the audit work.11 This

standard places responsibility on the internal and external auditors and the

audit organization to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions,

judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as

impartial by knowledgeable third parties. Recognizing that independence

can be affected by the location of the auditors within the structure of the

organization, the standards state that audit organizations should report the

results of their work and be accountable to the head or deputy head of the

organization and should be organizationally located outside the staff or line

management function of the unit under audit.12 In the case of NRCS, the

head and deputy head would be the Chief and Associate Chief.

Conclusions NRCS’ efforts to improve its accountability have not been fully

implemented, and it is too early to determine the extent to which these

efforts will be successful. These efforts are designed to implement the

11The term “audit” includes both financial and performance audits.

12Government Auditing Standards: 1994 Revision (GAO/OCG-94-4, June 1994).
B-284675

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Results Act and to provide considerable information on NRCS’ use of funds

and its accomplishments, which have been major accountability concerns.

However, a critical step remains—integrating financial management and

the approach. Financial management is the cornerstone of accountability

and needs to be treated equally with other management functions, like

planning and evaluation, that ensure accountability. In a fully integrated

accountability approach, the agency’s goals and objectives, federal

resources used to accomplish the goals and objectives, and actual results

are closely linked and create an effective process for improving program

management and accountability. Integrating financial management may

require NRCS to overcome organizational barriers associated with

coordination across functional areas. Until financial management and its

approach are fully integrated, NRCS cannot be certain that its efforts to

ensure financial accountability and its efforts to ensure accountability for

program performance are closely linked, consistent, and support each

other.

In addition, NRCS’ current policy of charging staff time and other costs as

budgeted and not as worked can misstate the costs of NRCS’ programs.

NRCS’ efforts to develop a database of actual time charge costs by program

show that the agency recognizes the importance of more accurately

accounting for its costs by program. However, methods to better account

for the other costs have not been developed and implemented. In addition,

NRCS has not taken the necessary steps to integrate these more accurate

cost data into its financial management reporting. Without more accurately

accounting for its costs, NRCS will continue to lack the financial

information it needs for internal management decisionmaking and external

reporting to the Congress and other stakeholders to demonstrate that it is

implementing its programs in a cost-effective manner.

One important aspect of NRCS’ new accountability approach is that it is

intended to be results-oriented. However, the agency’s strategic and

performance goals do not always address the results or outcomes that

NRCS is working to achieve. If these goals are not expressed as program

outcomes, they are less useful to NRCS and the Congress in judging the

results to be achieved for a given level of resources. Furthermore, the

strategic and annual performance plans do not articulate the contributions

of NRCS’ partners, such as state conservation agencies and local

conservation districts, toward achieving the agency’s goals. The plans

recognize the importance of these partnerships to the agency’s success but
B-284675

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

do not convey the extent to which achieving the goals depends on the

partnerships.

Finally, the independence of NRCS’ Oversight and Evaluation staff is

reduced because the staff do not report to the head of the agency. Oversight

and evaluation of NRCS programs, activities, and operations is critical to

the efficient and effective use of NRCS resources and the operation of such

a decentralized organization.

Recommendations To help ensure the success of NRCS’ efforts to improve its accountability,

we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief, NRCS, to

take the following actions:

• Improve the integration of financial management and the accountability

approach by (1) revising the agency’s strategic planning and

accountability policy to make financial management an integral part; (2)

developing a plan, including a methodology and time frame, to

incorporate nonpersonnel costs into its total cost accounting database

in order to provide accurate information on program costs; and (3)

evaluating alternatives and taking appropriate actions to more

accurately account for costs reported by its financial management

system.

• Incorporate into future strategic and annual performance plans (1) goals

that better represent the desired outcomes of the agency’s programs and

(2) a better articulation of partners’ contributions to the agency’s goals.

• Have the Oversight and Evaluation staff report directly to the Chief or

Associate Chief to better ensure that it maintains its independence.

Agency Comments We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.

We met with NRCS officials, including the Deputy Chief for Strategic

Planning and Accountability. These officials generally agreed with the draft

report. However, they disagreed with our recommendation to have the

Oversight and Evaluation staff report directly to the Chief or Associate

Chief of NRCS. According to the officials, the current placement of the staff

under the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability is

working well, and the staff is independent. The officials further said that

the agency recently made improvements in the oversight and evaluation

function by consolidating the staff, which were located in the regional

offices, into NRCS headquarters. The officials also provided a number of
B-284675

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

technical comments or suggestions, which we incorporated, as

appropriate.

We continue to believe that NRCS’ Oversight and Evaluation staff should

report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief to ensure their

independence. We are concerned that, even if the staff’s opinions,

conclusions, judgments, and recommendations are not impaired by their

current location in the agency’s organizational structure, this location

could lead others to question their independence. As recognized by

generally accepted government auditing standards, perceptions that the

staff are not independent will reduce their credibility and thus their

effectiveness. Because of the importance of the oversight and evaluation

function, NRCS cannot risk impairing the staff’s ability to effectively

evaluate the agency’s programs and operations. For these reasons, we have

not changed our recommendation.

Scope and

Methodology

To describe NRCS’ overall approach to improving its accountability, we

interviewed the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability and

various officials of the offices responsible for developing and/or

implementing aspects of the new approach, including the divisions for

Budget Planning and Analysis, Operations Management and Oversight,

Strategic and Performance Planning, and Financial Management. In

addition, we reviewed various NRCS documents, including schematic

depictions of how the new approach is to work, the agency’s July 1999

strategic planning and accountability policy statement, and written plans

for various components of the approach.

To determine the status of NRCS’ efforts to implement its approach, we

interviewed the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability and

officials of the various offices, such as the Strategic and Performance

Planning Division, that are responsible for implementing the approach.We

also interviewed officials at NRCS’ Information Technology Center in Fort

Collins, Colorado, about the status of the technical development of the new

accountability databases. Furthermore, we reviewed reports and other

documents on the status of the development and implementation of the

agency’s revisions to its planning, budgeting, and performance

measurement and reporting processes and development of the databases.

We compared the status to implementation plans and timelines for the

various components of the approach and reviewed various implementation

documents, such as training guides for entering and using information in
B-284675

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

the new databases. We also accessed the agency’s Internet web sites to

determine the databases’ completeness and current capabilities.

To assess the extent to which the approach will improve accountability, we

compared and contrasted NRCS’ plans for its new approach with its

accountability needs. To determine its needs, we reviewed NRCS’ analysis

of concerns raised within the agency and by its stakeholders, including

congressional committees, the Office of Management and Budget, and

representatives of state and local conservation agencies. We also reviewed

congressional hearings concerning NRCS during fiscal years 1998 and 1999

and prior reports on NRCS activities by GAO, the USDA Inspector General,

and NRCS’ O&E staff. In addition, we interviewed program officials at

NRCS headquarters and in the states of California, Georgia, Iowa,

Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin. Furthermore, we analyzed the

agency’s strategic and annual performance plans and draft performance

report to determine if the measures were sufficient to track annual

progress, as well as to provide useful information to agency managers and

stakeholders.

We conducted our review from July 1999 through March 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days. At that

time, copies of this report will be sent to the congressional committees

with jurisdiction over NRCS and its activities; the Honorable Dan

Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew,

Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies

available to others on request.
Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

5138. Key contributors to this report were Triana D. Bash; Andrea W.

Brown; James L. Dishmon, Jr.; and Raymond H. Smith, Jr.

Sincerely yours,

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Director, Food and

Agriculture Issues
Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Appendix I

NRCS’ Strategic Objectives and Related Apendxies

Multiyear and Fiscal Year 2000 Performance

Targets ApendxIi

Strategic objectives Multiyear performance targets FY 2000 performance goals

Healthy and productive cropland

sustaining U.S. agriculture and the

environment.

• By 2002, the acreage of non-highly

erodible cropland eroding above T (soil

loss tolerance level) will be cut by onethird from 1992 levels.

• By 2002, the acreage of highly erodible

cropland eroding above 2T will be cut

by one-third from 1992 levels.

• By 2002, 50 percent of U.S. cropland will

be managed with conservation systems

that enhance soil quality.

• 4 million acres of cropland

protected against excessive

erosion.

• Included in the above measure.

• Resource management systems

applied on 6 million acres of

cropland.

Healthy watersheds providing clean

and abundant water supplies for

people and the environment.

• By 2002, NRCS and its partners will be

completing 100 priority watershed

projects each year that meet the goals

set by local communities for water

supply, water quality, or flood

protection.

• By 2002, helped landowners and

communities establish 2 million miles of

buffer strips to protect watersheds and

water supplies.

• Nutrient management systems

applied on 2.9 million acres.

• 9,300 animal waste management

systems assisted.

• $914 million in annual flood

prevention benefits achieved.

• Irrigation water management

resulting in a reduction of 7.2

million acre-inches of water

applied.

• 940,000 miles of conservation

buffers for water quality and

wildlife established (cumulative).

Healthy and productive grazing land

sustaining U.S. agriculture and the

environment.

• By 2002, 45 percent of U.S. rangeland

will have no serious ecological or

management problems.

• By 2002, 60 percent of U.S. permanent

pastureland will have no serious

ecological or management problems.

• By 2002, 65 percent of rangeland

acreage with streams will have no

serious streambank erosion taking

place.

• Resource management systems

applied on 5.8 million acres of

grazing land.

• Included in above measure.

• Included in above measure.

Continued
Appendix I

NRCS’ Strategic Objectives and Related

Multiyear and Fiscal Year 2000 Performance

Targets

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Healthy and productive wetlands

sustaining watersheds and wildlife.

• By 2000, helped landowners and

communities increase wetland

functions on agricultural land.

• Wetland creation or restoration

systems applied on 200,000 acres.

• Wildlife (wetland and upland)

habitat management applied on

3.8 million acres.

High-quality habitat on private land

supporting the nation’s wildlife

heritage.

• By 2002, 20 million acres of cropland or

pastureland will be converted to native

grassland vegetation in the Midwest and

the Great Plains.

• By 2002, riparian habitat along 600 miles

of rivers, streams, lakes, or wetlands

will be restored.

• Targets to be established for

native grassland conversion.

• Practices included in the

conservation buffer measure

above are indicators of work on

riparian restoration.

A strong and effective grassroots

conservation partnership across the

United States and its territories,

commonwealths, and affiliated

governments.

• (NRCS is no longer using the targets

originally set out in its 1997 strategic

plan for this strategic objective because

they focused on internal agency

process. Starting in fiscal year 2000,

annual performance goals are being set

on the basis of the number of group and

areawide plans developed, which NRCS

officials believe are better

representative of its efforts under this

strategic objective.)

• 2,500 group and area-wide plans

developed.

(According to NRCS, the agency did

not establish a strategic objective in

its 1997 strategic plan for

forestlands because its role in this

area is not as large as in other

areas. NRCS is including these

performance goals because

forestland was identified as a priority

concern in five of the agency’s six

regions.)

• Forest stand improved on 270,000

acres.

• Trees and shrubs established on

308,000 acres.

Strategic objectives Multiyear performance targets FY 2000 performance goals

Continued from Previous Page
Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-83 NRCS’ Accountability Approach

Appendix II

NRCS’ Organization Chart ApendxiI

Office of the Chief

Associate Chief 

Conservation 

Communication 

Staff

Civil Rights Staff

Strategic Natural 

Resource Issues

Staff

Legislative Affairs

Staff 

Deputy Chief 

for Strategic 

Planning and 

Accountability

Deputy Chief

 for Science and 

Technology

Deputy Chief for 

Programs

Deputy Chief for 

Soil Survey and 

Resource 

Assessment

Deputy Chief for 

Management

Budget Planning

and Analysis Division

Operations Management

and Oversight Division 

Resource, Economic

and Social Sciences

Division

Ecological Sciences

Division

Strategic and

Performance Planning

Division 

Conservation

Engineering

Division 

Conservation

Operations

Division 

Resource Conservation

and Community 

Development Division

Watersheds and

Wetlands Division 

International

Programs Division

Animal Husbandry

and Clean Water

Programs Division

Soil Survey

Division

Management

Services

Division 

Human Resources 

Management 

Division

Information

Technology 

Division 

Special Projects 

Division 

NRCS Outreach

Division

Resource 

Inventory

Division

Resource 

Assessment

Division

National

Headquarters

Administrative

Support Division

Financial

Management

Division 

East Region Southeast

Region 

South Central

Region 

Northern Plains

Region Midwest Region West Region

(150154) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00