FY 2002 

Annual Performance Plan 

and Revised Plan for 

FY 2001

United States

Department of

Agriculture

June 2001
Additional copies of this Annual Performance Plan can be downloaded

from USDA’s Home Page at www.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, National origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a compliant of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan

and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Table of Contents

1

Section Page

Message from the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Performance Goals

Strategic Goal 1: Expand Economic and Trade Opportunities 

for U.S. Agricultural Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Strategic Goal 2: Promote Health by Providing Access to 

Safe, Affordable and Nutritious Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Strategic Goal 3: Maintain and Enhance the Nation’s 

Natural Resources and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the Capacity of All Rural Residents,

Communities and Businesses to Prosper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Strategic Goal 5: Operate an Efficient, Effective and 

Discrimination-Free Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 Program Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Appendix A: Data Verification and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Appendix B: Major Management Challenges and Program Risks . . .100

Appendix C: Revisions to the USDA Strategic Plan for 

FY’s 2000 - 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Message from the Secretary

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), I am

submitting the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Annual Performance Plan for fiscal

year (FY) 2002 and Revised Plan for FY 2001. GPRA mandates that this Plan be based on

the Department’s current strategic plan for FY’s 2000-2005, which was prepared by the

previous Administration. 

Because I have only recently returned to the Department and do not yet have my full

leadership team in place, I have not yet thoroughly reviewed the Department’s strategic

plan. While this document begins to align the Department’s strategic and performance

goals with the priorities and FY 2002 budget request of the new Administration, more

remains to be done. Once USDA’s full leadership team is in place, we will be working with

Congress and the Department’s clientele as we conduct a top-to-bottom review of the way

we deliver our programs and will develop new strategic and annual performance goals to

carry out this Administration’s priorities.

To meet legislative requirements in the meantime, I am submitting this plan which sets

targets for USDA’s performance based on the resources USDA is requesting in FY 2002.

USDA’s FY 2002 budget request reflects commitments to:

• Expand overseas markets for American agricultural products by strengthening

USDA’s market intelligence capabilities and ability to resolve technical trade issues

with foreign trading partners.

• Expand and strengthen analytical capabilities in food safety and inspection functions.

• Continue actions to combat pest and disease infestations, reform crop insurance, and

provide livestock price reporting.

• Redirect USDA research to provide new emphasis for: 1) improving protection

against plant and animal diseases and pests, 2) biotechnology, and 3) the development

of new agricultural products. 

• Fund 7,600 meat and poultry inspectors without reliance on user fees, in addition to

fully supporting other USDA food safety and inspection activities. 

• Maintain average monthly participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) at the 2001 projected level of 7.25

million individuals, and fully fund the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition programs.

• Support housing for almost 60,000 low to moderate income rural families and provide

access to clear, safe drinking water for poor, rural residents.

• Provide conservation assistance to landowners, farmers, and ranchers.

• Maintain funding for priority activities in the Forest Service’s wildland fire

management plan, including hazardous fuels reduction. 

3

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001
Funding for emergency needs, such as Forest Service firefighting, emergency watershed 

and conservation activities is addressed in 2002 through a $5.6 billion National Emergency

Reserve. In addition, the President’s budget proposes a $1 trillion Government-wide

reserve for unforeseen needs over the next 10 years, which could be tapped for emergency

assistance to farmers. Tax-deferred Federal Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts

are proposed to allow farmers to set aside a substantial percentage of their net farm income

during times of economic downturns. 

The FY 2002 budget and this plan also emphasize a critical overarching theme of the 

Bush Administration—creating a citizen-based, market-driven and well-managed Federal

Government with its commitments to better customer service, modern information systems,

and accurate and timely financial statements.

I understand the importance of strategic and annual planning to ensuring that the priorities

of this Administration are met; and as the Department’s leadership comes on board, we will

be carefully reviewing the important national issues that USDA must address. 

Ann M. Veneman

Secretary

4

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001
Introduction

In this Annual Performance Plan, submitted in accordance with the Government

Performance and Results Act, USDA presents its Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Performance

Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2001. This document supports USDA’s Revised

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 by laying out annual performance goals and

targets, planned activities to pursue those goals, a description of efforts to verify and

validate performance data, and initiatives to address the management challenges faced by

USDA. Through these efforts, USDA will advance year-to-year goals in support of the

broader 5-year strategic plan.

The Department’s revised strategic plan was the beginning of a corporate approach to

performance management. This plan builds on that effort by presenting USDA’s first

Department-wide annual performance plan. This document makes some minor revisions to

the strategic plan (see Appendix C for details) and is supported by agency-level annual

performance plans that offer greater detail on specific topics. The agency-level plans

include focused performance goals and targets that keep USDA on pace to reach the

broader goals laid out in this Department-wide document. The agency-level annual

performance plans also provide information on evolving strategies, priorities, and resource

needs. Combined with agency-level annual performance reports that document recent

progress toward the Department’s long-term strategic goals, these Department-wide and

agency-specific performance management plans form a mosaic of accountability for USDA

to all of its shareholders – the American people.

5

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001
Overview

Goal 1: 

USDA’s mission is to enhance the quality of life for the American people by supporting

production agriculture; ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply;

caring for public lands and helping people care for private lands; supporting sound

sustainable development of rural communities; providing economic opportunities for farm

and rural residents; expanding global markets for agricultural and forest products and

services; and working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.

This annual performance plan is structured to transform this mission into measured

strategies and goals for which the Department can be held accountable, if given appropriate

resources. 

The strategic goals, objectives, and key outcomes contained in this plan are depicted in the

following table. 

Fiscal Years 2002 and Revised 2001 Annual Performance Plan Summary 

Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Key Outcomes 

Expand economic and trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers.

Objective 1.1: Provide an effective safety net and promote a strong, sustainable U.S. farm

economy.

Key Outcomes:

• Improve market income for U.S. farmers.

• Reduce the number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks in the U.S.

• Improve fair, open, and competitive marketing of U.S. agricultural products. 

• Improve the economic sustainability of family farms. 

6

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Allocation of FY 2001 Budget

to Program Goals

Allocation of FY 2002 Budget

to Program Goals

GOAL 1

40%

GOAL 3

9%

GOAL 2

36%

GOAL 4

15%

GOAL 1

36%

GOAL 3

9%

GOAL 2

41%

GOAL 4

14%
Goal 2:

Goal 3:

Fiscal Years 2002 and Revised 2001 Annual Performance Plan Summary 

Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Key Outcomes 

Objective 1.2: Expand market opportunities for U.S. agriculture.

Key Outcomes:

• Expand sales opportunities for U.S. agriculture despite the increasing competitiveness 

of international and domestic markets.

• Expand the market for biobased products and biofuels. 

Promote health by providing access to safe, affordable and nutritious

food.

Objective 2.1: Reduce hunger and improve nutrition among children and low-income

people in the United States.

Key Outcomes:

• Significantly improve food security for children and low-income people.

• Support real improvement in the diets of those served by USDA nutrition assistance 

programs.

• Improve the nutritional quality of USDA food benefits.

• Improve stewardship of Federal nutrition assistance programs. 

Objective 2.2: Reduce hunger and malnutrition around the world.

Key Outcome:

• Make a significant contribution to reducing world hunger and malnutrition. 

Objective 2.3: Protect the public health by significantly reducing the prevalence of

foodborne hazards.

Key Outcome:

• Reduce the incidence of foodborne illness related to meat, poultry, and egg products 

in the U.S. 

Objective 2.4: Improve public health through nutrition education, promotion, and research.

Key Outcome:

• Improve diets among the general public. 

Maintain and enhance the Nation’s natural resources and environment. 

Objective 3.1: Maintain the productive capacity of the natural resource base for future

generations.

Key Outcomes:

• Maintain the resource health and productive capacity of non-Federal cropland,

grazing lands, and forestlands.

• Reduce erosion damage on cropland.

• Reduce risk of fire. 

7

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001
Goal 4: 

Goal 5: 

Fiscal Years 2002 and Revised 2001 Annual Performance Plan Summary 

Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Key Outcomes 

Objective 3.2: Protect the quality of the Nation’s environment.

Key Outcomes:

• Protect air and water quality, as well as watershed health.

• Enhance urban environments.

• Maintain wetlands values and wildlife habitat.

• Clean up contaminated sites on USDA-managed facilities and lands, and restore 

affected ecosystems and watersheds. 

Objective 3.3: Provide multiple benefits to people from the Nation’s natural resources.

Key Outcomes:

• Provide sustainable production of goods and services from the National Forests and 

Grasslands. 

• Improve the satisfaction of visitors to the National Forests and Grasslands.

• Maintain benefits from watershed protection infrastructures.

• Foster natural resource development to improve the economies of rural communities. 

Enhance the capacity of all rural residents, communities, and businesses

to prosper.

Objective 4.1: Expand job opportunities and improve the standard of living in rural

communities.

Key Outcomes:

• Create and save jobs in rural areas.

• Increase rural homeownership.

• Provide safe drinking water to rural residents.

Objective 4.2: Ensure the neediest rural residents and communities have equal access to

USDA programs that will help them succeed.

Key Outcome:

• Increase assistance to the neediest rural communities.

Operate an efficient, effective, and discrimination-free organization. 

Objective 5.1: Ensure that USDA provides fair and equitable service to all of its customers

and upholds the civil rights of its employees.

Key Outcomes:

• Conduct civil rights impact analyses of all significant USDA regulations to assess 

their effects on underserved customers.

• Provide full and equal access to USDA programs in a discrimination-free 

environment.

• Establish in every agency effective outreach programs that target underserved 

customers.

• Ensure timely resolution of program and equal employment civil rights complaints. 

8

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001
9

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Years 2002 and Revised 2001 Annual Performance Plan Summary 

Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Key Outcomes 

Objective 5.2: Improve organizational productivity, accountability and performance.

Key Outcomes:

• Ensure USDA has the information systems needed to allow customers to securely 

share data and receive services electronically.

• Ensure USDA has a financial information system that can produce auditable financial 

statements and provide reliable and useful information for decision-making.

• Ensure USDA has a skilled, satisfied workforce and strong prospects for retention of 

its best employees.

• Ensure USDA has a facilities environmental management system that can produce 

reliable data on the Department’s environmental performance.

• Ensure USDA acquires recurring commercial services in the most cost effective way. 
10

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategic Goal 1

Expand economic and trade opportunities

for U.S. agricultural producers

USDA Resources FY 2001 FY 2002

Dedicated to Goal 1 Estimate Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 41,546 34,333 

Staff Years 32,716 32,437 

The landscape for U.S. farmers and ranchers is being rapidly transformed by a number of

convergent forces, such as quick changes in biological and information technology,

environmental and conservation concerns, greater threats of agricultural pests and diseases

spreading across continents, and the recent spate of natural disasters. U.S. producers also

are deeply affected by the continuing industrialization of agriculture and globalization of its

markets. 

These trends, coupled with recent dramatic changes in U.S. farm policy and ongoing efforts

to trim Federal spending, make creative solutions necessary to ensure the long-term

profitability of U.S. agriculture. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996 overhauled 60 years of National farm policy, placing a greater emphasis on

conservation and increased planting flexibility for farmers. However, it also left U.S.

farmers and ranchers with an imperfect safety net, at a time when farmers and ranchers are

being buffeted by destructive forces beyond their control – from powerful storms to weak

markets. Additional protection has been provided by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act

of 2000, which makes crop insurance more affordable to farmers, including those who

suffer multi-year losses. This legislation also redoubles USDA’s effort to develop new and

effective risk management tools by expanding research and development and improving

existing insurance products. Congress has provided emergency funding to fill in the gaps,

but alternatives must be put in place.

Percent of FY 2002 USDA Resources Dedicated to this Goal

Program Level Staff Years

GOAL 1

40.0%

60.0%

GOAL 1

29.7%

70.3%
11

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

The FY 2002 President’s Budget includes an almost $1 trillion fund over 10 years for

unseen needs such as these experienced by the farming sector. In addition, the budget

includes a tax incentive, known as Federal Farm and Ranch Risk Management accounts,

that would allow farmers and ranchers to reserve a substantial percentage of their net farm

income in a tax deferred account that could be drawn on during economic downturns.

A critical component of any safety net and a priority of this Administration is expanding

access to global markets. Every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports supports 15,200 U.S.

jobs, and generates more than $1.25 billion in additional domestic economic activity. Twothirds of the jobs supported by farm exports are located in urban and suburban areas due to

the many steps – processing, packaging, storage, and transport - required to move products

from the farm to markets around the globe. While agricultural trade presents tremendous

opportunities to the U.S. farm economy, global competitiveness has grown much more

intense, cutting into U.S. dominance of world agricultural markets. Achieving a level

playing field for global agricultural trade must be a high national priority in order to

promote a strong, market-driven U.S. farm economy.

The Administration is committed to working with Congress to maintain a safety net and

formulate sound farm policies for the future.
12

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 1.1

Provide an effective safety net and promote a strong, sustainable 

U.S. farm economy

Maintaining profitable operations is the only avenue to running a successful farm or ranch.

While factors such as market conditions, weather, and plant and animal diseases can play an

important role, the efficiency of a farm’s production system largely determines whether the

operation will be economically viable. For this reason, helping farmers and ranchers

increase the profitability of their operations is important not only to a strong farm economy,

but also to the Department’s goal of decreasing farmers’ and ranchers’ dependence on

government assistance. 

In difficult times, a farm safety net helps to protect the men and women who feed this

country and much of the world. Today, the primary components of the safety net are farm

loans and income support, as well as crop insurance and other risk management tools

designed to help mitigate the inherent risks of farming that are outside a producer’s control.

A 21st century farm safety net also needs to be responsive to the rapidly changing nature of

global markets and recognize the interdependencies of the food chain. An appropriate

safety net needs to include a broader range of activities, from increasing the efficiency and

sustainability of farming and ranching operations to protecting U.S. agriculture from

invasive species and diseases that can threaten regional farm economies. Many of these

activities are heavily dependent on USDA’s efforts to develop new production practices and

technologies that help farmers and ranchers mitigate the risks and seize the opportunities of

modern production agriculture. In particular, biotechnology, appropriately used, holds great

promise in terms of helping U.S. agriculture address major concerns, from pests and

diseases to extreme drought conditions. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture co-chairs

the Interim National Drought Council that was established to coordinate Federal drought

programs to ensure that the Government response is provided effectively, efficiently, and in

a customer-oriented manner.

The majority of farm income assistance is provided through production flexibility contracts,

loan deficiency payments, and marketing assistance loans. Production flexibility contracts,

established in FY 1996 and ending in FY 2002, provide eligible producers with annual

fixed, but declining payments. These payments are aimed at easing farmers’ transition to a

more market-oriented U.S. farm economy. Approximately 1.2 million producers will

receive an estimated $4.1 billion worth of these payments in FY 2001 and $4 billion in FY

2002. Marketing assistance loans provide producers with interim financing to store eligible

commodities until market conditions improve, so cash-strapped producers are not forced to

sell immediately after harvest when commodity prices are typically lowest. Loan

deficiency payments compensate producers of major field crops for the difference between

the posted county prices and the Commodity Credit Corporation’s marketing assistance loan

rates. 

By using its traditional income support programs and expanding its risk management

efforts, USDA will work to promote a more market-oriented U.S. farm economy. The

Department’s efforts to support the long-term success of U.S. agriculture also will

encompass efforts to: reduce the number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks; ensure

fair, open and competitive marketing practices, and secure a strong future for America’s

small, family farmers through targeted efforts to address their unique needs.
13

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Key Outcome: Improve market income for U.S. farmers.

The United States government provides assistance to farmers and ranchers during difficult

times. If USDA is to achieve its strategic goal of promoting a strong farm economy that is

less dependent on government support, then the Department must also place a heavy

emphasis on helping farmers and ranchers pro-actively manage the risks inherent in

agriculture. For this reason, discussion of this key outcome measure is divided into two

sections: direct government income assistance and USDA’s risk management efforts. 

Direct Farm Income Assistance

USDA will continue to use agricultural commodity, income support and other programs to

help productive, efficiently managed farms and ranches weather the highs and lows that are

a fact of life in agriculture. The Department also will aggressively use research and

education efforts to help producers lower their costs and improve their efficiency in order to

enhance their farm income. In addition, USDA will explore options to further expand

growing markets for biobased products, opening up another vein of economic opportunity

on the farm. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.1.1 Farmers’ total cash receipts from 189 194 202 202

the sale of farm products ($ Bil).* 

1.1.2 Gross cash farm income from cash 225 234 234 234 

receipts, government payments, and other 

farm income sources ($ Bil).* 

1.1.3 Percentage of gross cash farm 84.0 83.0 86.2 86.2

income from the market (%).* 

* Based on data available on a calendar year basis.

Strategies:

• Use agricultural commodity, income support and other USDA programs, within the

flexibility allowed by the law, to accommodate changing production, market, trade, and

environmental conditions facing producers.

• Enhance the competitiveness of American agriculture through research and education

efforts that help farmers and ranchers reduce production costs, improve production

efficiency and enhance environmental stewardship.

• Provide timely and impartial agricultural statistics, including information on total cash

receipts and number of farms to illuminate USDA’s efforts to support a strong, marketoriented U.S. farm economy.

Risk Management 

The primary responsibility of the Risk Management Agency is to administer the Crop

Insurance Program. The program is expected to provide over $36 billion in risk protection

on about 222 million acres in 2002. This represents about 84 percent of the Nation’s acres

planted to principal crops.
14

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Significant reforms to the program were enacted in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of

2000 (ARPA). Provisions of ARPA that increased the subsidy rates for crop insurance were

implemented for the 2001 crop, and will remain in place for 2002. In response, farmers

have already begun to buy higher levels of coverage, for example 75 percent of production

and 100 percent of expected market price. Further, more farmers are choosing revenue

insurance, which protects them against market losses as well as production losses. These

trends are expected to continue through 2002.

ARPA also includes provisions for pilot programs, including one for livestock insurance,

risk management education, cost sharing for risk management practices in states with low

crop insurance participation, and contracts for obtaining private sector expertise for

compliance and research and development. All of the provisions are being implemented

during 2001.

USDA will continue to work closely with the private sector to develop and deliver a variety

of products to help U.S. agricultural producers manage yield, market, and other risks faced

in their operations. In the future, expanded education and outreach efforts will increase

agricultural producers’ awareness of new risk management opportunities. Already, new

opportunities cover a range of strategies and programs, such as risk management clubs, the

Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) crop insurance program and the Dairy Options Pilot

Program (DOPP). Risk management clubs are groups of agricultural producers and

business people who meet regularly for the purpose of risk management education. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.1.4 Producers have economically 

sound risk management tools available,

and they use them to meet their needs:

• Number of insurance plans available 138 146 147 149

(crop year* data).

• Total crop insurance premium 2,304 2,526 3,174 3,105

($ Thous – crop year* data).

• Participation – Planted acres of 73.0 78.0 84.3 84.2

principal crops as reported by NASS

(other than hay) that are insured 

(% - crop year* data).

• Total insurance in force

($ Thous – crop year* data). 30,862 34,277 37,325 36,803

*As defined in the Revised FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan

Strategies:

• Increase public and private involvement in all aspects of USDA’s risk management

efforts through contracting and partnerships, for the research and development of

policies and other risk management tools.

• Identify and reach underserved areas and producers with risk management education

through farm publications, education courses, public and private partnerships and other

effective means.
15

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Increase producer participation by providing insurance coverage for more crops, and

making other new innovative risk management tools available.

• Expand pilot programs to include two or more livestock pilot programs, a wild salmon

pilot program, a premium rate reduction pilot program, and a cost share pilot program.

• Increase risk management education through information technology, such as web-based

distance learning.

• Evaluate and improve process for private companies submitting and gaining

approval/disapproval of alternative products.

Key Outcome: Reduce the number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks in the U.S.

A key way USDA helps ensure a strong U.S. farm economy is by safeguarding the Nation’s

animal and plant resources from invasive pests and diseases. These pests and diseases often

threaten not only U.S. agriculture, but also human health, trade opportunities and national

security. The Department works to exclude exotic pests from the U.S. and quickly detect

and respond to those that are introduced, minimizing production losses, maintaining market

viability, and containing environmental damage. As a key member of the National Invasive

Species Council, USDA works with other countries and Federal agencies to deploy a range

of strategies to safeguard the many pathways by which exotic pests and diseases could enter

the U.S. The Department also partners with Federal and State agencies, industries, and

professional organizations to maintain an effective, science-based ability to quickly detect,

respond to, and eliminate outbreaks of invasive pests and diseases. As more and more

travel and trade occurs across international borders, the management of these activities has

become increasingly complex. 

USDA will devote increased resources to inspecting passenger baggage and cargo at U.S.

ports of entry. The Department also will continue its vigilance abroad, closing loopholes at

key points of entry for invasive species to reduce the chances they will wreak havoc on U.S.

agriculture. By enforcing existing penalties, pursuing the potential of science and new

technologies, and working to enhance the Nation’s preparedness to deal promptly and

effectively with pest and disease outbreaks, USDA will advance its efforts to provide this

vital protection to the U.S. agricultural production system. USDA will maintain a high

degree of compliance with restrictions despite growing numbers of international air

travelers.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.1.5 Reduce the number and severity 

of pest and disease outbreaks in the U.S.:

• International air travelers complying 95.8 95.2 95.4 95.6

with restrictions to prevent entry of 

pests and diseases (%)*.

• States and Territories meeting standards 0 0 5 10

for state animal health emergency 

management systems (# Cumulative). 

*Actual compliance rates may vary as much as 0.5 percent due to the margin of error associated with statistical

sampling.
16

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Devote additional resources to inspection of incoming people and cargo.

• Assess which agricultural products are likely to carry exotic pests and diseases and

establish appropriate, science-based quarantine regulations. Promote awareness of the

value of these regulations to help the public and importers understand the need for

compliance.

• Inspect passenger baggage and cargo at points of origin as well as aircraft, ships, trains,

and other vehicles, at U.S. ports of entry. 

• Enforce penalties for those who are caught carrying prohibited products to deter future

violations. 

• Maintain an adequate team of animal and plant health experts to address emergencies

quickly and effectively.

• Develop appropriate mechanisms to promptly deploy resources to address pest and

disease emergencies.

• Assist states in meeting national standards for state animal health emergency

management systems. 

• Develop new technologies and processes that will protect the U.S. agricultural

production system and American consumers from pests and diseases.

• Ensure adequate funding for the costs of animal and plant health safeguarding activities

through user fees where feasible.

Key Outcome: Improve fair, open, and competitive marketing of U.S. agricultural

products.

USDA in recent years has expanded its economic, legal, and computer expertise to address

industry structure and competition issues, and to better enforce the fair trade practice

provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Investigations focusing on preventing

anti-competitive behavior are complex and often demand sophisticated analyses. Timely

completion of these investigations requires significant human and capital resources. 

USDA will keep a watchful eye over new procurement and sales practices in order to

prevent anti-competitive behavior. It also will conduct vigorous investigations and more

complex investigations and, where appropriate, seek compensation for the victims of unfair

marketing procedures.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.1.6 Promote fair and competitive 

marketing for livestock, meat and 

poultry: 

• Investigations (#). 1,218 1,898 1,800 1,800

• Violations corrected/issues resolved 98 96 96 96

within 1 year of investigation’s 

starting date (%). 

• Monetary recovery to livestock 12.6 17.1 18.0 19.0

producers and poultry growers 

resulting from enforcement of the 

Packers and Stockyards Act ($ Mil). 
17

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Monitor and analyze new and evolving procurement and sales practices to prevent anticompetitive behavior.

• Strengthen actions to identify and reduce anti-competitive practices in the livestock,

meat, and poultry industries. 

• Investigate the trade practices of packers, live poultry dealers, livestock dealers and

market agencies to detect fraudulent, discriminatory or unfair practices.

• Ensure accurate weighing and accounting procedures for the purchase and sale of

livestock, meat and poultry. 

Key Outcome: Improve the economic sustainability of family farms.

Family farms have been critical to the fabric of American society throughout the Nation’s

history. Today, as has been true through U.S. history, the vast majority of the Nation’s

farms are small. The continued viability of these family farms is important to the wise

stewardship of our biological and natural resources, and to the social fabric and

sustainability of rural communities. 

USDA’s farm loan programs are an important source of credit to family farmers who cannot

obtain commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. Often these borrowers are

beginning and/or socially disadvantaged farmers who have limited resources. Frequently,

these also are farmers who have suffered financial setbacks over which they had no

control–often due to natural disasters or adverse market or production conditions. To assist

these producers, USDA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans.

Guaranteed loans are made by conventional agricultural lenders and guaranteed by USDA

for up to 95 percent of any loss. Applicants unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan may be

eligible for a direct loan from USDA. Demand for USDA direct and guaranteed loans

increased greatly in the past few years as a result of the economic downturn in the

agricultural sector. Demand is expected to remain high in FY 2001 and 2002. 

In addition to farm ownership and operating loans, emergency loans are offered by USDA

to restore or replace essential property, pay all or part of production costs associated with

the disaster year, pay living expenses, reorganize the farming operation, and refinance

debts.

Because USDA serves small and family-sized farmers, its direct farm loan portfolio carries

a high degree of risk. As such, it has been identified as a major management challenge for

the Department. A key indicator of the program’s financial integrity is the loss rate on

direct loans. This indicator also provides valuable information on the financial status of

borrowers. A low loss rate indicates that producers are able to meet their financial

obligations and are likely to continue farming. Despite continued low commodity prices

and numerous natural disasters, the loss rates have remained low in recent years. This

positive trend can be attributed to increased government assistance, which helped maintain

farm income and temper financial hardships for producers. Maintaining low loss rates will

be a significant challenge in the coming years, as commodity prices remain weak and many

producers are still recovering from the effects of recent natural disasters.
18

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.1.7 Maintain the percentage of small 93 93 93 93

farms in relation to total U.S. farms at 

the 1999 level (%). 

1.1.8 Increase the amount of farm 984.9 993.3 1,026.0 1,120.0

operating and ownership loans made or 

guaranteed to beginning and socially 

disadvantaged farmers ($ Mil). 

1.1.9 Maintain a low loss rate on direct 3.5 4.2 5.2 5.8

loans (%). 

Strategies:

• Support research, development, regulatory and outreach efforts that focus on small

farmers’ needs, for example, by helping small and family-sized farms develop alternative

enterprises, value-added products and marketing cooperatives.

• Foster marketing, development, credit and outreach programs that improve the

competitiveness of family farms and give priority to farmer-owned and farm-based

businesses, especially those that encourage local and regional competition and that

directly channel consumer dollars to small farmers through, for example, farmers

markets.

• Encourage all USDA agencies and partners to emphasize through their programs that

sustainable agriculture helps ensure that small farmers are successful in the long run and

operate in environmentally sound ways.

• Enhance understanding of small farm financial success by examining the relative

contributions of these farms’ natural resource endowments, production practices, and

government assistance.

• Work with commercial lenders to improve the guaranteed loan program to expand

lending to creditworthy underserved producers.

• Continue aggressive outreach efforts, targeting beginning and socially disadvantaged

farmers and ranchers with financial and technical assistance to help them establish and

maintain profitable farming operations.

• Implement an aggressive supervised credit program through quality farm assessments,

which are essentially long-range business plans summarizing a producer’s goals and

strategies to achieve them.

• Continue to use prudent underwriting practices, borrower supervision, and loan servicing

tools to maintain low loss rates.

• Continue to streamline direct and guaranteed loan regulations so that more resources can

be focused directly on helping farmers succeed in the marketplace.
19

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 1.2

Expand market opportunities for U.S. agriculture

Expanding market opportunities for U.S. agriculture is central to USDA’s goal of improving

the economic livelihood of farmers and ranchers. USDA must work to expand U.S.

agriculture’s export markets—by enforcing existing trade agreements and by pursuing

greater access to world markets for American agricultural products—and by enhancing

domestic marketing endeavors—from promoting farmers markets to exploring the potential

of new biobased products.

Given that 96% of American agriculture’s potential customers reside outside the Nation’s

borders, international trade presents an immense opportunity to strengthen the U.S. farm

economy. Yet in recent years, global agricultural markets have grown far more competitive.

Foreign governments and their agricultural companies have almost doubled their market

development funding while similar resources from the U.S. government and U.S.

companies have remained essentially flat. Best estimates from 1998 have foreign

competitors investing approximately $700 million more in market development activities

than the U.S

International agricultural trade negotiations provide a critical avenue for expanding access

to overseas markets. USDA is working closely with the U.S. Trade Representative’s office

to secure agreements that ensure fairness and improve U.S. access to global agricultural

markets. The World Trade Organization (WTO) began a new round of multilateral

agricultural trade talks in 2000. U.S. objectives for these negotiations include the

elimination of export subsidies, greater limitations on trade-distorting domestic supports,

substantial reductions in all import tariffs, increases in tariff-rate quotas, disciplines on state

trading enterprises, and rules to ensure market access for products of new technologies.

Negotiations also are continuing to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. A

major objective for these negotiations is the elimination of export subsidies for trade in the

Western Hemisphere.

Biotechnology is one of the fastest growing and most sensitive trade issues in U.S.

agriculture today, and is presenting U.S. agriculture with some of its most trade-threatening

issues. The use of biotechnology in the United States has greatly outpaced its use in any

other country in the world. This has created an experience gap between the U.S. and the

rest of the world, and presents some very complex market access and market intelligence

challenges in the marketing of U.S. products abroad. The President’s FY 2002 budget

provides additional funding to bolster the Department’s capabilities to address and resolve

technical trade issues, including those related to biotechnology.

USDA also seeks to improve the domestic marketing of agricultural products. To ensure a

level playing field, USDA makes critical market data available to all producers to inform

their selling and marketing decisions. In addition, USDA provides protections to producers

selling highly perishable commodities. A key way to improve domestic marketing is by

tailoring food and fiber products to satisfy niche markets. USDA works to help producers

and processors learn how to respond to new consumer demands, and seize more

opportunities to grow their bottom line.

USDA also will work in the coming years to create more opportunities for direct

agricultural marketing in order to keep a greater share of the consumer’s food dollar on the
20

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

farm. In addition, the Department will work to enhance domestic markets for agricultural

commodities and by-products. Through research and other efforts, USDA can assist in the

development and promotion of new value-added, biobased products, expanding market

opportunities for American agriculture, and enhancing business activity, especially in rural

areas. 

Key Outcome: Expand sales opportunities for U.S. agriculture despite the increasing

competitiveness of international and domestic markets.

USDA will work aggressively to regain U.S. agriculture’s share of global food and fiber

markets. The Department also will work to strengthen and expand domestic markets for

U.S. agricultural products and provide timely and accurate market information to assist

producers with their marketing decisions. 

International Markets 

The year 2000 was a productive year for U.S. agricultural trade. Exports turned the corner

after a disappointing FY 1999, registering nearly two billion dollars in sales growth. This

trend is expected to continue in 2001, with agricultural exports forecast to reach $53.5

billion, up $2.6 billion over FY 2000. Much of the gain is expected in Asia, as that region’s

economic growth continues to rebound from the financial crisis of 1997-99. Export

prospects are promising in both value and volume for most major commodities. Yet there

still remains much work ahead to reverse the long-term decline in U.S. share of global food

and fiber markets. 

USDA has set a goal to increase the U.S. market share of global agricultural trade from its

current 18.2 percent level to 22 percent by 2010. To meet this aggressive goal, USDA will

develop a global long-range marketing plan that enlists the Department’s vast network of

domestic and foreign field offices in an unprecedented effort to expand market opportunities

for U.S. producers. Reclaiming the 22 percent share of the world market that the U.S.

enjoyed in the early 1990s is an ambitious but attainable goal. 

A focus on emerging markets must be balanced with the need to maintain a strong U.S.

presence in mature markets that American companies have established over the last 20

years. Exporters, for example, will continue to attend established trade shows in mature

markets, but USDA will shift its support of U.S. firms to shows in emerging markets in

order to help U.S. exporters offset the initial costs and risks involved in capturing these new

opportunities. The benefits of this strategy will be substantial. Given the expected level of

global agricultural trade by 2010, a 3.8 percent increase in U.S. market share will translate

into a gain of $14 billion in U.S. exports and an estimated $3.5 billion rise in farm income. 

USDA will pursue expanded access to foreign markets through the enforcement of existing

trade agreements and the pursuit of more free and fair agricultural trade, with a particular

emphasis on reducing trade barriers facing products of biotechnology that have faced

stringent U.S. safety requirements. Additionally, USDA will complement its efforts to

expand foreign market access with a global marketing campaign aimed at recapturing U.S.

share in world agricultural markets. In support of these activities, the President’s budget

provides increased funding to strengthen USDA’s overseas market intelligence capabilities.

This will enable the Department to address more effectively foreign government policies

and other issues that affect the competitiveness of U.S. exports.
21

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.2.1 Increase the U.S. market share of

global agricultural trade.

• Estimated trade opportunities preserved 1,995 837 2,200 2,200

annually by assuring implementation of

existing trade agreements by signatory

countries through the WTO notification

process ($ Mil).1

• Gross trade value of markets created, 2,527 4,3492 2,500 2,700

expanded or retained annually due to

market access activities other than

WTO notifications and/or standards 

($ Mil).

• Annual sales reported by U.S. 315 367 300 300

exporters from on-site sales at 

International trade shows ($ Mil).

• U.S. agricultural exports supported by 3.0 3.1 3.8 3.9

USDA export credit guarantee 

programs ($ Bil).

1 These key performance goals illustrate the impact of trade negotiations and enforcement monitoring upon

USDA’s high-level goal of expanding U.S. access to foreign markets. Constant monitoring and negotiating new

agreements add tremendous value to current and U.S. exports. Intercessions by USDA’s overseas field offices on

behalf of U.S. exporters experiencing in-country problems also add significant value to U.S. exports. This is

related to the USDA request to bolster market intelligence capabilities at its overseas posts.

2 Includes $2.0 billion attributed to negotiations on China’s accession to the WTO in FY 2000.

Strategies:

• Develop a global long-range marketing plan that enlists USDA’s vast network of

domestic and foreign field offices in an unprecedented effort to assist U.S. producers in

capturing new market opportunities. 

• Partner with private U.S. market development groups to leverage resources aimed at

expanding market opportunities abroad for U.S. food and agricultural products.

• Expand U.S. access to foreign markets through active participation in the World Trade

Organization and other international trade forums.

• Continue to monitor existing international trade agreements and negotiate new

agreements to open overseas markets to U.S. food and agricultural products.

• Support free and open trade in biotechnology products that have met stringent U.S.

regulatory requirements.

• Develop educational programs for U.S. producers, processors, and exporters to

strengthen their marketing skills and export finance knowledge, including “Learn how to

export your product” workshops.

Domestic Markets

Critical to USDA’s efforts to expand sales opportunities is its work enhancing consumer

access to safe, affordable, high-quality food and fiber. USDA facilitates the efficient

marketing of U.S. agricultural products through marketing standards and by carrying out a

variety of information, technical assistance, grading, certification, inspection and laboratory
22

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

services. The Department will continue to deliver timely market information, even as the

number of markets covered dramatically increases under newly instituted mandatory

livestock price reporting. More sophisticated grain quality measurement methods will be

implemented. USDA also will work to improve wholesale and other direct marketing

facilities to encourage farmers markets and other endeavors that connect consumers directly

with the men and women who produce their food, keeping a larger percentage of America’s

food dollar on the farm.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

1.2.2 Increase the efficiency of U.S. 

grain marketing:

• Critical grain quality measurement 94 107* 100 100

methods evaluated for improvement (%).

• Number of new or improved grain 49 18 13 14

quality measurement methods 

implemented (#). 

1.2.3 Improve market efficiency by 

reporting timely and accurate market 

information: 

• Market News reports released on 90 92 93 93

time (%). 

• National Agricultural Statistics 99.8 99.8 100 100

Service reports released on time (%). 

1.2.4 Improve food marketing efficiency

by providing research and technical

assistance on new and upgraded 

wholesale, collection and farmers market

facilities, food distribution, and marketing

methods:

• Number of projects completed (#). 7 10 10 10

* Estimated to conduct 29 method evaluations and completed 31.

Strategies:

• Improve the accessibility of inspection and weighing information; develop new,

streamlined inspection and weighing processes; and develop new or improved objective

measures of end-use grain quality.

• Collect and disseminate time-sensitive market information for domestic and foreign

markets and ensure the data is accurate and consistent with market needs.

• Provide commodity quality grading/certification services, including third-party

assessments of product quality and condition (paid for by interested buyers and sellers)

and a national certification program for organic foods.

• Improve wholesale and other direct marketing facilities and commodity handling to

enhance opportunities for farmers, emphasizing facility-based markets such as

wholesale, farmers’, collection, and public markets.

• Provide timely and impartial agricultural statistics, including data on total cash receipts

and number of farms.
23

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Key Outcome: Expand the market for biobased products and biofuels.

USDA-supported research is developing technologies that will enhance the range of uses

for agricultural commodities and byproducts. Of particular promise, is a new USDA

research program carried out in collaboration with the Department of Energy. This effort

focuses on developing biobased products and biofuels—products made from renewable

resources that can meet environmental needs, reduce dependence on petroleum-based

products, and expand market opportunities for U.S. agriculture. As an example of the

promise of these new markets, new biobased lubricants hold the promise of allowing

American agriculture to penetrate the $5.1 billion lubricant market.

In addition to developing new biobased products, the Department will create new ways to

ensure their efficient mass-production and processing. This will expand the range and value

of these agricultural products while reducing production costs, making U.S. processed

goods more competitive. The Department will also facilitate commercialization of biobased

products by creating federal market demand. USDA will compile lists of accepted biobased

industrial products by categories, such as lubricants, construction materials, and bioplastics,

available for purchase by Federal Departments and agencies promoting the use of these

products by the Federal government. 

The Department is also attempting to facilitate additional use of bioenergy (ethanol and

biodiesel) by providing cash payments to eligible bioenergy producers in 2001 and 2002

who increase utilization of agricultural commodities for increased production of bioenergy.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target

1.2.5 The number of categories for which N/A N/A 3 6

lists of accepted biobased industrial

products are available for Federal 

government purchase (# Cumulative). 

Strategies:

• Compile and publicize lists of accepted biobased industrial products organized by

categories.

• Through new and expanded research and development, dramatically reduce the cost of

technologies used to produce bioproducts, including liquid fuels, lubricants, plastics and

solvents.

• Determine the lifecycle costs of biobased lubricants compared to fossil-fuel-based

alternatives.

• Test biobased lubricants to establish that they meet performance standards for use in

equipment under manufacturers’ warranty.

• Through research, improve understanding of various crop and animal components to

facilitate development of a variety of new food, feed and industrial products.

• Support the development of a wider range of value-added products, such as fat 

substitutes, improved textiles, pharmaceuticals and biopesticides, from commodities and 

undervalued byproducts of agriculture.
24

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategic Goal 2

Promote health by providing access to safe,

affordable and nutritious food

USDA Resources FY 2001 FY 2002

Dedicated to Goal 2 Estimate Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 37,611 39,369 

Staff Years 15,493 15,488 

Reducing hunger, promoting good nutrition, and ensuring food safety are important and

integral parts of USDA’s mission and commitment of responsibility to every American. The

Department strives to ensure that America’s agricultural abundance, and the latest science

and technology, work together to support the nutrition and health of people in the United

States and around the world. 

USDA partners with public and private groups to pursue a broad strategy to reduce hunger

and improve nutrition, through food stamps, school meals, nutrition assistance to women,

infants, and children and other efforts. USDA will advance these efforts by ensuring that

eligible people have access to nutrition assistance programs, and by improving the nutrient

content of food packages and school meals.

The Department also plays a leading role in the international war on hunger, through efforts

ranging from direct commodity donations to advocating policies that promote global

economic and food security. Working closely with other Federal agencies and with partners

around the world, USDA will seek long-term solutions to world hunger and malnutrition by

pursuing promising scientific breakthroughs, especially in the field of biotechnology, and by

promoting sustainable food production in food insecure nations.

Percent of FY 2002 USDA Resources Dedicated to this Goal

Program Level Staff Years

GOAL 2

41.5%

58.5%

GOAL 2

14.2%

85.8%
25

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

In partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental

Protection Agency, USDA is building a science-based national system to ensure food safety

from farm-to-table. While America has one of the safest food supplies in the world,

foodborne diseases cause 325,000 serious illnesses resulting in hospitalizations, 76 million

cases of gastrointestinal illnesses, and 5,000 deaths each year. The USDA strategic goal is

to contribute to the health of the nations citizens by significantly reducing the prevalence of

foodborne hazards from meat, poultry, and egg products. Through stronger coordination

among government food safety agencies and greater investments in scientific advances,

USDA intends to make additional progress on this vital public health issue. 

USDA also makes a significant contribution to America’s health through nutrition education

and research. While the scientific advances of recent decades have strengthened our

understanding of the powerful ties between nutrition and health, about 12% of Americans

eat a diet that is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Through a variety of

means – nutrition education; policy guidance to State and local government agencies; and

partnerships with America’s schools, various public and private entities, and most

importantly, America’s families – USDA will work to help more Americans understand that

there is some truth to the saying, “you are what you eat.”

By working to reduce hunger and improve nutrition here in America and around the world,

by protecting the public health through advances in food safety, and by promoting nutrition

to improve the Nation’s well-being, the USDA plays an invaluable role in the health and

food security of every American family and people around the globe.
26

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 2.1

Reduce hunger and improve nutrition among children and low-income

people in the United States

USDA’s domestic nutrition assistance programs work in communities across the country to

reduce hunger and improve nutrition by providing children and low-income people with

access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. These efforts touch the lives of one

in six Americans and account for nearly one-half of USDA’s expenditures. The largest

programs include: Food Stamps, the Child Nutrition Programs–such as the National School

Lunch Program–and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC). 

In FY 2002, USDA will continue its results-oriented efforts to improve the diets of children

and low-income people by delivering targeted nutrition assistance to people in need. The

Department will carry out nutrition education programs, and encourage dietary choices

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Finally, USDA will strengthen its

commitment to responsible stewardship of tax dollars. 

Key Outcome: Significantly improve food security for children and low-income people. 

USDA nutrition assistance programs constitute the lion’s share of the Federal government’s

effort to reduce hunger, and are major sources of food for children and adults from

low-income households. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target* Target* 

2.1.1 Expand program access and 

benefit delivery for USDA nutrition 

assistance programs (Mil):

• Food Stamp Program participation. 18.2 17.2 17.6 18.4

• Special Supplemental Nutrition 7.31 7.20 7.25 7.25

Program for Women, Infants and 

Children participation.

• National School Lunch Program 26.9 27.2 27.6 28.0

participation.

• School Breakfast Program 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.4

participation. 

• Child and Adult Care Food 1,638 1,670 1,766 1,825

Program meals served.

• Summer Food Service Program 2.17 2.09 2.21 2.34

participation. 

*USDA uses projected annual participation levels as a proxy measure of performance in maintaining program

access and benefit delivery for nutrition assistance programs. These projections reflect the Department’s best

estimates of voluntary program participation, rather than targets per se.
27

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Effectively deliver assistance to eligible people by: providing benefits to certified

program participants; reimbursing appropriate State administrative costs; improving

program management; monitoring compliance with program rules; and, providing States

and other partners with technical assistance and flexibility to ensure program

effectiveness.

• Continue efforts to assure that the Food Stamp Program is accessible to all those eligible,

including non-participating persons, particularly the working poor, elderly and

immigrants who may not realize that they are eligible.

• Seek a funding level for WIC that will assist 7.25 million women, infants and children in

FY 2002.

• Maximize the availability of WIC benefits by: reallocating funds throughout the fiscal

year, so adequate resources are available in areas with high demand; assisting States in

using infant formula rebates to stretch program dollars; promoting electronic benefits

transfer; and collaborating with States to ensure consistent program accessibility across

the Nation.

Key Outcome: Support real improvement in the diets of those served by USDA

nutrition assistance programs.

The Nation faces significant public health issues related to the quality of America’s diet.

For this reason, USDA is working to create an integrated approach for promoting sciencebased nutrition messages through all of its nutrition assistance programs. In FY 2002, the

Department’s efforts will focus on developing a long-term plan to implement this approach,

and expanding the EAT SMART, PLAY HARD nutrition promotion campaign. This effort

targets children and their caregivers with messages about the importance of healthy eating

and physical activity. With obesity now the most prevalent nutritional disease among

America’s youth, this effort has enormous long-term implications to public health in

America.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.1.2 Carry out an integrated National 

nutrition education strategy to reach 

children and caregivers eligible for 

Federal nutrition assistance:

• Long-term plan for nutrition education — — Plan Plan

in nutrition assistance programs. drafted finalized;

execution

underway

• USDA nutrition education materials — 100,000 150,000 200,000

disseminated to children and their 

caregivers (#).
28

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Develop a long-term plan to achieve a comprehensive, integrated approach to nutrition

education in Federal nutrition assistance programs, which will integrate and build on

USDA’s National nutrition promotion campaign, designed to reach children and their

caregivers, with consistent science-based messages that encourage healthy eating, and

other existing strategies.

• Strengthen program-specific nutrition education efforts.

• Use informative and consistent nutrition messages to reach all populations served by

USDA nutrition assistance programs.

• Use nutrition education interventions to improve people’s diet quality and food choices,

with emphasis on low-income populations.

Key Outcome: Improve the nutritional quality of USDA food benefits.

USDA sets two key goals to ensure that its low-income program participants, as all

Americans, have access to a healthy diet. First, the Department will encourage

consumption of fruits and vegetables–a critical part of a healthy diet that needs

improvement across the Nation–by increasing access to fresh produce through programs

such as the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. Second, USDA will continue to work

with its State and local partners to ensure that the Federal benefits they deliver reflect a

balanced diet, particularly when it comes to school meals that help children form healthy

eating habits at an early age.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.1.3 Improve access to fresh fruits 

and vegetables:

• Fresh fruits and vegetables provided 31.5 29.7 34.7 35

to schools ($Mil). 

• Sites on Indian reservations receiving 58 59 70 70

fresh fruits and vegetables (#).

• Participants in the WIC Farmer’s N/A 1.5 1.65 2.0

Market Nutrition Program (Mil). 

2.1.4 Monitor and support State and 

local efforts to ensure that USDA food 

benefits meet national nutrition standards:

• School Meals Initiative monitoring 2,937 3,939 2,900 2,900

reviews conducted by State agencies. 

Strategies:

• Continue to purchase and distribute fresh produce to schools in partnership with the

Department of Defense.

• Maintain the number of Indian reservation sites that receive fresh fruits and vegetables

from USDA. 

• Promote the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program by working to better leverage

Federal dollars with State resources, and to encourage full use of existing benefits by atrisk pregnant women and new mothers.
29

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Continue to support USDA’s School Meals Initiative to ensure nutrition education and

school meals that reflect a balanced diet. Also, monitor schools’ progress in carrying out

this important initiative.

• Develop a dietary assessment tool to screen WIC participants for unhealthy eating

patterns, so tailored dietary advice as well as general nutrition education can be

administered through the program.

Key Outcome: Improve stewardship of Federal nutrition assistance programs.

USDA is strongly committed to preventing losses of taxpayer dollars due to fraud, error and

inefficiency, and to optimizing the use of each Federal, State and local dollar to ensure that

nutrition programs serve those in need at the lowest possible cost. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.1.5 Improve program design and 

delivery:

• Food stamp benefits issued 69 75 81 89

electronically (%). 

• Annual milestones met in the Food — — 100 100

Distribution Reinvention Plan for 

School and Indian Programs (%). 

2.1.6 Maintain benefit accuracy in

the food stamp and school meals 

programs:

• Food stamp benefit accuracy rate (%). 90.1 N/A 90.8 90.8

• School Food Authorities in compliance N/A 87 87 87

with school meals counting and 

claiming rules (%). 

2.1.7 Strengthen State and local 

management of the Child and Adult Care 

Food Program:

• USDA management evaluations of — 100 100 100

State agencies administering the 

program (%).

• State agencies offering sponsor — 100 100 100

training that uses new USDA-developed 

program management materials (%). 
30

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Expand electronic delivery of benefits in the food stamp and WIC programs by:

providing technical assistance on EBT to States; working with less active States to more

aggressively implement EBT; continuing to improve USDA’s own EBT-related systems,

and addressing related cost and service challenges.

• Continue to reengineer USDA’s food distribution programs to streamline commodity

ordering and delivery processes and to improve program operations.

• Continue improving the accuracy and consistency of the food stamp quality control

system.

• Support State efforts to improve food stamp benefit accuracy through technical

assistance and “best practices” information-sharing.

• Work with State agencies and local School Food Authorities to improve counting and

claiming accuracy, and certification procedures, in school meals programs.

• Enlist the support of other users of school meals certification data in order to ensure that

State and Federal resources can be properly targeted to those most in need.

• Continue improving management of the Child and Adult Care Food Program by

evaluating the success of new rules and management efforts; and working with State

agencies to train program sponsors on the new regulations. 
31

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 2.2

Reduce hunger and malnutrition around the world

Worldwide, more than 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, most of

them children. In response, more than 180 countries at the 1996 World Food Summit

agreed to work together to cut in half by 2015 the number of hungry and malnourished

people in the world. The U.S. Action Plan on Food Security provides a detailed strategy for

how the U.S. can lead the world war on hunger. Working with the U.S. Agency for

International Development (USAID), non-profit organizations, and American universities,

USDA will work to put these strategies into action, and to meet both immediate emergency

food aid needs and to seek long-term solutions to global food insecurity.

Key Outcome: Make a significant contribution to reducing world hunger and

malnutrition.

USDA’s foreign food aid activities represent a significant portion of the U.S. commitment

to reducing hunger around the world. In 1999, USDA offered a record $1.5 billion in

emergency food aid. The Department also coordinates technical assistance, research and

economic development activities (primarily funded through USAID) to reduce hunger and

malnutrition over the long-term through market infrastructure development. USDA targets

its food aid to the most needy populations in developing countries by collaborating with

USAID and various relief organizations to help address international food security

challenges and to support sustainable agriculture in the developing world. 

USDA intends to continue the United States record of being a world leader in providing

emergency food aid. It also will continue the Department’s efforts to seek long-term

solutions to world hunger, including through research, training and technical assistance

aimed at promoting sustainable agriculture and a strong food distribution infrastructure in

food insecure nations.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.2.1 U.S. food aid exports under P.L. 727.2 370.6 213.2 193.3

480 Title I and Food for Progress 

supporting world food security ($ Mil).* 

2.2.2 Promote research, training and 

technical assistance activities that support 

sustainable food supplies worldwide.

• Projects underway (#). 789 967** 967 967

• Amount invested ($ Mil). 39.9 53.8 53.8 53.8

* The decline from FY 1999 and FY 2000 to FY 2001 and FY 2002 is primarily related to the reduction of food

aid need in Russia. 

** The rise in the number of projects between FY 1999 and FY 2000 is primarily related to the additional

reconstruction work in Central America following Hurricanes Mitch and Georges.
32

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Prioritize international food donations based on greatest need. 

• Strengthen food security research and programs that share vital agricultural knowledge

with producers around the world, in order to expand the productivity and nutritional

impact of global agriculture.
33

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 2.3

Protect the public health by significantly reducing the prevalence of

foodborne hazards

USDA ensures that the commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe,

wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. The Department is responsible for

ensuring sanitation, humane slaughter, pathogen reduction, food safety and product labeling

at all establishments under Federal inspection. USDA assesses the effectiveness of State

inspection programs to assure that their standards are equal to those under the Federal Acts.

Also, the Department is responsible for reviewing foreign inspection systems that export

meat and poultry products to the U.S., and inspecting imported products at ports of entry to

assure that standards are equivalent to those of the U.S. The goals outlined in this plan will

require coordination with USDA food safety partner agencies including the Department of

Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Key Outcome: Reduce the incidence of foodborne illness related to meat, poultry, and

egg products in the U.S.

Continuing the Nation’s historic progress in recent years in reducing foodborne illness in

the United States will require continued, science-based advances in the U.S. approach to

food safety. There are three distinct aspects of the U.S. food safety strategy: 1) assessing

risks and monitoring emerging and potentially high-risk threats to the U.S. food supply; 2)

managing these risks through science-based performance standards, regulatory requirements

and other efforts; and, 3) communicating these risks, so all Americans are aware of what

they can do to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. 

Risk Assessment

There is a clear need to strengthen scientific understanding of food safety. USDA will

focus on new research and better scientific methods to answer critical questions, such as

what new tools could reduce or eliminate food hazards, and how the root causes of food

safety problems can be quickly detected and eliminated. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.3.1 Provide worldwide leadership 

towards the creation and utilization of 

risk assessment capacity for meat, 

poultry, and egg products that is 

supported by the latest research and 

technology.

• Risk assessments used to inform risk 2 2 2 4 

management decision-making and 

policy (# Cumulative). 
34

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Conduct rigorous risk assessments to identify emerging, potential high-risk pathogens,

risk management gaps, and other food safety threats.

• Develop a risk-based, problem-solving research and technology agenda that will enable

USDA to meet its risk assessment and risk management objectives to improve food

safety.

• Update and expand estimates of the costs of foodborne illness, using current Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention estimates relating to 28 pathogens, including 21 not

currently covered by USDA cost estimates.

• Provide the scientific knowledge to enable policymakers and regulators, as well as food

producers, processors, handlers and consumers, to minimize the risks of pathogen or

chemical contamination of the U.S. food supply.

Risk Management

Delivering safe food to the dinner table is the culmination of the work of many people.

Producers, shippers, processors, distributors, handlers and others perform actions every day

that impact food safety. The challenge is to perform these activities in such a way that the

food eaten within the U.S. and shipped abroad is free from physical hazards and dangerous

levels of pathogens and harmful chemicals. Government plays an important role in

managing foodborne risks through regulations, incentive programs, voluntary efforts,

compliance inspection, and enforcement activities which influences those who produce,

process, transport and prepare food. This helps reduce the incidence of harmful pathogens

on U.S. meat and poultry. The FY 2002 budget maintains 7,600 in-plant meat and poultry

inspectors to ensure that the demand for inspection services can be met.

In 1994, FSIS conducted baseline testing of Salmonella in broiler chickens and determined

that there was an average industry-wide Salmonella prevalence of 20%. In July 1996, the

Agency finalized the PR/HACCP rule that established a performance standard for the

industry of 20% for broiler chickens that was based on the 1994 baseline. In 1999,

prevalence was 11.3% that is an approximate 50% reduction from the performance

standard. FSIS established targets of FY 2000 through FY 2005 based on being able to

accomplish a further reduction in the prevalence of Salmonella from 11.3% to 7.5% in FY

2005. The interim target for FY 2000 was expected to be 10.1%. The final test results of

8.7% were lower than the interim target for that year, and revealed fluctuations in

Salmonella prevalence in this product category. This natural variability is expected to

continue for some years as the HACCP system fully matures. FSIS expects further declines

in the coming years, along the line of the interim targets, that would culminate in the

outcome measure of 7.5% reflected in the FSIS Strategic Plan. Therefore, the interim

targets for FY 2001 and FY 2002 remain unchanged from the original projections (i.e., 10%

and 9%, respectively).
35

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target

2.3.2 Create a coordinated national and 

international food safety risk management 

system to ensure the safety of U.S. meat 

and poultry products from farm to table.

• Reduction in the prevalence of Salmonella

on raw meat and poultry products as 

illustrated by:1

- Prevalence of Salmonella on broiler 11.3 8.7 10.0 9.0

chickens (%).

- Prevalence of Salmonella on market 6.6 7.6 6.0 5.5

hogs (%).

- Prevalence of Salmonella on ground 4.4 3.6 3.5 3.0

beef (%).

• Reduction in the prevalence of Listeria

monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and 

poultry products:

- Samples testing positive for Listeria 1.91 1.45 1.43 1.40

monocytogenes (%).

1 The Salmonella data have been calculated to reflect Fiscal Year results. The Agency has significantly increased

the number of tests performed due to phase-in implementation and the corresponding increase in the number of

regulated establishments subject to the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

rule. Many factors can influence prevalence data on a year-to-year basis. Therefore, it will be necessary to collect

several years of data to be reasonably confident of the stability of trends for the future.

Strategies:

• Establish national performance standards for ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and

establish additional pathogen standards for raw products.

• Monitor slaughter and processing plants to ensure that food safety requirements are met.

• Identify, investigate, and respond to food safety emergencies and monitor foodborne

illnesses resulting from the consumption of unsafe meat, poultry and egg products.

• Expand access to overseas markets by seeking internationally recognized laboratory

accreditation and by expanding U.S. laboratory capacity to meet EU residue testing

requirements.

• Ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products imported into the U.S. are safe by increasing

reviews and audits to assure the continued equivalence of foreign inspection systems. 

Risk Communication

To improve food safety, the collection and analysis of research and risk assessment data on

food safety hazards must be followed by the prompt distribution and use of this

information. Increased access to this information allows for its practical application to

ensure food safety in a variety of contexts. Increased knowledge helps prevent future risks.

USDA will work to expand the number of people who are reached with effective

communications that encourage consumer food safety practices and inform the decisions

and actions of public health professionals, retail workers and regulators.
36

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

2.3.3 Conduct a comprehensive national 

and international communication program 

that is an open exchange of information 

and opinions about food safety risks:

• People reached with food safety 83 85 87 89

information through media stories, 

circulation reports, USDA FSIS 

website visits, and USDA Meat & 

Poultry Hotline calls (# Mil).

• Stakeholder activities held to improve 19 41 46 51

food safety related decision-making 

and public policy (# Cumulative).

Strategies:

• Emphasize both education and explanation of food safety issues.

• Develop information for, and deliver information to at-risk populations.

• Incorporate risk communication objectives into risk management strategies.

• Increase seminars and technical training on science-based food safety standards for U.S.

and foreign delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
37

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 2.4

Improve public health through nutrition education, promotion and

research

Promoting healthy eating is a critical component of a healthy lifestyle. The USDA

conducts comprehensive nutrition research and education domestically and through

coordination with international organizations. The USDA is also a leader in producing the

scientific knowledge that helps all people understand the powerful ties between nutrition

and health. Yet, perhaps the greatest challenge ahead is finding effective ways to

communicate the information that the USDA has developed to the American people.

Clearly, the Department’s nutrition education efforts will have to compete with other

consumer messages. But by arming America with the facts, reaching children early, and

ensuring access to healthy food, USDA can make a major contribution to the Nation’s

health. 

A 1996 USDA analysis found that on any given day about 12% of the U.S. population ate a

diet that reflected the healthy eating habits promoted in the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans. Dietary changes could result in improving health of the American people.

Through its nutrition assistance programs, partnerships with America’s schools, cuttingedge research and other efforts, USDA’s work promoting nutrition and health will become

increasingly important in the years to come, as scientists and all Americans better

understand the strong connection between healthy eating habits and healthy lives.

Key Outcome: Improve diets among the general public.

USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion provides several tools that offer dietary

guidance to help Americans improve their eating habits. Major tools include the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, the Food Guide Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Index. The

Guidelines are the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy and are released every 5 years,

with the latest version released in 2000. The Pyramid translates nutrient recommendations

into food intake and provides an easy reference to help individuals select the kinds and

amounts of foods that create a balanced diet. The Healthy Eating Index assesses the

nutritional status of Americans, and provides nutrition educators and policymakers with

information on aspects of the Nation’s diet that need improvement. The recently developed

Interactive Healthy Eating Index allows people to go on-line to assess their own diet and

receive tailored recommendations for improvement via the Internet. USDA will focus its

efforts in the time ahead on ensuring its nutrition guidance reaches as many Americans as

possible, empowering them to improve not just their diets, but their health.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target

2.4.1 Individuals using the Interactive N/A 100,000 110,000 120,000

Healthy Eating Index to assess and 

improve their diet (#). 

2.4.2 Copies of the 2000 Dietary N/A 140,800 550,000 550,000

Guidelines disseminated to help 

individuals improve their diet. 
38

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Ensure that the Healthy Eating Index continues to reflect current nutrition guidance.

• Provide individuals with access to the Interactive Healthy Eating Index and to Dietary

Guidelines and Food Guide Pyramid materials through the USDA/CNPP website.

• Explore innovative ways to provide individuals with tailored nutrition education by

adapting Dietary Guidelines and Food Guide Pyramid materials for special audiences.

• Improve the usefulness of the Food Guide Pyramid by updating its scientific base, and

by identifying consumer uses of and barriers to following the Pyramid’s guidance.

• Provide decision-makers with food consumption and nutrient content of food data to

help shape nutrition education efforts and policy.

• Enhance the nutritional quality of America’s diet through intervention strategies that

emphasize the strong ties between exercise, diet and health.
39

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Maintain and enhance the Nation’s natural

resources and environment

USDA Resources FY 2001 FY 2002

Dedicated to Goal 3 Estimate Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 9,128 8,208 

Staff Years 51,286 50,977 

USDA manages and helps land users to protect the Nationís soil, water and ecosystem

resources across public and private landsófrom mountaintops to the valleys, rivers and

coastal areas downstream. Within this landscape, high-quality soils and abundant supplies

of clean water provide the essential building blocks for production agriculture, many rural

economies and all life. Because so much of the Nation is farm and forest land, sustainable

management of these areas is essential to ensuring that all Americans have abundant food,

clean air and water, and pleasant places in which to live and enjoy Americaís great

outdoors. 

USDAís work in this regard focuses on balancing three key priorities: ensuring the future

productivity of the Nationís natural resources; protecting the environment; and providing

for the responsible use of the land and other natural resources to meet the needs of people

today. In the years ahead, USDA will work to improve the condition and management of

the Nationís natural resources; help producers manage their working crop and rangelands in

a more sustainable manner; reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires; and continue to help

producers ensure that their activities do not cause problems downwind or downstream (with

particular attention paid to animal feeding operations). 

Strategic Goal 3

Percent of FY 2002 USDA Resources Dedicated to this Goal

Program Level Staff Years

GOAL 3

 8.8%

91.2%

GOAL 3

53.4% 46.6%
40

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 3.1

Maintain the productive capacity of the natural resource base for future

generations

One of the most important responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture is safeguarding

the productive capacity of America’s natural resources. Success in this regard is

interrelated with USDA’s work protecting the environment and ensuring the benefits of

responsible land use. USDA helps ensure that the Nation’s crop, grazing, and forest lands

are used sustainably to produce adequate food, fiber and forest products today without

sacrificing the needs of future generations. 

The continuation of current trends, however, would result in a decline in the quality and

productive capacity of America’s land. Less than half of the Nation’s cropland and

pastureland today are managed to ensure their long-term productivity. Only a little more

than one-third of non-Federal rangeland is healthy and well managed. Productive cropland

is being lost to soil erosion. Forest and rangeland ecosystems face significant threats from

fire, insects, disease, and invasive species. Drought weakens plants, increasing the risk of

erosion, fires, and other hazards. Appropriate management can mitigate these threats and

enhance the quality of America’s natural resources. For this reason, USDA efforts in the

years ahead—from helping farmers reduce erosion to helping maintain the health of

working croplands and rangelands to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires—are of

vital and enduring importance to the Nation.

Key Outcome: Maintain the resource health and productive capacity of non-Federal

cropland, grazing lands, and forestland.

Healthy cropland, grazing lands, and forestland are essential to the Nation’s agricultural

economy. Maintaining and improving the quality of the Nation’s soils and plant

communities can increase farm productivity, mitigate the effects of drought, minimize the

use of nutrients and pesticides, improve water and air quality, and sequester greenhouse

gases from the atmosphere. To encourage agricultural producers and other natural resource

managers to maintain the productive capacity and health of the Nation’s natural wealth,

USDA will continue to offer technical assistance. USDA will also share the costs of

conservation practices and conduct related inventories, research, and technology

development activities. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.1.1 Maintain the productivity and 

health of the Nation’s non-Federal 

crop and grazing lands:

• Acres of non-Federal cropland and N/A 15.6 16.0 16.0

grazing land protected against 

degradation by application of 

improved conservation systems 

(Mil) (Annually)1. 

1

Acres are those on which systems were applied during a single fiscal year. Cropland does not include acres

enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
41

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Provide one-on-one technical assistance to farmers and ranchers in the development of

conservation plans that address all resource concerns on their property.

• Certify that conservation planners meet basic and advanced skill levels.

• Cooperate with conservation partners to increase adoption of an approach that combines

conservation tillage, nutrient management, pest management and conservation buffers

into effective resource management systems.

• Promote watershed or regional approaches to grazing and forest land conservation.

Strengthen cooperation with other government agencies and partners. In the West, where

grazing land often is a mixture of private and public ownership, promote cooperative

efforts to control noxious and invasive species and manage resource concerns.

• Make information on soils as well as land use and condition available in forms tailored

to customer needs.

• Through research, develop the use of biotechnology to increase the sustainable

production of food and fiber, reduce the adverse impact of agriculture on the

environment, and minimize pressure on marginal farmland.

• Through research, develop new management practices, computer-based decision aids and

other tools that enhance production of food and fiber, reduce the adverse impact of

agriculture on the natural resource base and help prevent, detect and eliminate invasive

diseases and pests.

• Enhance understanding of the potential of agriculture to reduce greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere by reducing emissions from agricultural production and increasing carbon

sequestration on agricultural soils.

Key Outcome: Reduce erosion damage on cropland.

Soils support biological processes such as plant growth. They help distribute the flow of

water through the landscape. They filter and break down wastes. And, they store and cycle

nutrients and other compounds, such as carbon dioxide. While many factors affect soil

quality, erosion is the single best indicator for assessing whether soils are stable, improving,

or degrading. Conserving and enhancing soil quality are fundamental to sustainable

resource use.

The danger of damaging erosion is greatest on lands where the protective vegetation is

disturbed, as it must be for cultivating crops. In the 1980s and early 1990s, farmers, with

help from USDA and its partners, made a concerted effort to reduce erosion and protect

their most erodible cropland from damage. Yet progress in controlling erosion has leveled

off since 1992. USDA helps producers control erosion on cropland by channeling

conservation technical assistance through nearly 3,000 conservation districts nationwide. In

addition, the Department, through the Conservation Reserve Program, provides rental

payments to retire sensitive land from crop production and protect it under permanent

vegetation. 

USDA will focus increased efforts on fully protecting land where severe erosion is

occurring. It also will seek to use financial incentives and other means to transition the

most fragile land out of production, while presenting the landowners with other farmincome related opportunities. The Department also will pay special attention to ensuring

small, limited resource farmers have options for reducing erosion that are feasible for their

operations.
42

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.1.2 Reduce erosion damage on 

cropland (Million acres):

• Erosion reduced to non-damaging 1 1.5 1.5 2

rates on working cropland (Annually).

• Highly erodible land retired from 22.6 23.7 24.8 24.8 

farming and maintained in protective 

cover under long-term contract with 

USDA (Cumulative). 

Strategies:

• Focus on the most serious soil health problems and tailor work to specific State needs.

In some States, this will mean intensifying work on non-highly erodible cropland. In

others, attention will go to highly erodible land.

• Help USDA farm program participants meet requirements to protect the 140 million

acres of highly erodible cropland they operate. 

• Ensure small, limited-resource producers have access to erosion reduction technology

that is effective and feasible for their operations.

• Help farmers examine revenue-producing alternatives to crop production on

environmentally fragile lands, such as enterprise diversification or conversion to hay or

grazing.

• Help producers transition to lower impact activities (e.g., biomass production or creation

of wildlife habitat) on lands where effective soil management is not economically

feasible. 

Key Outcome: Reduce risk of fire.

The risk of wildfires increasingly threatens U.S. communities and the environment. Last

year, USDA and the U.S. Department of the Interior jointly released a report, Managing the

Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment. The report laid out a national

strategy to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and increase U.S. preparedness for

fighting them. The report made clear the necessity of committing adequate resources to

firefighting and prevention efforts; the importance of restoring landscapes and rebuilding

communities devastated by fire; the urgent need to invest in projects to reduce fire risk, and

the value of working closely with local communities. In FY 2002 funding for the National

Fire Plan will be maintained for priority activities including increasing efforts to fight

wildfires, reducing the risks of wildfires, and assisting communities. The 2002 budget also

includes a National Emergency Reserve of $5.6 billion which will be available to the

Department for emergencies related to fighting fires. This National Fire Plan will guide

USDA’s efforts in the time ahead, when the Department will emphasize efforts to clear dry

brush, dead trees and other major fire risks on the National Forests and Grasslands. These

actions are also consistent with the National Drought Policy Commission’s recommendation

that the Nation develop national drought policy with preparedness as its core. USDA also

will pay particular attention to the wildland-urban interface, where the risks to life and

property often are greatest.
43

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.1.3 Treat wildlands with high fire 

risks on National Forests and Grasslands 

to reduce the risk of loss of life, property, 

and natural resources from catastrophic 

wildfire:

• Hazardous fuel treatments (acres). 1,412,281 772,375 1,800,000 1,800,00

• Maximize firefighting production 69 74 100 100

capability - Most Efficient Level 

(MEL)

• Assist communities and volunteer 2,450 2,9902 10,4923 9,6873

fire departments - Communities and 

volunteer fire departments assisted 1

1 A change in data tracking methodology occurred between 2000 and 2001. Data from 1999 and 2000 did not

distinguish between communities and volunteer fire departments assisted, thus leading to underreporting.

Beginning in 2001, these items are being tracked separately and added together to produce this performance

measure.

2 Estimate based on 8 of 9 Regions reporting from the USDA Forest Service.

3 These figures include State and Private activities and National Fire Plan activities.

Strategies:

• Carry out the National Fire Plan to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires due to dry

brush and dead trees, bolster firefighting management and preparedness, and enhance

local community coordination and outreach. 

• Place a particular emphasis on mitigating fire risks at the wildland-urban interface.

• Focus efforts on areas with a moderate to high risk of wildfires, and conduct prescribed

burns, mechanical and manual methods, and selective removal of undergrowth and nonnative plant species.

• Support neighborhoods that host Firewise or similar training sessions.
44

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 3.2

Protect the quality of the Nation’s environment

Americans expect their environment to provide adequate supplies of clean water, clean air,

and pleasant and healthy places to live. USDA plays a vital role in ensuring that these

expectations are met through its programs that affect the Nation’s forest ecosystems,

agricultural lands, and both rural and urban communities. The Department works with

private landowners and natural resource managers to ensure that their activities do not

create hazards that impact human health or the health of the Nation’s lands and

environment. In meeting its responsibilities for environmental protection, USDA manages

the National Forests and Grasslands, assists private land users, and works closely with other

government and non-government entities. In addition to mitigating or averting damage to

the environment, USDA also is committed to restoring lands adversely affected by past

activities, particularly abandoned mines on and near the National Forests and Grasslands.

Clean-up of these sites is imperative to the health of local ecosystems.

In the years to come, USDA will continue its important work protecting water and air

quality, as well as watershed health, enhancing urban environments, maintaining the value

of wetlands and other wildlife habitat, and cleaning up contaminated sites on USDA

managed facilities and lands. Through these efforts to protect and restore the Nation’s

environment, the Department will improve the lives of people today and leave a lasting

legacy to generations of Americans yet to come.

Key Outcome: Protect air and water quality, as well as watershed health. 

To protect water and air quality, people must work together to solve problems over a wide

area of the landscape. Agricultural production involves activities that can affect air and

water quality: leaving fields without plant cover for extended periods accelerates soil

erosion, often into nearby waterways. The use of chemicals on the farm also presents the

risk that they will enter local water resources. Livestock operations produce large amounts

of waste that, if not properly managed, can threaten human health and that of America’s

waterways. 

To counteract these risks, USDA provides technical and financial assistance to help

producers, other land users, and communities apply conservation systems to protect the

quality of their water and air. USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly

developed a national strategy for protecting the environment against pollution from animal

feeding operations. Comprehensive nutrient management plans, applied with USDA

assistance, enable producers to manage collection, storage and disposal of animal wastes in

ways that minimize environmental harm. Conservation buffers as well as nutrition and pest

management techniques (again applied with USDA assistance) also can reduce the negative

environmental impacts of agricultural production. Conservation buffers are areas

maintained in permanent vegetation along waterways, field edges, headlands and other

sensitive spots to intercept runoff and pollutants. 

In the time ahead, USDA will focus on promoting its voluntary, incentive-based

conservation programs that help farmers and ranchers do their part to improve air and water

quality. Special emphasis will be placed on working to see that all animal feeding

operations have comprehensive nutrient management systems in place to protect nearby

waterways from a major risk of pollution. USDA also will work to restore and improve
45

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

watersheds on the National Forests and Grasslands to secure all of the benefits healthy

watersheds provide—from contributions to clean air and water to opportunities for abundant

wildlife habitat.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.2.1 Protect water and air quality:

• Animal feeding operations with 6,170 11,000 11,000 4,315

comprehensive nutrient management facilities systems systems systems

plans developed or applied.1 applied planned planned planned

or or or

applied applied applied

• Acres with conservation measures 2.7 4.3 5 5

applied to reduce potential for off-site 

pollution by nutrients (Mil) (Annually).

• Acres with pest management improved N/A 4 4 4

(Mil) (Annually).

• Acres in conservation buffers (Mil).2 1.2 1.5 1.75 2.75

• Acres retired from cropping and 29.8 31.5 33.9 35.0

planted to protective cover through 

CRP (Mil) (Cumulative).

3.2.2 Restore or improve rangeland and 

forestland watersheds in the National 

Forests and Grasslands:

• Soil and watershed improvements 35,562 29,899 23,946 24,000

(acres).

• Terrestrial habitat restored or 266,774 192,373 246,550 246,000

enhanced (acres).

• Abandoned mine sites reclaimed. 15 N/A 34 20

1

Differences in the data reflect refinements in the indicator as the performance reporting system and the strategy to

address animal feeding operations matured. FY 2002 is the first year in which the new technical guidance for

comprehensive nutrient management planning will replace the interim measures used in previous years.

2

Includes both FSA cumulative and NRCS annual data. 

Strategies:

• Continue to carry out the USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding

Operations by providing technical and financial assistance to: accelerate efforts to put in

place nutrient management systems; invest in technology and standards to improve

animal waste management; foster greater private sector capacity to develop related

technology; and encourage cooperative efforts where production is concentrated.

• Provide area-wide planning assistance in watersheds with non-point source pollution

problems to help residents work across boundaries to reduce pathogen and bacteria

contamination.

• Evaluate the potential to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by

addressing such issues as emissions from animal feeding operations, fugitive dust from

erosion, and agricultural burning.

• Provide statistical data on agricultural chemical use, production practices, land use and

integrated pest management practices.
46

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Develop new practices and technologies to better manage agro-chemicals and nutrients,

as well as to reduce erosion to protect and enhance soil, water and air quality.

• Enhance the capacity of decisionmakers to coordinate trade and environmental policies

by analyzing the environmental impacts of proposed trade policies and the trade effects

of achieving specific environmental goals.

• Promote natural resource protection and restoration on the National Forests and

Grasslands through soil and watershed improvements and restoration or enhancement of

habitats for threatened species.

• Work with Federal and state agencies to identify and prioritize abandoned mine sites for

clean-up. 

Key Outcome: Enhance urban environments.

Urban forests and green space are increasingly at risk from development. To appropriately

manage and safeguard natural resources in urban and urbanizing areas, local communities

must address a wide array of challenges from erosion to sediment control to storm water

management. In many developing areas, the Nation’s best farmland is being lost at a rapid

rate due to urban sprawl. In other areas, population increases in fragile ecosystems can

create risks for people and the environment. Many communities fear loss of farmland for

the attendant rise in congestion, disappearance of open space, and decrease in recreation

opportunities and other amenities. In the time ahead, USDA will work with local and State

agencies in developing areas, providing soil information and other technical information on

resource conditions and helping local leaders develop plans to address their resource needs

and concerns. In FY 2001, USDA’s Farmland Protection Program will share the costs of

easements to protect prime and unique farmland from urban sprawl. In addition, USDA

will use its Forest Legacy Program to help State and local governments protect their

farmland and other last open spaces by offering conservation easements to willing

landowners.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.2.3 Enhance urban environments:

• Forest cover maintained under 19,281 32,130 200,000 250,000

USDA’s Forest Legacy Program 

easements (acres).

• Group and area plans developed to N/A N/A * * 

address farmland protection and the 

effects of non-agricultural activities 

on ground water and surface water 

quality.

* Baseline to be developed in FY 2001; target for FY 2002 to be set at the end of FY 2001.

Strategies:

• Support State efforts to use the USDA Forest Legacy Program to acquire urban forest

lands and green space. 

• Help communities develop land evaluation and site assessment processes to plan orderly

growth and protect the quality of their environment.
47

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Provide information and tools to help local authorities plan sensible development that

will maintain the quality of life that attracts people to small towns and rural

communities. 

• Provide financial assistance in FY 2001 through the Farmland Protection Program to

help State and local governments purchase easements to protect land as open space

available for agricultural use.

Key Outcome: Maintain wetlands values and wildlife habitat.

Wetlands are among the most biologically diverse areas on earth. They provide habitat for

a rich mixture of plants and animals—including many rare, threatened and endangered

species. They protect shorelines, filter impurities from water, help control floodwaters and

regulate water flow and help reduce soil erosion. As a result, destruction of wetlands can

lead to serious consequences, such as increased flooding, species extinction and decline in

water quality. Maintaining existing wetlands and restoring others can help avoid these

negative consequences. USDA assists in protecting wetlands through rental contracts

offered under the Department’s Conservation Reserve Program and through easements or

cost-share agreements under its Wetlands Reserve Program. In addition, producers who

receive benefits from other USDA farm programs are required to take measures to protect

wetlands on their property. 

Beyond wetlands, USDA also provides technical and financial assistance in developing,

restoring and enhancing other critical wildlife habitat. Farmers also can remove cropland

from production and establish vegetative cover suited to wildlife under rental contracts with

USDA. In addition, many conservation practices that protect soil, water and air quality

also enhance the quality of habitat that agricultural lands provide. By continuing to support

these critical efforts, and seeking additional resources to protect and restore more priority

wetlands, USDA will play a pivotal role in ensuring a healthy environment and all the

benefits it provides to our communities.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.2.4 Maintain, restore or enhance 

wetland ecosystems and fish and 

wildlife habitat (Million acres):

• Wetlands and associated upland 2.185 2.434 2.775 2.875

protected or enhanced under multiyear contracts or easements with 

USDA (Cumulative).

• Land retired from cropping and 12.5 16.7 18.8 18.8 

planted to vegetative cover best 

suited to wildlife (Cumulative).

• Habitat for fish and wildlife improved N/A 7.5 5.0 5.0

on working cropland, grazing land, 

forest and other land (Annually).
48

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Strategies:

• Work with other government agencies and partners to identify priority wetlands that

could benefit from conservation practices in the surrounding landscape. 

• Ensure continued compliance with wetlands protection laws. 

• Promote restoration of streambanks and the establishment of riparian areas to reduce

sediment load and stream temperature, filter out pollutants, make streams more resilient,

and improve fish and wildlife habitat.

• Work with partners to develop and enhance habitat for all species, including rare and

declining species.

Key Outcome: Clean up contaminated sites on USDA-managed facilities and lands,

and restore affected ecosystems and watersheds.

Thousands of sites requiring environmental cleanup have been identified on USDAmanaged property, many of the sites resulting from the activities of others. In 1995, USDA

set the goal of cleaning up all contaminated sites by 2045. The work is performed in

compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Over 2,200

sites have been cleaned up with over 2,000 remaining. The cleanup effort is estimated to

cost $2 billion. At each of the remaining 2,000 sites, USDA may be subject to

environmental enforcement actions and lawsuits. Fines and penalties could exceed $25,000

per day and lawsuits could cost, in some cases, more than the funding needed to perform a

timely cleanup. Cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous materials is a complex,

expensive, and years-long process, generally requiring the involvement of other Federal

agencies, states and stakeholders. Nevertheless, these cleanups must be a high priority for

USDA in the years to come. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.2.5 Continue to cleanup CERCLA

sites and all regulated underground 

storage tanks (UST) under USDA

custody and control:

• CERCLA cleanups completed (#). 39 24 28 26

• UST and other RCRA cleanups 13 5 33 4

completed (#).

Strategies:

• Promote natural resource restoration and protection from hazardous materials.

• Work with Federal and State agencies to prioritize cleanup efforts and encourage

partnerships to ensure their successful completion.

• Conduct cleanups, supporting investigations and related work in a manner consistent

with the Superfund National Contingency Plan.

• Identify reasons for the missed performance target for CERCLA cleanups in FY 2000

and take the necessary corrective actions to regain lost ground in pursuing this goal.

• Conduct cleanups in a manner that enhances and restores: water quality, environmental

health, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, forest health, public safety

and the economic viability of resource lands.
49

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 3.3

Provide multiple benefits to people from the Nation’s natural resources

USDA is committed to accessing the benefits of the Nation’s natural resources without

degrading either their future capability or the quality of the environment. The benefits that

the Nation’s soil, water and ecosystems provide to people today are rich and varied. They

include traditional commodities–crops, livestock, timber, forest products, and minerals.

These benefits also include opportunities for outdoor recreation. 

Well-managed cropland, grazing lands, and forests can help address a wide array of

environmental challenges, not solely those that originate from agricultural operations. For

example, some conservation practices increase the organic matter in cropland soils. This

reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, helping to reduce greenhouse gases. 

One of the most important benefits that well-managed rural lands provide is clean water.

Protecting water supplies was one of the original reasons for the creation of the National

Forests and Grasslands. To derive the greatest benefits from the limited water supplies of

the arid West, farmers and the managers of public reservoirs depend on the predictions of

annual streamflow that USDA provides by monitoring snowpack and snowmelt. 

From farms to cities to forest communities, USDA will continue its work helping

individuals and communities expand their economic opportunities by developing their

natural resources into products and services for the marketplace. USDA watershed planners

also will help communities trying to plan the use of watersheds and floodplains to provide

increased benefits and protect local property values. Finally, the Department will commit

itself to ensuring a continued high level of satisfaction among visitors to the National

Forests and Grasslands.

Key Outcome: Provide sustainable production of goods and services from the National

Forests and Grasslands. 

Measuring what constitutes sustainable levels of goods and services from the National

Forest and Grasslands requires having adequate baseline data upon which to make resource

allocation decisions. Significant data gaps currently exist and both inventory and

monitoring activities are underway to fill this critical information gap. Research efforts to

develop protocols and sampling methods also are in progress. These steps will help the

Nation access the economic opportunities that exist in the National Forests and Grasslands

without threatening the long-term health of these resources. An annual performance goal

and indicator has not been developed at this time. Indicators are being tested at a number

of National Forests and at the National level.

Key Outcome: Improve the satisfaction of visitors to the National Forests and

Grasslands.

Visitor satisfaction is closely related to the condition of developed recreational facilities.

The National Forest System operates and maintains a multi-billion dollar recreation

infrastructure that includes visitor centers, campgrounds, swimming areas, picnic grounds,

and boating sites. Operating developed recreation facilities includes providing appropriate

amenities such as electricity, water, and sanitation; providing security and safety of visitors;

and providing an enjoyable environment for families to spend their recreation time together.
50

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

By measuring the number of persons at one time (PAOT) days operated to standard, the

Forest Service determines how much of its recreational facility capacity is meeting full

meaningful measure standards for health, safety, security, and aesthetics.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.3.1 Operate developed sites – PAOT NA 75 80 80

days operated to standard (Mil).

Strategies:

• Recreation fee Demo efforts will continue to address increased visitor satisfaction,

reduction in the maintenance backlog, and environmental improvements.

• Continue implementation of the Accessibility Action Plan and National Partnership

Strategy.

• Conduct scientifically credible user surveys to gather information for use in priority

setting and decision making.

• Research methods must be established for estimating recreation capacity and demand

using ecological capabilities and social factors.

Key Outcome: Maintain benefits from watershed protection infrastructures.

USDA watershed planners help communities plan the use of watersheds and floodplains to

provide benefits and protect property values. USDA has offered technical and financial

assistance to local sponsors in the development of water resources since the 1940s. Nearly

2,000 watershed projects covering 160 million acres and including 10,000 small floodcontrol dams have been implemented across the Nation with USDA assistance. These

projects help prevent and mitigate flooding. They also improve water quality and supply,

create wildlife habitat, and provide recreational opportunities. USDA’s water resource

programs help local organizations develop plans for small watersheds and conduct river

basin and floodplain management studies. USDA also provides technical and financial

assistance to local groups to install watershed improvement measures. In addition, USDA

provides emergency assistance to reduce threats to life and property in watersheds damaged

by severe natural disasters. 

In FY 2001 and FY 2002, USDA will provide assistance in completing structures and in

implementing non-structural measures in watershed project areas. The performance

indicator for this assistance will focus on structural measures, including dams, smaller

grade-stabilization structures, and channel work. 
51

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.3.2 Provide benefits to property and

safety through flood damage reduction:

• Watershed protection structures N/A N/A 81 26

completed (#).*

*Projects are supported by a combination of Federal, State, and local funds. Unexpected fluctuations in nonFederal funding may alter the schedule for completing these structures.

Strategies:

• Assist in assessing conditions, conducting river basin surveys and flood hazard analyses,

and providing flood plain management assistance.

• Provide the information and tools communities need to reduce potential damage from

natural disasters.

• Carry out water supply forecasting to reduce potential damages from flooding or drought

in western states.

• Help individuals and communities identify resource concerns and carry out watershedbased flood management plans. 

• Ensure that government and private organizations have the data needed to guide

responsible growth.

• Strengthen local partnerships and other mechanisms to increase the availability of

technical assistance in rapidly developing areas, for example, along the U.S.-Mexico

border.

Key Outcome: Foster natural resource development to improve the economies of

rural communities. 

Many rural communities possess natural resources that could enhance their local economy,

if the community realizes these benefits. USDA provides technical assistance to local

entities in drawing up and carrying out sustainable resource development strategies. The

Department helps local conservation districts make land use and community development

decisions. It also works closely with local and State agencies to provide technical

information on resource conditions and to help develop plans to achieve local resourcerelated goals, including efforts to protect and enhance community forests. In particular,

USDA partners closely with local Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)

councils. These volunteer councils, representing government and civic organizations, seek

public and private resources to put in place projects to ensure the orderly conservation,

development and sustainable use of local natural resources to generate local economic

opportunities. In FY 2001, USDA authorized 33 new RC&D areas to help more rural

communities develop the benefits of their natural resources.
52

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

3.3.3 Produce benefits to communities

through enhanced natural resources

development and utilization:

• Community improvement projects N/A N/A 2,513 2,513

completed through RC&D (#).

• Number of communities participating 11,101 10,547 11,100 10,500

in the Urban and Community 

Forestry Program (#).

Strategies:

• Through the locally led process, help communities identify opportunities for natural

resource development that improve their community’s economy and environment.

• Provide each RC&D area with a coordinator who can provide technical resource

development assistance.

• Ensure each RC&D area has community improvement plans that: develop natural

resource-based industries, protect rural industries from natural resource hazards, ensure

adequate rural water and waste disposal systems, improve recreational facilities, enhance

rural housing, provide adequate health and educational facilities, and meet essential

transportation and communication needs.

• Help conservation district and RC&D council members improve their ability to develop

local leadership.

• Help local communities build their capacity to manage their forest resources and

promote civic involvement, commitment and action through USDA’s Urban and

Community Forestry Program which enhances the health and sustainable management of

the nation’s urban forests and related economies, in partnership with State and local

organizations.

• Help mitigate the effects of air, water, soil and noise pollution, reduce energy use and

beautify communities by encouraging tree planting. 
53

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Enhance the capacity of all rural residents,

communities and businesses to prosper

USDA Resources FY 2001 FY 2002

Dedicated to Goal 4 Estimate Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 15,465 12,961

Staff Years 10,335 10,388

One of USDA’s core missions is ensuring that the 20% of our Nation that resides in rural

areas have the same opportunities for a high quality of life and economic growth as other

Americans. Life in a small town offers many advantages—less crime, cheaper housing and

a strong sense of community among the residents. There is, however, a downside to having

a limited number of people living over a large geographical area. Rural America has fewer

job opportunities and the jobs available are often at lower pay and with fewer benefits. The

median household income in rural areas is 23% below that of urban areas. This has

resulted in significant out-migration in some parts of the Nation and a lower standard of

living for many who remain behind. 

Rural communities also often lack the most basic services. Many rural residents have no

primary care physician in their community, putting them at greater risk when they are sick

or injured. In addition, the high cost per user of bringing utility services to a dispersed

rural population base often serves as an impediment to affordable, quality service and

prevents businesses from locating in rural areas. 

USDA’s rural development efforts work to enhance economic opportunities in rural areas,

while protecting the unique qualities of country living. The Department invests in housing,

telecommunications, community facilities, rural utilities and rural businesses. Whenever

Percent of FY 2002 USDA Resources Dedicated to this Goal

Program Level Staff Years

GOAL 4

13.7%

86.3% 90.5%

GOAL 4

9.5%

Strategic Goal 4
54

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

possible, USDA assistance is provided in cooperation with other sources of help to leverage

limited resources. USDA also provides technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of

rural communities to build a vibrant future. 

The advent of electronic commerce offers unique chances to eliminate the opportunity gap

that exists between urban and rural America. Historic hurdles to economic growth, such as

geographical distance, are less relevant in the digital age. But Internet-driven businesses

must have access to modern rapid telecommunications, and broadband deployment in rural

areas currently is lagging far behind urban deployment. Providing this service to rural

communities will be critical to their participation in the Nation’s future economic

opportunities.

In the time ahead, USDA will work to keep and create economic opportunities in country

communities and improve the rural standard of living. Particular attention will be paid to

ensuring those rural residents and communities most in need have equal access to the

Department’s rural development resources.
55

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 4.1

Expand job opportunities and improve the standard of living in 

rural communities

Rural America is characterized by great diversity in the resources and needs of its

communities. USDA, in partnership with a variety of public and private organizations, is a

key provider of technical and financial assistance that is tailored to the specific needs of a

rural community. From helping create and save jobs in America’s rural communities, to

helping rural citizens buy their first home, to providing essential services, like safe running

water, USDA’s efforts reflect the Nation’s commitment to ensuring a vibrant future for rural

America. 

Key Outcome: Create and save jobs in rural areas.

In order for any community to succeed, it must have a healthy economy. Rural

communities are more financially vulnerable than urban communities because there are

often a limited number of businesses forming the community’s economic base. As a result,

the loss of just one business can be devastating. Thus, saving existing jobs, and creating

new jobs, is essential to ensuring strong, diverse rural economies. But if these jobs are to

be helpful to the community in the long term, they must be in businesses that have a future.

Since many rural communities have an agricultural base, businesses that add value to local

agricultural products have a good chance of success and can stimulate growth in the local

economy.

With emergency supplemental funding in FY 2001, USDA is working to create or save

more jobs than has been possible with limited funding in recent years. The increased

funding has resulted in a larger target for FY 2001 as indicated below. Funding in FY 2002

returns to normal levels. The Department will work to be mindful of the soundness of all

loans made with taxpayer dollars, while working with USDA partners to invest in

businesses that can contribute to lasting rural economic growth.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

4.1.1 Jobs created or saved through 79,839* 73,502 120,147 71,634 

USDA financing of businesses in 

rural areas. 

* Revised to include 74,379 jobs reported in the Strategic Plan plus 5,490 jobs created by the Rural Economic

Development program loans and grants.

Strategies:

• Enhance understanding of the changing geography of low-skill employment by

researching characteristics of rural labor markets and identifying changes in the

distribution of low-skill employment.

• Conduct the U.S. Census of Agriculture to provide economic data on prices, labor,

production costs, farm numbers and farm income to inform policy decisions related to

agriculture-related industries.
56

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Develop profitable alternative crops, management practices that reduce costs, and

processes that add value to farm products, in order to keep and create more agriculturerelated jobs.

• Develop innovative strategies to help rural communities diversify their economic base

through public and private sector interventions.

Key Outcome: Increase rural homeownership.

The purchase of a home in a rural area is an investment in that community. A family’s

interest in seeing their town succeed is greatly increased when they own their home. USDA

provides homeownership opportunities to families with low to moderate incomes who

cannot obtain commercial financing on reasonable terms. There was a general down turn in

mortgage loan originations in 2000 due to higher rates. In FY 2001 the Department hopes

to provide the opportunity for homeownership to more rural families. This will be

accomplished by working closely with USDA partners, who also have an interest in rural

housing, and by streamlining and improving the processes required of guaranteed lenders

who want to work with USDA to help more rural residents achieve the dream of

homeownership. While USDA funding cannot, by itself, noticeably change the

homeownership rate in rural areas on an annual basis, it will contribute to an increase in

that rate over the long-term.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

4.1.2 Rural households receiving 55,941 45,420 57,000 55,800 

USDA financial assistance to purchase 

a home. 

Strategies:

• Restructure USDA guaranteed mortgages by standardizing forms and processes and

increasing their acceptance by commercial creditors.

• Provide electronic access to mortgage applications.

• Receive periodic reports from guaranteed lenders electronically.

Key Outcome: Provide safe drinking water to rural residents.

A decent standard of living also requires access to safe, clean drinking water that is

constantly available and provided at a reasonable cost. Many rural communities, because of

their small size and the high cost per user of building public water systems, do not have a

continuous supply of clean drinking water. Families and businesses in these communities

rely on private wells, many of which are contaminated or dry up during periods of extended

drought. 

In the coming years, USDA will work to establish or expand rural water systems by

leveraging limited Department resources with those of other organizations. Because

additional funding is available to assist these efforts in the FY 2001 water program budget,

and proposed for FY 2002, USDA will have the opportunity to assist a larger number of

communities. While USDA funding will not, by itself, noticeably reduce the percentage of
57

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

rural households with unsafe drinking water on an annual basis, it will contribute to a

reduction in the long-term.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

4.1.3 Rural water systems developed 579 590 668 600

or expanded to provide safe drinking 

water. 

Strategies:

• Give priority to projects that provide safe drinking water to low-income families with

unsafe or poor quality drinking water in their homes, or who have unsanitary waste

disposal facilities. 
58

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 4.2

Ensure the neediest rural residents and communities have equal access to

USDA programs that will help them succeed

Economic growth in rural areas has not occurred evenly throughout the country. Across

America there are pockets of severe poverty. Specifically, there are 535 rural counties that

have had poverty rates above 20% in every census since 1960. An estimated 8.5 million

rural residents live in poverty. More than 2.5 million rural residents live in physically

inadequate housing. While clean water is immediately available to most Americans, an

estimated 690,000 rural residents have no running water in their homes. Without a strong

effort to reach those rural residents and communities most in need of their government’s

help, the American dream in these impoverished areas will remain just that–a dream.

USDA is committed in the years to come to making that dream a reality.

Key Outcome: Increase assistance to the neediest rural communities. 

One pivotal answer to persistent poverty is greater investment in public services and jobs in

these communities. If persistent-poverty communities are to develop economically, then

they need substantial financial and technical help tailored to each community’s unique

challenges. USDA is committed to providing this assistance and helping ensure that all

rural communities are given an equal opportunity to prosper.

A key tool in this effort is the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC)

initiative. This effort targets the very neediest communities in the country and channels

large amounts of assistance to areas where local citizens demonstrate their initiative to work

together to draw up and carry out strong economic development strategies. EZ/EC

designees receive targeted financial and technical assistance from USDA and other

government entities. The communities then work to turn this Federal seed money into large

pools of capital that can finance needed community improvements and establish a

foundation for strong, sustainable economic growth.

USDA’s water and electric programs in FY 2001 and FY 2002 will allow the Department to

assist needy communities. Increased outreach targeted toward persistent poverty

communities will help ensure that these underserved areas will have equal access to USDA

rural development resources.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

4.2.1 Assist the neediest rural 

communities:

• Communities located in persistent- 247 219 248 222

poverty rural counties receiving 

financial assistance to establish or 

improve a system for drinking water 

or water disposal (#).
59

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

• Cooperatives serving persistent- 72 72 88 89

poverty counties receiving financial 

assistance to establish or improve the 

local electric service (#).

• Cooperatives serving counties 83 73 89 90

experiencing out-migration receiving 

financial assistance to establish or 

improve the local electric service (#).

• Ratio of non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC 8.4:1 10.7:1 7:1 or 7:1 or

grants invested in EZ/EC communities. greater greater

Strategies:

• Use special initiatives, such as EZ/EC, to reach needy areas, encourage strategic

planning at the local level, provide technical assistance and target limited Federal

resources.

• Encourage the participation of underserved communities in USDA rural development

programs by tailoring services to specific community needs, earmarking resources, and

removing barriers to access. 

• Strengthen relations with minority organizations, especially colleges and universities,

and partner with them to see more USDA funds and technical help reach underserved

minority communities to foster economic growth.
60

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Operate an efficient, effective and 

discrimination-free organization

USDA needs a strong infrastructure that is made up of skilled employees, fair and effective

administrative processes, modern management practices, advanced information systems,

and safe and efficient facilities. USDA has more than 100,000 employees around the world.

The Department’s programs touch people in every school, in every household and in many

Nations. Not surprisingly, USDA faces many of the same challenges as large

corporations–how to deliver the best customer service, how to attract and retain the best

employees, where to invest limited resources, how to comply with regulatory requirements,

how to disseminate information to a global organization providing a wide array of services,

and how to improve the environmental record of its facilities. 

To achieve any of the goals outlined in this Annual Performance Plan, USDA’s

infrastructure must be adequately maintained and effectively managed. Difficult trade-offs

need to be made between investments in programs and the infrastructure improvements

needed to support them. Wherever possible, USDA has streamlined its administrative

structure to devote maximum resources to programs. Agencies have been consolidated,

offices closed and staffing levels reduced. Nearly one-third of the county field offices that

existed in 1994 are now closed, and the number of USDA employees declined by 17%

between 1993 and 1999. At the same time, the remaining employees performed

significantly more work. For example, at USDA agencies providing loans and other

services to rural areas, staff size declined by about 28% since 1993. At the same time,

these agencies administered a 51% increase in program dollars. As a result, infrastructure

needs are becoming more pronounced and must be addressed with adequate funding and

effective leadership.

The Department takes seriously its responsibility to provide fair and effective programs and

services while minimizing the cost to taxpayers. In FY 2002, the Department will continue

to review the efficiency of USDA’s field office structure, including the Forest Service, in

light of customers’ needs and new technologies. The Department will also look for ways to

reduce layers of management where doing so will increase program responsiveness without

sacrificing needed oversight and accountability. USDA also is committed to collaborating

with its diverse network of customers to develop innovative, cost-effective ways of

providing services and ensuring equal access to them. Toward this end, USDA will focus

on two major operational objectives: ensuring fair and equitable treatment of customers and

employees and improving organizational productivity, accountability, and performance—

particularly through the use of technology.

Strategic Goal 5
61

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 5.1

Ensure that USDA provides fair and equitable service to all of its 

customers and upholds the civil rights of its employees

Ensuring that all employees and managers comply with civil rights policies is difficult in a

large, decentralized organization. However, USDA will continue its journey to becoming a

Federal civil rights leader. With adequate resources, the Department will become a better

place to work and customers who were underserved in the past will receive quality service

in the future–service that proves USDA is a 21st century “people’s department.”

USDA will work to ensure that program and administrative regulations are written to be fair

and inclusive. The Department also will establish a better review process for major USDA

programs, improve outreach to underserved groups, and work to achieve more timely and

fair resolutions to civil rights complaints.

Key Outcome: Conduct civil rights impact analyses of all significant USDA

regulations to assess their effects on underserved customers.

Civil rights impact analyses of new and revised regulations help ensure the fairness and

equity of USDA programs. A thorough review of how the regulations affect program

participation can help ensure that underserved groups are not excluded. In a similar

manner, a civil rights impact analysis of the Department’s administrative regulations can

ensure that employees, too, are treated fairly and equitably. Ensuring that all significant

Department regulations are subject to a civil rights review will advance the fair and

equitable treatment of all members of the USDA community.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.1.1 Signnificant USDA regulations N/A 100 100 100 

subjected to civil rights impact analyses (%). 

Strategies:

• Ensure that every significant USDA regulation is subjected to a civil rights review before

it is approved. 

• Enforce civil rights laws, rules and regulations.

• Provide civil rights training for all USDA employees on possible barriers to the

participation of underserved groups and on civil rights issues generally.

Key Outcome: Provide full and equal access to USDA programs in a discriminationfree environment.

Complex USDA programs operate nationwide with participants in all economic and cultural

groups. Constant surveillance and periodic major reviews can help ensure that these

programs reach all who are eligible for them. These reviews will examine how programs

are carried out and the impact on traditionally underserved groups. Major reviews will be

scheduled for every USDA program at least once every five years. 
62

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.1.2 Major USDA programs reviewed N/A 20 20 20 

each year (%). 

Strategies:

• Review the fairness and equity of USDA program delivery and its impact on socially

disadvantaged customers.

• Continually monitor USDA activities to identify civil rights violations and ensure

appropriate remedies.

• Listen to customer and employee opinions about fair treatment in USDA employment

and program delivery. 

• Conduct evaluations to hold USDA mission areas and senior managers accountable for

progress on civil rights.

Key Outcome: Establish in every agency effective outreach programs that target

underserved customers.

As part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to improve its civil rights record, outreach plans were

established in every USDA agency during FY 1999. Efforts now are underway to increase

participation of traditionally underserved customers in all Department programs. Each

agency’s plan will be used to establish performance baselines that can gauge the success of

that agency’s efforts to increase the participation of underserved customer groups. Regular

reports will be required to ensure accountability for progress and to keep managers

informed of their agency’s outreach efforts.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.1.3 Improvement in minority N/A N/A Develop TBD

participation in USDA programs (%). Baseline 

Strategies:

• Establish baselines for measuring increased participation by underserved populations in

all USDA programs.

• Monitor trends related to USDA program participation of historically underserved

populations and coordinate outreach in all USDA activities through mission area

strategic plans, agency liaisons and state outreach councils. 

• Continue to assist underserved farmers through USDA’s Outreach for Socially

Disadvantaged Farmers Program.

• Build relationships with community-based organizations to further enhance USDA’s

outreach efforts.
63

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

• Develop initiatives for farm workers with other Federal agencies and non-government

organizations. 

• Provide training and education on outreach strategies to USDA employees and

stakeholders.

• Emphasize the advantages of using small businesses to provide goods and services,

improve outreach to small businesses, and establish partnerships to deliver technical

assistance to small rural and/or agricultural businesses.

Key Outcome: Ensure timely resolution of program and equal employment civil

rights complaints.

Effective systems to process program and employment civil rights complaints will enable

USDA to carry out its investigations in a manner that is timely and fair to all parties

involved. It is USDA’s goal that by 2005, we will complete the processing of every civil

rights complaint case to the point of issuance of a report of investigation within a 180-day

time frame. Fair and efficient resolutions to civil rights complaints are essential to the

overall improvement of USDA’s civil rights record. The Department’s customers and

employees deserve to know that their grievances will be heard and a fair resolution arrived

at within a reasonable timeframe.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.1.4 Reduction in the average number N/A N/A 5 5 

of days it takes to resolve USDA civil 

rights complaints (%). 

Strategies:

• Improve processing for program and employment complaints every year until the target

of 180 days for the issuance of a report of investigation is reached.

• Improve tracking and reporting mechanisms to provide better information and

management assessment.

• Promote awareness of alternative dispute resolution and provide model conflict

management training packages to facilitate training of supervisors and managers. 
64

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Objective 5.2

Improve organizational productivity, accountability and performance

Rapid changes in technology have raised customers’ expectations for more, better, faster

and cheaper service in every facet of their lives. They expect no less from USDA. About

30% of farmers use the Internet, and nearly half of them use a computer for their farm

business. These numbers will grow. Delivering government services through technology

represents a fundamental change in the way USDA conducts business. It will transform

interactions with customers, employees and partners and create the potential for vastly more

efficient and less costly business practices. 

While automation is the key to improving service delivery, it requires significant upfront

investment. Many of USDA’s information systems are rapidly becoming obsolete, and

upgrading or replacing them is an expensive proposition. In addition, many rural

Americans, socially disadvantaged farmers and other customers do not have regular access

to information technology. USDA must work to bring that technology to customers as well

as to improve USDA’s own capacity to deliver 21st century government services. The

development of Department-wide information systems for common functions, such as

financial management, telecommunications, payroll and procurement will provide timely,

consistent and reliable information to improve management of USDA resources.

Automation also can contribute to meeting President Bush’s goal of building a more citizenbased, results-oriented and market-driven Federal government. To improve the efficiency

and function of government operations, USDA will work to do its part to realize the

Administration’s government-wide goals to make greater use of performance-based

contracts, increase on-line procurement, and expand public-private competition for a portion

of the work currently done by Federal employees.

If USDA is to fully leverage the power of technology to improve its services, then

Department employees also must be highly skilled. Unfortunately, USDA is facing a

potential “brain drain.” By 2005, 77% of the Department’s senior executives will be

eligible for regular retirement and another 17% could take early retirement. This is one of

the highest retirement eligibility rates in the Federal government. As USDA jobs become

increasingly technical, skill gaps are emerging in key areas, like information technology.

As employees retire and new workers are hired, USDA must ensure that it maintains and

builds a talented, flexible and diverse workforce that can thrive in the digital era.

Recognizing the correlation between employee and customer satisfaction, the Department

also must ensure that its employees have the tools and work environment needed to serve

customers effectively. This includes: sound leadership, efficient work processes, modern,

efficient and safe workplaces, fair treatment, and adequate incentives for performance,

customer service, teamwork, and innovation.

Key Outcome: Ensure USDA has the information systems needed to allow customers

to securely share data and receive services electronically.

The Department is working to improve customer service and operational efficiency by

building a modern information technology (IT) infrastructure and moving many of its

common transactions on-line. Efforts at the Service Center agencies (Farm Service Agency,

Natural Resources and Conservation Service and Rural Development) to implement a

Common Computing Environment (CCE) and meet the requirements of the Freedom to E-
65

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

File Act are integral to achieving this outcome. These efforts will provide a model for the

rest of the Department in transforming all practicable customer processes to a user-friendly,

Internet environment. The Freedom to E-File Act requires the Risk Management Agency

and the Service Center agencies to develop Internet-based systems that allow agricultural

producers to conduct program transactions on-line by December 2001 and June 2002,

respectively. The remaining customer base is being addressed under the Government

Paperwork and Elimination Act (GPEA) that requires the entire Department to meet similar

requirements by October 2003. In FY 2001, the Service Center agencies will make all

program forms, to the extent practicable, available on-line and initial GPEA plans will be

developed by all relevant USDA agencies. In FY 2002, the Service Center agencies and

RMA, through private insurance providers, will make all practicable program transactions

for agricultural producers available on-line and the Department will have 25 percent of all

transactions identified in initial GPEA plans on-line.

As one of the cornerstone efforts of the Service Center Modernization Initiative, the Service

Center Modernization Initiative-Information Technology (SCMI-IT) effort will enable

USDA to meet its commitment to transform field operations. Central to USDA’s efforts to

build a strong, modern infrastructure is its work to establish a CCE across its field level

Service Centers. CCE will serve as the technological foundation for implementing

reengineered business processes across the Service Center agencies. 

When fully deployed, the CCE will optimize data, equipment, and personnel sharing

opportunities among the Service Center agencies. It will overcome the limitations of

existing legacy systems. The CCE also will allow the Service Centers to use commonly

available information technology, such as the Internet, to deliver services and conduct

business with customers and partners. CCE will also provide the technical infrastructure

necessary for the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in the Service Centers. In

short, a modern technology infrastructure will allow USDA’s field presence to leverage the

information age to achieve 21st century efficiencies and customer service.

As USDA modernizes its infrastructure and increases public access to more on-line

services, it is critical that the Department has an effective and comprehensive security

program. An information systems security strategy has been devised to ensure the

confidentiality, integrity and availability of information systems and services, with

particular attention to mission critical information assets. The strategy includes a plan that

identifies four major steps that, when completed, will position the Department to

institutionalize the best practices that characterize leading cyber security organizations.

These steps are in the areas of: 1) Security Program Management; 2) Personnel; 3) Policy,

Standards and Program Operations; and 4) Technical Infrastructure. In the FY 2003 Annual

Performance Plan, the Department will identify specific measures to be achieved and

accomplishments to date.

To comply with these directives from Congress and to dramatically improve USDA’s

service to a widespread customer base, the Department will pursue an aggressive strategy to

build a modern, secure common information infrastructure. 
66

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.1 Establish a common computing 

environment for USDA Service Centers 

which includes hardware, software, 

security, websites, telecommunications 

and databases:

• Workstations deployed (%). 74 86 100 N/A

• FSA connectivity solution and network N/A N/A 100 N/A

servers deployed (%).

• Application/GIS servers and software N/A N/A N/A 100

deployed (%).

5.2.2 Transition to a fully integrated 

e-Government environment.

• Meet legislative mandates of the N/A N/A Yes Yes

Freedom of E·File Act and GPEA. 

Strategies:

• Plan, procure and deploy the hardware to support reengineered business processes and

common legacy information systems in all USDA Service Centers.

• Plan, procure and deploy the software necessary to support common legacy information

systems and reengineered business processes, obtaining enterprise-wide licenses where

feasible.

• Plan, procure and deploy the telecommunications infrastructure to support the current

and future information technology needs of USDA Service Centers.

• Plan, develop and implement the data architecture necessary to support USDA’s vision

for a strong, shared information infrastructure. This effort should include identifying

optimum geographic placement of databases and database management systems.

• Develop on-line security plans and oversee agency implementation.

• Plan and execute the migration of older agency information systems to the new common

computing environment.

• Ensure that an orderly configuration management and change management process is

established and adhered to.

• Improve service by providing remote customers electronic access to all applicable USDA

information and applications.

• Re-evaluate program delivery by examining the potential of enabling technologies to

deliver services via the Internet and to appropriately allow on-line access to and

collection of information.

• Examine internal policies and processes to ensure electronic privacy and strict policies

for electronic services. 

• Fund the Cyber Security Program Office at $4.5 million in FY 2002 to ensure security

efforts are maximized across the Department

• Maintain funding for computer security in all USDA agencies and increase funding for

security efforts at the National Agricultural Statistics Service by $0.5 million in FY 2002

to strengthen protection of market sensitive and confidential data.
67

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Key Outcome: Ensure USDA has a financial information system that can produce

auditable financial statements and provide reliable and useful information for

decision-making.

USDA works with its component agencies to ensure that the Department’s financial policies

reflect sound business practices. Achieving a clean audit opinion on the Department’s

Consolidated Financial Statements and agency specific financial statements will assure the

users of USDA’s financial information and our constituents that USDA’s financial systems

are sound and generate consistent, reliable, and useful information.

USDA has been working on automating the statement preparation process to improve the

efficiency and consistency of data processing within the USDA Consolidated Financial

Statements. USDA produces six stand-alone audited financial statements in addition to a

consolidated statement. Three of these financial statements, the Food and Nutrition

Service (the USDA agency with the largest budget), the Rural Telephone Bank, and the

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, have received unqualified or "clean" audit opinions for

several years. The remaining three agencies with stand-alone statements - Rural

Development, the Forest Service (FS), and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) have

made significant progress in improving their audit results. The Office of the Chief

Financial Officer (OCFO) is working closely with RD, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and

CCC on a credit reform working group, comprised of representatives from these agencies,

the Office of Inspector General, and OMB, with GAO as an advisor, to address the credit

reform issues keeping these agencies from a clean opinion. We are also working closely

with the FS on its plans for financial management improvements. It is anticipated that the

FS will produce timely, accurate, and auditable accounting information relating to its

property, plant, and equipment balances for FY 2001. Additionally, USDA has made

significant progress in reconciling USDA’s fund balances with the Department of the

Treasury. The OCFO led the effort to identify and correct the systemic problems that cause

out-of-balances with Treasury. OCFO has institutionalized a new Department-wide

methodology for dealing with cash reconciliation. OCFO continues to work closely with

Treasury as they and the OCFO re-engineer the cash reconciliation and reporting process.

We are hopeful that these efforts will result in an improved USDA consolidated financial

statement audit opinion for FY 2001.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.3 Achieve an unqualified opinion Disclaimer Disclaimer Qualified Unqualified

on the USDA Consolidated Financial Opinion Opinion

Statements for FY 2002. 

Strategies:

• Implement a financial management reporting strategy for USDA that addresses various

user needs and Departmental requirements.

• Employ tools to improve estimates of program cost.

• Adhere to Departmental financial procedures to ensure prompt resolution of financial

management issues.
68

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

USDA will complete implementation of the Foundation Financial Information System

(FFIS), which is a Joint Financial Management Improvement Program and U.S. Standard

General Ledger compliant financial management information system. This financial

management system will provide the integration and capabilities to improve the delivery of

timely and meaningful financial management information and will allow USDA to comply

with external legislation including the CFO Act of 1990. Furthermore, the implementation

of this information system will provide auditable financial data that can be used to prepare

the USDA Consolidated Financial Statements.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.4 Implement the Foundation Financial 

Information System USDA-wide:

• Percentage of total USDA workforce 

served (%). 31 46 78 98

Strategies:

• Configure the FFIS and Financial Data Warehouses to meet USDA agency financial

processing requirements.

• Develop and implement data conversion methodologies to ensure that data converted

from legacy systems is supportable and reconciled.

• Provide on-going financial management reviews to ensure compliance with government

mandates and financial management best practices.

• Re-engineer legacy existing financial processing systems to integrate and improve

financial data.

• Provide and assure corporate administrative financial management infrastructure and

security solutions to ensure and protect integrity and confidentiality of USDA financial

management data.

Key Outcome: Ensure USDA has a skilled, satisfied workforce and strong prospects

for retention of its best employees.

Staffing and retaining a strong workforce is critical to USDA’s ability to achieve its goals.

USDA, like other employers, is in a war for talent. People want to work for organizations

that offer challenging work, opportunities for professional growth, inspiring leadership,

quality work-life balance and fair treatment. In the time ahead, USDA will work to

improve its competitive standing in these categories in order to recruit and retain a quality

workforce. 
69

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.5 USDA employee work satisfaction N/A 3 4 5

rate above U.S. Goverment worker 

satisfaction (%). 

Strategies:

• Ensure workforce planning, performance management and employee recognition

systems are aligned with the Department’s strategic goals to recruit and retain the best

talent.

• Deploy aggressive recruitment strategies for minorities and other under-represented

groups. 

• Provide a safe and modern workplace.

• Improve areas employees identify as lowering satisfaction.

• Reengineer hiring and other human resource processes to improve employee satisfaction. 

• Institute family-friendly policies to boost employee morale and productivity.

Key Outcome: Ensure USDA has a facilities environmental management system that

can produce reliable data on the Department’s environmental performance.

Currently, internal USDA facility inspections and program reviews do not produce

consistent data on the Department’s overall environmental performance. USDA will take

actions to integrate environmental accountability into its day-to-day decision-making and

long-term planning. A strong environmental management system will enable USDA to

make responsible business decisions. 

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.6 Develop and implement a N/A Launch 15-20% 50-60% 

Department-wide environmental Effort In Place In Place

management system. 

Strategies:

• Develop a formal USDA policy for facilities environmental management.

• Conduct environmental management system training and briefings for all USDA

agencies.

• Implement environmental management systems through pilot projects at selected agency

facilities.
70

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Key Outcome: Ensure USDA acquires recurring commercial services in the most cost

effective way.

Performance Based Service Contracting

Performance-based service contracting represents a major change from traditional

contracting methods where agencies specify contract inputs, such as number of contractor

staff assigned to a particular project or the processes they must use. Using performancebased service contracting requires the development of objective measures and standards for

the contractor’s performance. 

USDA will be promoting performance-based contracting throughout the agency, focusing

first on identifying those contracts where we think making an investment in developing

performance-based standards can yield big improvements in contractor performance.

USDA has already made some strides in converting traditional service contracts to

performance-based contracts. In recent years, the value of USDA contracts eligible for

service-based contracting has been over $700 million. Achieving the goal of awarding 20

percent of USDA’s service contracts as performance-based contracts will be challenging

because USDA has many relatively small contracts that would need to be converted to reach

the goal.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.7 Use of performance-based 1.9 4.6 10 20 

service contracts as a percent of total

eligible service contracts (%). 

Strategies:

• Identify barriers to greater use of PBSC methods and to develop a strategic plan with

specific action steps and time frames for FY 2002 and beyond to address these issues.

E-Business

FedBizOpps is a single point of entry electronic posting system which permits persons

interested in Government business opportunities to obtain consolidated information on

procurements and other actions from many Federal agencies from one central site. A

Federal Acquisition Regulation interim rule will make the use of FedBizOpps mandatory

for synopses of proposed contract actions and the posting of solicitations, effective October

1, 2001. USDA personnel are currently preparing to bring USDA agencies onto the system

by the October deadline.
71

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.8 Procurement actions in excess N/A N/A N/A 100 

of $25,000 posted to FedBizOpps (%).*

* Agencies will post (a) all synopses for acquisitions valued at over $25,000 for which widespread notice is

required and (b) all associated solicitations unless covered by an exemption in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Strategies:

• Train agency personnel in setup and use of FedBizOpps.

• Use a monthly reporting system to monitor their progress.

Commercial Services

The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998 requires Federal agencies to

provide an annual inventory of all commercial activities and federal guidelines require that

such activities be considered for contracting out to the private sector. USDA already

contracts with private sources for a wide array of services and will continue to consider

whether commercial activities could be performed more effectively and efficiently by the

private sector. In keeping with the Administration’s goal of promoting competition and

making government more market-based, USDA will use its inventory of commercial

activities to develop and implement a plan that will help us meet the goal of competing 5

percent of the positions listed on the inventory as commercial in FY 2002.

Fiscal Year

Annual Performance Goals 1999 2000 2001 2002

and Indicators Actual Actual Target Target 

5.2.9 Reduction in cost and/or 

increased productivity of commercial

activities.

• Provide timely annual update of Yes Yes Yes Yes

FAIR Act inventory

• Develop plan for incremental N/A N/A Yes N/A

competitions/conversion of FAIR

Act inventory.

• Competition/conversion of FAIR N/A N/A N/A 5

Act inventory (%).

Strategies:

• Submit complete and accurate FAIR Act inventory by due date.

• Train appropriate personnel in cost comparison studies.

• Identify needed contract, budget or other resources.

• Solicit input from commercial and employee representatives, the Office of Management

and Budget and other Federal agencies to identify best practices for cost comparison

studies.
72

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 Program Levels

The following tables present estimates of how the Department’s funding will be used to

support the four program goals in this plan during fiscal years 2001and 2002. The tables

show the Department’s program level by account for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 (program

level represents the gross value of all financial assistance that USDA provides to the

public). All USDA agencies contribute to Goal 5 and an estimate has not been made of

USDA funds used to meet the activities under this goal.
73

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2001 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 LevelFarm & Foreign Agricultural Services:

Farm Service Agency:

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund:Program Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4,247 4,247 0 0 0 $4,247State Mediation Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33000 3

Emergency Conservation Progam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 0 0 80 0 80

Salaries & Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,143 972 34 137 0 1,143

Total, FSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,473 5,222 34 217 0 5,473

Risk Management Agency:

Total, RMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,026 3,026 0 0 0 3,026

Foreign Agricultural Service:

P.L. 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 0 20 0 0 20P.L. 480 Program Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 0 160 0 0 160P.L. 480 Grants - Titles II and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .927 0 927 0 0 927

Foreign Agricultural Service & General Sales Manager . . . . . . . . . . . .202 168 34 0 0 202

Total, FAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,309 168 1,141 0 0 1,309

Commodity Credit Corporation:

Total, CCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32,383 30,402 0 1,981 0 32,383

Total, FFAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42,191 38,818 1,175 2,198 0 42,191

Rural Development:

Total, RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14,918 0 0 0 14,918 14,918

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services:

Total, FNCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34,753 0 34,753 0 0 34,753
74

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2001 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 LevelNatural Resources and Environment:

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Total, NRCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,398 0 0 1.398 0 1,398

Forest Service:

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .519 0 0 519 0 519Forest and Rangeland Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 0 0 229 0 229State, Private and international Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .413 0 0 343 70 413National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,310 0 0 1,310 0 1,310Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Assistance Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50050 5

Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,762 0 0 1,762 0 1,762Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence Uses . . . . . . . . . .60060 6Range Betterment Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30030 3Land Acquistion Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 0 0 151 0 151

Forest Service Permanent Appropriations (302, 303, 605) . . . . . . . . . .684 0 0 684 0 684

Total, FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,082 0 0 5,012 70 5,082

Total, NRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,480 0 0 6,410 70 6,480

Food Safety:

Food Safety and Inspection Service:

Total FSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .794 0 794 0 0 794

Research, Education, and Economics:

Agricultural Research Service:

ARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .938 283 324 157 174 938

Buildings & Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 22 26 12 14 74

Total, ARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,012 305 350 169 188 1,012

Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension Service:

Research and Education Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .976 354 331 175 117 976Integrated Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 2 23 13 3 42

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 48 36 24 12 120

Total, CSREES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,138 404 390 212 132 1,138
75

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2001 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Level

Economic Research Service:

Total ERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 25 23 9 9 66

National Agricultural Statistics Service:

Total NASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 65 4 7 25 101

Total, RE & E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,317 799 767 397 354 2,317

Marketing & Regulatory Programs:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Total APHIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,059 1.059 0 0 0 1,059

Agricultural Marketing Service:

Total AMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .674 674 0 0 0 674

Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration:

Total GIPSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 75 0 0 0 75

Total MRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,808 1,808 0 0 0 1,808

Total, Departmental Activities & OIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .489 122 122 122 123 489Total, USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103,750 41,547 37,611 9,128 15,465 103,750Note: Figures reflect rescission pursuant to Section 1 (a)(4) of P.L. 106-554.
76

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2002 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 LevelFarm & Foreign Agricultural Services:

Farm Service Agency:

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund:Program Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$3,855 3,855 0 0 0 $3,855State Mediation Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33000 3

Emergency Conservation Progam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00000 0

Salaries & Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,213 1,019 36 158 0 1,213

Total, FSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,071 4,877 36 158 0 5,071

Risk Management Agency:

Total, RMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,154 3,154 0 0 0 3,154

Foreign Agricultural Service:

P.L. 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 0 20 0 0 20P.L. 480 Program Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 0 140 0 0 140P.L. 480 Grants - Titles II and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .835 0 835 0 0 835

Foreign Agricultural Service & General Sales Manager . . . . . . . . . . . .207 168 0 39 0 207

Total, FAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,202 168 995 39 0 1,202

Commodity Credit Corporation:

Total, CCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25,697 23,802 0 1,895 0 25,697

Total, FFAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35,124 32,001 1,031 2,092 0 35,124

Rural Development:

Total, RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12,427 0 0 0 12,427 12,427

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services:

Total, FNCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36,700 0 36,700 0 0 36,700
77

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2002 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 LevelNatural Resources and Environment:

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Total, NRCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,101 0 0 1,101 0 1,101

Forest Service:

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .524 0 0 524 0 524Forest and Rangeland Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 0 0 235 0 235State, Private and international Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 0 0 169 69 238National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,314 0 0 1,314 0 1,314Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Assistance Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00000 0

Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,280 0 0 1,280 0 1,280Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence Uses . . . . . . . . . .50050 5Range Betterment Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30030 3Land Acquistion Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 0 0 132 0 132

Forest Service Permanent Appropriations (302, 303, 605) . . . . . . . . . .861 0 0 861 0 861

Total, FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,592 0 0 4,523 69 4,592

Total, NRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,693 0 0 5,624 69 5,693

Food Safety:

Food Safety and Inspection Service:

Total FSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .817 0 817 0 0 817

Research, Education, and Economics:

Agricultural Research Service:

ARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .939 288 319 158 174 939

Buildings & Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 9 10 5 6 30

Total, ARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .969 297 329 163 180 969

Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension Service:

Research and Education Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .832 300 282 150 100 832Integrated Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 2 23 14 3 42

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 48 36 24 12 120

Total, CSREES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .994 350 341 188 115 994
78

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

2002 Budget — Program Level

(Dollars in Millions)

Total

Program Program

Accounts Level Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Level

Economic Research Service:

Total ERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 28 22 9 8 67

National Agricultural Statistics Service:

Total NASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 67 4 7 36 114

Total, RE & E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,144 742 696 367 339 2,144

Marketing & Regulatory Programs:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Total APHIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .888 888 0 0 0 888

Agricultural Marketing Service:

Total AMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .501 501 0 0 0 501

Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration:

Total GIPSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 76 0 0 0 76

Total MRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,465 1,465 0 0 0 1,465

Total, Departmental Activities & OIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .501 125 125 125 126 501Total, USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94,871 34,333 39,369 8,208 12,961 94,871Note: Figures reflect rescission pursuant to Section 1 (a)(4) of P.L. 106-554.
79

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Agricultural Outlookmagazine Agricultural Incomeand Finance Situationand Outlook Report.Economic ResearchService website—FarmIncome Briefing RoomMeasured valuesdealing with expandingrisk management toolsand total insurance inforce are derived fromUSDA’s database offinancial and programdata.

Data to produce estimates of farm incomecome from a variety of sources. Cashreceipts are either drawn directly fromNational Agricultural Statistics Service(NASS) reports of income and dispositionor are produced by the Economic ResearchService (ERS) from production and pricedata released by NASS. Governmentpayment data are from administrativerecords. Crop commodity loan data areobtained from the Farm Service Agency.Other sources of income such as customhire are obtained from the AgriculturalResource Management Study, a surveyconducted in partnership between ERS andNASS.The Data Acceptance System (DAS) andAccounting Report System (ARS) are twointegrated data processing systems. Togetherthey provide a mechanism to ensure thatdata received is accurate, that errors arecorrected timely, that information containedon monthly accounting reports submitted bythe insurance providers is accurate andappropriate entries are made in the financialaccounting systems. All transactions arevalidated for data accuracy and compliancewith processing requirements. Monthlysubmission is mandatory if any activityoccurred during the month.

Estimates of receipts are based on surveysand other information and are subject torevision as new data become available.Data for receipts and other sources of grossfarm income estimation are drawn fromsample surveys and are subject to surveyand measurement error.There are no limitations.

1.1.1 Farmers’ total cash receipts fromthe sale of farm products.1.1.2 Gross cash farm income from cashreceipts, government payments, and otherfarm income sources.1.1.3 Percentage of gross cash farmincome from the market.1.1.4 Producers have economically soundrisk management tools available, and theyuse them to meet their needs:• Number of insurance plans available

(crop year data).

• Total crop insurance premium (crop

year data).

• Participation – Planted acres of

principal crops as reported by NASS(other than hay) that are insured (cropyear data).

• Total insurance in force (crop year

data).
80

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

AgriculturalQuarantine Inspection(AQI) MonitoringSystem.Agency’s internal procedures.

For the international traveler complianceindicator, Compliance Rate refers to thepercentage of international travelers clearingthe Federal Inspection Service at U.S. portsof entry who meet Federal agriculturalregulations. Through its AQI MonitoringSystem, the Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service (APHIS) estimates thecompliance rates by using a statisticallyvalid sampling procedure that involves athorough inspection of passengers, vehicles,and cargo at ports of entry. A full-time staffofficer coordinates the collection, analysis,and quality control of the data.For the Animal Health EmergencyManagement System indicator, APHISplans to hire regional emergency managersto help states meet the standards and tomonitor their progress. APHIS will usepeer reviews and test exercises to verify themeasurement. The test exercises include anevaluation component that assesses thequality of state emergency management capabilities.This ongoing tracking process begins whenan investigation is opened by a regionaloffice and concludes when the investigationis closed. Information tracked includes staffyears expended on each investigation, timefrom start to finish of each investigation,and the assessment of the dollar amount ofrecovery to the producer as the result of theinvestigation. Guidelines designed topromote uniform recording of thisinformation into an electronic investigation/ 

Despite a small percentage of poor dataquality (due to port personnel changes,equipment failure, etc.), the AQI Monitoringsystem enables officers to more accuratelyestimate approaching prohibited agriculturalitems that could lead to pest and diseaseoutbreaks. Actual compliance rates mayvary as much as 0.5 percent due to themargin of error associated with statisticalsampling.Tracking procedures are being designed thatwill improve tracking of investigations thatare closed by the regional office but remainopen while undergoing review by theheadquarters staff. Improved procedures will also trackinvestigations forwarded to the office of theGeneral Counsel for formal action.

1.1.5 Reduce the number and severity ofpest and disease outbreaks in the U.S.:• International air travelers complying

with restrictions to prevent entry ofpests and diseases.

• States and Territories meeting

standards for state animal healthemergency management systems.

1.1.6 Promote a fair, open and

competitive marketing environment forlivestock, meat, and poultry:

• Investigations.• Violations corrected/issues resolved

within 1 year of investigation’s startingdate.

• Monetary recovery to livestock

producers and poultry producersresulting from enforcement of thePackers and Stockyards Act. 
81

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Farms and Land inFarms Survey releasedon February, 18, 2000,Agricultural StatisticsBoard, NationalAgricultural StatisticsService (NASS),USDA.Farm Service Agency’s(FSA) accountingsystem.

complaint log have been developed. Eachquarter the information recorded in thecomplaint/investigation log maintained ineach regional office is compiled andreviewed. The review includes selection ofa representative sample of the investigationsfor verification and validation with theinvestigator directly involved in theinvestigation. The quarterly reviewpromotes consistency and accuracy inreporting the results of investigations.Data collected during the June AgriculturalSurvey and the Fall Agricultural Surveyusing sampling procedures to ensure everyfarm operator had a chance of beingselected. Two samples of farm operators areselected for June, while only the areasample is surveyed in the Fall. First, NASSmaintains a list of farms which are classifiedand sampled by size and type. Larger farmsare selected with greater frequency but allfarms are represented. A second sample,used in June and the Fall, consists of areasegments of land scientifically selected fromaerial photography. Transactions are entered by FSA servicecenter staff and processed through theAgency’s Finance Office. Since these dataflow through the Agency’s accountingsystem, it is subject to both internal andexternal audits.

Two types of errors, sampling andnonsampling, are possible in an estimatebased on a sample survey. Both types affectthe “precision” of the estimates. Samplingerror occurs because a complete census isnot taken. The sampling error measures thevariation in estimates from the average ofall possible samples. Nonsampling errorscan occur in complete censuses as well assample surveys. They are caused by theinability to obtain correct information fromeach person sampled, differences ininterpreting questions or definitions andmistakes in coding or processing the data.Special efforts are taken at each step of thesurvey to minimize nonsampling errors.There are no known limitations to the data.

1.1.7 Maintain the percentage of smallfarms in relation to total U.S. farms at the1999 level.1.1.8 Increase the amount of farmoperating and ownership loans made orguaranteed to beginning and sociallydisadvantaged farmers.1.1.9 Maintain a low loss rate on directloans.
82

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Automated systemscapture data required.

USDA employs a mix of manual andautomated procedures and systems to verifyand validate the performance goals andindicators. Foreign Agricultural Service(FAS) managers have developed verificationand validation procedures for each measureto ensure the validity of informationreported to USDA for inclusion in itsAnnual Performance Report. FAS also hasdeveloped a performance management andreporting system, in which each manager isrequired to report his/her successes inmeeting annual targets on a quarterly basis.These reports are reviewed by seniormanagement officials. The FASCompliance Review staff has audited theprocedures for completeness and accuracy,and annually audits the data reported foraccuracy, as well.

Due to the lack of sufficient staff resourcesto address U.S. commitments to WTO tradeissues and other trade barrier activities byforeign markets, data collection suffers anderrors occur. Verification follow-upactivities necessary to collect and verify 100percent of market access successes arebeyond FAS resource availability. Recentcomputer technology has improved datacollection, storage and access; however,insufficient staff resources will continue tobe a significant limiting factor in datarecording and success verification.Due to the lack of sufficient staff resourcesto address U.S. concerns regarding NonWTO trade issues and other trade barrieractivities by foreign markets, data collectionsuffers and errors occur. Verificationfollow-up activities necessary to collect andverify 100 percent of market accesssuccesses are beyond FAS resourceavailability. Recent computer technologyhas improved data collection, storage andaccess; however, insufficient staff resourceswill continue to be a significant limitingfactor in data recording and successverification.Data collection is reported on a voluntarybasis by private sector U.S. firms andtherefore data errors on sales are likelybelow actual sales.

1.2.1 Increase the U.S. market share ofglobal agricultural trade.• Estimated trade opportunities

preserved annually by assuringimplementation of existing tradeagreements by signatory countriesthrough the WTO notification process.

• Gross trade value of markets created,

expanded or retained annually due tomarket access activities other thanWTO notifications and/or standards.

• Annual sales reported by U.S.

exporters from on-site sales atInternational trade shows.
83

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Agency’s internalprocedures.Agricultural MarketingService (AMS)program personnelcollect and maintainperformance data fortheir programs.

Each fiscal year, the Technical ServicesDivision (TSD) establishes a list of testmethods which, in its assessment, need tobe evaluated. Occasionally, unforeseenproblems, opportunities, and customer needsrequire TSD to conduct unplanned methodevaluations. The TSD tracks the completionof planned and unplanned methodevaluations and calculates the percentage ofgoal by dividing total completed againsttotal planned evaluations. Thus, it ispossible to exceed 100% of the goal.TSD and the Field Management Division(FMD) are responsible for tracking newand/or improved methods or tests. At theend of the fiscal year, TSD shares the listwith FMD for review, and by workingtogether, agrees to a final list of new and/orimproved methods or tests. Existingdocumentation within the GIPSA validatesand verifies that action items werecompleted.Agency program review staffs areresponsible for reviewing the collection ofperformance measure data to ensure that theaccomplishment data being collected isbased on actual performance and that thesystem to collect that data can be tracked 

Data errors are minimized during the FY byquarterly adjusting initial sales registrationsto reflect actual sales. However, the 4thquarter FY actual sales may be an estimatebased on past and current year initialregistrations compared to actual purchasesby foreign countries and situation outlook.Determining the information for this goal isnot dependent on external or internalinformation systems. The information isdetermined using a tracking systemdeveloped specifically for this task.Consequently, there are no data limitationsexpected in this area.AMS does not have any data limitations onthe measures included in the plan.

• U.S. agricultural exports supported by

USDA export credit guaranteeprograms.

1.2.2 Increase the efficiency of U.S. grainmarketing:• Critical grain quality measurement

methods evaluated for improvement.

• Number of new or improved grain

quality measurement methodsimplemented.

1.2.3 Improve market efficiency byreporting timely and accurate marketinformation:• Market News reports released on time.
84

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

NASS Headquarter’spersonnel on theMarketing andInformation ServicesOffice (MISO) staffmaintains performancedata.AMS programpersonnel collect andmaintain performancedata for their programs.Data on biobasedproducts is submittedto USDA by companiesseeking listings of theirproducts.

and verified. AMS’ Compliance staff willinclude the review of performance measuredata collection in any program reviewactivities they conduct. They areresponsible for ensuring that theperformance accomplishment data collectedfor agency level performance measures,especially those that include multipleagency components, can be verified andvalidated.The NASS Agricultural Statistics Board(ASB) Calendar is published several monthsprior to the next calendar year. The ASBCalendar contains the time and dates for allNASS releases for the calendar year Januarythrough December. The MISO staffcompares actual release times with the ASBcalendar release date and times forverification and validation of performancedata.See the description of verification andvalidation at Objective 1.2.3 for MarketNews reports.Working on behalf of USDA, a privatesector firm with technical expertise willreview and verify the submittal of thirdparty certification, life cycle analysis, andother information submitted by companiesseeking product inclusion on the lists ofbiobased products.

NASS does not have any data limitations onthe measures included in the plan.AMS does not have any data limitations onthe measures included in the plan.There are no known data limitations.

• National Agricultural Statistics Service

reports released on time.

1.2.4 Improve food marketing efficiencyby providing research and technicalassistance on new or upgraded wholesale,collection and farmers market facilities,food distribution, and marketing methods:• Number of projects completed.1.2.5 The number of categories for whichlists of accepted biobased industrialproducts are available for Federalgovernment purchase.
85

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Reports from Stateagencies.Agency administrativerecords.Agency administrativerecords/Commerce Department’s NationalTechnical InformationServices (NTIS).Department of Defense

Program data is submitted by States andentered into two “parent systems,” the FoodStamp Program Integrated InformationSystem (FSPIIS) and the Special NutritionProgram Integrated Information System(SNPIIS). Regional offices follow up withStates to resolve issues of missing orquestionable data. Once reviews arecomplete, and any questions or concernsregarding data are resolved, the data ismoved from a “preload system” into theNational Data Bank production system, andbecomes USDA’s official program data. The completion status of the plan will beevaluated through review of work materialsand drafts.Monthly distribution reports are provided tothe agency, and can be verified throughmanagement evaluations and other reportingmechanisms as resources permit.Processed Commodities InventoryManagement System (P CIMS), whichtracks commodity purchases for nutritionassistance programs. CIMS data isreconciled monthly and annually byprogram analysts to ensure accuracy.

Because USDA relies on this data for anumber of important administrative andbudget preparation functions, as well as forperformance planning and reporting, itemploys multiple reviews, monitoring,editing and analysis to ensure that final datais complete, consistent, and accurate.However, the data shows absolute levels ofprogram delivery, rather than participationrates of eligible populations. Participationdata must be supplemented with estimatesof eligible populations, measures of foodsecurity, and other information to more fullyevaluate program effectiveness. The latterdata are generally not available in atimeframe useful for preparing annualperformance reporting, but have beenincorporated in strategic plan measures andwill be reported periodically.The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) isnot aware of any significant limitations onthe validity or accuracy of this data.While this data tracks the overall number ofmaterials disseminated as a result of thecampaign, it does not relate this back to thenumber or proportion of participantsreached by these events.The FNS is not aware of any significantlimitations on the validity or accuracy ofthis data.

2.1.1 Expand program access and benefitdelivery for USDA nutrition assistanceprograms (Mil):• Food Stamp Program participation.• Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants andChildren participation.

• National School Lunch Program

participation.

• School Breakfast Program

participation. 

• Child and Adult Care Food Program

meals served.

• Summer Food Service Program 

participation.

2.1.2 Carry out an integrated Nationalnutrition promotion strategy to reachchildren and caregivers eligible forFederal nutrition assistance:• Long-term plan for nutrition education

in nutrition assistance programs.

• USDA nutrition education materials

disseminated to children and theircaregivers.

2.1.3 Improve access to fresh fruits andvegetables:• Fresh fruits and vegetables provided to

schools.
86

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Defense Departmentbilling information.State agency reports toFNS.State reports,supplemented andverified by reviews andmanagementevaluations conductedby FNS.Contact with Stateagencies, National DataBank, andreconciliation reportsfor the Food StampProgram (FSP) benefitissuance andRedemption.Agency administrativerecords.

Data is verified through FNS administrativerecords.Data is collected, compiled, and reviewedgenerally for consistency by USDA. The Department’s administrative structureand records provide the accountabilitynecessary to verify completion of the workas a performance indicator. USDA will compare the milestones in theFNS Food Distribution 2000implementation plans with actualaccomplishments, reflected in internaladministrative records, to determineprogress in achieving its performance goals.

USDA’s ability to ensure complete andaccurate data reported by State agencies onlocal school compliance with programnutritional requirements is limited by thefact that data collection is voluntary,informal, and without standardizedprocedures. These limitations result fromthe strong opposition from the school foodservice community to a more formal datacollection process.FNS is not aware of any significantlimitations on the validity or accuracy ofthis data.FNS is not aware of any significantlimitations on the validity or accuracy ofthis data.

• Sites on Indian reservations receiving

fresh fruits and vegetables.

• Participants in the WIC Farmer’s

Market Nutrition Program.

2.1.4 Monitor and support State and localefforts to ensure that USDA food benefitsmeet national nutrition standards:• School Meals Initiative monitoring

reviews conducted by State agencies.

2.1.5 Improve program design and delivery:• Food stamp benefits issued

electronically.

• Annual milestones met in the Food

Distribution Reinvention Plan forSchool and Indian Programs.
87

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Annual Quality Controlstatistical reports.Reports from States.Automated systemscapture data required.

These reports are based on a sample of60,000 actual State FSP cases, and are verified through Federal sub-sampling andreview, regression analysis, and on-sitereviews of State operations.FNS reviews State data for consistency.While no verification method is planned,OIG or GAO reports on meal countingcould be used if such audits are undertaken.FNS will verify achievement of the Childand Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)training and evaluation goals through itsdirect involvement in training activities.The Agency will measure State reviews ofCACFP sponsors through management evaluation reviews and audits of State activities.USDA employs a mix of manual andautomated procedures and systems to verifyand validate the performance indicators. For example, USDA uses automatedsystems to capture data required to verifyand validate the performance indicators forfood assistance, including the AutomatedPL 480 Umbrella System (APLUS) andvarious small databases. The APLUSsystem is maintained by the Farm ServiceAgency (FSA) under the auspices of the 

FNS is not aware of any significant limitations on the validity or accuracy ofthis data.USDA reviews cannot verify the overallaccuracy of data supplied, only consistencywith other State data. In addition, reviewactivity is targeted to selected SFAs, so thecompliance rate does not represent allschools. States frequently target large SFAsand problem areas, so actual compliancemay be better than the indicator shows.FNS is not aware of any significantlimitations on the validity or accuracy ofthis data.No data limitations are foreseen beyond thescope of the accuracy of those individualsresponsible for reporting the data.

2.1.6 Maintain benefit accuracy in thefood stamp and school meals programs:• Food stamp benefit accuracy rate.• School Food Authorities (SFA) in

compliance with school mealscounting and claiming rules.

2.1.7 Strengthen State and local management of the Child and Adult CareFood Program:• USDA management evaluations of

State agencies administering the program.

• State agencies offering to sponsor

training that uses new USDAdeveloped program managementmaterials.

2.2.1 U.S. food aid exports supportingworld food security.
88

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Automated systemscapture data required.Internal Agency documentation.

Commodity Credit Corporation and isjointly used by FSA and the FAS to providecomplete financial management andaccounting for this program. Each manager is required to reportaccomplishments against annual targets on aquarterly basis. These reports are reviewedby senior management officials. FASmanagers have developed verification andvalidation procedures for each measure toensure the validity of information reported.The FAS Compliance Review Staff hasreviewed these procedures for completenessand accuracy, and also performs periodicaudits of reports from the performancetracking system to monitor accuracy ofinformation reported.Each manager is required to report accomplishments against annual targets on aquarterly basis. These reports are reviewedby senior management officials. FAS managers have developed verification andvalidation procedures for each measure toensure the validity of information reported.The FAS Compliance Review Staff hasreviewed these procedures for completenessand accuracy, and also performs periodicaudits of reports from the performance tracking system to monitor accuracy ofinformation reported.USDA has requested the National Academyof Sciences (NAS), Institute of Medicine, toconduct a comprehensive review of its riskassessment of the microbial pathogen E.coli0157:H7 in ground beef. 

No data limitations are foreseen beyond thescope of the accuracy of those individualsresponsible for reporting the data.While the intent of this indicator is toformalize and strengthen the science-baseddecision-making process within the Agency,scientists use data from many sources andthe Agency may want to measure the impact 

2.2.2 Promote research, training andtechnical assistance activities that supportsustainable food supplies worldwide:• Projects underway.• Amount invested.2.3.1 Provide worldwide leadershiptowards the creation and utilization of riskassessments for meat, poultry, and eggproducts that is supported by the latestresearch and technology:
89

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Automated system(MARCIS) providesinformation onmicrobiological,chemical andpathological analysesof meat and poultryand their processedproducts.Automated system(PREP) used forscheduling andrecording Salmonellacompliance data.

The NAS review includes evaluations of theoverarching logical structure of the model,the validity and appropriateness of all inputdata used in the model, the reasonablenessof the assumptions made in the assessment,the reasonableness of the anchoringapproach that was taken, and the model’smathematics and equations. Results from laboratory analysis are used toverify the achievement of pathogenreduction targets and compliance withnational baseline standards. The primarysources for this information are theMicrobiological and ResiduesContamination Information System(MARCIS) and the Pathogen ReductionEnforcement Program (PREP). Samples arecollected in inspected establishments andshipped to field laboratories for analysis.Results are then transferred to and enteredinto the MARCIS and PREP databases. USDA is also conducting a comprehensiveevaluation of the impact of the HazardAnalysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP) final rule. This multi-yearproject, started in FY 1999, parallels theHACCP implementation dates for large,small, and very small plants. This is inaddition to internal USDA assessments ofHACCP impact, technical and proceduralSanitation Standard Operating Proceduresand HACCP implementation. Thesereviews along with others conducted, orbeing conducted, by OIG and GAO, shouldprovide the tools to enhance Agencyoperations that are used to verify the data.

of risk assessment on risk management withalternative indicators in the future.The three products (broiler chickens, markethogs, and ground beef) have been chosen tobe representative samplings of how well theAgency is meeting this performance indicator.

• Risk assessments used to inform risk

management decision-making and policy.

2.3.2 Create a coordinated national andinternational food safety risk managementsystem to ensure the safety of U.S. meatand poultry products from farm to table.Reduction in the prevalence of Salmonellaon raw meat and poultry products asillustrated by:• Prevalence of Salmonella on broiler

chickens.

• Prevalence of Salmonella on market

hogs.

• Prevalence of Salmonella on ground

beef.
90

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Internal estimatesbased on newspaperarticles, publicationcirculation, televisedadvertisements toconsumers, telephonecall logs for the meatand Poultry Hotline,and electronic tallyingof the number of “hits”onto the AgencyWebsite.Number of publicmeetings conducted bythe Agency andadvertised through theFederal Register.

USDA relies on periodic surveys, usually incooperation with other Federal agenciesinvolved in food safety, in verifying riskcommunication performance. Unfortunately,much of this information can not be usedbecause the surveys are not conducted on anannual basis. Therefore, USDA alsoestimates that its newspaper articles andother publications reach four percent of thepapers’ circulation, and scientific estimationfor predicting the penetration of its televisedadvertisements to consumers as a basis toindicate the number of people reached withfood safety information. USDA alsoutilizes focus-group studies to measureimpact of risk communication on safe foodpractices among consumers. USDAconducted six focus group studies in FY1999, eight in FY 2000, and plans eight for2001.

There are no known limitations to the dataat this point in time.While the Department can measure thenumber of people reached, the number ofpeople who follow safe food handlingpractices can only be determined byperiodic surveys which are not conductedon an annual basis.

Reduction in the prevalence of Listeriamonocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat andpoultry products:• Samples testing positive for Listeria

monocytogenes.

2.3.3 Conduct a comprehensive nationaland international communication programthat is an open exchange of informationand opinion about food safety risk:• People reached with food safety

information through media stories,circulation reports, USDA FSISwebsite visits and USDA Meat &Poultry Hotline calls.

• Stakeholder activities held to improve

food safety related decision-makingand public policy.
91

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Website usage data.Internal tracking byCNPP will validate thedownloads of materialsfrom the CNPPwebsite.Natural ResourcesConservation Service(NRCS) Performanceand ResultsMeasurement System(PRMS).

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s(CNPP) website tracks the overall numberof users that complete a dietary assessmentusing the Interactive Healthy Eating Index(IHEI).Internal tracking by CNPP will validate thedownload of materials from the CNPPwebsite, and the requests for printedpublications that are filled.PRMS was designed to ensure the datawould be collected accurately andconsistently nationwide. Internal controls toensure data quality include:• On-line definitions and help screens for

all performance data collection items

• Telephone hotline• A formal data quality assurance plan that

outlines specific responsibilitiesassociated with quality control of allagency performance data

• Special surveys and reviews conducted

by the national oversight and evaluationstaff. 

On-going quality assurance activitiesconducted by NRCS state offices. Programand functional appraisals are also carriedout. Performance data will be reviewed aspart of each of these efforts.

CNPP relies on Web Trends, an externalsource, for all information regarding itsWebsite. Should this source no longerprovide such information, CNPP willidentify another source.CNPP relies on Web Trends, an externalsource, for all information regarding itsWebsite. Should this source no longerprovide such information, CNPP willidentify another source. While CNPP willbe able to track the number of printedpublications sent from its office, it can nottrack what is sent by other departments,agencies, or offices.Data are reported by agency employees andpartners in each field office across theNation. Data for FY 1999 were collected ina sample of field offices and expanded toestimate performance. FY 2000 was thefirst year in which the reporting system wasfully operational. Because the system isnew, there is likely less consistency in dataquality than will be true in future years. 

2.4.1 Individuals using the InteractiveHealthy Eating Index to assess andimprove their diet.2.4.2 Copies of 2000 Dietary Guidelinesdisseminated to help individuals improvetheir diet.3.1.1 Maintain the productivity andhealth of the Nation’s non-Federal cropand grazing lands:• Acres of non-Federal cropland and

grazing land protected againstdegradation by application of improvedconservation systems.
92

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

NRCS PRMS.FSA NationalConservation ReserveProgram (CRP)Contract and OfferData Files.ManagementAttainment Report(MAR).NRCS PRMS.

See above for PRMS.CRP data is uploaded from the USDAService Centers to the automated CRP datafiles monthly. CRP offer data files areuploaded following each general signupperiod. These files are evaluated todetermine the environmental benefits ofCRP, and upon contract approval, the data isupdated to reflect land use, land treatment,and environmental benefits. To help ensureprogram integrity, service center employeesconduct on-site spot checks and reviewproducer files prior to annual paymentissuance to ensure conservation practicesare maintained in accordance with program requirements.MAR submissions are reviewed at severallevels, starting with forest supervisors, thenregional managers, and finally WashingtonOffice review. A recently developed MARdatabase has improved staff review to checkdata outliers and correct data entry andtabulation errors.See the description of PRMS at Objective3.1.1.Field-level training is planned in FY 2001 toensure that the new standard for

See above description of data limitation.Data limitations primarily result from (1)the time lag from when signups are held andcontracts signed and when the data is inputinto the automated systems at the ServiceCenter, (2) continual updating of the CRPcontract data, and (3) periodic changes inthe data that are reported in the contract andoffer data files.Lack of understanding of MAR itemdefinitions by data providers and/or reviewers, how MAR items should be measured, and when accomplishmentsshould be recorded.See Objective 3.1.1. For the indicator for comprehensive nutrientmanagement plans, data for FY 1999 and FY 2000 are not comparable to following

3.1.2 Reduce erosion damage oncropland:• Erosion reduced to non-damaging rates

on working cropland.

• Highly erodible land retired from

farming and maintained in protectivecover under long-term contract withUSDA.

3.1.3 Treat wildlands with high fire riskson National Forests and Grasslands toreduce the risk of loss of life, property,and natural resources from catastrophicwildfire:• Hazardous fuel treatments.• Maximize firefighting production

capability – Most Efficient Level(MEL).

• Assist communities and volunteer fire

departments – Communities andvolunteer fire departments assisted. 

3.2.1 Protect water and air quality:• Animal feeding operations with

comprehensive nutrient managementplans developed or applied.
93

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

NRCS PRMS and FSANational CRP Contractand Offer Data Files.FSA National CRPContract and OfferData Files.ManagementAttainment Report(MAR).PerformanceMeasurementAccountability System(PMAS).

“comprehensive nutrient management plan”is consistently understood and applied.See the description of PRMS at Objective3.1.1.See description of CRP Contract and OfferData Files at Objective 3.1.2.See the description of the CRP Contract andOffer Data Files at Objective 3.1.2.MAR submissions are reviewed at severallevels, starting with forest supervisors, thenregional managers, and finally WashingtonOffice review. A recently developed MARdatabase has improved staff review to checkdata outliers and correct data entry andtabulation errors.PMAS data represents accomplishments forthe Cooperative Forestry programsthroughout the United States. Data undergoseveral layers of review: State Forestersenter the data via a new web-based system,Forest Service Regions and Areas check thedata and then submit it to the WashingtonOffice where Cooperative Forestry programmanagers validate and analyze theinformation.

years because of changes in the definition.See statement of PRMS at Objective 3.1. 1. See statement on CRP Contract and OfferData Files at Objective 3.1.2. Acresreported by FSA are the cumulative numbercurrently enrolled. Acres reported byNRCS are not cumulative, but representactivity for the fiscal year.See statement on CRP Contract and OfferData Files at Objective 3.1.2.Lack of understanding of MAR itemdefinitions by data providers and/orreviewers, how MAR items should bemeasured, and when accomplishmentsshould be recorded.There are no known data limitations.

• Acres with conservation measures

applied to reduce potential for off-sitepollution by nutrients.

• Acres with pest management

improved.

• Acres in conservation buffers.• Acres retired from cropping and

planted to protective cover throughCRP.

3.2.2 Restore or improve rangeland andforestland watersheds in the NationalForest and Grasslands:• Soil and watershed improvements. • Terrestrial habitat restored or

enhanced.

• Abandoned mine sites reclaimed.3.2.3 Enhance urban environments:• Forest cover maintained under USDA’s

Forest Legacy program easements.
94

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

To be developed in2001.NRCS WRP ProgramManager's data baseand FSA National CRPContract and OfferData Files.FSA National CRPContract and OfferData Files.NRCS PRMS.Hazardous MaterialsManagement Program(HMMP)AccomplishmentReports.

To be developed in 2001.See the description of the CRP Contract andOffer Data Files at Objective 3.1.2.WRP data provided by field and stateoffices are reviewed for accuracy by thenational program manager.See the description of the CRP Contract andOffer Data Files at Objective 3.1.2.See the description of PRMS at Objective 3.1. 1.Each agency with HMMP projects preparesand submits an annual accomplishmentreport to the USDA Hazardous MaterialsManagement Group. These reports arecompilations of data from the level of theagency responsible for performing theneeded work (e.g., the forest or region levelof the Forest Service). The complete reportis reviewed and certified by the agencyhead. CERCLA cleanups are “completed”once the lead regulatory agency, pursuant tothe National Contingency Plan (NCP,codified as Title 40, Code of Federal 

Pending development of verification/validation method.Data are for acreages enrolled under twoseparate programs with different rules andpractice definitions. Ratio of wetlands tobuffer areas differs between the programs.See statement for data limitation on theCRP Contract and Offer Data Files atObjective 3.1.2.See the description of data limitations atObjective 3.1.1. The land reported includesboth land on which habitat improvement isthe primary goal and land on which it is asecondary effect of actions taken to achieveother goals.There are no known data limitations.The time lag between physical completionof a cleanup and securing final approvalfrom the lead regulatory agency may beconsiderable.As provided in the NCP, one or more typesof environmental monitoring may berequired after a cleanup is completed toprove that the response action was effective.USDA considers cleanup and monitoring tobe two distinct activities. Should 

• Group and area plans developed to

address farmland protection and theeffects of non-agricultural activities onground water and surface water quality.

3.2.4 Maintain, restore, or enhancewetland ecosystems and fish and wildlifehabitat:• Wetlands and associated upland

protected or enhanced under multi-yearcontracts or easements with USDA.

• Land retired from cropping and

planted to vegetative cover best suitedto wildlife.

• Habitat for fish and wildlife improved

on working cropland, grazing land,forest and other land.

3.2.5 Continue to cleanup CERCLA sites

and all regulated underground storagetanks (UST) under USDA custody andcontrol:

• CERCLA cleanups completed.• UST and other RCRA cleanups

completed.
95

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

FS Recreation ProgramStaffNRCS WatershedsFuture Obligationsdatabase.NRCS ResourceConservation andDevelopment (RC&D)Program database.

Regulations, Part 300), has made a finaldetermination that no additional cleanupwork is required and the person ororganization responsible for the cleanupwork has “closed the books” on that part ofthe project.Because it is a new measure, data isestimated by the FS at the national level.Data on watershed protection structurescompleted in the fiscal year are entered inthe database by NRCS employees in 52NRCS state offices.Data are reported by staff in RC&D offices,reviewed by state program managers and bythe national program manager. Thedatabase is web-based, meaning access toinput or retrieve data is done through theInternet.

monitoring show that a cleanup failed toperform as designed and approved,additional cleanup could be required.Site cleanups are an output or anintermediate outcome; the larger outcome ofrestored lands and facilities is managed andprioritized by the agency with jurisdiction,custody, or control.The estimated data is without benefit offield level input or review. Beginning in FY2003, data will be generated by FSRecreation staff at the field level based uponthe field level based upon the Recreationprogram’s Meaningful Measures standards.Data submissions will go through severallayers of review, starting at the forestsupervisor level, then through regionalmanagers, and finally Washington Officereview.The database was originally intended toprovide information at the project level,extracting information at a lower level, suchas separate structures, is difficult.For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the databasedoes not include complete data for theRC&D program because many RC&Doffices do not have the equipment or theability to fully access the Internet andmodifications are needed to the RC&Ddatabase program. The agency expects tohave the database fully functional and RC&Doffices to have access by the end of FY 2001.

3.3.1 Operate developed sites – PAOTdays operated to standard.3.3.2 Provide benefits to property andsafety through flood damage reduction:• Watershed protection structures

completed.

3.3.3 Produce benefits to communitiesthrough enhanced natural resourcesdevelopment and utilization:• Community improvement projects

completed through RC&D.

• Number of communities participating

in the Urban and Community ForestryProgram.
96

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

The Rural CommunityFacilities TrackingSystem (RCFTS), anon-accountingmanagement systemwhich tracks a varietyof data related tospecific projectsfinanced by the missionarea.Program LoanAccounting Systemand the GuaranteedLoan System. The Rural CommunityFacilities TrackingSystem (RCFTS), anon-accountingmanagement system. The Program LoanAccounting System,the Guaranteed LoanSystem, and the RuralUtilities Service (RUS)Loan Servicing System. 

Information in RCFTS is input by fieldstaff. Data is reviewed by the NationalOffice staff and obvious data errors areresolved.Both of these systems contain a variety ofdata edits to minimize the risk of inaccuratedata being placed in the systems. Thesystems are audited annually by OIG as apart of the development of an auditedfinancial statement.Information in RCFTS is input by fieldstaff. Data is reviewed by the NationalOffice staff and obvious data errors areresolved.Data regarding the number of ruralcommunities assisted in the persistentpoverty or out-migration counties is drawnfrom the loan accounting systems. Thesesystems contain a variety of data edits tominimize the risk of inaccurate data being

This system is not audited and the systemdoes not contain edits to verify the accuracyof the data. This information is less reliablesince it is manually obtained and input byfield staff and cannot be verified.Confidence in this data, however, is highenough to be acceptable for the purposes forwhich it is being used. Rural Developmentis planning enhancements to this system thatwill eliminate many of the potentialproblems related to the accuracy of the data.Performance data is being extracted fromaccounting systems and verified by OIG;therefore, no foreseen limitations areexpected.This system is not audited and the systemdoes not contain edits to verify the accuracyof the data. This information is less reliablesince it is manually obtained and input byfield staff and cannot be verified. Confidence in this data, however, is highenough to be acceptable for the purposes forwhich it is being used. Rural Developmentis planning enhancements to this system thatwill eliminate many of the potentialproblems related to the accuracy of the data.Data regarding grants invested in EZ/ECcommunities is input into the automatedsystem by leaders in the EZ/ECcommunities which causes the informationto be less than fully reliable. Theinformation is not audited and cannot be 

4.1.1 Jobs created or saved throughUSDA financing of businesses in ruralareas.4.1.2 Rural households receiving USDAfinancial assistance to purchase a home.4.1.3 Rural water systems developed orexpanded to provide safe drinking water.4.2.1 Assist the neediest rural communities:• Communities located in persistentpoverty rural counties receiving

financial assistance to establish orimprove a system for drinking water orwater disposal.
97

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Agency and StaffOffice regulationsclearance records.Records of civil rightsreviews.Agency OutreachPlans: Semi-AnnualReports.Civil Rights DataTracking System forProgram andEmployment.Direct contact withProject Managers whotrack and maintainperformance data.

placed in the systems and are auditedannually by OIG as a part of thedevelopment of an audited financialstatement. Data regarding grants invested in EZ/ECcommunities is drawn from the automatedBenchmark Management System.Management Review.Management Review.Management Review.Management Review.Office of the Chief Information Officer(OCIO) Program/Project Managers workingin partnership with agency staff to ensuresound practices are being used for theplanning, procurement and deployment ofcommon computer infrastructures.

easily verified. Confidence in this data,however, is high enough to be acceptablefor the purposes for which it is being used.None.USDA programs may be changed from timeto time.Because USDA programs are complex andvaried, participation data may be subject toalternative interpretations.Cases referred to EEOC are not withinUSDA control and may affect totalprocessing time.OCIO does not have any data limitations forthis performance goal/indicator.

• Cooperatives serving persistentpoverty counties receiving financial

assistance to establish or improve thelocal electric service.

• Cooperatives serving counties

experiencing out-migration receivingfinancial assistance to establish orimprove the local electric service.

• Ratio of non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC

grants invested in EZ/EC communities.

5.1.1 USDA regulations subjected to civilrights impact analyses.5.1.2 Major USDA programs reviewedeach year.5.1.3 Improvement in minorityparticipation in USDA programs.5.1.4 Reduction in the average number ofdays it takes to resolve USDA civil rightscomplaints.5.2.1 Establish a common computingenvironment for USDA Service Centerswhich includes hardware, software,security, websites, telecommunicationsand databases:• Workstations deployed.• FSA connectivity solution and network

servers deployed.

• Application/GIS servers and software

deployed.
98

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

Survey regardingUSDA’s compliancewith GPEA and E-FileAct, informationcollection packagesdescribing electronicdata collection from itssurvey participants andmeetings with USDAagencies.Annual OIG AuditOpinion Report forUSDA’s consolidatedFinancial Statements.Total FTEEmployment: MaxSchedule Q Detail.Source: BudgetDivision/OCFO.U.S. Office ofPersonnelManagement. Executive Order 13148Annual Reports fromUSDA Agencies.

Monitor the increase use of USDA’sbusiness being conducted via the Internetand electronic data interchange.OCIO will compare and monitor USDAagencies timelines with timelines identifiedin the E-file Act. USDA is required to submit an annual statusreport to OMB on the E-File Act, whichwill report the progress of agencies efforts.The Inspector General issues a written auditopinion on USDA’s consolidated financialstatements. The annual report for eachfiscal year is issued at the conclusion of thefinancial statement audit which takes placethe following fiscal year. The source of the data to compile thenumber of employees and calculate thepercentage of the total USDA workforceserved by FFIS is a budget report entitled“Total FTE Employment: Max Schedule QDetail,” which was run as of 12/27/00. Thisreport provides the total number of FTEs inUSDA and the number of FTEs by agency.The survey is validated by OPMpsychologists and includes many itemscommonly used in private sector surveys.The survey is administered directly byOPM.Agencies attest to the accuracy andcompleteness of the data they report.

With increase use of business via theInternet, USDA must protect customerprivacy and the confidentiality ofinformation provided to the federalgovernment.There are no data limitations.There are no known data limitations.Data is reported for select USDA agenciesand “other Agriculture.” The differentsampling rates limit the ability to aggregatethe data into an “all Agriculture” or to breakout the data for all agencies.There are no known data limitations.

5.2.2 Transition to a fully integrated eGovernment environment.• Meet legislative mandates of the

Freedom of E-File Act and GPRA.

5.2.3 Achieve an unqualified opinion onthe USDA’s Consolidated FinancialStatements for FY 2002.5.2.4 Implement the FoundationFinancial Information System (FFIS)USDA-wide:• Percentage of total USDA workforce

served.

5.2.5 USDA employee work satisfactionrate above U.S. Government workersatisfaction.5.2.6 Develop and implement aDepartment-wide environmentalmanagement system.
99

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix A Data Verification and ValidationPerformance Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limitations

OMB will monitoragency achievements.Agencyimplementation reports.FTEs listed ascommercial activitiesin the FAIR ActInventory for USDA.

OMB will provide feedback on theseachievements.Signed certification from agencies of fullimplementation.OMB will monitor USDA achievements.OCFO will verify that agency plans andgoals are met through review of USDAagencies’ annual FAIR Act InventoryReports, cost studies, contracts forcompetition, and direct conversions.

There are no known data limitations.There are no known data limitations.There are no known data limitations.

5.2.7 Use of performance-based servicecontracts as a percent of total eligibleservice contracts.5.2.8 Procurement actions in excess of$25,000 posted to FedBizOpps.5.2.9 Reduction in cost and/or increasedproductivity of commercial activities.• Provide timely annual update of FAIR

Act inventory.

• Develop plan for incremental

competitions/conversion of FAIR Actinventory.

• Competition/conversion of FAIR Act

inventory. 
100

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix B USDA’s Major Management Challenges and Program RisksMajor Management Challengesand Program Risks Planned Actions/Performance Measures FY 2001 - FY 2002Farm Loan Programs Vulnerable to LossesService Delivery to Farmers Must ImproveFood Assistance Must Reach Eligible PeopleWhile Maintaining Program Integrity

Because USDA often serves as the lender of last resort to farmers, its direct farm loan portfolio carries a highdegree of risk. Fortunately, USDA’s direct loan losses remained low in recent years, despite sustained weakcommodity prices and a series of natural disasters. USDA will continue to use prudent underwriting practices,borrower supervision, and loan servicing tools to help maintain low loss rates for its farm loan programs in thefuture. In the Department’s Annual Performance Plan, USDA sets a goal of maintaining a low loss rate of itsdirect loan portfolio. However, maintaining low loss rates will be a significant challenge in FY 2001 and FY2002, as commodity prices remain weak and many producers are still recovering from the devastating effects ofrecent natural disasters. Objective 1.1 addresses maintaining the low loss rate on direct loans.USDA has made progress in implementing its Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI) to provide onestop, seamless service to farmers and other customers of its county-based agencies. USDA has collocated agencyoffices into Service Centers and is in the final stages of completing a common computing environment (CCE)which will allow Service Center employees to transact business with each other and customers electronically. Toensure this major initiative is proceeding on schedule and realizing benefits, USDA developed and is followingthe “Service Center Modernization Plan of the USDA County-Based Agencies.” The Deputy Secretary hasoverall responsibility for management of SCMI and has given the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)responsibility for implementing the information technology component of this multi-agency initiative. Agencieshave developed a number of reengineered business processes to provide better service and these processes will befully deployed as the CCE is completed. Objective 5.2 presents targets for the CCE and other E-governmentefforts aimed at improving service to USDA customers.Given the size and scope of USDA nutrition assistance programs, the Department faces a significant challenge inproviding help to eligible people who need it, while protecting the programs from those who would abuse them.GAO identifies five key management challenges or program risks as part of the general characterization of thechallenge of Federal nutrition assistance program management: 1) the recent decline in Food Stamp Program(FSP) participation; 2) FSP payment accuracy; 3) trafficking of FSP benefits; 4) Child and Adult Care FoodProgram integrity; and 5) certification accuracy in the National School Lunch Program. USDA addresses four ofthese five issues directly in its annual performance plan under Objective 2.1, “Reduce Hunger and ImproveNutrition Among Children and Low-Income People in the United States.” The fifth, FSP benefit trafficking, ispart of USDA’s outcome to improve stewardship of Federal nutrition assistance programs, and is reflected in thestrategies in USDA’s strategic plan; specific performance metrics for retailer management are tracked by the Foodand Nutrition Service.

To ensure strong performance throughout USDA, clearly the Department must address its most significant management challenges and program risks. These areasof vulnerability were identified by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in its January, 2001 report entitled Major Management Challenges and ProgramRisks for the Department of Agriculture. In the following table, the Department shares its near-term strategies for addressing these concerns as well as specificperformance targets that it has set to ensure accountability toward real progress in these vital areas. In each instance, program officers identified the availability ofadequate personnel and resources as the most significant impediments that they would face in meeting their aggressive goals. 
101

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix B USDA’s Major Management Challenges and Program RisksMajor Management Challengesand Program Risks Planned Actions/Performance Measures FY 2001 - FY 2002Fundamental Changes are Needed to MinimizeFoodborne IllnessesNeed to Strengthen Department-wideInformation Security

In the Federal government, food safety responsibilities are shared among several entities, most notably USDA,the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Concerns about theneed for fundamental changes in food safety programs and about overcoming perceived food safetyfragmentation, are being addressed through cross-Departmental partnerships and program coordination activities.Recent collective statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show a drop in the incidences infoodborne illness. Though these figures represent the efforts of several Departments and Federal agencies, Stateand local governments, regulated industries, and schools, the USDA FSIS contribution to the reduction offoodborne illnesses, such as the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point rule, cannot beignored. Additionally, the creation of a single food safety organization addressing all foods, as suggested byGAO, is beyond the legal scope of USDA or any Federal department. The FSIS is a Federally mandatedprogram. It can take no independent action to dismantle itself or to merge itself with other agencies. Therefore,there is no mention of any merger, in any form in either the USDA Plan or the FSIS Plan. The specificPerformance Measure that links to the USDA Annual Performance Plan is addressed in Objective 2.3.OCIO’s Cyber Security Program Office has established a priority of actions and has already begun to addressthese priorities. The Associate CIO for Cyber Security has taken several steps which includes forming a workgroup to address risk assessment for information assets, staffing OCIO’s Cyber Security Program Office,analyzing encryption requirements and tools, formed a Cyber Security Emergency Response Team, and isoverseeing a USDA contract effort that will engage expertise to assist the Department and its agencies inestablishing a comprehensive information security program for Internet/Intranet/Extranet services andstandardized security solutions. In addition, some of the Department’s most critical information systems andprograms have been or are undergoing critical review, including the National Information Technology Center, theNational Finance Center, the Foundation Financial Information System, and USDA’s Service Center Initiative.Security vulnerabilities are being identified and addressed for these and other mission-critical informationsystems. Objective 5.2 addresses the information systems and information technology.In FY 2001, OCIO’s Action Plan to Strengthen USDA Information Security identifies four major steps that, whencompleted, will position the Department to institutionalize the best practices, which characterize leading cybersecurity organizations. These steps are in the areas of: 1) Security Program Management; 2) Personnel; 3) Policyand Program Operations; and 4) Technical Infrastructure. Additional funding received in its FY 2001 budget hasallowed OCIO to begin to address each of these. In FY 2002, We will continue implementing our USDA-wide computer security program. Based on best practicesof leading organizations and guidance from Federal oversight agencies, the USDA Cyber-Security Program willbuild on the previous year’s work in the areas of risk management; security architecture development; internaloversight; as well as hands-on problem solving.
102

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix B USDA’s Major Management Challenges and Program RisksMajor Management Challengesand Program Risks Planned Actions/Performance Measures FY 2001 - FY 2002Lack of Financial Accountability at USDAThe Need to Provide Congress and the PublicWith a More Clear Understanding of What IsAccomplished with Forest Service Funds

Measures for tracking progress on information security are in OCIO’s Annual Performance Plan Goal 4.Impediments to meet this management challenge are 1) hiring qualified, experienced staff for the Cyber SecurityProgram Office, 2) adequate funding to fulfill USDA Cyber Security Strategy, and 3) ensuring new technologyand applications are deployed with appropriate and adequate security controls.USDA has made significant progress toward its objective of obtaining a clean audit of the Department’s financialstatements. USDA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) institutionalized a sustainable cashreconciliation process for FY 2000 and implemented an automated worksheet tool for FY 2001— two significantsteps toward improving the cash reconciliation and reporting process. At the end of FY 2000, the absolute valueof the statements of difference with Treasury totaled about $453 million. USDA also established a Departmentwide Executive Steering and Advisory Credit Reform Committee to improve the estimation/re-estimation andcost reporting for direct loan and loan guarantee programs. The group has outlined an action plan on majorcredit-related issues. This plan includes the recommendations made by GAO. All of these efforts will contributeto attaining one of the Department’s major financial management goals -obtaining a clean audit of USDA’sfinancial statement in FY 2002. Objective 5.2 addresses achieving a clean audit of USDA financial statements.In FY 2001, the Forest Service (FS) will implement a set of financial performance measures focused on three

areas: 1) progress toward clean audit opinion, 2) financial operations, and 3) financial systems operations. Inaddition, a quality assurance plan will be put into place to facilitate internal assessment of compliance with lawsand regulations, audit and review of financial activities, and the resolution of long-standing open auditrecommendations. It is anticipated that the FS will provide timely and accurate property, plant, and equipmentaccounting information in FY 2001. In addition, the FS will continue with the implementation of the automatedTimber Sale Accounting System in FY 2002. This system will capture data related to volume of timber cut andsold, as well as the amount of income generated from timber sales. The Rural Utilities Service’s (RUS) Electric program has had high losses in the past and lacks detailed writtencriteria for determining when loans should be removed from its list of financially troubled borrowers. In FY2001 RUS will review staff instructions and revise as needed to identify and monitor financially stressedborrowers, and in FY 2002 will review Settlement of Debt regulations and revise as appropriate. In FY 2001 and FY 2002, the FS will transition to a new, outcome-oriented budget and planning structure thatwill show linkages between resources, program activities and results. This process began in January 2001, andwill make its formal debut in the FY 2003 budget cycle. The process will be driven by a performance plan thatarticulates annual performance targets that support the FS’s long-term objectives, as laid out in its strategic plan.Future budgets will integrate data from the Land and Resource Management Planning process along withStrategic goals and objectives. This new approach will allow the FS to provide timely, credible data that 
103

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix B USDA’s Major Management Challenges and Program RisksMajor Management Challengesand Program Risks Planned Actions/Performance Measures FY 2001 - FY 2002Problems Persist in Processing DiscriminationComplaints

demonstrates the impact of funding on actual on-the-ground work accomplished. This fundamental change to aresults-oriented budget and planning structure will provide Congress and the American people with a clearunderstanding of the many benefits attained through taxpayer dollars that finance the sound management of theNation’s forests.In October 2000, USDA completed a report on its civil rights functions and barriers to efficient and timelyprocessing of civil rights complaints. During FY 2001, the recommendations of the report will be implementedin so far as is permitted by available resources. This includes some changes in business processes, improvedtraining, and improvements to the case tracking process. The implementation of the Long Term ImprovementPlan (LTIP) will continue in FY 2002. For FY 2001, a USDA performance measure targets a 5% reduction inprocessing time below FY 2000 levels. For FY 2002, another 5% reduction of processing time is targeted. Thismanagement challenge links to Objective 5.1 of USDA's Annual Performance Plan. 
104

USDA FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2001

Appendix C

Revisions to the USDA Strategic Plan for FY”s 2000-2005

This plan makes several refinements to the USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2000 - 2005. The

most significant changes include:

• The first key outcome under objective 1.1 has been revised to "Improve market income

for U.S. farmers," in order to more explicitly reflect the fact that stronger farm markets

reduce the necessity of government payments. To align with this change, percentage of

gross cash farm income from the market has been added as an indicator to support this

revision.

• Domestic market opportunities were added to the first key outcome under objective 1.2

to reflect the Department’s commitment to expanding markets for U.S. agriculture both

domestically and abroad.

• The second and third key outcomes under objective 2.1 were consolidated due to the

similarity between these two outcomes. 

• The key outcomes under objective 2.3 were consolidated and additional performance

goals and indicators were added to align the Department’s food safety strategy with the

inter-agency National Food Safety Plan.

• A new key outcome was added under objective 3.3, with its own performance goal and

indicators, to support the Department’s strategy of fostering natural resource

development to improve the economies of rural communities.

• A new key outcome was added under objective 5.2, with its own performance goals, to

support the Department’s strategy to require recurring commercial services costeffectively.