FARM BILL

Issues to Consider for 

Reauthorization

Report to Congressional Addressees

April 2012

GAO-12-338SP

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
Page i GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Letter 1 

Section 1 Introduction 3

Principles Identified as Significant to Integrity, Effectiveness, and 

Efficiency in Farm Bill Programs 5

Overview of Titles in the 2008 Farm Bill 6

Section 2 Commodity Programs 11

Reducing or Terminating Direct Payments Could Better Target 

Program Benefits and Save Tax Dollars 11

USDA Has Increased Oversight to Reduce Potential Improper 

Payments, but Continued Vigilance Is Needed 12

Section 3 Conservation 14

USDA Should Ensure Farm and Conservation Programs Do Not 

Work at Cross Purposes or Duplicate Efforts 15

Procedures for Allocating Funds and Enforcing Compliance Could 

Be Improved to Better Promote Conservation Program Goals 16

Agencies Need to More Effectively Address Potential Impacts 

Resulting from Agricultural Runoff and Other Sources 17

Section 4 Trade 19

U.S. Agencies Should Take Steps to Mitigate Risks Associated with 

Implementing the Governmentwide Global Food Security 

Strategy 20

The Efficiency of International Food Assistance Programs Can Be 

Improved 21

Better Practices Offer Opportunities to Enhance the Effectiveness 

of International Food Assistance 22

Section 5 Nutrition 24

Agencies Need to Reduce Administrative Overlap among Domestic 

Food Assistance Programs 25

USDA Could Benefit from Increased Attention to Food Program

Integrity 26

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Section 6 Rural Development 27

Agencies Need to Take Steps to Avoid Duplication, Overlap, and 

Fragmentation in Economic Development Programs 28

USDA Should Reconsider the Definition of “Rural” to Ensure 

Consistency with Program Purposes 29

Section 7 Research and Related Matters 32

Enhanced Oversight and Coordination Is Needed to Protect 

Agriculture from Terrorist Acts and Other Major Emergencies 33

USDA Should Improve Coordination with Other Entities to Identify 

Research Gaps and Avoid Duplication 34

Section 8 Energy 36

Increased Biofuels Production Has Agricultural and Environmental 

Effects 37

Investments in Fuel Delivery Infrastructure May Be Needed to 

Meet Mandated 2022 Ethanol Consumption Levels 38

Section 9 Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs 39

Limits on Crop Insurance Subsidies Would Save Money 41

USDA Has Reduced Costs by Decreasing Compensation to 

Insurance Companies, but Compensation May Still Be Excessive 41

USDA Has Strengthened Oversight of the Crop Insurance Program, 

but It Remains Vulnerable to Potential Fraud, Waste, and Abuse 42

Lessons Learned Could Improve Implementation of a Disaster 

Assistance Program 43

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 44

Appendix II Related GAO Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 46

Appendix III Related USDA Office of Inspector General Products, 

by 2008 Farm Bill Title 60
Page iii GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 83

Figures

Figure 1: Strip Cropping to Reduce Soil Erosion 15

Figure 2: Road Near Hagerstown, Maryland, That Divides a “Rural” 

Area” from a “Nonrural” Area, 2004 30

Figure 3: Administrative Allowances and Underwriting Gains or 

Losses Paid to Crop Insurance Companies, 2000—2010 40

Abbreviations

CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation

CBO Congressional Budget Office

DHS Department of Homeland Security

E10 fuel blend containing approximately 10 percent ethanol

E15 fuel blend containing approximately 15 percent ethanol

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HSPD-9 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MSA metropolitan statistical area

NPDRS National Plant Disease Recovery System

SBA Small Business Administration 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SURE Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2008 Farm Bill Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

April 24, 2012

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow

Chairwoman

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank Lucas

Chairman

The Honorable Collin Peterson

Ranking Member

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) seek to enhance the 

efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government. As 

Congress debates ways to address the federal government’s long-term 

fiscal imbalance, it becomes even more critical that we help with this 

challenge by identifying opportunities for cost-savings and for improving 

programs to ensure that every dollar counts.

In this spirit and in anticipation of upcoming deliberations over the 2012 

Farm Bill, we are issuing companion reports today. They present the 

following set of principles significant to the integrity, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of programs in the farm bill:

• Relevance. Does the program concern an issue of national interest?

Is the program consistent with current statutes and international 

agreements? Have the domestic and international food and 

agriculture sectors changed significantly, or are they expected to 

change, in ways that affect the program’s purpose?

• Distinctiveness. Is the program unique and free from overlap or 

duplication with other programs? Is it well-coordinated with similar 

programs?

• Targeting. Is the program’s distribution of benefits consistent with 

contemporary assessments of need?

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

• Affordability. Is the program affordable, given the nation’s severe 

budgetary constraints? Is it using the most efficient, cost-effective 

approaches? 

• Effectiveness. Are program goals clear, with a direct connection to 

policies, resource allocations, and actions? Does the program 

demonstrate measurable progress toward its goals? Is it generally 

free of unintended consequences, including ecological, social, or 

economic effects? Does the program allow for adjustments to 

changes in markets?

• Oversight. Does the program have mechanisms, such as internal 

controls, to monitor compliance and help minimize fraud, waste, and 

abuse in areas where these are most likely to occur?

In the context of these principles, our reports summarize key GAO and 

OIG findings, respectively, related to farm bill programs. The principles 

could guide consideration of each program and potential program, and 

the summaries could help Congress make well-informed decisions about 

program design while continuing to maintain a strong agricultural sector 

and the safety and security of the nation’s food supply and to provide 

nutrition assistance, promote U.S. exports, support renewable energy and 

conservation, and enhance economic growth in rural communities.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact Lisa Shames, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, at 

(202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in Dppendix IV.

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General 

of the United States
Section 1: Introduction

Page 3 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

In the early 1930s, when farm foreclosures occurred every day and 

American agriculture was hit hard by drought and economic disaster, 

Congress enacted agricultural legislation to, among other things, protect 

farmers against the risks of low crop prices and bad weather. Since then, 

Congress has periodically passed farm bills to help farmers manage the 

risks that come with farming and has added programs through these bills 

that are to provide domestic and international food assistance, promote 

economic development in rural areas, and help advance alternatives to 

petroleum fuel, among other things.

The most recent farm bill—the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (2008 Farm Bill)—included a wide variety of programs, and its major 

provisions are expected to cost about $402 billion over 5 years, according 

to a 2010 estimate by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). As 

Congress prepares to pass a new farm bill in 2012, severe budget 

constraints are likely to shape deliberations. In the fall of 2011, as the 

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (joint committee) worked to 

identify ways to cut federal spending, Members of Congress, the 

administration, and several agricultural groups released proposals 

recommending modifications to farm bill programs, including potential 

areas for budget cuts. Many of the proposals target farm programs, which 

account for a significant amount of funding under the farm bill. The 

leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees sent a letter 

to the joint committee recommending $23 billion in net deficit reduction 

from mandatory programs within their jurisdiction. Ultimately, the joint 

committee did not reach consensus on deficit reduction, but the dialogue 

it engendered might lay the groundwork for the upcoming debate over the 

design of the next farm bill.

We have previously reported that some farm bill programs offer 

opportunities for cost savings, could be delivered more efficiently and 

effectively, or may be working at cross purposes.1

 

1

For example, see *$2Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

In this context, this 

report identifies principles we have found to be significant to integrity, 

effectiveness, and efficiency in farm bill programs since 2003, after much

of the 2002 Farm Bill was implemented. Similarly, the Inspector General 

for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also reported findings 

and recommendations in these areas to strengthen farm bill programs. In 

GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2011). 

Section 1: Introduction
Section 1: Introduction

Page 4 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

a companion report, the Office of Inspector General adopts these 

principles and summarizes its work related to farm bill programs.2

To develop this list of principles, we first identified the universe of our 

reports issued from January 2003 through July 2011 that were potentially 

related to farm bill programs.3 We screened these reports to exclude those 

that were not relevant and those that had no recommendations intended to 

improve the integrity, efficiency, or effectiveness of farm bill programs. We 

reviewed a subset of the relevant reports to develop a preliminary list of 

principles and then conducted a content analysis of all relevant reports to 

categorize findings by principle, refining the principles as we did so. We 

also reviewed some of our other products that examine governmentwide 

issues to inform our final list of principles.4

We conducted our work for this report from April 2011 through April 2012 

in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework

that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan 

and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate 

evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in 

our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 

analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 

conclusions in this product.

The work for these reports was 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition, we obtained 

comments on a draft of this report from USDA, which provided technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I contains more 

detailed information on our scope and methodology.

 

2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Farm Bill: Issues to Consider 

for Reauthorization, 50099-0001-10 (Washington D.C.: April 2012).

3

We subsequently added some reports issued from August 2011 through March 2012

because they are relevant to farm bill deliberations. 

4

For example, GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal 

Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
Section 1: Introduction

Page 5 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Based on the review of our reports issued from January 2003 through 

March 2012 that were relevant to farm bill programs, we identified the 

following principles and associated key questions that could be applicable 

to Congress’s deliberations for the 2012 Farm Bill:

• Relevance. Does the program concern an issue of national interest?

Is the program consistent with current statutes and international 

agreements? Have the domestic and international food and 

agriculture sectors changed significantly, or are they expected to 

change, in ways that affect the program’s purpose?

• Distinctiveness. Is the program unique and free from overlap or 

duplication with other programs? Is it well coordinated with similar 

programs?

• Targeting. Is the program’s distribution of benefits consistent with 

contemporary assessments of need?

• Affordability. Is the program affordable, given the nation’s severe 

budgetary constraints? Is it using the most efficient, cost-effective 

approaches?

• Effectiveness. Are program goals clear, with a direct connection to 

policies, resource allocations, and actions? Does the program 

demonstrate measurable progress toward its goals? Is it generally 

free of unintended consequences, including ecological, social, or 

economic effects? Does the program allow for adjustments to 

changes in markets?

• Oversight. Does the program have mechanisms, such as internal 

controls, to monitor compliance and help minimize fraud, waste, and 

abuse in areas where these are most likely to occur?

The 2008 Farm Bill consists of 15 titles and related provisions covering 

support for commodity crops, horticulture and livestock, conservation, 

nutrition, trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural 

development, energy, forestry, and other related programs. For select 

farm bill titles, we summarized our findings in sections that correspond to 

farm bill titles and highlighted the relevant principles as they apply to 

these titles. The summaries relate to some, but not all, of the titles in the 

Principles Identified 

as Significant to 

Integrity, 

Effectiveness, and 

Efficiency in Farm 

Bill Programs
Section 1: Introduction

Page 6 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

2008 Farm Bill because since 2003, we have not produced a significant 

body of work concerning major provisions in every title.5 Appendix II 

presents GAO reports related to titles in the 2008 Farm Bill that were 

issued from January 2003 through March 2012. Appendix III presents 

reports from the USDA Office of Inspector General, issued from October 

2003 through February 2012, that the Office determined are relevant to 

titles in the 2008 Farm Bill.

The 2008 Farm Bill has governed many federal agriculture, food, and 

related programs since it was enacted into law in June 2008. It 

reauthorized, expanded, and modified many programs, amended laws, 

created new programs and initiatives, and repealed some programs. This 

farm bill enacted mandatory spending for commodity, crop insurance, 

nutrition assistance, conservation and trade programs. For other 

programs—including most rural development, research, and agricultural 

credit programs—the farm bill primarily authorized discretionary spending 

(i.e., spending subject to separate appropriations legislation). In 2011, the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that mandatory spending 

in the 2008 Farm Bill would cost about $95 billion annually from 2010 

through 2012. Many of the bill’s provisions expire at the end of fiscal year 

2012. The following are summaries of the 2008 Farm Bill’s titles, which 

are generally administered by USDA:

Title I: Commodity Programs. Under this title, the federal government 

provides assistance to farmers producing certain commodities, including 

wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and peanuts. Assistance is 

provided largely through three mechanisms: (1) direct payments 

unrelated to production or prices; (2) counter-cyclical payments for a 

commodity that are triggered when prices are below statutorily set

targets; and (3) marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 

payments; the latter occur when crop prices fall below statutorily set 

levels. In addition, support for the dairy industry is provided by, for 

example, having the government purchase dairy products and make 

payments to eligible farmers when milk prices fall below a certain level; 

and support for sugar growers and processors is provided by maintaining 

guaranteed minimum prices through a variety of mechanisms. In 2011, 

 

5

The 2008 Farm Bill titles without a corresponding summary include Title V (Credit), Title 

VIII (Forestry), Title X (Horticulture and Organic Agriculture), Title XI (Livestock), Title XIII 

(Commodity Futures), Title XIV (Miscellaneous), and Title XV (Trade and Tax Provisions). 

Overview of Titles in 

the 2008 Farm Bill
Section 1: Introduction

Page 7 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the commodity programs title 

would cost about $6 billion annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title II: Conservation. Farm bill conservation programs, generally 

administered by USDA, provide technical and financial assistance to 

farmers who voluntarily adopt conservation practices to mitigate the 

degradation of natural resources that can result from agriculture. For 

example, some conservation programs aim to prevent soil erosion, 

conserve and improve wildlife resources, protect wetlands, or protect water 

and air quality. Other conservation programs focus on specific restoration 

efforts, including those for the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes 

Basin. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the conservation 

title would cost about $5 billion annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title III: Trade. This title includes provisions related to international food 

assistance and trade. The 2008 Farm Bill reauthorizes the Food for 

Peace Act, which includes provisions for the largest U.S. international 

food assistance program, administered by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID).6

This title includes such trade provisions as export credit guarantees and 

export market development. Export credit guarantees ensure payments to 

U.S. financial institutions when foreign buyers finance their purchases of 

U.S. agricultural exports. Export market development programs promote 

the sale of U.S. agricultural exports overseas by supporting such activities 

as market research and consumer promotions. In 2011, CBO estimated 

that mandatory outlays in the trade title would cost about $287 million 

annually from 2010 through 2012.

In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill 

reauthorizes smaller food assistance programs, including Food for 

Progress, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and the McGovern-Dole 

International School Feeding and Child Nutrition Program, all 

administered by USDA. The farm bill also adds a small pilot program that 

supports local and regional procurement of food assistance.

Title IV: Nutrition. This title, which accounts for about two thirds of all 

spending mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill, includes programs to support 

 

6

In addition to reauthorizing the legislation, the 2008 Farm Bill changed the name of the

original authorizing legislation from the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 

Act of 1954, commonly known as Public Law 480, to the Food for Peace Act and deleted 

export market development as one of the objectives of the programs. 
Section 1: Introduction

Page 8 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

domestic food and nutrition assistance. The largest of these programs is 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which aims to 

help low income individuals and families obtain a better diet by 

supplementing their income with benefits to purchase food. School meal 

programs are authorized in other laws, but the farm bill includes some 

minor provisions related to the programs, such as a pilot project to 

purchase whole grains for use in school meals. In 2011, CBO estimated 

that major provisions in the nutrition title would cost about $76 billion 

annually in mandatory outlays from 2010 through 2012.

Title V: Credit. Under separate legislation, the federal government 

provides credit assistance for farmers through two lenders. USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency makes loans to farmers who cannot otherwise qualify for 

credit and guarantees repayment of loans made by other lenders. In 

addition, a government-sponsored lender, the Farm Credit System, 

makes loans to creditworthy farmers. The 2008 Farm Bill made minor 

changes to the statutes for these two lenders. In 2011, CBO estimated 

that the combination of mandatory outlays and income from fees paid by

banks would result in about $245 million in net receipts to the government 

annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VI: Rural Development. This title includes programs that support 

rural housing, utilities, and economic development, through loans, grants, 

and technical and financial assistance for rural businesses and 

infrastructure development. It also sets priorities for expanding broadband 

service to underserved areas. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory 

outlays in the rural development title would cost about $30 million 

annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VII: Research and Related Matters. Under this title, the federal 

government provides support for USDA’s research and development 

programs, including research on food safety and nutrition, plant and 

animal health and production, agricultural economics, renewable energy, 

organic agriculture, and bioterrorism. Through these programs, USDA 

conducts research directly and provides grants for research conducted in 

universities and other institutions. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory 

outlays in the research and related matters title would cost about $69 

million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title VIII: Forestry. Many federal forestry programs are separately

authorized and do not require reauthorization in the farm bill. However, 

some programs and provisions related to forestry—especially on private 

lands—are authorized or amended in the farm bill. For example, the 2008 
Section 1: Introduction

Page 9 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Farm Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to create a new community 

forest and open space conservation program to acquire forests 

threatened with conversion for non-forest uses, added national priorities 

for funding private forest conservation, required states to develop and 

submit statewide assessments of forest resources to receive federal 

funding for the conservation of private forests, and amended existing law 

to restrict imports of illegally logged wood. In 2011, CBO estimated that 

mandatory outlays in the forestry title would cost about $10 million 

annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title IX: Energy. Under this title, the federal government provides support 

for programs that promote biofuels, biobased products, and ethanol 

production. These programs fund activities such as the construction of 

biofuel refineries, federal agency procurement of biobased products (e.g., 

corn-based plastics, soybean-based lubricants, and citrus-based 

cleaners), energy efficiency improvements, rural energy self sufficiency, 

studies on biofuels infrastructure needs, and efforts to encourage the use 

of woody biomass for energy production. Woody biomass—which 

includes material from trees and woody plants—can be used to generate 

energy for heating or cooling buildings, among other things. In 2011, CBO 

estimated that mandatory outlays in the energy title would cost about 

$358 million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title X: Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. This title includes provisions 

that support state efforts to enhance competitiveness of specialty crops 

(i.e., fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops including 

floriculture), fund farmers’ markets, help farmers with organic certification 

costs, and call for data collection on organic agriculture, among other 

things. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the horticulture

and organic agriculture title would cost about $102 million annually from 

2010 through 2012.

Title XI: Livestock. Farm bills traditionally have not included price and 

income support programs for most animal agriculture (except dairy) as 

they have for major crops. The 2008 Farm Bill, however, introduced a 

new livestock title that modifies laws and requirements related to 

livestock, meat, poultry, and catfish. For example, it calls for enhancing 

electronic reporting of data on livestock markets, addresses concerns 

about livestock disease prevention and food safety, extends mandatory 

safety inspections to catfish, and allows some interstate sales of stateinspected meat and poultry. According to CBO, there are no mandatory 

outlays in the livestock title from 2010 through 2012.
Section 1: Introduction

Page 10 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Title XII: Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance Programs. The federal 

crop insurance program does not require reauthorization in the farm bill, 

but the 2008 Farm Bill modified the program, which subsidizes the cost of 

farmers’ premiums and pays an allowance to insurance companies to 

cover the administrative and operating expenses of selling and servicing 

crop insurance policies, among other things. The farm bill also provided 

support for disaster assistance programs in this title and in Title XV, the 

trade and tax provisions title. In 2011, CBO estimated that mandatory 

outlays in the crop insurance and disaster assistance programs title—as 

well as outlays for the disaster assistance program in the trade and tax 

provisions title—would cost about $7 billion annually from 2010 through 

2012.

Title XIII: Commodity Futures. This title reauthorizes funding for the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent regulatory 

agency, and further amends the Commodity Exchange Act. According to 

CBO, there are no mandatory outlays in the commodity futures title.

Title XIV: Miscellaneous. The miscellaneous title includes provisions 

affecting research, rural development, biosecurity, animal welfare, and 

socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, among other issues. In 

2011, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays in the miscellaneous title 

would cost about $53 million annually from 2010 through 2012.

Title XV: Trade and Tax Provisions. This title creates a new disaster 

assistance program—Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program 

(SURE)—to compensate farmers for certain disaster-related losses, 

including those not covered by crop insurance. It also introduces 

numerous revenue and tax provisions affecting customs fees, 

conservation, and commodity program payments. According to CBO, the 

only mandatory outlays in the trade and tax provisions title are those for 

the SURE program, which CBO included in its estimates for the crop 

insurance and disaster assistance programs title.
Section 2: Commodity Programs

Page 11 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Commodity programs help protect farmers against risks such as declines 

in crop prices and support farm income. 

The federal government spent over $6 billion on farm program payments 

to farmers in 2010. These payments go to both individuals and “entities,” 

including corporations, partnerships, and estates. Some of these 

payments are tied to revenue or market changes—for example, payments 

may compensate farmers when crop prices go below a certain 

threshold—while others, called direct payments, are fixed annual 

payments based on farms’ historic production. For each type of payment, 

statutory provisions define which farmers are eligible to receive payments 

and may limit the amount each farmer or entity can receive. For example, 

farmers whose incomes exceed statutorily defined caps are not eligible to 

receive payments. Nearly all of the farm policy proposals released in 

2011 either reduce or eliminate direct payments.

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning direct payments:

• Farmers receive direct payments—fixed annual payments that are not 

influenced by risk factors such as market forces—even in years of 

record income; recipients of farm program payments have higher 

incomes, on average, than other tax filers. Direct payments are 

concentrated among the largest recipients because these payments 

are tied to land and paid on a per-acre basis (GAO-11-318SP). 

• Direct payments were expected to be transitional when they were 

originally authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, but subsequent farm bills 

have continued them. Proponents say they help the United States 

meet its commitments under international trade agreements, which 

set ceilings on government payments classified as trade-distorting. 

Unlike other farm program payments, direct payments are not tied to 

production levels or market prices, and are deemed to not distort 

international agricultural markets. The United States has classified 

direct payments as meeting related World Trade Organization rules. 

As a result, other farm program payments can be provided with a

reduced risk of exceeding the ceilings. However, according to 

economists, this advantage has become less relevant recently 

because high crop prices, which are expected to continue through the 

Section 2: Commodity Programs

Reducing or 

Terminating Direct 

Payments Could 

Better Target Program 

Benefits and Save Tax 

Dollars
Section 2: Commodity Programs

Page 12 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

foreseeable future, have kept farm program payments well below the 

ceiling on trade-distorting payments (GAO-11-318SP). 

• Direct payments may compound challenges for beginning farmers. 

According to USDA studies, these and other farm payments result in 

higher prices to buy or rent land because in some cases the payments 

go directly to landowners—resulting in higher land value—and in other 

cases the payments go to tenants, prompting landlords to raise rents. 

In recent years, this effect has been most pronounced for direct 

payments because crop prices have not fallen below the threshold 

needed to trigger the other payments at significant levels. In 2010, 

direct payments accounted for about $5 billion and all other farm 

payments combined accounted for about $1 billion (GAO-11-318SP). 

• Phasing out or terminating direct payments could result in savings of 

up to $5 billion per year (GAO-11-318SP). 

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning improper payments in farm programs:

• USDA paid nearly $50 million from 2003 through 2006 in farm 

program payments to thousands of individuals whose incomes 

exceeded the eligibility cap at that time—$2.5 million, making them 

potentially ineligible for farm program payments. These payments 

occurred primarily because USDA did not have management controls, 

such as reviews of an appropriate sample of recipients’ tax returns, to 

verify that payments were going only to individuals who did not 

exceed the income eligibility caps (GAO-09-67). According to agency 

officials, in July 2009, USDA implemented management controls to 

address this issue. Consideration of individuals whose incomes 

exceed the eligibility limit continues to be an important issue as 

Congress designs the next farm bill.

• USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm program payments in the names of 

over 170,000 deceased farmers from 1999 through 2005. USDA 

regulations allow estates that meet certain conditions to receive 

payments after a farmer dies, but USDA did not determine whether 

the estates met those conditions. In addition, USDA relied on the heirs 

to an estate to inform USDA about whether a farmer receiving a 

payment was deceased. USDA could not be assured that millions of 

dollars in farm payments were proper because it did not have 

management controls to verify the status of individuals receiving 

payments (GAO-07-818). According to USDA officials, since 2007, 

USDA Has Increased 

Oversight to Reduce 

Potential Improper 

Payments, but 

Continued Vigilance Is 

Needed
Section 2: Commodity Programs

Page 13 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

they have been conducting data-matching tests with Social Security 

Administration records to verify that payment recipients are alive, and 

if they determine that a payment was inappropriate, they attempt to 

recover it. The agency did not, however, take steps to determine if it 

made improper payments before 2007 and if so, to recover the 

appropriate amounts.

• USDA made farm program payments to hundreds of individuals who 

may have had only limited involvement in farming because it lacked 

management controls to verify that payments went only to individuals 

who met eligibility requirements to be “actively engaged in farming.” 

To meet this eligibility standard, an individual or entity must provide a 

significant contribution of inputs of capital, land, or equipment, as well 

as a significant contribution of services of personal labor or active 

personal management to the farming operation (GAO-04-407). USDA 

has since implemented some management controls to ensure that 

individuals meet the active-engagement-in-farming standard, but it still 

has not defined a measurable standard of what constitutes a 

significant contribution of active personal management. Doing so 

could help the agency ensure that individuals receiving farm program 

payments are not simply getting paid for allowing their name to be 

used on a farming operation document.
Section 3: Conservation 

Page 14 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

A strong U.S. agricultural sector benefits the economy and the health of 

the nation, but if improperly managed, agricultural production can lead to 

the degradation of natural resources. For example, every year, more than 

a billion tons of soil erode from the nation’s cropland, and thousands of 

other acres, including wetlands, are converted into new cropland.

Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres, 

or about half of the continental United States’ land area, they are among 

the most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat.

To address the potential for the degradation of natural resources, Congress 

has authorized over 20 agricultural conservation programs in farm bills and 

in other legislation. These programs aim, among other things, to reduce soil 

erosion, enhance water quality and supplies, and improve wildlife habitat. 

To support these goals, USDA provides financial and technical assistance 

for farmers to adopt specific conservation practices.

Some conservation programs pay farmers to remove land from 

agricultural production to achieve environmental benefits. The largest of 

these programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, reimburses farmers 

for removing land from production for at least 10 years at a time. The 

Grassland Reserve Program pays farmers to maintain or restore 

grasslands, which help to maintain and improve water quality. However, 

grasslands are often converted to cropland by farmers (particularly in the 

northern plains) to garner the benefits of agricultural production. Another 

conservation program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP), is intended to promote agricultural production, forest 

management, and environmental quality as compatible goals by, among 

other things, encouraging producers to use management practices that 

support environmental goals. Conservation programs also pay farmers to 

control pollution generated by concentrated animal-feeding operations 

(CAFO)—large operations that raise livestock and poultry in a confined 

situation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for 

regulating air and water pollutants, including those from CAFOs, and 

requires CAFOs that discharge certain pollutants to obtain a permit.

Another conservation program aims to restore soil, air, and related resources 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where agricultural runoff is the single 

largest source of pollutants, according to EPA. In 2009, the President issued 

an executive order establishing the Federal Leadership Committee to 

oversee the development and coordination of federal restoration programs 

and activities and called for the development of a strategy to protect and 

restore the bay. The Federal Leadership Committee—chaired by the EPA 

Administrator, and including senior representatives from USDA and the 

Section 3: Conservation
Section 3: Conservation 

Page 15 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and 

Transportation—issued the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Strategy) in May 2010.

Figure 1 shows one conservation practice—strip cropping—that is used in 

some conservation programs to reduce soil erosion. Strip cropping 

involves the precise arrangement of alternating strips in a field. The crops 

are arranged so that all strips of grass or close-growing crops are 

alternated with a clean-tilled strip or a strip with less protective cover.

Figure 1: Strip Cropping to Reduce Soil Erosion

Note: Strip cropping means growing row crops, forages, or small grains in equal-width strips. 

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning farm and conservation programs:

• Some farm and conservation programs may work at cross-purposes, 

undermining the effectiveness of a conservation program. Specifically, 

some farmers choose to maintain grassland or convert cropland to 

grassland, but others do the opposite—convert grassland to 

cropland—and in both scenarios, farmers may receive federal 

payments under the statutes. For example, according to USDA, from 

1997 through 2007, roughly 1.57-million acres of cropland in the 

Northern Plains region were converted to grassland, and during the 

same period about 2.22-million acres of grassland were converted to 

cropland in the region. This conversion to cropland in the region 

accounted for about 57 percent of total grassland-to-cropland 

conversions nationwide during the period (GAO-07-1054). In 2011, 

USDA issued a bulletin describing new eligibility requirements for 

USDA Should Ensure 

Farm and 

Conservation 

Programs Do Not 

Work at Cross 

Purposes or Duplicate 

Efforts
Section 3: Conservation 

Page 16 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

participating in the federal crop insurance program when croplands 

have recently been converted from grasslands. GAO believes that this 

guidance will help prevent the conversion of grassland to cropland.

• Farm program payments are a major factor in farmers’ decisions to 

convert native grassland to cropland, according to our analysis and 

other economic studies. Farm program payments continue to be 

relevant because they reduce farmers’ financial risks and, in many 

cases, increase their profits over maintaining grassland. We also 

recognized that other factors, such as high crop prices, may also 

influence farmers’ decisions on whether to keep their land as 

grassland or convert it to cropland (GAO-07-1054). We recommended 

that USDA study and report on the issue of conversions of grassland 

to cropland, and it did so in 2011. USDA’s study included an analysis 

of the role of farm programs in farmers’ decisions to convert 

grasslands to cropland. Conversion of native grassland to cropland 

remains a concern as Congress designs the next farm bill.

• Some of USDA’s conservation programs have duplicative program 

goals and overlapping eligibility requirements, which can make certain 

conservation practices eligible for payments under multiple programs.

To reduce the potential for duplicate payments, Congress and USDA 

have instituted legislative and regulatory measures, but we found that 

some duplicate payments were still made (GAO-06-312). In March 

2009, USDA officials told us they had developed a process to 

preclude such payments from being made, but the broader issue of 

overlapping program goals remains.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning conservation goals:

• In 2006, USDA’s formula for allocating funds to states under EQIP 

was not clearly linked to the program’s goal of optimizing 

environmental benefits. Specifically, because the department did not 

have a documented rationale for including each of the factors and 

weights used in the formula, it was not clear whether the program was 

effectively targeting states with the most significant environmental 

concerns arising from agricultural production. For example, the 

formula uses a factor to address the waste management costs of 

small-animal-feeding operations but not such costs for large-animalfeeding operations, which can also damage the environment and 

might be more prevalent in some states than others (GAO-06-969). 

Beginning with its fiscal year 2009 funding allocations, USDA modified 

Procedures for 

Allocating Funds and 

Enforcing Compliance 

Could Be Improved to 

Better Promote 

Conservation 

Program Goals
Section 3: Conservation

Page 17 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

some elements in the formula and documented its rationale for all of 

the elements, and these actions addressed our recommendation.

• USDA developed long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures 

for the EQIP program but does not use performance assessment 

results to inform revisions to the funding allocation formula. Doing so 

could help ensure that funds continue to be directed to the highest 

priority areas, even as conditions change (GAO-06-969). In January 

2012, USDA officials told us they had taken steps to incorporate 

performance considerations into EQIP funding allocation decisions. We 

are currently evaluating whether the changes address our concerns.

• According to our nationwide survey, almost half of USDA’s field offices 

did not implement farm-bill conservation compliance provisions as 

required, in part because the offices reported that they were 

uncomfortable with their enforcement role. Some field office staff said it 

was difficult to cite farmers for noncompliance in the small communities 

where the staff and farmers both live and work. Furthermore, their 

noncompliance decisions were waived about 61 percent of the time, 

and the waiver decisions were not always adequately justified, 

providing further disincentive for issuing noncompliance decisions 

(GAO-03-418). In response to our recommendation, USDA took some 

steps from 2003 through 2007 to improve field offices’ implementation 

of the compliance review process, but some environmentalists have 

recently questioned whether the agency is adequately enforcing 

conservation compliance. The agency has not changed its process for 

justifying waiver determinations.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning agricultural runoff and other pollutants:

• In 2010, the Federal Leadership Committee issued a strategy for 

restoring the Chesapeake Bay, which has been in decline primarily 

because excess nutrients enter the bay from agricultural runoff and 

other sources, such as population growth and development. However, 

the strategy’s goals and actions may not be achieved, in part because 

not all bay restoration stakeholders are working toward the same 

goals. State officials told us that they are not working toward the 

Strategy’s goals, in part because they view the Strategy as a federal 

document. Instead, most state bay restoration work is conducted 

according to state commitments made in a previous bay restoration 

agreement. The Strategy and the previous agreement goals are 

somewhat similar, but they also differ. For example, both call for 

Agencies Need to 

More Effectively 

Address Potential 

Impacts Resulting 

from Agricultural 

Runoff and Other 

Sources
Section 3: Conservation 

Page 18 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

managing fish species, but the Strategy identifies brook trout as a key 

species for restoration and the previous agreement does not. The 

likelihood of achieving the goals is further reduced because the 

federal agencies do not plan to identify milestones for the entire 

restoration effort outlined in the committee’s strategy. Instead, the 

agencies plan to create 2-year milestones for measuring progress 

made toward the Strategy’s goals, with the first milestone covering 

2012 and 2013. Without either aligning the goals of all watershed 

stakeholders or creating milestones for the entire effort, the federal 

agencies and states may not be able to gauge whether actions are 

leading to progress in achieving program goals (GAO-11-802). 

• CAFOs have improved the efficiency of animal production, but the 

large amounts of manure they produce—sometimes over 1-million 

tons per year—can potentially pollute the air and water, and EPA has 

not assessed any resulting impacts to human health and the 

environment because it lacks key data. Specifically, EPA does not 

have data on the amount of pollutants that CAFOs are discharging, 

and even more fundamentally, on the number, location, and size of 

the operations to which it issues permits for discharging pollutants 

(GAO-08-944). In October 2011, EPA proposed a regulation to collect 

facility-specific information for a national inventory of CAFOs. In 

addition, by June 2012, the agency plans to develop methodologies to 

estimate the amount of air pollutants emitted by CAFOs. Once EPA’s 

planned actions are completed, we will assess whether they address 

our concerns.
Section 4: Trade 

Page 19 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

In 2010, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimated 

that a total of 925 million people worldwide are undernourished. The food 

and fuel crisis of 2006—2008 and the current global economic downturn 

exacerbated food insecurity in many developing countries and sparked 

food protests and riots in dozens of them. The United States provided 

nearly $2.3 billion to provide a total of 2.5-million metric tons of food aid 

commodities to food-insecure countries in fiscal year 2010. This amount 

accounted for about half of all global food aid supplies, making the United 

States the single largest donor of food aid.

U.S. international food assistance is delivered through multiple programs, 

some of which were authorized or amended in farm bills. The programs, 

administered mainly by the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) and USDA, serve a range of objectives, including improving food 

security and supporting economic development. For example, the 2008 

Farm Bill authorized $2.5 billion annually for USAID’s Food for Peace 

program, which provides U.S. agricultural commodities to developing 

countries to help meet certain emergency and nonemergency food needs.

A portion of these commodities—worth more than $300 million in 2010—

are sold to generate funds for economic development activities, a practice 

known as monetization. Monetization originated when the U.S. 

government owned a surplus of agricultural commodities, but the United 

States now purchases commodities from the commercial market and 

ships them abroad, where partners sell them in another market to 

generate cash to fund development activities. USAID and USDA are 

required to ensure that monetization transactions do not have adverse 

market impacts—such as displacing commercial trade and discouraging 

local food production—in recipient countries. To help avoid such impacts, 

the agencies and their implementing partners conduct market 

assessments that recommend the maximum volume of commodities that 

can be monetized without displacing commercial trade or creating 

disincentives for local food production.

The 2008 Farm Bill also reauthorized an international school feeding 

program; authorized up to $22 million annually to USAID to improve, 

monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nonemergency 

food assistance programs; and created a small pilot program for local or 

regional purchase and distribution of food assistance, which some 

experts say enables beneficiaries to receive food more quickly and cost 

effectively.

Even with a 1996 pledge by the United States and more than 180 world 

leaders to halve the number of undernourished people in the world by 

Section 4: Trade
Section 4: Trade 

Page 20 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

2015, efforts by host governments and donors to achieve this goal have 

thus far been insufficient. In 2008, we reported that meeting this goal in 

sub-Saharan Africa (the region with the highest prevalence of food 

insecurity) was increasingly unlikely and that the United States’ lack of a 

comprehensive strategy may have led to missed opportunities to leverage 

expertise and minimize overlap and duplication (GAO-08-680). Consistent 

with our recommendation, the administration issued a governmentwide 

global food security strategy in May 2010.

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning global food security:

• In 2010, 10 U.S. agencies supported a wide variety of programs and 

activities for global food security,1

GAO-10-352

but the agencies lacked a common 

data system to effectively implement the governmentwide global food 

security strategy, which was issued in May 2010. Such a data system 

would include a commonly accepted definition of global food security 

programs and activities so that agencies could track expenditures and 

activities related to global food security ( ). Without a 

common data system, the United States may be less able to oversee 

the effective implementation of the new strategy.

• The governmentwide global food security strategy is vulnerable to 

risks associated with the strategy’s host government-led approach.

Specifically, host governments generally have weak capacity, which 

can limit their ability to increase spending for agriculture, absorb 

significant increases in donor funding, and sustain donor-funded 

efforts over time. U.S. agencies may also be constrained in their 

efforts to strengthen the host government’s capacity because these 

agencies have a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security.

Also, differences in policy priorities between donors, including the 

United States and host governments, could further complicate efforts 

to align donor assistance with host government strategies and hence 

 

1

These 10 U.S. agencies are USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Department of 

the Treasury, USDA; the Department of State, the Department of Defense, U.S. Trade 

and Development Agency, Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and 

Office of Management and Budget.

U.S. Agencies Should 

Take Steps to Mitigate 

Risks Associated with 

Implementing the 

Governmentwide 

Global Food Security 

Strategy
Section 4: Trade 

Page 21 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

potentially reduce the effectiveness of the new strategy 

(GAO-10-352). According to agency officials, they are taking steps to 

mitigate these risks, and we are continuing to monitor their efforts.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning the efficiency of international food assistance 

programs:

• Inefficiencies in the monetization process—selling food assistance 

commodities to generate funds for economic development—reduced 

funding available to the U.S. government and its implementing 

partners for development projects by $219 million over 3 years (2008 

through 2010 for USAID and 2007 through 2009 for USDA). The 

process of using cash to procure, ship, and sell commodities resulted 

in $503 million available for development projects out of the $722 

million expended. Proceeds generated through monetization are less 

than what the U.S. government spends to buy and ship the 

commodities; as a result, the U.S. government does not fully recover 

its costs. USAID’s average cost recovery, the ratio between the 

proceeds from sales and the cost of procuring and shipping the 

commodities, was 76 percent, while USDA’s was 58 percent 

(GAO-11-636). 

• Local or regional purchase of food in host countries can save money 

and delivery time in emergency situations, and as a result, it can be 

more cost-effective than in-kind food aid from the United States.

However, concerns persist about the quality of the food and 

adherence to certain product specifications, raising questions about 

the program’s effectiveness in ensuring food safety and nutritional 

content (GAO-09-570). In response to our recommendation, USAID 

and USDA have efforts under way to improve guidance for local or 

regional purchases that include commodity quality standards and to 

collect evidence on adherence to these standards.

• Food aid transportation and other delivery costs are requiring a larger 

share of program resources at the expense of procuring more food to 

feed hungry people, according to USAID officials (GAO-09-977SP). In 

2007, we reported that despite growing demand for food aid, rising 

business and transportation costs contributed to a 52 percent decline 

in average tonnage delivered over a 5-year period—reducing the costeffectiveness of the program (GAO-07-560). One factor contributing to 

high transportation costs is cargo preference laws that require 75 

percent of food aid to be shipped on U.S.-flag carriers, which are 

The Efficiency of 

International Food 

Assistance Programs 

Can Be Improved
Section 4: Trade 

Page 22 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

generally more expensive than foreign-flag carriers. From fiscal years 

2008 through 2010, cargo preference potentially cost the 

nonemergency food aid programs approximately $30 million 

(GAO-11-636). 

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning the effectiveness of international food assistance 

programs:

• USAID and USDA cannot ensure that monetization will avoid adverse 

market impacts—such as discouraging local food production and 

displacing commercial trade—in part because the market 

assessments the agencies conduct are weak and in part because the 

agencies do not assess the effects of monetization. Without better 

assessments, the agencies lack important information, including 

whether selling U.S. food causes the prices of similar foods in the host 

country to be depressed and creates disincentives for local producers, 

which could work against the agricultural development goals for which 

the funding was originally provided (GAO-11-636). 

• Food rations designed for short-term emergencies are often used to 

address long-term food insecurity, but such rations do not always 

meet the nutritional needs of recipients if they rely solely on food aid.

On the contrary, recipients can develop serious micronutrient 

deficiencies under these circumstances. For example, epidemics of 

scurvy (a severe vitamin C deficiency) have broken out among food 

aid beneficiaries who totally depended on food aid. Nevertheless, 

more than half of Food for Peace emergency funding was spent on 

multiyear programs, highlighting the need for guidance on how to 

address nutritional deficiencies that emerge during protracted 

emergencies (GAO-11-491). 

• Newly developed specialized foods have the potential to better meet 

the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women 

and young children, but these foods are difficult to target to the 

intended recipients and more costly than conventional food aid, and 

their efficacy is still being tested. Because of the high costs combined 

with the lack of information, U.S. agencies face challenges with the 

trade-off between reaching more beneficiaries and increasing 

effectiveness at achieving nutritional outcomes for targeted groups 

(GAO-11-491). 

Better Practices Offer 

Opportunities to 

Enhance the 

Effectiveness of 

International Food 

Assistance
Section 4: Trade 

Page 23 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

• U.S. agencies and their implementing partners face difficulties 

targeting foods to the appropriate groups or individuals because (1) 

needs assessments only provide some of the required information 

and therefore are not always useful and (2) targeting can be 

undermined at the recipient level by the cultural practice of sharing 

among or within households. For example, in a household with one 

qualifying family member—defined as a child under 5 or a pregnant or 

lactating woman—the head of household said the specialized food is 

shared with the whole family, especially elderly members and the 

male head of household, who needs extra energy to work in the field 

(GAO-11-491). 

• USAID’s actions to improve its monitoring and evaluation of 

nonemergency food aid programs could be hindered by weak 

planning. Monitoring is essential to ensuring that these programs are 

implemented as intended, and evaluation helps ensure that they 

achieve their goal of reducing global food insecurity (GAO-09-980). 

Also, USDA provides weak performance monitoring of its international 

school feeding program, making it difficult to assess any progress 

made toward the program’s objectives of education, nutrition, and 

sustainability. For example, the department’s guidance does not have 

performance indicators to directly measure nutritional progress.

Furthermore, USDA has not evaluated completed projects associated 

with this program, but according to agency officials, it is taking steps 

to do so. Specifically, for multiyear projects that began in 2010 or 

later, USDA now requires completed projects to be evaluated; the 

agency expects the first round of these evaluations to be issued in 

2014 (GAO-11-544). 
Section 5: Nutrition

Page 24 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on food and 

nutrition assistance programs, and millions of Americans turn to these 

federal programs when they lack the money to get enough to eat. The 

recent economic crisis has increased the number of people who are 

eligible for such assistance, with participation in the largest food 

assistance program—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP)—increasing by 33 percent between 2009 and 2011.

A complex network of 18 food assistance programs emerged piecemeal 

over the past several decades, through multiple pieces of legislation, 

including farm bills, to meet various needs.1 For example, SNAP was 

reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and provided more than $70 billion in 

benefits to low income individuals and households in 2011.2

USDA and the states jointly administer SNAP; USDA pays the full cost of 

benefits and seeks to ensure that states administer the program in 

compliance with program rules; the states determine whether households 

are eligible and issue benefits to participants through electronic debit 

cards. Participants use the cards to purchase food in authorized retail 

stores. However, every year, SNAP participants exchange hundreds of 

millions of dollars in benefits for cash instead of food with authorized 

retailers across the country, a practice known as trafficking. In a typical 

trafficking situation, a retailer gives a SNAP participant a discounted 

amount of cash—commonly 50 cents on the dollar—in exchange for 

SNAP benefits and pockets the difference. In addition, benefits are paid 

incorrectly each year when, for example, ineligible individuals receive 

benefits or eligible individuals are paid more or less than they are entitled 

to receive. In 2010, these payment errors—including overpayments and 

underpayments—amounted to more than $2 billion.

 

1

The federal government currently funds close to 70 programs that are permitted to 

provide at least some support for domestic food assistance. Eighteen of these programs 

focus primarily on providing food and nutrition assistance to low income individuals and 

households.

2

In October 1, 2008, a provision in the farm bill changed the name of the Food Stamp 

Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In this report, we 

discuss information related to both the Food Stamp Program and SNAP; however, for 

simplicity, we generally refer to both programs as SNAP. 

Section 5: Nutrition
Section 5: Nutrition

Page 25 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning potential overlap among domestic food and nutrition 

assistance programs:

• Domestic food and nutrition assistance is provided through a 

decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal programs that 

show signs of overlap and inefficient use of resources. For example, 

applicants seeking assistance from multiple programs are often 

required to submit separate applications for each program and 

provide similar information verifying, for example, household income.

By targeting various needs, the 18 food assistance programs help 

increase access to food for vulnerable populations, according to 

agency officials, but overlapping requirements can create 

unnecessary work for both providers and applicants and may result in 

the use of more administrative resources than needed. Simplifying, 

streamlining, or better aligning eligibility procedures and criteria 

across programs could result in sizable administrative cost savings, 

but such actions would need to be balanced against the goal of 

ensuring access to benefits for eligible individuals (GAO-10-346 and 

GAO-11-318SP). 

• Not enough is known about the effectiveness of many of the domestic 

food and nutrition assistance programs. Research suggests that 

participation in 7 of the 18 programs—including 4 of the largest—is 

associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with 

program goals, such as raising the level of nutrition among lowincome households. Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of the 

remaining 11 smaller programs because they have not been well 

studied. Without such information, it is difficult to determine whether 

these programs are filling an important gap or unnecessarily 

duplicating functions and services of other programs (GAO-10-346

and GAO-11-318SP). 

Agencies Need to 

Reduce 

Administrative 

Overlap among 

Domestic Food 

Assistance Programs
Section 5: Nutrition

Page 26 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP): 

• The national rate of SNAP trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per 

dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar from 

2006 through 2008. However, even at that lower rate, USDA estimates 

that about $330 million in SNAP benefits were trafficked annually in 

those 3 years because of program vulnerabilities, including limited 

oversight. For example, USDA authorizes some stores that have only 

limited food supplies to ensure access to food for some participants but 

may not inspect these stores again for 5 years after their initial 

authorization. Also, some states actively pursue and disqualify 

recipients who traffic their benefits while inaction by other states allows 

recipients suspected of trafficking to continue the practice 

(GAO-10-956T and GAO-07-53). The 2008 Farm Bill expanded 

USDA’s authority to impose higher financial penalties for trafficking. In 

February 2012, USDA announced that it would soon publish a 

proposed rule strengthening penalties for retailers who commit fraud. 

According to USDA officials, the agency also made changes to its 

authorization process for some stores and now inspects higher-risk 

stores more frequently—some as often as once a year.

• The national payment error rate—the percentage of SNAP benefit 

dollars overpaid or underpaid to program participants—declined by 

about 57 percent from 2000 to 2010, from 8.91 percent to 3.81 

percent, according to USDA. This reduction occurred in a time of 

increasing participation and is due, in part, to steps taken by USDA 

and states to reduce improper payments, such as increasing oversight 

and providing financial incentives and penalties based on 

performance. Despite this progress, the amount of benefits paid in 

error is substantial. The 3.8 percent error rate in 2010 totaled about 

$2.5 billion and necessitates continued top-level attention and 

commitment to determining the causes of improper payments and 

taking corrective actions to reduce them (GAO-10-956T). 

USDA Could Benefit 

from Increased 

Attention to Food 

Program Integrity 
Section 6: Rural Development 

Page 27 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The federal government has provided assistance to eligible residents of 

rural America since the 1930s, when most of these residents worked on 

farms, and rural residents were generally poorer than urban residents.

Such assistance is still available for these residents; however, the rural 

America of today is different from the rural America of the 1930s, and the 

distinctions between rural and urban life have blurred. For example, 

universal access to the Internet via broadband technologies—commonly 

referred to as broadband Internet access—is now considered a critical 

economic engine and a central component of 21st-century news and 

entertainment in rural as well as urban areas.

Multiple federal agencies—such as the Department of Commerce, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), and USDA—administer economic development 

programs. Some economic development programs are targeted to rural 

areas and were addressed in the 2008 Farm Bill. USDA’s rural development 

programs address the diverse and unique needs of rural America through 

loans, loan guarantees, and grants for public facilities and services, such as 

electricity and water systems. In addition, over 80 economic development 

programs, which sometimes target benefits to rural areas, support nine 

separate economic development activities, such as entrepreneurial efforts, 

infrastructure, and telecommunications.

The 2008 Farm Bill extended funding for some rural and economic 

development activities, such as water sanitation and wastewater projects. 

It also broadened eligibility for the farm labor housing program, clarified 

eligibility for rural utility loans, and authorized loans and loan guarantees 

for improving access to broadband services in rural areas.

Section 6: Rural Development
Section 6: Rural Development 

Page 28 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning potential overlap or fragmentation of economic 

development programs:

• Each of over 80 economic development programs overlaps with at 

least one other program. To address the potential for problems that 

can result from overlap and fragmentation, we have identified 

collaborative practices agencies should consider. These practices 

include defining and articulating common outcomes for some of their 

related programs. USDA, the Department of Commerce, HUD, and 

SBA appear to have implemented some of these collaborative 

practices, but do not appear to have developed compatible policies or 

procedures, or identified opportunities to leverage resources with their 

federal partners, mainly because there are few incentives to 

collaborate and insufficient guidance on effective collaboration. For 

example, 52 different programs fund “entrepreneurial efforts,” but any 

collaboration among the programs that we assessed occurred only on 

a case-by-case basis. Without finding ways to collaborate more, 

agencies may miss opportunities to leverage each other’s strengths to 

more effectively promote economic development and use taxpayer 

dollars efficiently (GAO-11-318SP). Recently, three of the four 

agencies have taken initial steps to implement at least one of the 

collaborative practices, but they have provided limited evidence that 

they have taken steps to develop compatible policies or procedures 

(GAO-12-453SP). 

• Agencies do not have key information on program outcomes, 

information that they need to determine whether potential overlap and 

fragmentation is resulting in ineffective or inefficient programs. For 

example, USDA officials stated that they have taken steps to ensure 

that the agency has data to measure the accomplishments of one of 

its largest rural development programs—the Business and Industry 

loan program—which was funded at approximately $53 million in 

fiscal year 2010, but it is unclear whether these data will provide the 

information needed to determine potential overlap. Without quality 

data, agencies may not be able to efficiently manage their programs, 

and Congress and others may not have information to help them 

identify opportunities for consolidating or eliminating some programs 

(GAO-11-318SP). 

Agencies Need to 

Take Steps to Avoid 

Duplication, Overlap, 

and Fragmentation in 

Economic 

Development 

Programs 
Section 6: Rural Development 

Page 29 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

• Up to seven different federal agencies—including USDA and EPA—

administer programs to improve access to safe drinking water and 

sanitation systems in the U.S.-Mexico border region, but their efforts 

have been ineffective, in part, because they have not developed 

coordinated policies and procedures. For example, EPA and USDA 

each provided funds to develop separate designs for a wastewater 

project serving the same community. When the community selected 

the USDA design, the need for the EPA design was eliminated, 

resulting in a waste of those federal funds. In another example, the 

lack of coordination among agencies resulted in a $900,000 

investment of federal funds for pipes to distribute water, but these 

pipes are not usable because the water supply is insufficient 

(GAO-11-318SP and GAO-10-126). 

• The United States has not achieved its goal of universal access to 

broadband largely because of the low profitability of infrastructure 

deployment in underserved areas, most of which are rural, according 

to industry stakeholders. The American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 authorized $7.2 billion for multiple agencies to increase 

broadband availability by developing a national broadband plan, 

mapping nationwide availability, and deploying infrastructure.

Because the agencies have overlapping responsibilities that target the 

same population, it will be important for them to coordinate their 

efforts, particularly in specifying roles and responsibilities, to prevent 

duplication or fragmentation of efforts (GAO-09-494). In 2010, the 

Federal Communications Commission released a national 

broadband plan.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning the definition of rural development programs:

• USDA used a definition of “rural” to determine eligibility for housing 

assistance in rural areas, but the use of this definition resulted in 

inconsistent determinations about which areas would receive program 

funds. For example, in 2004 we reported that the agency used a 

public road outside Hagerstown, Maryland, as the dividing line for 

determining eligibility for rural communities, resulting in apparently 

similar rural areas receiving different designations. In addition, 

statutory requirements for program eligibility may not reflect changes 

in rural areas or best determine which areas qualify for USDA housing 

programs. For example, we found the requirement that rural 

communities not be part of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) to be 

of marginal utility. MSAs, which are defined as counties associated 

USDA Should 

Reconsider the 

Definition of “Rural” 

to Ensure 

Consistency with 

Program Purposes
Section 6: Rural Development 

Page 30 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

with a city or urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000, 

are not intended to be urban-rural classifications and can contain both 

urban and rural areas. We suggested that changes to this 

requirement, such as using density measures rather than the MSA 

criterion, might allow USDA to better differentiate between urban and 

rural areas (GAO-05-110). In addition to our suggested alternative, 

Congress incorporated into the 2008 Farm Bill a requirement that 

USDA report on the various program definitions of “rural.” USDA has 

not yet issued such a report. However, according to agency officials, 

USDA recently provided training to field staff to help address concerns 

about inconsistent eligibility determinations for rural areas.

Figure 2: Road Near Hagerstown, Maryland, That Divides a “Rural” Area” from a 

“Nonrural” Area, 2004

• USDA applied a “once a borrower, always a borrower” standard for 

distributing rural utility loans, which allows borrowers to continuously 

receive USDA assistance regardless of the extent of population 

increases within their service territories. As a result, these loans did 

not always target funds to rural areas where the need is greatest. In 

particular, loans went to recipients that provided utility services in over 

half the counties in the country that were classified as metropolitan, 

and 9.4 percent of all the counties had populations greater than 
Section 6: Rural Development 

Page 31 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

1 million. In the immediate vicinity of Atlanta, three cooperatives that 

provide service received a total of over $400 million in rural utility 

loans from 1999 through 2003. Without specifying that criteria apply to 

both initial and subsequent loans, the agency may not be able to 

target funds to rural areas (GAO-04-647). We suggested that 

Congress consider specifying that the program criterion for rural areas 

applies to both an initial loan and any subsequent loans that 

borrowers seek, but it did not follow our suggestion.
Section 7: Research and Related Matters 

Page 32 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The U.S. agricultural system generates over $1 trillion in economic 

activity annually, and the entry of foreign pests and disease into this

system can harm the economy, the environment, plant and animal health, 

and public health. USDA estimates that these biological invaders cost the 

American economy tens of billions of dollars annually in lower crop 

values, eradication programs, and emergency payments to farmers.

In part, to protect agriculture from the threats posed by foreign pests and 

disease, the 2008 Farm Bill provided over $300 million for 5 years to 

USDA for various research projects, according to estimates from the 

Congressional Research Service.1

• reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. food and agricultural system to 

chemical or biological attacks,

In addition, the 2008 Farm Bill 

authorized funding to support biosecurity planning and response in the 

United States, and more specifically, for activities that are to

• continue partnerships with institutions to enhance U.S. biosecurity,

• make competitive grants for research on counterbioterrorism, and

• counter or otherwise respond to chemical or biological attacks.

In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was charged with 

coordinating U.S. federal efforts to, among other things, protect against 

agroterrorism—the deliberate introduction of animal and plant diseases—

and USDA’s main agricultural inspection mission was subsequently 

transferred to DHS. USDA retains some responsibility for the agricultural 

inspection programs, such as developing and issuing an inspection 

policy. USDA is also responsible for preventing the spread of Avian 

Influenza (AI) in poultry, with DHS taking the lead role in coordinating the 

federal response.

In 2004, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 

(HSPD-9) to establish a national policy to defend the food and agriculture 

systems against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. 

Part of USDA’s efforts to implement HSPD-9 include developing the 

National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) to help the nation 

 

1

Congressional Research Service, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates, (Dec. 

13, 2010)

Section 7: Research and Related Matters
Section 7: Research and Related Matters 

Page 33 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

recover from high-consequence plant disease outbreaks that could 

devastate the nation’s productions of economically important crops.

Furthermore, various legislation and presidential directives have called for 

a robust and integrated biosurveillance capability (i.e., the ability to 

provide early detection and situational awareness of potentially 

catastrophic biological events).

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning how to defend agriculture:

• There is no centralized coordination effort to oversee the federal 

government’s overall progress in implementing the nation’s food and 

agriculture defense policy. Because several agencies have 

responsibilities outlined in HSPD-9, centralized oversight is important 

to avoid fragmentation and efficiently use scarce funds. For example, 

the Homeland Security Council previously collected and consolidated 

information from agencies, such as USDA, EPA, and the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), on their efforts to implement 

their HSPD-9 responsibilities, information that agency officials 

considered useful. However, this practice stopped in late 2008 or 

early 2009, according to agency officials. Without coordinated 

activities to oversee agencies’ HSPD-9 implementation efforts, federal 

decision makers may not have critical information they need to assess 

how well the nation is prepared for major emergencies and how 

efficiently agencies are using federal resources to prepare 

(GAO-11-652). 

• Numerous federal agencies—such as USDA, DHS, and HHS—have 

biosurveillance responsibilities, and some have developed high-level 

strategies for their respective biodefense missions, but there is no 

comprehensive national strategy that integrates all agencies and 

capabilities. For example, USDA developed a strategy for the National 

Animal Health Surveillance System to help the agency pursue its own 

animal health mission, but the strategy is not intended to support an 

integrated national biosurveillance capability. Similarly, officials in 

various agencies have taken the lead to fulfill their agencies’ 

biosurveillance missions, but they lack authority to direct other 

agencies with which they must partner to take specific action. Officials 

from multiple agencies stated that having a focal point would help 

Enhanced Oversight 

and Coordination Is 

Needed to Protect 

Agriculture from 

Terrorist Acts and 

Other Major 

Emergencies
Section 7: Research and Related Matters 

Page 34 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

coordinate federal efforts to develop a national biosurveillance 

capability (GAO-10-645). Consideration of a national biosurveillance 

capability continues to be a challenge.

• USDA’s plans did not include DHS in the lead coordinating role for 

responding to an outbreak of avian influenza, even though DHS may 

be required to direct a federal response if the president declared a 

major disaster. Unless USDA and DHS work diligently together to 

define and understand roles and responsibilities in advance of a 

significant outbreak of avian influenza, delay could occur at the 

federal level as the two agencies attempt to work out their relationship 

during a time of crisis (GAO-07-652). According to agency officials, 

DHS and USDA have been working to develop a framework to guide 

federal-to-federal assistance during agriculture emergencies.

• Poor coordination between DHS and USDA under the Agriculture 

Quarantine Inspection Program made it difficult for the agencies to 

perform their duties to effectively protect U.S. agriculture from foreign 

pests and disease. For example, agency officials responsible for 

tracing prohibited agricultural items, had difficulty gaining access to 

ports for inspections in some instances because the agencies did not 

coordinate in advance. Even though the process for disseminating 

information is specified in an interagency agreement between DHS 

and USDA, the poor coordination made the specialists’ assigned 

activities in the field difficult, if not impossible (GAO-06-644). 

According to agency officials, USDA and DHS have since taken steps 

to coordinate at ports of entry.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning agricultural research programs:

• USDA does not have a documented, systematic process for tracking 

research conducted or under way that may fill the gaps identified in 

NPDRS recovery plans, which are intended to provide a brief primer 

on the plant disease discussed and identify research gaps and 

priorities, among other things. For example, the NPDRS recovery plan 

for stem rust on wheat—one of the most devastating plant diseases 

worldwide—states that current data on the disease must be 

reexamined and identifies 13 specific areas that require updated 

research. According to USDA officials, they rely on a variety of 

entities—including agencies within USDA, other federal agencies, 

state governments, land grant universities, and the private sector—to 

conduct research on plant diseases that could have high 

USDA Should 

Improve Coordination 

with Other Entities to 

Identify Research 

Gaps and Avoid 

Duplication
Section 7: Research and Related Matters 

Page 35 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

consequences for the agriculture sector. However, USDA does not 

have a systematic process for tracking research conducted or 

underway that may fill the gaps identified in the NPDRS recovery 

plans. Without a documented, systematic process to monitor the 

extent to which research gaps are filled, USDA may not have the 

critical information needed to help the nation recover from highconsequence plant diseases that could devastate the nation’s 

production of economically important crops (GAO-11-652). 

• DHS has the lead responsibility for coordinating research efforts to 

protect against agroterrorism but had no controls to coordinate efforts 

with other agencies such as USDA. For example, some of the DHSsupported activities, such as foreign animal disease research, appear 

to duplicate research conducted by USDA. Without the ability to track 

federally funded research efforts, the United States will not have a 

coordinated national approach to protect against agroterrorism, 

possibly resulting in gaps or needless duplication of effort 

(GAO-05-214). According to DHS, an interagency committee now 

ensures that research on foreign animal diseases is coordinated, but 

there is no similar effort for plants.
Section 8: Energy 

Page 36 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

In recent years, the federal government has increasingly encouraged the 

use of biofuels and other alternatives to petroleum in response to 

concerns over U.S. dependence on imported oil, climate change, and 

other issues. The U.S. transportation sector depends almost entirely on 

petroleum products refined from crude oil—primarily gasoline and diesel 

fuels—and the nation imports a significant portion of the crude oil and 

petroleum products consumed domestically.

The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a number of programs and tax provisions 

to encourage production, use, and development of biofuels, which can be 

an alternative to petroleum-based transportation fuels and are produced 

from renewable sources, primarily corn, sugar cane, and soybeans.

Currently, the most commonly produced biofuel in the United States is 

ethanol, made primarily from corn. Corn is a relatively resource-intensive 

crop, requiring relatively higher rates of fertilizer and pesticide 

applications, and additional water to supplement rainfall, depending on 

where the crop is grown. Most U.S. corn is grown in the Midwest, and 

ethanol is generally produced near corn-producing areas.

Unlike petroleum products, which are primarily transported to wholesale 

terminals by pipelines, ethanol is transported to wholesale terminals by a 

combination of rail, tanker truck, and barge. At the terminals, most 

ethanol is blended with gasoline in mixtures generally containing up to 10 

percent ethanol, E10. The blended fuel is transported by tanker truck to 

retail fueling outlets.

Congress has supported domestic ethanol production through tax 

incentives from the 1970s through 2011 and, more recently, through a 

renewable fuel standard (the fuel standard) that applies to transportation 

fuels used in the United States.1

EPA is responsible for establishing and implementing regulations to 

ensure that the nation’s transportation fuel supply contains the volumes of 

First enacted in 2005 and expanded in 

2007, the fuel standard requires transportation fuels in the United States 

to contain certain volumes of biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. The 

fuel standard generally requires the rising use of ethanol and other 

biofuels, from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

 

1

The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, which provided 45 cents per gallon to fuel 

blenders that purchased and blended ethanol with gasoline, expired on December 31, 

2011.

Section 8: Energy
Section 8: Energy 

Page 37 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

biofuels required by the fuel standard. EPA recently allowed an 

intermediate blend, E15 (generally 15 percent ethanol), for use in model 

year 2001 and newer conventional automobiles, after determining that it 

would not cause these automobiles to be out of compliance with 

emissions standards.

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning the effects of producing biofuels:

• Increased production of ethanol (one type of biofuel) has raised 

demand for corn and contributed to higher corn prices, which has had 

several effects on U.S. agriculture. For example, with this demand, 

more acres have been planted to corn and fewer acres to other crops, 

and crop production has increased on lands that were formerly used 

for grazing or idled. Higher corn prices have created additional income 

for corn producers, but they have also driven up feed costs for 

livestock producers. The number of biorefineries has grown 

considerably, generally providing a boost to rural economies, although 

expert views vary on the magnitude and permanence of these 

benefits (GAO-09-446). 

• Some experts believe that, because of the resources required, 

increased corn cultivation for ethanol production may contribute to 

additional water depletion and increased fertilizer and sediment runoff, 

impairing streams and other water bodies. Furthermore, as corn 

production increases, environmentally sensitive lands that are 

currently idled because they are enrolled in conservation programs 

may be moved back into production, thereby increasing cultivation of 

land that is susceptible to erosion and decreasing available habitat for 

wildlife, including threatened species. However, some of the effects 

on water quality and habitat may be mitigated by the use of 

agricultural conservation practices (GAO-09-446). 

Increased Biofuels 

Production Has 

Agricultural and 

Environmental 

Effects
Section 8: Energy 

Page 38 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning challenges with building a biofuels infrastructure:

• Existing ethanol infrastructure should be sufficient to transport the 

nation’s ethanol production through 2015 and meet fuel standard 

requirements, according to government and industry officials. Beyond 

2015, however, large investments in infrastructure may be needed to 

transport enough ethanol to meet fuel standard requirements. 

According to EPA estimates, if an additional 9.4 billion gallons of 

ethanol are consumed domestically by 2022, several billion dollars 

would be needed to upgrade rail, truck, and barge infrastructure to 

transport ethanol to wholesale markets (GAO-11-513). 

• EPA recently allowed an intermediate ethanol blend for use in certain 

automobiles, but several challenges and uncertainties must be 

addressed before intermediate blends can effectively help the nation 

meet fuel standard requirements and reduce dependence on 

petroleum imports. For example, key components of the nation’s retail 

fueling infrastructure—such as gaskets and seals in dispensing 

equipment—could degrade or swell excessively and become 

ineffective when exposed to intermediate ethanol blends, and most 

existing equipment at retail fueling stations in the United States is not 

approved for use with intermediate blends (GAO-11-513). 

Investments in Fuel 

Delivery 

Infrastructure May Be 

Needed to Meet 

Mandated 2022 

Ethanol Consumption 

Levels
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs 

Page 39 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The cost of the federal crop insurance program—an average of about 

$7.3 billion annually from 2009 through 2011—has come under increased 

scrutiny because of the nation’s severe budget constraints and because 

as crop prices have risen in recent years, so too has the value of the 

crops being insured, which results in higher crop insurance premiums and 

premium subsidies, as well as higher administrative cost reimbursements 

paid to crop insurance companies and their agents.

For decades, Congress has authorized a federal crop insurance program 

to help mitigate the financial risks inherent in farming—potential losses of 

crop production and revenue. To encourage participation in this program, 

USDA subsidizes farmers’ insurance premiums, paying about 60 percent 

of the cost, and acts as the primary reinsurer for the private insurance 

companies that take on the risk of covering, or “underwriting,” losses to 

insured farmers. These companies earn a profit (underwriting gains) 

when insurance premiums they collect exceed their payments to farmers 

for crop losses, and they incur underwriting losses if their payments to 

farmers for crop failures exceed the premiums. USDA also pays 

insurance companies an administrative allowance to cover the costs of 

selling and servicing policies. A standard reinsurance agreement between 

USDA and the companies establishes the terms and conditions under 

which the companies have to operate, including the rate for the 

companies’ administrative allowance. Figure 3 shows the administrative 

allowances and underwriting gains or losses paid to crop insurance 

companies for 2000 through 2010.

Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs 
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs 

Page 40 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Figure 3: Administrative Allowances and Underwriting Gains or Losses Paid to 

Crop Insurance Companies, 2000–2010

To supplement the crop insurance program, Congress has historically 

authorized ad hoc crop disaster assistance programs. These programs 

generally provide one-time payments to compensate farmers for disasterrelated crop losses they sustain. The 2008 Farm Bill established and 

funded a $3.8 billion- permanent trust fund for a new program—

Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program—to 

provide disaster assistance to eligible farmers, but to qualify, farmers 

must have lost crops on or before September 30, 2011.1

 

1

The SURE program was authorized under the trade and tax provisions title (title XV) in 

the 2008 Farm Bill, but we address it here because of its relevance to the crop insurance 

and disaster assistance programs title (title XII).
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs

Page 41 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following are our key findings and applicable principles:

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning federal crop insurance subsidies:

• Crop insurance premium subsidies have more than doubled in recent 

years—from about $2.7 billion in 2006 to about $7.4 billion in 2011.

Unlike many other farm programs, however, the crop insurance 

program has no limit on the amount of subsidy a farmer can receive.

Other farm programs generally have statutory income and payment 

limits that apply to farmers. For example, a farmer with an average 

adjusted gross farm income (over the preceding 3 tax years) 

exceeding $750,000 is generally ineligible for direct payments, and 

farmers are subject to an annual limit of $40,000 per year on these 

payments. If, for example, the direct payment limit of $40,000 were 

applied to crop insurance subsidies to farmers for 2011, it would have 

saved up to $1 billion and would have affected less than 4 percent of 

farmers receiving the subsidies (GAO-12-256). In its comments, 

USDA said it was “ill-advised to reduce premium subsidies without 

further study. We disagreed and noted that the Administration 

included a reduction in premium subsidies in its proposed fiscal year 

2013 budget.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning payments to crop insurance companies:

• In 2010, USDA paid crop insurance companies a total of about $1.9 

billion in underwriting gains. In terms of profitability, these underwriting 

gains represent a rate of return of about 30 percent.2

GAO-07-944T

This rate of 

return exceeds USDA’s target rate of return of 12 percent, which is 

based on a study of private insurance companies’ rates of return 

( ). The standard reinsurance agreement the federal 

government has with these companies beginning in 2011 reduces 

underwriting gains, but according to USDA, rates of return under the 

agreement are still expected to be higher than the agency’s target.

 

2

We calculated the 2010 rate of return using data on underwriting gains and retained 

premiums from USDA. 

Limits on Crop 

Insurance Subsidies 

Would Save Money

USDA Has Reduced 

Costs by Decreasing 

Compensation to 

Insurance Companies, 

but Compensation 

May Still Be 

Excessive
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs 

Page 42 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

• From 2000 through 2009, USDA payments to insurance companies 

for administrative allowances nearly tripled—from $552 million in 2000 

to an estimated $1.6 billion in 2009—according to our analysis of 

USDA data. This increase occurred primarily because the 

department’s calculation method for administrative allowances 

considers crop prices, which rose dramatically, rather than crop 

insurance companies’ actual expenses for selling and servicing 

policies, which generally remained stable (GAO-09-445). In response 

to our recommendation and consistent with provisions of the 2008 

Farm Bill, in the 2011 standard reinsurance agreement, USDA capped

administrative allowances, resulting in allowances that were lower 

than they otherwise would have been. In addition, in response to 

another one of our recommendations, USDA is taking steps to 

determine insurance agencies’ reasonable costs for selling and 

servicing crop insurance policies.

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning potential fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal crop 

insurance program:

• USDA employs a range of processes to help prevent and detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse in the crop insurance program, but it did not 

effectively use all the tools it had available in 2005 (GAO-05-528). 

Since 2005, USDA has improved its use of inspections, data analysis, 

oversight of insurance companies, and use of sanction authority.

However, the department does not capitalize on all available data 

analysis tools to identify and prevent potential fraud, waste, and 

abuse, largely because of competing priorities.

• High premium subsidies, established by statute, may limit USDA’s 

ability to control program abuse because the subsidies shield farmers 

from the full effect of paying higher premiums associated with frequent 

or larger claims (GAO-05-528 and GAO-07-944T). In March 2012, we 

suggested that Congress consider reducing premium subsidies 

(GAO-12-256). 

USDA Has 

Strengthened 

Oversight of the Crop 

Insurance Program, 

but It Remains 

Vulnerable to 

Potential Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse
Section 9: Crop Insurance and Disaster 

Assistance Programs 

Page 43 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

The following key findings may contribute to the conversation on the 2012 

Farm Bill concerning federal disaster assistance programs:

• USDA’s experience with the ad-hoc crop disaster programs from 2001 

through 2007 shows that reviews to determine whether crop losses 

were eligible for payments occurred as many as 4 years after the crop 

losses primarily because of the time elapsed between when the 

disaster occurred and when an ad-hoc disaster assistance program 

was enacted. With such a lag, USDA county officials could not take 

actions, such as conducting field inspections, to validate whether the 

crops suffered damage as a result of a qualifying disaster. Many of 

the county officials said that having the opportunity to determine the 

eligibility of losses soon after the disaster would increase assurance 

that disaster program payments are proper (GAO-10-548). Timeliness 

of field inspections after crop losses is a continuing concern.

Lessons Learned 

Could Improve 

Implementation of a 

Disaster Assistance 

Program 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

To identify the universe of our evaluative reports issued since 2003 that 

are related to farm bill programs, we conducted searches in our internal 

and external databases, using calendar year 2003 as the starting point to 

include reports about programs implemented after passage of the 2002 

Farm Bill—the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Our 

search went through July 31, 2011. For search terms, we used program 

names and legislation titles from the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, as well as 

U.S. Department of Agriculture agency names and farm bill titles from 

1985 through 2008. Some of these search terms turned out to be overinclusive, identifying numerous reports that were not related to farm bill 

programs. We filtered these results by adding search terms such as 

“farm” or “agriculture.” For example, we took this step for the original 

search terms “disaster assistance” and “rural development.” We 

eliminated certain types of products, such as reports on federal agency 

major rules (issued in compliance with the Congressional Review Act); 

legal decisions, opinions, and reports on bid protests, appropriations law, 

and other issues of federal law; and reports of survey results related to 

particular products. We also eliminated reports with no recommendations, 

because they generally did not address evaluative questions related to 

program integrity, effectiveness, or efficiency. In addition, we excluded 

testimonies based on reports already in the universe and reports we 

determined to be irrelevant to the farm bill. For example, our search terms 

yielded some reports focused entirely on wildfire management and food 

safety. In a few cases, we added reports that had not been identified 

through our database searches—for example, reports that were issued 

from August 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012. The final universe included 

88 relevant reports.

To identify a list of principles significant to farm bill programs, we 

reviewed a subset of these reports—focusing on their findings and 

recommendations—and identified common themes related to program 

integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency. Using this list, we conducted a 

content analysis on the universe of reports, categorizing report text by 

principle and refining the principles as we did so. To ensure consistent 

interpretation and application of the principles, two analysts independently 

reviewed reports and reconciled any differences, until application of the 

principles was consistent between the two reviewers. We also reviewed 

some of our other products related to governmentwide issues and talked 

to experts on agricultural policy—such as a former Secretary of 

Agriculture, a former Member of Congress, other government officials, 

and an industry expert—to inform our final list of principles. We shared 

our list of principles with officials in the USDA Office of Inspector General, 

who adopted them for a companion report.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

In addition, we summarized report findings related to 2008 Farm Bill titles 

where we had a significant body of work from 2003 through 2011 related 

to major provisions in the titles, and highlighted relevant principles where 

they applied. For those titles with a corresponding body of work, our 

reports and summaries do not cover all aspects of the farm bill title. For 

the research and related-matters title, we also included in our summary 

reports related to pertinent provisions under the miscellaneous title; and 

for the crop insurance and disaster assistance programs title, we also 

included in our summary a report related to a pertinent provision under 

the trade and tax provisions title. The 2008 Farm Bill titles without a 

corresponding body of our work since 2003 related to major provisions in 

the title include Title V (Credit), Title VIII (Forestry), Title X (Horticulture 

and Organic Agriculture), Title XI (Livestock), Title XIII (Commodity 

Futures), Title XIV (Miscellaneous), and Title XV (Trade and Tax 

Provisions). 

We conducted our work from April 2011 through April 2012 in accordance 

with all sections of our Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to 

our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 

engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this 

product.
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 46 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Reports covering material related to multiple farm bill titles are listed 

under each relevant title.

Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent 

Payments to Individuals Who Exceed Income Eligibility Limits. 

GAO-09-67. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2008.

Information Technology: Agriculture Needs to Strengthen Management 

Practices for Stabilizing and Modernizing Its Farm Program Delivery 

Systems. GAO-08-657. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2008.

Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the 

Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.: 

September 18, 2007.

Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent 

Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals. GAO-07-818. 

Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2007.

Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.

Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2005 and 

Expected Fiscal Year 2006 Payments. GAO-06-502. Washington, D.C.: 

April 11, 2006.

Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2004 and 

Expected Fiscal Year 2005 Payments. GAO-05-312. Washington, D.C.: 

March 21, 2005.

Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title

Title I: Commodity 

Programs
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title

Page 47 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Dairy Industry: Information on Milk Prices, Factors Affecting Prices, and 

Dairy Policy Options. GAO-05-50. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2004.

Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations and 

Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment 

Limitations. GAO-04-407. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2004.

Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Year 2003 and 

Expected Fiscal Year 2004 Payments. GAO-04-518. Washington, D.C.: 

March 19, 2004.

Tobacco Settlement: States’ Allocations of Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 

Master Settlement Agreement Payments. GAO-03-407. Washington, 

D.C.: February 28, 2003.

Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State 

Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.: 

September 15, 2011.

Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps 

Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, But Additional 

Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.

Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the 

Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.: 

September 18, 2007.

US Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with 

Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture. GAO-07-1092. 

Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2007.

Agricultural Conservation: Farm Program Payments Are an Important 

Factor in Landowners’ Decisions to Convert Grassland to Cropland. 

GAO-07-1054. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2007.

Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key 

Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental 

Goals. GAO-07-370T. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2007.

Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.

Title II: Conservation
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 48 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on Participation and 

Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and Their 

Habitats. GAO-07-35. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2006.

Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for 

Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program. GAO-06-969. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2006.

Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved USDA 

Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce 

Duplication with Other Programs. GAO-06-312. Washington, D.C.: April 

28, 2006.

Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better 

Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96. 

Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.

Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That 

Support Ecological Indicators. GAO-05-376. Washington, D.C.: 

September 2, 2005.

Freshwater Programs: Federal Agencies’ Funding in the United States 

and Abroad. GAO-05-253. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2005.

Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Methods for 

Estimating Technical Assistance Costs. GAO-05-58. Washington, D.C.: 

November 30, 2004.

Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of 

Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands. GAO-03-418. Washington, D.C.: 

April 21, 2003.

International Food Assistance: Funding Development Projects through 

the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities Is Inefficient and 

Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts. GAO-11-636. Washington, D.C.: 

June 23, 2011.

International School Feeding: USDA’s Oversight of the McGovern-Dole 

Food for Education Program Needs Improvement. GAO-11-544. 

Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.

Title III: Trade
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 49 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and Quality Control Can 

Further Improve U.S. Food Aid. GAO-11-491. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 

2011.

International Trade: Exporters’ Use of the Earned Import Allowance 

Program for Haiti is Negligible because They Favor Other Trade 

Provisions. GAO-10-654. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2010.

Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide 

Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities. GAO-10-352. 

Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2010.

Softwood Lumber Act of 2008: Customs and Border Protection 

Established Required Procedures, but Agencies Report Little Benefit from 

New Requirements. GAO-10-220. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 

2009.

International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight. 

GAO-09-977SP. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.

International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve 

Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses 

in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. Washington, D.C.: 

September 28, 2009.

U.S. and Canadian Governments Have Established Mechanisms to 

Monitor Compliance with the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement but Face 

Operational Challenges. GAO-09-764R. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 

2009.

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can 

Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain 

Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.

International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and 

Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 

2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008.

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 

2007.
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 50 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

School Meal Programs: More Systematic Development of Specifications 

Could Improve the Safety of Foods Purchased through USDA’s 

Commodity Program. GAO-11-376. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and 

Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. GAO-10-956T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.

Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but 

Additional Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap 

among Smaller Programs. GAO-10-346. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 

2010.

School Meal Programs: Improved Reviews, Federal Guidance, and Data 

Collection Needed to Address Counting and Claiming Errors. 

GAO-09-814. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

School Meal Programs: Changes to Federal Agencies’ Procedures Could 

Reduce Risk of School Children Consuming Recalled Food. GAO-09-649. 

Washington, D.C.: August 20, 2009.

School Meal Programs: Experiences of the States and Districts that 

Eliminated Reduced-price Fees. GAO-09-584. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 

2009.

Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits: More Clarity in Federal 

Guidance and Better Access to Federal Information Could Improve 

Implementation of Income Eligibility Rules. GAO-09-375. Washington, 

D.C.: May 19, 2009.

Title IV: Nutrition
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 51 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Meal Counting and Claiming by Food Service Management Companies in 

the School Meal Programs. GAO-09-156R. Washington, D.C.: January 

30, 2009. 

Food Stamp Program: Options for Delivering Financial Incentives to 

Participants for Purchasing Targeted Foods. GAO-08-415. Washington, 

D.C.: July 30, 2008.

Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and 

Maintain Benefits Could Be Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and 

Information on Promising Practices. GAO-07-573. Washington, D.C.: May 

3, 2007.

Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to 

Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility. 

GAO-07-465. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.

Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program Integrity by Better 

Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties. GAO-07-53. 

Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2006.

WIC Program: More Detailed Price and Quantity Data Could Enhance 

Agriculture’s Assessment of WIC Program Expenditures. GAO-06-664. 

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.

Food Assistance: FNS Could Take Additional Steps to Contain WIC Infant 

Formula Costs. GAO-06-380. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2006.

Breastfeeding: Some Strategies Used to Market Infant Formula May 

Discourage Breastfeeding; State Contracts Should Better Protect Against 

Misuse of WIC Name. GAO-06-282. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006.

School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods Are Widely Available and 

Generate Substantial Revenues for Schools. GAO-05-563. Washington, 

D.C.: August 8, 2005.

Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment 

Errors, and Further Challenges Remain. GAO-05-245. Washington, D.C.: 

May 5, 2005.

Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden, but 

Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules among 

Programs. GAO-04-916. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004.
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 52 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Nutrition Education: USDA Provides Services through Multiple Programs, 

but Stronger Linkages among Efforts Are Needed. GAO-04-528. 

Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2004.

School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods Are Available in Many 

Schools; Actions Taken to Restrict Them Differ by State and Locality. 

GAO-04-673. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2004.

Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation 

of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. 

GAO-04-346. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004.

Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds; 

Examples from Selected GAO Work. GAO-03-1006. Washington, D.C.: 

August 1, 2003.

School Meal Programs: Few Instances of Foodborne Outbreaks 

Reported, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Outbreak Data and Food 

Safety Practices. GAO-03-530. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

School Meal Programs: Revenue and Expense Information from Selected 

States. GAO-03-569. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

School Lunch Program: Efforts Needed to Improve Nutrition and 

Encourage Healthy Eating. GAO-03-506. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to 

Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. 

GAO-03-388. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003.

Food Assistance: Potential to Serve More WIC Infants by Reducing 

Formula Cost. GAO-03-331. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2003.

Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the 

Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.: 

September 18, 2007.

Farm Loan Programs: GAO Reports on USDA Lending Practices.

GAO-06-912R. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.

Title V: Credit
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 53 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development 

Programs Are Unclear. GAO-11-477R. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service: Rural Broadband 

Access Loans and Loan Guarantees. GAO-11-541R. Washington, D.C.: 

April 7, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

The Housing Assistance Council’s Use of Appropriated Funds. 

GAO-11-189R. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2010.

Rural Water Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and Funding 

Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts to meet Needs in the U.S.-

Mexico Border Region. GAO-10-126. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 

2009.

Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Plan Should Include 

Performance Goals and Measures to Guide Federal Investment. 

GAO-09-494. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2009.

Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA 

Could Be Improved. GAO-08-1123. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 

2008.

Federal Electricity Subsidies: Information on Research Funding, Tax 

Expenditures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production. 

GAO-08-102. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.

Title VI: Rural 

Development
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 54 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Water Resources: Four Federal Agencies Provide Funding for Rural 

Water Supply and Wastewater Projects. GAO-07-1094. Washington, 

D.C.: September 7, 2007.

Telecommunications: Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the 

United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps 

in Rural Areas. GAO-06-426. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2006.

Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That Grant 

Funding Information Is Accurately Reported. GAO-06-294. Washington, 

D.C.: February 24, 2006.

Rural Housing Service: Overview of Program Issues. GAO-05-382T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2005.

Information Resource Management Internal Control Issues. 

GAO-05-288R. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2005.

Rural Housing: Changing the Definition of Rural Could Improve Eligibility 

Determinations. GAO-05-110. Washington, D.C.: December 3, 2004.

Rural Utilities Service: Opportunities to Better Target Assistance to Rural 

Areas and Avoid Unnecessary Financial Risk. GAO-04-647. Washington, 

D.C.: June 18, 2004.

Rural Housing Service: Opportunities to Improve Management. 

GAO-03-911T. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2003.

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Antibiotic Resistance: Agencies Have Made Limited Progress Addressing 

Antibiotic Use in Animals. GAO-11-801. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 

2011.

Title VII: Research and 

Related Matters
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 55 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Improve Response to Potential 

Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters Affecting Food and Agriculture. 

GAO-11-652. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Live Animal Imports: Agencies Need Better Collaboration to Reduce the 

Risk of Animal-Related Diseases. GAO-11-9. Washington, D.C.: 

November 8, 2010.

Biosurveillance: Efforts to Develop a National Biosurveillance Capability 

Need a National Strategy and a Designated Leader. GAO-10-645. 

Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010.

Biological Research: Observations on DHS’s Analyses Concerning 

Whether FMD Research Can Be Done as Safely on the Mainland as on 

Plum Island. GAO-09-747. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009.

Genetically Engineered Crops: Agencies Are Proposing Changes to 

Improve Oversight, but Could Take Additional Steps to Enhance 

Coordination and Monitoring. GAO-09-60. Washington, D.C.: December 

5, 2008.

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program: Management Problems May 

Increase Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Diseases. 

GAO-08-96T. Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2007.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS Has Made Significant Progress 

Implementing Security Recommendations, but Several 

Recommendations Remain Open. GAO-08-306R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 17, 2007.

Avian Influenza: USDA Has Taken Important Steps to Prepare for 

Outbreaks, but Better Planning Could Improve Response. GAO-07-652. 

Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2007.

USDA: Information on Classical Plant and Animal Breeding Activities. 

GAO-07-1171R. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 56 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase 

the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease. 

GAO-06-644. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006.

Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to 

Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future. GAO-06-337. 

Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2006.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS and USDA Are Successfully 

Coordinating Current Work, but Long-Term Plans Are Being Assessed. 

GAO-06-132. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2005.

Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust. 

GAO-05-668R. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.

Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a 

Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214. 

Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2005.

Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve Security at Plum 

Island Animal Disease Center. GAO-03-847. Washington, D.C.: 

September 19, 2003.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

Forest Service Research and Development: Improvements in Delivery of 

Research Results Can Help Ensure That Benefits of Research Are 

Realized. GAO-11-12. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.

Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue. GAO-12-453SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Biofuels: Challenges to the Transportation, Sale, and Use of Intermediate 

Ethanol Blends. GAO-11-513. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Title VIII: Forestry

Title IX: Energy
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 57 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in 

Production and Use. GAO-09-446. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2009.

Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing 

Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs. 

GAO-07-713. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007.

Wood Utilization: Federal Research and Product Development Activities, 

Support, and Technology Transfer. GAO-06-624. Washington, D.C.: June 

15, 2006.

Natural Resources: Woody Biomass Users’ Experiences Offer Insights for 

Government Efforts Aimed at Promoting Its Use. GAO-06-336. 

Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2006.

Natural Resources: Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to 

Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to Its

Use Remain. GAO-05-373. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2005.

Renewable Energy: Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric Power 

Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities. GAO-04-756. 

Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2004.

Biobased Products: Improved USDA Management Would Help Agencies 

Comply with Farm Bill Purchasing Requirements. GAO-04-437. 

Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004.

No GAO reports meeting our selection criteria were issued between 2003 

and March 2012 related to this title.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences 

from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter. GAO-11-228. Washington, D.C.: 

June 22, 2011.

Live Animal Imports: Agencies Need Better Collaboration to Reduce the 

Risk of Animal-Related Diseases. GAO-11-9. Washington, D.C.: 

November 8, 2010.

Title X: Horticulture and 

Organic Agriculture

Title XI: Livestock
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 58 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Animal Welfare: USDA’s Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs 

and Cats Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and 

Analysis. GAO-10-945. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2010.

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Actions Are Needed to Strengthen 

Enforcement. GAO-10-203. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2010.

Veterinarian Workforce: Actions Are Needed to Ensure Sufficient 

Capacity for Protecting Public and Animal Health. GAO-09-178. 

Washington, D.C.: February 4, 2009.

Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on 

Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance 

Transparency. GAO-08-686T. Washington, D.C.: April 17, 2008.

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some 

Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges. GAO-04-247. 

Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2004.

Country-of-Origin Labeling: Opportunities for USDA and Industry to 

Implement Challenging Aspects of the New Law. GAO-03-780. 

Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2003.

Crop Insurance: Savings Would Result from Program Changes and 

Greater Use of Data Mining. GAO-12-256. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 

2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

USDA Crop Disaster Programs: Lessons Learned Can Improve 

Implementation of New Crop Assistance Program. GAO-10-548. 

Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2010.

Small Business Administration: Continued Attention Needed to Address 

Reforms to the Disaster Loan Program. GAO-10-735T. Washington, D.C.: 

May 19, 2010.

Crop Insurance: Opportunities Exist to Reduce the Costs of Administering 

the Program. GAO-09-445. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2009.

Title XII: Crop Insurance 

and Disaster Assistance 

Programs
Appendix II: Related GAO Products, by 2008 

Farm Bill Title 

Page 59 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Beginning Farmers: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the 

Effectiveness of USDA Assistance. GAO-07-1130. Washington, D.C.: 

September 18, 2007.

Crop Insurance: Continuing Efforts Are Needed to Improve Program 

Integrity and Ensure Program Costs Are Reasonable. GAO-07-944T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2007.

Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress. GAO-07-235R. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2006.

Crop Insurance: Actions Needed to Reduce Program’s Vulnerability to 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. GAO-05-528. Washington, D.C.: September 

30, 2005.

Crop Insurance: USDA Needs to Improve Oversight of Insurance 

Companies and Develop a Policy to Address Any Future Insolvencies. 

GAO-04-517. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Trends in Energy Derivatives 

Markets Raise Questions about CFTC’s Oversight. GAO-08-25. 

Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture: More Effective Management and 

Performance Can Help Implementation of the Farm Bill. GAO-11-779T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011.

US Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options to Address 

Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights. GAO-09-62. Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2008.

No GAO reports meeting our selection criteria were issued between 2003 

and March 2012 related to this title.

Title XIII: Commodity 

Futures

Title XIV: Miscellaneous

Title XV: Trade and Tax 

Provisions
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 60 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Calendar Year 2010 Executive Order 13520, Reducing Improper 

Payments, High Dollar Report Review. 50024-0001-FM. Washington, 

D.C.: July 15, 2011.1

Fiscal Year 2010 Farm Service Agency Farm Assistance Program 

Payments. 

 

03024-0001-11. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2011. 

Agreed-Upon Procedures – Farm Service Agency Average Crop 

Revenue Election Program, Sheridan County, Montana. 03099-0199-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2010. 

Farm Service Agency’s Reliance on the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service’s Published Peanut Prices. 50601-0014-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

March, 31, 2009. 

Farm Service Agency: Payment Limitation Attestation Review in Wharton 

County, Texas. 03099-0182-Te. Washington, D.C.: October 23, 2008. 

Methodology for Establishing National/Regional Loan Rates for USDA’s 

Pulse Crop Loan Program. 03601-0026-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

September 25, 2008. 

Farm Service Agency: Payment Limitation Review in Louisiana.

03099-0181-Te. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008. 

Identification and Reporting of Improper Payments in FSA High Risk 

Programs. 03601-0016-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2008. 

Improper Payments: Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for 

High-Risk Programs in the Farm Service Agency. 03601-0014-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2007. 

Farm Service Agency: Efforts to Identify and Recover Overpayments in 

the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program. 03008-0001-At. Washington, 

D.C.: December 12, 2006. 

Farm Service Agency: Disposition of Nonfat Dry Milk. 03099-0197-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2006. 

 

1

Other agencies and provisions are also included in this audit.

Appendix III: Related USDA Office of 

Inspector General Products, by 2008 Farm 

Bill Title

Title I: Commodity 

Programs
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 61 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Farm Service Agency: Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Farm-Stored 

Loans. 03601-0047-Te. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006. 

Farm Service Agency: Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program. 

03099-0196-KC. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2006 

Farm Service Agency: Tracking Finality Rule and Equitable Relief 

Decisions. 03601-0044-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2006.

Farm Service Agency’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002. 03601-0013-Ch. Washington, D.C.: 

March 6, 2006. 

Farm Service Agency: Compliance Activities. 03601-0012-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005. 

Farm Service Agency: Compliance with the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002. 03601-0046-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

March 21, 2005. 

USDA Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. 

50601-0008-Ch. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2005.2

Farm Service Agency: Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program.

03601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2004. 

Farm Service Agency: Farm Programs Audit in a Louisiana Parish.

03601-0042-Te. Temple, TX: March 19, 2004. 

Farm Service Agency: Review of the 2002 Farm Bill Commodity Loan and 

Payment Rates. 03601-0020-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2003. 

 

2

Other agencies and provisions are also included in this audit. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 62 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Controls Over the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program in 

Michigan. 10099-0003-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2011. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program Review of Non-Governmental Organizations. 

10099-0006-SF. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Conservation Security 

Program. 10601-0004-KC. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2009. 

Farm Service Agency: Hurricane Relief Initiatives: Emergency Forestry 

Conservation Reserve Program. 03601-0024-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

September 17, 2008

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands Reserve Program 

Wetlands Restoration and Compliance. 10099-0004-SF. Washington, 

D.C.: August 25, 2008. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Status Review Process. 

50601-0013-KC. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency: Crop 

Bases on Lands With Conservation Easements in California. 

50099-0011-SF. Washington, D.C.: August 27, 2007. 

Evaluation Report: Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires 

Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources. 

50601-0010-HQ. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 2006. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program in Alabama. 10099-0005-SF. Washington, D.C.: 

September 5, 2006. 

Improper Payments – Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for 

High Risk Programs in Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

10601-0003-Ch. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2006. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands Reserve Program 

Compensation for Easements Washington, D.C. 10099-0003-SF. 

Washington, D.C.: August 8, 2005. 

Title II: Conservation
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 63 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program. 10099-0018-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2005. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Compliance with the Improper 

Payments Information Act of 2002. 10601-0003-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

January 10, 2005. 

USDA’s Role in the Export of Genetically Engineered Agricultural 

Commodities. 50601-0014-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 20, 2009.3

Farm Service Agency: Inspection of Temporary Domestic Storage Sites 

for Foreign Food Assistance. 03099-0198-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

August 22, 2008. 

Export Credit Guarantee Program. 07601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

July 22, 2008. 

Foreign Agricultural Service: Implementation of the Trade Title of the 

2002 Farm Bill and the President’s Management Agenda. 50601-0012-At. 

Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007. 

Foreign Agricultural Service: Trade Promotion Operations. 07601-0001-Hy. 

Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2007. 

Foreign Agricultural Service: Private Voluntary Organization Grant Fund 

Accountability. 07016-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2006. 

Farm Service Agency: Analysis of Farm Service Agency/Commodity 

Credit Corporation Wheat Sales. 03801-0006-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2004. 

 

3

Report also discuses information contained under Title VII- Research and Related 

Matters. 

Title III: Trade 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 64 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Identifying Areas of Risk in the Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP) Using Automated Data Analysis Tools. 27099-0001-DA. 

Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2012. 

Analysis of Louisiana’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0003-13. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2012. 

Analysis of Alabama’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0004-13. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2012. 

Analysis of Mississippi’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) Eligibility Data. 27002-0005-13. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2012. 

State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program. 27703-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2012. 

Analysis of Florida’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

Eligibility Data. 27002-0002-13. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2011. 

Analysis of Kansas’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

Eligibility Data. 27002-0001-13. Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2011. 

Analysis of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) AntiFraud Locator EBT Retailer Transactions (ALERT) Database. 

27002-0001-DA. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2011. 

Controls over Outsourcing of Food and Nutrition Service’s Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program Electronic Benefits Transfer Call Centers. 

27703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011. 

Calendar Year 2010 Executive Order 13520, Reducing Improper 

Payments, Accountable Official Report Review. 50024-0002-FM. 

Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2011. 

Recovery Act Equipment and Facility Assistance – Food and Nutrition 

Service’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Phase I. 

27703-0002-HQ. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

Oversight of the Recovery Act WIC Contingency Funds. 27703-0001-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2010. 

Title IV: Nutrition
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 65 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Followup on the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Purchases of Frozen 

Ground Beef. 01601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2010.

Review of the Emergency Food Assistance Program. 27703-0001-At. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010. 

Summary of Nationwide Electronic Benefits Transfer Operations. 

27099-0071-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2010. 

Funds Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 

Management and Oversight of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program. 27703-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2009. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits and the Thrifty Food 

Plan. 27703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 3, 2009. 

Follow-up on FNS Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 27601-0011-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

June 2, 2009. 

Monitoring of CACFP Sponsor, Collaborative Network, Toledo, Ohio. 

27601-0037-Ch. Chicago, IL: February 26, 2009. 

Food and Nutrition Service’s Continued Monitoring of EBT Operations – 

State of California Department of Social Services. 27099-0035-SF. San 

Francisco, CA: December 4, 2008. 

Food Stamp Program Retailer Authorization and Store Visits. 

27601-0015-At. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program, Administrative Costs 

New Jersey. 27002-0025-Hy. Beltsville, MD: September 10, 2008. 

Electronic Benefits Transfer System State of Colorado. 27099-0068-Hy. 

Beltsville, MD: June 20, 2008. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Summer Food Service Program Operated by 

the State of Georgia. 27099-0063-At. Beltsville, MD: March 31, 2008. 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program. 27601-0016-At. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2008. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 66 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Food and Nutrition Service: JPMorgan EFS’ Oversight of EBT 

Operations. 27099-0069-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Disaster Food Stamp Program for Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita – Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 27099-0049-Te. 

Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2007. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Western Region Summer Food Service 

Program California and Nevada. 27099-0034-SF. San Francisco, CA: 

August 17, 2007. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children, Puerto Rico. 27004-0004-At. Atlanta, GA: May 24, 2007.

Meal Accountability at Choice Schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

27004-0005-Ch. Chicago, IL: May 3, 2007. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National Office Oversight of Electronic 

Benefits Transfer Operations. 27099-0066-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

September 28, 2006. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Child Nutrition Labeling Program. 

27601-0013-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Disaster Food Stamp Program for Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma – Alabama and Florida. 27099-0061-At. Atlanta, 

GA: August 30, 2006.

Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp Program, ALERT Watch List. 

27099-0032-SF. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.

Child and Adult Care Food Program: Supper Meals Served in Schools. 

27601-0035-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2006. 

WIC Administrative Costs in Georgia. 27002-0002-At. Atlanta, GA: 

March 31, 2006.
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 67 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

USDA’s Progress to Implement the Improper Payments Information Act of 

2002. 50601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2006.4

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Wages Incentive Program in Puerto 

Rico. 27099-0060-At. Atlanta, GA: December 23, 2005. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: CostReimbursable Contracts with a Food Service Management Company. 

27601-0015-KC. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005. 

Audit of the Avella, PA School District’s Use of National School Lunch 

Program Funds. 27010-0034-Hy. Beltsville, MD: December 1, 2005. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program For 

Women, Infants, and Children, Administrative Costs – Oregon. 

27099-0033-SF. San Francisco, CA: November 16, 2005. 

Agricultural Marketing Service Management Controls to Ensure 

Compliance with Purchase Specification Requirements for Ground Beef. 

01099-0031-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005. 

Monitoring of CACFP Providers in Minnesota. 27010-0018-Ch. Chicago, 

IL: October 28, 2005

Controls Over the Minnesota Department of Education’s Use of Federal 

Funds. 27010-0019-Ch. Chicago, IL: June 22, 2005. 

Agricultural Marketing Service: Contract and Competitive Bidding 

Practices. 01601-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2005. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Controls Over USDA-Donated Commodities.

27601-0033-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program, Unified 

School District 480, Liberal, Kansas. 27010-0022-KC. Kansas City, MO: 

September 30, 2004. 

 

4

Report also discusses information contained under Title I – Commodity Programs. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 68 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Chicago SFA’s Accountability and Oversight of the NSLP, SBP, and 

CACFP Supper. 27010-0017-Ch. Chicago, IL: September 30, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Compliance with Improper Payments 

Reporting Requirements. 27601-0032-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 

28, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Summer Food Service Program, State of 

Nevada. 27099-0031-SF. San Francisco, CA: August 24, 2004. 

Controls Over USDA Donated Commodities For the Year Ended June 30, 

2004. 27601-0011-SF. San Francisco, CA: August 6, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Vendor Sanction Policies. 27002-0001-At. 

Atlanta, GA: July 15, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch and Breakfast 

Programs Attendance and Meal Count Analysis: Philadelphia School 

Food Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 27010-0031-Hy. Beltsville, 

MD: June 25, 2004. 

Summary of Audit Results, Continued Monitoring of EBT System 

Development – State of New Jersey. 27099-0065-Hy. Beltsville, MD: 

May 21, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Kearney R-I 

School District, Kearney, Missouri. 27010-0020-KC. Kansas City, MO: 

May 11, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Platte 

County R-III District, Platte City, Missouri. 27010-0021-KC. Kansas City, 

MO: April 15, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified 

School District 497, Lawrence, Kansas. 27010-0014-KC. Kansas City, 

MO: March 26, 2004. 

Accountability and Oversight of the National School Lunch Program – 

San Lorenzo Unified School District For the Year Ended June 30, 2003. 

27099-0024-SF. San Francisco, CA: March 26, 2004.
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 69 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified 

School District 257, Iola, Kansas. 27010-0015-KC. Kansas City, MO: 

March 26, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program: Unified 

School District 341, Oskaloosa, Kansas. 27010-0017-KC. Kansas City, 

MO.: March 26, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Continued Monitoring of EBT System 

Development, State of New Mexico. 27099-0018-Te. Temple, TX: March 

18, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children, State of New York. 27099-0062-Hy. 

Beltsville, MD: March 8, 2004. 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program – California. 

27099-0023-SF. San Francisco, CA: February 19, 2004.

Food and Nutrition Service: National School Lunch Program, Unified 

School District 453, Leavenworth, Kansas. 27010-0016-KC. Kansas City, 

MO: February 18, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program: Odessa RVII School District, Odessa, Missouri. 27010-0019-KC. Kansas City, MO: 

February 18, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Accountability and Oversight of the National 

School Lunch Program in Texas. 27010-0005-Te. Temple, TX: January 

23, 2004. 

Bellwood SFA’s Administration of the National School Lunch Program. 

27010-0016-Ch. Chicago, IL: December 3, 2003. 

Food and Nutrition Service: Accountability and Oversight of the National 

School Lunch Program: Star Programs, Inc., Ingram, Texas. 

27010-0009-Te. Temple, TX: October 9, 2003. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 70 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Direct Farm Operating Loans 

(Phase 2). 03703-0002-Te. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011. 

FSA Farm Loan Security. 03601-0018-Ch. Washington, D.C.: 

August 10, 2010. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Direct Farm Operating 

Loans (Phase 1). 03703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2010. 

Farm Service Agency: Controls Over Emergency Loans Reductions for 

Duplicate Benefits. 03601-0013-SF. Washington, D.C.: 

December 15, 2009. 

Controls Over Guaranteed Farm Loan Interest Rates and Interest 

Assistance. 03601-0017-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2008. 

Farm Service Agency: Debt Forgiveness Restrictions on Borrower 

Eligibility for Farm Loan Programs. 03016-0002-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 2006. 

Minority Participation in Farm Service Agency’s Programs. 03601-0011-At. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.5

 

Rural Development: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – 

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans - Phase 2. 34703-0002-Te. 

Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2012. 

Controls Over Eligibility Determinations for SFH Guaranteed Loan 

Recovery Act Funds (Phase 2). 04703-0002-Ch. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2011. 

Rural Cooperative Development Grant Program Eligibility and Grant Fund 

Use for a Missouri Entity. 34004-0001-KC. Kansas City, MO: 

August 25, 2011. 

Audit of a Rural Rental Housing Management Company Located in 

Indiana. 04601-0020-Ch. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011. 

 

5

Report also discusses information contained under Title XIV – Miscellaneous. 

Title V: Credit

Title VI: Rural 

Development
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 71 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Controls Over Rural Housing Service Disaster Assistance Payments. 

04601-0019-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2011. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business 

and Industry Guaranteed Loans. 34099-0008-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

December 27, 2010. 

Rural Utilities Service Controls Over Water and Waste Disposal Loans 

and Grants. 09601-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business 

and Industry Guaranteed Loan in Louisiana. 34099-0011-Te. Washington, 

D.C.: September 29, 2010. 

Single-Family Housing Direct Loans Recovery Act Controls – Phase II. 

04703-0002-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2010. 

Rural Utilities Service: Rural or Native Alaskan Village Grants. 

09099-0002-SF. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2010. 

Controls Over Rural Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program 

Recovery Act Activities - Phase 1. 04703-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

June 29, 2010. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Review of Lender with Business 

and Industry Guaranteed Loan in Maryland. 34099-0009-Te. Washington, 

D.C.: June 24, 2010. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Business and Industry 

Guaranteed Loan Program (Phase 1). 34703-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 2010. 

Controls Over Recovery Act Rural Business Enterprise Grants. 

34703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010. 

Review of Lender with Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan in 

Virginia. 34099-0010-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2009. 

Review of Lender with Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan in 

Louisiana. 34099-0012-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2009. 

Single-Family Housing Direct Loans Recovery Act Controls – Phase I. 

04703-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 2009. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 72 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Controls Over Eligibility Determinations for Single Family Housing 

Guaranteed Loan Recovery Act Funds. 04703-0001-Ch. Washington, 

D.C.: September 30, 2009. 

Multi-Family Housing Loans in Texas. 04099-0212-Te. Temple, TX: 

August 25, 2009. 

Controls Over Lender Activities in the SFH Guaranteed Loan Program. 

04601-0017-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2009. 

Request Audit of Oklahoma Rural Rental Housing Management 

Company. 04099-0211-Te. Temple, TX: April 28, 2009. 

Rural Utilities Service: Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.

09601-0008-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2009. 

Rural Utilities Service: Texas Community Connect Grantee Close-out 

Audit. 09601-0006-Te. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2008.

Rural Utilities Service: Implementation of Loan and Grant Programs That 

Promote Renewable Energy. 09601-0007-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

March 21, 2008.

Rural Housing Service: Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program - 

Bond Financing. 04099-0106-SF. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2008. 

Rural Development’s Single-Family Housing Force Placed Insurance 

Program. 04099-0139-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007. 

Rural Development: Lender’s Origination and Servicing of a Guaranteed 

Rural Rental Housing Loan - State of Mississippi. 04601-0009-SF. 

Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007. 

Rural Housing Service: Controls over Single Family Housing Grants and 

Loans. 04601-0016-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2007. 

Controls over Single Family Housing Funds Provided for Hurricane Relief 

Efforts. 04601-0015-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2007. 

Improper Payments: Monitoring the Progress of Corrective Actions for 

High-Risk Programs in Rural Housing Service. 04601-0014-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2007. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 73 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Business and Industry Direct Loan, 

Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company. 34004-0008-Hy. Beltsville, MD: 

January 31, 2007. 

Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan Program Followup. 04601-0003-At. 

Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006. 

Controls Over Multi-Family Housing Funds Provided for Hurricane Relief 

Efforts. 04601-0013-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006. 

Rural Housing Service: Single-Family Housing Program, Borrower 

Income Verification Procedures. 04099-0341-At. Washington, D.C.: 

August 14, 2006. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Value-Added Agricultural Product 

Market Development Grant Program. 34601-0004-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

July 28, 2006. 

Community Facilities Program. 04601-0004-At. Washington, D.C.: 

June 22, 2006. 

Rural Rental Housing Loan Prepayment and Restrictive Use Agreements. 

04601-0012-Ch. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2006. 

Rural Utilities Service’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002. 09601-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.: 

March 7, 2006

Rural Housing Service’s Progress To Implement the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002. 04601-0011-Ch. Washington, D.C.: 

February 24, 2006. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service’s Progress to Implement the 

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. 34601-0004-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006. 

Rural Utilities Service: Broadband Grant and Loan Programs. 

09601-0004-Te. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Request Audit of Business and 

Industry Loan in Arkansas. 34099-0007-Te. Temple, TX: 

September 29, 2005. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 74 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Single-Family Housing Program in South Carolina. 04099-0340-At. 

Atlanta, GA: August 31, 2005.

Rural Development: Water Grants to the City of Frostburg, Maryland. 

09099-0003-Hy. Beltsville, MD: June 14, 2005. 

Rural Housing Service: Subsidy Payment Accuracy In Multi-Family 

Housing Program. 04099-0339-At. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2005.

Rural Development: Compliance with the Improper Payments Information 

Act of 2002. 04601-0010-Ch. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2005. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Television Demonstration Grant 

Program. 34099-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

Rural Housing Service: Rural Rental Housing Project Management. 

04016-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Rural Rental Housing Program: Housing Development Corporation, 

Cairo, Illinois. 04099-0143-Ch. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

Rural Development: Local Governments’ Management of Multi-Family 

Housing Projects in North Carolina. 04004-0004-At. Atlanta, GA: 

July 15, 2004. 

Accuracy of Single Family Housing Borrower Accounts. 04601-0009-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Value-Added Agricultural Product 

Market Development Grant Program. 34601-0003-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

April 23, 2004. 

Rural Development’s Escrow Process for Single Family Housing 

Borrowers. 04601-0008-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2004. 

Rural Development: Audit of the Housing Authority of the City of Moultrie, 

Georgia. 04010-0001-At. Atlanta, GA: January 9, 2004.
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 75 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

USDA’s Response to Colony Collapse Disorder. 50099-0084-Hy. 

Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012.

Controls over Genetically Engineered Animal and Insect Research. 

50601-0016-Te. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2011. 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service – 1994 

Land-Grant Institutions. 13011-0003-At. Washington, D.C.: 

August 17, 2007. 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service’s 

Progress to Implement the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.

13601-0001-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2006. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Controls Over Issuance of 

Genetically Engineered Organism Release Permits. 50601-0008-Te. 

Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005.6

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. 

 

13601-0002-At. Washington, D.C.: January 7, 2005. 

Forest Service, Forest Legacy Program. 08601-0056-SF. Washington, 

D.C.: April 20, 2011. 

Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in USDA. 50601-0013-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2008. 

Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in Rural BusinessCooperative Service. 34601-0005-Ch. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 20087

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service’s 

National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. 

. 

13601-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2008.8

 

6

Report also discusses information contained under Title X- Horticulture and Organic 

Agriculture.

 

7

Report also discusses information contained under Title VI-Rural Development.

8

Report also discusses information contained under Title VII-Research and Related 

Matters. 

Title VII: Research and 

Related Matters

Title VIII: Forestry

Title IX: Energy
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 76 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Commodity Credit Corporation: Bioenergy Program. 03601-0025-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008. 

Agricultural Marketing Service: National Organic Program – Organic Milk.

01601-0001-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012. 

Oversight of the National Organic Program. 01601-0003-Hy. Washington, 

D.C.: March 9, 2010. 

United States Department of Agriculture: Controls over Importation of 

Transgenic Plants and Animals. 50601-0017-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

December 12, 2008.9

Agricultural Marketing Service’s National Organic Program.

01001-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005. 

Pesticide Data and Recordkeeping Programs. 01099-0028-At. 

Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2005. 

Controls Over Plant Variety Protection and Germplasm Storage. 

50601-0006-Te. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2004. 

Implementation of Country of Origin Labeling. 01601-0004-Hy. 

Washington, D.C.: August 18, 2011. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Administration of the Horse 

Protection Program and the Slaughter Horse Transport Program. 

33601-0002-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010. 

Assessment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Disaster Response 

Capabilities. 42099-0004-HQ. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2010. 

USDA’s Controls Over Animal Import Centers. 33601-0011-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2010. 

 

9

Report also discusses information contained under Title XI-Livestock. 

Title X: Horticulture and 

Organic Agriculture

Title XI: Livestock
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 77 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of the Recall by 

Hallmark/Westland Meat Packaging Company. 24601-0010-Hy. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Controls Over Pilot 

Qualification and Suitability. 33099-0008-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2009. 

Assessment of USDA’s Controls to Ensure Compliance with Beef Export 

Requirements. 50601-0006-Hy. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009. 

Followup Audit of the Management and Oversight of the Packers and 

Stockyards Program. 30016-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2009

Evaluation of FSIS Management Controls Over Pre-Slaughter Activities. 

24601-0007-KC. Washington, D.C.: November 28, 2008. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Recall Procedures for Adulterated or 

Contaminated Product. 24601-0009-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

August 7, 2008.

USDA’s Controls Over the Importation and Movement of Live Animals. 

50601-0012-Ch. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2008. 

USDA’s Implementation of the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza.

33701-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2008. 

Issues Impacting Development of Risk-Based Inspection at Meat and 

Poultry Processing Establishments. 24601-0007-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

December 4, 2007.

Food Safety and Inspection Service: State Meat and Poultry Inspection 

Programs. 24005-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September, 19, 2006. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Oversight of Avian Influenza. 

33099-0011-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2006. 

Assessment of USDA’s Controls for The Beef Export Verification Program 

for Japan. 50601-0011-HQ. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2006. 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s Management 

and Oversight of the Packers and Stockyards Programs. 30601-0001-Hy. 

Washington, D.C.: January 10, 2006. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 78 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of the 2004 Recall by 

Quaker Maid Meats, Inc. 24601-0004-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

May 18, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: National Cooperative 

State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program. 33099-0005-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Oversight of the Importation 

of Beef Products from Canada. 33601-0001-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

February 14, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Exotic Newcastle Disease 

Eradication Project, Cooperative/Reimbursable Agreements. 

33099-0010-SF. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Wildlife Services, Aircraft 

Acquisition. 33099-0001-KC. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Food Safety and 

Inspection Service: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) 

Surveillance Program - Phase I. 50601-0009-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

August 18, 2004. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Wildlife Services’ Controls 

Over Hazardous Materials Inventory. 33001-0005-Hy. Washington, D.C.: 

July 21, 2004. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service: Effectiveness Checks for the 2002 

Pilgrim’s Pride Recall. 24601-0003-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2004. 

Food Safety Inspection Service: Oversight of the Listeria Outbreak in the 

Northeastern United States. 24601-0002-Hy. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 

2004. 

Citrus Crop Indemnity Payments from Hurricane Wilma in Florida. 

05099-0029-At. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2011. 

USDA Payments for 2005 Citrus Canker Tree Losses. 50099-0046-At. 

Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2011. 

Title XII: Crop Insurance 

and Disaster Assistance 

Programs
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 79 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Risk Management Agency: Activities to Renegotiate the Standard 

Reinsurance Agreement. 05601-0005-KC. Washington, D.C.:

August 27, 2010. 

Risk Management Agency: Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Pilot 

Program. 50601-0018-Te. Washington, D.C.: August 27, 2010. 

Risk Management Agency: Group Risk Crop Insurance. 05601-0014-Te. 

Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2010. 

Risk Management Agency: Compliance Activities. 05601-0011-At. 

Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2009. 

Risk Management Agency: 2005 Emergency Hurricane Relief Efforts. 

05099-0028-At. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2009. 

Use of National Agricultural Statistics Service County Average Yields for 

the Group Risk Protection Plans of Insurance. 05601-0004-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2009. 

Risk Management Agency: Crop Loss and Quality Adjustments for 

Aflatoxin-Infected Corn. 05601-0015-Te. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2008. 

Risk Management Agency’s Improved Financial Management Controls 

Over Reinsured Companies. 05099-0111-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

October 23, 2007. 

Risk Management Agency: Asian Soybean Rust. 05099-0113-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2007. 

Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency: Zero Acreage 

Reporting Compliance. 50099-0051-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

March 28, 2007. 

Risk Management Agency: Citrus Indemnity Determinations Made for 

2004 Hurricane Damages in Florida. 05099-0027-At. Washington, D.C.: 

March 26, 2007. 

Risk Management Agency: Adjusted Gross Revenue Program. 

05601-0004-SF. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2007. 
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 80 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Risk Management Agency: New Crop Products Submitted by Private 

Companies. 05601-0013-Te. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2006. 

Risk Management Agency: Prevented Planting Payments For Cotton Due 

to Failure of the Irrigation Water Supply in California and Arizona, Crop 

Year 2003. 05099-0011-SF. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005. 

Risk Management Agency: Survey of Pilot Programs. 05601-0012-Te. 

Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2005. 

Cotton Crop Insurance: Premium Rates. 05601-0007-At. Washington, 

D.C.: February 10, 2005. 

Risk Management Agency: Renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance 

Agreement. 05099-0109-KC. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2005. 

Farm Service Agency: Apple Market Loss Assistance Payment Program. 

03601-0012-SF. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004.10

Risk Management Agency: Added Land Policy. 

 

05099-0025-At. 

Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004. 

Risk Management Agency: Established Maximum Price Elections for 

Agricultural Crops for 2001 and 2002 Crop Years. 05099-0017-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004. 

Risk Management Agency: Review of Written Agreements.

05601-0011-Te. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2003. 

No USDA Office of Inspector General reports issued between October 1, 

2003 and February 29, 2012 related to this title. 

 

10Was in 2002 Farm Bill Title X – Miscellaneous, under Disaster Assistance. This would 

correspond to Title XII in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Title XIII: Commodity 

Futures
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 81 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Food Emergency Response Network. 24601-0006-At. Washington, D.C.: 

March 22, 2011.

Controls Over APHIS Licensing of Animal Exhibitors. 33601-0010-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2010. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Animal Care Program, 

Inspections of Problematic Dealers. 33002-0004-SF. Washington, D.C.: 

May 14, 2010. 

Farm Service Agency: Socially Disadvantaged Borrower Foreclosures – 

Farm Program Loans. 03601-0049-Te. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009. 

Controls Over Permits to Import Agricultural Products. 33601-0009-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007. 

USDA Homeland Security Initiatives and Directives. 50701-0002-KC. 

Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2007. 

Review of Customs and Border Protection’s Agriculture Inspection 

Activities. 33601-0007-Ch. Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2007. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Evaluation of the 

Implementation of the Select Agent or Toxin Regulations, Phase II. 

33601-0003-At. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2006. 

APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities. 

33002-0003-SF. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Evaluation of the 

Implementation of the Select Agent or Toxin Regulations, Phase I. 

33601-0002-At. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2005. 

Review of Export Licensing Process for Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service Listed Agents and Toxins. 33601-0004-At. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Transition and Coordination 

of Border Inspection Activities Between USDA and DHS. 33601-0005-Ch. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005. 

Biosecurity Grant Funding, Controls Over Biosecurity Grant Funds 

Usage. 50099-0017-KC. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2005. 

Title XIV, Miscellaneous
Appendix III: Related USDA Office of Inspector 

General Products, by 2008 Farm Bill Title 

Page 82 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Security Over Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Owned and 

Leased Aircraft. 33601-0001-At. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2004. 

Controls Over Chemical and Radioactive Materials at U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Facilities. 50601-0009-At. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004. 

Followup Report on the Security of Biological Agents at U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Laboratories. 50601-0010-At. Washington, D.C.: 

March 8, 2004. 

Homeland Security Issues for USDA Commodity Inventories. 

50099-0013-KC. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.11 

Farm Service Agency: Hurricane Relief Initiatives: Livestock Indemnity 

and Feed Indemnity Programs. 03601-0023-KC. Washington, D.C.: 

February 2, 2009.12 

 

11Report also discusses information contained under Title I-Commodity Programs. 

12Report also discusses information contained under Title XII-Crop Insurance and 

Disaster Assistance Programs. 

Title XV: Trade and Tax 

Provisions
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 83 GAO-12-338SP Farm Bill Evaluation 

Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841, or shamesl@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Susan Offutt, Chief Economist; 

Thomas M. Cook, Assistant Director; Kevin S. Bray; Christine Feehan; 

Andy Finkel; Joy Labez; Kathy Larin; Katie Mauldin; Thomas Melito; 

Barbara J. El-Osta; Anne Rhodes-Kline; Cindy Saunders; William B. 

Shear; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Phillip Thomas made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361274)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.