United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

December 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

Administrative

Streamlining Is

Expected to Continue

Through 2002

GAO/RCED-99-34

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-281418 

December 11, 1998

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 19941

 (Reorganization Act of 1994) provided the

Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to streamline and reorganize

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to achieve greater efficiency,

effectiveness, and economy in its organization and management of

programs and activities. In earlier reports, we stated that USDA has made

progress in achieving several specific goals set forth in the act.2

 This

progress included reducing the number of employees by nearly 20,000,

consolidating headquarters offices, and combining field offices. However,

we reported that a number of issues concerning administrative

streamlining warranted continued attention, such as USDA’s progress in

consolidating operations at the state level and in developing performance

measures to determine the extent of the efficiencies and economies

achieved.

As a result of the issues raised in our previous work, you asked us to

provide you with additional information concerning USDA’s progress in

streamlining its administrative operations. Specifically, you asked us to

report on USDA’s progress in (1) reducing the number of administrative

staff departmentwide; (2) consolidating and streamlining administrative

support structures for seven field-based agencies, particularly at the state

office level;3

 and (3) measuring the savings and efficiencies realized as a

result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining efforts.

1

P.L. 103-354 (Oct. 13, 1994).

2

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Update on Reorganization and Streamlining Efforts

(GAO/RCED-97-186R, June 24, 1997) and U.S. Department of Agriculture: Status of USDA’s

Reorganization (GAO/RCED-98-109R, Mar. 19, 1998).

3

Three of these agencies—the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and Foreign

Agricultural Service—are in the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area. Three

others—the Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities

Service—are in the Rural Development mission area. The seventh agency—the Natural Resources

Conservation Service—is one of two agencies in the Natural Resources and Environment mission area.

The second agency in the mission area, the Forest Service, which has its own administrative support

structure, is not participating in the consolidation and streamlining with the other field-based agencies.

While the Farm Service Agency provides administrative support for the Risk Management Agency and

Foreign Agricultural Service, these two agencies do not operate from state offices.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Results in Brief From fiscal year 19934

 through fiscal year 1998, USDA reduced its

departmentwide administrative staff for four administrative

functions—human resources, budgeting, accounting and auditing, and

acquisition—from about 10,300 to an estimated 8,800, or by 15 percent.

USDA estimates that the number of administrative staff will decrease by an

additional 250 by the end of fiscal year 1999. At that time, about 8,550

administrative staff will support approximately 98,500 program staff. USDA

has no estimates for further departmentwide reductions in administrative

staffing beyond 1999.

As of November 1998, USDA had not yet begun to implement its plan to

consolidate and streamline administrative functions at the state office

level. In October 1998, USDA had developed a plan, subject to the

Secretary’s approval, that will consolidate the administrative functions for

the agencies into a single administrative office for each state. These new

state offices will receive policy guidance from a newly created

headquarters Support Service Bureau and report to a board of directors

composed of the state leaders of the Farm Service Agency, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development. The plan, which

is expected to be fully implemented by 2002, requires the completion of a

number of time-consuming and potentially costly actions, including

relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures, and

instituting common computing systems. Furthermore, although it appears

that administrative consolidation may provide long-term savings and

efficiencies, USDA may incur additional costs to implement this

consolidation in the short term.

USDA has no plans to develop performance measures to determine the

economies and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide

streamlining actions. USDA officials believe that a single

measure—personnel reductions—serves as a sufficient indicator of the

Department’s overall performance. However, without additional

performance measures, such as those that measure the quality of service

delivery, USDA will not know the extent to which it has accomplished the

1994 act’s overall objective of achieving greater efficiency, effectiveness,

and economy in the organization and management of its programs and

activities.

4

1993 is the baseline date established by the National Performance Review and the Federal Workforce

Restructuring Act of 1994 for determining workforce reductions (P.L. 103-226, Mar. 30, 1994).

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Background In response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and

the Vice-President’s National Performance Review (NPR), the Secretary of

Agriculture initiated a departmental reorganization to refocus and simplify

the Department’s headquarters structure, improve accountability and

service to customers, reform the Department’s field structure, and reduce

costs. Several components of the Secretary’s reorganization required

enabling legislation, which the Congress provided in the Reorganization

Act of 1994.

In addition to granting USDA broad authority for streamlining and

reorganization, the Reorganization Act of 1994 directed USDA to (1) reduce

the number of full-time-equivalent staff by at least 7,500 by the end of

fiscal year 1999, (2) reduce the number of staff so that the percentage of

the reduction in headquarters is at least twice that in the field offices,

(3) consolidate headquarters offices, and (4) combine field offices and

have them share resources.

By the end of fiscal year 1997, USDA had achieved most of the act’s goals. It

had reduced its overall staff-years by nearly 20,000, from about 129,500 in

1993 to about 110,000 by the end of 1997; 22 percent of the reductions

occurred in headquarters, and about 13 percent occurred in field offices.

In addition, the number of USDA agencies fell from 43 to 29, most of which

are under seven mission areas.5

 (App. I shows USDA’s staff by mission area

and agencies and headquarters staff offices.) Of the seven mission areas,

five include more than one agency. In four of these five mission areas,6

USDA has designated one agency as the lead administrative agency for the

mission area. (USDA’s current administrative structure is shown in app. II.)

Finally, USDA reduced the number of its county office locations by about

30 percent, from about 3,760 in 1994 to about 2,700 in 1997.

The Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS), and Rural Development (RD)—through the Rural Housing

Service—operate three separate administrative structures to provide

administrative support for seven field-based agencies7

 in 50 states, two

territories, and several Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) overseas offices.

5

These mission areas are (1) Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; (2) Rural Development; (3) Food,

Nutrition, and Consumer Services; (4) Natural Resources and Environment; (5) Food Safety;

(6) Research, Education, and Economics; and (7) Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

6

The four mission areas are (1) Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; (2) Marketing and Regulatory

Programs; (3) Research, Education, and Economics; and (4) Rural Development.

7

FSA, Risk Management Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, NRCS, Rural Housing Service, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

These seven agencies employed about 37,900 staff, or about 35 percent of

USDA’s total staff, in 1997 and are located in headquarters, about 150 state

offices, 5,800 county-based service centers, over 500 other support offices,

and several consolidated operations centers, such as FSA’s Management

Office in Kansas City, Missouri; RD’s Centralized Servicing Center in St.

Louis, Missouri; and NRCS’ National Science and Technology Consortium in

Fort Worth, Texas.

USDA Has Reduced

Administrative

Positions Overall

From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998, USDA reduced its

departmentwide administrative staff by 15 percent, from about 10,300 to

an estimated 8,800, in four areas identified by the NPR—human resources,

budgeting, accounting and auditing, and acquisition. Administrative staff

provide internal services for USDA’s program delivery staff, such as payroll

processing, financial management and reporting, and the purchasing of

supplies and equipment. USDA plans to have about 8,550 administrative

staff supporting a departmentwide program staff of approximately 98,500

by the end of fiscal year 1999.

Figure 1 shows the changes in the number of administrative staff for each

of the four administrative functions for fiscal years 1993 and 1998.

(Administrative staffing is shown in app. III.)

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Figure 1: Changes in Departmentwide

Administrative Staff, Fiscal Years 1993

and 1998

Administrative staff

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

Accountants

and auditors

Acquisition Budgeting Human

resources

Administrative functions

1993

1998 Estimated

Legend

RBS = Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RHS = Rural Housing Service

RMA = Risk Management Agency

RUS = Rural Utilities Service

Source: USDA’s Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

Changes to

Administrative

Operations for

Field-Based Agencies

Will Not Be Fully

Implemented Until

2002

As of November 1998, USDA had not consolidated administrative functions

for its field-based agencies at the state office level. However, in

October 1998, a USDA team submitted a plan (known as the Administrative

Convergence Plan) to the Secretary of Agriculture that will, upon

approval, implement this consolidation by 2002. USDA officials explained

that the plan, when fully implemented, is expected to reduce costs and

improve customer service and operating efficiencies. In addition, they said

the plan will require up to 4 years to implement because the Department

will need to complete a number of time-consuming and complex

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

actions—relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures,

and instituting common computing systems. Even though these actions are

expected to provide savings and efficiencies in the long term, the

Department has not identified the costs it will incur in the short term to

achieve these savings. Furthermore, USDA officials commented that these

tasks are not likely to be accomplished in a timely and effective manner

unless a strong leader is appointed to oversee them.

USDA Has Not Yet Begun

to Implement Its

Administrative

Convergence Plan at the

State Level

USDA expects to begin consolidating administrative functions at the state

level for its field-based agencies approximately 6 to 9 months following the

Secretary’s approval of the proposed October 1998 convergence plan.

Under the plan, a new office headquartered in Washington, D.C.—the

Support Services Bureau—will provide the administrative support now

provided separately by FSA, NRCS, and RD for seven field-based agencies.

(See fig. 2.)

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Figure 2: Administrative Support Structure Before and After Creation of the Support Services Bureau

7 agencies 1 support units

Proposed Structure After Consolidation

Support

Services

NRCS Bureau

FSA

RMA

FAS

RBS

RHS

RUS

RD 

Deputy 

for 

Management

7 agencies 3 support units

NRCS

Deputy

for

Management

NRCS

Current Admin Support Structure

(as of Nov. 1998)

RBS

RHS

RUS

FSA

Deputy

for 

Management

FSA

RMA

FAS

Source: USDA’s Administrative Convergence Plan.

In addition to its office in Washington, D.C., the bureau will have a single

administrative support unit in each state and in each of its four

consolidated operations centers to carry out combined administrative

functions. The new state offices will receive policy guidance from the

headquarters Support Services Bureau and will report to a board of

directors composed of the state leaders of FSA, NRCS, and RD.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

While the NPR specifies only four administrative functions (personnel,

budgeting, accountants and auditors, and acquisition), USDA’s

Administrative Convergence Plan includes additional functions and

categorizes them differently. The plan’s functions include financial

management (excluding budgeting), human resources, civil rights,

information technology, and management services (such as procurement

and printing). By consolidating these functions into a single administrative

support unit in each state or consolidated operations center, USDA expects

to reduce the administrative staff for the seven field-based agencies by

45 percent from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2002. However, by

1997, two-thirds of these reductions had already occurred. (See table 1.)

Table 1. Administrative Staff for the

Seven Field-Based Agencies, Fiscal

Years 1993 Through 2002

Number of full-time-equivalent staff

Administrative

function

Fiscal

year 1993

Fiscal

year 1997

Percent

change

Fiscal

year

2002a

Staff

change

from 1993

Percent

change

Financial

management 1,133 783 (30.9%) 756 (377) (33.3%)

Human resources 853 524 (38.6%) 473 (380) (44.6%)

Management 

services 1,019 624 (38.8%) 405 (614) (60.3%)

Civil rights 74 80 8.1% 164 90 121.6%

Information

technology 1,955 1,512 (22.7%) 1,159 (796) (40.7%)

Other

administrative

operationsb 590 381 (35.4%) 116 (474) (80.3%)

Total 5,624 3,904 (30.6%) 3,073 (2,551) (45.4%)

aProposed number of staff when convergence plan is fully implemented.

bIncludes administrative officers, program assistants, and secretaries.

Source: USDA’s Administrative Convergence Plan.

According to USDA officials, they did not implement streamlining at the

state office level earlier for two reasons. First, they were focused on

implementing the Secretary’s initiative to create consolidated

county-based service centers. And second, they were unable to reach

agreement among the affected agencies on how to achieve consolidation.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

A Number of Challenges

Need to Be Addressed

Before Implementation

Can Be Completed

USDA officials stated they must deal with several challenges to fully achieve

the cost savings, benefits, and efficiencies expected to be realized as a

result of implementing the administrative consolidation plan. These

challenges include relocating offices, developing common policies and

procedures, and adopting a common computing environment. In addition,

USDA officials said that strong leadership will be needed to implement the

plan and additional investments for collocating offices and modernizing

business processes and information technology will be required.

Relocating Offices Currently, in 28 states,8 the state offices for each of the different

field-based agencies are not located in the same facility (collocated), and

in 19 of these states, the offices are not even located in the same city. USDA

is planning to begin consolidating administrative functions before many of

these state offices have collocated. In those instances, the agencies will

continue to maintain staff in up to three separate offices. Consequently, in

these states, the benefits of sharing resources—reducing staff and

equipment and expanding staff expertise—will not be fully realized until

the agencies’ state offices are collocated. For example, in Kansas, the FSA,

NRCS, and RD state offices are located from 50 to 100 miles apart in three

separate cities. As a result, even though these agencies’ administrative

staff will be one organization on paper, they will continue to function in up

to three separate locations until the offices are collocated, requiring USDA

to retain more administrative staff and continue to pay for separate

equipment and facilities.

In addition, at least some of the 24 collocated state offices will need to be

reorganized before they can operate efficiently under the Administrative

Convergence Plan. For example, several collocated state offices have

separate office suites for each agency’s staff. Agency officials

acknowledged that to combine administrative staff into functional work

units under administrative convergence, it will be necessary to move staff

within existing office space, reconfigure existing office space, or move

agency operations to new facilities.

In other cases, collocated offices are already designed to operate

effectively under the planned administrative convergence. For example,

the new state office for FSA, NRCS, and RD in Boise, Idaho—opened in

February 1998—is expected to facilitate administrative convergence once

the plan is implemented. When the three agencies planned the new office,

they required that all employees in a functional area—such as human

8

When we use the term “states,” we are including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory

of Guam.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

resources or information technology—share a common work space. In

addition, the agencies share common mail rooms, printing equipment, and

other office facilities. According to state officials, their location in a shared

facility has already increased the efficiency of their operations by allowing

them to have fewer staff, less space, and less equipment.

USDA estimates that it will cost as much as $29 million to collocate offices

in 24 of the 28 states where they are not currently collocated,9

 including

moving personnel and acquiring new space, and an undetermined amount

to reconfigure existing space for collocated offices. Figure 3 shows the

states with collocated offices, and those with noncollocated offices. (App.

IV provides more detailed information on the noncollocated locations).

9

USDA has state cost analyses from 24 of the 28 noncollocated states. Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, and

Puerto Rico have not yet submitted this information.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Figure 3: Location of Collocated and Noncollocated State Offices

AK

WA

OR

CA

GU

HI

NV

PR

ID

MT

UT

AZ

WY

CO

NM

TX

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

MS AL GA

FL

SC

TN NC

KY VA

WI MI

IL IN

OH

WV

PA

NY

MD

ME

VT

NH

MA

CT

RI

NJ

DE

Greater than 50 miles

Less than 50 miles

Collocated

Source: USDA documents.

Developing Common Policies

and Procedures

While FSA, NRCS, and RD are subject to the same administrative regulations,

each has developed a different approach to implementing them. As a

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

result, there are slight to significant differences in the policies, procedures,

and business processes that each agency follows.

For example, NRCS and RD state offices have authority over personnel

actions for employees up to the level of General Schedule-13 and are

delegated authority to obligate funds for most categories of procurement.

In contrast, FSA state offices have far less authority over personnel actions

and procurement.

For budgeting, NRCS provides each state with a single budget allocation for

its program and administrative expenses. However, RD allocates specific

budget line items to its state offices for their individual programs, salaries,

and administrative expenses. FSA headquarters allocates the total number

of staff that each state may have each fiscal year and retains control over

certain state-level administrative expenses, such as office leasing and

information technology.

State office officials note that their agencies also need to develop common

business processes to standardize their personnel and recordkeeping

systems. Currently, the National Finance Center provides payroll

processing for USDA employees. However, NRCS uses a different process

than FSA and RD for entering personnel and payroll transactions

transmitted to the center.

Developing a Common

Computing Environment

To modernize and integrate the separate information systems currently

used by the agencies undergoing administrative convergence, USDA plans

to acquire a single, integrated information system—referred to as the

common computing environment. The common computing environment,

as part of USDA’s effort to modernize its business processes and

information technology, will consist of new computer hardware and

software applications. This new integrated system may require as many as

38,000 new personal computers and 24,000 printers, which will be

expected to operate in more than 3,000 locations nationwide. As we

reported in August 1998,10 USDA estimates that the costs of implementing a

common computing environment may exceed $2.6 billion over its

expected 15-year life cycle.11

10USDA Service Centers: Multibillion-Dollar Effort to Modernize Processes and Technology Faces

Significant Risks (GAO/AIMD-98-168, Aug. 31, 1998).

11Life-cycle costs represent those costs associated with planning, acquiring, developing, operating, and

maintaining the system from 1996 through 2011. These costs include, for example, the costs for

equipment and software, personnel, contractor support, and supplies.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

The effort to acquire and install this system will be significant, complex,

time-consuming, and costly. Achieving a common computing environment

requires these agencies to accomplish many activities, such as

reengineering and creating a common set of business processes, designing

common software, and determining the requirements for hardware. In

addition, FSA, NRCS, and RD have 150 existing software applications, many

of which must be modified. It is not clear when USDA will complete these

tasks. Some planning documents show that the tasks may be completed by

fiscal year 2002, while others show a completion date as late as fiscal year

2008. Until existing business applications are modified, USDA plans to

maintain and operate both the old and new information systems.

In our August 1998 report, we found several fundamental planning and

management weaknesses in the Department’s effort to modernize business

processes and technology for the agencies undergoing administrative

convergence. In light of these weaknesses, we suggested that the Congress

consider limiting funding for information technology for these agencies’

field offices to no more than the level needed to meet Year 2000

compliance requirements until appropriate action was taken to resolve

these weaknesses. USDA started acquiring new hardware and software for

its common computing environment at the end of fiscal year 1998, when it

purchased over 16,000 personal computers. While this purchase was

principally made to replace computers that are not Year 2000 compliant,

USDA also expects this procurement to enable its field-based agencies to

use common software applications that will support administrative

convergence in such areas as human resources, procurement, and travel.

Need for Strong

Leadership

USDA officials emphasized the need for the Secretary to move quickly to fill

key leadership positions for the Support Services Bureau and charge the

appointed officials with the responsibility to implement the Administrative

Convergence Plan once it has been approved.12 According to the leader of

the implementation planning team, assigning leadership responsibilities

and providing the appropriate authority to carry out those responsibilities

are critical to the plan’s success, given the host of decisions to be made

and actions to be taken in implementing the convergence plan. These

decisions include determining how the new organization will be funded in

the long term, how authority will be delegated within the organization, and

how staff will be classified.

12Key leadership positions, according to the leader of the implementation planning team, include the

Executive Director, Deputy Director/Chief Information Officer, and the top functional leaders for

human resources, financial management, management services, and civil rights.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

Currently, three separate administrative structures provide support to

seven agencies in 50 states, two territories, and several FAS overseas

offices. As mentioned earlier, these agencies have developed different

approaches to delivering administrative services to their customers. The

administrators for these three structures are focused on the delivery of

several programs in addition to administrative support. USDA officials said,

and we agree, that unless the Secretary moves quickly to appoint the

leaders to translate the plan into a workable operation, it is unlikely that

substantial progress will be made.

Additional Investments

Will Be Required Before

Long-Term Administrative

Savings Are Realized

While USDA has estimated the savings it will achieve through staff

reductions resulting from the administrative convergence, it has not

estimated the costs associated with the convergence. USDA officials believe

that administrative convergence will allow the Department to reduce the

number of administrative staff by 45 percent from 1993 through 2002.

However, they acknowledge that budgetary savings from staff reductions

will be decreased in the next several years by the costs of collocating state

offices, modernizing business processes, and acquiring and implementing

a common computing environment. If the administrative convergence is

fully implemented in 2002, the savings in administrative staff is projected

to total about $144 million annually.13 However, these savings will be

reduced by the approximately $29 million associated with merging offices

in 24 of the 28 states that do not yet have collocated offices and by several

million dollars annually for modernizing business processes and

implementing a common computing environment. The Administrative

Convergence Plan does not provide an estimate of these costs.

Savings and

Efficiencies Measures

Lacking

USDA has not instituted, and has made no plans to develop, performance

measures to determine the economies and efficiencies realized as a result

of its departmentwide administrative streamlining. According to USDA

officials, staff reductions should serve as a sufficient indicator of the

Department’s savings and efficiencies because employees’ salary and

benefit costs typically represent a majority—about 85 percent—of salary

and administrative expenses. However, although it has developed savings

estimates associated with staff-year reductions, these estimates do not

include any offsetting expenses as a result of employee buyouts and

reductions in force. While staff-year reductions are certainly one indicator

of savings, absent other measures, USDA does not know the extent to which

13Approximately $96 million of the projected $144 million in annual savings had been realized through

fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the future costs associated with administrative convergence must be offset

against the remaining $48 million in projected annual savings.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

it has improved service delivery, efficiency, and quality—key objectives of

the 1994 act and desired outcomes of the agencies’ ongoing restructuring

efforts. Additional outcome-oriented performance measures could help

USDA determine when it is achieving the overall objectives of the

Reorganization Act of 1994. For example, using the ratio of the number of

employees served per personnel specialist as a broad measure of

efficiency,14 we found that although USDA had reduced its personnel staff

departmentwide by 17 percent from September 1993 to September 1997,

the ratio decreased from 55 to 54 employees served by one personnel

specialist, indicating that the personnel reductions had not increased

efficiency. Other measures of effectiveness could include (1) financial

measures, such as cost per employee hired; (2) customer satisfaction

measures, such as those associated with responsiveness and quality; and

(3) process effectiveness measures, such as the time it takes to complete

specific administrative functions.

Conclusions USDA has made a number of organizational changes since 1994 to reduce its

staff and streamline its operations. However, USDA does not plan to

determine the extent to which its streamlining efforts have achieved the

objectives of the Reorganization Act of 1994, other than determining the

savings associated with staff reductions. The 1994 act also had as its

objectives more efficient operations to better carry out the Department’s

missions. Without an assessment of the overall effects of its

departmentwide streamlining efforts, USDA cannot know the extent to

which its efforts have been successful in achieving all of the objectives

mandated by the 1994 act.

USDA’s current reorganization task—the convergence of administrative

functions at the state level for the field-based agencies—is complex and,

even under the best of circumstances, will be difficult to implement

effectively and efficiently. However, we believe that there are weaknesses

in USDA’s current plans for administrative convergence that could hinder its

successful implementation. First, while the convergence is likely to save

money in the long run, USDA has not calculated the costs associated with

implementing the plan. As a result, USDA managers lack key cost

information that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various

actions that the Department has taken or will take in connection with

administrative convergence. Second, USDA has not yet assigned leadership

responsibilities for implementing the convergence plan. In our view, this is

14Management Reform: Agencies’ Initial Efforts to Restructure Personnel Operations (GAO/GGD-98-93,

July 13, 1998).

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

critical to establishing the accountability needed to help ensure the plan’s

successful implementation.

Recommendations to

Secretary of

Agriculture

To measure the economies and efficiencies gained by the departmentwide

administrative streamlining, we recommend that the Secretary of

Agriculture require the leaders for the seven mission areas, in consultation

with the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Chief Information

Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer, to develop and implement

performance measures for the Department’s administrative operations

that assess service delivery, efficiency, and quality.

We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Undersecretaries for

the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Natural Resources and

Environment, and Rural Development to develop cost estimates for the

complete implementation of administrative convergence.

Finally, to facilitate the effective implementation of the Administrative

Convergence Plan, we recommend that the Secretary, after approving the

implementation plan, move quickly to fill key leadership positions for the

Support Services Bureau and charge the appointed officials with the

responsibilities to carry out the plan.

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

We met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration; Acting

Director for Human Resources Management; and officials from the Office

of Departmental Administration, the Office of Budget and Program

Analysis, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Inspector

General, the National Food and Agriculture Council, the Farm Service

Agency, Rural Development, and the Natural Resources Conservation

Service.

USDA generally agreed with the report and our recommendations and noted

that USDA’s field-based agencies have made progress in developing certain

common policies and administrative systems for areas such as employee

recognition, evaluation of human resources management, merit

promotion, telecommuting, and work scheduling. In addition, USDA noted

that most of the savings associated with administrative consolidation will

be achieved by merging the three agencies’—FSA’s, NRCS’, and

RD’s—administrative functions, not from collocating offices. Finally, USDA

agreed with our recommendation to develop and implement performance

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

measures to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department’s

administrative operations. However, USDA noted that it would be difficult

to develop historical baseline data for fiscal year 1993—the baseline date

established by the National Performance Review and the Federal

Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994—and therefore suggested that more

recent baseline data be used to measure changes in administrative

operations. While we recognize it would be difficult to develop baseline

data for certain indicators that date back to fiscal year 1993, we continue

to believe that USDA, to the extent practicable, should develop measures

using baseline data for this time period to demonstrate the progress it has

made in streamlining the Department since the passage of the

Reorganization Act.

USDA provided a number of technical changes and clarifications to the

report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

To obtain information on USDA’s progress in reducing administrative staff

departmentwide, we interviewed administrative officials in Departmental

Administration, the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and each

mission area and reviewed relevant documents. To understand USDA’s

plans for consolidating administrative functions, we interviewed the

implementation team leader and reviewed relevant documents.

To determine USDA’s progress in consolidating state office administrative

functions for FSA, NRCS, and RD, we interviewed headquarters officials in

each agency and state office officials in five states where these agency

offices are collocated and five states where the agency offices are not

collocated. We also obtained relevant data and documentation. We also

met with the appropriate officials in USDA agencies in Kansas City and St

Louis to obtain data on the status of (1) FSA’s, NRCS’, and RD’s efforts to

collocate their state offices into single facilities; (2) the reduction of

administrative staff that has occurred since 1993; (3) USDA’s plans to

implement administrative convergence, including the benefits the

Department hopes to achieve and the problems associated with this

action; and (4) USDA’s attempts to quantify the savings associated with

streamlining efforts, including administrative convergence.

To determine USDA’s progress in measuring the savings and efficiencies

realized as a result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining,

we interviewed Department and agency officials involved in

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418 

reorganization and streamlining and reviewed documents pertaining to

their performance measures.

We conducted our review from May through November 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

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

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to

appropriate congressional committees, Members of Congress, the

Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. We will also make

copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-5138. Major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Robertson

Associate Director, Food and

 Agriculture Issues

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

USDA’s Staff by

Mission Area, Agency

and Office for Fiscal

Years 1993 Through

1999

22

Appendix II 

USDA’s Current

Departmentwide

Administrative

Support Structure

24

Appendix III 

USDA’s

Departmentwide

Administrative Staff,

Fiscal Years 1993

Through 1999

26

Appendix IV 

Location of

Noncollocated State

Offices

27

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

31

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Contents

Table Table 1. Administrative Staff for the Seven Field-Based Agencies,

Fiscal Years 1993 Through 2002

8

Figures Figure 1: Changes in Departmentwide Administrative Staff, Fiscal

Years 1993 and 1998

5

Figure 2: Administrative Support Structure Before and After

Creation of the Support Services Bureau

7

Figure 3: Location of Collocated and Noncollocated State Offices 11

Abbreviations

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service

FSA Farm Service Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

NPR National Performance Review

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

RD Rural Development

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix I 

USDA’s Staff by Mission Area, Agency and

Office for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999

Number of full-time-equivalent staff

Mission area or office Agency 1993a 1994a 1995a 1996 1997 1998b 1999b

Farm and Foreign Agricultural

Services

Farm Service Agency (FSA)

(federal) 7,628 7,112 6,602 6,283 5,870 5,909 5,646

Farm Service Agency (nonfederal) 14,953 14,176 13,432 12,738 11,399 10,835 9,980

Foreign Agricultural Service 923 906 907 885 881 881 819

Risk Management Agency 664 651 563 536 526 550 550

Total 24,168 22,845 21,504 20,442 18,676 18,175 16,995

Rural Development (RD) Rural Housing Service 8,222 7,870 7,234 6,911 6,227 6,188 6,109

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 428 419 391 331 320 328 304

Rural Utilities Service 890 891 850 765 745 764 715

Alternative Agricultural Research

and Commercialization Corporation 7 6 7 7 6 11 11

Total 9,547 9,186 8,482 8,014 7,298 7,291 7,139

Natural Resources and Environment Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) 13,784 13,311 12,157 11,833 11,888 11,945 11,412

Forest Service 43,025 40,593 38,349 37,224 36,330 36,311 35,526

Total 56,809 53,904 50,506 49,057 48,218 48,256 46,938

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer

Services

Food and Nutrition Service

2,009 1,933 1,868 1,807 1,711 1,725 1,782

Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service 9,950 10,111 10,090 9,760 9,697 9,702 9,702

Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service 4,027 3,956 3,843 3,645 3,524 3,524 3,524

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service 6,552 6,631 6,303 6,195 6,295 6,287 6,133

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration 936 867 812 808 788 824 824

Total 11,515 11,454 10,958 10,648 10,607 10,635 10,481

Research, Education, and

Economics

Agricultural Research Service

8,426 7,953 7,621 7,617 7,521 7,556 7,562

Cooperative State Research,

Education and Extension Service 408 424 386 380 394 405 405

Economic Research Service 788 717 625 591 570 554 551

National Agricultural Statistics

Service 1,487 1,345 1,214 1,138 1,128 1,290 1,107

Total 11,109 10,439 9,846 9,726 9,613 9,805 9,625

Departmental

Administrationc 727 710 628 625 618 648 701

Staff offices Office of the Secretary 83 72 64 66 61 82 82

Office of Chief Financial Officer 1,221 1,288 1,243 1,231 1,238 1,277 1,131

Office of Chief Information Officer 297 281 279 262 246 268 271

Office of Communications 150 135 127 123 119 119 120

(continued)

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix I 

USDA’s Staff by Mission Area, Agency and

Office for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999

Number of full-time-equivalent staff

Mission area or office Agency 1993a 1994a 1995a 1996 1997 1998b 1999b

Office of Budget and Program

Analysis 76 72 71 72 73 70 69

Office of the Chief Economist 45 36 37 37 40 50 57

Office of the General Counsel 420 402 368 353 351 374 378

Office of Inspector General 850 825 777 754 742 750 925

National Appeals Division 152 151 132 132 133 133 133

Thrift Savings Plan 367 397 408 430 445 490 502

Total 3,661 3,659 3,506 3,460 3,448 3,613 3,668

Total USDA staff 129,495 124,241 117,388 113,539 109,886 109,850 107,031

aNumbers adjusted to reflect mission area reorganization that occurred from 1993 to 1995.

bEstimates.

cOffices included under the Assistant Secretary for Administration are the Office of Administrative

Support, Board of Contract Appeals, Office of the Judicial Officer, Office of Administrative Law

Judges, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Office of

Operations, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization, and Office of Outreach.

Source: USDA’s Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix II 

USDA’s Current Departmentwide

Administrative Support Structure

Mission area Agency or offices

Responsible

administrative support unit

Farm and Foreign

Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency

Foreign Agricultural Service

Risk Management Agency

Farm Service Agencya

Rural Development Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative

Service

Rural Utilities Service

Alternative Agricultural

Research and

Commercialization

Corporation

Rural Developmenta,b

Natural Resources and

Environment

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Natural Resources

Conservation Servicea

Forest Service Forest Service

Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services

Food and Nutrition Service Food and Nutrition Service

Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection

Service

Food Safety and Inspection

Service

Marketing and Regulatory

Programs

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards

Administration

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Research, Education, and

Economics

Agricultural Research

Service

Cooperative State

Research, Education, and

Extension Service

Economics Research

Service

National Agricultural

Statistics Service

Agricultural Research

Service

Other staff offices and

activitiesc

Departmental Administration

(Table notes on next page)

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix II 

USDA’s Current Departmentwide

Administrative Support Structure

aAdministrative support for these agencies will be provided by the Support Services Bureau when

the Administrative Convergence Plan is implemented.

bAdministrative support staff are located at the Rural Housing Service, but report to the Rural

Development mission area.

cOffices and activities include the Office of Congressional Relations, Office of Administrative

Support, Board of Contract Appeals, Office of the Judicial Officer, Office of Administrative Law

Judges, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Office of

Operations, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization, Office of Outreach, Office of the Secretary, Office of Chief Financial Officer,

Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, Office of Budget and Program

Analysis, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of the General Counsel, National Appeals Division,

and Thrift Savings Plan. The Office of Inspector General provides its own administrative support.

Source: USDA documents.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix III 

USDA’s Departmentwide Administrative

Staff, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999

Number of full-time-equivalent staff

Administrative function 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998a 1999a

Accountants and Auditors 2,983 2,833 2,676 2,565 2,507 2,675 2,583

Acquisition 2,569 2,474 2,288 2,211 1,996 2,108 2,050

Budgeting 2,012 1,953 1,748 1,657 1,562 1,702 1,670

Personnel 2,744 2,593 2,353 2,248 2,202 2,299 2,227

Total 10,308 9,853 9,065 8,681 8,267 8,784 8,530

aEstimates.

Source: USDA data, based on National Performance Review categories of administrative

functions.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV 

Location of Noncollocated State Offices

State offices less than 50 miles apart

State Agency Address

Alaska NRCS 949 East 36th Avenue

Anchorage

FSA

RD

800 West Evergreen

Palmer

Arizona NRCS

RD

3003 North Central Avenue

Phoenix

FSA 77 East Thomas Road

Phoenix

Connecticuta NRCS 16 Professional Park Road 

Storrs

FSA 88 Day Hill Road

Windsor

Delaware FSA

NRCS

1201-03 College Park Drive

Dover

RD 5201 South DuPont Highway

Camden

Iowa NRCS

RD

Federal Building

210 Walnut Street

Des Moines

FSA 10500 Buena Vista Court

Des Moines

Maine NRCS 5 Godfrey Drive 

Orono

FSA

RD

444 Stillwater Avenue

Bangor

Marylandb NRCS 339 Busch’s Frontage Road

Annapolis

FSA 8335 Guilford Road

Columbia

Michigan NRCS 1045 South Harrison Road

East Lansing

FSA

RD

3001 Coolidge Road 

East Lansing

Mississippi NRCS

RD

Federal Building

100 West Capitol Street

Jackson

FSA 6310 I-55 North

Jackson

Montana FSA

NRCS

Federal Building

10 East Babcock

Bozeman

RD 900 Technology Boulevard

Bozeman

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV 

Location of Noncollocated State Offices

State offices less than 50 miles apart

State Agency Address

Nebraska NRCS

RD

Federal Building

100 Centennial Mall 

Lincoln

FSA 7131 A Street

Lincoln

Nevadac NRCS 5301 Longley Lane

Reno

FSA 1755 East Plumb Lane

Reno

RD 1390 South Curry Street 

Carson City

New Hampshired NRCS Federal Building

2 Madbury Street

Durham

FSA 22 Bridge Street

Concord

New Jersey NRCS 1370 Hamilton Street

Somerset

FSA Mastoris Professional Plaza

Route 130

Bordentown

RD Tarnsfield Plaza

790 Woodlane Road 

Mt. Holly

Oregon NRCS

RD

101 Southwest Main Street

Portland

FSA 7620 Southwest Mowhawk

Tualatin

Puerto Rico NRCS IBM Building

654 Munoz Rivera Avenue

Hato Rey

FSA 1607 Ponce de Leon

Avenue

Santurce

RD New San Juan Office

Building 159 Carlos E.

Chardon Street

Hato Rey

South Carolina NRCS

RD

Strom Thurmond Federal

Building

1835 Assembly Street

Columbia

FSA 1927 Thurmond Mall

Columbia

(continued)

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV 

Location of Noncollocated State Offices

State offices less than 50 miles apart

State Agency Address

Tennessee FSA

NRCS

US Court House

801 Broadway

Nashville

RD 3322 West End Avenue

Nashville

Vermont NRCS 69 Union Street

Winooski

FSA 346 Shelburne Street

Burlington

RD City Center 

89 Main Sreet

Montpelier

Wyoming NRCS

RD

Federal Building

100 East B Street

Casper

FSA 951 Werner Count

Casper

State office locations greater than 50 miles apart

Alabama NRCS 3381 Skyway Drive

Auburn

FSA

RD

4121 Carmichael Road

Montgomery

Hawaii FSA

NRCS

Federal Building

300 Ala Moana Boulevard

Honolulu

RD Federal Building

154 Waianuenue Avenue

Hilo

Illinois FSA 3500 Wabash Avenue

Springfield

NRCS 1902 Fox Drive

Champaign

RD 1817 South Neil Street

Champaign

Kansas NRCS 760 South Broadway

Salina

FSA 3600 Anderson Avenue

Manhattan

RD 1200 Southwest Executive

Drive

Topeka

North Dakota NRCS

RD

220 East Rosser Avenue

Bismark

FSA 1025 28th Street 

Fargo

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV 

Location of Noncollocated State Offices

State offices less than 50 miles apart

State Agency Address

Texas NRCS

RD

101 South Main Street

Temple

FSA 2405 Texas Avenue South

College Station

Washington FSA

NRCS

Rock Point Tower II

West 316 Boone Avenue

Spokane

RD 1825 Black Lake Boulevard

Olympia

Wisconsin FSA

NRCS

6515 Watts Road 

Madison

RD 4949 Kirschling Court

Stevens Point

aRD field offices served by Massachusetts state office.

bRD field offices served by Delaware state office.

cFSA field offices served by Idaho state office.

dRD field offices served by Vermont state office.

Source: USDA documents.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Ronald E. Maxon Jr, Assistant Director

John C. Smith, Evaluator-in-Charge

Robert G. Hammons

Carol Herrnstadt Shulman

(150748) Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100