INSPECTORS 

GENERAL

USDA Office of 

Inspector General 

Resources, 

Accomplishments, 

Coverage, and Quality

Report to the Chairwoman, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,

U.S. Senate

March 2013

GAO-13-245

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-245, a report to the

Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

March 2013 

INSPECTORS GENERAL

USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, 

Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality

Why GAO Did This Study

The USDA OIG plays a critical role in 

addressing issues of economy, 

efficiency, and potential fraud involving 

scarce taxpayer dollars allocated to 

USDA.

GAO was asked to review a number of 

issues related to the OIG’s operations 

in comparison to other cabinet-level 

OIGs. The objectives of this report 

were to provide information on the 

USDA OIG’s (1) budget and staffing 

levels, (2) reported accomplishments, 

(3) reported oversight coverage, 

(4) reported quality of work, and 

(5) oversight of USDA’s reported 

causes of estimated improper 

payments. To address these 

objectives, GAO obtained information 

over the 3-year period covering fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011 on the OIG’s 

budget and staff levels and the

reported monetary and nonmonetary 

accomplishments from this work. GAO

obtained similar information reported 

by the OIGs in all cabinet-level 

departments. In addition, GAO 

summarized information on the USDA 

OIG’s oversight coverage reported by

audits and investigations, and the 

quality of the OIG’s work as reported 

by peer reviews performed by other 

OIGs. Also, GAO obtained information 

on the OIG’s audit of USDA’s reporting 

on improper payments. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making specific 

recommendations in this report. The 

USDA Inspector General commented 

that the draft of this report provided an 

objective and comprehensive review of 

the OIG. 

What GAO Found

During the 3-year period from fiscal year 2009 through 2011, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) total 

budgetary resources decreased by about 8 percent. In contrast, the total 

budgetary resources for all other cabinet-level OIGs increased by approximately 

6 percent over the 3-year period. The USDA OIG’s authorized full-time equivalent 

staff (FTE) increased by 11 percent, from 550 to 608, while all other cabinet-level 

OIGs had a combined increase in authorized FTEs of about 14 percent during 

the same 3-year period.

The USDA OIG had an estimated average return on investment for each 

budgetary resource dollar received of $13.96 during the 3-year period compared 

to the other cabinet-level OIGs’ average return of $12.63, based on the potential 

savings from monetary accomplishments reported by audits and investigations. 

Most of the USDA OIG’s return was the result of approximately $4 billion in 

potential savings resulting from a fiscal year 2011 audit of funds from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for USDA programs. 

Return on Investment by the USDA OIG Compared to That of Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011

Fiscal year

USDA OIG’s return on each 

budget dollar

Other cabinet-level OIGs’ 

return on each budget dollar

2009 $3.01 $13.07

2010 1.70 11.86 

2011 39.40 12.98

Average 3-year return 13.96 12.63

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget information and OIG semiannual reports.

During the 3-year period the USDA OIG issued 212 audit reports and completed 

878 investigations that provided oversight coverage for each of USDA’s seven 

mission areas, high-risk areas identified by GAO, and the management 

challenges identified by the OIG.

With respect to quality, the OIG received peer reviews of its audit and 

investigative quality from external OIGs, which concluded that the OIG had 

controls in place to ensure that its audits were performed in accordance with 

professional auditing standards, and that the OIG’s investigations followed 

applicable professional standards. 

The OIG’s audit of USDA’s compliance with reporting requirements for improper 

payments included a review of the reported root causes. The audit concluded 

that because of the lack of clear instructions, USDA’s component agencies did 

not consistently categorize the root causes of improper payments. As a result, 

the OIG concluded that USDA’s reporting of the causes of the improper 

payments was not accurate. The OIG made recommendations, and USDA

agreed to implement a second-party review process to help ensure accuracy, 

implement controls to ensure consistent categorizing of causes, and update 

View GAO-13-245. For more information, guidance for determining the causes. contact Beryl Davis at (202) 512-2623 or 

davisbh@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Letter 1 

Scope and Methodology 1

Background 4

Reported Level of USDA OIG Budget and Staffing Resources 

Compared with Other Cabinet-Level OIGs 6

USDA OIG’s Reported Monetary and Nonmonetary 

Accomplishments 9

USDA OIG’s Reported Coverage of Recovery Act Issues, USDA’s 

Mission Areas, High-Risk Areas, and Management Challenges 12

USDA OIG Audit and Investigative Quality as Reported by External 

Peer Reviews and Quality Assurance Reviews 18

OIG Oversight of Improper Payments Reporting 20

Agency Comments 22

Appendix I USDA’s Mission Areas 23 

Appendix II Comments from the USDA Office of Inspector General 25 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 26

Tables 

Table 1: Total Budgetary Resources of the USDA OIG in 

Comparison with Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2011 7

Table 2: Authorized FTEs of the USDA OIG in Comparison with 

Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2011 8

Table 3: USDA OIG’s Estimated Average Return on Investment of 

Total Budgetary Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2011 10

Table 4: Fifteen Cabinet-Level OIGs’ Estimated Average Return on 

Investment of Total Budgetary Resources Dollars for 

Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 11

Table 5: Examples of USDA OIG Performance Targets and 

Reported Actual Percentages Achieved for Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Table 6: Sources of Initiation for USDA OIG Audits for Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011 13

Table 7: USDA OIG Audit Coverage of High-Risk Areas and 

Management Challenges for Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2011 16

Figures 

Figure 1: USDA OIG Audit Reports in USDA’s Seven Mission Areas 

for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 14

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in 

USDA’s Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 15

Figure 3: Total Budgetary Resources for USDA’s Mission Areas 

Fiscal Year 2011 23

 
Page iii GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Abbreviations 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CIGIE Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency 

FFAS Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

FNCS Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services 

FS Forest Service 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Services 

FTE full-time equivalent staff 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IG Act Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended 

IPERA 2010 Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery 

Act of 2010 

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 

MRP Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRE Natural Resources and Environment 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

QAR Quality Assurance Review 

RD Rural Development 

REE Research, Education and Economics 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

March 22, 2013 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 

Chairwoman 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

United States Senate 

Dear Madam Chairwoman: 

You raised questions regarding whether recent changes in funding 

provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) may adversely affect the OIG’s staffing levels and its ability 

to carry out its mission operations. This letter responds to your request for 

GAO to provide information on the efforts of the USDA OIG to provide 

oversight of the department’s programs and activities during the most 

recent 3-year period for which data are available. Specifically, this report 

provides information on the USDA OIG’s (1) budgets and staffing 

resources for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 in comparison with other 

cabinet-level OIGs; (2) reported monetary accomplishments for fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011 in comparison with other cabinet-level OIGs and 

the USDA OIG’s reported nonmonetary accomplishments; (3) reported 

audit and investigative coverage of USDA’s offices, programs, and 

operations for fiscal years 2009 through 2011; (4) quality of work based 

on recent external and internal reviews; and (5) reporting on the causes 

of improper payments identified by USDA. 

We used OIG data from fiscal years 2009 through 2011 because these 

were the most recent 3 fiscal years for which data were available as of 

the beginning of our engagement. To accumulate comparative 

information on budget and staffing resources, we obtained the total 

budgetary resources and staffing levels for the USDA OIG and for all 

other OIGs in the cabinet-level departments from the Office of 

 

Scope and 

Methodology 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Management and Budget (OMB) for the same 3-year period from fiscal 

year 2009 through 2011.1

To provide comparative information on results and accomplishments, we 

obtained the monetary accomplishments reported by the USDA OIG and 

the other cabinet-level OIGs in their semiannual reports for our 3-year 

period. We compared the reported dollar value of accomplishments to the 

total budgetary resources of each OIG to determine each OIG’s returnon-investment for each budgetary resources dollar. In addition, we 

summarized selected audit and investigative accomplishments reported 

by the USDA OIG in semiannual reports over the same 3-year period. We 

also obtained the performance targets and results measured by the OIG 

to determine its own success in providing audits and investigations. 

With respect to USDA OIG oversight coverage, we compared data on its 

audit and investigative results over our 3-year period with the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) issues, its seven 

mission areas, areas of high risk, and areas designated as management 

challenges.2

 Specifically, we used the seven mission areas identified by 

USDA, the high-risk areas reported by us, and the management 

challenges reported by USDA in its annual performance and 

accountability reports (PAR).3

 We then compared the accomplishments, 

including the number of audits, reported by the USDA OIG in semiannual 

reports over the 3-year period to USDA’s mission areas, high-risk areas, 

and management challenges to provide perspective on the extent and 

nature of the OIG’s oversight coverage. 

 

1

The President’s cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of the 15 executive 

branch departments—the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans 

Affairs and the Attorney General. The Department of the Treasury has two OIGs 

established by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act). Specifically, in 

addition to the Treasury OIG, the department’s Internal Revenue Service has its own 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Consequently, there are 16 OIGs 

established by the IG Act in the 15 cabinet-level departments. 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

3

Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-531, 114 Stat. 2537 (Nov. 22, 2000), 

codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3516-(d). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

To provide information on the reported quality of the OIG’s oversight, we 

obtained the results of the most recent external peer reviews of audit and 

investigative quality, and the results of the internal quality assessment 

reviews performed by the USDA OIG of its own operations for audits, 

investigations, and administrative activities for fiscal years 2009 through 

2011. In addition, we obtained information on the OIG’s quality assurance 

as part of its planning process for conducting audits and investigations, 

and on the performance measures used by the OIG to help ensure quality 

audits and investigations. 

We also obtained information on the results of the OIG’s audit of USDA’s 

compliance with reporting requirements under The Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA 2010), including 

requirements for reporting on the causes of the agency’s improper 

payments.4

We interviewed OIG officials at USDA headquarters responsible for 

planning, directing, and managing the OIG’s operations to obtain 

information on resources, accomplishments, coverage and quality. We 

relied on the results of the OIG’s peer reviews of audit and investigative 

quality to provide reasonable assurance of the reliability of the information 

in OIG reports. For information on the OIG’s audit of improper payments, 

we interviewed staff members and reviewed the OIG’s work papers to 

obtain supporting documentation for the conclusions and 

recommendations regarding USDA’s reported root causes of improper 

payments. On the basis of these steps, we determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2012 to March 2013 in accordance with 

all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that were 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 report. 

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the USDA Inspector 

General, which are reprinted in appendix II. We also received technical 

comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

 

4

Pub. L. No. 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224 (July 22, 2010). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The USDA OIG was administratively established in 1962 and statutorily 

established by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, (IG Act) 

to provide independent audits and investigations of USDA’s programs 

and operations; promote integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness; and 

detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.5

 The OIG’s 

audits examine the economy and efficiency of USDA programs and 

operations, including program results, compliance with applicable laws 

and regulations, and fair presentation of financial reports. The USDA OIG 

is a member of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency (CIGIE), which was established by the Inspector General 

Reform Act of 2008 to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness 

issues that transcend individual government agencies; and to increase 

the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel in the OIGs.6

USDA is organized by seven mission areas, which are collections of 

agencies that work together to achieve strategic goals. (See app. I.) 

These mission areas provide leadership on addressing food, agricultural, 

and environmental issues; developing agricultural markets; fighting 

hunger and malnutrition; encouraging rural development; conserving 

natural resources; performing agricultural research; and ensuring 

standards of food quality through safeguards and inspections. In fiscal 

year 2011, USDA had about 100,000 employees and delivered public 

services through its more than 300 programs worldwide. USDA’s mission 

areas and administrative offices accounted for USDA’s total budgetary 

resources of approximately $182 billion in fiscal year 2011. 

OIG audits are required to be performed in accordance with Government 

Auditing Standards provided by the Comptroller General, which 

incorporate the professional standards set by the American Institute of 

Certified Public Accountants.7

 While the majority of audit work is 

performed by OIG staff, the OIG also contracts with certified public 

accountants for some work and oversees the quality of work done by 

auditors under contract to other USDA agencies. 

 

5

Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (Oct. 12, 1978) (codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. 

App.). 

6

Pub. L. No. 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302 (Oct. 14, 2008). 

7

GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2011). 

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The OIG’s investigations address criminal activities that affect the health 

and safety of the public as well as the integrity of USDA programs, such 

as meat-packers that knowingly sell hazardous food products and 

individuals who tamper with food regulated by USDA. In addition, the 

OIG’s investigators provide an emergency law enforcement response to 

USDA-declared emergencies and suspected incidents of terrorism 

affecting USDA-regulated industries, as well as USDA programs, 

operations, personnel, and installations, in coordination with federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies, as appropriate. 

The OIG’s oversight of USDA’s programs and mission areas is guided by 

a strategic plan that establishes five goals aligned with the goals of the 

department.8

 These goals are to (1) strengthen USDA’s ability to 

implement safety and security measures to protect the public health and 

agricultural and department resources, (2) reduce program vulnerabilities 

and strengthen program integrity in the delivery of benefits to individuals, 

(3) support USDA in implementing its management improvement 

initiatives, (4) increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which USDA 

manages and exercises stewardship over natural resources, and 

(5) strive for a highly qualified diverse workforce with the tools and 

training necessary to continuously enhance the OIG’s ability to fulfill its 

mission. 

The OIG publishes an annual performance plan that sets specific targets 

for each of its performance measures for the coming fiscal year; lays out 

the audit, investigation, inspection, and management priorities for the 

year; and where appropriate, discusses the specific projects that will be 

performed and expected initiation dates. OIG investigative officials have 

stated that the majority of the OIG’s investigative efforts are reactive. 

However, in an effort to be proactive, the investigative office solicits input 

from special agents in charge in the field and headquarters to identify 

trends, areas of interest, and ways to best allocate resources for 

achieving the OIG’s strategic goals. Investigation’s highest priorities are 

(1) the health and safety of the American public and USDA employees, 

(2) agricultural terrorism threats, and (3) the nation’s food supply. 

 

8

USDA OIG, Office of Inspector General Five-Year Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2010-

2015 (Washington, D.C.: June 2010). 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

In addition, much of the OIG’s work is directed by legislative mandates, 

such as the Recovery Act, which provided USDA about $28 billion in 

funding involving a number of programs and increased the OIG’s 

oversight responsibilities. The OIG’s annual audit plans for fiscal years 

2009 through 2011 were primarily directed at supporting the OIG’s 

strategic plan, with the OIG’s plans for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 

including Recovery Act responsibilities. 

Additional mandates include requirements under IPERA 2010, and for the 

USDA OIG to provide oversight of USDA’s annual financial statements 

under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) and of 

information security under the Federal Information Security Management 

Act of 2002 (FISMA).9

The USDA OIG had total budgetary resources of about $110 million in 

fiscal year 2011. In comparison with other cabinet-level OIGs for the 

same fiscal year, the USDA OIG’s budgetary funding was less than eight 

other OIGs and greater than seven. (See table 1.) However, the USDA 

OIG had the largest decrease in total budgetary resources and was one 

of three OIGs that had a decrease from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 

2011. Specifically, the USDA OIG’s total budgetary resources decreased 

from about $120 million in fiscal year 2009, to approximately $110 million 

in fiscal year 2011, or about 8 percent. The other cabinet-level OIGs 

 

9

The CFO Act, Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838 (Nov. 15, 1990), requires USDA to 

issue annual financial statements that the OIG or an auditor selected by the OIG shall 

audit. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3515 and 3521(e). FISMA, (Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 

(Dec. 17, 2002); see 44 U.S.C. § 101 note), requires the USDA OIG to annually evaluate 

USDA’s information security programs and practices. 

Level of USDA OIG 

Budget and Staffing 

Resources Compared 

with Other CabinetLevel OIGs 

Budgetary Resources 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

combined had an increase of about 6 percent in total budgetary resources 

during the same period.10

Table 1: Total Budgetary Resources of the USDA OIG in Comparison with Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2011 

Dollars in millions 

Cabinet-level OIGs 

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010

Fiscal year 

2011 

Percentage change, 

fiscal years 2009-2011

Department of Agriculture $120 $121 $110 (8)

1. Department of Health and Human Services $374 $381 $393 5

2. Department of Defense 302 320 330 9

3. Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration 

 155 162 157 1

4. Department of Homeland Security 150 160 155 3

5. Department of Housing and Urban Development 142 146 144 1

6. Department of State 100 126 120 20

7. Department of Veterans Affairs 98 113 114 16

8. Department of the Treasury 98 106 112 14

9. Department of Justice 101 106 103 2

10. Department of Transportation 97 101 97 0

11. Department of Labor 89 90 87 (2)

12. Department of Energy 68 71 74 9

13. Department of Education 69 73 71 3

14. Department of the Interior 64 67 62 (3)

15. Department of Commerce 47 52 47 0

Totals for all other cabinet-level OIGs $1,954 $2,074 $2,066 6

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Other cabinet-level OIG offices are listed in order of the amount of their fiscal year 2011 total 

budgetary resources from the largest to the smallest. USDA OIG is listed separately. 

 

10In 2010, a report by CIGIE on the efforts of the federal OIGs to support Recovery Act 

implementation indicated that each Cabinet-level department, including USDA, received 

additional appropriations for Recovery Act oversight. CIGIE, Office of Inspectors General 

Efforts to Support Effective Implementation of the Recovery Act (Washington, D.C.: 

July 10, 2010). 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The USDA OIG had budget authority for 608 full-time equivalent staff 

(FTE) during fiscal year 2011. Six other OIGs had more FTEs and nine 

had fewer for the same fiscal year. (See table 2.) The USDA OIG had an 

11 percent increase in the number of FTEs from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal 

year 2011, compared to an overall increase of 14 percent for all other 

cabinet-level OIGs during the same 3-year period. USDA OIG officials 

reported that they were unable to staff all of the authorized FTEs and had 

43 unfilled positions at the end of fiscal year 2011 because of budgetary 

constraints. 

Table 2: Authorized FTEs of the USDA OIG in Comparison with Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 

Cabinet-level OIGs 

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010

Fiscal year 

2011 

Percentage change, 

fiscal years 2009-2011

Department of Agriculture 550 593 608 11

1. Department of Health and Human Services 1,512 1,582 1,745 15

2. Department of Defense 1,514 1,587 1,613 7

3. Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration 

800 820 823 3

4. Department of Homeland Security 654 688 728 11

5. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

638 684 712 12

6. Department of Veterans Affairs 509 553 633 24

7. Department of Justice 432 451 459 6

8. Department of Transportation 410 438 448 9

9. Department of Labor 389 420 411 6

10. Department of Education 277 304 324 17

11. Department of the Treasury 137 251 322 135

12. Department of State 202 291 293 45

13. Department of Energy 244 255 277 14

14. Department of the Interior 276 291 276 0

15. Department of Commerce 117 161 171 46

Totals for all other cabinet-level OIGs 8,111 8,776 9,235 14

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Other cabinet-level OIGs are listed in order of the total of their fiscal year 2011 FTEs from the 

largest to the smallest. USDA OIG is listed separately. 

Staff Resources 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The OIGs established by the IG Act, including the USDA OIG, are 

required to report specific monetary accomplishments in semiannual 

reports to the Congress. As required, the USDA OIG’s semiannual 

reports for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included the questioned costs, 

unsupported costs, and funds that could be put to better use identified by 

audits, and the monetary fines, fees, and court-ordered restitutions 

resulting from investigations.11 In addition to monetary accomplishments, 

the OIG measures the extent to which its work focuses on the key issues 

under its goals by tracking nonmonetary outcomes of audits and 

investigations. 

The USDA OIG reported total monetary accomplishments from audits and 

investigations of approximately $4.9 billion over fiscal years 2009 through 

2011. (See table 3.) As a ratio of the OIG’s total budgetary resources over 

the same 3-year period, the USDA OIG’s estimated average return-oninvestment for each budget dollar is about $13.96. The USDA OIG had a 

wide range of return-on-investment over this 3-year period from $1.70 in 

fiscal year 2010 to $39.40 in fiscal year 2011. The significant increase of 

monetary accomplishments reported for fiscal year 2011 was due to an 

OIG audit of Recovery Act funds included in single family housing 

guaranteed loans by USDA’s Rural Housing Service. The OIG’s report 

concluded that loans with a total value of $4.16 billion were made to 

ineligible borrowers. This amount was included in the OIG’s reported 

questioned costs for fiscal year 2011. 

 

11As defined by the IG Act, questioned costs include either alleged violations of laws, 

regulations, contracts, grants, or agreements governing the expenditure of funds; costs 

not supported by adequate documentation; or the expenditure of funds that was 

unnecessary or unreasonable. In addition, unsupported costs are defined as costs that do 

not have adequate documentation, and funds to be put to better use are inefficiencies 

identified by the OIG in the use of agency funds. 

USDA OIG’s Reported 

Monetary and 

Nonmonetary 

Accomplishments 

USDA OIG’s Reported 

Monetary 

Accomplishments 

Compared to Other 

Cabinet-Level OIGs 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Table 3: USDA OIG’s Estimated Average Return on Investment of Total Budgetary 

Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 

USDA OIG 

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010 

Fiscal year 

2011

Totals and 

average return

Total budgetary resources 

(dollars in millions) 

$120 $121 $110 $351

Monetary accomplishments 

(dollars in millions) 

361.70 205.80 4,333.80 4,901.37

Estimated average dollar 

return on each budgetary 

resource dollar received 

3.01 1.70 39.40 13.96

Source: GAO analysis of the USDA OIG’s semiannual reports and OMB data. 

By comparison, the estimated 3-year average return-on-investment for all 

other cabinet-level OIGs combined was $12.63. (See table 4.) The USDA 

OIG’s estimated average return of $13.96 was somewhat higher for this 

period. However, while the USDA OIG had a greater return-on-investment 

than the estimated average return for the other OIGs for fiscal year 2011, 

for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 the USDA OIG’s estimated return was 

lower than the combined estimated average return of the other cabinetlevel OIGs for those same years. USDA OIG officials explained that 

monetary accomplishments for Recovery Act efforts were mostly reported 

in fiscal year 2011 and that their efforts in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 

focused on audits to ensure that internal controls and procedures were in 

place for USDA to properly receive and distribute Recovery Act funds. In 

addition, the OIG provides audits of food safety and protection for land 

and water resources. According to OIG officials, while important to 

USDA’s mission and the welfare of the general public, these audits do not 

generally result in significant monetary accomplishments. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Table 4: Fifteen Cabinet-Level OIGs’ Estimated Average Return on Investment of 

Total Budgetary Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 

Fifteen cabinet-level OIGs 

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010 

Fiscal year 

2011

Totals and 

average return

Total budgetary resources 

(dollars in billions) 

$1.954 $2.074 $2.066 $6.094

Total monetary 

accomplishments (dollars in 

billions) 

25.530 24.602 26.809 76.941

Estimated average dollar 

return on each budgetary 

resource dollar received 

13.07 11.86 12.98 12.63

Source: GAO analysis of the OIGs’ semiannual reports and OMB data. 

Note: Data do not include those for the USDA OIG. 

The OIG reported that it relied on several key metrics to measure its 

completion of targets for nonmonetary accomplishments, which include 

the percentage of (1) direct OIG resources dedicated to critical risk and 

high-impact work; (2) audit recommendations that resulted in 

management decisions within 1 year; (3) audits initiated that reported 

findings and recommendations to the auditee within established and 

agreed-to time frames; (4) closed investigations that resulted in a referral 

for action to the Department of Justice, state or local law enforcement 

officials, or the relevant administrative authority; and (5) closed 

investigations that resulted in an indictment, conviction, civil suit or 

settlement, judgment, administrative action, or monetary result. (See table 

5.) Additional targets are indirectly related to the outcomes of audits and 

investigations and include 15 related to timeliness, such as whether 

information technology staff members make an initial response to help 

desk requests within 2 hours or less; 6 related to the completion of 

Recovery Act work; 1 related to positive employee satisfaction rates 

reported in staff surveys; 1 related to survey results indicating that new 

employees find the orientation session useful to them as they begin their 

new jobs; and 1 related to positive evaluation scores on OIG internal 

training course evaluations. 

Nonmonetary 

Accomplishments 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Table 5: Examples of USDA OIG Performance Targets and Reported Actual Percentages Achieved for Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2011 

Performance measures 

FY 2009 

target

FY 2009 

actual

FY 2010 

target

FY 2010 

actual 

FY 2011 

target

FY 2011 

actual

OIG direct resources dedicated to 

critical-risk and high-impact work. 

90% 95.3% 90% 91.8% 90% 97.2%

Audit recommendations resulting in 

management decision within 1 year of 

report issuance. 

85% 88.8% 85% 90.2% 90% 90.1%

Mandatory and congressional, 

secretarial, and agency-requested audits 

completed within required or agreed-to 

time frames. 

85% 100% 90% 100% 85% 100%

Percentage of closed investigations that 

resulted in a referral for action. 

70% 74.6% 70% 84.8% 70% 82.5%

Percentage of closed investigations that 

resulted in an indictment, conviction, civil 

suit or settlement, judgment, 

administrative action, or monetary result. 

65% 76.8% 65% 72.8% 65% 70.4%

Source: USDA OIG annual plans, fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

Legend: FY = fiscal year. 

The OIG reported issuing 212 audit reports during the 3-year period with 

58 audits in 2009, 89 audits in 2010, and 65 audits in 2011. Of the 212 

audit reports issued, 95, or about 45 percent, addressed mandated 

coverage of Recovery Act issues. (See table 6.) Additional mandated 

audits; audits requested by USDA, the Congress, and other agencies; 

and audits of funding for natural disaster relief totaled 77, or about 36 

percent of the OIG’s audits. The OIG performed 40 audits, or about 19 

percent, that addressed programs identified by the OIG’s strategic 

planning process for self-initiated audits. 

USDA OIG’s Reported 

Coverage of Recovery 

Act Issues, USDA’s 

Mission Areas, HighRisk Areas, and 

Management 

Challenges 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Table 6: Sources of Initiation for USDA OIG Audits for Fiscal Years 2009 through 

2011 

Fiscal 

year 

Recovery 

Act audits

Additional 

mandated 

audits

OIG selfinitiated 

audits

Requested 

audits 

Disaster 

relief 

auditsa Total 

audits

2009 19 15 13 8 3 58

2010 49 12 15 6 7 89

2011 27 17 12 5 4 65

Totals 95 44 40 19 14 212

Source: GAO analysis of USDA OIG’s audit reports. 

a

Disaster relief audits include mandatory audits of disaster relief funding and routine audits of USDA’s 

disaster-related services. 

In fiscal year 2009, the USDA OIG received additional funding of $22.5 

million to be available through fiscal year 2013 for the oversight of the 

Recovery Act funds provided for USDA’s programs. The OIG’s Recovery 

Act audit efforts included mandates for OIG audits to determine whether 

(1) the implementation of USDA recovery-related programs was timely 

and effective; (2) proper internal control procedures were established; (3) 

program participants met eligibility guidelines; (4) participants complied 

with program requirements; (5) agencies established effective compliance 

operations; and (6) funds were awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair, 

and reasonable manner. These audits involved reviews of farm loans, 

watershed programs, supplemental nutrition assistance, wildland fire 

management, capital improvements and maintenance, and rural housing 

and development programs. 

Also, during the 3-year period, the OIG addressed USDA’s seven mission 

areas with nearly 200 audits, some of which addressed multiple areas, 

and through additional audits of USDA’s financial statements required by 

the CFO Act, and information technology security audits required by 

FISMA. Almost half of the OIG’s audits were in the mission areas of 

Natural Resources and Environment and Rural Development. (See fig. 1.) 

Specifically, the OIG issued a total of 102 audit products in these two 

mission areas, which included reviews of the efficiency and effectiveness 

of management and program operations during the 3-year period. These 

USDA missions received a relatively large number of audits as a result of 

the OIG’s emphasis on the Recovery Act funds associated with their 

programs. 

Coverage of Recovery Act 

Issues and USDA Mission 

Areas 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Figure 1: USDA OIG Audit Reports in USDA’s Seven Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2011 

The USDA OIG reported investigations within each mission area and the 

identification of fraud within USDA’s programs, prosecutions where 

warranted, and agency administrative action where necessary. The OIG 

reported completing a total of 878 investigative cases during the 3-year 

period with 292 investigations in fiscal year 2009, 247 in fiscal year 2010, 

and 339 in fiscal year 2011. In addition, during this 3-year period, the 

OIG’s investigative activities resulted in 1,587 convictions. Most of these 

convictions were the result of investigations in Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services (FNCS)—USDA’s largest mission area in terms of 

total budgetary resources—with 706 convictions, mostly related to 

charges of fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Investigations of the Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area 

resulted in 668 convictions, which, when combined with those in FNCS, 

accounted for about 86 percent of all convictions during the 3-year period. 

(See fig. 2.) 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in USDA’s Mission Areas 

for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 

Note: “Other” includes USDA’s CFO Office and the Research, Education and Economics mission. 

The USDA OIG’s audit reports show that coverage was provided of highrisk areas identified by GAO, and management challenges identified by 

the OIG for the 3-year period. Since 1990, we have reported on 

government operations designated as high risk because of their greater 

vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In addition, 

the OIGs began the identification of management challenges in 1997 at 

the request of congressional members who asked the inspectors general 

to identify the most serious management problems in their respective 

agencies. This began a yearly process that continues as a result of the 

Reports Consolidation Act of 2000.12 The act requires executive agencies, 

 

12Pub. L. No. 106-531, 114 Stat. 2537 (Nov. 22, 2000) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3516(d)). 

Coverage of High-Risk 

Areas and Management 

Challenges 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

including USDA, to include their OIGs’ lists of significant management 

challenges along with their efforts to address them in the annual PAR 

reports to the President, OMB, and the Congress. 

Our reports of government high-risk areas issued in February 2011 and 

January 2009, identified three high-risk areas at USDA, which were also 

included as management challenges identified by the USDA OIG. 

Specifically, both we and the OIG identified the protection of the federal 

government’s information systems, strategic human capital issues, and 

food safety as both high-risk areas and management challenges. Another 

significant management challenge identified by the OIG was USDA’s 

internal controls, which received the greatest amount of audit coverage 

(addressed by 123 audits). (See table 7.)13 The OIG’s audits of Recovery 

Act funds, which was also a management challenge, addressed internal 

controls for Recovery Act funds and accounts for the relatively large 

number of internal control audits. 

Table 7: USDA OIG Audit Coverage of High-Risk Areas and Management Challenges for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011 

USDA OIG reports 

GAO high-risk areasa Management challengesb Fiscal year 2009c Fiscal year 2010d Fiscal year 2011e Total

 Interagency communications, 

coordination, and program 

integration 

3 4 2 9

Internal control systems 34 40 49 123

Protecting the federal 

government’s information 

systems 

Information technology and 

security 

3 3 8 14

 Homeland security 0 3 0 3

Civil rights control structure 0 0 0 0

 Global trade 1 0 1 2

Strategic human capital National forests and fighting 

fires (personnel) 

1 4 3 8

Federal oversight of food 

safety 

Food safety 4 3 4 11

Renewable energy programs 0 0 0 0

 Recovery act 19 49 27 95

 Improper payments - - 8 8

Source: GAO analysis of USDA OIG semiannual reports. 

 

13The OIG audits that address more than one high-risk area or management challenge 

are listed more than once in table 7. 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Note: Audits may have addressed more than one high-risk area or management challenge, therefore 

the number of total audits listed is greater than 212. 

a

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011), and High-Risk 

Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

b

USDA OIG, Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: August 2009); Management Challenges

(Washington, D.C.: August 2010); and Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: August 2011). 

c

USDA OIG semiannual reports to the Congress for the period ending September 30, 2009. 

d

USDA OIG semiannual reports to the Congress for the period ending September 30, 2010. 

e

USDA OIG semiannual reports to the Congress for the period ending September 30, 2011. 

The USDA OIG did not issue any audit reports related to civil rights 

issues during the 3-year period.14 However, we issued a report on civil 

rights in fiscal year 2009 along with follow-up testimony on USDA’s 

progress in implementing the report’s recommendations.15 We concluded 

that USDA had taken action in response to our report recommendations 

on civil rights. Also, the OIG did not issue any audit reports on renewable 

energy during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. However, the OIG issued a 

report on this management challenge in 2008.16 Also, in an additional 

report on USDA’s management challenges, the OIG concluded that 

USDA had taken actions in response to its 2008 report and removed the 

management challenge during fiscal year 2011 based on the corrective 

actions taken by USDA.17

 

14The USDA OIG issued an audit report in August 2012, based on audit work conducted 

on civil rights cases closed from January 1, 2008, through March 31, 2011, which 

indicates that the OIG provided audit coverage of this area during the 3-year period. 

USDA OIG, Review of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights’ Oversight of 

Agreements Reached in Program Complaints, 60601-0001-23 ( Washington, D.C.: August 

2012).

15GAO, U.S. 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.: Oct. 22, 2008), and U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Recommendations and Options Available to the New Administration and Congress to 

Address Long-Standing Civil Rights Issues, GAO-09-650T (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 29, 2009). 

16USDA OIG, Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in USDA, 50601-0013-Ch 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2008). 

17USDA OIG, USDA Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2011). 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The USDA OIG received peer reviews of its audit and investigative quality 

during the 3-year period. In addition, the USDA OIG also helps to ensure 

compliance with auditing standards, investigative guidelines, and 

administrative procedures by periodically conducting its own internal 

quality assurance reviews (QAR) throughout its nationwide operations. 

Government Auditing Standards requires that each audit organization 

performing audits in accordance with these standards must have an 

external peer review performed by reviewers independent of the audit 

organization being reviewed at least once every 3 years. The USDA OIG 

Office of Audit obtained an external peer review by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) OIG for the 3-year period 

ending March 31, 2009. The HUD OIG’s report concluded that the USDA 

OIG was able to provide reasonable assurance that controls were in 

place to provide audit reports that were in compliance with Government 

Auditing Standards. 

The OIG also completed five QARs of its audit operations during fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011. These reviews are designed to assess whether 

the OIG carries out its work in accordance with established USDA OIG 

policies and procedures, Government Auditing Standards, applicable 

OMB guidance, and appropriate statutory provisions applicable to the 

OIG. The QARs made recommendations for improved audit 

documentation and the offices reviewed concurred with the 

recommendations and took corrective actions. 

USDA OIG Audit and 

Investigative Quality 

as Reported by 

External Peer 

Reviews and Quality 

Assurance Reviews 

Audit Quality 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The USDA OIG undergoes a review of its law enforcement powers used 

in its investigative operations.18 CIGIE has provided guidelines for 

external peer reviews of the OIG’s investigative operations, which are to 

occur once every 3 years.19 The peer reviews are intended to provide the 

OIG with an independent opinion on the investigative quality control 

system, whether the system is in place and operating effectively, and 

whether the OIG’s policies and applicable CIGIE standards are being 

followed. The OIG Office of Investigations received an external peer 

review by the Department of Homeland Security OIG in 2010, which 

concluded that the USDA OIG’s system of internal safeguards and 

management procedures were in compliance with the quality standards 

established by CIGIE and applicable Attorney General guidelines. 

The USDA OIG also conducts QARs of its investigative operations. The 

purpose of the OIG QARs for Investigations is to determine if its 

investigative offices are operating in accordance with the IG Act, CIGIE’s 

Quality Standards for Investigations, and USDA OIG policies and 

procedures. The internal QARs for Investigations involve reviews of both 

closed case files and internal controls over investigative procedures. The 

USDA OIG completed four QARs of its investigative offices during fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011. The QARs concluded that the offices reviewed 

met professional standards and that corrective actions on 

recommendations from prior QARs had been implemented. 

In addition, the OIG reported that it performs QARs to determine whether 

its offices are in compliance with USDA and OIG administrative policies 

and procedures for travel, procurement management, purchase cards, 

budgets, time management, and property management. The OIG 

completed four administrative QARs and two reviews of internal controls 

during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and made recommendations for 

improved administrative procedures over routine expenditures. The 

 

18Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-296, § 812, 116 Stat. 2135, 2223 

(Nov. 25, 2002) requires a peer review for those OIGs who obtain statutory law 

enforcement authority under its provisions. However, USDA OIG obtained its law 

enforcement authority in 1981 pursuant to a separate statute (see 7 U.S.C. § 2270, Pub. 

L. No. 97-98 (December 22, 1981)) and undergoes a peer review pursuant to CIGIE 

guidelines. 

19CIGIE, Qualitative Assessment Review Guidelines for Investigative Operations of 

Federal Offices of Inspectors General (Washington, D.C.: December 2011). 

Investigative Quality 

Administrative Quality 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

offices reviewed concurred with the recommendations and took corrective 

actions. 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) required executive 

branch agencies, including USDA, to conduct an annual review of all 

programs and activities to identify those that are susceptible to significant 

improper payments, estimate the amount of improper payments for such 

programs and activities, and report these estimates along with actions 

taken to reduce improper payments for those programs and activities with 

estimates exceeding $10 million.20 IPERA 2010 amended IPIA by 

expanding on the previous requirements for identifying, estimating, and 

reporting on programs and activities susceptible to significant improper 

payments and expanding requirements for recovering overpayments. 

Another IPERA 2010 provision calls for the inspectors general, including 

the USDA OIG, to annually determine whether their respective agencies 

are in compliance with key IPERA 2010 requirements and to report on 

their determinations.21

OMB issued additional guidance to federal agencies to report, beginning 

for fiscal year 2011, the root causes of improper (over and under) 

payments for all programs susceptible to significant improper payments.22

The guidance defined three categories of root causes for improper 

payments: (1) documentation and administrative errors, (2) authentication 

 

20Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350 (Nov. 26, 2002). 

21See 31 U.S.C. § 3321 note. Further, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2012, requires the OIGs to provide additional assessments and 

provide recommendations to improve improper payments determinations and estimation 

methodology for certain high-priority programs. 

22OMB, Issuance of Part III to OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, OMB Memorandum M10-13 (Mar. 22, 2010). 

OIG Oversight of 

Improper Payments 

Reporting 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

and medical necessity errors, and (3) verification errors.23 Agencies are 

required to report the percentage of errors in each category proportional 

to the dollar amount of error attributable to that root cause. This 

information is covered by part of the OIG’s annual review of USDA’s 

improper payments reporting. 

The USDA reported in its fiscal year 2011 PAR that 16 of its more than 

300 programs were considered vulnerable to significant improper 

payments because each had estimated improper payments that were a 

material proportion of program outlays. In addition, USDA reported that 2 

percent of the errors causing improper payments were due to 

documentation and administrative errors, 1 percent were due to 

authentication and medical necessity errors, and 97 percent were due to 

verification errors. Also, in detailed reporting of errors causing improper 

payments, USDA reported that of the approximately $5.4 billion in 

improper payments estimated in fiscal year 2011, 0.04 percent (or $2.2 

million) were due to incomplete paperwork (documentation) in the 

programs reporting significant improper payments. 

The OIG’s 2012 audit report on USDA’s fiscal year 2011 compliance with 

improper payment reporting requirements concluded, among other things, 

that USDA’s component agencies did not consistently assign the 

appropriate error category when reporting the causes of improper 

payments and that as a result, USDA’s reported amount of improper 

payments caused by documentation errors was not accurate.24 USDA 

 

23OMB defines these error types as follows: documentation and administrative errors are 

errors caused by the absence of supporting documentation necessary to verify the 

accuracy of a payment or errors caused by incorrect inputting, classifying, or processing of 

applications or payments by a relevant federal agency, state agency, or third party that is 

not the beneficiary; authentication and medical necessity errors are those errors caused 

by an inability to authenticate eligibility criteria through third-party databases or other 

resources because no databases or other resources exist, or providing a service that was 

not medically necessary given the patient’s condition; and verification errors are errors 

caused by the failure or inability to verify recipient information, including earnings, income, 

assets, or work status, even though verifying information does exist in third-party 

databases or other resources (in this situation, as contrasted with “authentication” errors, 

the “inability” to verify may arise because of legal or other restrictions that effectively deny 

access to an existing database or resource), or errors caused by beneficiaries failing to 

report correct information to an agency. 

24USDA OIG, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2011 Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 Compliance Review, 50024-0001-11 (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2012). 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

officials acknowledged that USDA component agencies struggled to 

properly categorize the root causes of improper payments into the causal 

categories required by OMB. They also concurred with the OIG’s report 

recommendations to (1) implement a second-party quality review process 

to ensure that improper payment information reported in the PAR is 

properly supported, (2) implement controls to ensure that the USDA 

agencies consistently and accurately categorize improper payment errors, 

and (3) update USDA guidance for determining the cause of an error to 

include specific examples related to USDA programs. In addition, USDA 

officials stated that they will work with component USDA agency officials 

to develop a plan to better understand and consistently categorize the 

root causes of USDA’s improper payments. The OIG plans to follow up on 

USDA’s actions to better categorize the root causes of improper 

payments for future reports. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 

appendix II, the USDA Inspector General stated that the report provides 

an objective and comprehensive view of the office’s oversight of USDA’s 

programs. The Inspector General also provided technical comments, 

which we considered and incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Inspector General and interested congressional committees. 

In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Beryl H. Davis 

Director 

Financial Management and Assurance

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: USDA’s Mission Areas 

Page 23 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The largest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mission area is Food, 

Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) with a total fiscal year 2011 

budget of about $108 billion, or approximately 60 percent of USDA’s total 

budgetary resources. (See fig. 3.) The FNCS mission is to manage the 

nation’s agricultural resources to help end hunger and improve the health 

of the nation. Its component agencies include the Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion and the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which 

administer federal domestic nutrition programs such as the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Formerly known as the food stamp 

program, SNAP provides assistance to families in need and is the 

nation’s first line of defense against hunger. 

Figure 3: Total Budgetary Resources for USDA’s Mission Areas Fiscal Year 2011 

Note: “Other” includes three mission areas—Research, Education and Economics; Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs; and Food Safety and Inspection Service—and administrative offices, such as 

executive operations and the Office of Inspector General. 

USDA’s second largest mission area is the Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services (FFAS) mission, with fiscal year 2011 total budgetary resources 

of approximately $42.4 billion, or about 23 percent of USDA’s overall 

budget. The FFAS mission is responsible for keeping America’s farmers 

and ranchers in business through the uncertainties of weather and 

markets. Its component agencies include the Farm Service Agency, 

Foreign Agricultural Services, and the Risk Management Agency, which 

provide commodity, credit, conservation, disaster, and emergency 

assistance for the agricultural economy. 

Appendix I: USDA’s Mission Areas 
Appendix I: USDA’s Mission Areas 

Page 24 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

The Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) mission received total 

fiscal year 2011 budgetary resources of about $13.2 billion, or about 7 

percent of USDA’s total budget. Component agencies include the Forest 

Service (FS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

which participate in the overall NRE mission to help ensure the health of 

the land through sustainable management. FS and NRCS work to prevent 

damage to natural resources and the environment and promote good land 

management. 

The Rural Development (RD) mission had total budgetary resources of 

about $8.9 billion in fiscal year 2011, or about 5 percent of USDA’s total 

budget. The RD mission is to help improve the economy and quality of life 

in all of rural America by providing financial programs to support essential 

public facilities and services such as water, sewer, electric, and telephone 

systems; housing; health clinics; and emergency service facilities. The 

RD mission promotes economic development by providing loans to 

businesses through banks, credit unions and community-managed 

lending pools. 

Other USDA mission areas and administrative offices received about 

$9.5 billion, or approximately 5 percent of USDA’s total budgetary 

resources. These mission areas are Research, Education and Economics 

(REE), Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP), and the Food and 

Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). The REE mission had fiscal year 2011 

total budgetary resources of approximately $3.3 billion, and includes 

several agencies that are dedicated to creating a safe, sustainable, and 

competitive food and fiber system, as well as building strong communities 

and families. The MRP mission had fiscal year 2011 total budgetary 

resources of about $3.3 billion. This mission facilitates domestic and 

international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and ensures the 

health and care of animals and plants. The FSIS mission is responsible 

for ensuring that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry and egg 

products is safe, wholesome, and in properly labeled packages. The FSIS 

mission had fiscal year 2011 total budgetary resources of about 

$1.2 billion. In addition, USDA’s administrative offices are not mission 

specific and received about $1.7 billion in total budgetary resources. 

These offices include USDA’s management and executive operations, the 

Office of the Chief Economist, and the Office of Inspector General. 
Appendix II: Comments from the USDA Office 

of Inspector General 

Page 25 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Appendix II: Comments from the USDA 

Office of Inspector General 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 26 GAO-13-245 USDA OIG Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality 

Beryl H. Davis, (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Jackson Hufnagle (Assistant 

Director), Jacquelyn Hamilton, Taya Tasse, and Clarence Whitt made key 

contributions to this report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(197229)
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 (http://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 http://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: http://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.