a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

December 2002 RESULTS-ORIENTED 

MANAGEMENT

Agency Crosscutting 

Actions and Plans in 

Border Control, Flood 

Mitigation and 

Insurance, Wetlands, 

and Wildland Fire 

Management

GAO-03-321
GAO did not independently verify or assess the information it obtained

from agency performance reports and plans. On the basis of the reports

and plans, GAO found that

• Most agencies involved in the crosscutting issues discussed coordination

with other agencies in their performance reports and plans, although the

extent of coordination and level of detail provided varied considerably.

• The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001

performance goals also varied considerably. For example, wetlands was

the only area in which all of the agencies GAO reviewed met or exceeded

fiscal year 2001 goals. Some of the agencies that did not meet their goals

provided reasonable explanations and/or strategies that appeared

reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future.

• The agencies GAO reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal

year 2003 similar to those in 2001, although some agencies added new

goals, dropped existing goals, or dropped goals altogether. Many

agencies discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to

achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals.

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for

Coordination

Crosscutting program areas

Agency involved

Border

control

Flood

mitigation

and

insurance Wetlands

Wildland fire

management

Agriculture aa a a

Commerce a

Defense a a

EPA a

FEMA a

Interior a a

Justice a

State a

Transportation a

Treasury a

Source: GAO analysis.

RESULTS-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT

Agency Crosscutting Actions And Plans

In Border Control, Flood Mitigation And

Insurance, Wetlands, And Wildland Fire

Management

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-321

To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Patricia A.

Dalton at (202) 512-6806.

Highlights of GAO-03-321, a report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

December 2002

GAO’s work has repeatedly shown

that mission fragmentation and

program overlap are widespread in

the federal government.

Implementation of federal

crosscutting programs is often

characterized by numerous

individual agency efforts that are

implemented with little apparent

regard for the presence and efforts

of related activities. GAO has in

the past offered possible

approaches for managing

crosscutting programs, and has

stated that the Government

Performance and Results Act could

provide a framework for

addressing crosscutting efforts.

GAO was asked to examine the

actions and plans agencies reported

in addressing the crosscutting

issues of border control, flood

mitigation and insurance, wetlands,

and wildland fire management.

GAO reviewed the fiscal year 2001

performance reports and fiscal year

2003 performance plans for the

major agencies involved in these

issues.
Page i GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Contents

Letter 1

Background 2

Scope and Methodology 4

Results in Brief 6

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for 

Coordination 8

Border Control 9

Flood Mitigation and Insurance 13

Wetlands 16

Wildland Fire Management 19

Concluding Observations 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendixes

Appendix I: Border Control 25

Appendix II: Flood Mitigation and Insurance 42

Appendix III: Wetlands 48

Appendix IV: Wildland Fire Management 55

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59

Tables Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area 9

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Border 

Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 

Plans 25

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports 30

Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2003 Performance Plans 34

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal 

Year 2001 Performance Reports 38

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Flood 

Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 

Performance Plans 42
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 44

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 45

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 47

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in 

Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal 

Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 

Performance Plans 48

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals Involved in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed 

in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 51

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 52

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 53

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Wildland 

Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 

Plans 55

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 56

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 57

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 58
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Abbreviations

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BCI Border Coordination Initiative

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FECA Federal Employees' Compensation Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FSA Farm Service Agency

FSIS Food Safety Inspection Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

MARAD Maritime Administration

MBDA Minority Business Development Agency

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

TSA Transportation Security Administration

VA Department of Veterans' Affairs

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 20, 2002 Letr

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

Although federal programs have been designed for different purposes or 

targeted for different population groups, coordination among federal 

programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and 

effectively meet national concerns. Uncoordinated program efforts can 

waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the 

overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results, as envisioned 

by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), 

implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar results 

should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent, and as 

appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This means that 

federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and 

coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned.

This report is in response to your request that we examine the actions and 

plans agencies reported in addressing the crosscutting program areas you 

identified: border control, flood mitigation and insurance, wetlands, and 

wildland fire management. Specifically, for each of the crosscutting 

program areas the objectives of this report were to describe (1) the major 

agencies involved, (2) the type of coordination these agencies discussed in 

their performance reports and plans, (3) the progress these agencies 

reported in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports and, for unmet goals, 

whether the agencies provide explanations and strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goals in the future, (4) the 

progress these agencies planned to make in fiscal year 2003 and whether 

agencies describe strategies that are reasonably linked to achieving their 

goals, and (5) how agencies discussed the completeness, reliability, and 

credibility of their performance data, known shortcomings in the data, and 

strategies for addressing those shortcomings. In fulfilling the request, 

except as otherwise noted, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance 

report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan required by the Results Act 

for the major agencies involved in these crosscutting areas. The 

Department of Defense was not included in this review since it had not 

issued its combined performance report and performance plan.
Page 2 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Background Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program 

overlap are widespread in the federal government.1

 In 1998 and 1999, we 

found that this situation existed in 12 federal mission areas, ranging from 

agriculture to natural resources and environment. We also identified, in 

1998 and 1999, 8 new areas of program overlap, including 50 programs for 

the homeless that were administered by eight federal agencies. These 

programs provided services for the homeless that appeared to be similar. 

For example, 23 programs operated by four agencies offered housing 

services, and 26 programs administered by 6 agencies offered food and 

nutrition services. Although our work indicates that the potential for 

inefficiency and waste exists, it also shows areas where the intentional 

participation by multiple agencies may be a reasonable response to a 

complex public problem. In either situation, implementation of federal 

crosscutting programs is often characterized by numerous individual 

agency efforts that are implemented with little apparent regard for the 

presence of efforts of related activities.

In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for better 

managing crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, 

integration, and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals are 

consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 

appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used 

as a basis for management. One of our oft-cited proposals is to consolidate 

the fragmented federal system to ensure the safety and quality of food.

Perhaps most important, however, we have stated that the Results Act 

could provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, and 

Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting 

program efforts. OMB, for example, could use the governmentwide 

performance plan, which is a key component of this framework, to 

integrate expected agency-level performance. It could also be used to more 

clearly relate and address the contributions of alternative federal 

strategies. Agencies, in turn, could use the annual performance planning 

cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight crosscutting 

program efforts and to provide evidence of the coordination of those 

efforts.

1

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to 

Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, GAO/AIMD-97-146 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997) and Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, 

GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
Page 3 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

OMB guidance to agencies on the Results Act states that, at a minimum, an 

agency’s annual plan should identify those programs or activities that are 

being undertaken with other agencies to achieve a common purpose or 

objective, that is, interagency and crosscutting programs. This 

identification need cover only programs and activities that represent a 

significant agency effort. An agency should also review the fiscal year 2003 

performance plans of other agencies participating with it in a crosscutting 

program or activity to ensure that related performance goals and indicators 

for a crosscutting program are consistent and harmonious. As appropriate, 

agencies should modify performance goals to bring about greater synergy 

and interagency support in achieving mutual goals.2

In April 2002, as part of its spring budget planning guidance to agencies for 

preparing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, OMB stated that 

it is working to develop uniform evaluation metrics, or “common 

measures” for programs with similar goals. OMB asked agencies to work 

with OMB staff to develop evaluation metrics for several major 

crosscutting, governmentwide functions as part of their September budget 

submissions. According to OMB, such measures can help raise important 

questions and help inform decisions about how to direct funding and how 

to improve performance in specific programs. OMB’s common measures 

initiative initially focused on the following crosscutting program areas:

• low income housing assistance,

• job training and employment,

• wildland fire management,

• flood mitigation,

• disaster insurance, and 

• health.

2

OMB Circular A-11, section 220.3g.
Page 4 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

We recently reported that one of the purposes of the Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 is to improve the quality of agency financial and performance 

data.3

 We found that only 5 of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act 

agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports included assessments of the 

completeness and reliability of their performance data in their transmittal 

letters. The other 19 agencies discussed, at least to some degree, the 

quality of their performance data elsewhere in their performance reports.

Scope and 

Methodology

To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each crosscutting 

program area as follows:

• Border control focuses on major federal security policies and 

operations that manage and govern the entry of people, animals, plants, 

and goods into the United States through air, land, or seaports of entry.4

• Flood mitigation and insurance focuses on major federal efforts to 

proactively reduce the loss in lives and property due to floods and 

minimize the postflood costs of repair and construction.

• Wildland fire management focuses on major federal efforts to reduce 

accumulated hazardous fuels on public lands.

• Wetlands focuses on major federal efforts to protect and manage this 

resource, such as restoration, enhancement, and permitting activities.

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Reporting: Few Agencies Reported on the 

Completeness and Reliability of Performance Data, GAO-02-372 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 26, 2002).

4

Although drug control is often included as part of border control, because we are covering 

this area in a separate report, it is excluded from our scope. 
Page 5 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on previous GAO 

work and confirmed the agencies involved by reviewing the fiscal year 2001 

Results Act performance report and fiscal year 2003 Results Act 

performance plans for each agency identified as contributing to the 

crosscutting program area. One of the agencies we identified as being 

involved in the areas of flood mitigation and wetlands was the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps). Although we identify the Corps, we do not 

comment on the agency because, as noted above, the Department of 

Defense did not submit a fiscal year 2001 performance report or fiscal year 

2003 performance plan and was not included in our review. To address the 

remaining objectives, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance 

reports and fiscal year 2003 performance plans and used criteria contained 

in the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and OMB guidance. The act 

requires that an agency’s performance report include a transmittal letter 

from the agency head containing, in addition to any other content, an 

assessment of the completeness and reliability of the performance and 

financial data used in the report. It also requires that the assessment 

describe any material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of 

the data and the actions the agency can take and is taking to resolve such 

inadequacies.

5

OMB guidance states that an agency’s annual plan should include a 

description of how the agency intends to verify and validate the measured 

values of actual performance. The means used should be sufficiently 

credible and specific to support the general accuracy and reliability of the 

performance information that is recorded, collected, and reported.6

We did not include any changes or modifications the agencies may have 

made to the reports or plans after they were issued, except in cases in 

which agency comments provided information from a published update to 

a report or plan. Furthermore, because of the scope and timing of this 

review, information on the progress agencies may have made on addressing 

their management challenges during fiscal year 2002 was not yet available.

We did not independently verify or assess the information we obtained 

from agency performance reports and plans. Also, that an agency chose 

not to discuss its efforts to coordinate in these crosscutting areas in its 

5

31 U.S.C. §3516(e).

6

OMB Circular A-11, section 220.5a. 
Page 6 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

performance reports or plans does not necessarily mean that the agency is 

not coordinating with the appropriate agencies.

We conducted our review from September through November 2002, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Our review of agency performance reports and plans for the four 

crosscutting areas revealed that there are multiple players within these 

areas pursuing similar or complementary goals and strategies, suggesting 

significant opportunities for coordination to achieve common objectives. 

As we have reported previously, agencies could use the annual 

performance planning cycle to ensure that crosscutting goals are 

consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 

appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used 

as a basis for management. Annual performance reports and plans could 

then serve as a vehicle to highlight crosscutting program efforts and to 

provide evidence of the coordination of those efforts.

We found most agencies identified the agencies with which they 

coordinated on the crosscutting areas in their performance reports and 

plans, although the specific areas of coordination and level of detail 

provided varied considerably. At one extreme, neither the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nor its parent agency, 

the Department of Commerce, specifically discusses coordinating with 

other agencies on their wetlands efforts. In contrast, for the area of 

wildland fire management, both the Department of the Interior and the 

Forest Service indicate in their performance plans their past coordination 

in developing the National Fire Plan and a 10-year Comprehensive Strategy 

as well as their current efforts to develop a joint implementation plan for 

the Comprehensive Strategy, and planned efforts to conduct an interagency 

review of the fire plan system. Other discussions of coordination cite 

participation in interagency initiatives. For example, in the area of border 

control, both the departments of Justice and the Treasury discuss 

expanded cooperation through the Border Coordination Initiative (BCI), 

which according to U.S. Customs, has led to increased cooperation among 

partner agencies in areas such as cross training, improved sharing of 

intelligence, community and importer outreach, improved communication 

among agencies using radio technology, and cooperative operational and 

tactical planning. 
Page 7 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001 

performance goals across the four crosscutting areas also varied 

considerably. For example, wetlands was the only area in which each of 

the five agencies we reviewed reported having met or exceeded all of its 

fiscal year 2001 goals. However, although all of these goals related to 

creating, restoring, enhancing, or benefiting acres of wetlands, none of the 

agencies discussed in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports that their 

progress contributed to the existing national goal of no net loss in 

wetlands. In contrast, the Department of Transportation reported not 

meeting either of its two performance goals related to border control and 

the Department of Agriculture reported not meeting its one performance 

goal related to flood mitigation. Although the Forest Service reported 

meeting its goal of treating wildlands with high fire risks, it did not meet 

any of the individual indicators related to this goal. 

Some of the agencies that did not meet their fiscal year 2001 performance 

goals, such as Transportation in the area of border control, provided 

reasonable explanations as well as strategies that appear reasonably linked 

to meeting the goals in the future. Others, such as Interior, which provided 

a reasonable explanation for not meeting its goal related to wildland fire 

management, did not discuss any strategies for achieving the goals in the 

future. Still others, such as Treasury, which reported meeting its targets for 

all but two of its seven measures related to its strategic goal of protecting 

the nation’s borders and major international terminals from traffickers and 

smugglers, did not provide reasonable explanations for the shortfalls and 

did not discuss strategies for achieving those targets in the future. 

The agencies we reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal year 

2003 that were similar to those in fiscal year 2001, with targets adjusted to 

reflect either higher or lower levels of performance than were planned for 

fiscal year 2001. Some agencies added new goals, modified existing goals, 

or dropped goals altogether from their fiscal year 2003 performance plans. 

Many agencies discussed strategies for achieving their fiscal year 2003 

goals that appeared to be reasonably linked to the performance goals to be 

achieved. Other did not discuss strategies. For example, in the area of 

border control, the Department of State provided only general statements, 

such as its commitment to improving visa procedures, on how it plans to 

achieve its fiscal year 2003 goals.

Five of the 10 agencies we reviewed for all the crosscutting areas—

Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Justice, 

Transportation, and Treasury commented on the overall quality and 
Page 8 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

reliability of the data in their performance reports. For example, the 

Secretary’s message in Treasury’s fiscal year 2001 performance report 

stated that, as required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the 

Secretary had assessed the data in the report and determined that the data 

were reliable and complete with noted exceptions. Beyond such 

overarching statements, we also found more detailed discussion of the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance data reported. 

For example, Transportation reported its data verification and validation 

procedures for each of its performance measures. Neither the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) nor State discussed how they 

assessed the overall quality of their performance data. Some of the 

agencies we reviewed discussed shortcomings to their data and described 

the steps they are taking to resolve the shortcomings. For example, in the 

area of wetlands, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and EPA 

acknowledged shortcomings in their data, including the possibility of 

double counting performance data. EPA also indicated that the measure 

might not reflect actual improvements in the health of the habitat. While 

FWS does not discuss any steps to resolve or minimize the shortcomings in 

its data, EPA described improvements it made to make data reported more 

consistent.

Agencies Involved in 

Crosscutting Areas 

Show Opportunities for 

Coordination

As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved in each of the 

crosscutting program areas we reviewed. 
Page 9 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area

Source: GAO analysis.

a

Although our review focused primarily on department-level reports and plans, in some cases our 

review also focused on bureau-level sections of the reports and plans, as indicated in the notes below.

b EPA and Commerce also have regulatory responsibility over wildland fire management projects of the 

two principal land management agencies indicated in the table.

c

Within Agriculture, we looked at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service for border control, the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service for wetlands, and the Forest Service for wildland fire management.

d

Within Commerce, we looked at NOAA for wetlands.

e

Within Defense, we identified the Corps.

f

Within Interior, we looked at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, FWS, and 

the National Park Service for wildland fire management.

g

Within Justice, we looked at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol for 

border control.

h

Within Transportation, we looked at the Coast Guard for border control.

i

Within Treasury, we looked at the Customs Service for border control.

The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed 

information contained in the tables that appear in appendix I through IV.

Border Control Hostile nations, terrorist groups, transnational criminals, and even 

individuals may target American people, institutions, and infrastructure 

with weapons of mass destruction and outbreaks of infectious disease. 

Given these threats, successful control of our borders relies on the ability 

Crosscutting program areas

Agency 

Involveda Border control

Flood 

mitigation and 

insurance Wetlands

Wildland fire 

managementb

Agriculturec a a a a

Commerced a

Defensee a a

EPA a

FEMA a

Interiorf a a

Justiceg a

State a

Transportationh a

Treasuryi a
Page 10 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

of all levels of government and the private sector to communicate and 

cooperate effectively with one another. Activities that are hampered by 

organizational fragmentation, technological impediments, or ineffective 

collaboration blunt the nation’s collective efforts to secure America’s 

borders.

Each of the five agencies we reviewed in the area of border control—

Agriculture, Justice, State, Transportation, and Treasury—discussed in 

their performance reports and/or plans the agencies they coordinated with 

on border control issues, although the specific areas of coordination and 

level of detail provided varied. For example, Agriculture, which focuses on 

reducing pest and disease outbreaks and foodborne illnesses related to 

meat, poultry, and egg products in the United States, discusses 

coordination with a different set of agencies than the other four agencies, 

which share a focus on border control issues related to travel, trade, and 

immigration. Agriculture stated that it is a key member of the National 

Invasive Species Council, which works with other nations to deal with the 

many pathways by which exotic pests and diseases could enter the United 

States. Agriculture also stated that it coordinates with the Department of 

Health and Human Services and EPA on food safety issues. Although 

Agriculture states it is responsible for inspecting imported products at 

ports of entry, it does not specifically describe any coordination with the 

Customs Service within Treasury or the Border Patrol within Justice.

In its combined performance report and plan, Transportation provided 

general statements that the Coast Guard regularly coordinates with a 

variety of agencies on immigration issues and potential international 

agreements to ensure security in ports and waterways. However, 

Transportation provided a more extensive discussion of the coordination 

and roles played by bureaus within the agency. For example, for its goal to 

ensure that sea-borne foreign and domestic trade routes and seaports 

remain available for the movement of passengers and cargo, 

Transportation states that the Transportation Security Administration, the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the Coast Guard will coordinate 

with the international community and federal and state agencies to 

improve coordination of container identification, tracking, and inspection. 

As an example of the roles described, Transportation states that the Coast 

Guard and MARAD will test deployment plans through port security 

readiness exercises. In its performance report, State listed the partners it 

coordinates with for each performance goal, but did not always provide 

details about the coordination that was undertaken. Both Justice and 

Treasury discuss expanded cooperation through BCI, which includes 
Page 11 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Agriculture; Customs; Coast Guard; the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS), and other federal, state, local, and international agencies. 

According to Customs, BCI efforts toward increased cooperation among 

partner agencies included cross training, improved sharing of intelligence, 

community and importer outreach, improved communication among 

agencies using radio technology, and cooperative operational and tactical 

planning.

Of the five agencies we reviewed, only Justice reported meeting all of its 

fiscal year 2001 performance goals related to securing America’s borders.7

 

Transportation reported not meeting either of its two goals related to 

border control, but provided explanations and strategies for meeting the 

goals in the future that appeared reasonable. For example, Transportation 

said it did not meet its target for the percentage of undocumented migrants 

interdicted and/or deterred via maritime routes because socioeconomic 

conditions here and abroad and political and economic conditions caused 

variations in illegal migration patterns. To meet the target in the future, the 

Coast Guard plans to operate along maritime routes and establish 

agreements with source countries to reduce migrant flow. For its two 

performance goals related to border control, State reported progress in 

meeting its goal of reducing the risk of illegitimate entry of aliens hostile to 

the nation’s interest, but not meeting the immigrant visa targets. State 

explained that it failed to meet this goal due to extremely high demand for 

visa numbers from INS to adjust the status of large numbers of aliens 

already in the United States, but did not provide any specific strategies for 

meeting this goal in the future.8

 Treasury reported meeting its targets for 

all but two of its seven measures related to its strategic goal of protecting 

the nation’s borders and major international terminals from traffickers and 

smugglers. Treasury did not provide reasonable explanations for either 

shortfall, and did not discuss strategies for achieving those targets in the 

future. Agriculture reported meeting all but one of its performance targets 

for its three goals. The unmet performance target for significantly reducing 

the prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens fell under Agriculture’s 

goal of creating a coordinated national and international food safety risk 

7

Justice did not compare its performance for one of the goals—identify, disrupt, and 

dismantle alien smuggling and trafficking organizations—to a targeted level of performance.

8

As we reported in October 2002, the number of nonimmigrant visa applications dropped 

worldwide after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. See U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Border Security: Visa Process Should be Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool, 

GAO-03-132NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002).
Page 12 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

management system. Agriculture provides a reasonable explanation, but it 

is not clear if from the discussion if it is a domestic or international issue.

According to their performance plans, the five agencies generally aimed to 

achieve the same goals as those reported on in fiscal year 2001, with targets 

adjusted to reflect higher performance levels. Transportation reported that 

it established a new performance goal and related measure in fiscal year 

2002 that would also be included in the fiscal year 2003 plan. The new goal 

is to ensure that sea-borne foreign and domestic trade routes and seaports 

remain available for the movement of passengers and cargo. The new 

measure is the percentage of high-interest vessels screened, with a target of 

100 percent for fiscal year 2003.

Three of the five agencies—Agriculture, Justice, and Transportation—

discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to achieving 

their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, Transportation discusses 

strategies for each of its goals. For its new goal Transportation describes 

strategies, such as increasing intelligence efforts in ports; improving 

advanced information on passengers, crew, and cargo; and establishing or 

improving information and intelligence fusion centers in Washington and 

on both coasts. It also identified more specific efforts, such as increasing 

boarding and escort operations to protect vessels carrying large numbers 

of passengers and vessels with dangerous cargo, such as liquefied natural 

gas or other volatile products, from becoming targets. In contrast, 

Customs discussed a more limited “strategic context” for each of its goal 

areas and other information in sections pertaining to specific Customs 

activities, both of which varied in the level of detail. For example, for its 

goal of contributing to a safer America by reducing civil and criminal 

activities associated with the enforcement of Customs laws, Customs 

defined challenges and constraints to achieving the goal and mentions that 

it is playing a major role in the interdiction and detection of weapons of 

mass destruction entering or leaving the United States, including increased 

vessel, passenger, and cargo examinations. For the most part, State 

provided only general statements of how it plans to achieve its fiscal year 

2003 goals. For example, regarding its visa issuance goal, State said it has 

committed itself to improving its visa procedures and coordination with 

other agencies and departments. 

Regarding the completeness, reliability, and credibility of their reported 

performance data, Agriculture, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury 

provided general statements about the quality of their performance data 

and provided some information about the quality of specific performance 
Page 13 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

data. For example, Transportation provided extensive information on its 

measures and data sources that allow for an assessment of data quality. 

The information includes (1) a description of the measure, (2) scope, 

(3) source, (4) limitations, (5) statistical issues, and (6) verification and 

validation. Other explanatory information is provided in a comment 

section of Transportation’s combined performance plan and report. State 

did not provide consistent or adequate information for the border-controlrelated data sources to make judgments about data reliability, 

completeness, and credibility. For the most part, State provided only a few 

words on the data source, data storage, and frequency of the data.

Flood Mitigation and 

Insurance

Floods have inflicted more economic losses upon the United States than 

any other natural disaster. Since its inception 34 years ago, the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has combined flood hazard mitigation 

efforts and insurance to protect homeowners against losses from floods. 

The program, which is administered by FEMA, provides an incentive for 

communities to adopt floodplain management ordinances to mitigate the 

effects of flooding upon new or existing structures. It offers property 

owners in participating communities a mechanism—federal flood 

insurance—to cover flood losses without increasing the burden on the 

federal government to provide disaster relief payments. Virtually all 

communities in the country with flood-prone areas now participate in NFIP, 

and over 4 million U.S. households have flood insurance.9

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Flood Insurance: Extent of Noncompliance with 

Purchase Requirements Is Unknown, GAO-02-396 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2002).
Page 14 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

The two agencies we reviewed—Agriculture and FEMA—generally address 

coordination efforts regarding the issue of flood mitigation. Agriculture 

states in its report and plan that it works with other agencies, such as 

FEMA and the Corps, to obtain data regarding its goal related to flood 

mitigation. However, Agriculture does not further specify coordination 

activities. FEMA’s fiscal year 2001 performance report does not state 

which agencies it collaborates with to achieve goals related to flood 

mitigation and insurance. FEMA’s plan provides an appendix that outlines 

the crosscutting activities and partner agencies associated with its flood 

mitigation and preparedness activities. For example, FEMA states it is the 

chair of the President’s Long-Term Recovery Task Force, which helps state 

and local governments to identify their needs related to the long-term 

impact of a major, complex disaster. Agencies FEMA coordinates on this 

effort with include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, among other 

organizations.10

Agriculture reported that it did not meet its only fiscal year 2001 goal 

related to flood mitigation—providing benefits to property and safety 

through flood damage reduction by completing 81 watershed protection 

structures. Agriculture explained that it did not meet the goal because 

(1) complex engineering can result in watershed protection structures 

taking several years to complete, (2) multiple funding sources, including 

federal, state, and local funds, may alter the schedule for completing the 

structures, and (3) external factors such as weather and delays in obtaining 

land rights and permits caused delays in construction. Agriculture states 

that many of the structures that were not completed in time for the fiscal 

year 2001 report will be complete in the next few months.

10We did not review these agencies because either they did not have goals associated with 

flood mitigation or insurance or they were not federal agencies.
Page 15 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

FEMA reported meeting all but one of its fiscal year 2001 goals and 

indicators related to flood mitigation and insurance. FEMA’s five goals 

were (1) prevent loss of lives and property from all hazards, (2) collect and 

validate building and flood loss data, confirm that the reduction in 

estimated losses from NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion, and continue 

systematic assessment of the impact and effectiveness of NFIP, (3) increase 

the number of NFIP policies in force by 5 percent over the end of the fiscal 

year 2000 count,11 (4) improve the program’s underwriting ratio, and 

(5) implement NFIP business process improvements. FEMA reported that 

it did not meet the third goal, explaining that, although the end of year 

policy count for fiscal year 2001 increased, the retention rates for existing 

policies were not maintained. FEMA outlined three strategies that 

appeared reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goal in the future:

(1) placing two new fiscal year 2002 television commercials that emphasize 

the importance of buying and keeping National Flood Insurance, 

(2) establishing retention goals for “Write Your Own” companies, private 

insurance companies that write flood insurance under a special 

arrangement with the federal government, and (3) targeting its marketing 

strategies toward those properties no longer on the books.

Because it revised its strategic plan, FEMA reorganized the layout of its 

fiscal year 2003 performance plan. Nevertheless, FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 

performance goals and measures are similar to those that appear in its 

fiscal year 2001 performance plan. FEMA merged its goal of 

implementation of NFIP business process improvements into its fiscal year 

2003 goal of improving NFIP’s “bottom line,” an income-to-expense ratio, 

by 1 percent. In addition, FEMA merged two other goals: (1) prevent loss 

of lives and property from all hazards and (2) collect and validate building 

and flood loss data, confirm that the reduction in estimated losses from 

NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion, and continue the systematic assessment 

11In the past, we reported that FEMA had a number of performance goals aimed at 

improving the result of NFIP, including increasing the number of insurance policies in force. 

While these goals provide valuable insights into how well NFIP’s mission of reducing floodrelated losses is being carried out, they do not assess the degree to which the most 

vulnerable residents—those living in flood-prone areas—participate in the program. 

Capturing data on the numbers of uninsured and insured structures in flood-prone areas can 

provide FEMA with another indication of how effectively the program is penetrating those 

areas most at risk of flooding, whether the financial consequences of floods in these areas 

are increasing or decreasing, and where marketing efforts can better be targeted. See U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Flood Insurance: Emerging Opportunity to Better Measure 

Certain Results of the National Flood Insurance Program, GAO-01-736T (Washington, 

D.C.: May 15, 2001).
Page 16 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

of the impact and effectiveness of NFIP. FEMA adopted one new goal in its 

fiscal year 2003 plan related to modernizing its floodplain mapping. 

Agriculture expects to continue making progress on its goal of providing 

benefits to property and safety through flood damage reduction, but has 

adopted a new approach to achieving the goal. Agriculture appears to have 

dropped its target for completing new watershed protection structures and 

instead plans to implement a new program of rehabilitating aging dams. 

Overall, the strategies Agriculture and FEMA plan to use appear to be 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, to 

support its fiscal year 2003 performance goals, FEMA outlines several 

strategies, such as increasing the number of Emergency Action Plans in 

communities located below significant and potentially high-hazard dams.

In its fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance and Accountability Report, 

FEMA states “the performance measurement criteria and information 

systems are thought to be generally effective and reliable.” FEMA does not 

individually identify data quality assessment methods for any of its 

performance indicators.12 However, it acknowledges a data limitation for 

one of its goals relating to business process improvement. FEMA 

explained that it relied on trend data to assess its performance in customer 

service for fiscal year 2001 because of a delay in obtaining OMB approval 

for distributing its customer surveys that year. FEMA states that it plans to 

conduct the surveys in fiscal year 2002 to obtain more accurate 

information. Agriculture addresses this issue at the beginning of its report 

by stating, “performance information supporting these performance goals 

is of sufficient quality and reliability except where otherwise noted in this 

document.” Agriculture also states that the data reported by state offices 

for fiscal year 2001 are accurate. 

Wetlands According to estimates by FWS, more than half of the 221 million acres of 

wetlands that existed during colonial times in what is now the contiguous 

United States have been lost. These areas, once considered worthless, are 

now recognized for the variety of important functions that they perform, 

12We previously reported that although FEMA’s Federal Insurance Administration tracks 

data on the number of insurance policies in flood-prone areas, data on the overall number of 

structures are incomplete and inaccurate. Some communities are developing more accurate 

data on the number of structures in flood-prone areas. FEMA is also working to improve the 

quality of its data on the number of structures in flood-prone areas and is participating in the 

development of new mapping technologies that could facilitate the collection of such data. 

See GAO-01-736T.
Page 17 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

such as providing wildlife habitats, maintaining water quality, and aiding in 

flood control. Despite the passage of numerous laws and the issuance of 

two presidential orders for protecting wetlands, no specific or consistent 

goal for the nation’s wetlands-related activities existed until 1989. 

Recognizing the value of wetlands, in 1989, President George Bush 

established the national goal of no net loss of wetlands. However, the issue 

of wetlands protection and the various federal programs that have evolved 

piecemeal over the years to protect and manage this resource have been 

subjects of continued debate.

We previously reported that for the six major agencies involved in and 

responsible for implementing wetlands-related activities—the Corps, 

Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), Interior’s FWS, Commerce’s NOAA, and 

EPA—the consistency and reliability of wetlands acreage data reported by 

these federal agencies were questionable.13 Moreover, we reported that the 

agencies’ reporting practices did not permit the actual accomplishments of 

the agencies—that is, the number of acres restored, enhanced, or 

otherwise improved—to be determined. These reporting practices included 

inconsistencies in the use of terms to describe and report wetlands-related 

activities and the resulting accomplishments, the inclusion of nonwetlands 

acreage in wetlands project totals, and the double counting of 

accomplishments. We recommended that these agencies develop and 

implement a strategy for ensuring that all actions contained in the Clean 

Water Action Plan related to wetlands data are adopted governmentwide.14 

Such actions included, in addition to the ongoing effort to develop a single 

set of accurate, reliable figures on the status and trends of the nation’s 

wetlands, the development of consistent, understandable definitions and 

reporting standards that are used by all federal agencies in reporting their 

wetlands-related activities and the changes to wetlands that result from 

such activities.

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Wetlands Overview: Problems With Acreage Data 

Persist, GAO/RCED-98-150 (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 1998).

14The Clean Water Action Plan, issued in February 1998, included a number of efforts to 

improve wetlands data. One of the actions planned was the establishment of an interagency 

tracking system that would accurately account for wetlands losses, restoration, creation, 

and enhancement. The system would also establish accurate baseline data for federal 

programs that contribute to net wetlands gain.
Page 18 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

The agencies we reviewed generally discussed the need to coordinate with 

other agencies in their performance plans, but provided little detail on the 

level of coordination or specific coordination strategies. Agriculture’s 

annual performance plan includes a strategy to work with other federal 

agencies and partners to identify priority wetlands that could benefit from 

conservation practices in the surrounding landscape. Neither of the 

bureaus within Agriculture—FSA or NRCS—specifically discussed 

coordination on wetlands issues in their performance reports or plans. 

Interior’s annual performance report and plan indicate that it will work 

with Agriculture, EPA, the Corps, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), and the states on wetlands issues. EPA discusses 

cooperation with the Corps, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

within Commerce, FEMA, FWS within Interior, and NRCS within 

Agriculture, but provides no specifics. Both Commerce and NOAA indicate 

that they work with other federal agencies to address crosscutting issues. 

Although NOAA mentions that it works closely with other agencies on a 

number of crosscutting issues to address critical challenges facing coastal 

areas, its plan does not specifically mention coordination with other 

agencies on wetlands issues.

Each of the agencies we reviewed had goals related to wetlands that it 

reported having met or exceeded in fiscal year 2001.15 For example, FWS 

within Interior reported that it restored or enhanced 144,729 acres of 

wetlands habitat on non-FWS lands, exceeding its goal of 77,581 acres. 

However, FWS did not report on the number of acres of wetlands restored 

or enhanced on FWS lands and did not distinguish between the number of 

acres restored and the number enhanced. Furthermore, several of the 

agencies included nonwetlands acreage when reporting their 

accomplishments, and NOAA changed its performance measure from acres 

of coastal wetlands restored to acres benefited. Consequently, the 

contributions made by these agencies toward achieving the national goal of 

no net loss of the nation’s remaining wetlands cannot be determined from 

their reports.

Each of the agencies we reviewed had plans to create, restore, enhance, 

and/or benefit additional wetlands acreage in fiscal year 2003, although the 

targets were in some cases lower than the targets for fiscal year 2001. Of 

the agencies we reviewed, only NRCS indicated in its plan that its progress 

15NOAA did not report its performance against a target in fiscal year 2001 because it had 

established a new performance measure.
Page 19 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

would contribute to the national goal of no net loss of wetlands. The 

strategies the agencies planned to use appeared to be reasonably linked to 

achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, FSA planned to use the 

same strategy it has successfully used in past years to achieve its goals—

working with producers to enroll land in the Conservation Reserve 

Program.

Regarding the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance 

data reported, agency discussions varied in the specifics they provided. 

NOAA and FWS had overall discussions of the sources of their 

performance data and the verification procedures they followed in their 

performance reports. Within Agriculture, while FSA reported on the 

sources and processes used to develop the data reported for the number of 

wetlands acres restored, NRCS discussed its requirement that each state 

conservationist verify and validate the state’s performance data. NRCS 

also acknowledged that some discrepancies were noted when the 

performance data were analyzed, but indicated that there was no 

compelling reason to discount the performance data reported. Two 

agencies—FWS and EPA—acknowledged shortcomings in the data, 

including the possibility of double counting performance data. EPA also 

indicated that the measure might not reflect actual improvements in the 

health of the habitat. While FWS does not discuss any steps to resolve or 

minimize the shortcomings in its data, EPA described improvements it 

made to make data reported more consistent. FSA indicated some 

limitations to its data for the Conservation Reserve Program, which it 

attributed to lags between the date a contract is signed with a producer and 

when the data are entered, the continual updating of the contract data, and 

the periodic changes in contract data, but did not discuss any steps to 

resolve the limitation.

Wildland Fire 

Management

We recently testified that the most extensive and serious problem related to 

the health of forested lands—particularly in the interior West—is the 

overaccumulation of vegetation, which is causing an increasing number of 

large, intense, uncontrollable, and destructive wildfires.16 In 1999, 

Agriculture’s Forest Service estimated that 39 million acres of national 

forested lands in the interior West were at high risk of catastrophic 

16U.S. General Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of 

Wildland Fires Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort, GAO-02-843T (Washington, 

D.C.: June 23, 2002).
Page 20 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

wildfire. This figure later grew to over 125 million acres as Interior 

agencies and states identified additional land that they considered to be 

high risk. To a large degree, these forest health problems contributed to the 

wildfires in the year 2000—which were some of the worst in the last 50 

years. The policy response to these problems was the development of the 

National Fire Plan—a long-term, multibillion-dollar effort to address the 

wildland fire threats we are now facing.

Our work on wildland fire has stressed the need for three things: (1) a 

cohesive strategy to address growing threats to national forest resources 

and nearby communities from catastrophic wildfires, (2) clearly defined 

and effective leadership to carry out that strategy in a coordinated manner, 

and (3) accountability to ensure that progress is being made toward 

accomplishing the goals of the National Fire Plan. Two years ago, the 

Forest Service and Interior began developing strategies to address these 

problems, and recently established a leadership entity—the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council—that is intended to respond to the need for greater 

interagency coordination. Whether the strategy and the council will serve 

as the framework and mechanism to effectively deal with the threat of 

catastrophic wildland fire remains to be seen and will depend upon how 

well the National Fire Plan is implemented. To determine the effectiveness 

of this implementation effort, we continue to believe that a sound 

performance accountability framework is needed, one that provides for 

specific performance measures and data that can be used to assess 

implementation progress and problems.

Both Interior and the Forest Service indicate in their performance plans 

their participation in developing the 2000 National Fire Plan and a 10-year 

Comprehensive Strategy under the plan. Furthermore, both agencies 

discuss current efforts under way to develop a joint Implementation Plan 

for the Comprehensive Strategy. Consistent with our recommendations, 

the implementation plan is reported to include cooperatively developed, 

long-term goals and performance measures for the wildland fire 

management program. In its performance report, the Forest Service 

detailed additional specific actions it collaborated on with Interior and 

other agencies related to wildland fire management, such as conducting an 

interagency review of the fire plan system.

Regarding progress in achieving its fiscal year 2001 goals, Interior reported 

meeting only about half of its planned target of using fire and other 

treatments to restore natural ecological processes to 1.4 million acres. 

Although Interior’s report provided reasonable explanations for the unmet 
Page 21 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

goals—difficulty in obtaining permits to carry out the treatments and 

shifting of resources from restoration to suppression of active fires—it did 

not discuss any specific strategies for overcoming these challenges in the 

future. The Forest Service reported meeting its goal of treating wildlands 

with high fire risks in national forests and grasslands. However, the Forest 

Service did not meet any of the individual indicators related to this goal. 

For example, the Forest Service treated only 1.4 million acres of its 

targeted 1.8 million hazardous fuel acres. The Forest Service provided 

explanations that appeared reasonable for some of its unmet targets. For 

example, unusual drought conditions combined with the added 

complexities and restrictions of treating hazardous fuels in the wildland 

urban interface contributed to the unmet hazardous fuels goal. The Forest 

Service did not provide any strategies for meeting the unmet targets in the 

future.

In fiscal year 2003, Interior expects to treat 1.1 million acres to reduce 

hazards and restore ecosystem health compared to its goal of 1.4 million 

acres in 2001. In addition, Interior has added goals for wildland fire 

containment, providing assistance to rural fire departments, treating highpriority fuels projects, and bringing fire facilities up to approved standards. 

Interior’s strategies for achieving these goals are very broad and general 

and lack a clear link or rationale for how the strategies will contribute to 

improved performance. The Forest Service expects to treat 1.6 million 

acres to reduce hazardous fuels, slightly less than its 2001 target of 1.8 

million acres, and assist over 7,000 communities and fire departments. The 

Forest Service did not include one of its targets for 2001—maximizing fire 

fighting production capability.17 The Forest Services strategies for 

achieving its goals, although fairly general, appear to be reasonably linked 

to achieving each of the performance targets.

17We have questioned the credibility of this measure. See U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better Identify FireFighting Preparedness Needs, GAO-02-158 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
Page 22 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

The performance data reported by Interior and the Forest Service for 

wildfire management generally appear to be complete, reliable, and 

credible. The Forest Service reported that it will use the Budget 

Formulation and Execution System to report on performance. However, 

we have found that this system is more of a planning tool for ranking fuel 

reduction work at the local unit level and that another system, the National 

Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System, is being implemented by both 

the Forest Service and Interior to track outputs and measure 

accomplishments. Interior acknowledges that its bureaus may interpret 

the data they collect differently and that a common set of performance 

measures is still being developed between Interior and the Forest Service 

as they implement the National Fire Plan. We have recommended that the 

agencies develop a common set of outcome-based performance goals to 

better gauge whether agencies are achieving the objective of restoring 

ecosystem health.18 The Forest Service acknowledges possible data 

limitations and reported that it is currently taking steps, such as conducting 

field reviews, to ensure effective internal controls over the reporting of 

performance data.

Concluding 

Observations

We have previously stated that the Results Act could provide OMB, 

agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing 

crosscutting program efforts. OMB in its guidance clearly encourages 

agencies to use their performance plans as a tool to communicate and 

coordinate with other agencies on programs being undertaken for common 

purposes to ensure that related performance goals and indicators are 

consistent and harmonious. We have also stated that the Results Act could 

also be used as a vehicle to more clearly relate and address the 

contributions of alternative federal strategies. The President’s common 

measures initiative, by developing metrics that can be used to compare the 

performance of different agencies contributing to common objectives, 

appears to be a step in this direction.

Some of the agencies we reviewed appear to be using their performance 

reports and plans as a vehicle to assist in collaborating and coordinating 

crosscutting program areas. Those that provided more detailed 

information on the nature of their coordination provided greater 

confidence that they are working in concert with other agencies to achieve 

18GAO-02-158.
Page 23 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

common objectives. Other agencies do not appear to be using their plans 

and reports to the extent they could to describe their coordination efforts 

to Congress, citizens, and other agencies.

Furthermore, the quality of the performance information reported—how 

agencies explain unmet goals and discuss strategies for achieving 

performance goals in the future, and overall descriptions of the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance information 

reported—varied considerably. Although we found a number of agencies 

that provided detailed information about how they verify and validate 

individual measures, only 5 of the 10 agencies we reviewed for all the 

crosscutting areas commented on the overall quality and reliability of the 

data in their performance reports consistent with the requirements of the 

Reports Consolidation Act. Without such statements, performance 

information lacks the credibility needed to provide transparency in 

government operations so that Congress, program managers, and other 

decision makers can use the information.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We sent drafts of this report to the respective agencies for comments. We 

received comments from EPA, FEMA, Commerce, and State. The agencies 

generally agreed with the accuracy of the information in the report. The 

comments we received were mostly technical and we have incorporated 

them where appropriate. 

Regarding flood mitigation and insurance, FEMA commented that 

performance reports and plans are static documents that are over a year 

old and therefore may not reflect the progress FEMA has made since then. 

FEMA also stated that, although not reflected in it performance reports and 

plans, it coordinates its flood mitigation and insurance activities 

extensively and maintains and employs a number of interagency 

agreements related to the implementation of its programs. We 

acknowledge these limitations to our analysis in the scope and 

methodology section of this report. 

Regarding border control, State commented that, as summary documents, 

performance reports and plans provide a limited opportunity to fully 

describe their coordination and data validity and verification efforts. State 

indicated that it plans to include more appropriate measures of 

performance and performance data that are complete, reliable, and 

credible in its upcoming performance reports and plans. Regarding its 

unmet goal for the number of visas processed, State explained that this is 
Page 24 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

not an accurate measure of program performance because it depends on 

the demand for visas, which is beyond the agency’s control. State plans to 

revise this measure to one that will more appropriately reflect program 

effectiveness.

Regarding wetlands, EPA commented on a number of initiatives it has 

undertaken along with other federal agencies to address the accuracy and 

availability of data on the extent and health of wetlands. For example, EPA 

states that its Region V office (Chicago) is working with other federal and 

state agencies to develop an integrated, comprehensive, geographic 

information system-based wetlands mapping system for the Minnesota 

River Basin. Once completed, this new wetland inventory would provide a 

reliable estimate of total wetland acreage for the Minnesota River Basin, 

provide a test to update the older National Wetland Inventory data, and 

serve as a pilot project for identifying wetlands throughout the country 

using an innovative technology.

We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget, the congressional leadership, other 

Members of Congress, and the heads of major departments and agencies. 

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

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

Curda on (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov. Major contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

Patricia A. Dalton

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 25 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix I

Border Control AAppenednxidexiIs

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 

Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

Department of Agriculture Agriculture provided brief descriptions of its 

coordination with other organizations for its bordercontrol-related goals. For example, for its 

performance goal to reduce the number and severity 

of pest and disease outbreaks in the United States, 

Agriculture stated it is a key member of the National 

Invasive Species Council and works with other 

nations and federal agencies to prevent outbreaks by 

dealing with the many pathways by which exotic 

pests and diseases could enter the United States. To 

intercept prohibited products, Agriculture said it 

participates in inspection “blitzes” as part of 

multiagency trade compliance teams.

For its outcome to reduce the incidence of foodborne 

illness related to meat, poultry, and egg products in 

the United States by creating a coordinated national 

and international food safety risk management 

system, Agriculture said that its goals require 

coordination with the Agriculture food safety partner 

agencies, including the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Agriculture also said it is 

responsible for reviewing foreign inspection systems 

that export meat and poultry products to the United 

States, and for inspecting imported products at ports 

of entry to assure that standards are equivalent to 

those of the United States. In the report’s program 

evaluation section, Agriculture stated that the Food 

Service Information System (FSIS) and the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) are 

working towards defining their roles and 

responsibilities at the U.S. ports of entry regarding 

products received from restricted countries and 

enhancing interagency communication.

Agriculture provided brief descriptions of its fiscal 

year 2003 performance plan coordination similar to 

its fiscal year 2001 performance report. For 

example, Agriculture said that one objective is to 

provide an effective safety net and promote a strong, 

sustainable United States farm economy, with a key 

outcome to reduce the number and severity of pest 

and disease outbreaks in the United States. As a 

member of the National Invasive Species Council, 

Agriculture stated that it works with other countries 

and federal agencies to deploy a range of strategies 

to safeguard the many pathways by which exotic 

pests and diseases may enter the United States.

For its objective to protect the public health by 

significantly reducing the prevalence of foodborne 

hazards, Agriculture stated that its key outcome is to 

reduce the incidence of foodborne illness related to 

meat, poultry, and egg products in the United States. 

According to Agriculture, the goals will require 

coordination with Agriculture food safety partner 

agencies, including HHS and EPA.

In addition, Agriculture said it has established a 

Homeland Security Council to provide policy 

oversight and coordination of Agriculture efforts and 

to develop performance measures to ensure that 

investments in homeland security meet priority 

needs.
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 26 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Department of Justicea In its combined performance report and performance 

plan, Justice provided short descriptions of 

coordination efforts with more specific information for 

subgoals under performance goals.

For its annual goal to secure America’s borders, 

especially to reduce the incidence of alien 

smuggling, Justice stated that the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) will forge effective 

relationships and engage in cooperative activities 

with national, state, and local government as well as 

nongovernment entities. According to Justice, 

cooperation will be expanded with the U.S. Customs 

Service, Coast Guard, Agriculture, and others 

through the Border Coordination Initiative (BCI). One 

major strategy of BCI is its outreach efforts to other 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

INS, the Coast Guard, and Customs have their own 

border coordinators, co-located at Customs 

headquarters. Justice also said a de facto border 

coordinator from Agriculture has been appointed.

For its performance goal to promote public safety by 

combating immigration-related crimes and removing 

individuals who are unlawfully present in the United 

States, Justice said INS initiatives on the national 

and global levels require partnerships with other 

Justice components to combat terrorism, organized 

crime, illegal drugs, and violent gangs to reduce the 

threat of criminal activity.

For its performance goal of facilitating port-of-entry 

traffic and monitoring deferred inspections, Justice 

said INS will continue to coordinate and integrate 

efforts with Customs and the other federal inspection 

services to facilitate the inspection of bona fide 

travelers. In addition, Justice said that INS 

inspectors maintain working relations with the 

intelligence community, routinely sharing information 

aimed at documenting fraud and human trafficking at 

ports of entry.

For the subgoals under annual goals, Justice 

provided a description of more specific coordination 

efforts. For example, under the subgoal of effectively 

controlling the border, Justice said it will work with 

Justice makes no distinction between coordination 

efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those 

that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 27 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

the Customs Service as part of the BCI. For fiscal 

year 2003, Justice said BCI is planning to increase 

its outreach efforts not only to the other federal, 

state, and local law enforcement organizations along 

the southwest border, but also to the northern border.

Department of State State provided short lists of its coordination 

“partners” for its one-border control-related 

performance goal, but did not provide specific 

coordination details. For its performance goal to 

facilitate the travel and immigration to the United 

States of legitimate visa applicants and the denial of 

visas to ineligible applicants, State said that its 

partners are Justice (including INS), the Drug 

Enforcement Agency (DEA), Customs, APHIS, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the 

intelligence community, Defense, Energy, the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Social 

Security Administration (SSA). State said it uses the 

TIPOFF database, which has information contributed 

by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the 

National Security Agency (NSA), and the FBI. In 

fiscal year 2002, State anticipated sharing all visa 

information with INS ports of entry, and is working 

closely with the Homeland Security Council, 

Customs, INS, and other relevant agencies to 

strengthen border security measures with Canada 

and Mexico.

In its performance plan, State generally provided little 

specific information on its actual coordination efforts 

or involved agencies. Instead, State described 

general aims and uses of information. For example, 

for its performance goal of timely and effective visa 

issuance and a reduction of visa fraud, State said it 

has committed itself to improving its visa procedures 

and coordination with other agencies and 

departments. It said it uses TIPOFF, with information 

gathered from all sources throughout the United 

States government, especially intelligence and law 

enforcement information from the CIA, the FBI, and 

NSA.b

 Watchlist names are also entered into the 

port-of-entry name check system, operated by INS 

and Customs. State said data generated by consular 

officers and shared with INS and other agencies 

enhance both border security and service to visa 

recipients upon arrival in the United States.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 28 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Department of 

Transportation 

In its performance report and performance plan, 

Transportation provided extensive information on 

involved agencies and roles. It has a new 2002 

performance goal for coastal and seaport security to 

ensure sea-borne foreign and domestic trade routes 

and seaports remain available for the movement of 

passengers and cargo. For that goal, Transportation 

said the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and 

the Coast Guard will coordinate with the international 

community and federal and state agencies to 

improve coordination of container identification, 

tracking, and inspection. MARAD will facilitate 

improvements in port and cargo security in Latin 

America and the Caribbean with the Organization of 

American States. MARAD and the Coast Guard will 

develop model port security guidelines for 

commercial strategic ports. In addition, 

Transportation said the Coast Guard and MARAD 

will test deployment plans through port security 

readiness exercises. MARAD will conduct security 

modules within strategic port defense workshops for 

federal and commercial port officials. Transportation 

said it coordinates closely with the Office of 

Homeland Security, Defense, State, the Customs 

Service, INS, and local and state governments to 

ensure security in ports and waterways.

Another performance goal is to reduce illegal 

immigration across U.S. sea borders. According to 

Transportation, the Border Patrol enforces U.S. 

immigration laws on shore, while the Coast Guard 

enforces immigration law at sea. Transportation said 

the Coast Guard regularly coordinates with State, 

INS, and the Border Patrol on immigration issues and 

potential international agreements.

Transportation makes no distinction between 

coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 

and those that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 29 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance 

Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 

2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, 

Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of State, Program 

Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Transportation, 

Performance Plan—FY 2003 and Performance Report—FY 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 

Department of the Treasury, Performance Plans, Final for FY 2002,Proposed for FY 2003

(Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of the Treasury, Program Performance Report, Fiscal Year 

2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Customs Service, FY 2003 President’s Budget, Performance 

Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); U.S. Customs Service, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 

2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

a

The departments of Justice and Transportation have combined fiscal year 2001 performance reports 

and fiscal year 2003 annual performance plans. Where it is not possible to distinguish if material 

pertains to performance reporting or performance planning, the material is displayed as combined.

b

According to State’s Congressional Presentation Document, fiscal year 2003, only about half of the 

TIPOFF records are recorded in the port-of-entry name check systems.

c

This section represents Customs Service material from the Treasury and Customs Service plans and 

reports.

Department of the 

Treasuryc

In its annual performance report, Treasury provided 

general information on Customs coordination with 

other agencies. For the border-control-related 

performance goal to secure the borders while 

facilitating the expeditious movement of lawful 

international travel and commerce, Treasury said 

Customs continued to work closely with INS as well 

as other law enforcement and inspection agencies 

around and along the borders. Cooperative efforts 

such as BCI continued to examine and implement 

ways partner agencies could better utilize shared 

resources. According to Customs, a few of these 

agencies included INS, local and state police, the 

Coast Guard, Agriculture, and foreign law 

enforcement. Efforts toward increased cooperation 

included the cross training of partner agency 

employees in duties and expertise, technology, and 

equipment training; improved sharing of intelligence; 

community and importer outreach; better utilization 

of radio technology for improved communication 

among agencies; and cooperative operational and 

tactical planning.

In its fiscal year 2001 report, Customs also provided 

specific information about information technology 

initiatives, such as a joint initiative with INS on 

license plate readers.

In its performance plan, Customs provided details on 

coordination agencies and initiatives. In line with its 

mission, Customs described many crosscutting 

coordination efforts. It said it enforces hundreds of 

laws and regulations in partnership with dozens of 

federal agencies and maintains a presence at over 

300 ports of entry. Customs provided examples of 

crosscutting efforts for border control. For example, 

Customs said it continues to work with other federal 

agencies in new programs, such as the Integrated 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System. As part 

of that program, a national Memorandum of 

Agreement was completed between the FBI, FAA, 

and Customs.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 30 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 

Agriculture Agriculture reported that it met or exceeded all but 

one (risk management system) of its fiscal year 2001 

performance targets relating to border control 

performance goals, which included (1) reducing the 

number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks 

in the United States, (2) creating a coordinated 

national and international food safety risk 

management system to meet the outcome of 

reducing the incidents of foodborne illness related to 

meat, poultry, and egg products in the United States 

and (3) conducting a comprehensive national and 

international communication program that is an open 

exchange of information about opinions about food 

safety risks.

When the one risk management system performance 

target was not met, Agriculture provided reasonable, 

specific explanations for not achieving the 

performance target. Agriculture reported that it fell 

short of meeting the target for significantly reducing 

the prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens. 

Agriculture said it is looking into causes as to why 

rates continue to fluctuate, such as testing being 

done randomly. The data do not indicate if the 

problem included problems with imported chickens. 

According to Agriculture, preliminary data analysis 

indicated that a number of plants tested in fiscal year 

2001 did not meet the performance standard set for 

broiler chickens, and therefore resulted in a 

perceived higher prevalence rate.a

 Agriculture said it 

might include not only random sampling, but also 

sampling when there is an indication that problems 

exist.

Justice For its performance targets under its performance 

goal to secure America’s borders, especially to 

reduce the incidence of alien smuggling, Justice said 

it met its targets to effectively control the border and 

exceeded its target to intercept mala fide and 

offshore travelers en route to the United States. 

Justice did not provide fiscal year 2001 targets for 

identifying, disrupting, and dismantling alien 

smuggling and trafficking organizations, but did 

provide actual performance data.

For its targets under its performance goal to promote 

public safety by combating immigration-related 

crimes and removing individuals, especially 

criminals, who are unlawfully present in the United 

States, Justice said its targets will be met. Justice 

stated its target for criminal removals will be met 

when data are reconciled. However, the data for 

criminal removals should have been reconciled in 

January 2002. Therefore, it should be reported in 

Justice’s performance document.

For the annual goal to improve the efficiency of the 

inspections process for lawful entry of persons and 

goods, Justice said targets were exceeded.

Justice’s information reported all performance 

targets were or will be achieved. However, it is 

unclear if reconciled data for criminal removals are 

still pending that would demonstrate that the 

performance target was achieved.
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 31 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

State State had two performance goals that affected 

border control. These were (1) meeting anticipated 

increases in demand for nonimmigrant and 

immigrant visas and (2) reducing the risk of 

illegitimate entry of aliens hostile to the nation’s 

interest. For the visa cases, State used workload 

measures of cases processed with performance 

measures and targets. State did not meet its target 

for immigrant visas. Performance expectations for 

the second goal were explained in narrative 

statements, but a set measure and target were not 

provided.

State said the decrease in immigrant visa case 

numbers from that expected from fiscal year 2000 to 

fiscal year 2001 was due to extremely heavy demand 

from INS for visa numbers to adjust the status of 

large numbers of aliens already in the United States. 

State discussed some strategies for reducing the 

entry of illegal aliens (a performance target was not 

set), but did not clearly address strategies to address 

the immigrant visa target.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 32 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Transportation Transportation had two fiscal year 2001 performance 

goals relating to border control.b

 One goal was 

reducing illegal immigration across United States sea 

borders, with a measure of the percentage of 

undocumented migrants interdicted and/or deterred 

attempting to enter the United States via maritime 

routes. Transportation did not meet the performance 

target.

A second measure was the percentage of days that 

the designated number of critical defense assets 

maintain a combat readiness rating of 2 or better, 

which Transportation did not meet.

Transportation provided reasonable, specific 

information on why the target for reducing illegal 

immigration across U.S. sea borders was not met 

and strategies to achieve the target in the future. In 

more general terms, Transportation said the Coast 

Guard will (1) operate along maritime routes to deter 

and defeat attempts at smuggling undocumented 

migrants, (2) establish agreements with source 

countries to reduce migrant flow, (3) use intelligence 

to continually improve patrol plans and tactics, 

(4) develop more capable sensors, advanced vessel 

search technologies, and nonlethal interdiction 

technologies, (5) develop tactical data exchange 

systems, and (6) provide advice and assistance to 

migrant source countries through State to improve 

law enforcement efforts against migrant smugglers.

Transportation also said political and socioeconomic 

conditions influence variations in illegal migration 

patterns. To provide a more understandable migrant 

interdiction performance measure, Transportation 

said it will invert the former performance measure 

and calculate the percentage of undocumented 

migrants interdicted and/or deterred versus the 

percentage of undocumented migrants that have 

successfully entered the United States over maritime 

routes. Transportation expects to meet the 

performance targets for fiscal year 2002.

For providing combat ready units, Transportation said 

high endurance cutter and patrol boat readiness 

remained nearly constant, meeting Defense plan 

requirements. Transportation and Defense reported 

high endurance cutter and patrol boat readiness 91 

and 100 percent of the time, respectively. Port 

security units’ readiness improved by approximately 

3 percent. After 2001, Transportation said this 

performance goal will be an operating administrative 

performance goal whose results will be discussed in 

the context of the new coastal and seaport security 

performance goal.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 33 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 

2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, Program Performance 

Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Transportation, Performance 

Plan—FY 2003 and Performance Report—FY 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the 

Treasury, Program Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Customs 

Service, FY 2003 President’s Budget, Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); 

U.S. Customs Service, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

a

It is not clear if any of the Agriculture information includes foreign plant findings.

b

Transportation also added a new performance goal in fiscal year 2002 for coastal and seaport security 

to ensure sea-borne foreign and domestic trade routes and seaports remain available for the 

movement of passengers and cargo. The measure will be the percentage of high interest vessels 

screened.

Treasury Treasury has a strategic goal to protect the nation’s 

borders and major international terminals from 

traffickers and smugglers of illicit drugs, but had 

measures covering legal violations that were not 

limited to drug trafficking or smuggling. Related 

measures include (1) efficiency of targeting selective 

air passengers and vehicles, (2) air passenger and 

vehicle compliance with laws and regulations, 

(3) processing time to clear customs or initial 

screening, (4) passenger data provided on arrival, 

(5) response rate to border coordination initiative 

requests, (6) detection of suspect aircraft entering 

U.S. territory, and (7) inability to launch Customs 

aircraft or vessels. Treasury reported that it did not 

meet its targets for the compliance rate of air travel 

passengers with laws and regulations and the 

number of times Customs is unable to launch an 

aircraft or vessel.

Regarding air travel, Treasury said the fiscal year 

2001 final data for air travel indicate a slight increase 

in the compliance rate over fiscal year 2000 data. 

Treasury said this reflects the goal of incremental 

improvement in performance. However, Treasury 

said it could not identify any deficiency to explain the 

slight shortfall in the compliance rate between the 

2001 actual results and the 2001 goal. Treasury also 

said the percentage of Customs’ no launches of 

aircraft or vessels during fiscal year 2001 was 

approximately double the projection. Treasury did 

not provide any strategies for meeting the 

performance targets in the future, as its fiscal year 

2003 performance plan was still under review at the 

time of the fiscal year 2001 report publication.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 34 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 

Agriculture Agriculture’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan 

border-related performance goals remained the 

same as those stated in its fiscal year 2001 

performance report, with adjustments to reflect 

actual 2001 data. The goals included (1) reduce the 

number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks 

in the United States, (2) create a coordinated 

national and international food safety risk 

management system to ensure the safety of U.S. 

meat and poultry products from farm to table, and 

(3) conduct a comprehensive national and 

international communication program about food 

safety risks.

For the first performance goal, Agriculture 

performance targets increased from fiscal year 2001 

actual performance. For the second performance 

goal, Agriculture said the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) was reevaluating the targets for the 

prevalence of foodborne illnesses as a better 

understanding of the factors become known. 

Agriculture set targets both lower and higher than the 

actual amount in fiscal year 2001. The plan does not 

explicitly contain measures for increasing reviews 

and audits of foreign inspection systems, described 

as an important effort in its strategies.

For the third performance goal, the fiscal year 2003 

targets for getting food safety information to citizens 

were set lower, and the targets for stakeholder 

activities held to improve food safety related 

decisionmaking and public policy were set slightly 

higher than fiscal year 2001 actual performance. 

The fiscal year 2001 actual data for food safety 

information was considerably higher than the target 

set for 2003, but the annual plan does not describe 

why the new target was not set higher.

Agriculture’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan 

generally describes several strategies that appear to 

be reasonably linked to meeting its performance 

goals.

Several strategies are intended to reduce the number 

and severity of pest and disease outbreaks in the 

United States. These included efforts to (1) devote 

additional resources to inspection of incoming people 

and cargo, (2) assess which agricultural products are 

likely to carry exotic pests and diseases and 

establish appropriate, science-based quarantine 

regulations, (3) promote awareness of the value of 

these regulations to help the public and importers 

understand the need for compliance, (4) inspect 

passenger baggage and cargo at points of origin as 

well as aircraft, ships, trains, and other vehicles at 

U.S. ports of entry, (5) enforce penalties for those 

who are caught carrying prohibited products to deter 

future violations, and (6) maintain an adequate team 

of animal and health experts to address emergencies 

quickly and effectively.

For the second performance goal-creating a 

coordinated national and international food safety 

risk management system, Agriculture described 

efforts to (1) establish national performance 

standards for ready-to-eat meat and poultry products 

and establish additional standards for raw products, 

as appropriate, (2) expand access to overseas 

markets by seeking internationally recognized 

laboratory accreditation and by expanding United 

States laboratory capacity to meet European Union 

residue testing requirements, and (3) ensure that 

meat, poultry, and egg products imported into the 

United States are safe by increasing reviews and 

audits to ensure the continued equivalence of foreign 

inspection systems.
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 35 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

For the third performance goal, Agriculture planned 

to (1) emphasize both education and explanation of 

food safety issues, (2) develop information for and 

deliver information to at-risk populations, (3) 

incorporate risk communication objectives into risk 

management strategies, (4) increase seminars and 

technical training on science-based food safety 

standards for U.S. foreign delegates, and (5) expand 

risk prevention for small and very small plants 

through education.

Justice Justice’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan has 

several border-control-related performance goals 

with subgoals and related measures and targets. For 

a major objective, to secure America’s borders, 

Justice has several annual performance goals. One 

is securing America’s borders, especially to reduce 

the incidence of alien smuggling. Subgoals include 

(1) reducing the number of illegal aliens in the United 

States, (2) effectively controlling the border, 

(3) identifying, disrupting, and dismantling alien 

smuggling and trafficking organizations, and 

(4) deterring illegal immigration at the source. For 

the first subgoal, Justice has added new measures to 

determine the total number of illegal aliens residing 

in the United States and annual entries of illegal 

aliens residing in the United States. The 

performance targets were adjusted. For example, 

the fiscal year 2003 target for the number of illegal 

aliens residing in the United States is 6.6 million, 

compared to 7.0 million estimated in 2001.

A second goal is combating immigration-related 

crimes and removing individuals who are unlawfully 

present in the United States. For controlling criminal 

aliens, a subgoal includes increasing the number of 

criminal alien removals, monitoring alien overstays, 

and monitoring escort of criminal aliens. The 

performance targets were adjusted. For example, 

Justice has increased the target for criminal alien 

removals from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003, 

consistent with fiscal year 2001 actual performance 

and fiscal year 2002 targets.

Another performance goal is the efficiency of the 

inspections process for lawful entry of persons and 

goods, with a subgoal to facilitate port-of-entry traffic 

and monitor deferred inspections. Targets for fiscal 

year 2003 were adjusted to reflect fiscal year 2001 

performance.

Justice’s strategies and initiatives to address its 

border control performance goals generally appear 

to be reasonably linked to achieving its goals. 

Justice provides overarching strategies to secure 

America’s borders that describe objectives to 

(1) prevent and deter illegal entry by phased 

implementation of a comprehensive border 

enforcement strategy that concentrates resources to 

control corridors of illegal entry, (2) pursue border 

safety initiatives that create a safe border 

environment, (3) strengthen the capabilities of host 

and transit countries to combat illegal migration and 

prevent and deter illegal immigration at the source, 

and (4) enhance and maintain an effective 

intelligence capability through coordination with other 

agencies and integration of INS worldwide 

intelligence resources. For each subgoal area, 

Justice provides additional detail on strategies to 

achieve the subgoal. For example, Justice discusses 

strategies to achieve the fiscal year 2003 goal of 

controlling borders between ports of entry and at 

ports of entry.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 36 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

State For fiscal year 2003, State established a border 

control performance goal similar to that used in the 

past. The goal included timely and effective visa 

issuance and a reduction of visa fraud. State said it 

was establishing additional indicators for developing 

a biometrics collection program for U.S. visas and 

federal agency access to the Consular Consolidated 

Database. Projected performance for processing 

immigrant visa cases was expected to increase from 

fiscal year 2001 actual performance to projected 

fiscal year 2003 performance, but decrease for 

nonimmigrant visa cases.

For the most part, State provided only general 

statements of how it plans to achieve its fiscal year 

2003 goal. Regarding visa issuance, State said it 

has committed itself to improving its visa procedures 

and coordination with other agencies and 

departments. In addition to new priorities such as 

establishing a robust entry-exit system for foreigners, 

State said it is also analyzing and improving all 

current processes and procedures to reflect the 

lessons learned from September 11. In addition, 

State said it seeks to facilitate entry for deserving 

refugees of natural disasters, political repression, 

and victims of trafficking. According to State, data 

generated by consular officers and shared with INS 

and other agencies enhance both border security 

and service to visa recipients upon arrival in the 

United States.

Transportation Transportation said it retained goals and measures 

for interdiction and/or deterrence of undocumented 

migrants across United States sea borders. The 

fiscal year 2003 target for interdicting or deterring 

undocumented migrants remains at an 87 percent 

target, the same as the target for the past few years 

and above the fiscal year 2001 actual achievement of 

82.5 percent.

Transportation said it established a new performance 

goal and related measure for fiscal year 2002 that 

would carry into 2003: Ensure sea-borne foreign and 

domestic trade routes and seaports remain available 

for the movement of passengers and cargo. The 

measure is the percentage of high-interest vessels 

screened, with a target for fiscal year 2003 set at 100 

percent.

For the border-control-related goals, Transportation 

provided strategies that appear to be reasonably 

linked to achieving its goals. Transportation said the 

Coast Guard will have efforts to (1) operate along 

maritime routes to deter and defeat attempts at 

smuggling undocumented migrants, (2) establish 

agreements with source countries to reduce migrant 

flow, (3) use intelligence to continually improve patrol 

plans and tactics, (4) develop more capable sensors, 

advanced vessel search technologies, and nonlethal 

interdiction technologies, (5) develop tactical data 

exchange systems, and (6) provide advice and 

assistance through State auspices for migrant source 

countries in improving law enforcement efforts 

against organized migrant smugglers.

For the new performance goal, Transportation said it 

would increase intelligence efforts in ports; improve 

advanced information on passengers, crew, and 

cargo; and establish or improve information and 

intelligence fusion centers in Washington and on 

both coasts. It also identified more specific efforts, 

such as increasing boarding and escort operations to 

protect vessels carrying large numbers of 

passengers and vessels with dangerous cargo, such 

as liquefied natural gas or other volatile products, 

from becoming targets. In another example, 

Transportation said it is beginning a multiyear task of 

thoroughly assessing seaport vulnerability. An 

interagency vulnerability assessment process led by 

the Coast Guard will complete 55 comprehensive 

port vulnerability assessments by 2004.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 37 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 

Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, 

Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation, 

Performance Plan—FY 2003 and Performance Report—FY 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); 

Department of the Treasury, Performance Plans, Final for FY 2002,Proposed for FY 2003

(Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Customs Service, FY 2003 President’s Budget, Performance Plan and 

Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002).

a

This information was obtained from Customs’ fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan 

and Report.

Treasurya Customs described two border-control-related 

performance goals for fiscal year 2003. One 

performance goal is to secure the nation’s borders 

while facilitating the expeditious movement of lawful 

international travel and commerce, with measures of 

(1) efficiency of targeting selective air passengers 

and vehicles, (2) air passenger and vehicle 

compliance with laws and regulations, (3) processing 

time for air/land vehicle passengers, (4) passenger 

data provided on arrival, and (5) the number of 

passengers processed. The fiscal year 2003 

performance targets are lower than fiscal year 2001 

actual performance for vehicle compliance rates and 

targeting efficiency.

A second performance goal is to contribute to a safer 

America by reducing civil and criminal activities 

associated with the enforcement of Customs laws, 

with measures of (1) Customs efforts to identify, 

disrupt, and dismantle organizations that further 

terrorist activity, such as nonintrusive inspections of 

cargo or efforts related to border initiatives, 

(2) smuggling windows of opportunity, such as 

arriving persons, conveyances, and commercial 

shipments, and (3) outbound licensing violations.

Customs provides general information on the 

strategies to achieve its fiscal year 2003 performance 

goals. It provides a description of its “strategic 

context” for each of its goal areas and other 

information in sections pertaining to specific 

Customs activities. These vary in the level of detail.

For securing the border, Customs described going to 

a Level 1 alert after September 11, requiring 

antiterrorist questioning and increased inspections of 

travelers and goods. In addition, Customs described 

efforts such as (1) deploying inspection technology, 

(2) applying risk management principles to target 

and identify high-risk travelers and conveyances, 

(3) hardening the northern border via installation of 

technology and infrastructure improvements, and 

(4) implementing the Customs-Trade Partnership 

against Terrorism to strengthen the overall supply 

chain and border security.

For disrupting terrorist activities, Customs defined 

challenges and constraints, and is playing a major 

role in the interdiction and detection of weapons of 

mass destruction entering or leaving the United 

States. For example, Customs will conduct 

increased vessel, passenger, and cargo 

examinations. Additional funding is being requested 

for deploying a mixture of nonintrusive inspections at 

the nation’s seaports.

In an operations and maintenance section, Customs 

said it maintains a Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers and Intelligence facility 

to coordinate the combined air and marine efforts of 

the military and law enforcement agencies within 100 

miles of the U.S. coastline.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 38 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

Agriculture Agriculture’s fiscal year 2001 performance report 

generally provides explanations of data 

completeness and reliability. Regarding the data for 

the indicator of international air travelers’ compliance 

with restrictions to prevent entry of pests and 

diseases, Agriculture said data for this performance 

measure are collected through the Agriculture 

Quarantine Inspection (AQI) Monitoring System and 

are obtained at airports of entry by applying standard 

statistical sampling procedures.

For its risk management data, Agriculture said an 

automated system provides information on 

microbiological, chemical, and pathological analyses 

of meat and poultry and their processed products. 

Agriculture said it considers the data to be reliable. 

The report does not say what specific steps were 

taken to verify and validate the information. 

Agriculture does not indicate if any of the information 

pertains to imported meat or poultry.

For the national and international communication 

program, Agriculture said people are informed of 

food safety information through a variety of outreach 

programs, including print, radio, and TV outlets. 

Data on stakeholder activities to improve food safety 

decision making are based on the number of 

activities advertised in the Federal Register. 

Agriculture considers its data to be reliable.

Regarding risk management data on salmonella on 

broiler chickens, Agriculture said it was looking into 

why the performance rates continue to fluctuate. 

Agriculture said it is giving serious consideration to 

increasing its activities to include not only random 

sampling but also sampling when there is an 

indication that problems exist in a plant. Agriculture 

said it also was giving serious consideration to 

deleting this indicator, as additional sampling results 

would skew the salmonella prevalence targets.

In its fiscal year 2001 report, Agriculture did not 

indicate limitations for its communication program. 

However, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture said 

that while it can estimate the number of people 

reached, the number of people who follow safe food 

handling practices can only be determined by 

periodic surveys that are not conducted annually.
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 39 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Justice Justice’s performance report included explanations 

about data collection and storage, data validation 

and verification, and any known data limitations for 

each measure. The explanations provided adequate 

information about the completeness, reliability, and 

credibility of the data. For example, Justice provided 

a definition of the measure for targeted alien 

smuggling and trafficking organizations identified, 

disrupted, and dismantled, and explained the 

measure’s data collection and storage. Justice said 

that the Statistics Office of the Office of Policy and 

Planning conducts data validation and verification. 

The statistics are corroborated through submission 

audits and logic, range, and computational edits. 

According to Justice, the data records are complete, 

with 95 percent of field office records entered within 

the first 8 working days of the reporting month. The 

remaining 5 percent are subsequently obtained 

through submission audits.

For the most part, Justice did not identify any 

shortcomings in its fiscal year 2001 performance 

data. Justice did discuss data limitations for new 

fiscal year 2002 measures on the total number of 

illegal aliens residing in the United States and the 

annual entries of illegal aliens residing in the United 

States. It also mentioned minor problems with 

existing measurement data and steps to minimize 

the problems. For example, Justice said that the 

data for the measure on high-priority border corridors 

demonstrating optimum deterrence are the subject of 

a process to standardize all such recording and 

reporting of data, which is ongoing across all border 

patrol sectors to ensure consistency and validity. 

The collection of these data is currently an intensive 

manual process. Justice said the use of INS’s 

intranet to extract existing data from automated 

systems along with auxiliary data not yet automated 

is being tested at limited pilot sites.

State In the fiscal year 2001 performance report, State did 

not provide consistent or adequate information for 

the border-control-related data sources to make 

judgments about data reliability, completeness, and 

credibility. State provided a few words describing the 

data source, data storage, and frequency of the data. 

For example, for the measure of immigrant visa 

cases and nonimmigrant visa cases, State said a 

corporate database was the source and storage 

point. For validity, State said there was no known 

data source outside the department. Therefore, it 

was not possible to assess data quality.

For the most part, State did not provide sufficient 

information on data quality to be used to judge if 

there were data limitations. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 40 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Transportation Transportation’s combined plan and report provides 

extensive information on its measures and data 

sources that allows an assessment of data quality. 

The information includes (1) a description of the 

measure, (2) scope, (3) source, (4) limitations, 

(5) statistical issues, and (6) verification and 

validation. Other explanatory information is provided 

in a comment section. For example, for the migrant 

interdiction measure, Transportation describes the 

scope as including Cuban, Dominican, Haitian, and 

Chinese migrants. The success rate calculation is 

also described. Transportation said data are 

obtained from the Coast Guard and INS. Estimates 

of migrants who successfully arrive and estimates of 

those with a high potential for undertaking the 

voyage are derived from investigations of incidents, 

interviews of detainees, and intelligence gathering. 

Limitations, statistical issues, and verification and 

validation observations highlight issues of estimation. 

The measure’s comment section says that the highly 

variable nature of illegal migrant activity limits the 

ability to project future outcomes based on 

performance in the immediate past.

Transportation said that its Office of Inspector 

General plans to selectively verify and validate 

performance measurement data each year and also 

will assess performance measures when pertinent to 

the conduct of ongoing projects. As part of their 

ongoing work, Transportation said managers of 

departmental data programs use quality control 

techniques, such as flow charting the data collection 

process, to identify where errors can be introduced 

into the data collection system. In addition, 

Transportation said its Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics is developing a statistical policy framework 

where the operating administrations work together to 

identify and implement current statistical best 

practices in all aspects of their data collection 

programs.

Transportation provides explanations of data 

shortcomings and the means to address the 

shortcomings. For its new coastal and seaport 

security goal and measure, Transportation said that 

the data for this measure are collected using a 

manual count from situation reports sent after a 

vessel inspection or escort. Data systems have not 

yet been developed or modified to capture this 

information, and Transportation said it is possible 

that errors in the data could result due to manual 

data collection. Transportation said this is an interim 

activity-based measure until appropriate outcomebased measures are developed.

For other measures, Transportation also provides 

detailed explanations of any data shortcomings. For 

example, for the measure of interdicting or deterring 

undocumented migrants, Transportation said the 

number of illegal immigrants entering the United 

States and the numbers of potential migrants are 

derived numbers subject to estimating error. 

Because of the speculative nature of the information 

used, and the secretive nature of illegal migration, 

particularly where professional smuggling 

organizations are involved, Transportation said the 

estimated potential flow of migrants may contain 

significant error. The measure only tracks four 

migrant groups at this time. Trend information prior 

to 1995 is not available. The Coast Guard has 

developed the estimation techniques that support 

this indicator over the last 6 years in order to more 

consistently use intelligence information. 

Transportation said the Coast Guard is seeking 

independent assessment of the methods.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Appendix I

Border Control

Page 41 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 

2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, Program Performance 

Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Transportation, Performance 

Plan—FY 2003 and Performance Report—FY 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the 

Treasury, Program Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Customs 

Service, FY 2003 President’s Budget, Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); 

U.S. Customs Service, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

a

In its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, Customs provided a description of each measure’s definition, 

verification and validation, and data accuracy. Customs said that virtually all border-related measures 

and data have reasonable accuracy, with relatively high confidence levels. Baseline data for the 

average time for non-commercial vehicles to clear the Northern and Southern Borders are being 

developed. In addition, Customs said data verification and validation is planned for information in the 

Aviation and Marine Operations Reporting System, the source of data for information such as the 

response rate to border coordination initiative requests, the detection of suspect aircraft entering U.S. 

territory, and the times Customs is unable to launch an aircraft or vessel.

Treasury Treasury provided a general statement on the 

completeness and reliability of its data, citing 

adherence to Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) standards. Treasury said in its fiscal year 

2000 performance plan that bureaus were required 

to provide self-assessments of data quality using two 

categories: (1) reasonable accuracy (judged to be 

sufficiently accurate for program management and 

performance reporting purposes specified in OMB 

Circular A-11, section 232, as “acceptably reliable”), 

or (2) questionable or unknown accuracy—judged to 

be materially inadequate. Where statistical 

confidence intervals are available, Treasury said 

these are provided instead of the rating statements. 

In addition, Treasury said the submission of fiscal 

year 2001 information and assurance statements 

required bureaus to address any performance 

measure data reliability issues. Treasury said 

performance data presented in the fiscal year 2001 

report meet the standards for reliability set forth in 

OMB Circular A-11, section 232, in that there is 

neither a refusal nor a marked reluctance by agency 

managers or government decision makers to use the 

data in carrying out their responsibilities.a

In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, Treasury 

provided a general description of steps to improve 

the quality and value of performance data. Treasury 

said teams of Treasury analysts, with the assistance 

of a loaned executive from OMB, performed reviews 

and analyses of Treasury’s fiscal year 2001 

performance measures, including a review of existing 

verification and validation information. Results and 

recommendations were forwarded to bureaus for use 

in their data quality improvement efforts. Also, 

bureau classes on Treasury’s implementation of the 

Results Act included a session on quality 

performance measures and data verification and 

validation.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Page 42 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance ApendxiI

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps)

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report.

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 

performance plan.

Department of Agriculture Agriculture states in its fiscal year 2001 report that it 

uses data included in the National Dams Inventory 

maintained by the Corps and FEMA to help achieve 

its goal of providing benefits to property and safety 

through flood damage reduction. According to 

Agriculture’s comments, NCRS provides data to the 

Corps, which has lead responsibility for the inventory.

Agriculture’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan does 

not identify coordination efforts related to its goal of 

providing benefits to property and safety through 

flood damage reduction. It does, however, state that 

projects are supported by a combination of federal, 

state, and local funds.

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

(FEMA)

FEMA’s fiscal year 2001 performance report does 

not specify which agencies it collaborates with to 

achieve goals related to flood mitigation and 

insurance.a

FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan includes 

an appendix that outlines categories of crosscutting 

activities, such as mitigation and preparedness. 

One activity that supports this goal is the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA states that 

it coordinates with other federal entities to ensure 

compliance with mandatory purchase requirements 

of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act. The 

purpose of this act is to improve the financial 

condition of NFIP and reduce federal expenditures 

for disaster assistance to flood-damaged properties. 

FEMA states that it works on this effort with the 

departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA), the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), and, within the 

Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Thrift 

Supervision (OTS), and the Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC). Other entities involved are 

the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the 

Farm Credit Administration (FCA), the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Freddie 

Mac, and Fannie Mae. 
Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance

Page 43 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance Report

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance & Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2001, 

(Washington, D.C.: 2002); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance Plan Fiscal 

Year 2003, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002).

a

FEMA discussed the agencies it coordinated with and areas of coordination in Appendix I of its fiscal 

year 2001 annual performance plan, similar to that of the coordination appendix in its fiscal year 2003 

annual performance plan.

In addition, FEMA states that it is the chair of the 

President’s Long-Term Recovery Task Force, which 

helps state and local governments to identify their 

needs related to the long-term impact of a major, 

complex disaster. Agencies that FEMA coordinates 

with on this effort include the departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation. 

Other involved entities include the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), the Internal Revenue Service, 

the Office of Management and Budget, and SBA. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance

Page 44 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance Report

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance & 

Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report.

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report.

Agriculture Agriculture reported it did not meet its goal related to 

flood mitigation, of providing benefits to property and 

safety through flood damage reduction by completing 

81 watershed protection structures. Agriculture 

reported it completed 51 watershed protection 

structures.

Agriculture provides reasonably clear explanations 

for its unmet goal. In its fiscal year 2001 report, 

Agriculture states that due to the complexity of 

engineering, watershed protection structures take 

several years to complete, and the multiple funding 

sources, including federal, state, and local funds, 

may alter the schedule for completing the structures. 

In addition, external factors such as weather and 

delays in obtaining land rights and permits caused 

delays in construction.

Agriculture states that many of the structures that 

were not completed in time for the fiscal year 2001 

report will be completed in the next few months.

FEMA In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, FEMA 

identifies five goals related to flood mitigation and 

insurance: (1) prevent loss of lives and property from 

all hazards, (2) collect and validate building and flood 

loss data and confirm that the reduction in estimated 

losses from NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion and 

continue systematic assessment of the impact and 

effectiveness of NFIP, (3) increase the number of 

NFIP policies in force by 5 percent over the end of 

the fiscal year 2000 count, (4) improve the program’s 

underwriting ratio, and (5) implement NFIP business 

process improvements . Additionally, the first of the 

two goals each have four performance indicators to 

support them. FEMA reported meeting all but one of 

its goals and all eight indicators. The goal FEMA did 

not meet was increasing the number of NFIP policies 

in force by 5 percent over the end of the fiscal year 

2000 count. 

In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, FEMA 

provides a reasonably clear explanation for not 

achieving its goal of increasing the number of NFIP 

policies in force by 5 percent over the end of the 

fiscal year 2000 count. FEMA states although the 

end of year policy count for fiscal year 2001 

increased, the retention rates for existing policies 

were not maintained. To determine the reason for 

FEMA’s inability to retain policies in force, the agency 

states it is supporting GAO’s study of lender 

compliance with the National Flood Insurance 

Reform Act regarding the purchase and maintenance 

of flood insurance. FEMA outlines three strategies 

for addressing the retention issue in its goal: 

(1) placing two new television commercials in fiscal 

year 2002 that emphasize the importance of buying 

and keeping National Flood Insurance, (2) 

establishing retention goals for “Write Your Own” 

companies, private insurance companies that write 

flood insurance under a special arrangement with the 

federal government, and (3) targeting their marketing 

strategies on those properties no longer on the 

books.
Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance

Page 45 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals? 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 

performance plan.

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 

performance plan.

Agriculture In its fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture does not 

identify a target for achieving its goal of providing 

benefits to property and safety through reducing 

flood damage by completing watershed protection 

structures. However, the plan does state that 

Agriculture will implement a new program to 

rehabilitate existing structures through the 

Rehabilitation of Structural Measures (Pub. L. 106-

472).

Agriculture, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, appears to 

describe strategies reasonably linked to its goal. 

Such strategies include assisting in assessing 

conditions, conducting river basin surveys and flood 

hazard analyses, and providing flood plain 

management assistance; providing the information 

and tools communities need to reduce potential 

damage from natural disasters; and carrying out 

water supply forecasting to reduce potential 

damages from flood or drought in western states. 

Agriculture also states that it plans to help individuals 

and communities identify resource concerns and 

carry out watershed-based flood management plans, 

ensure that government and private organizations 

have the data needed to guide responsible growth, 

and strengthen local partnerships and other 

mechanisms to increase the availability of technical 

assistance in rapidly developing areas.

FEMA According to its fiscal year 2001 report and fiscal 

year 2003 plan, FEMA revised its strategic plan, 

which affected the organization of its fiscal year 2003 

performance plan. FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 

performance goals and measures are similar to 

those that appear in its fiscal year 2001 performance 

plan, but are organized differently. FEMA merged its 

goal of implementation of NFIP business process 

improvements into its fiscal year 2003 goal of 

improving NFIP’s “bottom line,” an income-toexpense ratio, by 1 percent. In addition, FEMA 

merged two other goals: (1) prevent loss of lives and 

property from all hazards and (2) collect and validate 

building and flood loss data, confirm that the 

reduction in estimated losses from NFIP activities 

exceeds $1 billion, and continue systematic 

assessment of the impact and effectiveness of NFIP. 

FEMA provides reasonable strategies for meeting its 

fiscal year 2003 goals following a description of each 

goal. For example, FEMA plans to increase the 

number of Emergency Action Plans in communities 

located below significant and high-hazard potential 

dams.

For FEMA’s goal of increasing the number of flood 

insurance policies, the Federal Insurance Mitigation 

Administration will implement two strategies: (1) work 

with its partners such as the “Write Your Own” 

insurance companies, insurance and real estate 

agencies, and lenders to encourage or require the 

purchase of flood insurance and (2) conduct a 

marketing and advertising campaign, including paid 

broadcast flood insurance advertisements, public 

service announcements, print ads, articles, and other 

printed material all designed to reach target 

audiences.
Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance

Page 46 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and 

Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002).

However, FEMA did adopt one new goal in its fiscal 

year 2003 plan related to flood mitigation and 

insurance. The new goal is for the Federal Insurance 

Mitigation Administration to modernize floodplain 

mapping and the flood hazard maps in the FEMA 

inventory. Three performance indictors relate to this 

goal: (1) reducing the inventory to an average age of 

6 years, (2) producing digital mapping products for 

15 percent of the highest priority areas, and 

(3) reducing the number of unmapped communities 

by 50 percent.

With three merged goals and one added goal in its 

fiscal year 2003 plan, FEMA reports four annual 

performance goals directly related to flood mitigation 

and insurance: (1) to support the Federal Insurance 

Mitigation Administration, which supports state and 

community development of disaster resistance, and 

with its partners, improve hazard risk information and 

tools, (2) to continue to work with its partners to 

increase the number of flood insurance policies, 

(3) to improve NFIP’s “bottom line,” an income-toexpense ratio, by 1 percent, and (4) to modernize 

floodplain mapping in the flood hazard maps in the 

FEMA inventory. 

FEMA identified five targets related to the first goal. 

These include: (1) 5,000 fewer lives at risk, (2) 2,200 

fewer structures at risk, (3) 150 fewer elements of 

infrastructure at risk, (4) 10 percent more 

communities actively committed to building their 

disaster resistance in fiscal year 2003, and 

(5) $1.1 billion in estimated avoidance of flood losses 

because of NFIP activities.

For its goal of improving the “bottom line,” an incometo-expense ratio, by 1 percent, FEMA outlines a 

number of strategies. For example, the Federal 

Insurance Mitigation Administration has been 

implementing business improvement processes 

since fiscal year 1999 in order to improve the 

exchange of information, turn around times, and 

accuracy and to reduce costs. FEMA’s plan states 

that these simplified business processes will make it 

easier for agents to sell and for consumers to buy 

policies.

For its flood mapping modernization goal, FEMA 

plans to attain this goal and its indicators by 

encouraging other federal agencies and state, 

regional, and local governments to actively 

participate in and contribute to the maintenance of 

flood maps by providing data collection, engineering, 

digital mapping, and other in-kind services or cost 

sharing through the Cooperating Technical Partner 

Initiative, which is aimed at increasing local 

involvement in the flood mapping process.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals? 
Appendix II

Flood Mitigation and Insurance

Page 47 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance 

Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance 

& Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report.

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report.

Agriculture Agriculture states at the beginning of its fiscal year 

2001 report that “performance information 

supporting these performance goals is of sufficient 

quality and reliability except where otherwise noted 

in this document.” Agriculture also states that the 

data reported by state offices for fiscal year 2001 are 

accurate. 

Agriculture’s report states “data are accurate” and 

does not further acknowledge shortcomings in the 

data or steps to resolve or minimize them. 

FEMA FEMA’s fiscal year 2001 performance report does 

not individually identify data quality assessment 

methods for any of its performance indicators. 

FEMA’s Annual Performance & Accountability Report 

Fiscal Year 2001 states, “the performance 

measurement criteria and information systems are 

thought to be generally effective and reliable.”

FEMA’s business process improvement goal is the 

only goal related to flood mitigation and insurance for 

which it acknowledges a data limitation. FEMA 

explained that it relied on trend data from previous 

years’ surveys to assess its performance in customer 

service for fiscal year 2001 because of a delay in 

obtaining Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for distributing its customer surveys that 

year. FEMA states that it plans to conduct the 

surveys in fiscal year 2002 to obtain more accurate 

information. 

FEMA does not have a general statement 

acknowledging data shortcomings and steps to 

resolve or minimize them elsewhere in its fiscal year 

2001 performance report.
Page 48 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix III

Wetlands ApendxiI

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps)

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report. 

The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 

performance plan. 

Department of Agriculture,

Farm Service Agency 

(FSA)

FSA’s fiscal year 2001 report does not mention 

coordination with other agencies when discussing 

wetlands-related activities. 

Agriculture’s fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance 

Plan includes a strategy to work with other federal 

agencies and partners to identify priority wetlands 

that could benefit from conservation practices in the 

surrounding landscape. However, FSA’s 2003 plan 

does not mention coordination with other agencies 

when discussing its wetlands-related activities. The 

plan discusses how FSA’s performance goal 

supports Agriculture’s goals and the strategy for 

achieving the fiscal year 2003 goal. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

(NRCS)

NRCS’s fiscal year 2001 annual performance report 

does not mention coordination with other agencies 

when discussing its wetlands-related activities. 

Agriculture’s fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance 

Plan includes a strategy to work with other federal 

agencies and partners to identify priority wetlands 

that could benefit from conservation practices in the 

surrounding landscape. In addition, NRCS’s fiscal 

year 2003 annual performance plan contains a 

section on interagency cooperation and mentions 

that the agency provides technical assistance to 

other Agriculture agencies as well as other federal 

and state agencies, but does not specifically mention 

wetlands. NRCS’s plan also mentions that other 

agencies provide valuable information that NRCS 

uses to validate data on resource condition collected 

by resource inventories.a
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 49 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency’s FY 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm 

Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS)

Interior’s Departmental Overview contains a section 

on crosscutting efforts. The section includes a table 

summarizing examples of departmental crosscutting 

issues and shows the departmental and external 

organizations that are involved in the crosscutting 

issues and the linkage to departmental goals. In the 

table, Interior indicates that its agencies work 

together with Agriculture, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the 

states on wetlands issues. In addition, although 

FWS’s fiscal year 2001 report/fiscal year 2003 plan 

states that wetlands will be restored or enhanced 

through partnerships and other conservation 

strategies, the report does not provide any details on 

coordination with other agencies. 

Interior makes no distinction between coordination 

efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those 

that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)

In the combined fiscal year 2001 annual performance 

report and 2003 annual performance plan, 

Commerce included a short section about 

crosscutting issues related to its performance goal of 

ensuring effective resource stewardship in support of 

the department’s programs. Commerce included a 

general statement that indicated that under the 

departmental management function, the Office of the 

Secretary regularly works with other federal agencies 

on a full range of policy development and program 

management topics. NOAA also included a section 

on crosscutting issues in its fiscal year 2001 annual 

performance report/fiscal year 2003 plan. NOAA 

indicated that it has leveraged its resources through 

a variety of effective partnerships and mentioned that 

it works closely with other agencies on a number of 

crosscutting issues to address critical challenges 

facing coastal areas, but does not provide specifics 

on its efforts to coordinate with other agencies on 

wetlands-related activities.

Commerce makes no distinction between 

coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 

and those that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)

EPA’s fiscal year 2001 annual performance report 

does not mention coordination with other agencies 

when discussing its wetlands-related activities. 

EPA’s fiscal year 2003 plan specifically indicates that 

its efforts to meet its objective are predicated on the 

continuation and improvement of “important” 

relationships with federal, state, tribal, and local 

partners. The plan specifically mentions cooperation 

with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), FWS, and NRCS, but 

provides no specifics on the actions being taken to 

improve these relationships.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 50 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Service Agency’s FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); 

Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 2002); Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for 

FY 2002, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental Protection Agency, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2001 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2003 Annual Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Initial Performance 

Plan for FY 2003 and Revised Plan for FY 2002, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002); Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001, 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife 

Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA FY 2001 

Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002).

a

NRCS’s National Resources Inventory is an inventory that determines the condition of land cover and 

use, soil erosion, prime farmland, wetlands, and other natural resource characteristics on nonfederal 

rural lands in the United States.
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 51 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals Involved in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed 

in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency’s FY 2001 Annual 

Program Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental Protection 

Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2001 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Annual Performance 

Report Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NOAA FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

a

Not applicable. 

b

FSA included a footnote indicating that this acreage included adjacent uplands.

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 

Corps The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 

performance report. 

N/Aa—The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 

2001 annual performance report. 

Agriculture, FSA FSA reported that it achieved its goal of restoring 1.7 

million acres of wetlands.b

N/A—FSA reported that it achieved its fiscal year 

2001 goal. 

Agriculture, NRCS NRCS reported that it exceeded its goal to create, 

restore, or enhance 250,000 acres of wetlands by 45 

percent. According the fiscal year 2001 report, the 

agency actually created, restored, or enhanced 

362,000 acres of wetlands. 

N/A—NRCS reported that it exceeded its fiscal year 

2001 performance goal. 

Interior, FWS FWS reported that it actually restored or enhanced 

144,729 acres of wetlands habitat on non-FWS 

lands, exceeding its fiscal year 2001 goal to restore 

or enhance 77,581 acres of wetlands habitat. FWS 

did not report on the number of acres of wetlands 

restored or enhanced on service lands and did not 

distinguish between the number of wetlands acres 

restored and those enhanced. 

N/A—FWS reported that it exceeded its fiscal year 

2001 performance goal. 

Commerce, NOAA NOAA changed its performance measure from 

number of acres of coastal wetlands restored 

(cumulative) to number of acres of coastal acres 

benefited (cumulative). Because the performance 

measure was changed, no target was established. 

However, NOAA reported that 116,000 acres of 

coastal habitat benefited (cumulative) from NOAAsponsored projects funded under the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.c

N/A—The goal established by NOAA is a new 

performance measure. 

EPA According to EPA’s fiscal year 2001 report, it 

exceeded its goal of preserving, restoring, and/or 

creating 50,000 acres of habitat under the National 

Estuary Program (cumulative) by 20,000 acres. 

N/A—EPA reported that it exceeded its goal. 
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 52 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

c

In its comments on the draft, Commerce indicated that the number of acres of coastal habitat 

benefited by NOAA-sponsored projects should be changed from 116,000 to 83,802 based on a 

November 2002 Inspector General audit report, which is still in draft form.

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency’s FY 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2003 Annual Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Initial Performance Plan 

for FY 2003 and Revised Plan for FY 2002, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/FY 2001 

Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002).

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals?

Corps The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 

annual performance plan. 

N/A—The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 

2003 annual performance plan. 

Agriculture, FSA FSA plans to restore 1.9 million acres of restored 

wetlands (cumulative) in fiscal year 2003—an 

increase of 100,000 acres from fiscal year 2002.

The strategy that FSA plans to use for fiscal year 

2003 appears to be reasonably linked to achieving its 

goals. The strategy described is the same one that 

FSA has used in past years to successfully achieve 

its goal—working with producers to enroll land in the 

Conservation Reserve Program.

Agriculture, NRCS NRCS plans to create, restore, or enhance 230,000 

acres of wetlands. NRCS indicated that achieving its 

performance goal would contribute to the national 

goal of no net loss of wetlands. 

The strategies that NRCS plans to use appear to be 

reasonably linked to achieving its goals. However, 

NRCS points out that the achievement of its 

performance depends upon having funding available 

to provide financial assistance to producers under 

the Wetlands Reserve Program. 

Interior, FWS FWS plans to enhance or restore 71,473 acres of 

wetlands habitat in fiscal year 2003. 

The strategies that FWS plans to use appear to be 

reasonably linked to achieving its goals. The 

strategies cited are the same that FWS has 

employed in the past to achieve its goals. 

Commerce, NOAA NOAA plans to sponsor projects that will benefit 

132,000 acres of coastal habitat (cumulative). These 

projects will be funded under the Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.

The strategies NOAA cited appear to be reasonably 

linked to achieving its goals.

EPA EPA plans to restore or protect 25,000 acres of 

habitat nationwide through actions or commitments 

under the National Estuary Program and support 550 

wetlands restoration projects. 

The strategies cited by EPA appear to be reasonably 

linked to achieving its 2003 goals.
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 53 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Wetlands-Related Activities as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency’s FY 2001 Annual 

Program Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

Corps The Corps did not submit a fiscal year 2001 annual 

performance report. 

N/A.

Agriculture, FSA FSA’s report discusses the sources and process 

used to develop the data reported for the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including 

wetlands acreage restored. The report also 

indicates that technical adjustments were made to 

the estimation process for many of CRP’s 

performance measures. 

The report indicates that some limitations exist, but 

attributes those limitations to time lags from the date 

that contracts are signed with producers to the time 

that the data entered, the continual updating of the 

contract data, and the periodic changes in contract 

data. No steps to address the known limitations 

were described.

Agriculture, NRCS NRCS’s fiscal year 2001 annual performance report 

did not specifically address the verification and 

validation of the performance data reported for its 

wetlands-related data. However, the report did 

include a section that described its Performance and 

Results Measurement System (PRMS) and indicated 

that each state conservationist is required to validate 

and verify the performance data reported within his 

or her state. The report also indicated that the 

agency conducted an internal review of the PRMS 

and has begun the implementation of a quality 

assurance strategy for the system. 

The report acknowledges that some discrepancies 

were noted when performance data were analyzed, 

but that there was no compelling reason to discount 

the performance data reported. 

Interior, FWS FWS’s 2001 report contained information on the 

source of the data and discussed the process used 

to verify the data reported. 

FWS’s report lists several limitations, including the 

possibility of double counting. The report contained 

no discussion of steps that FWS has taken or plans 

to take to address the limitations acknowledged. 

Commerce, NOAA NOAA’s 2001 report contained a small section on the 

verification and validation of performance data. The 

section identifies the source of the data and the 

verification procedure that is followed. 

NOAA did not identify any limitations.

EPA In its fiscal year 2001 report, EPA stated that its 

performance data generally can be considered 

acceptably reliable and complete, according to 

guidelines established by the Office of Management 

and Budget.

EPA listed several current limitations, including the 

possibility of double counting and that the 

measurement may not reflect actual improvements in 

the health of the habitat. EPA also described 

improvements made to make the data reported more 

consistent. EPA also indicated that it is too early to 

determine the extent of data limitations and that 

because this is a new performance measure and is 

still being refined, no audits or quality reviews have 

yet been conducted. While EPA acknowledged that 

the extent of data limitations is not known, it indicated 

that it does not believe that any material 

inadequacies in the data reported exists. 
Appendix III

Wetlands

Page 54 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental Protection 

Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2001 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Annual Performance 

Report Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NOAA FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
Page 55 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix IV

Wildland Fire Management ApendxiIV

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

Department or agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports? 

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

Department of the Interior Interior issued a consolidated 2001 report and 2003 

plan and discussed coordination only in relation to its 

2003 plan.

Interior noted that it and the Forest Service had 

developed a strategy for aggressive fuels 

management and for completing the implementation 

plan for the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy under 

the National Fire Plan. The implementation plan is 

reported to include cooperatively developed, longterm goals and performance measures for the 

wildland fire management program. Through our 

work in this area, we have witnessed this 

coordination. 

Forest Service The Forest Service’s 2001 report notes the following 

coordination efforts:

• Issued a combined report with Interior on 

accomplishments in 2001 under the National Fire 

Plan.

• Conducted oversight reviews with Interior to 

regions and local units to assess successes and 

failures and identify compliance issues.

• Conducted activity reviews with Interior in five 

states to assess overall program function.

• Conducted large fire cost reviews with Interior to 

assess the effectiveness of fire suppression actions 

and cost efficiency.

• Developed joint performance measures with 

Interior.

• Collaborated with other agencies (including 

Interior) to evaluate the effectiveness and 

practicality of controlled sheep grazing to reduce 

wildfires. 

The 2003 plan notes that the Forest Service and 

Interior jointly released the National Fire Plan in 2000 

and developed a 10-year Comprehensive Strategy in 

fiscal year 2001 showing a collaborative approach to 

reducing wildland fire risks. The plan also notes how 

the Forest Service and Interior are developing a joint 

implementation plan for the Comprehensive Strategy. 

Further, the 2003 plan states that the Forest Service 

and Interior are conducting an interagency review of 

the fire plan system.
Appendix IV

Wildland Fire Management

Page 56 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

agencies report in achieving the goals and 

measures they established for each program 

area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving 

the goal/measure in the future? 

Interior The goal of restoring natural ecological processes by 

increasing the use of fire (wildland and prescribed) 

and other treatments to 1.4 million acres was not 

met. Interior achieved 52 percent of planned target 

(i.e., 728,000 acres).

Yes. Interior describes how drought conditions have 

affected its ability to carry out planned fuel 

treatments. In addition, it notes difficulty in obtaining 

permits to carry out treatments and the limited 

availability of resources due to many resources being 

committed to fire suppression activities. Interior 

does not indicate any specific strategy for 

overcoming these challenges.

Forest Service The goal of treating wildlands with high fire risks on 

national forests and grasslands to reduce the risk of 

loss of life, property, and natural resources from 

catastrophic wildfire was considered to be met by the 

Forest Service. However, none of the individual 

indicators met their targets for fiscal year 2001. 

Specifically, the Forest Service treated 1.36 million 

hazardous fuel acres as opposed to its target of 1.8 

million. In addition, the Forest Service achieved only 

97 percent of its fire-fighting production capability 

(target was 100 percent). Furthermore, the Forest 

Service assisted 3,062 communities and volunteer 

fire departments as opposed to its target of 10,492.

Although the Forest Service stated that it met its 

goal, the 2001 report notes that the hazardous fuels 

reduction program was below target due to drought 

conditions in many parts of the United States and the 

additional complexities and restrictions incurred in 

treating hazardous fuels in the wildland urban 

interface. The Forest Service did not indicate any 

specific strategy for achieving its fuels reduction 

goals in the future, reasoning that there will always 

be a certain level of unpredictability in assigning 

targets due to the uncontrollable variables 

associated with hazardous fuels treatment.

With regard to the goal of assisting communities and 

volunteer fire departments, the Forest Service’s 

report notes that the data reported did not include 

state, private, and National Fire Plan activities and 

therefore were not adequate to assess whether 

targets were met. 

Because the Forest Service reports that it has met its 

goal for reducing the risks from catastrophic wildfires, 

it does not provide a strategy for actually meeting 

fiscal year 2001 targets in the future.
Appendix IV

Wildland Fire Management

Page 57 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals? 

Interior In fiscal year 2003, Interior expects to treat 1.1 

million acres to reduce hazards and maintain and 

restore ecosystem health. In addition, it expects to 

contain 95 percent of wildland fires at initial attack, 

provide assistance to 33 percent of the rural fire 

departments, direct fuels treatments to 9 percent of 

the highest priority projects, and bring 15 fire facilities 

up to approved standards. 

There is no specific link between the strategies and 

the specific goals. The strategies are very broad and 

general in nature and do not provide clear rationale 

as to how they will contribute to improving 

performance. For example, the 2003 report states 

that Interior will complete the implementation plan for 

the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy.

Forest Service In fiscal year 2003, the Forest Service has the same 

goal as it did in fiscal year 2001 of reducing the risks 

associated with catastrophic wildfires. The Forest 

Service expects to treat approximately 1.6 million 

acres to reduce hazardous fuels and assist over 

7,000 communities and fire departments. There is 

no longer a target for maximizing fire-fighting 

production capability. 

While the strategies for achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals are fairly general, they appear to be directly 

linked to each of the performance indicators. For 

example, the Forest Service states that it will focus 

fuel reduction efforts on areas with a moderate to 

high risk of wildfires and conduct prescribed burns, 

mechanical methods, forest thinning, and selective 

removal of undergrowth and nonnative plant species. 

Although there is no target for maximizing firefighting production capability the Forest Service 

notes that it and Interior are reviewing the fire 

planning system to develop a more comprehensive 

measure of preparedness performance.
Appendix IV

Wildland Fire Management

Page 58 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 Annual Performance 

Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 

2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).

a

U.S. General Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies 

Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs, GAO-02-158 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

Interior For the performance goals identified, the data that 

Interior is collecting to measure those goals 

generally appear to be complete, reliable, and 

credible. In addition, Interior’s report provides details 

on how the data will be validated and verified to 

ensure the data are consistent and measurable 

among all bureaus.

Yes. Interior acknowledges that the interpretation of 

the data collected may vary among the Bureau of 

Land Management, the National Park Service, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. A common set of performance measures is 

still being developed between Interior and the Forest 

Service as part of the implementation of the National 

Fire Plan. Our work in this area has recommended 

that the agencies develop common outcome-based 

performance goals to better measure how the 

objective of restoring ecosystem health is being 

achieved.a

 

Forest Service The Forest Service notes that field reviews and 

postimplementation reviews will be conducted to 

ensure the reliability of performance data and 

reported accomplishments. The Forest Service 

further notes that it will use the Budget Formulation 

and Execution System to report on actual 

accomplishments. However, our current work in this 

area has found that this system is more of a planning 

tool used to rank fuel reduction work. Another 

system, the National Fire Plan Operations and 

Reporting System, is currently being implemented by 

both the Forest Service and Interior to track outputs 

and measure accomplishments. In addition, the 

omission of the performance goal indicator relating to 

fire-fighting production capability is encouraging 

because our work in this area has questioned the 

credibility of such a measurement.a

Yes. The Forest Service acknowledges that it is 

currently revising definitions, developing standards 

and guidelines for data reporting, and implementing 

field reviews to ensure effective internal controls over 

the data related to accomplishment reporting. 

Recent GAO work in this area has discovered this to 

be the case with the implementation of the National 

Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System rather 

than the Budget Formulation and Execution System, 

as noted by the Forest Service in its 2003 

performance plan. 
Page 59 GAO-03-321 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contact Elizabeth H. Curda, (202) 512-4040

Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made 

significant contributions to this report: Steven J. Berke, Paul Bollea, 

Lisa M. Brown, Sharon L. Caudle, Amy M. Choi, Peter J. Del Toro and 

Sherry L. McDonald.

(450152)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00