Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management
Published: 2002-12-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program  overlap are widespread in the federal government. 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.
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.
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,  health.
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.  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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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  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.
section_title: Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for Coordination
paragraphs: As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved in each of the  crosscutting program areas we reviewed.
The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed  information contained in the tables that appear in appendix I through IV.
section_title: Border Control
paragraphs: 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  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  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.   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.  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  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  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-control- related 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.
section_title: Flood Mitigation and Insurance
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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, (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  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.  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.
section_title: Wetlands
paragraphs: 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,  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.  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.   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.
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.  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  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.
section_title: Wildland Fire Management
paragraphs: 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.  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  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  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 high- priority 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.  The Forest Services strategies for  achieving its goals, although fairly general, appear to be reasonably linked  to achieving each of the performance targets.
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.  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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs