Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and
Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution
Regulation, and Public Health Systems (20-DEC-02, GAO-03-320).
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 drug control, family
poverty, financial institution regulation, and public health
systems. GAO reviewed the fiscal year 2003 performance plans for
the major agencies involved in these issues.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-320
ACCNO: A05773
TITLE: Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions
and Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution
Regulation, and Public Health Systems
DATE: 12/20/2002
SUBJECT: Alcohol or drug abuse problems
Drug trafficking
Federal agency reorganization
Financial institutions
Interagency relations
Performance measures
Program evaluation
Program management
Strategic planning
CDC FoodNet
CDC Vaccines for Children Program
Colombia
DOT Access to Jobs Program
Food Stamp Program
Head Start Program
HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program
HUD Welfare to Work Initiative
Medicaid Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-320
A
Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate
December 2002 RESULTS- ORIENTED MANAGEMENT Agency Crosscutting Actions and
Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution Regulation,
and Public Health Systems
GAO- 03- 320
Letter 1 Background 2 Scope and Methodology 4 Results in Brief 6 Agencies
Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for
Coordination 8 Drug Control 9 Family Poverty 12 Financial Institution
Regulation 16 Public Health Systems 20 Concluding Observations 23 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 23
Appendixes
Appendix I: Drug Control 26
Appendix II: Family Poverty 34
Appendix III: Financial Institution Regulation 45
Appendix IV: Public Health Systems 59
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 71 Tables Table 1:
Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area 8
Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug Control as
Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year
2003 Performance Plans 26 Table 3: Agencies* Reported Progress and
Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Reports 28 Table 4: Table 4: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies
for
Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans 31 Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by
Agencies
Involved in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 33 Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance
Plans 34
Table 7: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in
Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
36 Table 8: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year
2003 Performance Plans 40 Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data
reported by Agencies
Involved in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 43 Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in
Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 45 Table 11:
Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance Reports 48 Table 12: Agencies* Expected Progress and
Strategies for Achieving Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as
Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 52
Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 58 Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in Public
Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 59 Table 15: Agencies* Reported
Progress and Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 61 Table 16: Agencies* Expected Progress and
Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans 65 Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by
Agencies
Involved in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 68
Abbreviations
ACF Administration for Children and Families ACD Advisory Committee to the
Director AETC AIDS education and training center CACFP Child and Adult
Care Food Program CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CIA
Central Intelligence Agency CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CRA Community Reinvestment Act DEA Drug Enforcement Administration DTO
drug trafficking organization EPA Environmental Protection Agency EZ/ EC
empowerment zone/ enterprise communities FBI Federal Bureau of
Investigation FDA Food and Drug Administration FDIC Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation FDICIA Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Improvement Act FFEIC Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
HHS Department of Health and Human Services HRSA Health Resources and
Services Administration HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IC
Institutes and Centers INS Immigration and Naturalization Service NCUA
National Credit Union Administration NIH National Institutes of Health OCC
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OCDETF Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force OMB Office of Management and Budget ONDCP Office of
National Drug Control Policy OTS Office of Thrift Supervision PDTO
priority targeted drug trafficking organizations SBP School Breakfast
Program SCHIP State Children's Health Insurance Program SFSP Summer Food
Service Program TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families USAID U. S.
Agency for International Development VA Department of Veterans Affairs WIA
Workforce Investment Act WIC Women, Infants, and Children Program WtW
Welfare- to- Work
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.
Letter
December 20, 2002 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman The Honorable
Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate 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: drug control, family poverty, financial institution
regulation, and public health systems. 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.
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 8 federal agencies. These programs
provided services for the homeless that appeared to be similar. For
example, 23 programs operated by 4 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 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Barriers to
Interagency Coordination, GAO/ GGD- 00- 106 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 29,
2000).
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 cross- cutting 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.
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 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 To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each
crosscutting
Methodology program area as follows:
Drug control focuses on major federal efforts to control the supply of
illegal drugs through interdiction and seizure, eradication, and arrests.
Family poverty focuses on major federal efforts to address the needs of
families in poverty through programs aimed at enhancing family
independence and well- being. We focused on agencies that provide key
support and transition tools associated with the income, health, and food
support and assistance to poor families.
Financial institution regulation focuses on major federal efforts to
supervise and regulate depository institutions. Supervision involves
monitoring, inspecting, and examining depository institutions to assess
their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
Regulation of depository institutions involves making and issuing specific
regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct of banking.
Public health systems focuses on major federal efforts to prevent and
control infectious diseases within the United States.
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).
To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on our previous
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. 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. 4
OMB guidance states that agency annual plans 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. 5
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 in 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. 4 31 U.
S. C. S: 3516( e). 5 OMB Circular A- 11, section 220.5a.
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. For example, the Department of Transportation stated that
the Coast Guard worked with the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) and the U. S. Customs Service to finalize an interagency study of
the deterrent effect that interdiction has on drug trafficking
organizations. In contrast, in the area of family poverty, the Department
of Agriculture and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a
component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), stated
that they coordinated with other agencies, but did
not specify the agencies or the types of coordination efforts. The
progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001 performance
goals across the four crosscutting areas also varied considerably. Of the
agencies we reviewed, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the area
of public health systems and the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in the area of financial
institution regulation reported meeting all of their goals in these areas.
However, most of the agencies we reviewed reported mixed progress in
achieving their fiscal year 2001 goals. For example, CMS reported meeting
two goals, partially meeting one goal, and not meeting a fourth goal
related to family poverty. Some of the agencies were unable to report on
progress against specific targets* either because, like the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), they were establishing baselines for
new measures or because, like the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), there were delays in
receiving performance data from state and local partner agencies.
Some of the agencies that did not meet one or more of their fiscal year
2001 performance goals, such as the Department of Labor in the area of
family poverty, provided reasonable explanations as well as strategies
that appear reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future. The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), a component of HHS, provided a reasonable
explanation for not meeting one of its goal related to public health
systems, but did not discuss any strategies for achieving the goal in the
future. The agencies we reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in
fiscal year
2003 that were similar to those they pursued 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. Others, such as NIH and
the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) components of HHS
in the
area of public health systems did not discuss any strategies for achieving
their fiscal year 2003 goals.
Eight of the 12 agencies we reviewed for all the crosscutting areas*
Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor,
Transportation, and Treasury, and OCC and OTS* commented on the
overall quality and reliability of the data in their performance reports.
For example, the Secretary*s message in the Department of the 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. In contrast, the Department of State in the area of drug control
and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board), the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and NCUA in the area of
financial institution regulation did not discuss potential shortcomings to
their data or whether the data used in their performance reports were
complete, reliable, and credible.
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.
Tabl e 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area Agency
involved a Drug
Agriculture a a
Federal Reserve c a
FDIC a
HHS d a a
HUD a
Labor a
Justice a
NCUA a
State a
Transportation e a
Tr e as ur y f a
OCC a
OTS a
Source: GAO analysis.
Crosscutting program areas poverty
Financial control b Family Public health systems
institution regulation
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 that follow. b ONDCP is an
executive office of the President and is not required to issue a
performance plan or
report under the Results Act. Instead, we reviewed the following ONDCP
documents for this analysis:
2002 Final Report on the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy; Performance
Measures of Effectiveness: 2000 Report; The National Drug Control
Strategy, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Summary; and The National Drug Control
Strategy: 2001 Annual Report.
c The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, but it
has chosen to voluntarily comply with the act. The Board issued both its
performance report and performance plans biannually rather than annually
to reflect its budget process, which occurs biannually. d Within HHS, we
looked at ACF and CMS for family poverty and the Centers for Disease
Control and
Prevention, CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH for public health. e Within
Transportation, we looked at the Coast Guard in the area of drug control.
f Within Treasury, we looked at the Customs Service in the area of drug
control.
The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed
information contained in the tables that appear in appendixes I through
IV.
Drug Control Fourteen million Americans use illegal drugs regularly, and
drug- related illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $110
billion
annually. From 1990 through 1997, there were more than 100,000 druginduced
deaths in the United States. 6 Despite U. S. and Colombian efforts, the
illegal narcotics threat from Colombia continues to grow and become more
complex. From 1995 through 1999, coca cultivation and cocaine production
in Colombia more than doubled and Colombia became a major supplier of the
heroin consumed in the United States. Moreover, over time, the drug threat
has become more difficult to address. 7 ONDCP was established by the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to set policies, priorities, and objectives for the
nation's drug control program. The Director of ONDCP is charged with
producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which directs the nation's
antidrug efforts and establishes a budget and
guidelines for cooperation among federal, state, and local entities.
ONDCP*s 2001 Annual Report discussed two strategic goals that pertain to
controlling the supply of drugs that enter the United States, including
(1) *shielding U. S. borders from the drug threat* and (2) *reducing the
supply of illegal drugs.* ONDCP reported two performance goals under the
strategic goals* reduce the rate of illicit drug flow through transit
zones and reduce the shipment rate of illicit drugs from arrival zones and
supply zones.
For fiscal year 2001, all the agencies we reviewed* Justice, State,
Transportation, and Treasury* discussed coordination with other agencies
in the area of drug control, although the level of detail varied. For
example, Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP and
Customs to finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect that
interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Also, Justice reported
that it collaborated with Transportation to prosecute cases that relate to
maritime drug smuggling. In contrast, State identified the lead and
partner agencies it coordinated with to accomplish its goals, but it did
not discuss specific coordination efforts. None of the agencies
distinguished between coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year
2001 and those that were planned for fiscal year 2003. 6 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Drug Control: Assets DOD Contributes to Reducing the
Illegal Drug Supply Have Declined, GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 9 (Washington, D. C.:
Dec. 21, 1999). 7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U. S.
Assistance to Colombia Will Take Years to Produce Results, GAO- 01- 26
(Washington, D. C.: Oct. 17, 2000).
None of the agencies reported having met all of their goals and measures
relating to drug control in fiscal year 2001. Customs reported that it met
eight of its nine measures for seizures of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin.
Customs reported that it did not meet its target for number of marijuana
seizures. State reported that it met the targets for its goal of
increasing foreign governments* effectiveness in dissolving major drug
trafficking
organizations and prosecuting and convicting major traffickers. For the
other goal* increasing foreign governments* effectiveness in reducing the
cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and marijuana* State did not meet two of
its four targets. For its two measures, Transportation reported that it
did not establish a target for one, the amount of drugs that are seized or
destroyed at sea, and it did not meet its target for the other, the
seizure rate
for cocaine that is shipped through the transit zone. Justice reported
that it exceeded the target for one measure* number of priority drug
trafficking organizations dismantled or disrupted by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA)* and did not meet one of two targets for the second
measure* the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The four agencies we reviewed* Justice, State, Transportation, and
Treasury* provided explanations for not meeting their fiscal year 2001
goals that appeared reasonable. For example, Customs which is under
Treasury stated that although it did not meet its target for the number of
marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of marijuana in fiscal year 2001
than in any other year. Customs stated that it believes that the number of
seizures dropped because of an overall increase in sizes of marijuana
loads. Furthermore, it stated that the heightened state of alert on the
border
following the events of September 11, 2001, might have deterred the
entrance into the country of hundreds of smaller, personal- sized loads.
However, none of the agencies discussed strategies for achieving the unmet
goals and measures in the future.
According to their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, the agencies we
reviewed expected to make progress on goals similar to those established
for fiscal year 2001. All of Treasury*s performance targets were adjusted
to reflect higher anticipated levels of performance. Justice and State
reflected a mixture of higher and lower anticipated levels of performance.
Although its goals remained the same, Transportation had measures that
differed from those reported in fiscal year 2001. Justice and
Transportation provided strategies that appear reasonably linked to
achieving their goals for fiscal year 2003. For the goal of reducing the
supply and use of drugs in the United States, Justice stated that the nine
Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams would coordinate to develop a
national priority target list of the most significant drug and money
laundering organizations. As drug organizations are dismantled and more
organizations are identified, the OCDETF teams will monitor their progress
and modify the target list. To achieve its target for the amount of drugs
seized or destroyed at sea* Transportation stated that the Coast Guard
will (1) operate along maritime routes to deter attempts to smuggle drugs
and (2) finalize an interagency study that focuses on the deterrent impact
that interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Customs did not
discuss any strategies for achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. State
provided only general statements about how it planned to achieve its
fiscal year 2003 goals.
Justice, Transportation, and Treasury each commented on the overall
quality and reliability of its data. For example, in its combined report
and plan, Justice states that to ensure that data contained in this
document are reliable, each reporting component was surveyed to ensure
that the data reported met the OMB standard for data reliability. Data
that did not meet
this standard were not included in the report and plan. These agencies
also discussed the quality of specific performance data in their fiscal
year 2001 performance reports to various degrees. In its fiscal year 2001
performance report, Justice provided a discussion of data verification and
validation for each performance measure. For example, for the measure of
drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the FBI, an FBI field manager
reviewed and approved data that were entered into the system and the data
were verified through the FBI*s inspection process. Transportation
reported that it used data entry software to ensure data quality and
consistency by employing selection lists and logic checks. Also,
Transportation stated that internal analysis and review of published data
by external parties helps identify errors. Furthermore, Customs reported
on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of its performance data
by discussing how it verifies the data for each performance measure. State
did not report on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of its
performance data.
While Justice, Transportation, and Treasury acknowledged shortcomings in
their performance data, they did not report steps to resolve or minimize
these shortcomings. Justice reported one shortcoming which was the need to
improve its reporting system for one measure* number of priority drug
trafficking organizations dismantled or disrupted by DEA. Transportation
stated that although data verification and validation occurs several times
in the data reporting process, a potential limitation to the accuracy of
its data
could stem from data duplication and coding errors. Customs reported that
while its data could be considered reliable, the data could be subject to
input errors or duplicative reporting not identified by reviewers. State
did not report on shortcomings in its performance data.
Family Poverty Federal government agencies have major programs aimed at
supporting families classified as poor. For example, HHS*s Temporary
Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program makes $16.8 billion in federal funds
available to states each year. 8 While TANF delegates wide discretion to
the states to design and implement the program, it does specify four broad
program goals that focus on children and families:
providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for
in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by
promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
preventing and reducing the incidence of out- of- wedlock pregnancies;
and
encouraging the formation and maintenance of two- parent families. 9 8
Although the TANF block grant program was due to expire on September 30,
2002, Congress provided for an extension of the program until January 11,
2003. By that time, Congress must either reauthorize the program or
provide for an additional extension.
9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Data Available to
Assess TANF*s Progress, GAO- 01- 298 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 28, 2001).
In addition, Agriculture*s Food Stamp Program helps low- income
individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing
their incomes with food stamp benefits. Agriculture*s Food and Nutrition
Service and the states jointly implement the Food Stamp Program, which
provided about $15 billion in benefits to over 17 million low- income
individuals in the United States during fiscal year 2000. 10 In 1998,
Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) to consolidate services
of many employment and training programs, mandating that states and
localities use a centralized service delivery structure* the one- stop
center system* to provide most federally funded employment and training
assistance. We previously reported that several challenges, including
program differences between TANF and WIA and different information systems
used by welfare and workforce agencies, inhibit state and local
coordination efforts. 11 For example, different program definitions, such
as what constitutes work, as well as complex reporting requirements under
TANF and WIA hamper state and local coordination efforts. Though some
states and localities have found creative ways to work around these
issues, the differences remain barriers to coordination for many others.
For example, antiquated welfare and workforce information systems are
often not equipped to share data with each other, and as a result,
sometimes onestop
center staff members have to enter the same client data into two separate
systems. Although HHS and Labor have each provided some assistance to the
states on how to coordinate services, available guidance has not
specifically addressed the challenges that many continue to face.
Moreover, HHS and Labor have not addressed differences in program
definitions and reporting requirements under TANF and WIA. To address the
obstacles to coordination, we recommended that HHS and Labor work together
to develop ways to jointly disseminate information on how some
states and localities have taken advantage of the flexibility afforded to
them under TANF and WIA to pursue coordination strategies to address some
of these obstacles to coordination. We also recommended that HHS and
Labor, either individually or jointly, promote research that would
examine the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF
clients. 10 U. S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Program
Integrity and Participation Challenges, GAO- 01- 881T (Washington, D. C.:
June 27, 2001). 11 U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment
Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF
Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches, GAO- 02-
696 (Washington, D. C.: July 3, 2002).
The agencies we reviewed generally discussed in their performance reports
and plans their efforts to coordinate with other federal agencies on
programs that address family poverty. Three major interagency task forces
bring all of the agencies we reviewed, plus others, together to coordinate
on such programs: (1) the Interagency Council on the Homeless, which
includes such federal entities as HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Energy, Justice, Labor, Defense, Transportation, Veterans
Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the General Services Administration, and the U. S.
Postal Service, (2) OMB*s Workforce Investment Act Committee, which
includes HUD, Labor, HHS, and Education, to address the nation*s
employment issues, and (3) the Workforce Excellence Network, which
comprises Education, HHS, and Labor, conducts two major national
conferences each year, in which Labor is able to *showcase* its best WIA
programs. In addition, three of the five agencies we reviewed identified
individual coordination efforts outside these task forces and specified
the
programs on which they coordinated. For example, HHS*s ACF reported that
it works with Labor in Welfare- to- Work (WtW) and WIA efforts,
Transportation in their Access to Jobs program, Education in providing
education and training services, and HUD in providing housing assistance.
Agriculture and HHS*s CMS stated that they coordinated with other
agencies, but did not specify the agencies or the types of coordination
efforts.
The agencies we reviewed reported varied progress in achieving their
fiscal year 2001 goals and measures. For example, CMS reported meeting two
goals, partially meeting one goal, and not meeting a fourth goal related
to family poverty. For its goal of promoting self- sufficiency and asset
development, HUD reported meeting the targets for seven of its performance
indicators, missing or expecting to miss six targets, not having enough
data for one target, and establishing baselines for 4 of its 18
performance indicators. Incomplete data prevented Agriculture, ACF, and
HUD from reporting on all of their measures. For example, ACF was unable
to report on its progress for 18 of its 23 performance indicators related
to three of its goals linked to family poverty due to the time lag in
receiving and validating data from states, localities, and other program
partners. However, ACF was able to report that it fell short in achieving
its targets for the 5 performance indicators related to two of its goals:
improving the quality of child care and the Head Start Health Status
program.
All of the agencies provided explanations that appeared reasonable for not
meeting their goals. For example, ACF reported that two factors
contributed to its failure to meet two of the three targets for its goal
of improving Head Start Health Status: (1) a high student turnover rate
hindered the students* receipt of health care despite Head Start*s medical
referrals and (2) Medicaid*s inability to cover dental and mental health
treatment for Head Start students prevented them from receiving proper
care. In addition, these agencies generally provided strategies that
appeared reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goals in the future. For
example, Labor outlined strategies to address its two unmet goals relating
to higher wages for and retention of WtW participants in the workforce and
increasing the number of child care apprenticeship programs and
apprentices. Specifically, Labor proposed making retention of WtW
participants more attractive by increasing grantees* use of tax credits
and continuing the Pathways to Advancement pilot project, which subsidizes
employers, upgrades and advances current TANF *alumni,* and validates data
at the program level, among other strategies. For their fiscal year 2003
plan, the agencies we reviewed generally set goals
similar to those established for fiscal year 2001, but increased the
targets to reflect anticipated higher levels of performance. The exception
to this consistency was HUD, which reported that the draft of its updated
strategic plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 affected the fiscal year
2003 performance plan framework. The new framework introduced eight
strategic goals, two of which addressed family poverty. Objectives
included helping families in public and assisted housing make progress
toward self- sufficiency and become homeowners, ending chronic
homelessness in 10 years, and helping homeless individuals and families
move to permanent housing. Four of the five agencies we reviewed*
Agriculture, ACF, HUD, and Labor* provided reasonable strategies for
achieving at least one of their fiscal year 2003 goals related to family
poverty. For example, Labor lists departmentwide means and strategies for
meeting all of its goals, most of which are to continue or improve
preexisting efforts. Following the list, Labor describes eight significant
new or enhanced efforts in fiscal year 2003. For its goal of having states
develop a baseline and methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-
year- old children under Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the
development of each state*s baseline measure and reporting methodology,
but it does not describe specific strategies for how it intends to achieve
its
targets for this area.
All of the agencies we reviewed addressed data quality issues in some
form, although the degree to which such issues were addressed varied.
Three of the five agencies* Agriculture, HUD, and Labor* included a broad
statement at the beginning or end of their reports or plans stating that
the reported data were generally reliable. Because all of the agencies we
reviewed rely on data from the states and other grantees to report on
performance for at least one of their goals, they reported on the
difficulty
of obtaining quality data in a timely manner. However, all of the agencies
reported that they have methods for reviewing the performance data for
consistency and completeness. For example, CMS stated that it had builtin
quality assurance checks, technical consultants, and a review of data by
CMS personnel. In addition, the agencies generally acknowledged
shortcomings in the data and discussed steps they were taking to resolve
or minimize the shortcomings. For example, HUD reported that it is
discontinuing or updating the 18 performance indicators we reviewed in its
fiscal year 2001 report because of its inability to address data
reliability issues and because the connection between the indicators and
the outcome measure was unknown, among other reasons. For the estimated
data, HUD stated that accurate numbers would be reported in its fiscal
year 2002 performance report if adjustments were necessary.
Financial Institution Financial regulation of depository institutions in
the United States is a
Regulation highly complex system. Federal responsibilities for regulation
and
supervision are assigned to five federal regulators: FDIC, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 12 NCUA, OCC, and OTS. 13 FDIC is
the primary federal regulator and supervisor for federally insured
statechartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System
and for state savings banks whose deposits are federally insured. The
Board is the federal regulator and supervisor for bank- holding companies
and is the primary federal regulator for state- chartered banks that are
members of the Federal Reserve System. OCC is the primary regulator of
federally chartered banks or national banks. OTS is the primary regulator
of all federal and state- chartered thrifts whose deposits are federally
insured and
12 The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, but it
has chosen to voluntarily comply with the act. The Board issued both its
performance report and performance plans biannually rather than annually
to reflect its budget process, which occurs biannually.
13 State- chartered banks are supervised jointly by their respective
federal regulators and the state bank regulator.
their holding companies. NCUA is the primary federal regulator for credit
unions.
A primary objective of federal depository institution regulators is to
ensure the safe and sound practices and operations of individual
depository institutions through regulation and supervision. 14 Regulation
of depository institutions involves making and issuing specific
regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct of banking.
Supervision involves the
monitoring, inspecting, and examining of depository institutions to assess
their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
Each federal depository regulator is responsible for its respective
institutions; for example, the Board examines and regulates state member
banks and OCC examines and regulates national banks. Although the Board,
FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA are responsible for
specific depository institutions, all of the agencies have similar
oversight responsibilities for developing and implementing regulations,
conducting examinations and off- site monitoring, and taking enforcement
actions for those institutions that are under their respective purview. To
ensure that depository institutions are receiving consistent treatment in
examinations, enforcement actions, and regulatory decisions, coordination
among the regulators is essential. In 1979, Congress established the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to promote
uniformity in the supervision of depository institutions by the Board,
FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and OTS. It is a formal interagency body empowered to
prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal
examination of financial institutions and to make recommendations to
promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions.
Generally, the performance reports and plans of the federal depository
institutions regulators discussed possible coordination on crosscutting
goals. 15 The performance reports and plans of FDIC, OCC, and OTS
described the types of coordination that they conduct with the other
regulators. The Board*s 2002- 2003 plan includes a section on interagency
14 FDIC and the Board have other responsibilities in addition to their
supervision and
regulation functions. For example, FDIC is responsible for federal deposit
insurance funds. The Board*s responsibilities include monetary policy
development and implementation and payments and settlements* system
operation and oversight.
15 We reviewed OCC and OTS*s fiscal year 2002 performance plans instead of
their fiscal year 2003 performance plans because their fiscal year 2003
plans were still in draft form.
coordination of crosscutting issues. For instance, the section of the plan
entitled, *Interagency Coordination of Crosscutting Issues* stated that
the Board formally coordinates with other federal depository institutions
regulators through the FFIEC and its participation with the Results Act
Financial Institutions Regulatory Working Group, a coordinating committee
of the depository institution regulators to address and report on
issues of mutual concern. The performance report and plan of NCUA did not
include any discussion of coordination efforts with the other federal
depository institution regulators.
In 2001 and 2002, the federal depository institution regulators jointly
issued guidance or regulations on a number of occasions. For example, the
regulators often jointly issue guidance in areas such as the risks of
brokered and other rate- sensitive deposits, temporary balance sheet
growth, clarification on the accounting and reporting for loans held for
sale, and consumer privacy. In addition, earlier this year, the federal
depository institution regulators jointly issued proposed regulations to
implement section 326 of the USA Patriot Act on customer identification.
In 2001, they jointly issued guidelines on safeguarding confidential
customer information.
On the basis of their fiscal year 2001 performance reports, all the
federal depository institution regulators reported they made progress in
achieving their fiscal year 2001 goals for the supervision and regulation
function. The Board, FDIC, and OCC each reported meeting all of their
goals except for one related to the examinations of depository
institutions that were due for a safety and soundness examination in 2001.
However, each of the three agencies provided a reasonable explanation for
not achieving the goal. FDIC was unable to examine 11 banks that were
scheduled for an examination for the following reasons: some institutions
merged or converted their charters, some institutions moved into or
changed their capital categories requiring a change in examination
intervals, and one institution converted its information system. The Board
did not meet its
goal because it failed to complete 17 bank examinations, as required by
statute and on the basis of their financial condition in 2001, but the
Board provided an appropriate reason for the delay* scheduling problems
with state bank regulatory agencies. The Board reported that it is
implementing a new scheduling system that will partially resolve these
problems. NCUA
reported it generally met its performance goals, although out of its four
strategic goals, it missed one out of five outcome goals for two and was
unable to report on most of the outcome goals for another. OTS reported
meeting all of its goals.
On the basis of their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, three of the
five federal depository institution regulators designed strategies to
achieve their performance goals that appear to be reasonable. Similar to
the fiscal year 2001 performance reports, the performance goals focused on
the scheduling of examinations under specific time frames, enforcement
actions, and reviewing compliance with consumer protection statutes
relating to consumer financial transactions. The Board*s performance plan
outlined strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving its goals
and objectives for promoting a safe, sound, competitive, and accessible
banking system. For example, the Board*s plan proposed focusing on the
areas of highest risk, promoting sound risk management practices,
understanding and accommodating the effects of financial innovation and
technology, improving international banking and supervisory practices, and
refining and strengthening the foreign bank organizations program, among
other strategies. The FDIC performance plan included a strategy for
achieving its planned performance goals that also appeared reasonable. For
example, FDIC plans to analyze examination- related data collected in
the System of Uniform Reporting of Compliance and Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) Examination to determine whether it achieved targeted
performance levels during the reporting period. In its performance plan,
OCC discussed strategies for each of its strategic goals. OTS discussed
general strategies, which were not clearly linked to
particular performance goals. Of the five regulators, only the performance
reports of OCC and OTS commented on the completeness, reliability, and
credibility of the data for the supervision and regulation function. OCC*s
performance report for fiscal year 2001 concluded the data were accurate
for some of the performance measurements used in the report. In its fiscal
year 2001 performance report, OTS concluded that the data for its
performance measures met standards for accuracy and auditability. The
performance reports issued by the Board, FDIC, and NCUA did not discuss
whether the performance data for the supervision and regulation areas used
in the reports were complete, reliable, and credible. None of their
performance reports commented on the potential shortcomings of these data.
Public Health Systems Broadly speaking, federal involvement in the area of
public health systems encompasses a mix of efforts to maintain the health
of a diverse
population, such as directly providing health services, regulating
prescription drugs, or paying for medical services provided to the aged
and the needy. In this report, we focused one aspect of the public health
system* federal efforts to prevent and control infectious diseases within
the United States. The spread of infectious diseases is a public health
problem once thought to be largely under control. However, outbreaks over
the last decade illustrate that infectious diseases remain a serious
public health threat. 16 For example, foodborne disease in the United
States annually causes an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000
hospitalizations, and about 5,000 deaths, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). 17 The resurgence of some infectious diseases is
particularly alarming because previously effective forms of control are
breaking down. For example, some pathogens (disease- causing organisms)
have become resistant to antibiotics used to bring them under control or
have developed strains that no longer respond to the antibiotics. The need
for concerted efforts to prevent such diseases is critical to reducing
this
threat to the public. We have previously reported on various aspects of
protecting public health, such as ensuring the vaccination of children
through the Vaccines for Children program 18 and limitations in several of
CDC*s foodborne disease surveillance systems. 19 Agriculture and each of
the five components of HHS we reviewed* CDC, CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH*
discussed in their performance reports and performance plans coordination
efforts with other agencies related to preventing infectious diseases. For
example, CDC reported that it coordinated with (1) Agriculture and FDA on
its food safety programs, (2) HRSA, CMS, FDA, and NIH, among others, on
its immunization
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Emerging Infectious Diseases:
Consensus on Needed Laboratory Capacity Could Strengthen Surveillance,
GAO/ HEHS- 99- 26 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 5, 1999). 17 U. S. General
Accounting Office, Food Safety: CDC Is Working to Address Limitations in
Several of Its Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems, GAO- 01- 973
(Washington, D. C.: Sept. 7, 2001).
18 U. S. General Accounting Office, Vaccines for Children: Reexamination
of Program Goals and Implementation Needed to Ensure Vaccination, GAO/
PEMD- 95- 22 (Washington, D. C.: June 15, 1995). 19 GAO- 01- 973.
objectives, and (3) NIH and FDA on the development of new diagnostic and
treatment tools and better vaccines for tuberculosis. Also, Agriculture
reported that it coordinated with HHS and the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding the goal to protect the public health by reducing the
incidence of foodborne illnesses. However, none of the agencies discussed
specific details about the coordination.
According to its combined fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal
year 2003 performance plan, NIH was the only agency that reported
achieving its public health systems goal* to develop new or improved
approaches for preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease
and disability. Agriculture, FDA, and CDC each reported missing some of
its performance targets. In addition, CDC, CMS, and HRSA lacked data to
report on some or all of their performance goals for fiscal year 2001. For
example, HRSA indicated that the performance data for its goal* increase
the proportion of the national AIDS education and training center (AETC)
interventions provided to minority health care providers* will not be
collected until February 2003. Three agencies* CDC, FDA, and Agriculture*
provided explanations for not meeting a measure or goal that appeared
reasonable. For example, FDA reported that it missed its
target* inspect 90 percent of high- risk domestic food establishments each
year* because the agency purposefully diverted resources for these
inspections to focus on the even greater threat of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy that was breaking out in Europe at the time. None of these
agencies discussed strategies to achieve the unmet goals in the future.
For fiscal year 2003, HHS*s CDC, CMS, FDA, and HRSA, and Agriculture,
reported they expect to make progress on goals that were generally the
same as those they reported on in fiscal year 2001. NIH developed two new
subgoals for its goal of developing new or improved approaches to
preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease and disability,
but did not indicate targets for the new goals. CDC developed a new goal
of conducting research to identify and assess community- based prevention
interventions. HRSA plans to drop one of its goals** increase the number
of minority health care and social service providers who receive training
in AETCs** because measuring the percentage of training interventions
provided to minority health providers was determined to be a more accurate
and appropriate method to measure the program*s progress in training
health care providers. CMS and HRSA reported that they expected
to achieve higher levels of performance for all of their targets. CDC,
FDA, and Agriculture planned for a mixture of higher and lower levels of
performance in fiscal year 2003.
Agriculture and three of the five HHS components we reviewed discussed
strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year
2003 goals. For example, Agriculture reported that its performance goal*
create a coordinated national and international food safety risk
management system to ensure safety of U. S. meat and poultry* has a set of
specifically outlined strategies to follow in order to accomplish the
goal, including (1) develop national performance standards for ready- to-
eat meat and poultry items, (2) ensure food safety requirements are
followed by monitoring slaughter and process plants, and (3) increase
reviews of foreign inspection systems to ensure the safety of imported
meat, poultry, and egg products. In contrast, NIH and HRSA did not discuss
strategies for
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. Agriculture and NIH commented on
the overall quality and reliability of the performance data in their
fiscal year 2001 performance reports. For example, NIH progress toward
meetings its goals was assessed by its GPRA Assessment Working Group,
which reviewed the performance data. In
addition, CDC, CMS, and Agriculture discussed aspects of data quality for
each of their performance measures. For example, CDC*s combined report and
plan addresses data verification and validation for each data source
corresponding to each goal. FDA and HRSA discussed narrow aspects of data
quality for certain measures.
FDA and HRSA acknowledged shortcomings in their performance data and
reported steps to resolve or minimize those shortcomings. For example, FDA
stated that existing public health data systems are not adequate to
provide accurate and comprehensive baseline data needed to draw direct
relationships between FDA*s regulatory activities and changes in the
number and types of foodborne illnesses that occur annually in the United
States. Therefore, through coordination with CDC and Agriculture, FDA
reported developing an improved food safety surveillance program called
FoodNet. HRSA reported limitations related to its HIV/ AIDS data
collection efforts. For example, the reporting system that holds the data
contains duplicate data about individuals that prevents accurate
conclusions from being made. To minimize the limitations, HRSA reported it
allows grantees the option of participating in a client- level reporting
system. CDC and CMS acknowledged shortcomings in their data but did
not discuss steps to minimize the shortcomings. NIH and Agriculture did
not discuss any limitations to their performance data in the area of
public health systems.
Concluding We have previously stated that the Results Act could provide
OMB,
Observations agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for
addressing
crosscutting program efforts. In its guidance, OMB 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
program areas that are crosscutting in nature. 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 of
government operations so that Congress, program managers, and other
decision makers can use the information.
Agency Comments and We sent drafts of this report to the respective
agencies for comments. We Our Evaluation
received comments from Agriculture, the Board, FDIC, HHS, HUD, Labor, and
Treasury, including OCC and OTS. The agencies generally agreed with
our findings. The comments we received were mostly technical and we have
incorporated them where appropriate.
Regarding drug control, Justice, through its Office of Legal Policy,
commented that, as of November 2002, Justice had formalized increased
cooperation with ONDCP on drug policy and operations. Regarding public
health systems, the NIH component of HHS commented that the prevention
goal GAO looked at is one of five goals that together that give a
comprehensive picture of the performance of NIH*s research
program. Furthermore, NIH commented that there are many formal and
informal ways in which it coordinates its work in the prevention arena
that are not reflected in its performance plan. For example, NIH cites the
NextGeneration Smallpox Vaccine Initiative, an intradepartmental task
force consisting of representatives from the Office of Public Health
Policy, CDC, FDA, and NIH. We acknowledge this limitation in the scope and
methodology section of the report.
Regarding family poverty, HUD commented that, although GAO*s review
focused on two of HUD*s eight goals, it believes all of its goals and many
of its indicators have an impact on family poverty. We do not dispute
HUD*s assertion that many of its goal address family poverty broadly.
However, we focused on the goals that appeared to be most directly related
to the
scope we defined in our scope and methodology section. Regarding financial
institution regulation, FDIC commented that a lack of specific reference
in the performance report regarding the completeness, reliability and
credibility of the data should not lead to a negative inference.
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
Appendi Appendi xes x I
Drug Control Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug
Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and
Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of Justice a Justice*s combined report and plan provided a
Justice makes no distinction between coordination discussion of
crosscutting activities for each efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001
and those performance goal. Justice stated that its annual
that are planned for fiscal year 2003. goal* to reduce the threat,
trafficking, and related violence of illegal drugs by disrupting drug
trafficking organizations* had two performance goals under it. The two
performance goals were (1) reduction in the supply and use of drugs within
the United States and (2) disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking
criminal enterprises. Pertaining to the annual goal, Justice reported that
it collaborated with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
and the intelligence community to support the work of the
National Drug Intelligence Center. In order to achieve the two performance
goals, Justice reported collaboration with the Department of
Transportation to prosecute cases that relate to maritime drug smuggling.
Justice reported that it coordinated with the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Internal Revenue Service, the U. S. Customs Service, and the
Department of Defense to create the Special Operations Division that
produces data analyses of priority targeted drug trafficking organizations
(PDTO).
Department of State State*s fiscal year 2001 performance report identified
State reported no planned coordination efforts agencies with which it
coordinated on two
among agencies that relate to drug control for fiscal performance goals
relating to drug control* year 2003. (1) increase foreign governments*
effectiveness in reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and
marijuana and (2) increase foreign governments* effectiveness in
dissolving major drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting and
convicting major traffickers. For the first goal, State identified lead
and partner agencies that it coordinated with to
accomplish the goal, including the U. S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and DEA. Also,
for the second goal, State identified lead and partner agencies such as
USAID, DEA, Customs, Coast Guard, and CIA. The report did not discuss
specific efforts on which State and the other listed agencies
collaborated.
(Continued From Previous Page)
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of In its combined performance report and plan,
Transportation makes no distinction between Transportation b
Transportation reported coordinating with other
coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 agencies on issues
related to drug control. It stated and those that are planned for fiscal
year 2003. that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP and Customs to finalize
an interagency study of the deterrent effect that interdiction has on drug
trafficking organizations. Also, the Coast Guard and Customs coordinated
to provide in- depth law enforcement defense against drug traffickers.
Defense provided detection and monitoring support, and provided ships to
support interdiction efforts at sea. Transportation worked with Justice to
coordinate drug intelligence. State provided diplomatic liaison with other
countries and supported Transportation*s efforts in bilateral agreements
to counter drug smuggling.
In addition, Transportation identified drug goals established by ONDCP.
However, the link between the strategic goals from ONDCP and
Transportation*s
performance measures was not clear. Department of the In Treasury*s
report, it stated that Customs
Customs makes no distinction between coordination Tr easury c coordinated
with the Immigration and Naturalization efforts that occurred in fiscal
year 2001 and those Service as well as other law enforcement and
that are planned for fiscal year 2003. inspection agencies around and
along the borders. In Customs* combined report and plan, it said that
Customs coordinated with ONDCP and the International Crime Control
Strategy. Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY
2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of State, U. S. Department of State Program Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of State, U.
S. Department of State Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.
C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation, Department of
Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the
Treasury, Department of the Treasury Program Performance Report Fiscal
Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); United States Customs Service, United
States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 President*s Budget Performance
Plan and Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4, 2002).
a Justice issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. b Transportation issued a consolidated
fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003
performance plan. c The U. S. Customs Service, a bureau within the
Department of the Treasury, issued a consolidated
fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan.
Because Treasury did not issue a fiscal year 2003 departmentwide
performance plan, we reviewed the consolidated report and plan for Customs
and the fiscal year 2001 Treasury report.
Tabl e 3: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
Justice Justice reported two performance goals related to According to its
combined plan and report, Justice drug control: (1) reduce the supply and
use of drugs
provided an explanation for not meeting the target for in the United
States and (2) disrupt and dismantle
the measure of the number of drug trafficking major drug trafficking
organizations. Justice stated
organizations dismantled by the FBI that appeared that the measure for the
first goal was newly
reasonable. Justice stated that its rationale for not established for
fiscal year 2002 when the baselines
achieving the target was the need to address other of estimates of the
consumption amount of cocaine, priorities, resulting in a reduction of 91
special agent heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana were to be positions
associated with counterdrug activities. developed. According to the
combined report and However, the department did not discuss strategies
plan, Justice reported on two measures pertaining to
to meet the measure in the future. Justice provided the goal of disrupting
and dismantling major drug
an overall strategy for achieving its fiscal year 2003 trafficking
organizations:
goals. 1. number of PDTOs dismantled or disrupted by DEA and 2. number of
drug trafficking organizations
dismantled by the FBI. Justice exceeded the target for the first measure.
Justice exceeded one of the two targets for the second measure* the number
of identified drug trafficking organizations linked to national PDTOs.
Justice reported that it did not meet the other
target* the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the
FBI.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
State State reported that it exceeded four of six targets for For the two
performance targets not achieved, State the performance measures under the
two goals
provided an explanation that appeared reasonable. related to drug control,
which were State reported that political strife and violence against
eradication authorities in countries such as 1. increase foreign
governments* effectiveness in
Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru hindered its drug reducing the cultivation of
coca, opium poppy, eradication efforts. State did not provide specific and
marijuana and strategies to meet the measures in the future. 2. increase
foreign governments* effectiveness in
dissolving major drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting and
convicting major traffickers.
For the first goal, State exceeded two targets: 1. number of hectares of
illicit opium under
cultivation and 2. number of prevention summits. State did not meet two
other targets for the first goal: 1. number of hectares of illicit coca
under
cultivation and 2. number of hectares of marijuana under cultivation.
Also, State exceeded both targets for the second goal:
1. number of countries that ratified the 1988 United Nations Drug
Convention and 2. number of trained law enforcement personnel.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
Transportation Transportation reported four performance goals In its
combined report and plan, Transportation related to drug control that were
derived from the
provided an explanation for not meeting the fiscal Office of National Drug
Control Policy: year 2001 performance target for the measure* seizure rate
for cocaine that is shipped through the 1. reduce the current drug use
among 12- to 17year- transit zone* that appeared reasonable. It stated
olds by 10 percent by the year 2005, that it did not meet the target of 15
percent for the 2. reduce the current drug use among 18- year- olds
measure because the previous years* increase in the and older by 10
percent by the year 2005, total flow of cocaine through the transit zone
had 3. reduce the current drug use among 12- to 17year- outpaced the
increase in the Coast Guard*s drug olds by 25 percent by the year 2008,
and
interdiction efforts. Transportation did not provide 4. reduce the current
drug use among 18- year- olds specific strategies for meeting this target
in the and older by 25 percent by the year 2008.
future. The department did not provide a discussion of its progress in
achieving these performance goals. Rather, it reported on two measures
that are not
clearly linked to the four ONDCP goals: 1. the amount of drugs that are
seized or destroyed at sea and 2. the seizure rate for cocaine that is
shipped
through the transit zone. Transportation did not establish a target for
the first measure. Transportation reported that it did not meet the target
of 15 percent for the second measure. Treasury In its combined performance
plan and report,
Treasury*s fiscal year 2001 report provided an Customs reported on the
performance goal to reduce explanation for Customs not achieving the
target for the quantity of illegal drugs entering the United
the number of marijuana seizures. Customs stated States. Customs exceeded
eight of nine measures that, although it did not meet its target for the
number reflecting the thousands of pounds seized, number of
of marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of seizures, and pounds of
drugs per seizures for the marijuana in fiscal year 2001 than in any other
year. following three drugs: cocaine, marijuana, and Customs stated it
believes that the number of heroin. Customs reported that it did not meet
the
seizures dropped because of an overall increase in target for the number
of marijuana seizures. sizes of marijuana loads. Furthermore, it stated
that the heightened state of alert on the border following the events of
September 11, 2001, might have deterred the entrance into the country of
hundreds of
smaller, personal- sized loads. There is no discussion of strategies to
meet the unmet measure in the future. Sources: Department of Justice, FY
2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of State, U. S. Department of State
Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar.
2002); Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation
Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of
the Treasury Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.
C.: 2002); United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service
Fiscal Year 2003 President*s Budget Performance Plan and Report
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4, 2002).
Tabl e 4: Table 4: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for
Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 Department
or agency in fiscal year 2003?
goals?
Justice Justice reports that it expects to continue to improve Justice*s
discussion of strategies to achieve its fiscal its performance on three
performance measures year 2003 goals appears reasonably linked to under
the two goals relating to drug control, which
achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. For the goal of are (1) reduction in
the supply of drugs in the United reducing the supply and use of drugs in
the United States, (2) number of dismantled/ disrupted PDTOs, States,
Justice states that the nine Organized Crime and (3) reduction in number
of dismantled drug
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams will trafficking organizations
that are U. S.- based. coordinate to develop a national priority target
list of
the most significant drug and money- laundering For the first goal of
reducing the supply and use of
organizations. As drug organizations are dismantled drugs in the United
States, Justice plans to establish and more organizations are identified,
the OCDETF a baseline for the measure* reduction in the supply
teams will monitor their progress and modify the of drugs entering the
United States* in fiscal year target list. Also, Justice plans to identify
and attack 2002. In its plan, Justice developed the fiscal year the
control and communications links that are 2003 target of reducing the
supply of drugs entering
important to PDTOs operations in order to achieve the U. S. by 5 percent,
but notes that the figure may the second goal* disrupt and dismantle major
drug be subject to change to reflect the fiscal year 2002 trafficking
criminal enterprises. baseline. Pertaining to the second goal of
dismantling/ disrupting major drug trafficking criminal enterprises,
Justice plans to achieve a 7 percent reduction in PDTOs by dismantling/
disrupting 45 PDTOs. For the measure of dismantling drug trafficking
organizations linked to national PDTOs, Justice states that it will
identify 250 drug trafficking
organizations and dismantle 13 of them. State State*s fiscal year 2003
performance plan indicates it
In the fiscal year 2003 plan, State discusses will report on the same six
measures as it did in fiscal strategies that appear reasonable in
achieving its year 2001 for the two goals aimed at reducing the
fiscal year 2003 goals. State reports on what it plans entry of illegal
drug in the United States: to emphasize for fiscal year 2003. Pertaining
to the
first goal* reduce foreign cultivation of opium 1. reduce foreign
cultivation of opium poppies, poppies, coca, and marijuana* State plans to
focus
coca, and marijuana and on the rebuilding of Afghanistan in areas such as
2. dissolve major DTOs and investigate, prosecute, reducing opium poppy
cultivation. For the second and convict significant narcotics criminals.
goal* dissolve major DTOs and investigate, prosecute, and convict
significant narcotics
The targets for the measures indicate State*s plans criminals* State plans
to improve relationships with to further reduce the illegal drug supply by
targeting
foreign governments* counternarcotics agencies. For drug production and by
dismantling major drug
example, State expects to dismantle the international trafficking
organizations (DTOs).
drug cartels that supply the majority of the drugs entering the United
States.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 Department
or agency in fiscal year 2003?
goals?
Transportation For fiscal year 2003, Transportation plans to report
Transportation lists strategies that appear reasonable on one performance
measure relating to the drug in achieving its fiscal year 2003 performance
goal. goal* amount of drugs seized or destroyed at sea. For example, the
Coast Guard plans to Transportation reports that it expects to seize or
destroy 76 metric tons of drugs (cocaine, marijuana,
1. operate along maritime routes to deter attempts methamphetamine, and
heroin) at sea. to smuggle drugs and
2. finalize an interagency study that focuses on the deterrent impact that
interdiction has on DTOs.
Tr ea s ur y Customs reports that it plans to increase the targets
Although Customs provides a lengthy discussion of for the same nine
measures reported in fiscal year the activities it has planned for fiscal
year 2003 in the 2001 that relate to reducing the amount of illegal area
*drug and other enforcement,* the discussion drugs entering the United
States. emphasizes terrorism prevention and does not
specifically address strategies related to drug In its combined report and
plan, Customs states that control. it anticipates continued increase in
maritime and air cargo smuggling and seizure activity. Also, Customs
asserts that, because of increased security at U. S. ports of entry, it
will be more difficult for traffickers to
smuggle narcotics into the country which contributes to the decrease in
seizures. Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY
2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of State, U. S. Department of State Performance Plan Fiscal
Year 2003 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation,
Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); United
States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003
President*s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4,
2002).
Tabl e 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
How did the agencies discuss the completeness,
Are known shortcomings in the data reliability, and credibility of their
performance
acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize Department or agency data?
the shortcomings described? Justice Justice*s combined report and plan
discusses data Justice reported one shortcoming which was the
completeness, reliability, and credibility by need to improve its
reporting system for the
addressing data verification and validation for each measure* number of
PDTOs dismantled or performance measure. The Chief of Operations
disrupted by DEA. Justice did not discuss any plans Division at DEA
validated the targets for the
to resolve this shortcoming. measure* number of dismantled or disrupted
PDTOs by DEA. Also, for the measure of DTOs dismantled by the FBI, an FBI
field manager reviewed and approved data that were entered into the system
and the data was verified through the FBI*s inspection process.
State State did not report on the completeness, reliability, State did not
report on shortcomings in its and credibility of its performance data.
performance data.
Transportation Regarding data quality, Transportation reported on
Transportation discussed shortcoming in its the completeness, credibility,
and reliability of its
performance data. It stated that, although data reported data by
addressing data verification and verification and validation occurs
several times in the validation. Data entry software ensures data quality
data reporting process, a small but possible limitation and consistency by
employing selection lists and
to the accuracy of the data could stem from logic checks. Internal
analysis and review of
duplication and coding errors. Transportation did not published data by
external parties help identify
provide specific steps to minimize this shortcoming. errors.
Tr ea s ur y Customs reported on the completeness, reliability, In its
report and plan, Customs acknowledged and credibility of its performance
data by discussing shortcomings, but did not discuss steps to minimize
data verification for each performance measure. For them. For example,
Customs reported that while its example, the measure pertaining to seized
narcotics
data can be considered reliable, they can be subject is followed by a
discussion on data verification. The
to error, such as input errors or duplicative reporting discussion
included identifying the Treasury
not identified by reviewers. In Treasury*s Enforcement Communication
System as the data performance report, it discussed initiatives to source
and stating that Customs personnel conduct
improve the quality of performance data. For periodic data reviews. In
addition, Treasury*s fiscal example, Customs conducted its Self
Inspections year 2001 performance report stated that the report Program in
fiscal year 2001, with managers meets the standards for reliability
established by the
performing self- assessments of methods, Office of Management and Budget.
procedures, and performance measurements.
Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002
Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of State, U. S. Department of State Program Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of
Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year
2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar.
2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury Program
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); United
States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003
President*s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4,
2002).
Appendi x II
Family Poverty Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in
Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of Agriculture For the Food Stamp program, Agriculture*s fiscal
Agriculture notes a strategy to coordinate with other year 2001
performance report mentions efforts to
federal agencies to seek long- term solutions to coordinate with other
federal agencies, but does not
address world hunger and malnutrition but does not specify the agencies.
For example, Agriculture
specify the agencies. Agriculture identifies strategies mentions (1) test
projects to improve access to the to improve its stewardship of federal
nutrition program by combining the Food Stamp and Social assistance
programs and mentions its efforts to work Security application processes
and (2) efforts to
with state agencies but does not specifically mention coordinate with
other federal agencies to develop a
its coordination efforts with other federal agencies. web- based
multiprogram eligibility pre- screening tool. Agriculture*s report does
not discuss
interagency coordination efforts for the other programs we looked at such
as Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children (WIC),
National School Lunch, School Breakfast (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food
(CACFP), and Summer Food Service (SFSP) programs.
Department of Health and The Administration for Children and Families
(ACF)
See previous column. Human Services (HHS) a within HHS reports it
coordinates with the following
departments: Labor in Welfare- to- Work Partnership and Workforce
Investment Act efforts, Transportation in its Access to Jobs program,
Education in providing education and training services, and Housing and
Urban Development in providing housing assistance.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a component of HHS
that includes family poverty programs such as Medicaid and State
Children*s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), identifies its coordination
efforts with other components within HHS, such as with the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC). The report- plan also mentions coordination efforts
with states, and other
private groups and associations but does not provide information on
collaboration with federal agencies.
(Continued From Previous Page)
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of Housing HUD reports it partners with HHS, the Department of
In its plan, HUD describes a number of coordination and Urban Development
Veterans* Affairs (VA), and *a number of agencies* in efforts. HUD is a
member of the Office of (HUD) the Interagency Council on the Homeless to
address
Management and Budget*s Interagency Workforce homelessness. In addition,
HUD attributes its
Investment Act Committee, which brings Labor, HHS, success on this
objective to the substantial support it
and Education together to address the nation*s receives from Labor and HHS
in the measure of
employment issues. HUD states it will also continue improving employment
rates of entry- level job to be involved in Labor*s Workforce Investment
Act seekers in central cities. The Interagency Council on Interagency
Coordinating Committee. HUD reports it the Homeless includes the
departments of HHS,
will collaborate with HHS and Labor in a number of Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Energy, Justice, initiatives including educating communities,
Labor, Defense, Transportation, and VA; and the organizations, and state
and local agencies about Social Security Administration, Federal Emergency
the Workforce Investment Act and federal welfare Management Agency,
General Services regulations. Concerning its objective to end
Administration, and the Postmaster General. HUD homelessness, HUD states
it is a member of the states that the purpose of the council is to
minimize Interagency Council on the Homeless. duplication and improve
overall results by coordinating federal programs supporting homelessness.
Department of Labor
Labor reports it is a part of the Workforce Excellence Labor states it
plans to engage Education, HUD, (Labor) Network, comprising Education,
HHS, and Labor. DOT, and Justice for support in its apprenticeship The
Workforce Excellence Network conducts two
program. Labor reports it will continue to be a part of major national
conferences each year, in which
the OMB*s Interagency Workforce Investment Act Labor is able to *showcase*
its best Workforce Committee, which brings HHS, HUD, Education, and
Investment Act (WIA) programs. In addition, at DOL*s
Department of State together to develop and refine Summit on 21 st Century
Workforce, the agency
common performance measures to ensure optimal announced a joint proposal
to work with the
service delivery for programs under the WIA. Labor Department of Education
on establishing a Job plans to be involved with the departments of Corps
distance- learning program.
Education and Defense*s Education Activity program for Job Corps diploma
attainment. Sources: 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);
Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children and
Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal
Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report
for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development: Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual
Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 2002); U. S. Department of
Labor, U. S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report on
Performance and Accountability (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 27, 2002); U. S.
Department of Labor , United States Department of Labor Final Fiscal Year
2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4, 2002). a The
Department of Health and Human Services did not issue a consolidated
fiscal year 2001 report or fiscal year 2003 performance plan for the
entire agency but produced its fiscal year 2001 reports and fiscal year
2003 plans as a combined document for each component of the agency.
Tabl e 7: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Reports
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
Agriculture Agriculture says the numbers in its report for fiscal
Agriculture reported that its target numbers were year 2001 are based on
projected results because
based on assumptions about economic and other states have not reported all
of their data. Goals
factors affecting eligible populations. Agriculture include expanding
program access and benefit
identified barriers to Food Stamp Program delivery for Food and Nutrition
Service programs,
participation such as drawbacks in program policies, such as Food Stamps
and WIC. Agriculture reports local agency procedures, and participants*
lack of that it anticipates meeting one goal and one of its six
information about eligibility requirements. For performance indicators it
established for addressing CACFP, Agriculture attributed shortcomings to
the family poverty.
lack of growth in meals served and to changes in the economy. Goals
Agriculture anticipates meeting included: (1) WIC participation exceeding
its target of serving To reach its goals in the future, Agriculture
reports it 7.25 million people by reaching 7. 30 million
plans to continue its work in making access to participants and (2)
increasing assistance to the
programs easier by reducing reporting requirements neediest rural
communities by surpassing the 7: 1 or for working families whose income
fluctuates greater ratio of non- empowerment zone and
frequently, conducting program access reviews, and enterprise communities
(EZ/ EC) grants to EZ/ EC
testing to review the program application process. To grants invested in
EZ/ EC communities to a ratio of help reach its goals for the SFSP,
Agriculture reports 17.77: 1.
it will provide various forms of technical assistance as well as conduct
outreach initiatives. Agriculture does not expect to meet targets for five
of the six performance indicators relating to the goal of expanding
program access and benefit delivery for Agriculture nutrition assistance
programs. These indicators include increased participation in the
following programs: Food Stamp Program, National School Lunch Program,
SBP, CACFP, and SFSP.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a ACF: ACF provides a
reasonable explanation in its component of HHS, which includes such family
report- plan for one of its unmet performance poverty programs as
Temporary Assistance for
indicators related to the goal of improving the quality Needy Families
(TANF), Social Services Block Grant,
of child care* increasing the number of classroom Child Care, and Head
Start, reported the following
teachers with a degree in early childhood, or similar goals related to
family poverty:
training as identified by ACF. It attributes missing this target to staff
turnover and limited access to training 1. improving TANF welfare reform,
and credentialing opportunities in certain parts of the 2. maintaining
outreach and funding through Social country. However, ACF*s report- plan
does not
Services Block Grant, provide an explanation for missing the other child
3. increasing child care affordability, care quality indicator*
maintaining the percent of
4. improving child care quality, and Head Start employees who have
children in Head
5. improving Head Start Health Status. Start.
ACF stated that it was not able to report completely ACF reports that two
factors contributed to its failure on its fiscal year 2001 progress on the
first three
to meet two of its three indicators for the goal of goals because it
lacked fiscal year 2001 performance
improving Head Start Health Status: (1) high student data for 18 of the 23
performance indicators related
turnover rate hinders the students* receipt of health to those goals. ACF
was unable to obtain these data care despite Head Starts* medical
referrals and (2) due to the time lag in receiving and validating data
Medicaid*s inability to cover dental and mental health reports from
states, localities, and other program
treatment for Head Start students prevented them partners. a ACF was,
however, able to report that it from receiving proper care. fell short in
achieving its targets for the five performance indicators related to two
of its goals:
In its fiscal year 2001 report- plan ACF reports that improving child care
quality and improving the Head Head Start is working in conjunction with
higher Start Health Status program.
education institutions to provide training for teachers. In addition, ACF
states it sets aside funds for training The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services and technical assistance to help local projects meet
(CMS): CMS fully met two, and partially met one and
the Head Start program performance standards and did not meet another of
its four goals related to family
maintain and improve the quality of local programs. poverty. CMS
successfully provided linked data files
Also, Head Start conducts research, demonstration, for dually eligible
Medicare and Medicaid recipients
and evaluation activities to test innovative program to all 56 states and
territories and increased the
models and to asses program effectiveness. number of children enrolled in
Medicaid and SCHIP However, for its other unmet performance indicators
over its goal of one million to almost 3.5 million. under the goal of Head
Start Health Status, ACF CMS partially met its developmental goal of
does not provide strategies for meeting the goal in increasing the
percentage of Medicaid 2- year old the future. children who are fully
immunized. This goal, being in its developmental state, has three main
performance
CMS: For the goal that CMS met partially, the reportplan indicators, all
of which set targets to accomplish a
provides justification for its shortcomings. CMS particular objective by a
set date. For one of these states that more time was needed for states to
fully performance indictors, CMS did not establish all develop their
measurement methodologies because targeted baselines, thereby only
partially meeting its
of the variations in state reporting cycles for goal. In addition, CMS did
not establish the
immunization data, data problems, and staff and feasibility of conducting
pilot projects with the states resource limitations. CMS discusses time
frames for to measure, and ultimately reduce Medicaid payment
the development of each state*s baseline measure error rates.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
and reporting methodology, but CMS does not describe specifically how it
intends to achieve its targets for this area in the future.
As a general trend among these goals, CMS also identified barriers to
continual success and outlined additional strategies. For example, CMS
faces some
problems because of reporting techniques and dependence on states for
information as well as delays in funding. Strategies for addressing such
barriers include refocusing efforts on the low income Medicare
beneficiaries beginning in fiscal year 2002 with a new performance goal
measuring their increased of awareness of the Medicare Savings Program.
HUD For its performance measures related to family Of the six goals HUD
did not meet or anticipated not poverty, HUD reported it
meeting in fiscal year 2001, HUD provides met or, based on preliminary
data, anticipates
reasonable explanations such as a lack of meeting seven of its performance
indicators,
anticipated funding, external factors such as the missed or, based on
preliminary data, anticipates
weakening job markets, and limits on program missing six of its
performance indicators, including
participation because of funding and access to programs, among other
explanations. 1. at least 90 percent of (EZ/ ECs) achieve local
goals in serving homeless persons, Strategies for four of its unmet goals
are outlined.
2. at least 90 percent of EZ/ ECs achieve local Such strategies include
improving technical goals in providing social services,
assistance to EZ/ EC communities to advise in 3. 154, 000 jobs created or
retained through
developing completed projects and link them to Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
successful communities; and public housing and Section 108,
authorities have been promoting work through 4. 11,080 youths are trained
in construction trades earned income disregards, Family Self- Sufficiency
through Youthbuild,
accounts, and employment- related supportive 5. increase by 1 percentage
point to 30 percent, services, among other strategies. The two goals for
the share of welfare families that move from
which HUD does not describe strategies are welfare to work while residing
in public housing, (1) 154, 000 jobs created or retained through CDBG and
and Section 108 and (2) 11, 080 youths are trained in 6. increase by 2
percentage points to 34 percent construction trades through Youthbuild.
the share of welfare families that move from welfare to work assisted by
tenant- based HUD states that it will no longer track 14 of the 18 Section
8
performance measures we renewed after fiscal year does not have enough
data to determine the
2002 or fiscal year 2003 for reasons such as matured outcome of one of its
indicators, and success, technical difficulties in reporting, to better
either established or will be establishing a
reflect impact, an uncertain effect on outcome baseline for four of its
indicators.
indicators, and a need for more accurate measures.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency
program area? achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
Labor Of its six performance indicators related to family For Labor*s
unmet goal of retention and wage poverty, Labor reported it met three,
failed to meet
increases among Welfare- to- Work (WtW) two, and substantially met one of
its goals. b The two
participants, it reported two contributing factors: goals Labor reports it
did not meet are: (1) of those
employment declined in the service and retail Welfare- to- Work
participants placed in unsubsidized
sectors, both of which were a significant source of employment, 66 percent
remain in the workforce for
entry- level placements, and WtW grantees were 6 months with 59 percent
average earnings increase reporting questionable data. Labor identifies by
the second quarter following the placement
strategies for addressing the employment needs of quarter and (2) increase
the number of states with participants in order to improve the retention
rate and registered child care apprenticeship programs to 49
average earnings increase for WtW participants. and the percent of new
child care apprentices by 20
Such strategies include making retention more percent over fiscal year
2000. For the goal to
attractive, magnifying and extending service increase its childcare
apprentice programs and
provisions, continuing the Pathways to Advancement participants, Labor did
not increase the number of pilot project, which subsidizes employers,
upgrades states with apprentice programs but did successfully
and advances current TANF *alumni,* and validates increase the number of
new childcare apprentices. data at the program level. Labor reported that
the number of states with apprentice programs did not increase but
remained
According to Labor, it was conducting a review of at 39. The goal Labor
substantially met was to attain childcare grant and program performance
and a 50 percent rate of placement in employment or
therefore did not increase the number of states with other training
activities for 14- 18 year- olds in the WIA childcare apprentice programs.
Labor revised this program. For this goal, Labor achieved a rate of 47.4
goal in fiscal year 2002 to expand the apprenticeship percent of youth
either employed or in other
program into areas where they had not traditionally educational or
training activities.
been used. Labor reported that its focus on increasing the number of
childcare apprentices would continue in 2002 but the program results would
be integrated into its new performance measures.
Explanations for the goal substantially met, assisting youth in making the
transition to work, are reasonable because Labor attributes its shortfall
to (1) preliminary data, as only 42 of the 53 states and jurisdictions
reported final data and (2) inaccurate data, as the data used to complete
this measure are based on youth who are terminated during the program,
with only one quarter of data from the WIA
program. Labor introduced to states a new performance data reporting
system with WIA, causing difficulties in state reporting. Sources: U. S.
Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for
Children and Families, Administration for Children and Families: Fiscal
Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D. C.: Feb.
2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
U. S. Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal
Year 2001, Report on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 27, 2002).
a In its comments, ACF stated that as data come available, they are posted
to the Web site. b DOL labels goals as substantially met if achievement
toward that goal was made but not fully attained.
Table 8: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in
Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans Do
the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency in
fiscal year 2003?
2003 goals? Agriculture According to its plan, Agriculture expects to
continue Agriculture*s reported strategies for achieving fiscal achieving
its goal of program access and benefit year 2003 goals generally are a
continuation of their
delivery expansion for its nutrition assistance current efforts. However,
the fiscal year 2003 plan programs in fiscal year 2003 by increasing the
target does identify additional strategies necessary for numbers from its
fiscal year 2001 report. In enhancing performance, such as strengthening
addition, Agriculture is continuing to increase relations with other
organizations, seeking additional assistance to the neediest rural
communities by funding, and proposing legislation. To meet its goal
increasing the ratio of non- EZ/ EC grants to EZ/ EC regarding assisting
the neediest rural communities, grants invested in EZ/ EC communities.
Agriculture identifies the following strategies: using special
initiatives, such as EZ/ EC to reach needy areas, encouraging strategic
planning at the local level, providing enhanced technical assistance, and
targeting limited federal resources.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency in
fiscal year 2003?
2003 goals? HHS ACF*s 2003 report- plan includes performance ACF reports
that it will continue to use current measures for the following goals
related to family strategies such as providing bonuses to states that
poverty:
meet performance targets and helping states to meet desired outcomes
through improved communication, 1. improving TANF welfare reform,
technical assistance, and guidance. In addition, ACF 2. maintaining
outreach and funding through
is reportedly working on improving its own Social Services Block Grant,
performance through training and improved 3. increasing child care
affordability, organization, and procedures that will, in turn, give the
4. improving child care quality, and states better resources for meeting
their goals. 5. improving Head Start Health Status.
For its goal of having states develop a baseline and However, for its
performance measures related to
methodology for measuring the immunization of 2- child care affordability,
ACF does not identify targets
year- old children under Medicaid, CMS discusses time for fiscal year
2003.
frames for the development of each state*s baseline measure and reporting
methodology, but CMS does The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
not describe specific strategies for how it intends to (CMS): CMS states
it will continue to assist states in achieve its targets for this area.
developing state- specific measures of childhood immunization.
CMS reports it is working with states to develop a strategy for the
coordinated use of performance As part of a new goal for fiscal year 2003,
CMS measures within and across Medicaid and SCHIP to reports it plans to
begin working with states on the
improve health care quality. Performance Measurement Partnership Project.
With this project, CMS states it plans to develop evidence- based Medicaid
health improvement priorities that will include performance measures and
targets.
CMS discontinues its goal to link Medicaid and Medicare files for those
dually eligible because it was met and further follow- up is not
necessary. In addition, CMS states it did not yet determine a goal for
decreasing the number of uninsured children through the SCHIP program
because it is
currently reevaluating the goal.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency in
fiscal year 2003?
2003 goals? HUD Because HUD made an interim adjustment to its To help meet
its fiscal year 2003 performance goal of fiscal year 2000- 2006 strategic
plan, which is still in helping families in public and assisted housing
make draft, the framework for its fiscal year 2003
progress toward self- sufficiency and becoming performance plan changed
from what it reported in homeowners, HUD identifies strategies. These
fiscal year 2001. The new framework introduces strategies appear
reasonably linked to its goals. For eight strategic goals, two of which
address family example, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, HUD states it will
poverty. HUD*s Goal 3, to *improve the quality of
focus on expanding participation in the Family SelfSufficiency public
assisted housing and provide more choices
Program and the Section 8 for its residents,* and Goal 5, to *effectively
address
homeownership program in order to meet its fiscal the challenge of
homelessness* introduce seven year 2003 goals. new performance indicators
and update four that relate to family poverty. Objectives include helping
HUD does identify two clear strategies for its goal of families in public
and assisted housing make ending chronic homelessness in 10 years:
progress toward self- sufficiency and becoming (1) streamline HUD programs
in order to have more
homeowners, ending chronic homelessness in 10 flexibility to target
resources and (2) increase the focus
years, and helping homeless individuals and of HUD*s housing resources
while increasing
families move to permanent housing. coordination with other agencies
through the reauthorization of the Interagency Council on Homeless. For
its objective of helping homeless individuals and families move to
permanent housing, HUD plans to continue developing a client- level
reporting system and supporting and enacting other
programs. In addition, HUD describes increasing coordination efforts to
provide assistance in tracking homeless persons moving through various
programs.
Labor Labor reorganized its goals in its fiscal year 2003 In the beginning
of its fiscal year 2003 Performance performance plan. Goals include
increase Plan, Labor lists department- wide means and employment retention
rates and earnings of strategies for meeting all of its goals, most of
which are
individuals under the WIA adult programs, to continue or improve existing
efforts. Following the strengthen registered apprenticeship system to
list, Labor describes eight significant new or enhanced meet the training
needs of business and workers by efforts in fiscal year 2003. Such
strategies include increasing apprenticeship programs and
improving data quality, and providing technical participants, and increase
entrance and retention
assistance to national and regional offices to improve youth registered
under the WIA youth program in
the performance accountability system. education or employment. Sources:
U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance
Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002);
Administration for Children and Families,
Administration for Children and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual
Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and
Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:
Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development: Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual
Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 2002); U. S. Department of Labor
, United States Department of Labor Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual
Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4, 2002).
Tabl e 9: Reliability of Performance Data reported by Agencies Involved in
Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
How did the agencies discuss the
Are known shortcomings in the data completeness, reliability, and
credibility of their
acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data?
the shortcomings described?
Agriculture According to its fiscal year 2001 performance At the beginning
of Agriculture*s fiscal year 2001 report, Agriculture does not describe
its methods for
performance report, it states that all data are *of reviewing the
performance data it receives from
sufficient quality and reliability except where states for nutrition
assistance programs, but states
otherwise noted in this document.* For the nutrition that it does review
information for consistency and assistance performance indictors,
Agriculture states completeness. that the actual numbers are based on
preliminary
data, which Agriculture defines, as *incomplete data .* For the
performance indictor increasing the ratio of non- EZ/ EC grants to EZ/ EC
grants invested in EZ/ EC communities, Agriculture reports that *these
data are considered to be final and reliable* but does not give any
indication as to how the data are collected, the types of limitations on
the data or how
to minimize them, or the method for assessing the data*s reliability.
HHS For TANF and Head Start programs, Administration For program data ACF
did not identify as complete, for Children and Families (ACF) reports it
has been
reliable, and credible, such as Social Services Block able to automate the
data collection process. In Grant, and child care, dependence on states
and addition, ACF reports consistency and validity
other grantees to provide individual performance regarding its data
because of such procedures as
data makes validation and verification more difficult edits, special data
computation runs, and data trend
in that data sometimes comes in late or incomplete. analysis. In some
instances, systems and quality control
problems and technological delays occur. However, ACF states it tried to
assist states in their ability to report through technological assistance
and data review efforts.
CMS* report- plan identifies shortcomings in one of Data for the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid
the four performance indicators, decreasing the Services (CMS) measures
come from state
number of uninsured children by working with states reporting systems such
as quarterly and annual to implement SCHIP and by enrolling children in
statistical forms. CMS reports built- in quality
Medicaid. CMS stated it would, along with the assurance checks, technical
consultants, and a Centers for Disease Control, provide technical review
of data by CMS personnel.
assistance to help states address data reliability. In addition, CMS said
it is looking to closely monitor data issues that arise with the SCHIP
performance indicator.
(Continued From Previous Page)
How did the agencies discuss the Are known shortcomings in the data
completeness, reliability, and credibility of their acknowledged and steps
to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data? the shortcomings described?
HUD HUD reports that the *department has made In the fiscal year 2002 or
fiscal year 2003 reports substantial advances in improving the performance
report, HUD is discontinuing or completeness, accuracy and reliability of
updating the 18 performance indicators that we performance data.* The
report states that the reviewed in its fiscal year 2001 report because of
its readers can rely on the data reported to assess the inability to
address data reliability issues and the department*s achievements. In
addition, HUD
unknown connection with the outcome measure, states it could not report
data with complete among other reasons. For the estimated data, HUD
confidence on four of the indicators because the states accurate numbers
will be reported in the data is estimated, based on incomplete data sets.
fiscal year 2002 performance report if adjustments HUD*s report does not,
however, outline methods
are necessary. for verifying the quality of its data.
Labor Labor reports on the data quality of each of the Labor acknowledges
shortcomings in its data, such performance indicators in its *analysis of
results* as the questionable quality of some state data. section. For
example, for its goal of assisting youth
Labor has described steps to resolve the problem, in making the transition
to work, Labor reports that it such as its proposed validation project to
address relies on performance data from 53 states and
the questionable data from states. Labor reports its jurisdictions. Of the
53 states and jurisdictions, validation project will create more precise
Labor reports that 7 of the states submitted data
programming specification standards for use in that are questionable.
validating state data. Labor has placed a
performance and reporting software package on its In its Management and
Performance Challenges
department website to help grantees prepare their section of the report,
Labor states it is limited in its
program reports which will be followed by an ability to control the
quality of results data.
additional software package to assist in further analysis of data quality.
Sources: U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual
Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Administration
for Children and Families, Administration for Children and Families:
Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D. C.: Feb.
2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
U. S. Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal
Year 2001, Report on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 27, 2002).
Appendi x III
Financial Institution Regulation Table 10: Coordination Efforts among
Agencies Involved in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in
Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans What types of coordination among the relevant What types
of coordination among the relevant agencies associated with each
crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Office of the Comptroller of The report included a section on crosscutting
OCC*s 2002 performance plan reported similar the Currency (OCC)
coordination efforts. It reported that the OCC works
crosscutting efforts as the OCC performance report. closely with the other
four federal regulators (the It stated that the OCC works with the other
federal Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OTS). The report noted
depository institutions regulators through FFIEC, that the OCC works with
the other federal depository Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee,
regulators the Federal Financial Institutions
Shared National Credit Program, and GPRA Examinations Council (FFIEC). The
FFIEC is an Interagency Working Group. interagency group that is empowered
to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for federal
examinations of financial institutions and to make recommendations to
promote uniformity in the supervision of depository institutions. In
addition, the report stated that the OCC participates in the GPRA
Interagency Working Group (a group that works on issues related to the
general goals and objectives
that cross the programs and activities of federal regulatory agencies as
well as other general GPRA requirements, Basel Committee (a forum for
international cooperation on matters relating to financial institution
supervision), Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee (provides an
objective opinion on the degree of transfer risk inherent in
cross- border and cross- currency lending by U. S. depository
institutions), and Shared National Credits Program (an interagency effort
to perform a uniform credit review of depository institutions loans that
exceed $20 million and are shared by three or more depository
institutions).
(Continued From Previous Page)
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Board of Governors of the The report did not mention coordinating with the
The plan included a section on Interagency Federal Reserve System
other depository institution regulators. Coordination of Cross- cutting
Issues. It reported that (Board)
the Board has been working closely with the other federal agencies to
address programs that transcend jurisdictions. It also reported that the
Board formally
coordinates with the other federal depository institution regulatory
agencies through the Federal Financial Examination Council (FFIEC). The
report stated that the FFIEC also provides uniform examiner training and
has taken a lead in developing standardized software needed for major data
collection programs to support requirements in the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act and the Community Reinvestment Act.
The plan also reported on the Board*s participation in the Government
Performance and Results Act Interagency Working Group. According to the
Board*s plan, interagency
coordination is to be an operational process. Moreover, the plan stated
that at the most senior levels, the Board*s work and plans have been
closely coordinated with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
OCC, and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).
Federal Deposit Insurance In its performance report, FDICa described the
FDIC*s 2002 plan reported that FDIC works closely Corporation (FDIC)
various federal regulatory working groups in which it
with the Federal Reserve, OCC, Office of Thrift has participated: FFIEC,
Basel Committee on
Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Banking Supervision
Interagency Country Exposure Administration. The report noted that FDIC
Risk Committee, Shared National Credit Program
participated in the following interagency groups Joint Agency Task Force
on Discrimination in
related to its supervision and regulation function: Lending, and the
Results Act Financial Institutions*
FFIEC, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Regulatory Working Group.
Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee, Shared National Credit
Program, Fraud and Money Laundering, the Results Act Financial
Institutions Regulatory Working Group.
Office of Thrift Supervision The report stated that OTS participates in
two OTS* 2002 plan reported similar crosscutting efforts. (OTS)
interagency groups related to crosscutting issues,
It stated that OTS participates in two interagency FFIEC and the Results
Act Financial Institution
groups related to crosscutting issues, FFIEC and the Regulatory Working
Group. Results Act Financial Institution Regulatory Working Group.
(Continued From Previous Page)
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
National Credit Union The report did not have a specific section outlining
The plan did not contain a section on crosscutting Administration (NCUA) b
crosscutting programs. However, NCUA states that it
coordination with other agencies. will work with *other federal agencies
to further its goal of increasing the number of expansions into investment
areas by 20 percent.* (This refers to membership expansion for underserved
communities.)
Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government
Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000- 2001 (Washington, D.
C.: April 2002); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Government Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002-
2003 (Washington, D. C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2002 Annual Performance Plan
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal
Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision,
Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal
Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
a We used FDIC*s 2002 performance plan because it is the most recent. b
Information is from NCUA*s Combined Annual Performance Report 2001 and
Initial Annual Performance Plan 2003.
Tabl e 11: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency program
area?
achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
OCC OCC reported four performance goals related to the OCC reported that
it missed its goal of examining 95 supervision and regulation function.
They are (1) percent of community banks in accordance with the identifying
and communicating risks to large and FDICIA mandated schedule because as a
result of mid- size bank management, (2) achieving effective
the conversion and migration of data to a new compliance with Federal
Deposit Insurance
examination monitoring and tracking system, minor Corporation Improvement
Act (FDICIA) examination
data inaccuracies caused a small percentage of schedule requirements for
community banks, (3) examinations to begin shortly after their *official*
due continuing to improve corporate application
dates under the FDICIA. Moreover, OCC*s report processes to achieve
maximum efficiency and stated that during the first part of the year, data
responsiveness, consistent with safety and
integrity validation corrected the issue. soundness, and (4) effectively
responding to bank customer complaints and consumer inquiries in a timely
manner. On the basis of its performance report, OCC did not meet one of
its goals, compliance with FDICIA- mandated examination schedule.
According to its report, OCC*s goal was to
examine 95 percent of community banks in accordance with the FDICIA
mandated schedule. It completed 94 percent of the examinations. FDIC FDIC
reported that it achieved five of six
The agency provided a reasonable explanation for performance goals in the
financial regulation
not achieving one goal. Eleven institutions, which program: (1) taking
prompt supervisory actions to
were scheduled for examinations, were not examined address problems; (2)
providing technical assistance
for the following reasons: some institutions merged and training on the
Community Reinvestment Act
or converted their charters, changes in examination (CRA), fair lending,
and community development; intervals because of asset growth or change in
(3) responding effectively to written consumer capital category, and an
institution*s information complaints and inquiries; (4) conducting system
conversion. In addition, the plan provided a comprehensive and compliance-
only examination in reasonable strategy for achieving the measures in
accordance with FDIC examination frequency policy;
the future, stating that the remaining institutions will (5) and taking
prompt supervisory actions and be examined in the following year.
monitoring on all institutions rated *4* or *5* for compliance. The report
stated that FDIC did not achieve its goal of conducting on- site safety
and soundness examinations to assess the overall financial condition of
its banks. Eleven banks due for examination were
not examined during 2001.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency program
area?
achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
Federal Reserve Board a The report indicated that the Board generally met
its The Board did not meet its goal of completing goals for 2000 through
2001. The report listed four depository institution examinations in the
required goals related to banking supervision and regulation time frame.
In 2000, 26 examinations of state
function: (1) promote overall financial stability, member banks were not
conducted in the required management, and containment of systemic risk and
time frame and approximately 17 examinations were ensure that emerging
threats to the health of the not conducted in 2001. The Board provided an
financial system are identified early and are
appropriate reason for the delay* scheduling successfully resolved, (2)
provide a safe, sound,
problems with state bank regulatory agencies. competitive, and accessible
banking system through
According to the report, the Board is implementing a comprehensive and
effective supervision of U. S. new scheduling system that will partially
resolve banks, bank- holding companies, U. S. operations of
these problems. foreign banking organizations, and related entities, (3)
improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and consistency of the supervisory
process while reducing the burden on supervised institutions, and (4)
promote compliance with consumer protection statutes and assure fair
access to financial services.
The Board reported that it had met most of its goals for 2001. It
completed financial institution examinations as required by statute and
dictated by review of supervisory data on the institutions*
financial condition, completed reports of examinations within established
Federal Reserve time frames, and processed applications and completed
compliance examinations within time frames it had established.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency program
area?
achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
OTS The OTS report listed six performance goals in the Since the OTS
report indicated that the agency met area of supervision and regulation:
(1) for all thrift
its goals, it did not need to provide strategies on how institutions
scheduled to receive examinations,
it would achieve any of its missed goals. conduct at least 95 percent for
safety and soundness, 95 percent of compliance, and 90 percent of holding
company, and 90 percent of trust and information systems, (2) ensure that
100 percent of OTS- regulated thrift institutions operate soundly or that
OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or
enforcement action, (3) ensure that at least 99 percent of OTS examination
reports reviewed comply with OTS examination policies and procedures, (4)
ensure that at least 95 percent of OTS- regulated thrift institutions rate
examination process as
*satisfactory* or above, (5) ensure that 100 percent of OTS- regulated
thrift institutions comply with consumer protection, fair lending,
community reinvestment, bank secrecy, and other public policy laws and
regulations or that OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or enforcement
action, and (6) ensure that 100 percent of OTS- regulated thrift
institutions are at least *adequately capitalized* or operating within an
approved capital plan within 150 days of becoming undercapitalized. The
report indicated that OTS had met all six goals.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not respective agencies make toward achieving
the achieving the goal/ measure and describe a goals and measures they
established for each
strategy that appears reasonably linked to Department or agency program
area?
achieving the goal/ measure in the future?
NCUA NCUA reported that it generally met its performance The agency
provided reasonable explanations for not goals. For strategic goal 1,
*Promote a system of
achieving the goals. financially healthy, well- managed federally insured
credit unions able to withstand economic volatility,*
The agency was unable to meet the outcome goal for NCUA met four out of
five outcome goals. strategic goal 3, *Increase by 5 percent the number
of credit union financial services as an indicator of For strategic goal
2, *Ensure credit unions are service and convenience to members,* because
prepared to safely integrate financial services and
there were no data available for measurement. It did emerging technology
in order to meet the changing not provide strategies on how it would
achieve the expectations of their members,* NCUA was unable to
goals in the future. show if it had met all but one outcome goal because
data for these goals were not collected prior to 2001.
According to the report, the only outcome goal met under this strategic
goal was *Increase the number of credit unions offering interactive
services by 10 percent.*
For strategic goal 3, *Create a regulatory environment that will
facilitate credit union innovation to meet member financial service
expectations,* the report listed that the agency met four of five goals.
For strategic goal 4, *Enable credit unions to leverage their unique place
in the American financial services sector to make service available to all
Americans who are not currently being served, particularly those of modest
means,* the report stated that NCUA met all four outcome goals. Sources:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government Performance
and Results Act Performance Report, 2000- 2001 (Washington, D. C.: April
2002); Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of Treasury, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 for the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the
Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance
Report for Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
a The performance report is biannual rather than annual because the Board
uses a biannual budget
Tabl e 12: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans Do the agencies provide strategies that are What
progress did the agencies expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? OCC In terms of financial regulation, OCC
listed the
The OCC 2002 performance plan did not provide following performance goals
related to the supervision strategies that were linked to the specific
performance and regulation function: (1) identify and communicate
goals. However, the plan provided strategies that were risks to large and
midsize bank management, linked to the strategic goal, ensuring a safe and
sound (2) achieve effective compliance with FDICIA
national banking system. They included regularly examination schedule
requirements for community monitoring risk and refining *Examiner View*, a
bank banks, (3) continue to improve corporate application
supervision database that allows the collection and processes to achieve
maximum efficiency and
analysis of systemic and bank specific data and responsiveness, consistent
with safety and
regularly reassessing, and changing if necessary, soundness, and (4)
effectively respond to bank
supervision strategies to adjust to changing risk and customer complaints
and consumer inquiries in a other environmental factors. timely manner.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? FDIC In terms of supervision and regulation,
the 2002 report FDIC*s plan discussed the operational and human listed 5
performance goals: (1) conduct on- site safety
resource strategies it would use to achieve its stated and soundness
examinations to assess an FDICsupervised performance goals for fiscal year
2002. The strategies insured depository institution*s overall appear to be
reasonable. financial condition, management practices and policies, and
compliance with applicable regulations, For the first goal, FDIC stated it
would conduct 100 (2) ensure that prompt supervisory actions are taken
percent of the required examinations in accordance to address problems
identified during examination of
with statutes and FDIC policy. When it identifies FDIC- supervised
institutions identified as problem
problems, FDIC may take informal and formal insured depository
institutions, (3) provide effective
enforcement actions against the institution or outreach and technical
assistance on topics related to responsible individuals. Staffing and
training needs CRA, fair lending, and community development, are to be
continually reviewed. (4) effectively meet the statutory mandate to
investigate and respond to consumer complaints about
For the second goal, FDIC stated that it would do a FDIC- supervised
financial institutions, (5) conduct
follow- up examination within 12 months of completion comprehensive and
compliance- only examinations in of the prior examination for problem
banks. accordance with FDIC examination frequency policy, and (6) ensure
that prompt supervisory actions are
For the third goal, FDIC stated that it would assess taken and monitored
on all institutions rated a *4* or
participants* understanding of financial topics after *5* for compliance
to address problems identified
attending education workshops at model sites during the examinations.
featuring FDIC*s adult education training curriculum called Money Smart.
FDIC will gather and analyze post- seminar self- evaluations from these
participants and will review how they rated the degree to which they
increased their understanding of personal finance topics from the model
sites. Also, FDIC is establishing a certification training program for its
community
affairs. For the fourth goal, FDIC stated that it will respond to 90
percent of written complaints within time frames established by policy.
FDIC plans to monitor the timeliness of its responses. For the fifth goal,
FDIC stated that it would conduct the required examinations in accordance
with statute and
FDIC policy. FDIC will analyze examination- related data collected in the
System of Uniform Reporting of Compliance and CRA Examination to determine
whether it achieved targeted performance levels during the reporting
period.
For the sixth goal, FDIC stated that it would conduct a follow- up
examination or related activity within 12 months of the date of a formal
enforcement action to confirm that the institution was complying with the
action. FDIC is enhancing its compliance examination process to focus on
the effectiveness of the financial
institution compliance program*s management. This change will add value to
the examination process but will necessitate additional training of
examination staff.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? Federal Reserve Board For the supervision
and regulation function, the
The Board*s plan discussed strategies for meeting its Board*s plan listed
only one goal: promote a safe,
planned objectives. These strategies appear to be sound, competitive, and
accessible banking system
reasonable. and stable financial markets. The Board report outlined five
objectives for the goal for 2002 through
For the first objective, the Board intends to focus on 2003: (1) provide
comprehensive and effective
the areas of highest risk, promote sound risk supervision of U. S. banks,
bank- holding companies, management practices, understand and U. S.
operations of foreign banking organizations, and
accommodate the effects of financial innovation and related entities, (2)
promote overall financial stability, technology, improve international
banking and manage and contain systemic risk, and ensure that supervisory
practices, and refine and strengthen the emerging financial crises are
identified early and foreign bank organizations program. successfully
resolved, (3) improve efficiency and effectiveness and reduce the burden
on supervised
For the second objective, the Board plans to maintain institutions, (4)
promote equal access to banking
adequate expertise and involvement through a services, and (5) administer
and ensure compliance
consistent emphasis on identifying its training needs with consumer
protection statutes relating to
and developing suitable courses and improve consumer financial
transactions.
preparedness by developing and implementing policies and procedures that
ensure the Board retains the flexibility necessary to respond to emerging
problems.
For the third objective, the Board plans to conduct seamless supervision
of state- chartered banks through ongoing and improved coordination with
state and federal bank regulators; remove unnecessary or
ineffective policies and procedures, consistent with safety and soundness
of banking organizations, harness benefits of technology; improve
employment of resources; and maintain staff with adequate experience and
skills.
For the fourth and fifth objectives, the Board plans to support and
oversee the Reserve banks* supervisory efforts to ensure that compliance
is fully and fairly enforced, implement a risk- focused compliance
examination component that will reduce the regulatory burden on state-
chartered banks without compromising the overall effectiveness of the
consumer compliance supervision program, and review bank and bank- holding
company applications for adverse CRA, privacy, and compliance issues.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? OTS OTS is designed to maintain a safe and
sound thrift
The OTS 2002 performance plan provided general industry that meets its
responsibilities. Its 2002 strategies for achieving annual performance
goals performance plan listed four performance goals: related to the
supervision and regulation function. (1) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-
regulated thrift
However, the strategies in the plan were not linked to institutions
operate soundly or that OTS has taken the specific performance goals. For
example, the plan appropriate supervisory or enforcement action, included
the following strategies: (1) ensure that the (2) ensure that at least 95
percent of OTS- regulated supervisory corrective strategies for 100% of
the high
thrift institutions rate the value of the examination risk institutions
are presented at least semi- annually to
process as *satisfactory* or above, (3) ensure that 100 the OTS Director,
Deputy Director and other senior percent of OTS- regulated thrift
institutions comply with
staff in Washington; (2) creatively and effectively deal consumer
protection, fair lending, community
with problem thrift institutions; and (3) review the reinvestment, bank
secrecy, and other public policy
examination follow- up and corrective action process laws and regulations
or that OTS has taken
for greater efficiency and effectiveness, as well as appropriate
supervisory or enforcement action, and more consistency among regions. (4)
ensure that 100 percent of OTS- regulated thrift institutions are at least
*adequately capitalized,* are under a prompt corrective action directive,
or are recapitalized to the *adequately capitalized* level or operating
within an approved capital plan within 150 days of becoming
undercapitalized.
To actively support the thrift industry*s efforts to expand the full range
of housing, the report outlined two performance goals to (1) provide
educational and technical assistance to industry representatives, the OTS
examination staff, and other relevant parties on community development
issues and needs and
opportunities and (2) promote and help facilitate partnerships among
financial institutions, community organizations, and others as a means of
improving the availability of and access to credit and financial services.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? NCUA NCUA reported that it generally met its
performance
The NCUA report described how NCUA will meet goals. To promote a system of
financially healthy, wellmanaged some of its goals, but it did not provide
a description federally insured credit unions able to
for all the goals. withstand economic volatility, NCUA plan listed the
following performance goals: (1) review one- third of its
To ensure NCUA*s communication processes, regulations annually for needed
changes, (2) complete including examinations, serve as an effective means
to the program review phase of the transition to a riskfocused provide
credit unions with critical and other valuable examination process, (3)
monitor and assess
information, NCUA will measure satisfaction by a 4.4 the percentage of
federally insured credit unions with average rating on the NCUA
Examination Survey. long- standing unresolved problems that threaten their
safety and soundness, and (4) ensure that NCUA*s
To enhance the training program for NCUA Information communication
processes, including examinations,
Systems and Technology Subject Matter Examiners, serve as an effective
means to provide credit unions NCUA will provide training to all NCUA
information with critical and other valuable information. systems and
technology subject matter examiners. To facilitate credit unions* ability
to safely integrate
To review one- third of NCUA regulations annually for financial services
and emerging technology in order to
needed changes, NCUA will complete the review of meet the changing
expectations of their members, the the regulations identified by the
Office of General NCUA plan outlined the following performance goals:
Counsel, the Office of Examination and Insurance, and (1) enhance the
training program for NCUA and State the regional offices for 2003.
Supervisory Authority Information Systems and Technology Subject Matter
Examiners and To implement a review process of the successes and
(2) enhance the credit union community*s use and difficulties encountered
by new charters and identify understanding of technology plans, due
diligence common themes or reasons for success and failure, expectations,
and best practices.
NCUA will implement a review process to analyze the success or failure of
a credit union meeting the To create a regulatory environment that will
facilitate definition of *new* in conjunction with the Office of
innovations in credit unions to meet members*
Examination and Insurance*s risk management financial service
expectations, the NCUA plan listed
postmortem review process. three performance goals: (1) review one- third
of NCUA regulations annually for needed changes, (2) review examination
and supervision procedures to ensure that they are efficient, effective,
flexible and helpful in a competitive environment yet maintain safety and
soundness, and (3) create a regulatory environment that allows credit
unions to enhance financial services by reducing regulatory barriers and
sharing information and legislative efforts.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that are What progress did the agencies
expect to make in
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year Department or agency
fiscal year 2003? 2003 goals? To enable credit unions to leverage their
unique place in the American financial system to extend the
availability of services to all who seek them, while encouraging and
recognizing the historical emphasis credit unions have placed on serving
those of modest means, the NCUA plan (1) expands the availability of
financial services, (2) implements a process to identify emerging
demographic trends and share this information, and (3) implements a review
process of the success and difficulties encountered by new charters.
Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government
Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002- 2003
(Washington, D. C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
2002 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of the
Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 for the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department
of the Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 for the
Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and
Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of
Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and
Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports How did the agencies discuss the
Are known shortcomings in the data completeness, reliability, and
credibility of their
acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data?
the shortcomings described?
OCC The report commented that the data had The report did not comment on
any shortcomings in reasonable accuracy. The data were considered the data
used to measure the results for the accurate for the following performance
supervision and regulation function. measurements: the percentage of bank
examinations conducted as scheduled, percentage of regulations and
handbooks drafted that
incorporated plain language criteria, and percentage of corporate
applications processed on time. An independent reviewer periodically
compares samples of large and midsize bank
examination reports to the system data to ensure accuracy.
FDIC The report did not comment on the completeness, The report did not
comment on any potential reliability, and credibility of the FDIC data or
include
shortcomings related to the data on the supervision a discussion of the
standards and methods used to
and regulation function. assess the data quality. Federal Reserve Board
The report did not comment on the completeness,
The report did not comment on any potential reliability, and credibility
of the Board*s data or
shortcomings related to the data on the supervision include a discussion
of the standards and methods
and regulation function presented in the report. used to assess the data
quality.
OTS The report commented that the performance data The report did not
comment on any potential used in the report had reasonable accuracy. The
shortcomings related to the data on the supervision report stated that the
performance measure data
and regulation function. met the accurate and auditable standards.
NCUA Although the report did not comment on the The report did not comment
on any potential completeness and reliability of data, it did include a
shortcomings related to the data on the supervision discussion of the
standards and methods used to and regulation function. assess data
quality. Data integrity is maintained through multilayered processes that
include the continuous training of staff, the use of software controls and
screen logic for error prevention, data
integrity analysis on all reports, reviews by senior staff of all reports,
and the maintenance of strict system security controls.
Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government
Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000- 2001 (Washington, D.
C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2001 Program
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Treasury,
Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Treasury,
Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of Thrift
Supervision (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.:
2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report of Fiscal Year
2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
Appendi x IV
Public Health Systems Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
The Department of Health Within HHS, there are five components that have
Within HHS, there are five components that have and Human Services
activities related to the prevention of infectious activities related to
the prevention of infectious (HHS) diseases in the United States.
diseases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
CDC: CDC does not distinguish between its (CDC) a : According to its
combined report and plan,
reported and planned coordination efforts. CDC coordinated with several
agencies on issues pertaining to public health systems. For example, in
its mission to protect the public from infectious disease threats, CDC
reported that it collaborated with the Department of Agriculture and the
Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) on food safety programs. For the immunization
objectives, CDC reported that it partnered with the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS), FDA, and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) among others. To develop new diagnostic and
treatment tools and better vaccines for tuberculosis, CDC reported working
with NIH and FDA.
CMS b : According to its combined report and plan, CMS: CMS does not
distinguish between its CMS worked with other agencies within and outside
reported and planned coordination efforts. of HHS on various issues. For
example, CMS
worked with CDC to increase the rate of influenza and pneumococcal
vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries. Also, CMS reported working with
states, CDC, and the American Public Human Services Association to develop
strategies for the
goal to increase the percentage of fully immunized 2- year- old children
under Medicaid.
(Continued From Previous Page)
What types of coordination among the relevant What types of coordination
among the relevant agencies associated with each crosscutting
agencies associated with each crosscutting program were discussed in their
fiscal year 2001 program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 Agency
performance reports? performance plans?
FDA c : The combined report and plan provided a FDA: FDA does not
distinguish between its reported discussion on FDA coordination efforts
with other and planned coordination efforts. federal agencies in the
prevention of infectious diseases. FDA*s combined report and plan reported
that its scientists coordinate with various national, international, and
interagency organizations such as the National Vaccine Advisory Committee
and the World Health Organization to develop vaccine policy. Also, FDA
stated that it worked with CDC and Agriculture to establish the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System to determine what
foodborne pathogens develop resistance to drug treatment. Through
coordination with CDC and Agriculture, FDA developed an improved food
safety
surveillance program called FoodNet. HRSA d : HRSA*s combined report and
plan HRSA: HRSA does not distinguish between its discussed coordination
efforts with CDC pertaining
reported and planned coordination efforts. to disease prevention and
health promotion activities, including immunization efforts.
NIH e : NIH*s combined report and plan discussed NIH: NIH does not
distinguish between its reported coordination with other agencies within
HHS, such as and planned coordination efforts. FDA, CDC, and the Agency
for Healthcare Research
and Quality. The combined performance plan and report did not provide
specific information on how NIH coordinates with other entities on efforts
related to public health systems.
Agriculture Agriculture reported that it coordinated with HHS and In the
plan, Agriculture reported that it intends to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
collaborate with HHS and EPA the same way as it did regarding the goal to
protect the public health by in fiscal year 2001. reducing the incidence
of foodborne illnesses. However, Agriculture did not discuss specific
coordination efforts with HHS or EPA related to protecting the public
health. Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan
Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:
Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Food and Drug
Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final
Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources
and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance
Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of
Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002
GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: February 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). a CDC issued a
consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003
performance plan. b CMS issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance
report and fiscal year 2003 performance
plan. c FDA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and
fiscal year 2003 performance
plan.
d HRSA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. e NIH issued a consolidated fiscal year
2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance
plan.
Table 15: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001
performance goal or measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year
2001 did the provide a reasonable explanation for not achieving respective
agencies make toward achieving the the goal/ measure and describe a
strategy that goals and measures they established for each appears
reasonably linked to achieving the
Department or agency program area? goal/ measure in the future?
HHS CDC: CDC reported that it has achieved 25 of the CDC: CDC provided
explanations for not meeting its 39 measures, did not meet 3 of the
measures, and
measures that appeared reasonable. For the fourth did not have data to
report on 11 of the measures for
goal, CDC reported that full vaccination for Diphtheria the goals relating
to the prevention of infectious
Tetanus- Pertussis is dependent on the varying states* diseases. CDC
discussed the following requirements for the four- dose vaccination
schedule, performance goals that related to public health
which may have resulted in the slower increase in systems: coverage. For
the ninth goal, CDC reported that an assessment was not completed due to
the 1. improve epidemiological and laboratory
reevaluation of communication strategies and targets capacity to
recognize, respond to, and monitor
by new program leadership. For 11 of the infectious diseases,
performance measures, CDC did not report any data 2. protect the American
people from priority
at the time of the report*s issuance. In addition, CDC infectious
diseases,
did not discuss strategies to meet the unmet goals in 3. apply scientific
findings to prevent and control
the future. infectious diseases, 4. reduce the number of indigenous cases
of vaccine- preventable diseases,
5. ensure that 2- year- olds are appropriately vaccinated, 6. reduce the
number of cases of HIV infection and AIDS by implementing HIV prevention
programs, 7. increase the capacity of community- based
organizations providing HIV prevention services to persons of color, 8.
reduce the percentage of HIV/ AIDS- related risk
behaviors among school- aged youth through dissemination of HIV prevention
education programs, 9. strengthen the ability to obtain and disseminate
extramural research findings to partners, public health practitioners, and
the public through a prevention research communications program,
and 10. increase input from the external scientific
community on extramural prevention research.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not achieving respective agencies make toward
achieving the the goal/ measure and describe a strategy that goals and
measures they established for each appears reasonably linked to achieving
the
Department or agency program area? goal/ measure in the future?
CMS: CMS reported on two performance goals: CMS: CMS did not report on the
performance results (1) increase the percentage of Medicare
of its first goal. For the second goal that CMS met beneficiaries who are
65 years and older and partially, CMS explains that more time was needed
for receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations states to fully
develop their measurement and (2) increase the percentage of Medicaid
methodologies because of the variations in state children aged 2 years who
are fully immunized. b For reporting cycles for immunization data, data
problems, the first goal, CMS*s report did not include data and staff and
resource limitations. CMS discusses concerning the goal of vaccinating 72
percent of time frames for the development of each state*s Medicare
beneficiaries aged 65 years and older for
baseline measure and reporting methodology, but influenza and 63 percent
for pneumococcal
CMS does not describe specifically how it intends to infections in fiscal
year 2001. CMS stated that the
achieve its targets for this area in the future. data would be available
next year. For the second goal, CMS reported that it established a series
of targets for states to achieve within the phase- in
process to accomplish the goal* to increase the percentage of Medicaid
children who are fully immunized.
FDA: Relating to food safety, FDA reported that it FDA: FDA provided a
reasonable explanation for why met two of the six performance goals: (1)
to achieve
three of the four goals were not met. For example, for adoption of the
Food Code by at least one state
the unmet goal to inspect 90 percent of high- risk agency in 33 states and
(2) to assure that
domestic food establishments each year, FDA asserts inspections of
domestic food establishments that the goal was missed because the agency
indicate that more than 90 percent of the
purposefully diverted resources for these inspections establishments
conform with FDA requirements. to focus on an even greater threat of
bovine FDA did not meet targets for the following four
spongiform encephalopathy c that was breaking out in performance goals:
Europe at the time. Also, for the unmet goal to increase the number of
exams on imported food 1. to inspect 90 percent of high- risk domestic
food products, FDA reported that it established a new goal
establishments each year, starting fiscal year 2002 that will be more
indicative of
2. to increase the number of import exams on food the effort to reduce
health risks at the border. The products, agency reported that the
reallocation of resources to 3. to increase the number of audits and
other issues contributed to not meeting the goal of assessments of foreign
food safety systems of
increasing the number of audits of foreign food safety high volume
exporters to the United States, and systems of main exporters to the
United States. FDA 4. to maintain the current level of monitoring for
did not provide an explanation as to why it did not pesticides and
environmental contaminants in achieve the fourth unmet performance goal*
to foods through analysis of a targeted cohort of
maintain the current level of monitoring for pesticides 8,000 samples.
and environmental contaminants in foods through analysis of a targeted
cohort of 8,000 samples. FDA provided no discussion of strategies for how
it would meet the unmet goals in the future.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not achieving respective agencies make toward
achieving the the goal/ measure and describe a strategy that goals and
measures they established for each appears reasonably linked to achieving
the
Department or agency program area? goal/ measure in the future?
HRSA: HRSA reported that it established measures HRSA: HRSA did not report
on the performance for two performance goals related to improving
results of the goals. public health and health care systems under the
objective to promote AIDS education and training of the public health and
health care workforce. The
two performance goals are increase proportion of the national AIDS
education and training centers (AETC) training interventions provided to
minority health care providers and increase the number of minority health
care and social service providers
who receive training in AETCs. HRSA did not report performance data for
these goals. For the first goal, HRSA indicated that the fiscal year 2001
performance data would be available in February 2003. For the second goal,
HRSA did not report fiscal year 2001 performance data. However, it noted
that this measure is to be deleted. NIH: NIH reported on one goal that
pertained to the
NIH: Not applicable. prevention of infectious disease* develop new or
improved approaches for preventing or delaying the onset or progression of
disease and disability. According to the combined report and plan, the
fiscal year 2001 measure for this goal was the progress in developing new
or improved approaches for preventing or delaying the onset of diseases
and disabilities. NIH reported that the measure for the
goal was substantially exceeded. NIH reported 127 scientific advances that
support the goal. For example, NIH stated that recombinant DNA technology
and naked DNA are now used to generate new vaccines. Vaccines for diseases
such
as Ebola, tuberculosis, and AIDS are being produced and a more effective
tuberculosis vaccine is under development.
(Continued From Previous Page)
If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 performance goal or
measure, does the agency What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the provide
a reasonable explanation for not achieving respective agencies make toward
achieving the the goal/ measure and describe a strategy that goals and
measures they established for each appears reasonably linked to achieving
the
Department or agency program area? goal/ measure in the future?
Agriculture Agriculture reported on three performance goals In its report,
Agriculture provides a reasonable related to protecting the public health
by reducing explanation for not achieving the performance target the
incidence of foodborne hazards:
for the measure to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella on broiler chickens
(percentage). 1. provide leadership towards the creation and
Agriculture suggests that there may be data problems utilization of risk
assessment capacity for meat,
due to random sampling of plants to check for poultry, and egg products
that is supported by prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens. the
latest research and technology, Agriculture said it is giving serious
consideration to 2. create a coordinated national and international
increasing its activities to include not only random food safety risk
management system to ensure
sampling, but also sampling when there is an the safety of U. S. meat and
poultry products indication that problems exist in a plant. Agriculture
from farm to table, and
said it also was giving serious consideration to deleting 3. conduct a
comprehensive national and this indicator, as additional sampling results
would international communication program that is an skew the salmonella
prevalence targets. However, it open exchange of information and opinions
did not state any strategies to achieve the unmet goal about food safety
risks.
in the future. Agriculture reported that it achieved six of seven
performance targets under these three performance goals. For example, the
actual performance of 150 million for the measure* number of people
reached with food safety information through media stories, circulation
reports, visiting Agriculture*s Food Safety
and Inspection Service Web site, and Agriculture Meat & Poultry Hotline
calls* surpassed the target of 87 million in fiscal year 2001. The
department reported that it did not achieve the target for the measure
prevalence of salmonella on broiler
chickens (percentage) which is under the performance goal to create a
coordinated food safety risk management system to ensure the safety of
meat and poultry products. Sources: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA
Annual Performance Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan
FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); The
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services: Annual Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report (Washington,
D. C.: 2002); U. S. Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Food and Drug
Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final
Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.:
Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources
and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance
Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of
Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002
GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: February 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). a States have
varying requirements for the four- dose vaccine schedule for Diphtheria-
Tetanus- Pertussis. b According to CMS*s fiscal year 2001 performance
report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan, the
term *fully immunized* is used to describe the *complete series of
vaccinations in the first two years of life. . .to prevent certain
diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, diphtheria,
pertussis, and meningitis.* c Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a
chronic, degenerative disorder affecting the central nervous
system of cattle and is known as *Mad Cow Disease.*
Table 16: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear What progress did the
agencies expect to make reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003
Department or agency in fiscal year 2003? goals?
HHS CDC: For fiscal year 2003, CDC plans to report on CDC: CDC provides
strategies that appear generally its goals and measures from fiscal year
reasonably linked to achieving its goals for fiscal year 2001 that pertain
to prevention of infectious 2003. For example, pertaining to the goal to
diseases with updated targets. For example, the
strengthen epidemiological and laboratory capacity to performance measure
to monitor influenza viruses recognize, respond to, and monitor infectious
in domestic and global sites in order to improve diseases, CDC plans to
maintain and improve the U. S. detection of viruses has projected to
monitor 900
Sentinel Physician surveillance system in order to sites for fiscal year
2003, which is an increase from
continue to monitor influenza viruses in the United the fiscal year 2001
target of 514. CDC developed a States. CDC reports that maintaining the
surveillance new goal in fiscal year 2002 that is to conduct
system is a priority because it is the primary source for research to
identify and assess community- based
measuring the impact of the virus. prevention interventions.
CMS: In CMS*s fiscal year 2003 plan, it has CMS: For its first goal of
achieving particular increased its performance targets for its two
immunization rates for Medicare beneficiaries, CMS performance goals that
pertain to vaccinating elderly
discusses strategies, including working in Medicare beneficiaries and
children who are under
collaboration with providers, community groups, and Medicaid. For its
first goal* vaccinating Medicare
other interested partners to design and implement beneficiaries aged 65
years and older for influenza immunization quality improvement projects.
For and pneumococcal infections* the targets for fiscal example, they
report the most effective strategy for year 2003 are 72. 5 percent and 69
percent,
achieving higher vaccinations is the implementation by respectively. For
its second goal, CMS plans to medical facilities of standing orders* i.
e., the use of a have all states develop their own baselines and
protocol by non- physician personnel to vaccinate methodologies for
measuring immunization rates for Medicare beneficiaries. For its second
goal of having 2- year- old children who are under Medicaid. states
develop a baseline and methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-
year- old children under Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the
development of each state*s baseline measure and reporting methodology,
but CMS does not describe specifically how it intends to achieve its
targets for this area.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear What progress did the
agencies expect to make reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003
Department or agency in fiscal year 2003? goals?
FDA: FDA plans to report on five goals related to FDA: FDA*s strategies
appear reasonably linked to the strategic goal of reducing the health
risks by achieving the strategic goal of reducing health risks preventing
exposure to foodborne hazards. The five associated with food products by
preventing human goals include
exposure to hazards. For example, one of the prevention strategies states
that FDA will be working 1. achieve adoption of the Food Code a by 33
with states and the food industry to develop and states,
implement food production and preventive control 2. inspect 95 percent of
high- risk domestic food
systems that are appropriate to specific product establishments each year,
hazard combinations and to establish regular 3. increase the count of
physical exams by 100
processes and systems to more effectively and percent to 48, 000 exams and
conduct sample efficiently monitor the food supply. analyses on products,
4. improve the productivity at 45 additional ports
through training, and 5. maintain the current level of monitoring for
pesticides and environmental contaminants in foods through analysis of a
targeted 8,000 samples. NIH: For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NIH developed
NIH: NIH does not discuss the strategies it will use to two subgoals for
the goal to develop new or achieve the goals. improved approaches for
preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease and disability.
The two subgoals are to (1) identify modifiable risk factors for disease/
disability and (2) identify, develop, and test new/ improved medications
for the
prevention of disease/ disability. For each of the two subgoals, NIH
reports on identical performance measure that will assess the status of
achieving the
subgoals* annual milestones that include scientific advances and
discoveries. NIH does not report targets for fiscal year 2003 for this
measure.
HRSA: HRSA*s plan will report on the same goal HRSA: HRSA*s plan does not
discuss the strategies it related to improving public health and health
care
will use to achieve the goal. systems that it reported on in fiscal year
2001* increase proportion of AETC training interventions provided to
minority health care providers. HRSA plans to drop the goal to increase
the number of minority health care and social service providers who
receive training in AETCs because measuring the percentage of training
interventions provided to minority health providers was determined to be a
more accurate and appropriate method to measure the program*s progress in
training health care providers. According to HRSA*s plan, it will increase
the proportion of AETCs provided to minority health care providers to 41
percent in fiscal year 2003 compared to the targeted 40 percent in fiscal
year 2001.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do the agencies provide strategies that appear What progress did the
agencies expect to make reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003
Department or agency in fiscal year 2003? goals?
Agriculture In the fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture will report on
Agriculture*s plan provides strategies that appear the same three
performance goals related to
reasonably linked to achieving each performance goal. reducing the
prevalence of foodborne illnesses as in For example, Agriculture reports
that its performance fiscal year 2001: goal to create a coordinated
national and international food safety risk management system to ensure
safety 1. provide leadership towards the creation and
of U. S. meat and poultry has a set of outlined utilization of risk
assessment for meat, poultry,
strategies to follow in order to accomplish the goal, and egg products,
including 2. create a coordinated national and international
food safety risk management system to ensure 1. develop national
performance standards for
safety of U. S. meat and poultry, and ready- to- eat meat and poultry
items,
3. conduct a comprehensive national and 2. ensure food safety requirements
are followed by international communication program to serve
monitoring slaughter and process plants, and as a medium of exchanging
information about
3. increase reviews of foreign inspection systems to food safety.
ensure the safety of imported meat, poultry, and egg products. Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised Final
FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance
Plan/ Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Food and
Drug Administration, U. S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual
Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and
Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration:
Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002
Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington,
D. C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA
Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance
Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.:
February 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).
a According to FDA, the Food Code is a document that regulatory agencies
use as a reference for overseeing food safety in establishments such as
restaurants and grocery stores. The Food Code is not a federal law but can
be adopted by any agency at any level of government.
Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Reports
How did the agencies discuss the Are known shortcomings in the data
completeness, reliability, and credibility of their
acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data?
the shortcomings described?
HHS CDC: CDC*s combined report and plan provides CDC: While CDC
acknowledged shortcomings, it discussions of data completeness,
reliability, and
did not discuss steps to minimize them. For credibility by addressing data
verification and example, CDC recognizes the 85 percent validation for
each data source corresponding to
completeness in reporting diagnosed AIDS cases. each goal. For example,
the goal to utilize scientific It attributes this lack of completeness to
the findings to prevent and control infectious diseases is
variation in reporting of the data by states. followed by a discussion on
verification of the data. The discussion includes (1) identifying that
states are the sources of data, (2) conducting regular visits
and progress reviews in order to verify performance of the goal, and (3)
listing data systems utilized for verification. Also, CDC stated that it
had 85 percent completeness in reporting the diagnosed AIDS cases for the
performance goal to reduce the number of cases of HIV infection and AIDS
by implementing HIV prevention programs. For all the
performance goals, CDC*s combined report and plan discusses the source of
data and includes an explanation of the data systems utilized by CDC. CMS:
In CMS*s plan and report, it includes a
CMS: CMS acknowledged shortcomings in its discussion of data reliability
and verification for each
performance data and sometimes discusses steps performance goal.
to minimize these shortcomings. Data verification and validation for
immunization will depend on each state*s methodology for data collection.
Also, CMS reports that immunization coverage levels will not be directly
comparable across the states because of the different reporting and data
collection
methodologies used by the states, but did not report steps to minimize the
shortcomings in the future. CMS states that a key part of the technical
assistance provided by CMS and CDC includes
helping state address data reliability.
(Continued From Previous Page)
How did the agencies discuss the Are known shortcomings in the data
completeness, reliability, and credibility of their acknowledged and steps
to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data? the shortcomings described?
NIH: NIH*s progress toward meeting this goal has NIH: NIH did not report
on shortcomings related to been assessed by a working group of the
Advisory data quality. Committee to the Director (ACD). The GRPA
Assessment Working Group was composed of members of the ACD, the NIH*s
Council of Public
Representatives, and selected members of the Institutes and Centers (ICs)
national advisory councils. The assessment of NIH*s research was based on
data provided by the ICs that describes the new findings and theories
forthcoming from the
research that NIH conducts and supports. Key references were provided for
all science advances, science capsules, and stories of discovery. NIH also
provided copies of full articles to the
assessment working group whenever requested. FDA: FDA discussed aspects of
the quality of its
FDA: FDA acknowledged shortcomings and performance data. For example, FDA
stated that it
addressed steps to minimize them. It stated that developed FoodNet to
improve food safety the public health data systems are not currently
surveillance. FDA asserted that the FoodNet sites
adequate to provide accurate and comprehensive provide much better data on
the number of
baseline data needed to draw direct relationships foodborne illnesses and
trends in terms of the types
between FDA*s regulatory activities and changes in of contaminants that
are causing these illnesses. In the number and types of foodborne
illnesses that 2002, when the data will be sufficient in volume and occur
annually in the United States. FDA reported quality to establish baselines
against which to
the need for improved data on food- related measure changes in foodborne
illnesses, FDA will
illnesses. Through coordination with the CDC and be in a better position
to establish broad- scope Agriculture, FDA developed an improved food
safety outcome goals that are essential to effective
surveillance program called FoodNet. performance planning.
HRSA: HRSA reported that data from the HIV/ AIDS HRSA: HRSA reported on
two data limitations Bureau comes from grantees who receive funding
related to the HIV/ AIDS data collection efforts and from Titles I, II,
III, or IV. It reports that grantees
provided a discussion on how to minimize these complete the Ryan White
CARE Act Data Report limitations. First, because the data are reported in
according to their preferred format. Then the data the aggregate, the
types of questions that can be
are sent to the Office of Science and Epidemiology answered using the data
are limited. Also, the so its staff members can edit and screen the data
reporting system that holds the data contains for accuracy.
duplicate data about individuals that prevents accurate conclusions being
made. To minimize these data limitations, HRSA reports allowing
grantees the option to participate in a client- level reporting system
that will address the concern of relationship across variables for the
individual clients.
(Continued From Previous Page)
How did the agencies discuss the Are known shortcomings in the data
completeness, reliability, and credibility of their acknowledged and steps
to resolve or minimize Department or agency
performance data? the shortcomings described?
Agriculture For each performance goal, Agriculture discussed Agriculture
did not discuss data limitations for its the validity and accuracy of its
performance data.
goals related to foodborne illnesses. For example, in the section *data
assessment* for the performance indicator number of cumulative risk
assessments used to inform risk management decisionmaking and policy,
Agriculture stated that the data are reliable.
Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised
Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance
Plan/ Annual Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Food and
Drug Administration, U. S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual
Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 2001 Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and
Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration:
Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance
Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of
Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002
GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: February 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).
Appendi x V
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 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, Lisa M. Brown,
Amy M. Choi, Peter J. Del Toro, Nancy M. Eibeck, and Debra L. Johnson.
(450148)
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
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 the following:
* 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.
Most of the agencies we reviewed reported mixed progress in achieving
their fiscal year 2001 goals* meeting some goals, missing others, or not
reporting on progress. 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
Drug control
Family poverty
Financial institution regulation
Public health systems Agriculture a a
Federal Reserve a
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation a
HHS a a
HUD a
Labor a
Justice a
National Credit Union Administration a
State a
Transportation a
Treasury a
Comptroller of the Currency a
Office of Thrift Supervision a
Source: GAO analysis. RESULTS- ORIENTED MANAGEMENT
Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Drug Control, Family Poverty,
Financial Institution Regulation, and Public Health Systems
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 320. 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- 320, a report to the
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 drug control, family poverty,
financial institution regulation, and public health systems. 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- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Contents
Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Contents
Page iii GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Contents
Page iv GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 1 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 1 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
A
Page 2 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 3 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 4 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 5 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 6 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 7 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 8 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 9 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 10 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 11 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 12 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 13 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 14 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 15 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 16 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 17 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 18 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 19 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 20 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 21 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 22 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 23 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 24 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 25 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 26 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 27 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 28 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 29 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 30 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 31 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 32 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Drug Control
Page 33 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 34 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 35 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 36 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 37 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 38 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 39 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 40 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 41 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 42 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 43 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Family Poverty
Page 44 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 45 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 46 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 47 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 48 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 49 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 50 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 51 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 52 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 53 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 54 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 55 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 56 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 57 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Financial Institution Regulation
Page 58 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 59 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 60 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 61 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 62 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 63 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 64 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 65 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 66 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 67 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 68 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 69 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Public Health Systems
Page 70 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Page 71 GAO- 03- 320 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix V
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
*** End of document. ***