Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and
Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance,
Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management (20-DEC-02, GAO-03-321).
GAO's work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and
program overlap are widespread in the federal government.
Implementation of federal crosscutting programs is often
characterized by numerous individual agency efforts that are
implemented with little apparent regard for the presence and
efforts of related activities. GAO has in the past offered
possible approaches for managing crosscutting programs, and has
stated that the Government Performance and Results Act could
provide a framework for addressing crosscutting efforts. GAO was
asked to examine the actions and plans agencies reported in
addressing the crosscutting issues of border control, flood
mitigation and insurance, wetlands, and wildland fire management.
GAO reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports and fiscal
year 2003 performance plans for the major agencies involved in
these issues.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-321
ACCNO: A05761
TITLE: Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions
and Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance,
Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management
DATE: 12/20/2002
SUBJECT: Emergency preparedness
Flood control management
Flood insurance
Land management
Strategic planning
Wildlife management
Best practices
Reporting requirements
Program management
Program evaluation
FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
USDA Conservation Reserve Program
Budget Formulation and Execution System
National Fire Plan
National Fire Plan Operations and
Reporting System
******************************************************************
** 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-03-321
A
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U. S. Senate
December 2002 RESULTS- ORIENTED MANAGEMENT Agency Crosscutting Actions and
Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and
Wildland Fire Management
GAO- 03- 321
Letter 1 Background 2 Scope and Methodology 4 Results in Brief 6 Agencies
Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for
Coordination 8 Border Control 9 Flood Mitigation and Insurance 13 Wetlands
16 Wildland Fire Management 19 Concluding Observations 22 Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation 23
Appendixes
Appendix I: Border Control 25
Appendix II: Flood Mitigation and Insurance 42
Appendix III: Wetlands 48
Appendix IV: Wildland Fire Management 55
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59 Tables Table 1:
Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area 9
Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Border Control as
Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year
2003 Performance Plans 25 Table 3: Agencies* Reported Progress and
Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Reports 30 Table 4: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for
Achieving Goals in Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2003
Performance Plans 34
Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Border Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
38 Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Flood
Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 42
Table 7: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in
Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 44 Table 8: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies
for Achieving Goals in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in
Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 45 Table 9: Reliability of
Performance Data Reported by Agencies
Involved in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance Reports 47 Table 10: Coordination Efforts among
Agencies Involved in
Wetlands- Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 48
Table 11: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
Involved in Wetlands- Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Reports 51 Table 12: Agencies* Expected Progress and
Strategies for Achieving Goals in Wetlands- Related Activities as
Discussed in Their
Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 52 Table 13: Reliability of Performance
Data Reported by Agencies
Involved in Wetlands- Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Reports 53 Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in Wildland
Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports
and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 55 Table 15: Agencies* Reported
Progress and Strategies for Achieving
Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports 56 Table 16: Agencies* Expected Progress and
Strategies for Achieving Goals in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in
Their
Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 57 Table 17: Reliability of Performance
Data Reported by Agencies
Involved in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Reports 58
Abbreviations
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service BCI Border Coordination
Initiative CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CIA Central
Intelligence Agency DEA Drug Enforcement Administration DOD Department of
Defense DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA
Federal Aviation Administration FDA Food and Drug Administration FECA
Federal Employees' Compensation Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management
Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FSA Farm Service Agency
FSIS Food Safety Inspection Service FWS Fish and Wildlife Service HHS
Department of Health and Human Services HUD Department of Housing and
Urban Development INS Immigration and Naturalization Service MARAD
Maritime Administration MBDA Minority Business Development Agency NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources
Conservation Service OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office of
Personnel Management SBA Small Business Administration TSA Transportation
Security Administration VA Department of Veterans' Affairs
This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.
Letter
December 20, 2002 The Honorable Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Senator
Thompson: Although federal programs have been designed for different
purposes or targeted for different population groups, coordination among
federal programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently
and effectively meet national concerns. Uncoordinated program efforts can
waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the
overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results, as
envisioned
by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act),
implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar results
should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent, and as
appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This means that
federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and
coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned.
This report is in response to your request that we examine the actions and
plans agencies reported in addressing the crosscutting program areas you
identified: border control, flood mitigation and insurance, wetlands, and
wildland fire management. Specifically, for each of the crosscutting
program areas the objectives of this report were to describe (1) the major
agencies involved, (2) the type of coordination these agencies discussed
in their performance reports and plans, (3) the progress these agencies
reported in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports and, for unmet
goals, whether the agencies provide explanations and strategies that are
reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goals in the future, (4) the
progress these agencies planned to make in fiscal year 2003 and whether
agencies describe strategies that are reasonably linked to achieving their
goals, and (5) how agencies discussed the completeness, reliability, and
credibility of their performance data, known shortcomings in the data, and
strategies for addressing those shortcomings. In fulfilling the request,
except as otherwise noted, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance
report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan required by the Results Act
for the major agencies involved in these crosscutting areas. The
Department of Defense was not included in this review since it had not
issued its combined performance report and performance plan.
Background Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and
program overlap are widespread in the federal government. 1 In 1998 and
1999, we found that this situation existed in 12 federal mission areas,
ranging from agriculture to natural resources and environment. We also
identified, in
1998 and 1999, 8 new areas of program overlap, including 50 programs for
the homeless that were administered by eight federal agencies. These
programs provided services for the homeless that appeared to be similar.
For example, 23 programs operated by four agencies offered housing
services, and 26 programs administered by 6 agencies offered food and
nutrition services. Although our work indicates that the potential for
inefficiency and waste exists, it also shows areas where the intentional
participation by multiple agencies may be a reasonable response to a
complex public problem. In either situation, implementation of federal
crosscutting programs is often characterized by numerous individual agency
efforts that are implemented with little apparent regard for the presence
of efforts of related activities.
In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for better
managing crosscutting programs* such as improved coordination,
integration, and consolidation* to ensure that crosscutting goals are
consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where
appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used as a
basis for management. One of our oft- cited proposals is to consolidate
the fragmented federal system to ensure the safety and quality of food.
Perhaps most important, however, we have stated that the Results Act could
provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, and Congress
with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting program efforts.
OMB, for example, could use the governmentwide performance plan, which is
a key component of this framework, to integrate expected agency- level
performance. It could also be used to more clearly relate and address the
contributions of alternative federal
strategies. Agencies, in turn, could use the annual performance planning
cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight crosscutting
program efforts and to provide evidence of the coordination of those
efforts.
1 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the
Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, GAO/
AIMD- 97- 146 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 29, 1997) and Managing for Results:
Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
GAO/ GGD- 00- 106 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
OMB guidance to agencies on the Results Act states that, at a minimum, an
agency*s annual plan should identify those programs or activities that are
being undertaken with other agencies to achieve a common purpose or
objective, that is, interagency and crosscutting programs. This
identification need cover only programs and activities that represent a
significant agency effort. An agency should also review the fiscal year
2003 performance plans of other agencies participating with it in a
crosscutting program or activity to ensure that related performance goals
and indicators for a crosscutting program are consistent and harmonious.
As appropriate, agencies should modify performance goals to bring about
greater synergy and interagency support in achieving mutual goals. 2
In April 2002, as part of its spring budget planning guidance to agencies
for preparing the President*s fiscal year 2004 budget request, OMB stated
that it is working to develop uniform evaluation metrics, or *common
measures* for programs with similar goals. OMB asked agencies to work with
OMB staff to develop evaluation metrics for several major crosscutting,
governmentwide functions as part of their September budget submissions.
According to OMB, such measures can help raise important questions and
help inform decisions about how to direct funding and how to improve
performance in specific programs. OMB*s common measures initiative
initially focused on the following crosscutting program areas:
low income housing assistance, job training and employment, wildland
fire management, flood mitigation, disaster insurance, and health.
2 OMB Circular A- 11, section 220.3g.
We recently reported that one of the purposes of the Reports Consolidation
Act of 2000 is to improve the quality of agency financial and performance
data. 3 We found that only 5 of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act
agencies* fiscal year 2000 performance reports included assessments of the
completeness and reliability of their performance data in their
transmittal letters. The other 19 agencies discussed, at least to some
degree, the quality of their performance data elsewhere in their
performance reports.
Scope and To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each
crosscutting
Methodology program area as follows:
Border control focuses on major federal security policies and operations
that manage and govern the entry of people, animals, plants, and goods
into the United States through air, land, or seaports of entry. 4 Flood
mitigation and insurance focuses on major federal efforts to
proactively reduce the loss in lives and property due to floods and
minimize the postflood costs of repair and construction.
Wildland fire management focuses on major federal efforts to reduce
accumulated hazardous fuels on public lands.
Wetlands focuses on major federal efforts to protect and manage this
resource, such as restoration, enhancement, and permitting activities.
3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Performance Reporting: Few Agencies
Reported on the Completeness and Reliability of Performance Data, GAO- 02-
372 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 26, 2002). 4 Although drug control is often
included as part of border control, because we are covering this area in a
separate report, it is excluded from our scope.
To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on previous GAO
work and confirmed the agencies involved by reviewing the fiscal year 2001
Results Act performance report and fiscal year 2003 Results Act
performance plans for each agency identified as contributing to the
crosscutting program area. One of the agencies we identified as being
involved in the areas of flood mitigation and wetlands was the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). Although we identify the Corps, we do not
comment on the agency because, as noted above, the Department of Defense
did not submit a fiscal year 2001 performance report or fiscal year 2003
performance plan and was not included in our review. To address the
remaining objectives, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports
and fiscal year 2003 performance plans and used criteria contained in the
Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and OMB guidance. The act requires that
an agency*s performance report include a transmittal letter from the
agency head containing, in addition to any other content, an assessment of
the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data
used in the report. It also requires that the assessment describe any
material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of the data and
the actions the agency can take and is taking to resolve such
inadequacies. 5
OMB guidance states that an agency*s annual plan should include a
description of how the agency intends to verify and validate the measured
values of actual performance. The means used should be sufficiently
credible and specific to support the general accuracy and reliability of
the performance information that is recorded, collected, and reported. 6
We did not include any changes or modifications the agencies may have made
to the reports or plans after they were issued, except in cases in which
agency comments provided information from a published update to a report
or plan. Furthermore, because of the scope and timing of this review,
information on the progress agencies may have made on addressing their
management challenges during fiscal year 2002 was not yet available.
We did not independently verify or assess the information we obtained from
agency performance reports and plans. Also, that an agency chose not to
discuss its efforts to coordinate in these crosscutting areas in its
5 31 U. S. C. S:3516( e). 6 OMB Circular A- 11, section 220.5a.
performance reports or plans does not necessarily mean that the agency is
not coordinating with the appropriate agencies. We conducted our review
from September through November 2002, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief Our review of agency performance reports and plans for
the four crosscutting areas revealed that there are multiple players
within these
areas pursuing similar or complementary goals and strategies, suggesting
significant opportunities for coordination to achieve common objectives.
As we have reported previously, agencies could use the annual performance
planning cycle to ensure that crosscutting goals are consistent; program
efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where appropriate, common or
complementary performance measures are used as a basis for management.
Annual performance reports and plans could then serve as a vehicle to
highlight crosscutting program efforts and to provide evidence of the
coordination of those efforts.
We found most agencies identified the agencies with which they coordinated
on the crosscutting areas in their performance reports and plans, although
the specific areas of coordination and level of detail provided varied
considerably. At one extreme, neither the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) nor its parent agency, the Department of Commerce,
specifically discusses coordinating with other agencies on their wetlands
efforts. In contrast, for the area of wildland fire management, both the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service indicate in their
performance plans their past coordination in developing the National Fire
Plan and a 10- year Comprehensive Strategy
as well as their current efforts to develop a joint implementation plan
for the Comprehensive Strategy, and planned efforts to conduct an
interagency review of the fire plan system. Other discussions of
coordination cite participation in interagency initiatives. For example,
in the area of border control, both the departments of Justice and the
Treasury discuss expanded cooperation through the Border Coordination
Initiative (BCI), which according to U. S. Customs, has led to increased
cooperation among partner agencies in areas such as cross training,
improved sharing of intelligence, community and importer outreach,
improved communication
among agencies using radio technology, and cooperative operational and
tactical planning.
The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001
performance goals across the four crosscutting areas also varied
considerably. For example, wetlands was the only area in which each of the
five agencies we reviewed reported having met or exceeded all of its
fiscal year 2001 goals. However, although all of these goals related to
creating, restoring, enhancing, or benefiting acres of wetlands, none of
the agencies discussed in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports that
their progress contributed to the existing national goal of no net loss in
wetlands. In contrast, the Department of Transportation reported not
meeting either of its two performance goals related to border control and
the Department of Agriculture reported not meeting its one performance
goal related to flood mitigation. Although the Forest Service reported
meeting its goal of treating wildlands with high fire risks, it did not
meet any of the individual indicators related to this goal.
Some of the agencies that did not meet their fiscal year 2001 performance
goals, such as Transportation in the area of border control, provided
reasonable explanations as well as strategies that appear reasonably
linked to meeting the goals in the future. Others, such as Interior, which
provided a reasonable explanation for not meeting its goal related to
wildland fire
management, did not discuss any strategies for achieving the goals in the
future. Still others, such as Treasury, which reported meeting its targets
for all but two of its seven measures related to its strategic goal of
protecting the nation*s borders and major international terminals from
traffickers and smugglers, did not provide reasonable explanations for the
shortfalls and did not discuss strategies for achieving those targets in
the future.
The agencies we reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal year
2003 that were similar to those in fiscal year 2001, with targets adjusted
to reflect either higher or lower levels of performance than were planned
for fiscal year 2001. Some agencies added new goals, modified existing
goals, or dropped goals altogether from their fiscal year 2003 performance
plans. Many agencies discussed strategies for achieving their fiscal year
2003 goals that appeared to be reasonably linked to the performance goals
to be
achieved. Other did not discuss strategies. For example, in the area of
border control, the Department of State provided only general statements,
such as its commitment to improving visa procedures, on how it plans to
achieve its fiscal year 2003 goals.
Five of the 10 agencies we reviewed for all the crosscutting areas*
Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Justice,
Transportation, and Treasury commented on the overall quality and
reliability of the data in their performance reports. For example, the
Secretary*s message in Treasury*s fiscal year 2001 performance report
stated that, as required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the
Secretary had assessed the data in the report and determined that the data
were reliable and complete with noted exceptions. Beyond such overarching
statements, we also found more detailed discussion of the completeness,
reliability, and credibility of the performance data reported. For
example, Transportation reported its data verification and validation
procedures for each of its performance measures. Neither the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) nor State discussed how they assessed
the overall quality of their performance data. Some of the agencies we
reviewed discussed shortcomings to their data and described the steps they
are taking to resolve the shortcomings. For example, in the area of
wetlands, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and EPA acknowledged
shortcomings in their data, including the possibility of double counting
performance data. EPA also indicated that the measure might not reflect
actual improvements in the health of the habitat. While FWS does not
discuss any steps to resolve or minimize the shortcomings in its data, EPA
described improvements it made to make data reported more consistent.
Agencies Involved in As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved
in each of the
Crosscutting Areas crosscutting program areas we reviewed.
Show Opportunities for Coordination
Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area Agency
Involved a Border control
Agriculture c a a a a
Commerce d a
Defense e a a
EPA a
FEMA a
Interior f a a
Justice g a
State a
Transportation h a
Tr easury i a
Source: GAO analysis.
Crosscutting program areas Flood mitigation and insurance Wetlands
Wildland fire
management b
a Although our review focused primarily on department- level reports and
plans, in some cases our review also focused on bureau- level sections of
the reports and plans, as indicated in the notes below. b EPA and Commerce
also have regulatory responsibility over wildland fire management projects
of the two principal land management agencies indicated in the table.
c Within Agriculture, we looked at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and the Food Safety and Inspection Service for border control, the
Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service for
wetlands, and the Forest Service for wildland fire management. d Within
Commerce, we looked at NOAA for wetlands.
e Within Defense, we identified the Corps. f Within Interior, we looked at
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, FWS, and the
National Park Service for wildland fire management. g Within Justice, we
looked at the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol
for
border control. h Within Transportation, we looked at the Coast Guard for
border control.
i Within Treasury, we looked at the Customs Service for border control.
The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed
information contained in the tables that appear in appendix I through IV.
Border Control Hostile nations, terrorist groups, transnational criminals,
and even individuals may target American people, institutions, and
infrastructure
with weapons of mass destruction and outbreaks of infectious disease.
Given these threats, successful control of our borders relies on the
ability
of all levels of government and the private sector to communicate and
cooperate effectively with one another. Activities that are hampered by
organizational fragmentation, technological impediments, or ineffective
collaboration blunt the nation*s collective efforts to secure America*s
borders.
Each of the five agencies we reviewed in the area of border control*
Agriculture, Justice, State, Transportation, and Treasury* discussed in
their performance reports and/ or plans the agencies they coordinated with
on border control issues, although the specific areas of coordination and
level of detail provided varied. For example, Agriculture, which focuses
on reducing pest and disease outbreaks and foodborne illnesses related to
meat, poultry, and egg products in the United States, discusses
coordination with a different set of agencies than the other four
agencies, which share a focus on border control issues related to travel,
trade, and immigration. Agriculture stated that it is a key member of the
National Invasive Species Council, which works with other nations to deal
with the many pathways by which exotic pests and diseases could enter the
United States. Agriculture also stated that it coordinates with the
Department of Health and Human Services and EPA on food safety issues.
Although Agriculture states it is responsible for inspecting imported
products at ports of entry, it does not specifically describe any
coordination with the Customs Service within Treasury or the Border Patrol
within Justice.
In its combined performance report and plan, Transportation provided
general statements that the Coast Guard regularly coordinates with a
variety of agencies on immigration issues and potential international
agreements to ensure security in ports and waterways. However,
Transportation provided a more extensive discussion of the coordination
and roles played by bureaus within the agency. For example, for its goal
to ensure that sea- borne foreign and domestic trade routes and seaports
remain available for the movement of passengers and cargo, Transportation
states that the Transportation Security Administration, the
Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the Coast Guard will coordinate with
the international community and federal and state agencies to improve
coordination of container identification, tracking, and inspection. As an
example of the roles described, Transportation states that the Coast Guard
and MARAD will test deployment plans through port security readiness
exercises. In its performance report, State listed the partners it
coordinates with for each performance goal, but did not always provide
details about the coordination that was undertaken. Both Justice and
Treasury discuss expanded cooperation through BCI, which includes
Agriculture; Customs; Coast Guard; the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), and other federal, state, local, and international
agencies. According to Customs, BCI efforts toward increased cooperation
among partner agencies included cross training, improved sharing of
intelligence, community and importer outreach, improved communication
among agencies using radio technology, and cooperative operational and
tactical planning.
Of the five agencies we reviewed, only Justice reported meeting all of its
fiscal year 2001 performance goals related to securing America*s borders.
7 Transportation reported not meeting either of its two goals related to
border control, but provided explanations and strategies for meeting the
goals in the future that appeared reasonable. For example, Transportation
said it did not meet its target for the percentage of undocumented
migrants
interdicted and/ or deterred via maritime routes because socioeconomic
conditions here and abroad and political and economic conditions caused
variations in illegal migration patterns. To meet the target in the
future, the Coast Guard plans to operate along maritime routes and
establish agreements with source countries to reduce migrant flow. For its
two performance goals related to border control, State reported progress
in meeting its goal of reducing the risk of illegitimate entry of aliens
hostile to the nation*s interest, but not meeting the immigrant visa
targets. State
explained that it failed to meet this goal due to extremely high demand
for visa numbers from INS to adjust the status of large numbers of aliens
already in the United States, but did not provide any specific strategies
for meeting this goal in the future. 8 Treasury reported meeting its
targets for all but two of its seven measures related to its strategic
goal of protecting the nation*s borders and major international terminals
from traffickers and smugglers. Treasury did not provide reasonable
explanations for either shortfall, and did not discuss strategies for
achieving those targets in the future. Agriculture reported meeting all
but one of its performance targets for its three goals. The unmet
performance target for significantly reducing the prevalence of salmonella
on broiler chickens fell under Agriculture*s
goal of creating a coordinated national and international food safety risk
7 Justice did not compare its performance for one of the goals* identify,
disrupt, and dismantle alien smuggling and trafficking organizations* to a
targeted level of performance. 8 As we reported in October 2002, the
number of nonimmigrant visa applications dropped worldwide after the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. See U. S. General Accounting
Office, Border Security: Visa Process Should be Strengthened as an
Antiterrorism Tool,
GAO- 03- 132NI (Washington, D. C.: Oct. 21, 2002).
management system. Agriculture provides a reasonable explanation, but it
is not clear if from the discussion if it is a domestic or international
issue.
According to their performance plans, the five agencies generally aimed to
achieve the same goals as those reported on in fiscal year 2001, with
targets adjusted to reflect higher performance levels. Transportation
reported that it established a new performance goal and related measure in
fiscal year 2002 that would also be included in the fiscal year 2003 plan.
The new goal is to ensure that sea- borne foreign and domestic trade
routes and seaports
remain available for the movement of passengers and cargo. The new measure
is the percentage of high- interest vessels screened, with a target of 100
percent for fiscal year 2003.
Three of the five agencies* Agriculture, Justice, and Transportation*
discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to achieving
their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, Transportation discusses
strategies for each of its goals. For its new goal Transportation
describes strategies, such as increasing intelligence efforts in ports;
improving advanced information on passengers, crew, and cargo; and
establishing or improving information and intelligence fusion centers in
Washington and on both coasts. It also identified more specific efforts,
such as increasing boarding and escort operations to protect vessels
carrying large numbers
of passengers and vessels with dangerous cargo, such as liquefied natural
gas or other volatile products, from becoming targets. In contrast,
Customs discussed a more limited *strategic context* for each of its goal
areas and other information in sections pertaining to specific Customs
activities, both of which varied in the level of detail. For example, for
its goal of contributing to a safer America by reducing civil and criminal
activities associated with the enforcement of Customs laws, Customs
defined challenges and constraints to achieving the goal and mentions that
it is playing a major role in the interdiction and detection of weapons of
mass destruction entering or leaving the United States, including
increased vessel, passenger, and cargo examinations. For the most part,
State provided only general statements of how it plans to achieve its
fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, regarding its visa issuance goal,
State said it has committed itself to improving its visa procedures and
coordination with other agencies and departments. Regarding the
completeness, reliability, and credibility of their reported
performance data, Agriculture, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury
provided general statements about the quality of their performance data
and provided some information about the quality of specific performance
data. For example, Transportation provided extensive information on its
measures and data sources that allow for an assessment of data quality.
The information includes (1) a description of the measure, (2) scope, (3)
source, (4) limitations, (5) statistical issues, and (6) verification and
validation. Other explanatory information is provided in a comment section
of Transportation*s combined performance plan and report. State did not
provide consistent or adequate information for the border- controlrelated
data sources to make judgments about data reliability, completeness, and
credibility. For the most part, State provided only a few
words on the data source, data storage, and frequency of the data. Flood
Mitigation and
Floods have inflicted more economic losses upon the United States than
Insurance
any other natural disaster. Since its inception 34 years ago, the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has combined flood hazard mitigation
efforts and insurance to protect homeowners against losses from floods.
The program, which is administered by FEMA, provides an incentive for
communities to adopt floodplain management ordinances to mitigate the
effects of flooding upon new or existing structures. It offers property
owners in participating communities a mechanism* federal flood insurance*
to cover flood losses without increasing the burden on the federal
government to provide disaster relief payments. Virtually all communities
in the country with flood- prone areas now participate in NFIP, and over 4
million U. S. households have flood insurance. 9
9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Flood Insurance: Extent of
Noncompliance with Purchase Requirements Is Unknown, GAO- 02- 396
(Washington, D. C.: June 21, 2002).
The two agencies we reviewed* Agriculture and FEMA* generally address
coordination efforts regarding the issue of flood mitigation. Agriculture
states in its report and plan that it works with other agencies, such as
FEMA and the Corps, to obtain data regarding its goal related to flood
mitigation. However, Agriculture does not further specify coordination
activities. FEMA*s fiscal year 2001 performance report does not state
which agencies it collaborates with to achieve goals related to flood
mitigation and insurance. FEMA*s plan provides an appendix that outlines
the crosscutting activities and partner agencies associated with its flood
mitigation and preparedness activities. For example, FEMA states it is the
chair of the President*s Long- Term Recovery Task Force, which helps state
and local governments to identify their needs related to the long- term
impact of a major, complex disaster. Agencies FEMA coordinates on this
effort with include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, among other
organizations. 10
Agriculture reported that it did not meet its only fiscal year 2001 goal
related to flood mitigation* providing benefits to property and safety
through flood damage reduction by completing 81 watershed protection
structures. Agriculture explained that it did not meet the goal because
(1) complex engineering can result in watershed protection structures
taking several years to complete, (2) multiple funding sources, including
federal, state, and local funds, may alter the schedule for completing the
structures, and (3) external factors such as weather and delays in
obtaining land rights and permits caused delays in construction.
Agriculture states that many of the structures that were not completed in
time for the fiscal year 2001 report will be complete in the next few
months.
10 We did not review these agencies because either they did not have goals
associated with flood mitigation or insurance or they were not federal
agencies.
FEMA reported meeting all but one of its fiscal year 2001 goals and
indicators related to flood mitigation and insurance. FEMA*s five goals
were (1) prevent loss of lives and property from all hazards, (2) collect
and validate building and flood loss data, confirm that the reduction in
estimated losses from NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion, and continue
systematic assessment of the impact and effectiveness of NFIP, (3)
increase the number of NFIP policies in force by 5 percent over the end of
the fiscal
year 2000 count, 11 (4) improve the program*s underwriting ratio, and (5)
implement NFIP business process improvements. FEMA reported that it did
not meet the third goal, explaining that, although the end of year policy
count for fiscal year 2001 increased, the retention rates for existing
policies were not maintained. FEMA outlined three strategies that appeared
reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goal in the future: (1) placing
two new fiscal year 2002 television commercials that emphasize
the importance of buying and keeping National Flood Insurance, (2)
establishing retention goals for *Write Your Own* companies, private
insurance companies that write flood insurance under a special arrangement
with the federal government, and (3) targeting its marketing strategies
toward those properties no longer on the books.
Because it revised its strategic plan, FEMA reorganized the layout of its
fiscal year 2003 performance plan. Nevertheless, FEMA*s fiscal year 2003
performance goals and measures are similar to those that appear in its
fiscal year 2001 performance plan. FEMA merged its goal of implementation
of NFIP business process improvements into its fiscal year 2003 goal of
improving NFIP*s *bottom line,* an income- to- expense ratio, by 1
percent. In addition, FEMA merged two other goals: (1) prevent loss of
lives and property from all hazards and (2) collect and validate building
and flood loss data, confirm that the reduction in estimated losses from
NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion, and continue the systematic assessment
11 In the past, we reported that FEMA had a number of performance goals
aimed at improving the result of NFIP, including increasing the number of
insurance policies in force. While these goals provide valuable insights
into how well NFIP*s mission of reducing floodrelated losses is being
carried out, they do not assess the degree to which the most vulnerable
residents* those living in flood- prone areas* participate in the program.
Capturing data on the numbers of uninsured and insured structures in
flood- prone areas can provide FEMA with another indication of how
effectively the program is penetrating those areas most at risk of
flooding, whether the financial consequences of floods in these areas are
increasing or decreasing, and where marketing efforts can better be
targeted. See U. S. General Accounting Office, Flood Insurance: Emerging
Opportunity to Better Measure Certain Results of the National Flood
Insurance Program, GAO- 01- 736T (Washington, D. C.: May 15, 2001).
of the impact and effectiveness of NFIP. FEMA adopted one new goal in its
fiscal year 2003 plan related to modernizing its floodplain mapping.
Agriculture expects to continue making progress on its goal of providing
benefits to property and safety through flood damage reduction, but has
adopted a new approach to achieving the goal. Agriculture appears to have
dropped its target for completing new watershed protection structures and
instead plans to implement a new program of rehabilitating aging dams.
Overall, the strategies Agriculture and FEMA plan to use appear to be
reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example,
to support its fiscal year 2003 performance goals, FEMA outlines several
strategies, such as increasing the number of Emergency Action Plans in
communities located below significant and potentially high- hazard dams.
In its fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance and Accountability Report,
FEMA states *the performance measurement criteria and information systems
are thought to be generally effective and reliable.* FEMA does not
individually identify data quality assessment methods for any of its
performance indicators. 12 However, it acknowledges a data limitation for
one of its goals relating to business process improvement. FEMA explained
that it relied on trend data to assess its performance in customer service
for fiscal year 2001 because of a delay in obtaining OMB approval for
distributing its customer surveys that year. FEMA states that it plans to
conduct the surveys in fiscal year 2002 to obtain more accurate
information. Agriculture addresses this issue at the beginning of its
report by stating, *performance information supporting these performance
goals is of sufficient quality and reliability except where otherwise
noted in this document.* Agriculture also states that the data reported by
state offices for fiscal year 2001 are accurate. Wetlands According to
estimates by FWS, more than half of the 221 million acres of
wetlands that existed during colonial times in what is now the contiguous
United States have been lost. These areas, once considered worthless, are
now recognized for the variety of important functions that they perform,
12 We previously reported that although FEMA*s Federal Insurance
Administration tracks data on the number of insurance policies in flood-
prone areas, data on the overall number of structures are incomplete and
inaccurate. Some communities are developing more accurate data on the
number of structures in flood- prone areas. FEMA is also working to
improve the quality of its data on the number of structures in flood-
prone areas and is participating in the development of new mapping
technologies that could facilitate the collection of such data. See GAO-
01- 736T.
such as providing wildlife habitats, maintaining water quality, and aiding
in flood control. Despite the passage of numerous laws and the issuance of
two presidential orders for protecting wetlands, no specific or consistent
goal for the nation*s wetlands- related activities existed until 1989.
Recognizing the value of wetlands, in 1989, President George Bush
established the national goal of no net loss of wetlands. However, the
issue of wetlands protection and the various federal programs that have
evolved piecemeal over the years to protect and manage this resource have
been subjects of continued debate.
We previously reported that for the six major agencies involved in and
responsible for implementing wetlands- related activities* the Corps,
Agriculture*s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), Interior*s FWS, Commerce*s NOAA, and EPA* the consistency
and reliability of wetlands acreage data reported by these federal
agencies were questionable. 13 Moreover, we reported that the agencies*
reporting practices did not permit the actual accomplishments of the
agencies* that is, the number of acres restored, enhanced, or otherwise
improved* to be determined. These reporting practices included
inconsistencies in the use of terms to describe and report wetlands-
related activities and the resulting accomplishments, the inclusion of
nonwetlands acreage in wetlands project totals, and the double counting of
accomplishments. We recommended that these agencies develop and implement
a strategy for ensuring that all actions contained in the Clean
Water Action Plan related to wetlands data are adopted governmentwide. 14
Such actions included, in addition to the ongoing effort to develop a
single set of accurate, reliable figures on the status and trends of the
nation*s wetlands, the development of consistent, understandable
definitions and reporting standards that are used by all federal agencies
in reporting their wetlands- related activities and the changes to
wetlands that result from such activities.
13 U. S. General Accounting Office, Wetlands Overview: Problems With
Acreage Data Persist, GAO/ RCED- 98- 150 (Washington, D. C.: July 1,
1998). 14 The Clean Water Action Plan, issued in February 1998, included a
number of efforts to improve wetlands data. One of the actions planned was
the establishment of an interagency tracking system that would accurately
account for wetlands losses, restoration, creation, and enhancement. The
system would also establish accurate baseline data for federal programs
that contribute to net wetlands gain.
The agencies we reviewed generally discussed the need to coordinate with
other agencies in their performance plans, but provided little detail on
the level of coordination or specific coordination strategies.
Agriculture*s annual performance plan includes a strategy to work with
other federal agencies and partners to identify priority wetlands that
could benefit from conservation practices in the surrounding landscape.
Neither of the bureaus within Agriculture* FSA or NRCS* specifically
discussed coordination on wetlands issues in their performance reports or
plans. Interior*s annual performance report and plan indicate that it will
work with Agriculture, EPA, the Corps, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), and the states on wetlands issues. EPA discusses
cooperation with the Corps, NOAA*s National Marine Fisheries Service
within Commerce, FEMA, FWS within Interior, and NRCS within Agriculture,
but provides no specifics. Both Commerce and NOAA indicate
that they work with other federal agencies to address crosscutting issues.
Although NOAA mentions that it works closely with other agencies on a
number of crosscutting issues to address critical challenges facing
coastal areas, its plan does not specifically mention coordination with
other agencies on wetlands issues.
Each of the agencies we reviewed had goals related to wetlands that it
reported having met or exceeded in fiscal year 2001. 15 For example, FWS
within Interior reported that it restored or enhanced 144,729 acres of
wetlands habitat on non- FWS lands, exceeding its goal of 77,581 acres.
However, FWS did not report on the number of acres of wetlands restored
or enhanced on FWS lands and did not distinguish between the number of
acres restored and the number enhanced. Furthermore, several of the
agencies included nonwetlands acreage when reporting their
accomplishments, and NOAA changed its performance measure from acres of
coastal wetlands restored to acres benefited. Consequently, the
contributions made by these agencies toward achieving the national goal of
no net loss of the nation*s remaining wetlands cannot be determined from
their reports.
Each of the agencies we reviewed had plans to create, restore, enhance,
and/ or benefit additional wetlands acreage in fiscal year 2003, although
the targets were in some cases lower than the targets for fiscal year
2001. Of
the agencies we reviewed, only NRCS indicated in its plan that its
progress 15 NOAA did not report its performance against a target in fiscal
year 2001 because it had established a new performance measure.
would contribute to the national goal of no net loss of wetlands. The
strategies the agencies planned to use appeared to be reasonably linked to
achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. For example, FSA planned to use
the same strategy it has successfully used in past years to achieve its
goals* working with producers to enroll land in the Conservation Reserve
Program.
Regarding the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the
performance data reported, agency discussions varied in the specifics they
provided. NOAA and FWS had overall discussions of the sources of their
performance data and the verification procedures they followed in their
performance reports. Within Agriculture, while FSA reported on the sources
and processes used to develop the data reported for the number of wetlands
acres restored, NRCS discussed its requirement that each state
conservationist verify and validate the state*s performance data. NRCS
also acknowledged that some discrepancies were noted when the performance
data were analyzed, but indicated that there was no compelling reason to
discount the performance data reported. Two agencies* FWS and EPA*
acknowledged shortcomings in the data, including the possibility of double
counting performance data. EPA also indicated that the measure might not
reflect actual improvements in the health of the habitat. While FWS does
not discuss any steps to resolve or minimize the shortcomings in its data,
EPA described improvements it made to make data reported more consistent.
FSA indicated some limitations to its data for the Conservation Reserve
Program, which it attributed to lags between the date a contract is signed
with a producer and when the data are entered, the continual updating of
the contract data, and
the periodic changes in contract data, but did not discuss any steps to
resolve the limitation.
Wildland Fire We recently testified that the most extensive and serious
problem related to
Management the health of forested lands* particularly in the interior
West* is the
overaccumulation of vegetation, which is causing an increasing number of
large, intense, uncontrollable, and destructive wildfires. 16 In 1999,
Agriculture*s Forest Service estimated that 39 million acres of national
forested lands in the interior West were at high risk of catastrophic
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the
Threat of Wildland Fires Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort, GAO-
02- 843T (Washington, D. C.: June 23, 2002).
wildfire. This figure later grew to over 125 million acres as Interior
agencies and states identified additional land that they considered to be
high risk. To a large degree, these forest health problems contributed to
the wildfires in the year 2000* which were some of the worst in the last
50 years. The policy response to these problems was the development of the
National Fire Plan* a long- term, multibillion- dollar effort to address
the wildland fire threats we are now facing.
Our work on wildland fire has stressed the need for three things: (1) a
cohesive strategy to address growing threats to national forest resources
and nearby communities from catastrophic wildfires, (2) clearly defined
and effective leadership to carry out that strategy in a coordinated
manner, and (3) accountability to ensure that progress is being made
toward accomplishing the goals of the National Fire Plan. Two years ago,
the Forest Service and Interior began developing strategies to address
these problems, and recently established a leadership entity* the Wildland
Fire Leadership Council* that is intended to respond to the need for
greater interagency coordination. Whether the strategy and the council
will serve as the framework and mechanism to effectively deal with the
threat of catastrophic wildland fire remains to be seen and will depend
upon how well the National Fire Plan is implemented. To determine the
effectiveness of this implementation effort, we continue to believe that a
sound performance accountability framework is needed, one that provides
for specific performance measures and data that can be used to assess
implementation progress and problems.
Both Interior and the Forest Service indicate in their performance plans
their participation in developing the 2000 National Fire Plan and a 10-
year Comprehensive Strategy under the plan. Furthermore, both agencies
discuss current efforts under way to develop a joint Implementation Plan
for the Comprehensive Strategy. Consistent with our recommendations, the
implementation plan is reported to include cooperatively developed, long-
term goals and performance measures for the wildland fire management
program. In its performance report, the Forest Service
detailed additional specific actions it collaborated on with Interior and
other agencies related to wildland fire management, such as conducting an
interagency review of the fire plan system. Regarding progress in
achieving its fiscal year 2001 goals, Interior reported meeting only about
half of its planned target of using fire and other treatments to restore
natural ecological processes to 1.4 million acres. Although Interior*s
report provided reasonable explanations for the unmet
goals* difficulty in obtaining permits to carry out the treatments and
shifting of resources from restoration to suppression of active fires* it
did not discuss any specific strategies for overcoming these challenges in
the future. The Forest Service reported meeting its goal of treating
wildlands with high fire risks in national forests and grasslands.
However, the Forest Service did not meet any of the individual indicators
related to this goal. For example, the Forest Service treated only 1.4
million acres of its targeted 1.8 million hazardous fuel acres. The Forest
Service provided explanations that appeared reasonable for some of its
unmet targets. For example, unusual drought conditions combined with the
added complexities and restrictions of treating hazardous fuels in the
wildland
urban interface contributed to the unmet hazardous fuels goal. The Forest
Service did not provide any strategies for meeting the unmet targets in
the future.
In fiscal year 2003, Interior expects to treat 1.1 million acres to reduce
hazards and restore ecosystem health compared to its goal of 1.4 million
acres in 2001. In addition, Interior has added goals for wildland fire
containment, providing assistance to rural fire departments, treating
highpriority fuels projects, and bringing fire facilities up to approved
standards. Interior*s strategies for achieving these goals are very broad
and general
and lack a clear link or rationale for how the strategies will contribute
to improved performance. The Forest Service expects to treat 1.6 million
acres to reduce hazardous fuels, slightly less than its 2001 target of 1.8
million acres, and assist over 7,000 communities and fire departments. The
Forest Service did not include one of its targets for 2001* maximizing
fire fighting production capability. 17 The Forest Services strategies for
achieving its goals, although fairly general, appear to be reasonably
linked to achieving each of the performance targets.
17 We have questioned the credibility of this measure. See U. S. General
Accounting Office,
Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better
Identify FireFighting Preparedness Needs, GAO- 02- 158 (Washington, D. C.:
Mar. 29, 2002).
The performance data reported by Interior and the Forest Service for
wildfire management generally appear to be complete, reliable, and
credible. The Forest Service reported that it will use the Budget
Formulation and Execution System to report on performance. However, we
have found that this system is more of a planning tool for ranking fuel
reduction work at the local unit level and that another system, the
National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System, is being implemented
by both the Forest Service and Interior to track outputs and measure
accomplishments. Interior acknowledges that its bureaus may interpret the
data they collect differently and that a common set of performance
measures is still being developed between Interior and the Forest Service
as they implement the National Fire Plan. We have recommended that the
agencies develop a common set of outcome- based performance goals to
better gauge whether agencies are achieving the objective of restoring
ecosystem health. 18 The Forest Service acknowledges possible data
limitations and reported that it is currently taking steps, such as
conducting field reviews, to ensure effective internal controls over the
reporting of performance data.
Concluding We have previously stated that the Results Act could provide
OMB,
Observations agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for
addressing
crosscutting program efforts. OMB in its guidance clearly encourages
agencies to use their performance plans as a tool to communicate and
coordinate with other agencies on programs being undertaken for common
purposes to ensure that related performance goals and indicators are
consistent and harmonious. We have also stated that the Results Act could
also be used as a vehicle to more clearly relate and address the
contributions of alternative federal strategies. The President*s common
measures initiative, by developing metrics that can be used to compare the
performance of different agencies contributing to common objectives,
appears to be a step in this direction.
Some of the agencies we reviewed appear to be using their performance
reports and plans as a vehicle to assist in collaborating and coordinating
crosscutting program areas. Those that provided more detailed information
on the nature of their coordination provided greater confidence that they
are working in concert with other agencies to achieve
18 GAO- 02- 158.
common objectives. Other agencies do not appear to be using their plans
and reports to the extent they could to describe their coordination
efforts to Congress, citizens, and other agencies.
Furthermore, the quality of the performance information reported* how
agencies explain unmet goals and discuss strategies for achieving
performance goals in the future, and overall descriptions of the
completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance information
reported* varied considerably. Although we found a number of agencies that
provided detailed information about how they verify and validate
individual measures, only 5 of the 10 agencies we reviewed for all the
crosscutting areas commented on the overall quality and reliability of the
data in their performance reports consistent with the requirements of the
Reports Consolidation Act. Without such statements, performance
information lacks the credibility needed to provide transparency in
government operations so that Congress, program managers, and other
decision makers can use the information. Agency Comments and
We sent drafts of this report to the respective agencies for comments. We
Our Evaluation received comments from EPA, FEMA, Commerce, and State. The
agencies generally agreed with the accuracy of the information in the
report. The comments we received were mostly technical and we have
incorporated
them where appropriate. Regarding flood mitigation and insurance, FEMA
commented that performance reports and plans are static documents that are
over a year old and therefore may not reflect the progress FEMA has made
since then. FEMA also stated that, although not reflected in it
performance reports and plans, it coordinates its flood mitigation and
insurance activities extensively and maintains and employs a number of
interagency agreements related to the implementation of its programs. We
acknowledge these limitations to our analysis in the scope and
methodology section of this report. Regarding border control, State
commented that, as summary documents, performance reports and plans
provide a limited opportunity to fully describe their coordination and
data validity and verification efforts. State indicated that it plans to
include more appropriate measures of
performance and performance data that are complete, reliable, and credible
in its upcoming performance reports and plans. Regarding its unmet goal
for the number of visas processed, State explained that this is
not an accurate measure of program performance because it depends on the
demand for visas, which is beyond the agency*s control. State plans to
revise this measure to one that will more appropriately reflect program
effectiveness.
Regarding wetlands, EPA commented on a number of initiatives it has
undertaken along with other federal agencies to address the accuracy and
availability of data on the extent and health of wetlands. For example,
EPA
states that its Region V office (Chicago) is working with other federal
and state agencies to develop an integrated, comprehensive, geographic
information system- based wetlands mapping system for the Minnesota River
Basin. Once completed, this new wetland inventory would provide a reliable
estimate of total wetland acreage for the Minnesota River Basin, provide a
test to update the older National Wetland Inventory data, and serve as a
pilot project for identifying wetlands throughout the country using an
innovative technology.
We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, the congressional leadership, other
Members of Congress, and the heads of major departments and agencies. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http:// www. gao. gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or
Elizabeth Curda on (202) 512- 6806 or daltonp@ gao. gov. Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Patricia A. Dalton Director, Strategic Issues
Appendi Appendi xes x I
Border Control Tabl e 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in
Border 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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of Agriculture Agriculture provided brief descriptions of its
Agriculture provided brief descriptions of its fiscal coordination with
other organizations for its bordercontrol- year 2003 performance plan
coordination similar to related goals. For example, for its
its fiscal year 2001 performance report. For performance goal to reduce
the number and severity
example, Agriculture said that one objective is to of pest and disease
outbreaks in the United States,
provide an effective safety net and promote a strong, Agriculture stated
it is a key member of the National sustainable United States farm economy,
with a key Invasive Species Council and works with other
outcome to reduce the number and severity of pest nations and federal
agencies to prevent outbreaks by and disease outbreaks in the United
States. As a dealing with the many pathways by which exotic
member of the National Invasive Species Council, pests and diseases could
enter the United States. To Agriculture stated that it works with other
countries intercept prohibited products, Agriculture said it
and federal agencies to deploy a range of strategies participates in
inspection *blitzes* as part of to safeguard the many pathways by which
exotic multiagency trade compliance teams.
pests and diseases may enter the United States. For its outcome to reduce
the incidence of foodborne
For its objective to protect the public health by illness related to meat,
poultry, and egg products in significantly reducing the prevalence of
foodborne the United States by creating a coordinated national hazards,
Agriculture stated that its key outcome is to and international food
safety risk management
reduce the incidence of foodborne illness related to system, Agriculture
said that its goals require
meat, poultry, and egg products in the United States. coordination with
the Agriculture food safety partner
According to Agriculture, the goals will require agencies, including the
Department of Health and
coordination with Agriculture food safety partner Human Services (HHS) and
the Environmental
agencies, including HHS and EPA. Protection Agency (EPA). Agriculture also
said it is responsible for reviewing foreign inspection systems
In addition, Agriculture said it has established a that export meat and
poultry products to the United Homeland Security Council to provide policy
States, and for inspecting imported products at ports
oversight and coordination of Agriculture efforts and of entry to assure
that standards are equivalent to to develop performance measures to ensure
that those of the United States. In the report*s program
investments in homeland security meet priority evaluation section,
Agriculture stated that the Food
needs. Service Information System (FSIS) and the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) are working towards defining their roles and
responsibilities at the U. S. ports of entry regarding products received
from restricted countries and enhancing interagency communication.
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of Justice a In its combined performance report and performance
Justice makes no distinction between coordination plan, Justice provided
short descriptions of efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those
coordination efforts with more specific information for
that are planned for fiscal year 2003. subgoals under performance goals.
For its annual goal to secure America*s borders, especially to reduce the
incidence of alien smuggling, Justice stated that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) will forge effective relationships and engage
in cooperative activities with national, state, and local government as
well as nongovernment entities. According to Justice, cooperation will be
expanded with the U. S. Customs
Service, Coast Guard, Agriculture, and others through the Border
Coordination Initiative (BCI). One major strategy of BCI is its outreach
efforts to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. INS,
the Coast Guard, and Customs have their own
border coordinators, co- located at Customs headquarters. Justice also
said a de facto border coordinator from Agriculture has been appointed.
For its performance goal to promote public safety by combating
immigration- related crimes and removing individuals who are unlawfully
present in the United States, Justice said INS initiatives on the national
and global levels require partnerships with other Justice components to
combat terrorism, organized crime, illegal drugs, and violent gangs to
reduce the threat of criminal activity.
For its performance goal of facilitating port- of- entry traffic and
monitoring deferred inspections, Justice said INS will continue to
coordinate and integrate efforts with Customs and the other federal
inspection services to facilitate the inspection of bona fide
travelers. In addition, Justice said that INS inspectors maintain working
relations with the intelligence community, routinely sharing information
aimed at documenting fraud and human trafficking at ports of entry.
For the subgoals under annual goals, Justice provided a description of
more specific coordination efforts. For example, under the subgoal of
effectively controlling the border, Justice said it will work with
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
the Customs Service as part of the BCI. For fiscal year 2003, Justice said
BCI is planning to increase its outreach efforts not only to the other
federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations along the
southwest border, but also to the northern border.
Department of State State provided short lists of its coordination In its
performance plan, State generally provided little *partners* for its one-
border control- related specific information on its actual coordination
efforts performance goal, but did not provide specific
or involved agencies. Instead, State described coordination details. For
its performance goal to general aims and uses of information. For example,
facilitate the travel and immigration to the United
for its performance goal of timely and effective visa States of legitimate
visa applicants and the denial of
issuance and a reduction of visa fraud, State said it visas to ineligible
applicants, State said that its has committed itself to improving its visa
procedures partners are Justice (including INS), the Drug and coordination
with other agencies and Enforcement Agency (DEA), Customs, APHIS, the
departments. It said it uses TIPOFF, with information Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the gathered from all sources throughout the United
intelligence community, Defense, Energy, the States government, especially
intelligence and law Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
enforcement information from the CIA, the FBI, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the NSA. b Watchlist names are also entered into the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Social port- of- entry name check
system, operated by INS Security Administration (SSA). State said it uses
the
and Customs. State said data generated by consular TIPOFF database, which
has information contributed
officers and shared with INS and other agencies by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the
enhance both border security and service to visa National Security Agency
(NSA), and the FBI. In
recipients upon arrival in the United States. fiscal year 2002, State
anticipated sharing all visa information with INS ports of entry, and is
working closely with the Homeland Security Council, Customs, INS, and
other relevant agencies to strengthen border security measures with Canada
and Mexico.
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of In its performance report and performance plan,
Transportation makes no distinction between Transportation Transportation
provided extensive information on
coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 involved agencies
and roles. It has a new 2002
and those that are planned for fiscal year 2003. performance goal for
coastal and seaport security to ensure sea- borne foreign and domestic
trade routes and seaports remain available for the movement of
passengers and cargo. For that goal, Transportation said the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Maritime Administration
(MARAD), and the Coast Guard will coordinate with the international
community and federal and state agencies to
improve coordination of container identification, tracking, and
inspection. MARAD will facilitate improvements in port and cargo security
in Latin America and the Caribbean with the Organization of American
States. MARAD and the Coast Guard will
develop model port security guidelines for commercial strategic ports. In
addition, Transportation said the Coast Guard and MARAD will test
deployment plans through port security readiness exercises. MARAD will
conduct security modules within strategic port defense workshops for
federal and commercial port officials. Transportation said it coordinates
closely with the Office of Homeland Security, Defense, State, the Customs
Service, INS, and local and state governments to ensure security in ports
and waterways.
Another performance goal is to reduce illegal immigration across U. S. sea
borders. According to Transportation, the Border Patrol enforces U. S.
immigration laws on shore, while the Coast Guard enforces immigration law
at sea. Transportation said
the Coast Guard regularly coordinates with State, INS, and the Border
Patrol on immigration issues and potential international agreements.
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of the In its annual performance report, Treasury provided In
its performance plan, Customs provided details on Tr ea s ur y c general
information on Customs coordination with coordination agencies and
initiatives. In line with its other agencies. For the border- control-
related
mission, Customs described many crosscutting performance goal to secure
the borders while coordination efforts. It said it enforces hundreds of
facilitating the expeditious movement of lawful laws and regulations in
partnership with dozens of international travel and commerce, Treasury
said
federal agencies and maintains a presence at over Customs continued to
work closely with INS as well 300 ports of entry. Customs provided
examples of as other law enforcement and inspection agencies
crosscutting efforts for border control. For example, around and along the
borders. Cooperative efforts Customs said it continues to work with other
federal such as BCI continued to examine and implement
agencies in new programs, such as the Integrated ways partner agencies
could better utilize shared Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
As part resources. According to Customs, a few of these of that program, a
national Memorandum of agencies included INS, local and state police, the
Agreement was completed between the FBI, FAA, Coast Guard, Agriculture,
and foreign law
and Customs. enforcement. Efforts toward increased cooperation included
the cross training of partner agency
employees in duties and expertise, technology, and equipment training;
improved sharing of intelligence; community and importer outreach; better
utilization of radio technology for improved communication among agencies;
and cooperative operational and tactical planning.
In its fiscal year 2001 report, Customs also provided specific information
about information technology initiatives, such as a joint initiative with
INS on
license plate readers. Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2003 Annual
Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar.
2002); Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001
Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of State, Performance Plan, Fiscal
Year 2003 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 2002); Department of State, Program
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002);
Department of Transportation, Performance Plan* FY 2003 and Performance
Report* FY 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the
Treasury, Performance Plans, Final for FY 2002, Proposed for FY 2003
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of the Treasury, Program Performance
Report, Fiscal Year
2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Customs Service, FY 2003 President*s
Budget, Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); U. S.
Customs Service, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.:
2002). a The departments of Justice and Transportation have combined
fiscal year 2001 performance reports
and fiscal year 2003 annual performance plans. Where it is not possible to
distinguish if material pertains to performance reporting or performance
planning, the material is displayed as combined. b According to State*s
Congressional Presentation Document, fiscal year 2003, only about half of
the
TIPOFF records are recorded in the port- of- entry name check systems. c
This section represents Customs Service material from the Treasury and
Customs Service plans and
reports.
Tabl e 3: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Border 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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
Agriculture Agriculture reported that it met or exceeded all but When the
one risk management system performance one (risk management system) of its
fiscal year 2001 target was not met, Agriculture provided reasonable,
performance targets relating to border control specific explanations for
not achieving the performance goals, which included (1) reducing the
performance target. Agriculture reported that it fell number and severity
of pest and disease outbreaks
short of meeting the target for significantly reducing in the United
States, (2) creating a coordinated
the prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens. national and
international food safety risk
Agriculture said it is looking into causes as to why management system to
meet the outcome of
rates continue to fluctuate, such as testing being reducing the incidents
of foodborne illness related to
done randomly. The data do not indicate if the meat, poultry, and egg
products in the United States problem included problems with imported
chickens. and (3) conducting a comprehensive national and According to
Agriculture, preliminary data analysis international communication program
that is an open indicated that a number of plants tested in fiscal year
exchange of information about opinions about food 2001 did not meet the
performance standard set for safety risks.
broiler chickens, and therefore resulted in a perceived higher prevalence
rate. a Agriculture said it might include not only random sampling, but
also sampling when there is an indication that problems exist.
Justice For its performance targets under its performance Justice*s
information reported all performance goal to secure America*s borders,
especially to
targets were or will be achieved. However, it is reduce the incidence of
alien smuggling, Justice said unclear if reconciled data for criminal
removals are it met its targets to effectively control the border and
still pending that would demonstrate that the exceeded its target to
intercept mala fide and performance target was achieved. offshore
travelers en route to the United States. Justice did not provide fiscal
year 2001 targets for
identifying, disrupting, and dismantling alien smuggling and trafficking
organizations, but did provide actual performance data.
For its targets under its performance goal to promote public safety by
combating immigration- related crimes and removing individuals, especially
criminals, who are unlawfully present in the United States, Justice said
its targets will be met. Justice
stated its target for criminal removals will be met when data are
reconciled. However, the data for criminal removals should have been
reconciled in January 2002. Therefore, it should be reported in Justice*s
performance document.
For the annual goal to improve the efficiency of the inspections process
for lawful entry of persons and goods, Justice said targets were exceeded.
(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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
State State had two performance goals that affected State said the
decrease in immigrant visa case border control. These were (1) meeting
anticipated
numbers from that expected from fiscal year 2000 to increases in demand
for nonimmigrant and
fiscal year 2001 was due to extremely heavy demand immigrant visas and (2)
reducing the risk of
from INS for visa numbers to adjust the status of illegitimate entry of
aliens hostile to the nation*s large numbers of aliens already in the
United States. interest. For the visa cases, State used workload State
discussed some strategies for reducing the measures of cases processed
with performance
entry of illegal aliens (a performance target was not measures and
targets. State did not meet its target
set), but did not clearly address strategies to address for immigrant
visas. Performance expectations for
the immigrant visa target. the second goal were explained in narrative
statements, but a set measure and target were not
provided.
(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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
Transportation Transportation had two fiscal year 2001 performance
Transportation provided reasonable, specific goals relating to border
control. b One goal was
information on why the target for reducing illegal reducing illegal
immigration across United States sea
immigration across U. S. sea borders was not met borders, with a measure
of the percentage of and strategies to achieve the target in the future.
In undocumented migrants interdicted and/ or deterred
more general terms, Transportation said the Coast attempting to enter the
United States via maritime Guard will (1) operate along maritime routes to
deter routes. Transportation did not meet the performance
and defeat attempts at smuggling undocumented target.
migrants, (2) establish agreements with source countries to reduce migrant
flow, (3) use intelligence A second measure was the percentage of days
that
to continually improve patrol plans and tactics, the designated number of
critical defense assets (4) develop more capable sensors, advanced vessel
maintain a combat readiness rating of 2 or better,
search technologies, and nonlethal interdiction which Transportation did
not meet.
technologies, (5) develop tactical data exchange systems, and (6) provide
advice and assistance to migrant source countries through State to improve
law enforcement efforts against migrant smugglers.
Transportation also said political and socioeconomic conditions influence
variations in illegal migration patterns. To provide a more understandable
migrant interdiction performance measure, Transportation said it will
invert the former performance measure and calculate the percentage of
undocumented migrants interdicted and/ or deterred versus the percentage
of undocumented migrants that have successfully entered the United States
over maritime
routes. Transportation expects to meet the performance targets for fiscal
year 2002. For providing combat ready units, Transportation said high
endurance cutter and patrol boat readiness remained nearly constant,
meeting Defense plan requirements. Transportation and Defense reported
high endurance cutter and patrol boat readiness 91
and 100 percent of the time, respectively. Port security units* readiness
improved by approximately 3 percent. After 2001, Transportation said this
performance goal will be an operating administrative performance goal
whose results will be discussed in the context of the new coastal and
seaport security performance goal.
(Continued From Previous Page)
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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
Tr ea s ur y Treasury has a strategic goal to protect the nation*s
Regarding air travel, Treasury said the fiscal year borders and major
international terminals from
2001 final data for air travel indicate a slight increase traffickers and
smugglers of illicit drugs, but had
in the compliance rate over fiscal year 2000 data. measures covering legal
violations that were not Treasury said this reflects the goal of
incremental limited to drug trafficking or smuggling. Related improvement
in performance. However, Treasury measures include (1) efficiency of
targeting selective
said it could not identify any deficiency to explain the air passengers
and vehicles, (2) air passenger and
slight shortfall in the compliance rate between the vehicle compliance
with laws and regulations, 2001 actual results and the 2001 goal. Treasury
also (3) processing time to clear customs or initial
said the percentage of Customs* no launches of screening, (4) passenger
data provided on arrival, aircraft or vessels during fiscal year 2001 was
(5) response rate to border coordination initiative approximately double
the projection. Treasury did requests, (6) detection of suspect aircraft
entering
not provide any strategies for meeting the U. S. territory, and (7)
inability to launch Customs
performance targets in the future, as its fiscal year aircraft or vessels.
Treasury reported that it did not
2003 performance plan was still under review at the meet its targets for
the compliance rate of air travel
time of the fiscal year 2001 report publication. passengers with laws and
regulations and the number of times Customs is unable to launch an
aircraft or vessel.
Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001
Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of State, Program Performance
Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of
Transportation, Performance Plan* FY 2003 and Performance Report* FY 2001
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Program
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S.
Customs Service, FY 2003 President*s Budget, Performance Plan and Report
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); U. S. Customs Service, Annual Report,
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002). a It is not clear if any of
the Agriculture information includes foreign plant findings.
b Transportation also added a new performance goal in fiscal year 2002 for
coastal and seaport security to ensure sea- borne foreign and domestic
trade routes and seaports remain available for the movement of passengers
and cargo. The measure will be the percentage of high interest vessels
screened.
Tabl e 4: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Border 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 their fiscal year Department
or agency in fiscal year 2003?
2003 goals? Agriculture Agriculture*s fiscal year 2003 performance plan
Agriculture*s fiscal year 2003 performance plan border- related
performance goals remained the
generally describes several strategies that appear to same as those stated
in its fiscal year 2001
be reasonably linked to meeting its performance performance report, with
adjustments to reflect
goals. actual 2001 data. The goals included (1) reduce the number and
severity of pest and disease outbreaks
Several strategies are intended to reduce the number in the United States,
(2) create a coordinated
and severity of pest and disease outbreaks in the national and
international food safety risk United States. These included efforts to
(1) devote management system to ensure the safety of U. S. additional
resources to inspection of incoming people meat and poultry products from
farm to table, and and cargo, (2) assess which agricultural products are
(3) conduct a comprehensive national and likely to carry exotic pests and
diseases and
international communication program about food establish appropriate,
science- based quarantine
safety risks. regulations, (3) promote awareness of the value of these
regulations to help the public and importers
For the first performance goal, Agriculture understand the need for
compliance, (4) inspect
performance targets increased from fiscal year 2001 passenger baggage and
cargo at points of origin as
actual performance. For the second performance well as aircraft, ships,
trains, and other vehicles at goal, Agriculture said the Food Safety and
Inspection
U. S. ports of entry, (5) enforce penalties for those Service (FSIS) was
reevaluating the targets for the who are caught carrying prohibited
products to deter prevalence of foodborne illnesses as a better
future violations, and (6) maintain an adequate team understanding of the
factors become known.
of animal and health experts to address emergencies Agriculture set
targets both lower and higher than the
quickly and effectively. actual amount in fiscal year 2001. The plan does
not explicitly contain measures for increasing reviews
For the second performance goal- creating a and audits of foreign
inspection systems, described coordinated national and international food
safety as an important effort in its strategies.
risk management system, Agriculture described efforts to (1) establish
national performance For the third performance goal, the fiscal year 2003
standards for ready- to- eat meat and poultry products
targets for getting food safety information to citizens and establish
additional standards for raw products,
were set lower, and the targets for stakeholder as appropriate, (2) expand
access to overseas
activities held to improve food safety related markets by seeking
internationally recognized
decisionmaking and public policy were set slightly laboratory
accreditation and by expanding United higher than fiscal year 2001 actual
performance.
States laboratory capacity to meet European Union The fiscal year 2001
actual data for food safety residue testing requirements, and (3) ensure
that information was considerably higher than the target meat, poultry,
and egg products imported into the set for 2003, but the annual plan does
not describe United States are safe by increasing reviews and why the new
target was not set higher.
audits to ensure the continued equivalence of foreign inspection systems.
(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? For the third performance goal, Agriculture planned to (1)
emphasize both education and explanation of food safety issues, (2)
develop information for and deliver information to at- risk populations,
(3) incorporate risk communication objectives into risk management
strategies, (4) increase seminars and technical training on science- based
food safety standards for U. S. foreign delegates, and (5) expand risk
prevention for small and very small plants through education.
Justice Justice*s fiscal year 2003 performance plan has Justice*s
strategies and initiatives to address its several border- control- related
performance goals
border control performance goals generally appear with subgoals and
related measures and targets. For
to be reasonably linked to achieving its goals. a major objective, to
secure America*s borders,
Justice provides overarching strategies to secure Justice has several
annual performance goals. One America*s borders that describe objectives
to is securing America*s borders, especially to reduce (1) prevent and
deter illegal entry by phased
the incidence of alien smuggling. Subgoals include implementation of a
comprehensive border
(1) reducing the number of illegal aliens in the United enforcement
strategy that concentrates resources to States, (2) effectively
controlling the border, control corridors of illegal entry, (2) pursue
border (3) identifying, disrupting, and dismantling alien
safety initiatives that create a safe border smuggling and trafficking
organizations, and environment, (3) strengthen the capabilities of host
(4) deterring illegal immigration at the source. For
and transit countries to combat illegal migration and the first subgoal,
Justice has added new measures to prevent and deter illegal immigration at
the source, determine the total number of illegal aliens residing
and (4) enhance and maintain an effective in the United States and annual
entries of illegal intelligence capability through coordination with other
aliens residing in the United States. The
agencies and integration of INS worldwide performance targets were
adjusted. For example, intelligence resources. For each subgoal area, the
fiscal year 2003 target for the number of illegal
Justice provides additional detail on strategies to aliens residing in the
United States is 6.6 million,
achieve the subgoal. For example, Justice discusses compared to 7.0
million estimated in 2001.
strategies to achieve the fiscal year 2003 goal of controlling borders
between ports of entry and at A second goal is combating immigration-
related
ports of entry. crimes and removing individuals who are unlawfully present
in the United States. For controlling criminal
aliens, a subgoal includes increasing the number of criminal alien
removals, monitoring alien overstays, and monitoring escort of criminal
aliens. The
performance targets were adjusted. For example, Justice has increased the
target for criminal alien removals from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year
2003, consistent with fiscal year 2001 actual performance and fiscal year
2002 targets.
Another performance goal is the efficiency of the inspections process for
lawful entry of persons and goods, with a subgoal to facilitate port- of-
entry traffic and monitor deferred inspections. Targets for fiscal year
2003 were adjusted to reflect fiscal year 2001 performance.
(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? State For fiscal year 2003, State established a border For the
most part, State provided only general control performance goal similar to
that used in the statements of how it plans to achieve its fiscal year
past. The goal included timely and effective visa 2003 goal. Regarding
visa issuance, State said it issuance and a reduction of visa fraud. State
said it
has committed itself to improving its visa procedures was establishing
additional indicators for developing and coordination with other agencies
and a biometrics collection program for U. S. visas and
departments. In addition to new priorities such as federal agency access
to the Consular Consolidated
establishing a robust entry- exit system for foreigners, Database.
Projected performance for processing State said it is also analyzing and
improving all immigrant visa cases was expected to increase from
current processes and procedures to reflect the fiscal year 2001 actual
performance to projected
lessons learned from September 11. In addition, fiscal year 2003
performance, but decrease for
State said it seeks to facilitate entry for deserving nonimmigrant visa
cases.
refugees of natural disasters, political repression, and victims of
trafficking. According to State, data generated by consular officers and
shared with INS and other agencies enhance both border security and
service to visa recipients upon arrival in the United States.
Transportation Transportation said it retained goals and measures For the
border- control- related goals, Transportation for interdiction and/ or
deterrence of undocumented provided strategies that appear to be
reasonably migrants across United States sea borders. The
linked to achieving its goals. Transportation said the fiscal year 2003
target for interdicting or deterring
Coast Guard will have efforts to (1) operate along undocumented migrants
remains at an 87 percent maritime routes to deter and defeat attempts at
target, the same as the target for the past few years
smuggling undocumented migrants, (2) establish and above the fiscal year
2001 actual achievement of agreements with source countries to reduce
migrant 82.5 percent.
flow, (3) use intelligence to continually improve patrol plans and
tactics, (4) develop more capable sensors, Transportation said it
established a new performance advanced vessel search technologies, and
nonlethal goal and related measure for fiscal year 2002 that
interdiction technologies, (5) develop tactical data would carry into
2003: Ensure sea- borne foreign and
exchange systems, and (6) provide advice and domestic trade routes and
seaports remain available assistance through State auspices for migrant
source for the movement of passengers and cargo. The
countries in improving law enforcement efforts measure is the percentage
of high- interest vessels
against organized migrant smugglers. screened, with a target for fiscal
year 2003 set at 100 percent.
For the new performance goal, Transportation said it would increase
intelligence efforts in ports; improve advanced information on passengers,
crew, and cargo; and establish or improve information and intelligence
fusion centers in Washington and on both coasts. It also identified more
specific efforts, such as increasing boarding and escort operations to
protect vessels carrying large numbers of passengers and vessels with
dangerous cargo, such as liquefied natural gas or other volatile products,
from becoming targets. In another example, Transportation said it is
beginning a multiyear task of
thoroughly assessing seaport vulnerability. An interagency vulnerability
assessment process led by the Coast Guard will complete 55 comprehensive
port vulnerability assessments by 2004.
(Continued From Previous Page)
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? Tr ea s ur y a Customs described two border- control- related
Customs provides general information on the performance goals for fiscal
year 2003. One
strategies to achieve its fiscal year 2003 performance performance goal is
to secure the nation*s borders
goals. It provides a description of its *strategic while facilitating the
expeditious movement of lawful context* for each of its goal areas and
other international travel and commerce, with measures of information in
sections pertaining to specific (1) efficiency of targeting selective air
passengers
Customs activities. These vary in the level of detail. and vehicles, (2)
air passenger and vehicle compliance with laws and regulations, (3)
processing
For securing the border, Customs described going to time for air/ land
vehicle passengers, (4) passenger
a Level 1 alert after September 11, requiring data provided on arrival,
and (5) the number of antiterrorist questioning and increased inspections
of passengers processed. The fiscal year 2003 travelers and goods. In
addition, Customs described
performance targets are lower than fiscal year 2001 efforts such as (1)
deploying inspection technology,
actual performance for vehicle compliance rates and (2) applying risk
management principles to target targeting efficiency.
and identify high- risk travelers and conveyances, (3) hardening the
northern border via installation of A second performance goal is to
contribute to a safer technology and infrastructure improvements, and
America by reducing civil and criminal activities (4) implementing the
Customs- Trade Partnership associated with the enforcement of Customs
laws, against Terrorism to strengthen the overall supply with measures of
(1) Customs efforts to identify,
chain and border security. disrupt, and dismantle organizations that
further terrorist activity, such as nonintrusive inspections of
For disrupting terrorist activities, Customs defined cargo or efforts
related to border initiatives, challenges and constraints, and is playing
a major (2) smuggling windows of opportunity, such as
role in the interdiction and detection of weapons of arriving persons,
conveyances, and commercial
mass destruction entering or leaving the United shipments, and (3)
outbound licensing violations. States. For example, Customs will conduct
increased vessel, passenger, and cargo examinations. Additional funding is
being requested for deploying a mixture of nonintrusive inspections at the
nation*s seaports.
In an operations and maintenance section, Customs said it maintains a
Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence facility to
coordinate the combined air and marine efforts of the military and law
enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the U. S. coastline.
Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and
Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of
Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003
Performance Plan (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of State,
Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 2002);
Department of Transportation, Performance Plan* FY 2003 and Performance
Report* FY 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the
Treasury, Performance Plans, Final for FY 2002, Proposed for FY 2003
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Customs Service, FY 2003 President*s
Budget, Performance Plan and
Report (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002). a This information was obtained
from Customs* fiscal year 2003 President*s Budget Performance Plan and
Report.
Tabl e 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Border 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? Agriculture Agriculture*s fiscal year 2001
performance report Regarding risk management data on salmonella on
generally provides explanations of data broiler chickens, Agriculture said
it was looking into completeness and reliability. Regarding the data for
why the performance rates continue to fluctuate. the indicator of
international air travelers* compliance Agriculture said it is giving
serious consideration to with restrictions to prevent entry of pests and
increasing its activities to include not only random diseases, Agriculture
said data for this performance sampling but also sampling when there is an
measure are collected through the Agriculture
indication that problems exist in a plant. Agriculture Quarantine
Inspection (AQI) Monitoring System and said it also was giving serious
consideration to are obtained at airports of entry by applying standard
deleting this indicator, as additional sampling results statistical
sampling procedures.
would skew the salmonella prevalence targets. For its risk management
data, Agriculture said an In its fiscal year 2001 report, Agriculture did
not automated system provides information on
indicate limitations for its communication program. microbiological,
chemical, and pathological analyses
However, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture said of meat and
poultry and their processed products.
that while it can estimate the number of people Agriculture said it
considers the data to be reliable. reached, the number of people who
follow safe food The report does not say what specific steps were
handling practices can only be determined by taken to verify and validate
the information. periodic surveys that are not conducted annually.
Agriculture does not indicate if any of the information pertains to
imported meat or poultry.
For the national and international communication program, Agriculture said
people are informed of food safety information through a variety of
outreach programs, including print, radio, and TV outlets. Data on
stakeholder activities to improve food safety
decision making are based on the number of activities advertised in the
Federal Register.
Agriculture considers its data to be reliable.
(Continued From Previous Page)
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 performance report
included explanations
For the most part, Justice did not identify any about data collection and
storage, data validation
shortcomings in its fiscal year 2001 performance and verification, and any
known data limitations for data. Justice did discuss data limitations for
new each measure. The explanations provided adequate fiscal year 2002
measures on the total number of information about the completeness,
reliability, and
illegal aliens residing in the United States and the credibility of the
data. For example, Justice provided annual entries of illegal aliens
residing in the United a definition of the measure for targeted alien
States. It also mentioned minor problems with smuggling and trafficking
organizations identified, existing measurement data and steps to minimize
disrupted, and dismantled, and explained the the problems. For example,
Justice said that the
measure*s data collection and storage. Justice said data for the measure
on high- priority border corridors that the Statistics Office of the
Office of Policy and demonstrating optimum deterrence are the subject of
Planning conducts data validation and verification.
a process to standardize all such recording and The statistics are
corroborated through submission reporting of data, which is ongoing across
all border audits and logic, range, and computational edits. patrol
sectors to ensure consistency and validity. According to Justice, the data
records are complete,
The collection of these data is currently an intensive with 95 percent of
field office records entered within
manual process. Justice said the use of INS*s the first 8 working days of
the reporting month. The
intranet to extract existing data from automated remaining 5 percent are
subsequently obtained systems along with auxiliary data not yet automated
through submission audits.
is being tested at limited pilot sites. State In the fiscal year 2001
performance report, State did
For the most part, State did not provide sufficient not provide consistent
or adequate information for
information on data quality to be used to judge if the border- control-
related data sources to make there were data limitations. judgments about
data reliability, completeness, and credibility. State provided a few
words describing the data source, data storage, and frequency of the data.
For example, for the measure of immigrant visa
cases and nonimmigrant visa cases, State said a corporate database was the
source and storage point. For validity, State said there was no known data
source outside the department. Therefore, it was not possible to assess
data quality.
(Continued From Previous Page)
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? Transportation Transportation*s combined
plan and report provides Transportation provides explanations of data
extensive information on its measures and data shortcomings and the means
to address the
sources that allows an assessment of data quality. shortcomings. For its
new coastal and seaport The information includes (1) a description of the
security goal and measure, Transportation said that measure, (2) scope,
(3) source, (4) limitations, the data for this measure are collected using
a (5) statistical issues, and (6) verification and
manual count from situation reports sent after a validation. Other
explanatory information is provided vessel inspection or escort. Data
systems have not in a comment section. For example, for the migrant
yet been developed or modified to capture this interdiction measure,
Transportation describes the
information, and Transportation said it is possible scope as including
Cuban, Dominican, Haitian, and
that errors in the data could result due to manual Chinese migrants. The
success rate calculation is data collection. Transportation said this is
an interim also described. Transportation said data are activity- based
measure until appropriate outcomebased obtained from the Coast Guard and
INS. Estimates
measures are developed. of migrants who successfully arrive and estimates
of those with a high potential for undertaking the
For other measures, Transportation also provides voyage are derived from
investigations of incidents, detailed explanations of any data
shortcomings. For interviews of detainees, and intelligence gathering.
example, for the measure of interdicting or deterring Limitations,
statistical issues, and verification and
undocumented migrants, Transportation said the validation observations
highlight issues of estimation. number of illegal immigrants entering the
United The measure*s comment section says that the highly
States and the numbers of potential migrants are variable nature of
illegal migrant activity limits the
derived numbers subject to estimating error. ability to project future
outcomes based on Because of the speculative nature of the information
performance in the immediate past.
used, and the secretive nature of illegal migration, particularly where
professional smuggling Transportation said that its Office of Inspector
organizations are involved, Transportation said the General plans to
selectively verify and validate estimated potential flow of migrants may
contain performance measurement data each year and also significant error.
The measure only tracks four will assess performance measures when
pertinent to
migrant groups at this time. Trend information prior the conduct of
ongoing projects. As part of their
to 1995 is not available. The Coast Guard has ongoing work, Transportation
said managers of
developed the estimation techniques that support departmental data
programs use quality control
this indicator over the last 6 years in order to more techniques, such as
flow charting the data collection consistently use intelligence
information. process, to identify where errors can be introduced
Transportation said the Coast Guard is seeking into the data collection
system. In addition,
independent assessment of the methods. Transportation said its Bureau of
Transportation Statistics is developing a statistical policy framework
where the operating administrations work together to identify and
implement current statistical best practices in all aspects of their data
collection programs.
(Continued From Previous Page)
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? Tr ea s ur y Treasury provided a general
statement on the
In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, Treasury completeness and
reliability of its data, citing provided a general description of steps to
improve adherence to Office of Management and Budget
the quality and value of performance data. Treasury (OMB) standards.
Treasury said in its fiscal year said teams of Treasury analysts, with the
assistance 2000 performance plan that bureaus were required of a loaned
executive from OMB, performed reviews
to provide self- assessments of data quality using two and analyses of
Treasury*s fiscal year 2001 categories: (1) reasonable accuracy (judged to
be performance measures, including a review of existing sufficiently
accurate for program management and verification and validation
information. Results and performance reporting purposes specified in OMB
recommendations were forwarded to bureaus for use Circular A- 11, section
232, as *acceptably reliable*),
in their data quality improvement efforts. Also, or (2) questionable or
unknown accuracy* judged to
bureau classes on Treasury*s implementation of the be materially
inadequate. Where statistical
Results Act included a session on quality confidence intervals are
available, Treasury said
performance measures and data verification and these are provided instead
of the rating statements. validation. In addition, Treasury said the
submission of fiscal year 2001 information and assurance statements
required bureaus to address any performance measure data reliability
issues. Treasury said performance data presented in the fiscal year 2001
report meet the standards for reliability set forth in OMB Circular A- 11,
section 232, in that there is
neither a refusal nor a marked reluctance by agency managers or government
decision makers to use the data in carrying out their responsibilities. a
Sources: Department of Agriculture, FY 2001 Annual Program Performance
Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Justice, FY 2001
Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of State, Program Performance
Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of
Transportation, Performance Plan* FY 2003 and Performance Report* FY 2001
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Program
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S.
Customs Service, FY 2003 President*s Budget, Performance Plan and Report
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002); U. S. Customs Service, Annual Report,
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002). a In its fiscal year 2003
performance plan, Customs provided a description of each measure*s
definition,
verification and validation, and data accuracy. Customs said that
virtually all border- related measures and data have reasonable accuracy,
with relatively high confidence levels. Baseline data for the average time
for non- commercial vehicles to clear the Northern and Southern Borders
are being developed. In addition, Customs said data verification and
validation is planned for information in the Aviation and Marine
Operations Reporting System, the source of data for information such as
the response rate to border coordination initiative requests, the
detection of suspect aircraft entering U. S. territory, and the times
Customs is unable to launch an aircraft or vessel.
Appendi x II
Flood Mitigation and Insurance Table 6: Coordination Efforts among
Agencies Involved in Flood Mitigation and Insurance as Discussed in Their
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance
Plans 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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
U. S. Army Corps of The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 The
Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 Engineers (Corps) performance
report. performance plan.
Department of Agriculture Agriculture states in its fiscal year 2001
report that it Agriculture*s fiscal year 2003 performance plan does uses
data included in the National Dams Inventory
not identify coordination efforts related to its goal of maintained by the
Corps and FEMA to help achieve providing benefits to property and safety
through its goal of providing benefits to property and safety
flood damage reduction. It does, however, state that through flood damage
reduction. According to projects are supported by a combination of
federal, Agriculture*s comments, NCRS provides data to the
state, and local funds. Corps, which has lead responsibility for the
inventory.
Federal Emergency FEMA*s fiscal year 2001 performance report does
FEMA*s fiscal year 2003 performance plan includes Management Agency
not specify which agencies it collaborates with to an appendix that
outlines categories of crosscutting (FEMA) achieve goals related to flood
mitigation and
activities, such as mitigation and preparedness. insurance. a One activity
that supports this goal is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
FEMA states that it coordinates with other federal entities to ensure
compliance with mandatory purchase requirements
of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act. The purpose of this act is to
improve the financial condition of NFIP and reduce federal expenditures
for disaster assistance to flood- damaged properties. FEMA states that it
works on this effort with the departments of Agriculture, Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA), the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and, within the Department of the Treasury, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC). Other entities involved are the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA), the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
In addition, FEMA states that it is the chair of the President*s Long-
Term Recovery Task Force, which helps state and local governments to
identify their needs related to the long- term impact of a major, complex
disaster. Agencies that FEMA coordinates
with on this effort include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation. Other involved
entities include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of
Management and Budget, and SBA.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual
Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); U. S.
Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan
and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002);
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance & Accountability
Report Fiscal Year 2001,
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual
Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003, (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002). a FEMA
discussed the agencies it coordinated with and areas of coordination in
Appendix I of its fiscal year 2001 annual performance plan, similar to
that of the coordination appendix in its fiscal year 2003
annual performance plan.
Tabl e 7: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Flood Mitigation and Insurance 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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
U. S. Army Corps of The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 The
Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 Engineers performance report.
performance report.
Agriculture Agriculture reported it did not meet its goal related to
Agriculture provides reasonably clear explanations flood mitigation, of
providing benefits to property and for its unmet goal. In its fiscal year
2001 report, safety through flood damage reduction by completing
Agriculture states that due to the complexity of 81 watershed protection
structures. Agriculture
engineering, watershed protection structures take reported it completed 51
watershed protection several years to complete, and the multiple funding
structures.
sources, including federal, state, and local funds, may alter the schedule
for completing the structures. In addition, external factors such as
weather and delays in obtaining land rights and permits caused delays in
construction.
Agriculture states that many of the structures that were not completed in
time for the fiscal year 2001 report will be completed in the next few
months.
FEMA In its fiscal year 2001 performance report, FEMA In its fiscal year
2001 performance report, FEMA identifies five goals related to flood
mitigation and
provides a reasonably clear explanation for not insurance: (1) prevent
loss of lives and property from
achieving its goal of increasing the number of NFIP all hazards, (2)
collect and validate building and flood
policies in force by 5 percent over the end of the loss data and confirm
that the reduction in estimated fiscal year 2000 count. FEMA states
although the losses from NFIP activities exceeds $1 billion and end of
year policy count for fiscal year 2001 continue systematic assessment of
the impact and
increased, the retention rates for existing policies effectiveness of
NFIP, (3) increase the number of
were not maintained. To determine the reason for NFIP policies in force by
5 percent over the end of FEMA*s inability to retain policies in force,
the agency the fiscal year 2000 count, (4) improve the program*s
states it is supporting GAO*s study of lender underwriting ratio, and (5)
implement NFIP business
compliance with the National Flood Insurance process improvements .
Additionally, the first of the Reform Act regarding the purchase and
maintenance two goals each have four performance indicators to
of flood insurance. FEMA outlines three strategies support them. FEMA
reported meeting all but one of for addressing the retention issue in its
goal: its goals and all eight indicators. The goal FEMA did (1) placing
two new television commercials in fiscal not meet was increasing the
number of NFIP policies year 2002 that emphasize the importance of buying
in force by 5 percent over the end of the fiscal year
and keeping National Flood Insurance, (2) 2000 count.
establishing retention goals for *Write Your Own* companies, private
insurance companies that write flood insurance under a special arrangement
with the federal government, and (3) targeting their marketing strategies
on those properties no longer on the books.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual
Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance & Accountability Report
Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
Tabl e 8: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Flood Mitigation and Insurance 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?
U. S. Army Corps of The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 The
Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 Engineers performance plan.
performance plan.
Agriculture In its fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture does not
Agriculture, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, appears to identify a target
for achieving its goal of providing describe strategies reasonably linked
to its goal. benefits to property and safety through reducing
Such strategies include assisting in assessing flood damage by completing
watershed protection conditions, conducting river basin surveys and flood
structures. However, the plan does state that
hazard analyses, and providing flood plain Agriculture will implement a
new program to management assistance; providing the information
rehabilitate existing structures through the
and tools communities need to reduce potential Rehabilitation of
Structural Measures (Pub. L. 106-
damage from natural disasters; and carrying out 472).
water supply forecasting to reduce potential damages from flood or drought
in western states. Agriculture also states that it plans to help
individuals and communities identify resource concerns and carry out
watershed- based flood management plans, ensure that government and
private organizations have the data needed to guide responsible growth,
and strengthen local partnerships and other mechanisms to increase the
availability of technical assistance in rapidly developing areas.
FEMA According to its fiscal year 2001 report and fiscal FEMA provides
reasonable strategies for meeting its year 2003 plan, FEMA revised its
strategic plan,
fiscal year 2003 goals following a description of each which affected the
organization of its fiscal year 2003 goal. For example, FEMA plans to
increase the performance plan. FEMA*s fiscal year 2003
number of Emergency Action Plans in communities performance goals and
measures are similar to
located below significant and high- hazard potential those that appear in
its fiscal year 2001 performance
dams. plan, but are organized differently. FEMA merged its goal of
implementation of NFIP business process
For FEMA*s goal of increasing the number of flood improvements into its
fiscal year 2003 goal of
insurance policies, the Federal Insurance Mitigation improving NFIP*s
*bottom line,* an income- toexpense Administration will implement two
strategies: (1) work ratio, by 1 percent. In addition, FEMA
with its partners such as the *Write Your Own* merged two other goals: (1)
prevent loss of lives and
insurance companies, insurance and real estate property from all hazards
and (2) collect and validate
agencies, and lenders to encourage or require the building and flood loss
data, confirm that the purchase of flood insurance and (2) conduct a
reduction in estimated losses from NFIP activities marketing and
advertising campaign, including paid exceeds $1 billion, and continue
systematic broadcast flood insurance advertisements, public assessment of
the impact and effectiveness of NFIP. service announcements, print ads,
articles, and other
printed material all designed to reach target audiences.
(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?
However, FEMA did adopt one new goal in its fiscal For its goal of
improving the *bottom line,* an incometo- year 2003 plan related to flood
mitigation and
expense ratio, by 1 percent, FEMA outlines a insurance. The new goal is
for the Federal Insurance
number of strategies. For example, the Federal Mitigation Administration
to modernize floodplain Insurance Mitigation Administration has been
mapping and the flood hazard maps in the FEMA
implementing business improvement processes inventory. Three performance
indictors relate to this
since fiscal year 1999 in order to improve the goal: (1) reducing the
inventory to an average age of exchange of information, turn around times,
and 6 years, (2) producing digital mapping products for
accuracy and to reduce costs. FEMA*s plan states 15 percent of the highest
priority areas, and that these simplified business processes will make it
(3) reducing the number of unmapped communities easier for agents to sell
and for consumers to buy by 50 percent.
policies. With three merged goals and one added goal in its
For its flood mapping modernization goal, FEMA fiscal year 2003 plan, FEMA
reports four annual
plans to attain this goal and its indicators by performance goals directly
related to flood mitigation encouraging other federal agencies and state,
and insurance: (1) to support the Federal Insurance regional, and local
governments to actively
Mitigation Administration, which supports state and participate in and
contribute to the maintenance of community development of disaster
resistance, and
flood maps by providing data collection, engineering, with its partners,
improve hazard risk information and
digital mapping, and other in- kind services or cost tools, (2) to
continue to work with its partners to sharing through the Cooperating
Technical Partner increase the number of flood insurance policies,
Initiative, which is aimed at increasing local (3) to improve NFIP*s
*bottom line,* an income- toexpense involvement in the flood mapping
process.
ratio, by 1 percent, and (4) to modernize floodplain mapping in the flood
hazard maps in the FEMA inventory. FEMA identified five targets related to
the first goal.
These include: (1) 5,000 fewer lives at risk, (2) 2, 200 fewer structures
at risk, (3) 150 fewer elements of infrastructure at risk, (4) 10 percent
more communities actively committed to building their
disaster resistance in fiscal year 2003, and (5) $1. 1 billion in
estimated avoidance of flood losses because of NFIP activities.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual
Performance Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D. C.:
Mar. 2002); Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance Plan
Fiscal Year 2003, (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002).
Tabl e 9: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Flood Mitigation and Insurance 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? U. S. Army Corps of The Corps has not
submitted a fiscal year 2001 The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year
2001 Engineers performance report. performance report. Agriculture
Agriculture states at the beginning of its fiscal year
Agriculture*s report states *data are accurate* and 2001 report that
*performance information does not further acknowledge shortcomings in the
supporting these performance goals is of sufficient
data or steps to resolve or minimize them. quality and reliability except
where otherwise noted in this document.* Agriculture also states that the
data reported by state offices for fiscal year 2001 are accurate. FEMA
FEMA*s fiscal year 2001 performance report does
FEMA*s business process improvement goal is the not individually identify
data quality assessment
only goal related to flood mitigation and insurance for methods for any of
its performance indicators.
which it acknowledges a data limitation. FEMA explained that it relied on
trend data from previous FEMA*s Annual Performance & Accountability Report
years* surveys to assess its performance in customer Fiscal Year 2001
states, *the performance
service for fiscal year 2001 because of a delay in measurement criteria
and information systems are
obtaining Office of Management and Budget (OMB) thought to be generally
effective and reliable.*
approval for distributing its customer surveys that year. FEMA states that
it plans to conduct the surveys in fiscal year 2002 to obtain more
accurate
information. FEMA does not have a general statement acknowledging data
shortcomings and steps to resolve or minimize them elsewhere in its fiscal
year 2001 performance report.
Sources: U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual
Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Annual Performance & Accountability Report
Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
Appendi x III
Wetlands Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in
Wetlands- Related Activities as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans
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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
U. S. Army Corps of The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 The
Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 Engineers (Corps) performance
report. performance plan.
Department of Agriculture, FSA*s fiscal year 2001 report does not mention
Agriculture*s fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Farm Service Agency
coordination with other agencies when discussing Plan includes a strategy
to work with other federal (FSA) wetlands- related activities. agencies
and partners to identify priority wetlands
that could benefit from conservation practices in the surrounding
landscape. However, FSA*s 2003 plan does not mention coordination with
other agencies when discussing its wetlands- related activities. The plan
discusses how FSA*s performance goal supports Agriculture*s goals and the
strategy for
achieving the fiscal year 2003 goal. Department of Agriculture, NRCS*s
fiscal year 2001 annual performance report
Agriculture*s fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Natural Resources
does not mention coordination with other agencies Plan includes a strategy
to work with other federal Conservation Service when discussing its
wetlands- related activities. agencies and partners to identify priority
wetlands (NRCS)
that could benefit from conservation practices in the surrounding
landscape. In addition, NRCS*s fiscal year 2003 annual performance plan
contains a
section on interagency cooperation and mentions that the agency provides
technical assistance to other Agriculture agencies as well as other
federal and state agencies, but does not specifically mention wetlands.
NRCS*s plan also mentions that other
agencies provide valuable information that NRCS uses to validate data on
resource condition collected by resource inventories. a
(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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of the Interior, Interior*s Departmental Overview contains a
section
Interior makes no distinction between coordination Fish and Wildlife
Service on crosscutting efforts. The section includes a table efforts that
occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those (FWS)
summarizing examples of departmental crosscutting that are planned for
fiscal year 2003. issues and shows the departmental and external
organizations that are involved in the crosscutting issues and the linkage
to departmental goals. In the
table, Interior indicates that its agencies work together with
Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the states on wetlands
issues. In addition, although FWS*s fiscal year 2001 report/ fiscal year
2003 plan states that wetlands will be restored or enhanced through
partnerships and other conservation strategies, the report does not
provide any details on
coordination with other agencies. Department of Commerce, In the combined
fiscal year 2001 annual performance Commerce makes no distinction between
National Oceanic and
report and 2003 annual performance plan, coordination efforts that
occurred in fiscal year 2001 Atmospheric Administration Commerce included
a short section about
and those that are planned for fiscal year 2003. (NOAA)
crosscutting issues related to its performance goal of ensuring effective
resource stewardship in support of the department*s programs. Commerce
included a general statement that indicated that under the
departmental management function, the Office of the Secretary regularly
works with other federal agencies on a full range of policy development
and program management topics. NOAA also included a section on
crosscutting issues in its fiscal year 2001 annual performance report/
fiscal year 2003 plan. NOAA
indicated that it has leveraged its resources through a variety of
effective partnerships and mentioned that it works closely with other
agencies on a number of crosscutting issues to address critical challenges
facing coastal areas, but does not provide specifics on its efforts to
coordinate with other agencies on wetlands- related activities.
Environmental Protection EPA*s fiscal year 2001 annual performance report
EPA*s fiscal year 2003 plan specifically indicates that Agency (EPA) does
not mention coordination with other agencies
its efforts to meet its objective are predicated on the when discussing
its wetlands- related activities. continuation and improvement of
*important*
relationships with federal, state, tribal, and local partners. The plan
specifically mentions cooperation with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
NOAA*s National Marine Fisheries Service, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), FWS, and NRCS, but provides no specifics on the actions
being taken to improve these relationships. Sources: Department of
Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency*s FY 2003 Annual
Performance Plan, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Agriculture,
Farm Service Agency, Farm
Service Agency*s FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report, (Washington,
D. C.: 2002); Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Department of
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY
2002, (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental Protection Agency,
United States Environmental Protection Agency*s FY 2001 Annual Report,
(Washington, D. C.: 2002); Environmental Protection Agency, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency FY 2003 Annual Plan, (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Initial Performance Plan for FY 2003 and Revised Plan for FY
2002, (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002); Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year
2001,
(Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2003 Annual Performance
Plan/ FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, (Washington, D. C.: 2002). a NRCS*s
National Resources Inventory is an inventory that determines the condition
of land cover and
use, soil erosion, prime farmland, wetlands, and other natural resource
characteristics on nonfederal rural lands in the United States.
Table 11: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
Involved in Wetlands- Related Activities 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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
Corps The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2001 N/ A a *The Corps has
not submitted a fiscal year performance report. 2001 annual performance
report.
Agriculture, FSA FSA reported that it achieved its goal of restoring 1.7
N/ A* FSA reported that it achieved its fiscal year million acres of
wetlands. b 2001 goal. Agriculture, NRCS NRCS reported that it exceeded
its goal to create, N/ A* NRCS reported that it exceeded its fiscal year
restore, or enhance 250,000 acres of wetlands by 45 2001 performance goal.
percent. According the fiscal year 2001 report, the agency actually
created, restored, or enhanced 362, 000 acres of wetlands.
Interior, FWS FWS reported that it actually restored or enhanced N/ A* FWS
reported that it exceeded its fiscal year 144, 729 acres of wetlands
habitat on non- FWS
2001 performance goal. lands, exceeding its fiscal year 2001 goal to
restore or enhance 77,581 acres of wetlands habitat. FWS did not report on
the number of acres of wetlands restored or enhanced on service lands and
did not distinguish between the number of wetlands acres restored and
those enhanced. Commerce, NOAA NOAA changed its performance measure from
N/ A* The goal established by NOAA is a new
number of acres of coastal wetlands restored performance measure.
(cumulative) to number of acres of coastal acres benefited (cumulative).
Because the performance measure was changed, no target was established.
However, NOAA reported that 116, 000 acres of
coastal habitat benefited (cumulative) from NOAAsponsored projects funded
under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act. c
EPA According to EPA*s fiscal year 2001 report, it N/ A* EPA reported that
it exceeded its goal. exceeded its goal of preserving, restoring, and/ or
creating 50, 000 acres of habitat under the National Estuary Program
(cumulative) by 20,000 acres. Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm
Service Agency, Farm Service Agency*s FY 2001 Annual
Program Performance Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Department of
Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington,
D. C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental Protection Agency, United States
Environmental Protection Agency*s FY 2001 Annual Report, (Washington, D.
C.: 2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D. C.:
Jan. 2002); Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/ FY 2001 Annual
Performance
Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA FY 2001 Annual Performance
Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002). a Not applicable.
b FSA included a footnote indicating that this acreage included adjacent
uplands.
c In its comments on the draft, Commerce indicated that the number of
acres of coastal habitat benefited by NOAA- sponsored projects should be
changed from 116, 000 to 83,802 based on a November 2002 Inspector General
audit report, which is still in draft form.
Tabl e 12: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Wetlands- Related Activities 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?
Corps The Corps has not submitted a fiscal year 2003 N/ A* The Corps has
not submitted a fiscal year annual performance plan. 2003 annual
performance plan.
Agriculture, FSA FSA plans to restore 1.9 million acres of restored The
strategy that FSA plans to use for fiscal year wetlands (cumulative) in
fiscal year 2003* an 2003 appears to be reasonably linked to achieving its
increase of 100,000 acres from fiscal year 2002.
goals. The strategy described is the same one that FSA has used in past
years to successfully achieve its goal* working with producers to enroll
land in the Conservation Reserve Program.
Agriculture, NRCS NRCS plans to create, restore, or enhance 230, 000 The
strategies that NRCS plans to use appear to be acres of wetlands. NRCS
indicated that achieving its
reasonably linked to achieving its goals. However, performance goal would
contribute to the national NRCS points out that the achievement of its
goal of no net loss of wetlands. performance depends upon having funding
available
to provide financial assistance to producers under the Wetlands Reserve
Program. Interior, FWS FWS plans to enhance or restore 71, 473 acres of
The strategies that FWS plans to use appear to be wetlands habitat in
fiscal year 2003. reasonably linked to achieving its goals. The strategies
cited are the same that FWS has employed in the past to achieve its goals.
Commerce, NOAA NOAA plans to sponsor projects that will benefit
The strategies NOAA cited appear to be reasonably 132, 000 acres of
coastal habitat (cumulative). These linked to achieving its goals.
projects will be funded under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,
and Restoration Act.
EPA EPA plans to restore or protect 25, 000 acres of The strategies cited
by EPA appear to be reasonably habitat nationwide through actions or
commitments
linked to achieving its 2003 goals. under the National Estuary Program and
support 550 wetlands restoration projects.
Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service
Agency*s FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, (Washington, D. C.: 2002);
Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and
Revised Plan for FY 2002, (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); Environmental
Protection Agency, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2003 Annual
Plan, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Initial Performance Plan for FY 2003 and
Revised Plan for FY 2002, (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002); Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2003
Annual Performance Plan/ FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, (Washington,
D. C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, (Washington, D. C.:
2002).
Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in
Wetlands- Related Activities 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? Corps The Corps did not submit a fiscal year
2001 annual N/ A. performance report. Agriculture, FSA FSA*s report
discusses the sources and process
The report indicates that some limitations exist, but used to develop the
data reported for the
attributes those limitations to time lags from the date Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), including
that contracts are signed with producers to the time wetlands acreage
restored. The report also that the data entered, the continual updating of
the indicates that technical adjustments were made to
contract data, and the periodic changes in contract the estimation process
for many of CRP*s
data. No steps to address the known limitations performance measures. were
described.
Agriculture, NRCS NRCS*s fiscal year 2001 annual performance report The
report acknowledges that some discrepancies did not specifically address
the verification and
were noted when performance data were analyzed, validation of the
performance data reported for its
but that there was no compelling reason to discount wetlands- related
data. However, the report did the performance data reported. include a
section that described its Performance and
Results Measurement System (PRMS) and indicated that each state
conservationist is required to validate and verify the performance data
reported within his
or her state. The report also indicated that the agency conducted an
internal review of the PRMS and has begun the implementation of a quality
assurance strategy for the system. Interior, FWS FWS*s 2001 report
contained information on the
FWS*s report lists several limitations, including the source of the data
and discussed the process used
possibility of double counting. The report contained to verify the data
reported. no discussion of steps that FWS has taken or plans to take to
address the limitations acknowledged.
Commerce, NOAA NOAA*s 2001 report contained a small section on the NOAA
did not identify any limitations. verification and validation of
performance data. The section identifies the source of the data and the
verification procedure that is followed. EPA In its fiscal year 2001
report, EPA stated that its
EPA listed several current limitations, including the performance data
generally can be considered possibility of double counting and that the
acceptably reliable and complete, according to
measurement may not reflect actual improvements in guidelines established
by the Office of Management the health of the habitat. EPA also described
and Budget. improvements made to make the data reported more consistent.
EPA also indicated that it is too early to determine the extent of data
limitations and that because this is a new performance measure and is
still being refined, no audits or quality reviews have yet been conducted.
While EPA acknowledged that
the extent of data limitations is not known, it indicated that it does not
believe that any material inadequacies in the data reported exists.
Sources: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Farm Service
Agency*s FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report, (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY
2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002);
Environmental Protection Agency, United States Environmental Protection
Agency*s FY 2001 Annual Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Annual
Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001, (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002);
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan/ FY 2001 Annual Performance
Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002); Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA FY 2001 Annual Performance
Report, (Washington, D. C.: 2002).
Appendi x IV
Wildland Fire Management Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies
Involved in Wildland Fire Management as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 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
Department or agency
performance reports? performance plans?
Department of the Interior Interior issued a consolidated 2001 report and
2003 Interior noted that it and the Forest Service had plan and discussed
coordination only in relation to its
developed a strategy for aggressive fuels 2003 plan.
management and for completing the implementation plan for the 10- year
Comprehensive Strategy under the National Fire Plan. The implementation
plan is reported to include cooperatively developed, longterm goals and
performance measures for the wildland fire management program. Through our
work in this area, we have witnessed this coordination.
Forest Service The Forest Service*s 2001 report notes the following The
2003 plan notes that the Forest Service and coordination efforts:
Interior jointly released the National Fire Plan in 2000 and developed a
10- year Comprehensive Strategy in Issued a combined report with
Interior on
fiscal year 2001 showing a collaborative approach to accomplishments in
2001 under the National Fire
reducing wildland fire risks. The plan also notes how Plan.
the Forest Service and Interior are developing a joint Conducted
oversight reviews with Interior to
implementation plan for the Comprehensive Strategy. regions and local
units to assess successes and Further, the 2003 plan states that the
Forest Service failures and identify compliance issues.
and Interior are conducting an interagency review of Conducted activity
reviews with Interior in five the fire plan system. states to assess
overall program function. Conducted large fire cost reviews with
Interior to
assess the effectiveness of fire suppression actions and cost efficiency.
Developed joint performance measures with
Interior. Collaborated with other agencies (including
Interior) to evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of controlled
sheep grazing to reduce wildfires.
Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY
2001 Annual Performance Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002); U. S. Department of
Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY
2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002).
Tabl e 15: Agencies* Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Wildland Fire Management 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 agencies report in achieving the goals
and
achieving the goal/ measure and describe a measures they established for
each program strategy that is reasonably linked to achieving Department or
agency
area? the goal/ measure in the future?
Interior The goal of restoring natural ecological processes by Yes.
Interior describes how drought conditions have increasing the use of fire
(wildland and prescribed) affected its ability to carry out planned fuel
and other treatments to 1. 4 million acres was not treatments. In
addition, it notes difficulty in obtaining met. Interior achieved 52
percent of planned target permits to carry out treatments and the limited
(i. e., 728,000 acres).
availability of resources due to many resources being committed to fire
suppression activities. Interior does not indicate any specific strategy
for
overcoming these challenges. Forest Service The goal of treating wildlands
with high fire risks on
Although the Forest Service stated that it met its national forests and
grasslands to reduce the risk of
goal, the 2001 report notes that the hazardous fuels loss of life,
property, and natural resources from reduction program was below target
due to drought catastrophic wildfire was considered to be met by the
conditions in many parts of the United States and the Forest Service.
However, none of the individual
additional complexities and restrictions incurred in indicators met their
targets for fiscal year 2001. treating hazardous fuels in the wildland
urban Specifically, the Forest Service treated 1. 36 million
interface. The Forest Service did not indicate any hazardous fuel acres as
opposed to its target of 1. 8
specific strategy for achieving its fuels reduction million. In addition,
the Forest Service achieved only
goals in the future, reasoning that there will always 97 percent of its
fire- fighting production capability
be a certain level of unpredictability in assigning (target was 100
percent). Furthermore, the Forest
targets due to the uncontrollable variables Service assisted 3,062
communities and volunteer
associated with hazardous fuels treatment. fire departments as opposed to
its target of 10, 492.
With regard to the goal of assisting communities and volunteer fire
departments, the Forest Service*s report notes that the data reported did
not include state, private, and National Fire Plan activities and
therefore were not adequate to assess whether targets were met.
Because the Forest Service reports that it has met its goal for reducing
the risks from catastrophic wildfires, it does not provide a strategy for
actually meeting
fiscal year 2001 targets in the future. Sources: Department of the
Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY 2001 Annual Performance
Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D. C.: 2002); U. S. Department
of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002).
Tabl e 16: Agencies* Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals
in Wildland Fire Management 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?
Interior In fiscal year 2003, Interior expects to treat 1.1 There is no
specific link between the strategies and million acres to reduce hazards
and maintain and
the specific goals. The strategies are very broad and restore ecosystem
health. In addition, it expects to general in nature and do not provide
clear rationale contain 95 percent of wildland fires at initial attack, as
to how they will contribute to improving provide assistance to 33 percent
of the rural fire
performance. For example, the 2003 report states departments, direct fuels
treatments to 9 percent of that Interior will complete the implementation
plan for the highest priority projects, and bring 15 fire facilities
the 10- year Comprehensive Strategy. up to approved standards.
Forest Service In fiscal year 2003, the Forest Service has the same While
the strategies for achieving fiscal year 2003 goal as it did in fiscal
year 2001 of reducing the risks
goals are fairly general, they appear to be directly associated with
catastrophic wildfires. The Forest linked to each of the performance
indicators. For Service expects to treat approximately 1.6 million
example, the Forest Service states that it will focus acres to reduce
hazardous fuels and assist over
fuel reduction efforts on areas with a moderate to 7,000 communities and
fire departments. There is high risk of wildfires and conduct prescribed
burns, no longer a target for maximizing fire- fighting mechanical
methods, forest thinning, and selective production capability.
removal of undergrowth and nonnative plant species. Although there is no
target for maximizing firefighting production capability the Forest
Service notes that it and Interior are reviewing the fire planning system
to develop a more comprehensive measure of preparedness performance.
Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY
2001 Annual Performance Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance
Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002).
Tabl e 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved
in Wildland Fire Management 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? Interior For the performance goals identified,
the data that Yes. Interior acknowledges that the interpretation of
Interior is collecting to measure those goals
the data collected may vary among the Bureau of generally appear to be
complete, reliable, and Land Management, the National Park Service, the
credible. In addition, Interior*s report provides details
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife on how the data will
be validated and verified to Service. A common set of performance measures
is ensure the data are consistent and measurable
still being developed between Interior and the Forest among all bureaus.
Service as part of the implementation of the National Fire Plan. Our work
in this area has recommended that the agencies develop common outcome-
based performance goals to better measure how the objective of restoring
ecosystem health is being achieved. a Forest Service The Forest Service
notes that field reviews and Yes. The Forest Service acknowledges that it
is postimplementation reviews will be conducted to currently revising
definitions, developing standards ensure the reliability of performance
data and and guidelines for data reporting, and implementing reported
accomplishments. The Forest Service
field reviews to ensure effective internal controls over further notes
that it will use the Budget Formulation
the data related to accomplishment reporting. and Execution System to
report on actual Recent GAO work in this area has discovered this to
accomplishments. However, our current work in this be the case with the
implementation of the National area has found that this system is more of
a planning Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System rather tool used to
rank fuel reduction work. Another
than the Budget Formulation and Execution System, system, the National
Fire Plan Operations and
as noted by the Forest Service in its 2003 Reporting System, is currently
being implemented by performance plan. both the Forest Service and
Interior to track outputs and measure accomplishments. In addition, the
omission of the performance goal indicator relating to fire- fighting
production capability is encouraging because our work in this area has
questioned the credibility of such a measurement. a
Sources: Department of the Interior, FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan FY
2001 Annual Performance Report, Departmental Overview (Washington, D. C.:
2002); U. S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program
Performance Report (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2002). a U. S. General
Accounting Office, Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help
Agencies
Better Identify Fire- Fighting Preparedness Needs, GAO- 02- 158
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
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, Paul Bollea,
Lisa M. Brown, Sharon L. Caudle, Amy M. Choi, Peter J. Del Toro and Sherry
L. McDonald.
(450152)
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 that
* Most agencies involved in the crosscutting issues discussed coordination
with other agencies in their performance reports and plans, although the
extent of coordination and level of detail provided varied considerably.
The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001
performance goals also varied considerably. For example, wetlands was the
only area in which all of the agencies GAO reviewed met or exceeded fiscal
year 2001 goals. Some of the agencies that did not meet their goals
provided reasonable explanations and/ or strategies that appeared
reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future.
The agencies GAO reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal
year 2003 similar to those in 2001, although some agencies added new
goals, dropped existing goals, or dropped goals altogether. Many agencies
discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to achieving
their fiscal year 2003 goals.
Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for
Coordination
Crosscutting program areas Agency involved
Border control
Flood mitigation and insurance Wetlands
Wildland fire management
Agriculture a a aa
Commerce a
Defense a a
EPA a
FEMA a
Interior a a
Justice a
State a
Transportation a
Treasury a
Source: GAO analysis. RESULTS- ORIENTED MANAGEMENT
Agency Crosscutting Actions And Plans In Border Control, Flood Mitigation
And Insurance, Wetlands, And Wildland Fire Management
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 321 To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at (202) 512- 6806. Highlights of
GAO- 03- 321, a report to the
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate
December 2002
GAO*s work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program
overlap are widespread in the federal government. Implementation of
federal crosscutting programs is often characterized by numerous
individual agency efforts that are implemented with little apparent regard
for the presence and efforts of related activities. GAO has in the past
offered possible approaches for managing crosscutting programs, and has
stated that the Government Performance and Results Act could provide a
framework for addressing crosscutting efforts.
GAO was asked to examine the actions and plans agencies reported in
addressing the crosscutting issues of border control, flood mitigation and
insurance, wetlands, and wildland fire management. GAO reviewed the fiscal
year 2001 performance reports and fiscal year 2003 performance plans for
the major agencies involved in these issues.
Page i GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Contents
Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Contents
Page iii GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 1 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 1 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
A
Page 2 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 3 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 4 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 5 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 6 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 7 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 8 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 9 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 10 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 11 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 12 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 13 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 14 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 15 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 16 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 17 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 18 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 19 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 20 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 21 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 22 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 23 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 24 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 25 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I
Appendix I Border Control
Page 26 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 27 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 28 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 29 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 30 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 31 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 32 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 33 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 34 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 35 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 36 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 37 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 38 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 39 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 40 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix I Border Control
Page 41 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 42 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II
Appendix II Flood Mitigation and Insurance
Page 43 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Flood Mitigation and Insurance
Page 44 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Flood Mitigation and Insurance
Page 45 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Flood Mitigation and Insurance
Page 46 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix II Flood Mitigation and Insurance
Page 47 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 48 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 49 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 50 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 51 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 52 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 53 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix III Wetlands
Page 54 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 55 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Wildland Fire Management
Page 56 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Wildland Fire Management
Page 57 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Appendix IV Wildland Fire Management
Page 58 GAO- 03- 321 Results- Oriented Management
Page 59 GAO- 03- 321 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. ***