Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to
Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability (Letter Report,
04/07/2000, GAO/RCED-00-83).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on Natural
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) efforts to improve its
accountability, focusing on the: (1) agency's new approach and the
status of its implementation; and (2) extent to which the approach will
improve accountability.

GAO noted that: (1) NRCS' new approach to improving accountability is
based principally on implementing the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 and establishing four new databases
to compile better information on the: (a) agency's accomplishments; (b)
full cost of programs and activities; (c) workload at the local level;
and (d) future workforce needs; (2) in addition, NRCS' Oversight and
Evaluation staff, who conduct reviews to assess quality, accountability,
effectiveness, and consistency in the agency's delivery of conservation
assistance, is an important part of the agency's approach; (3) NRCS
plans to use the information from its new databases to measure its
progress towards meeting its strategic objectives, more accurately
account for staff time and funding, analyze workload to develop budget
proposals, and estimate future staffing levels and skills needs; (4)
NRCS has prepared agencywide strategic and annual performance plans, as
part of Department of Agriculture's strategic and annual performance
plans, which were submitted to the President and Congress; (5) its state
offices have also begun developing annual performance and business
plans; (6) the agency has also used its performance goals to guide its
allocation of fiscal year 2000 funds to its state offices; (7) equally
important, NRCS has largely completed the databases and begun using some
of the information for agency decisionmaking and reporting on its
performance; (8) if implemented as planned, NRCS' approach is likely to
improve accountability by providing better information and analyses on
how the agency uses its resources and what it accomplishes; (9) the
agency could better integrate the financial management function and the
accountability approach; (10) unless the agency more accurately accounts
for its costs, it will continue to lack the financial information needed
for internal decisionmaking and for external reports to Congress and
other stakeholders that demonstrate NRCS is implementing its programs
cost effectively; (11) with respect to planning, the agency could make
its annual performance goals more results-oriented and better indicate
progress made during the fiscal year toward achieving its strategic
objectives; and (12) NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation staff--who provide
an important internal review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
agency's programs, activities, and operations--could be more independent
if it were to report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief of NRCS,
rather than to one of the managers subject to review by the group.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-83
     TITLE:  Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions
	     Needed to Strengthen Program and Financial
	     Accountability
      DATE:  04/07/2000
   SUBJECT:  Performance measures
	     Strategic planning
	     Management information systems
	     Reporting requirements
	     Financial management
	     Agency missions
	     Conservation
	     Public administration
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  NRCS National Information Measurement System

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/RCED-00-83

Appendix I: NRCS' Strategic Objectives and Related Multiyear
and Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Targets

30

Appendix II: NRCS' Organization Chart

32

Table 1: NRCS' New Accountability Databases--Types of Data
Collected, Planned Uses, and Status 13

Figure 1: The Major Components of NRCS' New Accountability
Approach 8

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

O&E Oversight and Evaluation

PRMS Performance and Results Measurement System

TCAS Total Cost Accounting System

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WLA Workload Analysis System

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

B-284675

April 7, 2000

Honorable Larry Combest
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) is the federal agency primarily responsible for conserving and
protecting natural resources on private lands, which constitute about 75
percent of all acreage in the contiguous United States. NRCS' $1 billion
budget funds a variety of technical and financial assistance programs to
help farmers, ranchers, other landowners/managers, and communities conserve
and protect soil, water, and related resources on these lands. NRCS has
nearly 11,000 employees--with about three-fourths located in its 2,500
county offices--who work with individuals and communities to develop
conservation plans and apply conservation or resource management practices
on the land. The agency has not been successful in gathering and analyzing
information from these county offices to provide a comprehensive picture of
its activities and accomplishments. As a result, the Congress, NRCS staff,
and others have questioned the agency's accountability for how it spends its
funds and what it has accomplished.

In 1998, in response to these criticisms, the Chief of NRCS called for a new
agencywide effort to improve accountability by providing better information
and analyses on how the agency uses its resources and what it achieves with
its funds. This information is needed internally to ensure that NRCS is
making effective use of its resources and externally for the reporting
needed to demonstrate this accountability to the Congress and others.

Because of your interest in improved NRCS accountability, you asked us to
(1) describe the agency's new approach and the status of its implementation
and (2) assess the extent to which the approach will improve accountability.
As NRCS was developing its approach to improving accountability, it was also
implementing the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results
Act), which seeks to improve the management of federal programs by shifting
the focus of decisionmaking from staffing and activity levels to the results
of federal programs. Under the Results Act, agencies are required to prepare
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports.

NRCS' new approach to improving accountability is based principally on
implementing the requirements of the Results Act and establishing four new
databases to compile better information on the (1) agency's accomplishments,
(2) full cost of programs and activities, (3) workload at the local level,
and (4) future workforce needs. In addition, NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation
staff, who conduct reviews to assess quality, accountability, effectiveness,
and consistency in the agency's delivery of conservation assistance, is an
important part of the agency's approach. NRCS plans to use the information
from its new databases to, among other things, measure its progress towards
meeting its strategic objectives, more accurately account for staff time and
funding, analyze workload to develop budget proposals, and estimate future
staffing levels and skills needs. NRCS has taken substantial steps to put
its new accountability approach in place, but critical implementation tasks
remain. NRCS has prepared agencywide strategic and annual performance plans,
as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's strategic and annual
performance plans, which were submitted to the President and the Congress.
Its state offices have also begun developing annual performance and business
plans. The agency has also used its performance goals to guide its
allocation of fiscal year 2000 funds to its state offices. Equally
important, NRCS has largely completed the databases and begun using some of
the information for agency decisionmaking and reporting on its performance.
However, the databases do not yet contain all the data NRCS plans to
include, and NRCS has not yet completed verification and validation efforts
to ensure that the data are credible. These efforts are likely to take a
year or longer.

Because NRCS' new approach has not been fully implemented, it is too early
to determine the extent to which the approach will improve accountability.
If implemented as currently planned, NRCS' approach is likely to improve
accountability by providing better information and analyses on how the
agency uses its resources and what it accomplishes. However, we identified
additional actions that NRCS could take to strengthen its efforts. First,
and most importantly, the agency could better integrate the financial
management function and the accountability approach. Although NRCS'
accountability policy states that it is critical for the agency to ensure
accountability in its use of public funds, NRCS has not included the
financial management function--budget execution, funds control, and
financial reporting--in this policy. Moreover, responsibilities for NRCS'
accountability approach and for financial management are organizationally
separated. Financial management is an essential ingredient of
accountability, and without this integration, NRCS and the Congress cannot
be certain that the agency's efforts to ensure accountability for financial
management and for program performance are closely linked, are consistent,
and support each other. For example, a key element of financial management
is providing reliable information on the full cost of federal programs.
While NRCS has taken actions to more accurately account for its staff costs
by program for its internal use, it needs to develop methods to better
account for other costs, such as transportation and rent, and then fully
incorporate these more accurate cost data into its financial reporting.
Unless the agency more accurately accounts for its costs, it will continue
to lack the financial information needed for internal decisionmaking and for
external reports to the Congress and other stakeholders that demonstrate
NRCS is implementing its programs cost effectively.

Second, with respect to planning, the agency could make its annual
performance goals more results-oriented and better indicate progress made
during the fiscal year toward achieving its strategic, or long-term,
objectives. NRCS' performance goals are primarily output-oriented, such as
conservation practices implemented on a certain number of acres. More
results-oriented performance goals, such as increasing the portion of the
nation's grazing land without serious ecological or management problems,
would be more useful in judging NRCS' (1) performance in carrying out its
mission to help conserve the soil, water, and related resources on private
lands and (2) achievements with a given level of funding. Although NRCS'
strategic and annual performance plans recognize the important contributions
that the agency's partners, such as state conservation agencies, make to
achieving its strategic objectives and performance goals, these plans could
better articulate the extent to which achieving the objectives and
performance goals depends on these partnerships.

Finally, NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation staff--who provide an important
internal review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency's
programs, activities, and operations--could be more independent if they were
to report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief of NRCS, rather than to
one of the managers subject to review by the staff.

We are recommending that NRCS strengthen its approach to improving its
accountability by taking actions to improve financial management, strategic
and performance planning, and the oversight and evaluation of its programs
and activities.

The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 established NRCS by combining the authorities of
the former Soil Conservation Service and other U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) financial or technical assistance programs for natural
resource conservation and rural development into the new agency. The agency
and its predecessor have carried out a program of soil and water
conservation on the nation's private and nonfederal land since 1935. NRCS is
a decentralized agency, and its programs are principally implemented at the
state and local levels.

NRCS' staff provide technical assistance to land managers and communities in
planning the use of, and protecting the soil, water, and related resources
on, private and nonfederal lands. For example, NRCS staff advise farmers and
ranchers on actions they can take to reduce soil erosion; better manage
their cattle, hog, and poultry wastes; and preserve wildlife habitat. The
staff also assist in other activities, such as installing levees and
repairing stream banks to help protect communities from flood damage.

NRCS' primary partners are state conservation agencies and local
conservation districts.1 Conservation districts, which total about 3,000
nationwide, are units of local government organized by citizens under state
law. According to NRCS, there are about 8,000 district and state government
employees, and in some field offices these employees outnumber NRCS staff.
These organizations support local conservation efforts with their own
programs and staff, who work closely with NRCS staff to promote conservation
on private lands. For example, NRCS, state, and local employees, according
to NRCS, work as a team, using the same case files and technical assistance
tools, such as computer programs for predicting soil erosion and the effects
of grazing practices on the health of rangeland, to serve the local
community.

Approach in Place, but Critical Implementation Tasks Remain

NRCS is revising its processes for planning, budgeting, and performance
reporting to focus more directly on setting agencywide goals and holding
itself accountable for achieving these goals. The agency is creating new
databases to support these processes with better information on the agency's
operations, especially at the local level, where most of its employees work
and where it primarily implements its programs. The purpose of this
information--including data on natural resource needs and workload at the
local level, program activities and accomplishments, full cost of programs
and activities, and staffing levels and skills--is to enable agency managers
to make more informed decisions about what the agency's goals should be, how
they will assign responsibility for achieving these goals to different parts
of the organization, and what resources and strategies they need to achieve
the goals. NRCS also plans to use the information to assess and report on
its performance in achieving its goals and to respond to congressional and
other stakeholders' requests for specific data on conservation needs and
agency programs and activities.

NRCS has revised its planning, budgeting, and performance reporting
processes and is beginning to use some of the information from the
databases. However, it still needs to complete the databases and take
actions to ensure that the information produced is accurate and credible.
According to NRCS officials, additional changes or adjustments in planning,
budgeting, and performance reporting may be needed to integrate the
information from the new databases and as the agency gains experience with
using the processes. As a result, it may be several years before NRCS' new
approach will be fully operational.

and Performance Reporting Processes
to Focus on Achieving Results

NRCS' changes in its planning, budgeting, and performance reporting
processes are intended to address internal and stakeholders' concerns about
its accountability and to implement the requirements of the Results Act.2
Figure 1 shows the major components of NRCS' approach and illustrates how
they are to be linked through the agency's strategic objectives and
performance goals.

Figure 1: The Major Components of NRCS' New Accountability Approach
Note: This figure is based on information provided by NRCS officials. Its
purpose is to show how these components are linked by NRCS' strategic
objectives and annual performance goals. The figure does not detail all the
elements of each component or all the requirements of the Results Act.

As the figure shows, NRCS' approach attempts to integrate planning,
budgeting, and performance reporting through the use of strategic objectives
and annual performance goals. (See app. I for NRCS' strategic and fiscal
year 2000 performance goals.) In addition to preparing agencywide strategic
plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports, NRCS is
requiring its state offices to prepare annual performance and business plans
to help ensure that critical parts of the organization are accountable for
achieving the agency's goals.3 Each state office's performance plan is to
identify the portion of the overall agency goals for which it is
responsible. The state office's business plan is to set out how it will
conduct its operations to achieve its performance goals. When NRCS
headquarters allocates budgetary resources to the state offices, it is to
include performance goals to be achieved with the resources. These goals,
which are subject to negotiation, are to represent the state office's share
of the agency's annual performance goals. Each NRCS state office is to use
the agreed-to performance goals to develop a final performance plan. As
these additional requirements suggest, NRCS' field office employees are
primarily responsible for carrying out the activities needed to achieve the
annual performance goals.

These strategic, performance, and business plans are to be the basis for
assessing the agency's and the individual units' performance. NRCS' annual
performance report to the President and the Congress is the major document
for reporting on its performance in meeting its strategic objectives and
annual performance goals. In addition to this report, various performance
reports are to be provided internally to the agency's management and
leadership. This information will be used to respond to the Congress; USDA;
and other stakeholders, such as the Office of Management and Budget; on
NRCS' operations and accomplishments.

The status of NRCS' efforts to improve its planning, budgeting, and
performance measurement and reporting processes in order to achieve greater
accountability is outlined below:

ï¿½ Strategic planning. NRCS issued its first strategic plan under the Results
Act in September 1997, as a component of USDA's plan. NRCS' plan, which
covers fiscal years 1997 through 2002, described the agency's mission,
established general goals and objectives, and set out strategies and
performance targets to achieve these goals and objectives. NRCS expects to
issue an updated plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 by September 2000.
According to the NRCS officials responsible for strategic planning, the
agency's initial strategic plan was almost entirely developed in response to
departmental guidance, thus meeting broad departmental needs but falling
short of NRCS' more detailed needs for strategic planning. According to
these officials, NRCS expects to develop a strategic plan that meets
departmental needs and provides the greater detail and resource analysis it
needs to guide its activities.

ï¿½ Annual performance planning. NRCS has issued performance plans for fiscal
years 1999 (the first year required under the Results Act), 2000, and 2001.
These plans set out annual performance goals for the long-term goals in the
strategic plan, present the strategies and resources to accomplish these
goals, and describe procedures to verify and validate the agency's
performance information. NRCS officials said that the availability of the
new databases will make the performance plan a more useful document for
managing the agency. For example, NRCS officials expect that the Performance
and Results Measurement System (PRMS), which is the agency's new database
for its staff and partners to report on program activities and
accomplishments, will be used to determine if performance on a specific
element in the plan is behind or ahead of schedule.

ï¿½ Annual budget formulation. According to NRCS officials, the fiscal year
2001 budget formulation process has stressed identifying and providing the
resources to achieve the performance goals in the fiscal year 2001
performance plan. The performance goals will be revised, as necessary, if
the budget approved by the Congress differs substantially from the request.
NRCS officials said that the factors they consider in developing their
budget proposals include congressional direction; the agency's strategic and
performance plans; the priorities of the NRCS Chief, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the President; workload requirements; partners'
recommendations and local resource conservation concerns; and federal budget
constraints.

ï¿½ Budget allocation. According to NRCS officials, the agency allocated the
fiscal year 2000 funds to its organizational units on the basis of the
resources the units need to achieve their portion of NRCS' performance goals
for the year. NRCS used a budget allocation team to provide information to
the NRCS managers responsible for recommending the allocations to the Chief.
According to the head of the allocation team, this information included
available performance data and data from the workload analysis system on
current staffing in NRCS' field offices, natural resource conservation needs
in each state, the programs available to address these needs, and the
accomplishments possible under the programs in light of the resources needed
to carry out program activities. NRCS tested this process using its budget
request for fiscal year 2000.

ï¿½ State performance and business planning. When NRCS informed its state
offices of the budget funds that they would receive for fiscal year 2000, it
attached a set of draft performance goals that were based on these offices'
share of the agency's annual performance goals and management initiatives.
The state offices were to use these goals in developing their performance
and business plans for the fiscal year. In January 2000, NRCS provided its
state offices with a computerized application for preparing their
performance and business plans for fiscal year 2000. This application was
designed to ensure that the state offices follow a consistent method in
developing and maintaining their performance and business plans. The
resulting automation of the plans will allow NRCS headquarters to monitor
compliance with the requirements for the plans and the state offices'
progress in implementing them. According to NRCS officials involved in
developing the application, the agency was concerned that the state offices
were inconsistent in their development and use of these plans.

ï¿½ Performance reporting. NRCS anticipates that its performance report for
fiscal year 1999 will be issued by March 31, 2000, as part of USDA's
performance report under the Results Act. The agency is primarily using
information from its new database--the PRMS--on the agency's accomplishments
to report on its progress in achieving its fiscal year 1999 performance
goals. NRCS' report is primarily based on data, by performance goals,
reported by 287 sample counties that began entering information into the new
database on October 1, 1998.

Databases and Verify the Information

In order to increase its accountability for the funds it spends and what it
accomplishes, NRCS is developing four new databases to obtain better
information on its (1) accomplishments, (2) full costs of programs and
activities, (3) workload at the local level, and (4) future workforce needs.
The databases are largely complete, but some important work remains to be
done. For example, NRCS has not developed a methodology for incorporating
nonpersonnel costs into its Total Cost Accounting System (TCAS). These
costs, which are estimated to represent 30 to 40 percent of the agency's
costs, are needed to identify the full cost of programs and the cost of
achieving agency goals. In addition, NRCS has to verify and validate the
data to ensure that they are reliable and integrate the databases so that
reports and analyses can be produced using data from one or more of the
databases. According to NRCS officials, the agency spent $793,000 during
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 on developing its new accountability databases.
The agency plans to spend about $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and may need
to conduct additional work beyond fiscal year 2000. At the same time, NRCS
staff need additional training on how to use the databases. According to
NRCS officials, this training is scheduled to begin in June 2000.

Table 1 describes the data to be collected by the new databases, planned
uses for these data, and the status of each database.

Table 1: NRCS' New Accountability Databases--Types of Data Collected,
Planned Uses, and Status

Continued from Previous Page

   Database      Examples of data     Planned uses           Status
                 to be collected
                                                      ï¿½ On October 1, 1998,
                                                      287 NRCS field
                                                      offices began
                                                      entering data. These
                                                      offices were
                                                      statistically
                                                      selected to be able
                                                      to project NRCS'
               ï¿½ Number of                            national performance
               customers                              for fiscal year 1999.
               assisted.
                                                      ï¿½ As of February
               ï¿½ Type of                              2000, approximately
               assistance          ï¿½ Measure progress 2,100, or 84 percent,
               provided.           toward the goals   of field offices were
                                   in NRCS' strategic entering data.
               ï¿½ Conservation      and annual
               practices or        performance plans. ï¿½ Remaining 400 field
               treatments planned                     offices are scheduled
                                   ï¿½ Support program  to begin entering
 Performance   and installed.      management, agency data by the end of
 and Results                       accountability,    June 2000, when
 Measurement   ï¿½ Program results   and resource       telecommunication
 System        or outcomes         allocation.        problems associated
 (PRMS)a       obtained from                          with accessing and
               other databases,
               such as the         ï¿½ Communicate      using the Internet
               National Resources  NRCS'              are to be resolved.
               Inventory on        accomplishments
               natural resource    internally and to  ï¿½ NRCS state offices
               conditions.         the Congress and   began entering data
                                   other              in February 2000.
               ï¿½ Contributions of  stakeholders.      NRCS to provide
               NRCS' partners,                        related training to
               such as                                state-level staff
               conservation                           during February and
               district staff.                        March 2000.
                                                      ï¿½ NRCS to provide
                                                      additional training
                                                      to partnership staff
                                                      in fiscal year 2000,
                                                      after
                                                      telecommunication
                                                      problems are
                                                      resolved.
                                                      ï¿½ Data on fiscal year
                                                      1999 time charges
                                                      collected but not
                                                      made available to
                                                      agency managers
                                                      because of incomplete
                                                      data. Fiscal year
                                                      2000 data being made
                                                      available to managers
                                                      beginning in January
                                                      2000.

               ï¿½ NRCS employees'                      ï¿½ NRCS employees
               time charges        ï¿½ Enhance          generally do not
               reported on a       accountability     enter their time
               biweekly basis by   over how NRCS      charges directly into
               30 programs and 10  staff use their    TCAS via the
               activities. (The    time by program    Internet, which is
               Actual Cost         and activity.      planned to save costs
               Recovery                               and reduce the number
               Evaluation System   ï¿½ Determine actual of errors. NRCS to
               summarizes the      costs of NRCS'     provide additional
 Total Cost    data and            programs. This     training to staff and
 Accounting    calculates the      information to be  phase in Internet
 System (TCAS) personnel costs of  used in setting    entry from June 2000
               programs.)          priorities,        to January 2001.
                                   establishing
               ï¿½ Data on           strategic and      ï¿½ Data on
               nonpersonnel        annual performance nonpersonnel costs,
               costs, such as      goals, and         which may account for
               office space and    determining what   30 to 40 percent of
               transportation,     budgetary          the agency's costs,
               from NRCS'          resources are      according to an NRCS
               financial           needed to          official, have not
               management system.  accomplish goals.  been incorporated.
                                                      NRCS has not selected
                                                      the methodology for
                                                      incorporating these
                                                      costs. NRCS is
                                                      uncertain when it
                                                      will complete this
                                                      task because it is
                                                      focusing its efforts
                                                      on implementing
                                                      USDA's new financial
                                                      management system in
                                                      NRCS by October 1,
                                                      2000.
                                   ï¿½ Determine the
                                   short- and
                                   long-term
                                   conservation
                                   workload and the
                                   human resource
                                   needs of NRCS and
                                   its partners at
                                   the field level.

                                   ï¿½ This information
                                   to be used in
               ï¿½ Resource          strategic planning ï¿½ Workload analyses
               conservation        to identify future completed for fiscal
               problems or needs   staffing needs and years 1999, 2000, and
               at the local        in deciding on     2001. The 2001 data
               level.              strategic goals    made available to
                                   and objectives.    managers in February
               ï¿½ Time required by                     2000. Hereafter,
               discipline for      ï¿½ Budget           analyses are planned
               employees'          formulation, to    for every 3 years.
 Workload      activities at the   consider the       ï¿½ A blue ribbon panel
 Analysis      field level to      impacts of budget  is to review and
 System (WLA)  address resource    proposals.         validate the latest
               conservation
               problems, as        ï¿½ Budget           WLA data during
               defined by 28 core  allocation and     fiscal year 2000.
               work activities or  performance
               products.           planning, to       ï¿½ By May 2000, NRCS
                                   determine what can to develop and
               ï¿½ NRCS' and         be accomplished    implement a process
               partners' staff by  with available     for updating and
               office, location,   staff resources    maintaining
               and discipline.     and to make        staffing/office
                                   staffing plan      information.
                                   modifications.

                                   ï¿½ Program
                                   management, to
                                   estimate the
                                   effects of
                                   alternative
                                   staffing levels
                                   and priorities and
                                   to identify
                                   workforce gaps.
                                                      ï¿½ Pilot test of the
                                                      WFP completed in
               ï¿½ Staffing levels                      October 1999. First
               and skills needed   ï¿½ Estimate future  5-year WFP to be
               to address          staffing and skill completed in October
               resource            needs. Similar to  2000. To be updated
               conservation needs  the WLA, these     annually.
 Workforce     and priorities      data to be used in
 Planning      over the next       strategic          ï¿½ During February and
 System (WFP)  5-year period,      planning, budget   March 2000, NRCS is
               gaps in what staff  formulation and    providing training to
               and skills are      allocation, and    its regional and
               available, and      performance        state staff on the
               strategies to       planning.          workforce planning
               bridge the gap.                        process and using the
                                                      automated computer
                                                      system.

a These data can be entered on a real-time basis via the Internet.

These new databases are replacing other agency databases that were
ineffective or difficult to use. For instance, according to NRCS officials,
the previous system that employees used to report their time charges for
specific programs and activities consisted of seven separate systems that
generated inconsistent data and lacked detailed information on how time was
spent. The prior performance measurement system, the National Information
Measurement System, collected more data but, according to NRCS officials,
was difficult to use and required an excessive amount of time, both for data
entry and for validation and verification to ensure consistent national
data. NRCS is integrating its databases in a phased approach that began in
June 1998 and is expected to continue through June 2000.

NRCS has not completed the task of verifying and validating the data from
its new accountability databases. Completing this task is critical to
ensuring that the data are accurate and reliable and therefore useful.
Credible performance information is essential for accurately assessing an
agency's progress towards achieving its goals--the cornerstone of
performance reporting. NRCS' effort to verify and validate the data will
take time. For example, to verify the data in each of its accountability
database systems, NRCS began to develop and implement a quality assurance
strategy in November 1999, and this effort is expected to continue through
at least fiscal year 2000.

As part of this strategy, NRCS plans to have its Oversight and Evaluation
staff extensively review the accuracy of data from the databases at the end
of fiscal year 2000.4 Earlier, in fiscal year 1999, the staff's limited
survey found data accuracy problems with three of the databases--PRMS, TCAS,
and WLA--in the eight field offices reviewed. The staff reported that if
these problems are widespread, the data will be of limited use for agency
decisionmaking, financial reporting, and supporting congressional budget
initiatives. According to NRCS officials, training for all field-level
employees on how to use the accountability databases will occur during the
summer of 2000 in response to the staff's findings. The officials said that
this 1 to 2 days of training should help to improve the quality of the data
in the databases.

Accountability, but Additional Actions Could Strengthen It

Because NRCS' new approach has not been fully implemented, it is too early
to determine the extent to which it will improve accountability. For
example, NRCS has to complete the new databases and ensure that the
information they produce for agency managers and stakeholders is accurate
and reliable. Even if the databases, which are critical to the success of
NRCS' approach, produce the right types of information, their usefulness is
limited if the data are not credible. It appears that the approach, if
implemented as currently planned, will provide NRCS with the means to set
agencywide goals, determine the resources and strategies needed to achieve
them, hold the different parts of the agency responsible for achieving the
goals, and report on its performance. Under the approach, the agency's
strategic, annual performance, and business plans are established as key
accountability documents. According to NRCS, the goals set out by these
plans are commitments that are the basis for assessing the agency's
performance in carrying out its mission. In addition, the new databases,
when completed, will provide considerable data on the agency's use of its
staff and other resources and its program activities and accomplishments so
that agency managers and stakeholders can make more informed decisions.

Nonetheless, in reviewing NRCS' planned approach to improving
accountability, we identified three ways that the agency can strengthen the
approach: (1) better integrating its financial management policies and
procedures and the approach; (2) enhancing its planning process to include
more outcome-oriented goals, better tracking of progress towards these
goals, and better reporting of partners' contributions; and (3) enhancing
the independence of its oversight and evaluation staff.

Approach

While effective financial management is critical to the success of NRCS'
approach to improving accountability, NRCS has not fully integrated
financial management and its approach. NRCS' accountability policy states
that it is critical for NRCS to ensure accountability in its use of public
funds, but NRCS did not include the financial management function--budget
execution, funds control, and financial reporting--in this policy.
Organizationally, responsibilities for accountability and for financial
management are separate. The Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and
Accountability has the lead on developing NRCS' approach to improving
accountability, while the Deputy Chief for Management is responsible for
financial management and other management functions. (See app. II for NRCS'
organization chart.) Until financial management and NRCS' approach are fully
integrated, NRCS and the Congress cannot be certain that NRCS' efforts to
ensure accountability for financial management and for program performance
are closely linked, are consistent, and support each other.

To be fully accountable for its funds, NRCS needs to be able to effectively
control and provide reliable, useful, and timely information on how it
spends them. Neither NRCS nor USDA's Inspector General has conducted a
comprehensive review of the agency's financial management system, financial
statements, or financial management polices and practices. Nevertheless, the
Inspector General found problems with certain aspects of NRCS' financial
management system in an audit performed in response to a whistleblower
complaint. Specifically, an Inspector General's review during fiscal year
1999 found a number of material weaknesses in NRCS' financial management
system. These weaknesses allowed an employee to make payments from NRCS'
financial management system to himself or others and then change the payee's
name to disguise the improper payment. In this case, as of March 10, 1999,
the Inspector General had found more than $300,000 in improper payments from
August 1994 through October 1998. According to an official in the Office of
the Inspector General, NRCS has actions under way to correct these problems.

The USDA Inspector General's report on the Department's consolidated
financial statement, issued in February 1999, concluded that it is difficult
to know how well or poorly an agency within USDA has performed financially
because USDA's current financial management system is unable to provide
accurate and timely accounting and financial reporting.5 The Inspector
General and we have both reported on USDA's long-standing history of
financial management deficiencies and its lack of financial accountability
over billions of dollars in assets. 6 According to the Inspector General,
USDA has efforts under way to implement a new departmentwide financial
management system.7 But the Inspector General believes that USDA's financial
management problems will continue at least until 2002, and possibly longer.

A key element of financial management is providing reliable information on
the full cost of federal programs. During the course of our review, we
identified an NRCS financial management policy that can misstate the actual
costs of individual programs or activities--charging staff time as budgeted
rather than actually worked.8 Some NRCS staff work on different programs and
activities during the year that are funded by different appropriation
accounts, according to NRCS officials. However, although an individual
employee may work on more than one program, that employee's time will be
charged to one funding account throughout the fiscal year. In addition,
other expenses, such as travel, training, rent, printing and supplies, are
assigned to one funding account at the beginning of the fiscal year. As a
result, costs are accounted for throughout the fiscal year as planned at the
start of the fiscal year rather than on the basis of actual costs.

As we reported on the Forest Service in October 1999,9 the policy of
charging as budgeted and not as worked often misstates a project's costs by
underestimating the costs to one account and overstating the costs to
another. In addition, this practice precludes NRCS from providing the
Congress and other interested parties with meaningful, useful, and reliable
information on the costs of its programs and activities. Moreover, the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires that federal
agencies follow federal financial accounting standards and that financial
management systems support disclosure of the full cost of federal programs
and activities. Specifically, the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards, is aimed at providing
reliable information on the full cost of federal programs, their activities,
and their outputs.

NRCS has been following its charged-as-budgeted-but-not-as-worked policy for
the last 13 years, according to an NRCS official. Originally, this policy
was instituted to reduce the administrative burden on field staff. NRCS
recognizes the importance of collecting data on actual time worked. Since
October 1998, NRCS has required field staff to report their time charges by
programs and activities--currently, 30 programs and 10 activities--into TCAS
but has not changed its financial management policy to report actual time
worked in its financial management system. NRCS is reviewing its current
financial policies and procedures as part of its process of implementing
USDA's new financial management system in NRCS by October 1, 2000. According
to USDA and NRCS officials, this review presents an opportunity for NRCS to
consider revising this policy.

While we found that NRCS' strategic and annual performance plans provide a
foundation for directing the agency's activities and assessing its
performance, we believe that the plans could be improved in three areas: (1)
making strategic objectives and annual performance goals more
outcome-oriented, (2) using annual performance goals to track progress
toward strategic objectives, and (3) having annual performance plans better
indicate how NRCS' partners are to contribute to the agency's performance
goals. First, the plans' annual performance goals and strategic objectives
could be oriented more to achieving outcomes, rather than outputs, which are
the direct products and services delivered by a program, such as the
development of a conservation plan for a landowner. In contrast, outcomes
are the results of these products and services, such as reduced soil erosion
or more productive land. Goals are more useful to the agency, the Congress,
and other decisionmakers in judging the results to be achieved for a given
level of resources if they are not expressed as program outputs but rather
as program outcomes.

According to NRCS, the agency's activities contribute to three broad
national outcomes: (1) sustainable, productive, and prosperous farms,
ranches, and communities; (2) healthy people; and (3) a healthy natural
environment. These broad, overarching outcomes, which are the ultimate
desired effects of the agency's programs, are referred to by NRCS as end
outcomes. They are long-term and often depend on subjective or qualitative
measures to assess progress. Intermediate outcomes support the achievement
of end outcomes and are based on more discrete and quantifiable components
of the end outcomes. For example, an intermediate outcome under the first
broad national outcome is a reduction in soil erosion from wind and water.
Soil erosion ultimately can adversely affect the land's productivity and
farmers' prosperity.

According to our analysis of NRCS goals, its annual performance goals are
primarily expressed as outputs, such as resource management systems applied
on a certain number of acres. Additional outcome goals in the annual
performance plan, such as the amount of soil erosion prevented or the net
gain in wetlands acreage, would better communicate the program results the
agency intends to achieve for the fiscal year with the budgetary resources
it receives. However, the annual data on natural resource conditions that
would be needed to use outcome measures in annual performance plans have not
been routinely available. For example, NRCS' National Resources Inventory of
natural resource trends, such as soil erosion and the loss of wetlands, has
been done every 5 years--the last 2 in 1992 and 1997. According to NRCS
officials, the agency has efforts under way to implement an inventory
approach that includes collecting these data on a continuing basis, which
would provide frequently updated information on natural resource conditions.
The availability of timely data on natural resource conditions could make it
possible to include more outcome goals in annual performance plans. At a
minimum, it would allow NRCS to increase its reporting on outcomes in its
annual performance reports.

Unlike its annual performance goals, NRCS' strategic objectives in its
strategic plan are generally expressed as outcomes. However, they are
expressed as intermediate outcomes, rather than as the end outcomes that
could better indicate the agency's performance in carrying out its mission
of helping people conserve, improve, and sustain the nation's natural
resources and environment. According to NRCS officials, in early 1999 the
agency identified 18 potential outcomes to be considered for use in future
strategic planning. These potential outcomes, according to the officials,
include end outcomes, such as the number of healthy watersheds, and
additional intermediate outcomes, such as reductions in the amount of
agricultural nutrients and pesticides that end up in surface and
groundwater. The agency has established technical teams to develop
strategies for developing these outcome measures.

Second, NRCS' strategic and annual performance plans would be more useful if
the annual performance goals could more easily be used to track the progress
made during a particular fiscal year toward achieving the long-term
strategic objectives. For example, NRCS has a strategic objective of "45
percent of U.S. rangeland having no serious ecological or management
problems by 2002." A related annual performance goal in NRCS' fiscal year
2000 performance plan is that resource management systems will be used on
5.8 million acres of grazing land.10 It is not clear from the performance
plan that the use of these resource management systems will result in the
grazing land's having no serious ecological or management problems. The
performance plan also does not readily indicate what portion the 5.8 million
acres of grazing land represents of the 45 percent of rangeland with no
serious problems. NRCS' increased use of outcome goals in annual performance
plans would provide a greater opportunity to better link annual performance
goals to strategic objectives.

Finally, NRCS could improve its performance plans if it better conveyed how
its partners, such as state agencies and local conservation districts, are
to contribute to the agency's performance. According to NRCS' fiscal year
2000 performance plan, partnership is key to the agency's conservation
efforts. NRCS officials told us that the agency and its partners often work
together in providing technical assistance to an individual landowner or
community. The officials said that NRCS and its partners have begun to use
PRMS to report on these accomplishments. According to the officials,
although NRCS' and its partners' portion of these individual accomplishments
cannot easily be quantified, this information on the accomplishments
achieved jointly by NRCS and its partners could help convey how partners are
contributing to NRCS' goals. (See app. I for NRCS' strategic objectives and
fiscal year 2000 performance goals.)

Staff Reduces Their Independence

NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation (O&E) staff provide an important internal
review function for the agency. These staff conduct surveys and
comprehensive and limited studies to assess quality, accountability,
effectiveness, and consistency in delivering conservation assistance.
Because of NRCS' decentralized organization, the oversight and evaluation
function is an important feedback mechanism on how well agency policies and
requirements are being implemented. It is also an important part of NRCS'
approach to improving accountability because internal reviews provide
information on the agency's performance by evaluating the effectiveness and
efficiency of NRCS' programs, activities, and operations.

Given the importance of this function and the need for independence from the
activities it reviews, O&E staff should be reporting to the Chief or
Associate Chief of NRCS. Instead, in October 1999, the oversight and
evaluation function was centralized at NRCS headquarters within the
Operations Management and Oversight Division. The head of this division
reports to the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability. The
Deputy Chief is to establish the agency's oversight and evaluation
priorities semiannually for review by and concurrence with the agency's
leadership. Review proposals can be offered to the Operations Management and
Oversight Division at any time. The O&E staff plan and implement the
reviews. (See app. II for the agency's organization chart.)

Considering the major role that the oversight and evaluation function has in
NRCS' approach to improving accountability, it is important that the O&E
staff and their work continue to be viewed within and outside the agency as
unbiased and credible. We are concerned that over time the O&E staff's
independence will be reduced because the staff report to one of the deputy
chiefs responsible for activities that are subject to review by the office.
That is, this official--the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and
Accountability--manages and establishes NRCS' policies and procedures for
the agency's strategic and annual performance planning, budget formulation
and allocation, and performance measurement and reporting processes. These
policies, procedures, and processes are subject to review by the O&E staff.
For example, during 1999, this staff reviewed the accuracy of the agency's
new accountability databases. The O&E staff plan a more comprehensive review
of the databases at the end of fiscal year 2000.

In addition, the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability
coordinates the priority-setting and budget allocation processes. The
results of oversight and evaluation reviews are to be used, along with other
evaluative information, in assessing the performance of the agency's
organizational units and programs. Performance is a factor in deciding on
priorities and the allocation of funds to individual units. In our opinion,
over time, as planning and budget allocation decisions are made, these units
may perceive that the deputy chief is (1) competing with them for resources
or (2) has preconceived views on performance, priorities, and the allocation
of funds.

Independence is generally recognized as a key component of the evaluation
function. Generally accepted government auditing standards used by federal
inspector generals, other federal auditors, and nonfederal auditors when
auditing federal organizations, programs, activities, and functions require
independence in all matters related to the audit work.11 This standard
places responsibility on the internal and external auditors and the audit
organization to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions,
judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as
impartial by knowledgeable third parties. Recognizing that independence can
be affected by the location of the auditors within the structure of the
organization, the standards state that audit organizations should report the
results of their work and be accountable to the head or deputy head of the
organization and should be organizationally located outside the staff or
line management function of the unit under audit.12 In the case of NRCS, the
head and deputy head would be the Chief and Associate Chief.

NRCS' efforts to improve its accountability have not been fully implemented,
and it is too early to determine the extent to which these efforts will be
successful. These efforts are designed to implement the Results Act and to
provide considerable information on NRCS' use of funds and its
accomplishments, which have been major accountability concerns.

However, a critical step remains--integrating financial management and the
approach. Financial management is the cornerstone of accountability and
needs to be treated equally with other management functions, like planning
and evaluation, that ensure accountability. In a fully integrated
accountability approach, the agency's goals and objectives, federal
resources used to accomplish the goals and objectives, and actual results
are closely linked and create an effective process for improving program
management and accountability. Integrating financial management may require
NRCS to overcome organizational barriers associated with coordination across
functional areas. Until financial management and its approach are fully
integrated, NRCS cannot be certain that its efforts to ensure financial
accountability and its efforts to ensure accountability for program
performance are closely linked, consistent, and support each other.

In addition, NRCS' current policy of charging staff time and other costs as
budgeted and not as worked can misstate the costs of NRCS' programs. NRCS'
efforts to develop a database of actual time charge costs by program show
that the agency recognizes the importance of more accurately accounting for
its costs by program. However, methods to better account for the other costs
have not been developed and implemented. In addition, NRCS has not taken the
necessary steps to integrate these more accurate cost data into its
financial management reporting. Without more accurately accounting for its
costs, NRCS will continue to lack the financial information it needs for
internal management decisionmaking and external reporting to the Congress
and other stakeholders to demonstrate that it is implementing its programs
in a cost-effective manner.

One important aspect of NRCS' new accountability approach is that it is
intended to be results-oriented. However, the agency's strategic and
performance goals do not always address the results or outcomes that NRCS is
working to achieve. If these goals are not expressed as program outcomes,
they are less useful to NRCS and the Congress in judging the results to be
achieved for a given level of resources. Furthermore, the strategic and
annual performance plans do not articulate the contributions of NRCS'
partners, such as state conservation agencies and local conservation
districts, toward achieving the agency's goals. The plans recognize the
importance of these partnerships to the agency's success but do not convey
the extent to which achieving the goals depends on the partnerships.

Finally, the independence of NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation staff is reduced
because the staff do not report to the head of the agency. Oversight and
evaluation of NRCS programs, activities, and operations is critical to the
efficient and effective use of NRCS resources and the operation of such a
decentralized organization.

To help ensure the success of NRCS' efforts to improve its accountability,
we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief, NRCS, to
take the following actions:

ï¿½ Improve the integration of financial management and the accountability
approach by (1) revising the agency's strategic planning and accountability
policy to make financial management an integral part; (2) developing a plan,
including a methodology and time frame, to incorporate nonpersonnel costs
into its total cost accounting database in order to provide accurate
information on program costs; and (3) evaluating alternatives and taking
appropriate actions to more accurately account for costs reported by its
financial management system.

ï¿½ Incorporate into future strategic and annual performance plans (1) goals
that better represent the desired outcomes of the agency's programs and (2)
a better articulation of partners' contributions to the agency's goals.

ï¿½ Have the Oversight and Evaluation staff report directly to the Chief or
Associate Chief to better ensure that it maintains its independence.

We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment. We
met with NRCS officials, including the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning
and Accountability. These officials generally agreed with the draft report.
However, they disagreed with our recommendation to have the Oversight and
Evaluation staff report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief of NRCS.
According to the officials, the current placement of the staff under the
Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability is working well, and
the staff is independent. The officials further said that the agency
recently made improvements in the oversight and evaluation function by
consolidating the staff, which were located in the regional offices, into
NRCS headquarters. The officials also provided a number of technical
comments or suggestions, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

We continue to believe that NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation staff should
report directly to the Chief or Associate Chief to ensure their
independence. We are concerned that, even if the staff's opinions,
conclusions, judgments, and recommendations are not impaired by their
current location in the agency's organizational structure, this location
could lead others to question their independence. As recognized by generally
accepted government auditing standards, perceptions that the staff are not
independent will reduce their credibility and thus their effectiveness.
Because of the importance of the oversight and evaluation function, NRCS
cannot risk impairing the staff's ability to effectively evaluate the
agency's programs and operations. For these reasons, we have not changed our
recommendation.

To describe NRCS' overall approach to improving its accountability, we
interviewed the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability and
various officials of the offices responsible for developing and/or
implementing aspects of the new approach, including the divisions for Budget
Planning and Analysis, Operations Management and Oversight, Strategic and
Performance Planning, and Financial Management. In addition, we reviewed
various NRCS documents, including schematic depictions of how the new
approach is to work, the agency's July 1999 strategic planning and
accountability policy statement, and written plans for various components of
the approach.

To determine the status of NRCS' efforts to implement its approach, we
interviewed the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability and
officials of the various offices, such as the Strategic and Performance
Planning Division, that are responsible for implementing the approach. We
also interviewed officials at NRCS' Information Technology Center in Fort
Collins, Colorado, about the status of the technical development of the new
accountability databases. Furthermore, we reviewed reports and other
documents on the status of the development and implementation of the
agency's revisions to its planning, budgeting, and performance measurement
and reporting processes and development of the databases. We compared the
status to implementation plans and timelines for the various components of
the approach and reviewed various implementation documents, such as training
guides for entering and using information in the new databases. We also
accessed the agency's Internet web sites to determine the databases'
completeness and current capabilities.

To assess the extent to which the approach will improve accountability, we
compared and contrasted NRCS' plans for its new approach with its
accountability needs. To determine its needs, we reviewed NRCS' analysis of
concerns raised within the agency and by its stakeholders, including
congressional committees, the Office of Management and Budget, and
representatives of state and local conservation agencies. We also reviewed
congressional hearings concerning NRCS during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and
prior reports on NRCS activities by GAO, the USDA Inspector General, and
NRCS' O&E staff. In addition, we interviewed program officials at NRCS
headquarters and in the states of California, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota,
Washington, and Wisconsin. Furthermore, we analyzed the agency's strategic
and annual performance plans and draft performance report to determine if
the measures were sufficient to track annual progress, as well as to provide
useful information to agency managers and stakeholders.

We conducted our review from July 1999 through March 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days. At that
time, copies of this report will be sent to the congressional committees
with jurisdiction over NRCS and its activities; the Honorable Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office
of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on
request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-5138. Key contributors to this report were Triana D. Bash; Andrea W.
Brown; James L. Dishmon, Jr.; and Raymond H. Smith, Jr.

Sincerely yours,
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Director, Food and
Agriculture Issues

NRCS' Strategic Objectives and Related Multiyear and Fiscal Year 2000
Performance Targets

Continued from Previous Page

  Strategic objectives      Multiyear performance     FY 2000 performance
                                  targets                   goals
                          ï¿½ By 2002, the acreage
                          of non-highly erodible    ï¿½ 4 million acres of
                          cropland eroding above T  cropland protected
                          (soil loss tolerance      against excessive
                          level) will be cut by     erosion.
                          one-third from 1992
                          levels.
                                                    ï¿½ Included in the above
 Healthy and productive   ï¿½ By 2002, the acreage    measure.
 cropland sustaining U.S. of highly erodible
 agriculture and the      cropland eroding above
 environment.             2T will be cut by
                          one-third from 1992
                          levels.

                          ï¿½ By 2002, 50 percent of
                          U.S. cropland will be
                          managed with              ï¿½ Resource management
                          conservation systems      systems applied on 6
                          that enhance soil         million acres of
                          quality.                  cropland.
                          ï¿½ By 2002, NRCS and its
                          partners will be
                          completing 100 priority   ï¿½ Nutrient management
                          watershed projects each   systems applied on 2.9
                          year that meet the goals  million acres.
                          set by local communities
                          for water supply, water   ï¿½ 9,300 animal waste
                          quality, or flood         management systems
                          protection.               assisted.

                                                    ï¿½ $914 million in
                                                    annual flood prevention
 Healthy watersheds                                 benefits achieved.
 providing clean and
 abundant water supplies                            ï¿½ Irrigation water
 for people and the                                 management resulting in
 environment.                                       a reduction of 7.2
                                                    million acre-inches of
                                                    water applied.

                          ï¿½ By 2002, helped         ï¿½ 940,000 miles of
                          landowners and            conservation buffers
                          communities establish 2   for water quality and
                          million miles of buffer   wildlife established
                          strips to protect         (cumulative).
                          watersheds and water
                          supplies.
                          ï¿½ By 2002, 45 percent of  ï¿½ Resource management
                          U.S. rangeland will have  systems applied on 5.8
                          no serious ecological or  million acres of
                          management problems.      grazing land.

                          ï¿½ By 2002, 60 percent of  ï¿½ Included in above
 Healthy and productive   U.S. permanent            measure.
 grazing land sustaining  pastureland will have no
 U.S. agriculture and the serious ecological or
 environment.             management problems.

                          ï¿½ By 2002, 65 percent of
                          rangeland acreage with
                          streams will have no
                          serious streambank        ï¿½ Included in above
                          erosion taking place.     measure.
                                                    ï¿½ Wetland creation or
                                                    restoration systems
                          ï¿½ By 2000, helped         applied on 200,000
 Healthy and productive   landowners and            acres.
 wetlands sustaining      communities increase
 watersheds and wildlife. wetland functions on      ï¿½ Wildlife (wetland and
                          agricultural land.        upland) habitat
                                                    management applied on
                                                    3.8 million acres.
                                                    ï¿½ Targets to be
                                                    established for native
                          ï¿½ By 2002, 20 million     grassland conversion.
                          acres of cropland or
                          pastureland will be
                          converted to native
 High-quality habitat on  grassland vegetation in
 private land supporting  the Midwest and the
 the nation's wildlife    Great Plains.
 heritage.
                          ï¿½ By 2002, riparian
                          habitat along 600 miles
                          of rivers, streams,       ï¿½ Practices included in
                          lakes, or wetlands will   the conservation buffer
                          be restored.              measure above are
                                                    indicators of work on
                                                    riparian restoration.
                          ï¿½ (NRCS is no longer
                          using the targets
                          originally set out in
                          its 1997 strategic plan
                          for this strategic
 A strong and effective   objective because they
 grassroots conservation  focused on internal
 partnership across the   agency process. Starting  ï¿½ 2,500 group and
 United States and its    in fiscal year 2000,      area-wide plans
 territories,             annual performance goals  developed.
 commonwealths, and       are being set on the
 affiliated governments.  basis of the number of
                          group and areawide plans
                          developed, which NRCS
                          officials believe are
                          better representative of
                          its efforts under this
                          strategic objective.)
 (According to NRCS, the
 agency did not establish
 a strategic objective in
 its 1997 strategic plan
 for forestlands because                            ï¿½ Forest stand improved
 its role in this area is                           on 270,000 acres.
 not as large as in other
 areas. NRCS is including                           ï¿½ Trees and shrubs
 these performance goals                            established on 308,000
 because forestland was                             acres.
 identified as a priority
 concern in five of the
 agency's six regions.)

NRCS' Organization Chart

(150154)

Table 1: NRCS' New Accountability Databases--Types of Data Collected,
Planned Uses, and Status 13

Figure 1: The Major Components of NRCS' New Accountability
Approach 8
  

1. According to NRCS, the agency also works closely with Resource
Conservation and Development Councils, which are composed of volunteers
representing many units of government and civic organizations within an
area. These councils serve as catalysts for drawing resources together from
the private sector and all levels of government to solve problems in their
areas.

2. NRCS is also implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and
legislation on reforming information technology, such as the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996. The Congress enacted the Results Act in conjunction with these
acts to instill performance-based management in the federal government and
to address the need for more effective and less costly government.

3. NRCS is also requiring other parts of the agency, such as its regional
and program offices, to prepare business plans.

4. NRCS' Oversight and Evaluation staff, who are located in the agency's
Operations Management and Oversight Division, review quality,
accountability, effectiveness, and consistency in the agency's delivery of
conservation assistance.

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture Consolidated Financial Statements for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Audit Report No. 50401-30-FM, Feb. 1999).

6. Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Agriculture
(GAO/OCG-99-2, Jan. 1999); Forest Service: Barriers to Financial
Accountability Remain (GAO/AIMD-99-1, Oct. 2, 1998); Forest Service: Status
of Progress Toward Financial Accountability (GAO/AIMD-98-84, Feb. 27, 1998).

7. USDA's new financial management system is called the Foundation Financial
Information System.

8. NRCS refers to this as its "Offset Policy; Base Offset Method."

9. Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability
(GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2, Oct. 13, 1999); Forest Service Management: Little Has
Changed as a Result of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2,
Dec. 2, 1998).

10. NRCS defines resource management systems as a combination of
conservation practices and management that, when implemented, prevents
resource degradation and permits sustained use.

11. The term "audit" includes both financial and performance audits.

12. Government Auditing Standards: 1994 Revision (GAO/OCG-94-4, June 1994).
*** End of document. ***