This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-245 
entitled 'Inspectors General: USDA Office of Inspector General 
Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality' which was released 
on March 22, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, U.S. Senate: 

March 2013: 

Inspectors General: 

USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, 
and Quality: 

GAO-13-245: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-245, a report to the Chairwoman, Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The USDA OIG plays a critical role in addressing issues of economy, 
efficiency, and potential fraud involving scarce taxpayer dollars 
allocated to USDA. 

GAO was asked to review a number of issues related to the OIG’s 
operations in comparison to other cabinet-level OIGs. The objectives 
of this report were to provide information on the USDA OIG’s (1) 
budget and staffing levels, (2) reported accomplishments, (3) reported 
oversight coverage, (4) reported quality of work, and (5) oversight of 
USDA’s reported causes of estimated improper payments. To address 
these objectives, GAO obtained information over the 3-year period 
covering fiscal years 2009 through 2011 on the OIG’s budget and staff 
levels and the reported monetary and nonmonetary accomplishments from 
this work. GAO obtained similar information reported by the OIGs in 
all cabinet-level departments. In addition, GAO summarized information 
on the USDA OIG’s oversight coverage reported by audits and 
investigations, and the quality of the OIG’s work as reported by peer 
reviews performed by other OIGs. Also, GAO obtained information on the 
OIG’s audit of USDA’s reporting on improper payments. 

What GAO Found: 

During the 3-year period from fiscal year 2009 through 2011, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) 
total budgetary resources decreased by about 8 percent. In contrast, 
the total budgetary resources for all other cabinet-level OIGs 
increased by approximately 6 percent over the 3-year period. The USDA 
OIG’s authorized full-time equivalent staff (FTE) increased by 11 
percent, from 550 to 608, while all other cabinet-level OIGs had a 
combined increase in authorized FTEs of about 14 percent during the 
same 3-year period. 

The USDA OIG had an estimated average return on investment for each 
budgetary resource dollar received of $13.96 during the 3-year period 
compared to the other cabinet-level OIGs’ average return of $12.63, 
based on the potential savings from monetary accomplishments reported 
by audits and investigations. Most of the USDA OIG’s return was the 
result of approximately $4 billion in potential savings resulting from 
a fiscal year 2011 audit of funds from the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 for USDA programs. 

Table: Return on Investment by the USDA OIG Compared to That of Other 
Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
USDA OIG’s return on each budget dollar: $3.01; 
Other cabinet-level OIGs’ return on each budget dollar: $13.07. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
USDA OIG’s return on each budget dollar: $1.70; 
Other cabinet-level OIGs’ return on each budget dollar: $11.86. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
USDA OIG’s return on each budget dollar: $39.40; 
Other cabinet-level OIGs’ return on each budget dollar: $12.98. 

Average 3-year return: 
USDA OIG’s return on each budget dollar: $13.96; 
Other cabinet-level OIGs’ return on each budget dollar: $12.63. 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget information 
and OIG semiannual reports. 

[End of table] 

During the 3-year period the USDA OIG issued 212 audit reports and 
completed 878 investigations that provided oversight coverage for each 
of USDA’s seven mission areas, high-risk areas identified by GAO, and 
the management challenges identified by the OIG. 

With respect to quality, the OIG received peer reviews of its audit 
and investigative quality from external OIGs, which concluded that the 
OIG had controls in place to ensure that its audits were performed in 
accordance with professional auditing standards, and that the OIG’s 
investigations followed applicable professional standards. 

The OIG’s audit of USDA’s compliance with reporting requirements for 
improper payments included a review of the reported root causes. The 
audit concluded that because of the lack of clear instructions, USDA’s 
component agencies did not consistently categorize the root causes of 
improper payments. As a result, the OIG concluded that USDA’s 
reporting of the causes of the improper payments was not accurate. The 
OIG made recommendations, and USDA agreed to implement a second-party 
review process to help ensure accuracy, implement controls to ensure 
consistent categorizing of causes, and update guidance for determining 
the causes. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making specific recommendations in this report. The USDA 
Inspector General commented that the draft of this report provided an 
objective and comprehensive review of the OIG. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-245]. For more 
information, contact Beryl Davis at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Background: 

Reported Level of USDA OIG Budget and Staffing Resources Compared with 
Other Cabinet-Level OIGs: 

USDA OIG's Reported Monetary and Nonmonetary Accomplishments: 

USDA OIG's Reported Coverage of Recovery Act Issues, USDA's Mission 
Areas, High-Risk Areas, and Management Challenges: 

USDA OIG Audit and Investigative Quality as Reported by External Peer 
Reviews and Quality Assurance Reviews: 

OIG Oversight of Improper Payments Reporting: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: USDA's Mission Areas: 

Appendix II: Comments from the USDA Office of Inspector General: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Total Budgetary Resources of the USDA OIG in Comparison with 
Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Table 2: Authorized FTEs of the USDA OIG in Comparison with Other 
Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Table 3: USDA OIG's Estimated Average Return on Investment of Total 
Budgetary Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Table 4: Fifteen Cabinet-Level OIGs' Estimated Average Return on 
Investment of Total Budgetary Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2011: 

Table 5: Examples of USDA OIG Performance Targets and Reported Actual 
Percentages Achieved for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Table 6: Sources of Initiation for USDA OIG Audits for Fiscal Years 
2009 through 2011: 

Table 7: USDA OIG Audit Coverage of High-Risk Areas and Management 
Challenges for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: USDA OIG Audit Reports in USDA's Seven Mission Areas for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in USDA's 
Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Figure 3: Total Budgetary Resources for USDA's Mission Areas Fiscal 
Year 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

CFO: Chief Financial Officer: 

CIGIE: Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency: 

FFAS: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 

FISMA: Federal Information Security Management Act: 

FNCS: Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: 

FS: Forest Service: 

FSIS: Food Safety and Inspection Services: 

FTE: full-time equivalent staff: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IG Act: Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended: 

IPERA 2010: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010: 

IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act of 2002: 

MRP: Marketing and Regulatory Programs: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

NRE: Natural Resources and Environment: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PAR: Performance and Accountability Report: 

QAR: Quality Assurance Review: 

RD: Rural Development: 

REE: Research, Education and Economics: 

SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 22, 2013: 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow: 
Chairwoman: 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Madam Chairwoman: 

You raised questions regarding whether recent changes in funding 
provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) may adversely affect the OIG's staffing levels 
and its ability to carry out its mission operations. This letter 
responds to your request for GAO to provide information on the efforts 
of the USDA OIG to provide oversight of the department's programs and 
activities during the most recent 3-year period for which data are 
available. Specifically, this report provides information on the USDA 
OIG's (1) budgets and staffing resources for fiscal years 2009 through 
2011 in comparison with other cabinet-level OIGs; (2) reported 
monetary accomplishments for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 in 
comparison with other cabinet-level OIGs and the USDA OIG's reported 
nonmonetary accomplishments; (3) reported audit and investigative 
coverage of USDA's offices, programs, and operations for fiscal years 
2009 through 2011; (4) quality of work based on recent external and 
internal reviews; and (5) reporting on the causes of improper payments 
identified by USDA. 

Scope and Methodology: 

We used OIG data from fiscal years 2009 through 2011 because these 
were the most recent 3 fiscal years for which data were available as 
of the beginning of our engagement. To accumulate comparative 
information on budget and staffing resources, we obtained the total 
budgetary resources and staffing levels for the USDA OIG and for all 
other OIGs in the cabinet-level departments from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for the same 3-year period from fiscal 
year 2009 through 2011.[Footnote 1] 

To provide comparative information on results and accomplishments, we 
obtained the monetary accomplishments reported by the USDA OIG and the 
other cabinet-level OIGs in their semiannual reports for our 3-year 
period. We compared the reported dollar value of accomplishments to 
the total budgetary resources of each OIG to determine each OIG's 
return-on-investment for each budgetary resources dollar. In addition, 
we summarized selected audit and investigative accomplishments 
reported by the USDA OIG in semiannual reports over the same 3-year 
period. We also obtained the performance targets and results measured 
by the OIG to determine its own success in providing audits and 
investigations. 

With respect to USDA OIG oversight coverage, we compared data on its 
audit and investigative results over our 3-year period with the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) issues, 
its seven mission areas, areas of high risk, and areas designated as 
management challenges.[Footnote 2] Specifically, we used the seven 
mission areas identified by USDA, the high-risk areas reported by us, 
and the management challenges reported by USDA in its annual 
performance and accountability reports (PAR).[Footnote 3] We then 
compared the accomplishments, including the number of audits, reported 
by the USDA OIG in semiannual reports over the 3-year period to USDA's 
mission areas, high-risk areas, and management challenges to provide 
perspective on the extent and nature of the OIG's oversight coverage. 

To provide information on the reported quality of the OIG's oversight, 
we obtained the results of the most recent external peer reviews of 
audit and investigative quality, and the results of the internal 
quality assessment reviews performed by the USDA OIG of its own 
operations for audits, investigations, and administrative activities 
for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. In addition, we obtained 
information on the OIG's quality assurance as part of its planning 
process for conducting audits and investigations, and on the 
performance measures used by the OIG to help ensure quality audits and 
investigations. 

We also obtained information on the results of the OIG's audit of 
USDA's compliance with reporting requirements under The Improper 
Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA 2010), including 
requirements for reporting on the causes of the agency's improper 
payments.[Footnote 4] 

We interviewed OIG officials at USDA headquarters responsible for 
planning, directing, and managing the OIG's operations to obtain 
information on resources, accomplishments, coverage and quality. We 
relied on the results of the OIG's peer reviews of audit and 
investigative quality to provide reasonable assurance of the 
reliability of the information in OIG reports. For information on the 
OIG's audit of improper payments, we interviewed staff members and 
reviewed the OIG's work papers to obtain supporting documentation for 
the conclusions and recommendations regarding USDA's reported root 
causes of improper payments. On the basis of these steps, we 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of our review. 

We conducted our work from June 2012 to March 2013 in accordance with 
all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant 
to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions 
in this report. 

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the USDA Inspector 
General, which are reprinted in appendix II. We also received 
technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

The USDA OIG was administratively established in 1962 and statutorily 
established by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, (IG Act) 
to provide independent audits and investigations of USDA's programs 
and operations; promote integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness; and 
detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.[Footnote 5] 
The OIG's audits examine the economy and efficiency of USDA programs 
and operations, including program results, compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations, and fair presentation of financial reports. The 
USDA OIG is a member of the Council of the Inspectors General on 
Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which was established by the 
Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 to address integrity, economy, 
and effectiveness issues that transcend individual government 
agencies; and to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of 
personnel in the OIGs.[Footnote 6] 

USDA is organized by seven mission areas, which are collections of 
agencies that work together to achieve strategic goals. (See appendix 
I.) These mission areas provide leadership on addressing food, 
agricultural, and environmental issues; developing agricultural 
markets; fighting hunger and malnutrition; encouraging rural 
development; conserving natural resources; performing agricultural 
research; and ensuring standards of food quality through safeguards 
and inspections. In fiscal year 2011, USDA had about 100,000 employees 
and delivered public services through its more than 300 programs 
worldwide. USDA's mission areas and administrative offices accounted 
for USDA's total budgetary resources of approximately $182 billion in 
fiscal year 2011. 

OIG audits are required to be performed in accordance with Government 
Auditing Standards provided by the Comptroller General, which 
incorporate the professional standards set by the American Institute 
of Certified Public Accountants.[Footnote 7] While the majority of 
audit work is performed by OIG staff, the OIG also contracts with 
certified public accountants for some work and oversees the quality of 
work done by auditors under contract to other USDA agencies. 

The OIG's investigations address criminal activities that affect the 
health and safety of the public as well as the integrity of USDA 
programs, such as meat-packers that knowingly sell hazardous food 
products and individuals who tamper with food regulated by USDA. In 
addition, the OIG's investigators provide an emergency law enforcement 
response to USDA-declared emergencies and suspected incidents of 
terrorism affecting USDA-regulated industries, as well as USDA 
programs, operations, personnel, and installations, in coordination 
with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as 
appropriate. 

The OIG's oversight of USDA's programs and mission areas is guided by 
a strategic plan that establishes five goals aligned with the goals of 
the department.[Footnote 8] These goals are to (1) strengthen USDA's 
ability to implement safety and security measures to protect the 
public health and agricultural and department resources, (2) reduce 
program vulnerabilities and strengthen program integrity in the 
delivery of benefits to individuals, (3) support USDA in implementing 
its management improvement initiatives, (4) increase the efficiency 
and effectiveness with which USDA manages and exercises stewardship 
over natural resources, and (5) strive for a highly qualified diverse 
workforce with the tools and training necessary to continuously 
enhance the OIG's ability to fulfill its mission. 

The OIG publishes an annual performance plan that sets specific 
targets for each of its performance measures for the coming fiscal 
year; lays out the audit, investigation, inspection, and management 
priorities for the year; and where appropriate, discusses the specific 
projects that will be performed and expected initiation dates. OIG 
investigative officials have stated that the majority of the OIG's 
investigative efforts are reactive. However, in an effort to be 
proactive, the investigative office solicits input from special agents 
in charge in the field and headquarters to identify trends, areas of 
interest, and ways to best allocate resources for achieving the OIG's 
strategic goals. Investigation's highest priorities are (1) the health 
and safety of the American public and USDA employees, (2) agricultural 
terrorism threats, and (3) the nation's food supply. 

In addition, much of the OIG's work is directed by legislative 
mandates, such as the Recovery Act, which provided USDA about $28 
billion in funding involving a number of programs and increased the 
OIG's oversight responsibilities. The OIG's annual audit plans for 
fiscal years 2009 through 2011 were primarily directed at supporting 
the OIG's strategic plan, with the OIG's plans for fiscal years 2010 
and 2011 including Recovery Act responsibilities. 

Additional mandates include requirements under IPERA 2010, and for the 
USDA OIG to provide oversight of USDA's annual financial statements 
under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) and of 
information security under the Federal Information Security Management 
Act of 2002 (FISMA).[Footnote 9] 

Reported Level of USDA OIG Budget and Staffing Resources Compared with 
Other Cabinet-Level OIGs: 

Budgetary Resources: 

The USDA OIG had total budgetary resources of about $110 million in 
fiscal year 2011. In comparison with other cabinet-level OIGs for the 
same fiscal year, the USDA OIG's budgetary funding was less than eight 
other OIGs and greater than seven. (See table 1.) However, the USDA 
OIG had the largest decrease in total budgetary resources and was one 
of three OIGs that had a decrease from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 
2011. Specifically, the USDA OIG's total budgetary resources decreased 
from about $120 million in fiscal year 2009, to approximately $110 
million in fiscal year 2011, or about 8 percent. The other cabinet-
level OIGs combined had an increase of about 6 percent in total 
budgetary resources during the same period.[Footnote 10] 

Table 1: Total Budgetary Resources of the USDA OIG in Comparison with 
Other Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Cabinet-level OIGs: Department of Agriculture; 
Fiscal year 2009: $120 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $121 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $110 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: (8%). 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 1. Department of Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2009: $374 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $381 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $393 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 5%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 2. Department of Defense; 
Fiscal year 2009: $302 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $320 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $330 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 9%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 3. Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration; 
Fiscal year 2009: $155 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $162 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $157 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 1%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 4. Department of Homeland Security; 
Fiscal year 2009: $150 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $160 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $155 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 3%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2009: $142 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $146 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $144 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 1%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 6. Department of State; 
Fiscal year 2009: $100 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $126 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $120 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 20%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 7. Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2009: $98 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $113 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $114 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 16%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 8. Department of the Treasury; 
Fiscal year 2009: $98 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $106 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $112 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 14%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 9. Department of Justice; 
Fiscal year 2009: $101 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $106 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $103 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 2%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 10. Department of Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2009: $97 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $101 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $97 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 0. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 11. Department of Labor; 
Fiscal year 2009: $89 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $90 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $87 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: (2%). 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 12. Department of Energy; 
Fiscal year 2009: $68 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $71 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $74 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 9%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 13. Department of Education; 
Fiscal year 2009: $69 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $73 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $71 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 3%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 14. Department of the Interior; 
Fiscal year 2009: $64 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $67 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $62 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: (3%). 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 15. Department of Commerce; 
Fiscal year 2009: $47 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $52 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $47 million; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 0. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: Totals for all other cabinet-level OIGs; 
Fiscal year 2009: $1.954 billion; 
Fiscal year 2010: $2.074 billion; 
Fiscal year 2011: $2.066 billion; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Other cabinet-level OIG offices are listed in order of the amount 
of their fiscal year 2011 total budgetary resources from the largest to 
the smallest. USDA OIG is listed separately. 

[End of table] 

Staff Resources: 

The USDA OIG had budget authority for 608 full-time equivalent staff 
(FTE) during fiscal year 2011. Six other OIGs had more FTEs and nine 
had fewer for the same fiscal year. (See table 2.) The USDA OIG had an 
11 percent increase in the number of FTEs from fiscal year 2009 to 
fiscal year 2011, compared to an overall increase of 14 percent for 
all other cabinet-level OIGs during the same 3-year period. USDA OIG 
officials reported that they were unable to staff all of the 
authorized FTEs and had 43 unfilled positions at the end of fiscal 
year 2011 because of budgetary constraints. 

Table 2: Authorized FTEs of the USDA OIG in Comparison with Other 
Cabinet-Level OIGs for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Cabinet-level OIGs: Department of Agriculture; 
Fiscal year 2009: 550; 
Fiscal year 2010: 593; 
Fiscal year 2011: 608; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 11%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 1. Department of Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2009: 1,512; 
Fiscal year 2010: 1,582; 
Fiscal year 2011: 1,745; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 15%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 2. Department of Defense; 
Fiscal year 2009: 1,514; 
Fiscal year 2010: 1,587; 
Fiscal year 2011: 1,613; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 7%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 3. Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration; 
Fiscal year 2009: 800; 
Fiscal year 2010: 820; 
Fiscal year 2011: 823; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 3%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 4. Department of Homeland Security; 
Fiscal year 2009: 654; 
Fiscal year 2010: 688; 
Fiscal year 2011: 728; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 11%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2009: 638; 
Fiscal year 2010: 684; 
Fiscal year 2011: 712; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 12%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 6. Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2009: 509; 
Fiscal year 2010: 553; 
Fiscal year 2011: 633; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 24%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 7. Department of Justice; 
Fiscal year 2009: 432; 
Fiscal year 2010: 451; 
Fiscal year 2011: 459; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 6%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 8. Department of Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2009: 410; 
Fiscal year 2010: 438; 
Fiscal year 2011: 448; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 9%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 9. Department of Labor; 
Fiscal year 2009: 389; 
Fiscal year 2010: 420; 
Fiscal year 2011: 411; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 6%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 10. Department of Education; 
Fiscal year 2009: 277; 
Fiscal year 2010: 304; 
Fiscal year 2011: 324; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 17%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 11. Department of the Treasury; 
Fiscal year 2009: 137; 
Fiscal year 2010: 251; 
Fiscal year 2011: 322; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 135%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 12. Department of State; 
Fiscal year 2009: 202; 
Fiscal year 2010: 291; 
Fiscal year 2011: 293; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 45%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 13. Department of Energy; 
Fiscal year 2009: 244; 
Fiscal year 2010: 255; 
Fiscal year 2011: 277; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 14%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 14. Department of the Interior; 
Fiscal year 2009: 276; 
Fiscal year 2010: 291; 
Fiscal year 2011: 276; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 0. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: 15. Department of Commerce; 
Fiscal year 2009: 117; 
Fiscal year 2010: 161; 
Fiscal year 2011: 171; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 46%. 

Cabinet-level OIGs: Totals for all other cabinet-level OIGs; 
Fiscal year 2009: 8,111; 
Fiscal year 2010: 8,776; 
Fiscal year 2011: 9,235; 
Percentage change, fiscal years 2009-2011: 14%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Note: Other cabinet-level OIGs are listed in order of the size of their 
fiscal year 2011 FTEs from the largest to the smallest. USDA OIG is 
listed separately. 

[End of table] 

USDA OIG's Reported Monetary and Nonmonetary Accomplishments: 

The OIGs established by the IG Act, including the USDA OIG, are 
required to report specific monetary accomplishments in semiannual 
reports to the Congress. As required, the USDA OIG's semiannual 
reports for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 included the questioned 
costs, unsupported costs, and funds that could be put to better use 
identified by audits, and the monetary fines, fees, and court-ordered 
restitutions resulting from investigations.[Footnote 11] In addition 
to monetary accomplishments, the OIG measures the extent to which its 
work focuses on the key issues under its goals by tracking nonmonetary 
outcomes of audits and investigations. 

USDA OIG's Reported Monetary Accomplishments Compared to Other Cabinet-
Level OIGs: 

The USDA OIG reported total monetary accomplishments from audits and 
investigations of approximately $4.9 billion over fiscal years 2009 
through 2011. (See table 3.) As a ratio of the OIG's total budgetary 
resources over the same 3-year period, the USDA OIG's estimated 
average return-on-investment for each budget dollar is about $13.96. 
The USDA OIG had a wide range of return-on-investment over this 3-year 
period from $1.70 in fiscal year 2010 to $39.40 in fiscal year 2011. 
The significant increase of monetary accomplishments reported for 
fiscal year 2011 was due to an OIG audit of Recovery Act funds 
included in single family housing guaranteed loans by USDA's Rural 
Housing Service. The OIG's report concluded that loans with a total 
value of $4.16 billion were made to ineligible borrowers. This amount 
was included in the OIG's reported questioned costs for fiscal year 
2011. 

Table 3: USDA OIG's Estimated Average Return on Investment of Total 
Budgetary Resources Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

USDA OIG: Total budgetary resources; 
Fiscal year 2009: $120 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $121 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $110 million; 
Totals and average return: $351 million. 

USDA OIG: Monetary accomplishments; 
Fiscal year 2009: $361.70 million; 
Fiscal year 2010: $205.80 million; 
Fiscal year 2011: $4.333 billion; 
Totals and average return: $4.901 billion. 

USDA OIG: Estimated average dollar return on each budgetary resource 
dollar received; 
Fiscal year 2009: $3.01; 
Fiscal year 2010: $1.70; 
Fiscal year 2011: $39.40; 
Totals and average return: $13.96. 

Source: GAO analysis of the USDA OIG's semiannual reports and OMB data. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of the OIGs' semiannual reports and OMB data. 

By comparison, the estimated 3-year average return-on-investment for all
other cabinet-level OIGs combined was $12.63. (See table 4.) The USDA
OIG’s estimated average return of $13.96 was somewhat higher for this
period. However, while the USDA OIG had a greater return-on-investment
than the estimated average return for the other OIGs for fiscal year 
2011, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 the USDA OIG’s estimated return was
lower than the combined estimated average return of the other cabinet-
level OIGs for those same years. USDA OIG officials explained that
monetary accomplishments for Recovery Act efforts were mostly reported
in fiscal year 2011 and that their efforts in fiscal years 2009 and 2010
focused on audits to ensure that internal controls and procedures were 
in place for USDA to properly receive and distribute Recovery Act 
funds. In addition, the OIG provides audits of food safety and 
protection for land and water resources. According to OIG officials, 
while important to USDA’s mission and the welfare of the general 
public, these audits do not generally result in significant monetary 
accomplishments. 

Table 4: Fifteen Cabinet-Level OIGs' Estimated Average Return on 
Investment of Total Budgetary Resource Dollars for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2011A: 

Fifteen cabinet-level OIGs: Total budgetary resources: 
Fiscal year 2009: $1.954 billion; 
Fiscal year 2010: $2.074 billion; 
Fiscal year 2011: $2.066 billion; 
Totals and average return: $6.094 billion. 

Fifteen cabinet-level OIGs: Total monetary accomplishments: 
Fiscal year 2009: $25.530 billion; 
Fiscal year 2010: $24.602 billion; 
Fiscal year 2011: $26.809 billion; 
Totals and average return: $76.941 billion. 

Fifteen cabinet-level OIGs: Estimated average dollar return on each 
budgetary resource dollar received; 
Fiscal year 2009: $13.07; 
Fiscal year 2010: $11.86; 
Fiscal year 2011: $12.98; 
Totals and average return: $12.63. 

Source: GAO analysis of the OIGs' semiannual reports and OMB data. 

[A] Note: Data do not include those for the USDA OIG. 

[End of table] 

Nonmonetary Accomplishments: 

The OIG reported that it relied on several key metrics to measure its 
completion of targets for nonmonetary accomplishments, which include 
the percentage of (1) direct OIG resources dedicated to critical risk 
and high-impact work; (2) audit recommendations that resulted in 
management decisions within 1 year; (3) audits initiated that reported 
findings and recommendations to the auditee within established and 
agreed-to time frames; (4) closed investigations that resulted in a 
referral for action to the Department of Justice, state or local law 
enforcement officials, or the relevant administrative authority; and 
(5) closed investigations that resulted in an indictment, conviction, 
civil suit or settlement, judgment, administrative action, or monetary 
result. (See table 5.) Additional targets are indirectly related to 
the outcomes of audits and investigations and include 15 related to 
timeliness, such as whether information technology staff members make 
an initial response to help desk requests within 2 hours or less; 6 
related to the completion of Recovery Act work; 1 related to positive 
employee satisfaction rates reported in staff surveys; 1 related to 
survey results indicating that new employees find the orientation 
session useful to them as they begin their new jobs; and 1 related to 
positive evaluation scores on OIG internal training course evaluations. 

Table 5: Examples of USDA OIG Performance Targets and Reported Actual 
Percentages Achieved for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Performance measures: OIG direct resources dedicated to critical-risk 
and high-impact work; 
FY 2009 target: 90%; 
FY 2009 actual: 95.3%; 
FY 2010 target: 90%; 
FY 2010 actual: 91.8%; 
FY 2011 target: 90%; 
FY 2011 actual: 97.2%. 

Performance measures: Audit recommendations resulting in management 
decision within 1 year of report issuance; 
FY 2009 target: 85%; 
FY 2009 actual: 88.8%; 
FY 2010 target: 85%; 
FY 2010 actual: 90.2%; 
FY 2011 target: 90%; 
FY 2011 actual: 90.1%. 

Performance measures: Mandatory and congressional, secretarial, and 
agency-requested audits completed within required or agreed-to 
timeframes; 
FY 2009 target: 85%; 
FY 2009 actual: 100%; 
FY 2010 target: 90%; 
FY 2010 actual: 100%; 
FY 2011 target: 85%; 
FY 2011 actual: 100%. 

Performance measures: Percentage of closed investigations that resulted 
in a referral for action; 
FY 2009 target: 70%; 
FY 2009 actual: 74.6%; 
FY 2010 target: 70%; 
FY 2010 actual: 84.8%; 
FY 2011 target: 70%; 
FY 2011 actual: 82.5%. 

Performance measures: Percentage of closed investigations that resulted 
in an indictment, conviction, civil suit or settlement, judgment, 
administrative action, or monetary result; 
FY 2009 target: 65%; 
FY 2009 actual: 76.8%; 
FY 2010 target: 65%; 
FY 2010 actual: 72.8%; 
FY 2011 target: 65%; 
FY 2011 actual: 70.4%. 

Source: USDA OIG annual plans, fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

Legend: FY = fiscal year. 

[End of table] 

USDA OIG's Reported Coverage of Recovery Act Issues, USDA's Mission 
Areas, High-Risk Areas, and Management Challenges: 

The OIG reported issuing 212 audit reports during the 3-year period 
with 58 audits in 2009, 89 audits in 2010, and 65 audits in 2011. Of 
the 212 audit reports issued, 95, or about 45 percent, addressed 
mandated coverage of Recovery Act issues. (See table 6.) Additional 
mandated audits; audits requested by USDA, the Congress, and other 
agencies; and audits of funding for natural disaster relief totaled 
77, or about 36 percent of the OIG's audits. The OIG performed 40 
audits, or about 19 percent, that addressed programs identified by the 
OIG's strategic planning process for self-initiated audits. 

Table 6: Sources of Initiation for USDA OIG Audits for Fiscal Years 
2009 through 2011: 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Recovery Act audits: 19; 
Additional mandated audits: 15; 
OIG self-initiated audits: 13; 
Requested audits[A]: 8; 
Disaster relief audits: 3; 
Total audits: 58. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Recovery Act audits: 49; 
Additional mandated audits: 12; 
OIG self-initiated audits: 15; 
Requested audits[A]: 6; 
Disaster relief audits: 7; 
Total audits: 89. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Recovery Act audits: 27; 
Additional mandated audits: 17; 
OIG self-initiated audits: 12; 
Requested audits[A]: 5; 
Disaster relief audits: 4; 
Total audits: 65. 

Fiscal year: Totals; 
Recovery Act audits: 95; 
Additional mandated audits: 44; 
OIG self-initiated audits: 40; 
Requested audits[A]: 19; 
Disaster relief audits: 14; 
Total audits: 212. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA OIG's audit reports. 

[A] Disaster relief audits include mandatory audits of disaster relief 
funding and routine audits of USDA's disaster-related services. 

[End of table] 

Coverage of Recovery Act Issues and USDA Mission Areas: 

In fiscal year 2009, the USDA OIG received additional funding of $22.5 
million to be available through fiscal year 2013 for the oversight of 
the Recovery Act funds provided for USDA's programs. The OIG's 
Recovery Act audit efforts included mandates for OIG audits to 
determine whether (1) the implementation of USDA recovery-related 
programs was timely and effective; (2) proper internal control 
procedures were established; (3) program participants met eligibility 
guidelines; (4) participants complied with program requirements; (5) 
agencies established effective compliance operations; and (6) funds 
were awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner. 
These audits involved reviews of farm loans, watershed programs, 
supplemental nutrition assistance, wildland fire management, capital 
improvements and maintenance, and rural housing and development 
programs. 

Also, during the 3-year period, the OIG addressed USDA's seven mission 
areas with nearly 200 audits, some of which addressed multiple areas, 
and through additional audits of USDA's financial statements required 
by the CFO Act, and information technology security audits required by 
FISMA. Almost half of the OIG's audits were in the mission areas of 
Natural Resources and Environment and Rural Development. (See figure 
1.) Specifically, the OIG issued a total of 102 audit products in 
these two mission areas, which included reviews of the efficiency and 
effectiveness of management and program operations during the 3-year 
period. These USDA missions received a relatively large number of 
audits as a result of the OIG's emphasis on the Recovery Act funds 
associated with their programs. 

Figure 1: USDA OIG Audit Reports in USDA's Seven Mission Areas for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of reports: 

Natural Resources and Environment: 55; 
Rural Development: 47; 
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 38; 
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: 22; 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs: 17; 
Research, Education, and Economics: 11; 
Food Safety: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis USDA OIG's semiannual reports. 

[End of figure] 

The USDA OIG reported investigations within each mission area and the 
identification of fraud within USDA's programs, prosecutions where 
warranted, and agency administrative action where necessary. The OIG 
reported completing a total of 878 investigative cases during the 3-
year period with 292 investigations in fiscal year 2009, 247 in fiscal 
year 2010, and 339 in fiscal year 2011. In addition, during this 3-
year period, the OIG's investigative activities resulted in 1,587 
convictions. Most of these convictions were the result of 
investigations in Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS)--
USDA's largest mission area in terms of total budgetary resources--
with 706 convictions, mostly related to charges of fraud in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Investigations of the 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area resulted in 668 
convictions, which, when combined with those in FNCS, accounted for 
about 86 percent of all convictions during the 3-year period. (See 
figure 2.) 

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in USDA's 
Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in USDA's 
Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of cases: 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: 706; 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs: 668; 
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 116; 
Natural Resources and Environment: 48; 
Rural Development: 23; 
Food Safety: 21; 
Other: 5. 

Source: GAO analysis USDA OIG's semiannual reports, fiscal years 2009-
through 2011. 

Note: "Other" includes USDA's CFO Office and the Research, Education, 
and Economics mission. 

[End of figure] 

Coverage of High-Risk Areas and Management Challenges: 

The USDA OIG's audit reports show that coverage was provided of high-
risk areas identified by GAO, and management challenges identified by 
the OIG for the 3-year period. Since 1990, we have reported on 
government operations designated as high risk because of their greater 
vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In 
addition, the OIGs began the identification of management challenges 
in 1997 at the request of congressional members who asked the 
inspectors general to identify the most serious management problems in 
their respective agencies. This began a yearly process that continues 
as a result of the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000.[Footnote 12] The 
act requires executive agencies, including USDA, to include their 
OIGs' lists of significant management challenges along with their 
efforts to address them in the annual PAR reports to the President, 
OMB, and the Congress. 

Our reports of government high-risk areas issued in February 2011 and 
January 2009, identified three high-risk areas at USDA, which were 
also included as management challenges identified by the USDA OIG. 
Specifically, both we and the OIG identified the protection of the 
federal government's information systems, strategic human capital 
issues, and food safety as both high-risk areas and management 
challenges. Another significant management challenge identified by the 
OIG was USDA's internal controls, which received the greatest amount 
of audit coverage (addressed by 123 audits). (See table 7.)[Footnote 
13] The OIG's audits of Recovery Act funds, which was also a 
management challenge, addressed internal controls for Recovery Act 
funds and accounts for the relatively large number of internal control 
audits. 

Table 7: USDA OIG Audit Coverage of High-Risk Areas and Management 
Challenges for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

Figure 2: USDA OIG Investigative Cases with Convictions in USDA's 
Mission Areas for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of cases: 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: 706; 
Marketing and Regulatory Programs: 668; 
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 116; 
Natural Resources and Environment: 48; 
Rural Development: 23; 
Food Safety: 21; 
Other: 5. 

Source: GAO analysis USDA OIG's semiannual reports, fiscal years 2009-
through 2011. 

Note: "Other" includes USDA's CFO Office and the Research, Education, 
and Economics mission. 

[End of figure] 

The USDA OIG did not issue any audit reports related to civil rights 
issues during the 3-year period.[Footnote 14] However, we issued a 
report on civil rights in fiscal year 2009 along with follow-up 
testimony on USDA's progress in implementing the report's 
recommendations.[Footnote 15] We concluded that USDA had taken action 
in response to our report recommendations on civil rights. Also, the 
OIG did not issue any audit reports on renewable energy during fiscal 
years 2009 through 2011. However, the OIG issued a report on this 
management challenge in 2008.[Footnote 16] Also, in an additional 
report on USDA's management challenges, the OIG concluded that USDA 
had taken actions in response to its 2008 report and removed the 
management challenge during fiscal year 2011 based on the corrective 
actions taken by USDA.[Footnote 17] 

USDA OIG Audit and Investigative Quality as Reported by External Peer 
Reviews and Quality Assurance Reviews: 

The USDA OIG received peer reviews of its audit and investigative 
quality during the 3-year period. In addition, the USDA OIG also helps 
to ensure compliance with auditing standards, investigative 
guidelines, and administrative procedures by periodically conducting 
its own internal quality assurance reviews (QAR) throughout its 
nationwide operations. 

Audit Quality: 

Government Auditing Standards requires that each audit organization 
performing audits in accordance with these standards must have an 
external peer review performed by reviewers independent of the audit 
organization being reviewed at least once every 3 years. The USDA OIG 
Office of Audit obtained an external peer review by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) OIG for the 3-year period ending 
March 31, 2009. The HUD OIG's report concluded that the USDA OIG was 
able to provide reasonable assurance that controls were in place to 
provide audit reports that were in compliance with Government Auditing 
Standards. 

The OIG also completed five QARs of its audit operations during fiscal 
years 2009 through 2011. These reviews are designed to assess whether 
the OIG carries out its work in accordance with established USDA OIG 
policies and procedures, Government Auditing Standards, applicable OMB 
guidance, and appropriate statutory provisions applicable to the OIG. 
The QARs made recommendations for improved audit documentation and the 
offices reviewed concurred with the recommendations and took 
corrective actions. 

Investigative Quality: 

The USDA OIG undergoes a review of its law enforcement powers used in 
its investigative operations.[Footnote 18] CIGIE has provided 
guidelines for external peer reviews of the OIG's investigative 
operations, which are to occur once every 3 years.[Footnote 19] The 
peer reviews are intended to provide the OIG with an independent 
opinion on the investigative quality control system, whether the 
system is in place and operating effectively, and whether the OIG's 
policies and applicable CIGIE standards are being followed. The OIG 
Office of Investigations received an external peer review by the 
Department of Homeland Security OIG in 2010, which concluded that the 
USDA OIG's system of internal safeguards and management procedures 
were in compliance with the quality standards established by CIGIE and 
applicable Attorney General guidelines. 

The USDA OIG also conducts QARs of its investigative operations. The 
purpose of the OIG QARs for Investigations is to determine if its 
investigative offices are operating in accordance with the IG Act, 
CIGIE's Quality Standards for Investigations, and USDA OIG policies 
and procedures. The internal QARs for Investigations involve reviews 
of both closed case files and internal controls over investigative 
procedures. The USDA OIG completed four QARs of its investigative 
offices during fiscal years 2009 through 2011. The QARs concluded that 
the offices reviewed met professional standards and that corrective 
actions on recommendations from prior QARs had been implemented. 

Administrative Quality: 

In addition, the OIG reported that it performs QARs to determine 
whether its offices are in compliance with USDA and OIG administrative 
policies and procedures for travel, procurement management, purchase 
cards, budgets, time management, and property management. The OIG 
completed four administrative QARs and two reviews of internal 
controls during fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and made 
recommendations for improved administrative procedures over routine 
expenditures. The offices reviewed concurred with the recommendations 
and took corrective actions. 

OIG Oversight of Improper Payments Reporting: 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) required 
executive branch agencies, including USDA, to conduct an annual review 
of all programs and activities to identify those that are susceptible 
to significant improper payments, estimate the amount of improper 
payments for such programs and activities, and report these estimates 
along with actions taken to reduce improper payments for those 
programs and activities with estimates exceeding $10 million.[Footnote 
20] IPERA 2010 amended IPIA by expanding on the previous requirements 
for identifying, estimating, and reporting on programs and activities 
susceptible to significant improper payments and expanding 
requirements for recovering overpayments. Another IPERA 2010 provision 
calls for the inspectors general, including the USDA OIG, to annually 
determine whether their respective agencies are in compliance with key 
IPERA 2010 requirements and to report on their determinations. 
[Footnote 21] 

OMB issued additional guidance to federal agencies to report, 
beginning for fiscal year 2011, the root causes of improper (over and 
under) payments for all programs susceptible to significant improper 
payments.[Footnote 22] The guidance defined three categories of root 
causes for improper payments: (1) documentation and administrative 
errors, (2) authentication and medical necessity errors, and (3) 
verification errors.[Footnote 23] Agencies are required to report the 
percentage of errors in each category proportional to the dollar 
amount of error attributable to that root cause. This information is 
covered by part of the OIG's annual review of USDA's improper payments 
reporting. 

The USDA reported in its fiscal year 2011 PAR that 16 of its more than 
300 programs were considered vulnerable to significant improper 
payments because each had estimated improper payments that were a 
material proportion of program outlays. In addition, USDA reported 
that 2 percent of the errors causing improper payments were due to 
documentation and administrative errors, 1 percent were due to 
authentication and medical necessity errors, and 97 percent were due 
to verification errors. Also, in detailed reporting of errors causing 
improper payments, USDA reported that of the approximately $5.4 
billion in improper payments estimated in fiscal year 2011, 0.04 
percent (or $2.2 million) were due to incomplete paperwork 
(documentation) in the programs reporting significant improper 
payments. 

The OIG's 2012 audit report on USDA's fiscal year 2011 compliance with 
improper payment reporting requirements concluded, among other things, 
that USDA's component agencies did not consistently assign the 
appropriate error category when reporting the causes of improper 
payments and that as a result, USDA's reported amount of improper 
payments caused by documentation errors was not accurate.[Footnote 24] 
USDA officials acknowledged that USDA component agencies struggled to 
properly categorize the root causes of improper payments into the 
causal categories required by OMB. They also concurred with the OIG's 
report recommendations to (1) implement a second-party quality review 
process to ensure that improper payment information reported in the 
PAR is properly supported, (2) implement controls to ensure that the 
USDA agencies consistently and accurately categorize improper payment 
errors, and (3) update USDA guidance for determining the cause of an 
error to include specific examples related to USDA programs. In 
addition, USDA officials stated that they will work with component 
USDA agency officials to develop a plan to better understand and 
consistently categorize the root causes of USDA's improper payments. 
The OIG plans to follow up on USDA's actions to better categorize the 
root causes of improper payments for future reports. 

Agency Comments: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 
appendix II, the USDA Inspector General stated that the report 
provides an objective and comprehensive view of the office's oversight 
of USDA's programs. The Inspector General also provided technical 
comments, which we considered and incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Inspector General and interested congressional 
committees. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the 
GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Beryl H. Davis: 
Director: 
Financial Management and Assurance: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: USDA's Mission Areas: 

The largest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mission area is 
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) with a total fiscal year 
2011 budget of about $108 billion, or approximately 60 percent of 
USDA's total budgetary resources. (See figure 3.) The FNCS mission is 
to manage the nation's agricultural resources to help end hunger and 
improve the health of the nation. Its component agencies include the 
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion and the Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS), which administer federal domestic nutrition programs 
such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Formerly 
known as the food stamp program, SNAP provides assistance to families 
in need and is the nation's first line of defense against hunger. 

Figure 3: Total Budgetary Resources for USDA's Mission Areas Fiscal 
Year 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: 60%; $108.0 billion; 
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 23%; $42.4 billion; 
Natural Resources and Environment: 7%; $13.2 billion; 
Rural Development: 5%; $8.9 billion; 
Other: 5%; $9.5 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Note: "Other" includes three mission areas--Research, Education and 
Economics; Marketing and Regulatory Programs; and Food Safety and 
Inspection Service--and administrative offices, such as executive 
operations and the Office of Inspector General. 

[End of figure] 

USDA's second largest mission area is the Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission, with fiscal year 2011 total 
budgetary resources of approximately $42.4 billion, or about 23 
percent of USDA's overall budget. The FFAS mission is responsible for 
keeping America's farmers and ranchers in business through the 
uncertainties of weather and markets. Its component agencies include 
the Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Services, and the Risk 
Management Agency, which provide commodity, credit, conservation, 
disaster, and emergency assistance for the agricultural economy. 

The Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) mission received total 
fiscal year 2011 budgetary resources of about $13.2 billion, or about 
7 percent of USDA's total budget. Component agencies include the 
Forest Service (FS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), which participate in the overall NRE mission to help ensure 
the health of the land through sustainable management. FS and NRCS 
work to prevent damage to natural resources and the environment and 
promote good land management. 

The Rural Development (RD) mission had total budgetary resources of 
about $8.9 billion in fiscal year 2011, or about 5 percent of USDA's 
total budget. The RD mission is to help improve the economy and 
quality of life in all of rural America by providing financial 
programs to support essential public facilities and services such as 
water, sewer, electric, and telephone systems; housing; health 
clinics; and emergency service facilities. The RD mission promotes 
economic development by providing loans to businesses through banks, 
credit unions and community-managed lending pools. 

Other USDA mission areas and administrative offices received about 
$9.5 billion, or approximately 5 percent of USDA's total budgetary 
resources. These mission areas are Research, Education and Economics 
(REE), Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP), and the Food and 
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). The REE mission had fiscal year 2011 
total budgetary resources of approximately $3.3 billion, and includes 
several agencies that are dedicated to creating a safe, sustainable, 
and competitive food and fiber system, as well as building strong 
communities and families. The MRP mission had fiscal year 2011 total 
budgetary resources of about $3.3 billion. This mission facilitates 
domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and 
ensures the health and care of animals and plants. The FSIS mission is 
responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, 
poultry and egg products is safe, wholesome, and in properly labeled 
packages. The FSIS mission had fiscal year 2011 total budgetary 
resources of about $1.2 billion. In addition, USDA's administrative 
offices are not mission specific and received about $1.7 billion in 
total budgetary resources. These offices include USDA's management and 
executive operations, the Office of the Chief Economist, and the 
Office of Inspector General. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the USDA Office of Inspector General: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Office of Inspector General: 
Washington D.C. 20250: 

March 14, 2013: 

Ms. Beryl H. Davis:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Davis: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, Inspectors 
General. USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, 
Coverage, and Quality, GA0-13-245. 

The report provides an objective and comprehensive view of the work of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) for the 3-year period ending in fiscal year 2011. We believe 
your work will contribute to a better understanding of OIG's efforts 
to provide effective oversight to USDA's wide-ranging portfolio of 
programs that touch every American. Your analysis shows that our 
return on investment during this period was higher than the average 
return of other Cabinet-level OIGs, despite a decline in our budgetary 
resources compared to an increase of funds for other Cabinet-level 
OIGs. Perhaps equally important, your report recognizes the priority 
we place on food safety, public health, and protection of natural 
resources even though our work in these areas does not generally 
result in monetary accomplishments. Finally, we are pleased that the 
report contains no recommendations for corrective action. 

We deeply appreciate the professionalism and courtesy demonstrated by 
your staff during the course of this review. They have addressed our 
technical comments and provided timely responses. As a result of this 
productive dialogue, we will bring a renewed focus to our planning and 
management processes, to ensure that OIG continues to function as 
effectively as possible, Should you have any questions or need 
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Phyllis K. Fong: 
Inspector General: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Beryl H. Davis, (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Jackson Hufnagle (Assistant 
Director), Jacquelyn Hamilton, Taya Tasse, and Clarence Whitt made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The President's cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads 
of the 15 executive branch departments--the Secretaries of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the 
Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans 
Affairs and the Attorney General. The Department of the Treasury has 
two OIGs established by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended 
(IG Act). Specifically, in addition to the Treasury OIG, the 
department's Internal Revenue Service has its own Treasury Inspector 
General for Tax Administration. Consequently, there are 16 OIGs 
established by the IG Act in the 15 cabinet-level departments. 

[2] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

[3] Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-531, 114 Stat. 
2537 (Nov. 22, 2000), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3516-(d). 

[4] Pub. L. No. 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224 (July 22, 2010). 

[5] Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (Oct. 12, 1978) (codified, as 
amended, at 5 U.S.C. App.). 

[6] Pub. L. No. 110-409, 122 Stat. 4302 (Oct. 14, 2008). 

[7] GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-331G] (Washington, D.C.: December 
2011). 

[8] USDA OIG, Office of Inspector General Five-Year Strategic Plan, 
Fiscal Years 2010-2015 (Washington, D.C.: June 2010). 

[9] The CFO Act, Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838 (Nov. 15, 1990), 
requires USDA to issue annual financial statements that the OIG or an 
auditor selected by the OIG shall audit. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3515 and 
3521(e). FISMA, (Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002); 
see 44 U.S.C. § 101 note), requires the USDA OIG to annually evaluate 
USDA's information security programs and practices. 

[10] In 2010, a report by CIGIE on the efforts of the federal OIGs to 
support Recovery Act implementation indicated that each Cabinet-level 
department, including USDA, received additional appropriations for 
Recovery Act oversight. CIGIE, Office of Inspectors General Efforts to 
Support Effective Implementation of the Recovery Act (Washington, 
D.C.: July 10, 2010). 

[11] As defined by the IG Act, questioned costs include either alleged 
violations of laws, regulations, contracts, grants, or agreements 
governing the expenditure of funds; costs not supported by adequate 
documentation; or the expenditure of funds that was unnecessary or 
unreasonable. In addition, unsupported costs are defined as costs that 
do not have adequate documentation, and funds to be put to better use 
are inefficiencies identified by the OIG in the use of agency funds. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 106-531, 114 Stat. 2537 (Nov. 22, 2000) (codified at 
31 U.S.C. § 3516(d)). 

[13] The OIG audits that address more than one high-risk area or 
management challenge are listed more than once in table 7. 

[14] The USDA OIG issued an audit report in August 2012, based on 
audit work conducted on civil rights cases closed from January 1, 
2008, through March 31, 2011, which indicates that the OIG provided 
audit coverage of this area during the 3-year period. USDA OIG, Review 
of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight 
of Agreements Reached in Program Complaints, 60601-0001-23 ( 
Washington, D.C.: August 2012). 

[15] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options 
to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-62] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 
2008), and U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options 
Available to the New Administration and Congress to Address Long-
Standing Civil Rights Issues, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-650T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 
2009). 

[16] USDA OIG, Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in USDA, 
50601-0013-Ch (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2008). 

[17] USDA OIG, USDA Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 
2011). 

[18] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-296, § 812, 116 
Stat. 2135, 2223 (Nov. 25, 2002) requires a peer review for those OIGs 
who obtain statutory law enforcement authority under its provisions. 
However, USDA OIG obtained its law enforcement authority in 1981 
pursuant to a separate statute (see 7 U.S.C. § 2270, Pub. L. No. 97-98 
(December 22, 1981)) and undergoes a peer review pursuant to CIGIE 
guidelines. 

[19] CIGIE, Qualitative Assessment Review Guidelines for Investigative 
Operations of Federal Offices of Inspectors General (Washington, D.C.: 
December 2011). 

[20] Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350 (Nov. 26, 2002). 

[21] See 31 U.S.C. § 3321 note. Further, the Improper Payments 
Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, requires the OIGs to 
provide additional assessments and provide recommendations to improve 
improper payments determinations and estimation methodology for 
certain high-priority programs. 

[22] OMB, Issuance of Part III to OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, OMB 
Memorandum M-10-13 (Mar. 22, 2010). 

[23] OMB defines these error types as follows: documentation and 
administrative errors are errors caused by the absence of supporting 
documentation necessary to verify the accuracy of a payment or errors 
caused by incorrect inputting, classifying, or processing of 
applications or payments by a relevant federal agency, state agency, 
or third party that is not the beneficiary; authentication and medical 
necessity errors are those errors caused by an inability to 
authenticate eligibility criteria through third-party databases or 
other resources because no databases or other resources exist, or 
providing a service that was not medically necessary given the 
patient's condition; and verification errors are errors caused by the 
failure or inability to verify recipient information, including 
earnings, income, assets, or work status, even though verifying 
information does exist in third-party databases or other resources (in 
this situation, as contrasted with "authentication" errors, the 
"inability" to verify may arise because of legal or other restrictions 
that effectively deny access to an existing database or resource), or 
errors caused by beneficiaries failing to report correct information 
to an agency. 

[24] USDA OIG, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2011 
Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 Compliance 
Review, 50024-0001-11 (Washington, D.C.: March 2012). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
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 GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]