This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-62 
entitled 'U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options 
to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights' which was released on October 22, 2008. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2008: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Recommendations and Options to Address Management Deficiencies in the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: 

USDA Civil Rights: 

GAO-09-62: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-62, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

For decades, numerous federal reports have described serious weaknesses 
in USDA’s civil rights programs—in particular, in resolving 
discrimination complaints and providing minority farmers with access to 
programs. In 2002, Congress authorized the position of Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) at USDA to provide leadership for 
resolving these long-standing problems. GAO was asked to assess USDA’s 
efforts to (1) resolve discrimination complaints, (2) report on 
minority participation in farm programs, and (3) strategically plan its 
efforts. GAO also reviewed experiences of other federal agencies to 
develop options for addressing the issues. This report is based on new 
and prior work, including analysis of ASCR’s discrimination complaint 
management, strategic planning, and interviews with officials of USDA 
and other agencies, as well as 20 USDA stakeholder groups. 

What GAO Found: 

ASCR’s difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist—ASCR 
has not achieved its goal of preventing backlogs of complaints. The 
credibility of USDA’s efforts has been and continues to be undermined 
by ASCR’s faulty reporting and disparities in ASCR’s data. Even such 
basic information as the backlog of complaints is subject to wide 
variation in ASCR’s reports to the public and Congress. For example, 
ASCR’s public claim in July 2007 that it had successfully reduced a 
backlog of about 690 discrimination complaints in fiscal year 2004 and 
held its caseload to manageable levels drew a questionable portrait of 
progress. By July 2007, ASCR’s backlog had surged to 885 complaints and 
ASCR officials were in the midst of planning to hire attorneys to 
address that backlog. Also, some steps ASCR had taken to speed up its 
work may have sometimes been counterproductive and adversely affected 
the quality of its work. ASCR does not have a plan to correct these 
problems. 

USDA published three annual reports on minority farmers’ participation 
in farm programs, as required by law. However, USDA considers much of 
its data to be unreliable because they are based on employees’ visual 
observations about participants’ race and ethnicity that may not be 
correct. USDA states that it needs the Office of Management and 
Budget’s (OMB) approval to collect more reliable data. ASCR started to 
seek OMB’s approval in 2004 but, as of August 2008, had not followed 
through to obtain approval. 

ASCR’s strategic planning does not address key steps needed to ensure 
USDA provides fair and equitable services to all customers and upholds 
the civil rights of its employees. For example, strategic planning 
should be based to a large extent on the perspectives of stakeholders, 
but stakeholders’ views are not explicitly reflected in ASCR’s plan. 
Also, ASCR could better measure performance to gauge its progress. 
ASCR’s strategic plan also does not link funding with anticipated 
results or discuss the potential for using performance information for 
identifying USDA’s performance gaps. 

The experience of other agencies in addressing significant performance 
issues provides important insights and options that are relevant for 
addressing certain long-standing ASCR issues. First, Congress required 
executives at three federal agencies to be subject to statutory 
performance agreements. Such an agreement for ASCR could be used to 
achieve specific expectations by providing additional incentives and 
mandatory public reporting. Second, Congress has authorized oversight 
boards for a variety of purposes, including one for the Internal 
Revenue Service to oversee performance. A USDA civil rights oversight 
board could be authorized to oversee USDA’s activities to identify 
weaknesses that need to be addressed and to provide transparency. 
Third, an effective USDA ombudsman—one who is independent, impartial, 
fully capable of conducting meaningful investigations and who can 
maintain confidentiality—could assist in resolving civil rights 
concerns at USDA. USDA has some authority to establish an ombudsman but 
has not done so. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that USDA improve its efforts to resolve discrimination 
complaints, data reliability, strategic planning, and explore 
establishing an ombudsman. Also, Congress may wish to consider 
establishing a statutory performance agreement and an oversight board 
for ASCR. USDA agreed with most of GAO’s recommendations but raised 
concerns about the options GAO presented to Congress. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-62]. For more 
information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Problems Resolving Discrimination Complaints Persist: 

ASCR's Reports on Minority Participation in Programs Are Unreliable and 
of Limited Usefulness: 

ASCR's Strategic Planning Is Limited and Does Not Address Key Steps 
Needed to Achieve Its Mission: 

Lessons Learned at Other Organizations Suggest Options That May Benefit 
USDA's Civil Rights Performance: 

Conclusions: 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix III: ASCR Initiatives, and Strategic and Priority Plans: 

Appendix IV: Interests of Selected USDA Stakeholders in Civil Rights- 
Related Matters as Identified by GAO in 2007 and 2008: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2005 Customer Complaint Inventory as Reported by 
ASCR in June and July 2007: 

Table 2: ASCR Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2004: 

Table 3: ASCR Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010: 

Table 4: List of Civil Rights Priorities and Selected Initiatives for 
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Organization of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights: 

Abbreviations: 

ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution: 

ASCR: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: 

EEOC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

GS: general schedule: 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 

OGC: USDA Office of General Counsel: 

OIG: USDA Office of Inspector General: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 22, 2008: 

Congressional Requesters: 

For decades, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been the focus of 
federal inquiries into allegations of discrimination against minorities 
and women both in the programs it administers and in its workforce. 
Numerous reports and congressional testimony by officials of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, USDA, GAO, and others have described extensive concerns 
about discriminatory behavior in USDA's delivery of services to program 
customers--in particular, minority farmers--and its treatment of 
minority employees. Many of these reports and testimonies described 
serious weaknesses in USDA's management of its civil rights programs-- 
in particular, weaknesses in providing minorities with access to USDA 
programs and in resolving discrimination complaints. 

Notable among these many reports was the 1997 report of the Secretary 
of Agriculture's Civil Rights Action Team.[Footnote 1] The Secretary's 
team--composed of senior USDA officials--reported on USDA's customers' 
and employees' concerns about patterns of discrimination in USDA 
programs and operations, as well as minority farmers' concerns that 
USDA had played a part in the severe decline in minority farm 
ownership. Among other things, the report noted that USDA's civil 
rights program had been in a "persistent state of chaos" because of 
numerous changes since the 1980s and declared that USDA's process for 
resolving complaints about the delivery of program benefits and 
services was a "failure." The report made many recommendations to 
address USDA's organizational structure, management commitment, program 
delivery and outreach, and workforce diversity and employment 
practices. 

In addition, USDA has been and continues to be involved in large class- 
action civil rights lawsuits claiming discriminatory behavior on the 
part of USDA. In 1999, in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, a settlement 
agreement was reached between USDA, the Department of Justice and 
African-American farmers. In approving the consent decree settling the 
case, the court stated that for decades USDA had discriminated against 
African-American farmers by denying or delaying their applications for 
farm loan and other credit and benefit programs. Under the consent 
decree, as of April 7, 2008, more than 15,400 claims had been approved 
for payments and benefits totaling about $972 million, and almost 7,000 
claims had been denied. However, about 74,000 people requested 
permission from the court to file a claim after the filing deadline of 
October 12, 1999. Except for a relatively few extraordinary cases, the 
court denied the claims received after the filing deadline as not 
timely. In addition, USDA is currently defending itself against similar 
lawsuits brought by other customers--Native American, Hispanic, and 
women farmers--alleging discrimination in the delivery of farm programs 
and lending.[Footnote 2] 

A congressional hearing during 2002 focused on the need for USDA to 
ensure that, among other things, complaints of discrimination against 
USDA by customers and employees are resolved fairly and in a timely 
manner, farm programs are accessible to minority and socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and civil rights activities are 
conducted transparently so that public scrutiny is possible. That year, 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill) 
authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to create the new position of 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, elevating responsibility within 
USDA for carrying out USDA's civil rights efforts. Under the 2002 Farm 
Bill, the Secretary could delegate responsibility for ensuring that 
USDA complies with all civil rights-related laws and considers civil 
rights matters in all USDA strategic planning initiatives to the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. In 2003, the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was created with these and other 
delegated responsibilities, and these responsibilities are carried out 
through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR). 
In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill requires USDA to report annually on 
minority participation in USDA programs. 

In 2002, we reported that USDA's Office of Civil Rights continued to 
face significant problems in processing discrimination complaints in a 
timely manner.[Footnote 3] We reported that the office had made only 
modest progress in processing complaints from customers and employees 
because (1) it had not established time frames for resolving complaints 
and (2) it had not addressed its severe human capital problems. For 
example, the office had long-standing problems in hiring and retaining 
staff with the right mix of skills, and severe morale problems were 
exacerbating problems with staff productivity and retention. At that 
time, we recommended that USDA establish time frames for all stages of 
the complaint process and develop an action plan to address its staff 
turnover and morale problems. In commenting on our 2002 report, USDA 
stated that it had a long-term improvement plan that would address the 
human capital problems and agreed to formalize time frames for all 
phases of the process. 

As requested, this report examines ASCR's (1) progress in resolving 
discrimination complaints, (2) reporting on minority participation in 
USDA programs, and (3) strategic planning for ensuring USDA's services 
and benefits are provided fairly and equitably. The report also reviews 
the experiences of other federal agencies and identifies options for 
addressing USDA's long standing problems. Also, on May 14, 2008, we 
testified on these matters before the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Organization, and Procurement, Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives.[Footnote 4] Subsequently, 
on June 18, 2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), which contains various provisions that 
address USDA civil rights matters and minority farmers' participation 
in USDA's programs. 

This report is based on new information and previously issued reports. 
To assess ASCR's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints, we 
conducted interviews with officials of ASCR, USDA's Office of Inspector 
General (OIG), USDA's agency-level civil rights offices, and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission; examined USDA documents about 
efforts to resolve discrimination complaints; and analyzed data 
provided by ASCR. To evaluate USDA's reporting on minority 
participation in USDA's programs, we reviewed USDA reports and 
interviewed officials of USDA, community-based organizations, and 
minority groups. To analyze ASCR's strategic planning, we examined 
ASCR's strategic plan and other relevant planning documents, and 
interviewed USDA officials and representatives of community-based 
organizations and minority groups, among others. We also considered 
GAO's guidance and reporting on results-oriented management.[Footnote 
5] To assess the reliability of data provided by ASCR, we compared 
various sources of ASCR data and interviewed ASCR officials. We found 
ASCR data to be unreliable and made recommendations accordingly. To 
identify options for addressing USDA's long standing problems, we 
reviewed our experience in addressing the problems of high-risk, 
underperforming agencies,[Footnote 6] as well as our reporting on 
results-oriented management. We conducted this performance audit from 
December 2006 through September 2008 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. While our efforts were impeded by delays in 
gaining access to documents, we believe the evidence obtained provides 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. Additional details on our scope, methodology, and access to 
USDA records is included in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

ASCR's difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist-- 
ASCR has not achieved its goal of preventing future backlogs of 
discrimination complaints. At a basic level, the credibility of USDA's 
efforts to correct long-standing problems in resolving discrimination 
complaints has been and continues to be undermined by faulty reporting 
of data on discrimination complaints and disparities we found when 
comparing various ASCR sources of data. Even such basic information as 
the number of discrimination complaints is subject to wide variation in 
ASCR's reports to the public and Congress. For example, fiscal year 
2005 data that ASCR reported to the public and to a congressional 
subcommittee varied by hundreds of complaint cases, and data provided 
to us on its complaint cases varied from one report to another. 
Moreover, ASCR's public claim in July 2007 that it had successfully 
reduced a backlog of about 690 discrimination complaints in fiscal year 
2004 and held its caseload to manageable levels drew a questionable 
portrait of progress. By July 2007, ASCR had another backlog on hand, 
and this time the backlog had surged to an even higher level of 885 
complaints. In fact, before ASCR made its report to the public in 2007, 
ASCR officials were planning to hire additional attorneys to address 
the backlog of complaints, including some complaints that ASCR was 
holding dating from the early 2000s that it had not resolved. 
Altogether, these conditions could undermine public confidence in 
USDA's upholding of civil rights. In addition, some steps that ASCR had 
taken to speed up its investigations and decisions on complaints may 
have sometimes been counterproductive and adversely affected the 
quality of its work. For example, an ASCR official stated that some 
employees' complaints had been addressed without resolving basic 
questions of fact, raising concerns about the integrity of the 
practice. ASCR does not have a plan to correct the problems we 
identified. 

Much of the data that USDA reported to Congress and the public on the 
participation of minority farmers in USDA programs are unreliable, 
according to USDA. USDA has published three annual reports on the 
participation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in USDA 
programs for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. However, much of the 
data are unreliable, according to the statements in USDA's reports, 
because USDA's data on racial identity and gender are, for the most 
part, based on visual observation of program applicants. Data gathered 
in this manner are considered unreliable because individual traits such 
as race and ethnicity may not be readily apparent to an observer, 
especially ethnicity. To address this inherent shortcoming, according 
to USDA's report, the agency needs to collect standardized data 
directly from program participants, which requires the approval of the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ASCR began to 
seek OMB's approval to collect these data in 2004 but did not follow 
through and has not obtained final approval. In addition, we found the 
data in ASCR's reports to be of limited usefulness because, for 
example, ASCR did not include basic reference data, such as the numbers 
of farmers in each county. Moreover, the data do not facilitate 
analysis because they are published in about 1,370 separate tables and 
146 maps in a format that is not searchable. If the data were 
searchable, it could facilitate comparison of minority participation by 
program, location, and year. 

ASCR's strategic planning is limited and does not address key steps 
needed to achieve its mission. While ASCR has articulated a compelling 
strategic goal--to ensure USDA provides fair and equitable services to 
all customers and upholds the civil rights of its employees--its 
implementation will require further development. For example, strategic 
planning is based to a large extent on the perspectives of 
stakeholders. However, ASCR's plans do not reflect ASCR's stakeholders' 
interests, which include such things as having USDA improve the 
delivery of farm programs to facilitate access by underserved 
producers. While ASCR's stakeholders are interested in assuring the 
diversity of USDA field office staff to facilitate their interaction 
with minority and underserved farmers, ASCR's strategic planning does 
not address the diversity of USDA's field staff. In addition, ASCR 
could better measure performance to gauge progress and it has not yet 
started to use performance information for identifying USDA performance 
gaps. For example, ASCR measures USDA efforts to ensure USDA customers 
have equal and timely access to programs by reporting on the numbers of 
participants at USDA workshops rather than measuring the results of its 
outreach efforts on access to benefits and services. ASCR's plans do 
not link funding with anticipated results or discuss the potential for 
using performance information for identifying USDA's performance gaps. 
Moreover, ASCR's plans do not identify the most critical USDA agency 
functions that relate to ASCR's strategic goals. 

The experience of other federal agencies provides important insights 
and options that are relevant to addressing long-standing ASCR issues. 
Based on prior experience in improving federal agencies' performance, 
we identified three options that are relevant for consideration. The 
first two would require action by Congress, whereas the third could 
benefit from USDA's attention, although effective implementation may 
also require congressional action. 

* Option one: Congress could require USDA's Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights to be subject to a statutory performance agreement. 
Congress has previously required certain executives of the Departments 
of Education and Homeland Security and the U.S. Patent Office to be 
subject to statutory performance agreements. For example, the executive 
performance agreement required of the Chief Operating Officer of the 
Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid was a feature 
that Congress required and that assisted in turning around that 
organization's poor performance. The expectations in the Chief 
Operating Officer's performance agreement with the Secretary of 
Education are made public as is the annual progress toward those 
expectations. In 2005, we removed the Office of Federal Student Aid 
from our high-risk list and reported that this office had made 
sustained performance improvements--it had succeeded in achieving 
unqualified financial opinions on its financial statements over 3 
fiscal years, made progress toward integrating its information systems, 
reduced the rate of loan defaults, and addressed its human capital 
challenges. Such an agreement for ASCR could assist in achieving 
specific expectations by providing additional incentives and mandatory 
public reporting. 

* Option two: Congress could authorize an oversight board for USDA 
civil rights activities. Oversight boards have been used for a wide 
variety of purposes by the federal government, including oversight of 
public accounting, intelligence matters, civil liberties, and drug 
safety. For example, in 1998, Congress established an oversight board 
for the Internal Revenue Service to oversee the agency's performance. 
The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board operates much like a 
corporate board of directors, tailored to fit the public sector. The 
board provides independent oversight of IRS administration, management, 
conduct, and the direction and supervision of the internal revenue 
code. At USDA, a civil rights oversight board could be authorized to 
oversee USDA's civil rights activities, to identify weaknesses that 
need to be addressed, and to provide transparency. 

* Option three: The Secretary could explore establishing an ombudsman 
office to address customer and employee concerns about civil rights, 
including determining whether legislation is a prerequisite for an 
ombudsman to be effective at USDA. Many agencies have already created 
ombudsman offices for addressing employees' concerns as authorized by 
the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, although USDA is not among 
them. Ombudsmen can provide an alternative means of resolving 
employees' disputes, and can also handle a wide range of concerns-- 
including, for example, citizens' concerns about access to programs, 
systemic management problems, policy shortcomings, and workplace 
issues. Ombudsmen who handle concerns and inquiries from the public-- 
external ombudsmen--help agencies be more responsive to the public 
through impartial and independent investigation of citizens' 
complaints, including from people who believe their concerns have not 
been dealt with fairly and fully through normal channels. ASCR staff 
developed a preliminary background discussion paper about the 
feasibility of an ombudsman function at USDA but stated that more 
development of the concept would be needed to design an effective USDA 
ombudsman function. It also noted that for an ombudsman office to be 
minimally effective, its legitimacy and authority must be inherent, 
clear, and unequivocal. An ombudsman who is independent, impartial, 
fully capable of conducting meaningful investigations and who maintains 
confidentiality could assist in resolving civil rights concerns at 
USDA. 

To provide for fundamental improvements in the performance of USDA's 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, we suggest that 
Congress consider (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights subject to a statutory performance agreement and (2) 
establishing an agriculture civil rights oversight board. We are also 
making recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture aimed at 
improving USDA's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints, 
including the time frames USDA requires for resolving complaints; the 
accuracy, completeness and reliability of ASCR's discrimination 
complaint databases; and the investigation of and decision making on 
civil right complaints. We are also recommending that the Secretary 
improve the collection of accurate data on race and ethnicity for 
reporting on minority farmers' participation in USDA programs, improve 
USDA's civil rights strategic planning, and give further consideration 
to establishing a USDA civil rights ombudsman office. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Secretary of Agriculture 
stated that USDA acknowledges many of the problems identified in the 
report, but also said that the report does not duly recognize USDA's 
significant progress. We believe the report does recognize USDA's 
actions, plans, and progress; and it places them in context considering 
USDA's performance shortcomings. Concerning our recommendations, USDA 
generally agreed with 5 of our 6 recommendations, including those to 
prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving discrimination 
complaints; to improve the quality of ASCR's databases on customer and 
employee complaints; to work to obtain approval to collect the data 
necessary for reliable reporting on race and ethnicity; to develop 
results oriented, departmental level civil rights strategic plan; as 
well as to explore the establishment of an ombudsman office. However, 
USDA disagreed with our recommendation to obtain an expert, 
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and 
adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions on civil rights 
complaints. Given the substantial evidence of civil rights case delays 
and questions raised in the report about the integrity of the USDA's 
civil rights casework, we believe that this recommendation remains 
valid and necessary to restore confidence in USDA's civil rights 
decisions. We also clarified this recommendation to state that this 
examination should include a sample of prior investigations and 
decisions. 

The Secretary also disagreed with our two options for congressional 
consideration. Concerning the establishment of a statutorily-mandated 
performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary, the Secretary 
stated, in part, that this additional statutory change would usurp the 
Secretary's authority. We disagree. The specific terms of a statutory 
performance agreement would be developed by the Secretary for the 
Assistant Secretary's activities and, as such, it would not limit the 
authority of the Secretary to take or direct action. Concerning the 
establishment of a USDA civil rights oversight board, the Secretary 
stated that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and delay progress. 
While we understand such concerns, a well-operated oversight board can 
be the source of timely and wise counsel to help raise USDA's civil 
rights performance. Taken together, these options would provide a level 
of transparency that has been lacking in USDA civil rights matters-- 
transparency that provides compelling evidence to help direct 
improvement efforts and better demonstrate USDA's accomplishments. 

USDA's written comments appear in appendix II. 

Background: 

USDA is responsible for ensuring compliance with all relevant statutes, 
regulations, and policies that prohibit discrimination in its programs 
and its workplace. USDA's responsibilities extend to the programs that 
it delivers directly to customers through local offices throughout the 
country, such as the farm loan programs, as well as to programs that 
USDA and the states administer jointly, such as the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. 
USDA's workplace civil rights responsibilities cover about 100,000 
employees at headquarters and at USDA offices around the country. 

USDA's ASCR was created in 2003. For fiscal year 2007, ASCR had 129 
staff and an annual budget of about $24 million. ASCR is composed of 
multiple offices, some of which were in existence within USDA prior to 
the creation of ASCR. 

Figure 1: Organization of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights: 

This figure is a diagram of the organization of USDA's office of the 
assistant secretary for civil rights. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: USDA. 

[End of figure] 

ASCR's Office of Adjudication and Compliance (formerly the Office of 
Civil Rights) is to resolve customers' and employees' complaints of 
discrimination and to conduct civil rights compliance reviews of USDA's 
agencies. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center is to provide 
guidance to USDA agencies on using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 
methods to resolve conflicts. The Office of Outreach and Diversity is 
to develop ASCR's diversity initiatives, and it oversees the 1890 and 
1994 Programs. The 1890 Program offers educational scholarships to 
people seeking degrees at one of the 18 historically black land-grant 
institutions and requires 1 year of USDA service for each year of 
financial support. Similarly, through the 1994 Program, ASCR is to set 
up a comparable program with the 33 tribal colleges and universities 
designated as 1994 land-grant institutions. Within ASCR's Office of 
Outreach and Diversity, the Office of Outreach is to provide 
coordination for USDA agencies on outreach efforts and produce a 
required annual report on the rates at which minorities participate in 
USDA programs. 

The first USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights--Vernon Parker--was 
sworn in on April 1, 2003, and served until resigning in January 2006. 
At the outset of his tenure, over a 4-month period, ASCR staff 
developed 13 initiatives to guide ASCR's actions through fiscal year 
2004 and beyond. These initiatives (see appendix III) were intended to 
address the most immediate problems occurring at the time and 
concentrated on eliminating backlogs of unresolved discrimination 
complaints and taking certain steps to reduce complaints in the future. 
Most notably, ASCR established annual "partners meetings" to create, 
for the first time, a substantive and ongoing dialogue between USDA and 
representatives of community-based organizations as a basis for 
improving the delivery of USDA benefits and services. The second and 
current Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Ms. Margo McKay, was 
sworn in on August 21, 2006. Assistant Secretary McKay's priorities and 
initiatives are also included in appendix III. These initiatives 
include, among other things, a diversity forum to promote a diverse and 
inclusive workforce within USDA. 

Problems Resolving Discrimination Complaints Persist: 

The credibility of USDA's efforts to correct long-standing problems in 
resolving discrimination complaints has been and continues to be 
undermined by faulty reporting of data on discrimination complaints and 
disparities we found when comparing various ASCR sources of 
data.[Footnote 7] For example, fiscal year 2005 data that ASCR reported 
to the public and to a congressional subcommittee varied by hundreds of 
complaint cases, and data reported to GAO on its complaint cases varied 
from one report to another. In addition, some steps that ASCR had taken 
to speed up its investigations and decisions on complaints may have 
sometimes been counter productive and adversely affected the quality of 
its work. These ongoing problems are a continuation of the inadequate 
conditions that we and USDA's OIG have reported for over a decade. In 
June 2008, Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, which, among other 
things, states that it is the sense of Congress that all pending claims 
and class actions brought against USDA by socially disadvantaged 
farmers and ranchers should be resolved in an expeditious and just 
manner. 

ASCR Reporting on Backlogs of Discrimination Complaints Has Been Faulty 
and Contains Disparities: 

When ASCR was created in 2003, there was an existing backlog of 
complaints. In recognition of this problem, USDA's Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights made discrimination complaint inventory reduction 
ASCR's highest priority initiative. This initiative called for ASCR's 
senior managers and employees to make a concerted 12-month, $1.5 
million effort to reduce the backlog of complaints they had inherited. 
Moreover, according to a briefing book ASCR prepared for the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, this complaint 
inventory reduction initiative was to put lasting improvements in place 
to prevent future complaint backlogs. It also stated that USDA's Office 
of Civil Rights would focus substantial resources on fair, equitable, 
and legally supportable resolution of cases. 

In July 2007, ASCR released a public report stating that its fiscal 
year 2004 backlog reduction initiative was a success.[Footnote 8] The 
report stated that the backlog of 690 complaints had been resolved and 
that ASCR had held the complaint inventory to manageable levels through 
fiscal year 2005. However, the data ASCR reported lack credibility 
because a month earlier the office had reported different data to a 
congressional subcommittee (see table 1). Specifically, according to 
the June report, the numbers of complaints at the beginning of fiscal 
year 2005 was 552; according to the July report, the number was 363. 
Moreover, the June report cited the number of complaints at the end of 
fiscal year 2005 as 1,275, and the July report said it was 404. The 
lower numbers reported to the public were not qualified and provided a 
more favorable impression than the data reported to the subcommittee. 
However, the Assistant Secretary's letter transmitting the data to the 
subcommittee contained a footnote qualification stating that USDA's 
statistics on customers' complaints were the best available, although 
they were incomplete and unreliable. Before that letter was sent, 
ASCR's former Director of USDA's Office of Adjudication and 
Compliance[Footnote 9] (former Office of Civil Rights), who had 
responsibility for the data, cautioned the Assistant Secretary about 
the poor data quality and stated that, if questioned, USDA would not be 
able to explain its data. 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2005 Customer Complaint Inventory as Reported by 
ASCR in June and July 2007: 

Number of complaints: At the beginning of FY 2005; 
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: 552; 
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 363. 

Number of complaints: At the end of FY 2005; 
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: 1,275; 
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 404. 

Number of complaints: Resolved during FY 2005; 
Report to congressional subcommittee, June 2007[A]: N/A[C]; 
USDA's 1,000 Days Report, July 2007[B]: 120. 

Source: USDA documents. 

[A] Letter of Margo M. McKay, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
USDA, to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Organization, and Procurement, House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, June 29, 2007. 

[B] USDA, First 1,000 Days, 2003-2006 (Washington, D.C.: July 2007). 

[C] As reported by USDA, without explanation. 

[End of table] 

Moreover, ASCR's July 2007 report claiming success in addressing the 
backlog of 690 complaints is questionable because at least 2 months 
earlier, officials of ASCR and USDA's Office of General Counsel (USDA 
OGC) had started discussing a plan of "triage" to address a backlog of 
complaints that had recurred by hiring additional attorneys to draft 
final decisions on those cases. ASCR had identified a backlog of 885 
customer and employee discrimination complaints, according to ASCR 
data. Furthermore, while claiming success, ASCR was holding old 
complaints from customers that it had not resolved. ASCR data show, for 
example, that 46 complaints dating from 2002 and earlier remained open 
at least until August 2007.[Footnote 10] Based on our interviews, we 
attribute the growth of the latest backlogs to the lack of adequate 
management controls and vigilance. To address the backlog of customers' 
complaints, in August 2007 USDA contracted for six attorneys to draft 
final agency decisions, expecting that this effort would be completed 
by the end of 2007. To address the backlog of employees' complaints, 
USDA anticipated using these attorneys to prepare USDA's case decisions 
and to contract with the Postal Service to address USDA employees' 
complaints as well, expecting that these cases would be completed by 
the end of fiscal year 2008. 

In addition to its reporting to Congress and the public, we identified 
other disparities in the data reported by ASCR on its inventories of 
customer complaints. For example, for fiscal year 2006, data we were 
given showed 290 complaints were resolved--less than 30 percent of the 
991 shown by an internal briefing document. Significant disparities 
were also evident in earlier fiscal years and on individual cases. ASCR 
officials and staff recognize that the data they use are unreliable. 
They provided us with examples of known data inaccuracies, including 
(1) data that are being transferred into the new ASCR database, which 
is intended to address the existing data management problems, and (2) 
data that USDA reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
on employees' complaints. Other ASCR officials and staff told us that 
erroneous data had been migrated to the new database, and start-up 
problems with the new system have further contributed to data 
inaccuracies. Furthermore, ASCR staff reported that occasionally 
customers' case files cannot be readily found, that files were missing 
documents, and that sometimes the files incorrectly contained documents 
that actually pertain to other cases. Nevertheless, while 
correspondence from the former Director of USDA's Office of 
Adjudication and Compliance to USDA OIG said that only verified data 
were entered into the new system to prevent "garbage in, garbage out," 
USDA OIG reported that ASCR had not implemented a process to validate 
the accuracy of its data and did not have sufficient controls over the 
entry and validation of data into its new system. 

Delays in Resolving Complaints Adversely Affect Complainants: 

USDA has not processed certain cases in a timely manner even though it 
has been aware that a 2-year time limit may apply. In such cases, when 
USDA's processing extends beyond 2 years, USDA may be prevented from 
compensating a farmer who has been subject to discrimination. More 
specifically, following a January 29, 1998, legal memorandum from the 
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, USDA will not award 
administrative settlements for Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims once 
the 2-year statute of limitations for filing such a claim in federal 
court has passed, unless the farmer has filed a timely complaint in 
federal court.[Footnote 11] We are aware of one such case in which 
USDA's final decision found discrimination in 2005 and stated that the 
farmer's 1997 farm loan debt would be forgiven. However, a USDA 
official informed us that this action has not yet occurred because the 
farmer had not filed a timely complaint in federal court, and USDA 
decided the case after the 2-year period for filing in federal court 
had expired. In addition, ASCR appears to be holding additional cases 
that may be similarly affected. An ASCR document identified 92 cases 
that were being held in abeyance--that is, ASCR had set these cases 
aside from receiving a final decision on the merits because the 
complainant is, or could be, a member of a class action lawsuit. 

We also identified one active discrimination complaint filed in 1990, 
18 years ago. This complaint involves American Indians of the Fort 
Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, some of whom have died awaiting a 
final decision.[Footnote 12] USDA investigated this case of alleged 
discrimination in farm lending in 1999. In June 2008, a USDA 
administrative law judge issued a proposed determination finding that 
the 1990 complaint was filed in a timely manner, that discrimination 
against the lead complainant's family had occurred, and stated that 
USDA did not produce any evidence to refute the complainant's charges 
of discrimination other than documents from which a negative inference 
is necessarily drawn against the agency. The administrative law judge 
subsequently awarded the lead complainant $5.2 million as compensation 
for the effects of discrimination suffered by the complainant's family. 
However, on June 12, 2008, the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights 
issued a ruling stating her intention to review the ruling of the 
administrative law judge. Subsequently, USDA also required each of the 
complainants to explain their complaints in detail and show that they 
are entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge, or their 
claim would be closed "due to failure to pursue." 

Steps ASCR Took to Address Unresolved Complaints May Have Affected 
Quality: 

We found that as ASCR accelerated the pace of its work to reduce its 
backlogs of discrimination complaints in 2004, it took some steps that 
may have sometimes been counter productive and adversely affected the 
quality of its work. ASCR's plan to accelerate its work did not address 
how the quality of its work would be maintained. ASCR's plan called for 
USDA's investigators and adjudicators, who prepare agency decisions, to 
nearly double their normal pace of casework for about 12 months. One 
technique that ASCR adopted was to have its investigators conduct 
interviews by phone and interrogatories by e-mail whenever possible. 
Civil rights investigative standards indicate that interviews by 
telephone are acceptable under certain circumstances, such as when 
there is good reason to conclude that the complainant is the only 
person affected by the allegations of discrimination.[Footnote 13] ASCR 
employees told us it is now usual for ASCR investigations to be 
conducted by phone. 

ASCR's former Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, 
commented in writing on two other aspects of the quality of USDA's work 
on employees' complaints in fiscal year 2004. The former Director 
stated that contractors' work in preparing draft decisions was "fair to 
average" and required much revision. In addition, the former Director 
related that USDA issued many "summary" decisions on employees' 
complaints that did not resolve questions of fact, leading to the 
appeal of many USDA decisions to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission. The former Director expressed concern that such summary 
decisions by USDA "could call into question the integrity of the 
process because important issues were being overlooked." 

Finally, as in the past, inadequate working relationships and 
communications within ASCR complicated its efforts to produce quality 
work products and adversely affected employees. According to ASCR 
documents and our interviews, instability in ASCR's civil rights 
offices resulting from reorganizations, management and staff turnover, 
low morale, and concerns about the treatment of staff in ASCR's civil 
rights offices have been a serious obstacle to improving the management 
of these programs. Over the past 5 years, many complaints of 
discrimination have been filed against ASCR program managers and 
officials. In addition, some staff have feared retaliation for 
reporting program and management-related problems or for raising 
questions about management actions. 

In August 2008, ASCR officials stated that they are developing standard 
operating procedures for ASCR's Office of Adjudication and Compliance. 
For example, according to ASCR officials, these procedures outline 
processes for handling incoming mail, reviewing and distributing 
reports of investigation, and handling hearing requests, among others. 
In addition, ASCR officials stated that they have attempted to address 
employee concerns by holding "town hall" meetings, team-building 
efforts, training on communication and conflict management, revival of 
the telework program, and establishment of a "worklife" coordinator. 
While these are positive steps, they do not directly respond to whether 
USDA is adequately investigating complaints, developing complaint 
decisions, and addressing the problems that gave rise to complaints of 
discrimination within ASCR. 

USDA OIG and GAO Have Long Reported on Problems in Resolving 
Discrimination Complaints: 

USDA's stated policy is to fairly and efficiently respond to 
discrimination complaints, but over the past years it has not done so. 
USDA's OIG and GAO have together invested heavily in reporting on and 
developing recommendations to overcome USDA's untimely handling of 
discrimination complaints. In 1999, for example, when we reported that 
USDA had exceeded four target dates for closing backlogs of customers' 
complaints and three target dates for employees' complaints, we made 
recommendations to address USDA's continual management turnover in 
civil rights offices, frequent reorganizations, inadequate staff and 
managerial expertise, and poor working relationships and communication 
within the Office of Civil Rights.[Footnote 14] USDA management agreed 
with these reports and committed to implement our recommendations. 

In 2002, USDA officials again committed to setting and meeting time 
frames for processing discrimination complaints. In 2003, we identified 
the processing of discrimination complaints as a significant management 
challenge for USDA.[Footnote 15] 

However, by 2007, USDA's OIG stated that it was making its seventh 
attempt to provide USDA's Office of Civil Rights with constructive ways 
to overcome its case processing inefficiencies.[Footnote 16] The OIG 
also stated that officials of the Office of Civil Rights had agreed to 
a major transformation of the system for processing complaints, but, in 
fact, the office did not make any significant changes. The OIG stated 
that unless the Office of Civil Rights provided effective leadership, 
changed the organizational culture, and addressed its customer focus 
and process engineering, it would be questionable whether further 
complaints of discrimination would receive due care. 

In addition, in 2007, USDA's OIG reported that material weaknesses 
persisted in ASCR's civil rights control structure and environment for 
processing employees' discrimination complaints. ASCR's former 
Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, responded that there 
were several causes for these conditions: the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission standards were unrealistic; there was a 
substantial backlog of cases; there had been an influx of new cases; 
staffing and resource shortages; and individual USDA agencies were not 
meeting their responsibilities. ASCR's former Director also claimed 
that these weaknesses in resolving employees' discrimination complaints 
would be addressed in the next 5 years. However, the OIG observed that 
ASCR did not have an effective plan to get this done. 

In August 2007, USDA's OIG designated civil rights as a major 
management challenge at USDA, and reiterated that challenge in 
2008.[Footnote 17] The OIG commented that because of the conditions it 
had found, public confidence in USDA's upholding of civil rights might 
be lost. 

Congress Has Taken Several Recent Actions to Address the Discrimination 
Complaints Made against USDA: 

In June 2008, Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, which contains three 
provisions related to the discrimination complaints filed against 
USDA.[Footnote 18] First, the Farm Bill states that it is the sense of 
Congress that all pending claims and class actions brought against USDA 
by socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers should be resolved in an 
expeditious and just manner. Second, the Farm Bill provides that any 
claimants in the Pigford case who previously submitted a late filing 
request under the original consent decree and have not received a 
determination on the merits of their claims may now obtain such a 
determination. Prevailing claimants may receive payments and debt 
relief, with up to a total of $100 million available for all prevailing 
claimants. Third, the Farm Bill requires USDA to report annually on, 
among other things, the number of customer and employee discrimination 
complaints filed against each USDA agency, and the length of time the 
agency took to process each complaint. 

ASCR's Reports on Minority Participation in Programs Are Unreliable and 
of Limited Usefulness: 

ASCR has published three annual reports on the participation rate of 
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in USDA programs, which are 
required by section 10708 of the 2002 Farm Bill.[Footnote 19] Over 
time, these reports could help make more transparent the progress made 
by socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in accessing USDA 
programs. However, as USDA discloses in these reports, the data USDA 
has reported are statistically unreliable. In addition, our analysis of 
the USDA reports shows that they do not include basic reference data 
needed for understanding the reports and examining trends. 

The reports provide statistical data on the participation of farmers 
and ranchers in USDA programs by race, ethnicity, and gender, and in 
addition, USDA has included descriptions of its success stories in 
providing outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers. USDA has stated that, through these reports, it intends to 
make clear that it is committed to and accountable for fair and 
equitable service to all customers. However, much of the statistical 
data USDA reports on program participation are unreliable. USDA stated 
that it does not have a uniform method of reporting and tabulating race 
and ethnicity data among its component agencies. More specifically, 
according to USDA, it does not have approval from OMB to implement 
standardized data collection of demographic information directly from 
program participants. For example, according to USDA, the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; the Rural Business 
and Cooperative Service; and the Risk Management Agency are not 
authorized to collect race and ethnicity data for 18 programs. USDA 
reported that only the Farm Service Agency's farm loan program collects 
reliable and complete information on socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers. Except for the data of the Farm Service Agency, most of 
USDA's demographic data are gathered by visual observation of the 
applicants, and USDA states in its reports that it considers visual 
observation to be unreliable, especially for ethnicity. Individual 
traits, such as ethnicity, may not be readily evident to an observer. 
In addition, for some Farm Service Agency programs, applicants who 
chose not to identify their race were, until 2004, designated as "white 
male." When taken together, according to USDA, the mixture of data 
available for reporting is statistically unreliable. 

In 2004, to overcome these conditions, ASCR published a notice in the 
Federal Register seeking public comment on its plan to collect 
additional data on race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, and age. 
While ASCR received some public comments, it did not follow through and 
obtain OMB's approval to collect the data. In a January 2008 briefing 
document, an ASCR work group stated that ASCR does not have the staff 
or financial resources to proceed with this project. ASCR officials 
said, after meeting with GAO in May 2008, they convened an interagency 
work group to develop a revised notice to be published in the Federal 
Register. As of August 2008, the draft notice is under review within 
USDA, according to ASCR officials. 

In addition, our analysis of these USDA reports shows that they are of 
limited usefulness because they do not include the basic reference data 
needed for understanding the reports and examining trends. USDA has 
published its demographic data as the percentage of program 
participants by county and state. While observers can track the 
percentage changes in program participation over time, the data are of 
limited usefulness without knowing the actual number of program 
participants and the census data for each county and state. In 
addition, if the issues regarding ethnicity and race were resolved, and 
data were in a searchable format, it could then be possible to compare 
minority participation by program, geographic location, and year. 

The 2008 Farm Bill Contains Several Important Provisions Related to 
Reporting on Minority Farmers' Participation in USDA Programs: 

First, the Farm Bill requires USDA to annually compile program 
application and participation rate data regarding socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers for each program serving those 
farmers. The reports prepared using the technologies and systems of 
USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service are to include the raw 
numbers and participation rates for the entire United States and for 
each state and county. Second, the bill requires the Secretary to 
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the Census of 
Agriculture and studies carried out by the Economic Research Service 
are to accurately document the number, location, and economic 
contributions of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in 
agricultural production. While the Farm Bill changes require reporting 
actual data for states and counties, these provisions do not address 
the underlying data reliability issues discussed earlier, and the 
potential for USDA to take steps to facilitate data analysis by users. 

ASCR's Strategic Planning Is Limited and Does Not Address Key Steps 
Needed to Achieve Its Mission: 

In light of USDA's civil rights history involving controversial issues-
--including allegations of systemic discrimination against USDA 
customers carried out through the design and delivery of USDA programs 
as well as discriminatory treatment of USDA employees--strategic 
planning is vital for providing proactive ASCR leadership. Results- 
oriented strategic planning provides a road map that clearly describes 
what an organization is attempting to achieve, and over time, it can 
serve as a focal point for communication with Congress and the public 
about what has been accomplished.[Footnote 20] Results-oriented 
organizations follow three key steps in their strategic planning: (1) 
they define a clear mission and desired outcomes, (2) they measure 
performance to gauge progress, and (3) they use performance information 
for identifying performance gaps and making program improvements. ASCR 
has started to develop a results-oriented approach as illustrated in 
its first strategic plan, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: 
Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2005-2010, and its ASCR Priorities for 
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. The elements of these plans are summarized 
in appendix III. However, ASCR's plans do not include fundamental 
elements that are required for effective strategic planning. 

ASCR Has Designed Its Mission and Strategic Goal: 

We found that ASCR has made progress by describing compelling missions 
and a strategic goal but has not explicitly described the viewpoints 
and interests of its stakeholders, assessed the environment, and 
aligned its activities, core processes, and resources to achieve its 
strategic goal. 

* One of ASCR's missions is to ensure that USDA is in compliance with 
civil rights laws and regulations. This mission calls for ASCR to 
process employees' discrimination complaints, as required by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, and to review USDA agencies' 
implementation of civil rights laws and regulations. 

* ASCR's second mission is to provide leadership to promote equal 
opportunity, equal access, and fair treatment for all USDA employees 
and customers. 

ASCR's strategic goal is to ensure that USDA provides fair and 
equitable services to all customers and upholds the civil rights of its 
employees. This two-part strategic goal was the basis for the 
development of ASCR's strategic plan. 

Results-oriented organizations take several steps to effectively 
implement their mission and achieve their desired outcomes. They (1) 
involve stakeholders, (2) assess the environment, and (3) align 
activities, core processes, and resources. However, we found that 
ASCR's planning has several shortcomings. First, results-oriented 
organizations base their strategic planning, to a large extent, on the 
interests and expectations of their stakeholders. While ASCR's 
strategic plan states that ASCR relied on input from a variety of 
internal and external customers in developing its strategic plan, the 
plan does not identify who provided input or contain a discussion of 
their interests and perspectives. ASCR refers to its external 
stakeholders as "partners"--which includes representatives of community-
based organizations and minority interest groups. ASCR's external 
stakeholders said they have a high degree of interest in ASCR's 
planning and have attended ASCR's annual Partners Meetings, where they 
discussed their wide-ranging interests in ASCR's mission. However, the 
interests of ASCR's partners are not explicitly reflected in ASCR's 
strategic plan. We developed a summary of the partners' interests based 
on interviews with the representatives of a selection of USDA's 
partners' groups, and we also considered issues identified in past 
studies of USDA. The interests were often mentioned in our 20 
interviews with USDA stakeholder groups and in past studies of USDA 
civil rights issues. For example, ASCR's partners are interested in 
improvements in (1) USDA's methods of delivering farm programs to 
facilitate access by underserved producers; (2) the county committee 
system, so that they are better represented in local decisions; and (3) 
the diversity of USDA employees who work with minority producers. A 
list of these interests is included in appendix IV. 

In response, ASCR's Director of Outreach stated that some of ASCR's 
fiscal year 2008 priorities for outreach respond to particular 
interests of ASCR's partners. The Director referred, for example, to 
ASCR's initiatives to coordinate and report on USDA-wide outreach 
activities, to help assure that USDA agencies have formal outreach 
programs with full-time staff, to train outreach coordinators, and to 
improve ASCR's annual reporting on minority participation in USDA 
programs. 

Second, by building an environmental assessment into the strategic 
planning process, results-oriented organizations identify external and 
internal factors that can influence the achievement of their long-term 
goals. For example, some information about the civil rights environment 
as it affects farmers is described in a study of the Mississippi Delta 
area by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and in a report on minority 
and women farmers by USDA's Economic Research Service.[Footnote 21] 
These reports describe, among other things, regional characteristics 
and conditions that have adversely impacted minority farmers, such as 
limited representation on local county committees, poor relationships 
between farmers and USDA's county office staff, and the importance of 
extension services for minority farmers. ASCR's report does not discuss 
the development or use of such information. An assessment of the 
external environment is especially important because, according to 
ASCR, its Office of Outreach is to provide national leadership and 
coordination for USDA programs and services to ensure equal and timely 
access for all of USDA's constituents, especially the underserved. As 
for the internal environment, ASCR recognizes the efforts of various 
USDA agencies and offices that perform critical functions necessary for 
full implementation of ASCR's strategic goal; however, other facets 
such as their culture, management practices, and business processes are 
not recognized. Getting a good understanding of these facets of USDA 
operations could help contribute to determining what ASCR may need to 
accomplish and how ASCR could best work with other USDA agencies and 
offices. ASCR's Director of Outreach reported that her office is making 
some progress in developing relationships with USDA's agencies in their 
efforts to improve outreach to minority farmers. 

Third, results-oriented organizations align their activities, core 
processes, and resources to support their mission and desired outcomes. 
Such organizations start by assessing the extent to which their 
programs and activities contribute to meeting their mission and make 
linkages between levels of funding and their anticipated results. ASCR 
used an organizational framework for developing its plan, according to 
an ASCR official, and developed objectives for each of ASCR's existing 
offices. However, these plans do not reflect consideration of the 
extent to which each of its office's activities is to contribute to 
ASCR's missions. For example, one ASCR strategic objective is to 
strengthen partnerships with historically black land-grant universities 
through scholarships provided by USDA, but it is not clear how 
scholarships bear significantly on ASCR's strategic mission. Moreover, 
the strategic plan does not make linkages between levels of funding and 
ASCR's anticipated results--without such a discussion, it is not 
possible to determine whether ASCR has the resources needed to achieve 
its strategic goal. 

ASCR Could Better Measure Performance to Gauge Progress: 

Results-oriented organizations establish performance measures that 
demonstrate results, are limited to the vital few performance measures, 
respond to multiple priorities, and link to responsible programs. In 
addition, they pay special attention to issues relating to data 
collection and balance the cost of collecting data against the need for 
collecting data that are complete, accurate, and consistent enough to 
document performance and support decision making at various 
organizational levels. In this area, ASCR's plans leave room for many 
forward steps. 

* While ASCR's Office of Outreach has responsibility for providing 
national leadership and coordination for programs and services across 
USDA agencies to ensure customers have equal and timely access, the 
performance measures it adopted focus on counting participants at USDA 
training workshops, rather than on the outcome of its outreach efforts 
on access to benefits and services. 

* ASCR's plan does not link to the plans of USDA agencies or the 
department as a whole and does not discuss the potential for linkages 
to be developed. 

* To measure progress that USDA agencies make in compliance with 
relevant USDA government regulations and laws, ASCR stated it will use 
a percentage of agencies in compliance but had not established the 
baseline and targets. 

ASCR's plans also have an important gap in the area of performance 
measurement, especially in an era of limited resources.[Footnote 22] 
They do not discuss the kinds of data that USDA agencies collect or 
analyze that would demonstrate progress toward ASCR's strategic goal. 
To leverage resources, potential sources of data may be USDA's National 
Agricultural Statistics Service, which conducts the census of 
agriculture, and the Economic Research Service, which analyzes and 
reports on trends in agriculture, including social changes. 

ASCR's Planning Has Not Considered the Use of Performance Information 
for Identifying Performance Gaps: 

Results-oriented organizations--after building a performance 
measurement system--use performance data to identify gaps in their 
performance, report on that performance, and finally, use that 
information to improve their performance to better support their 
missions. However, the data that ASCR now identifies in its plans, such 
as the number of persons who are aware of USDA programs, will 
contribute relatively little to an understanding of USDA's performance 
gaps in meeting ASCR's strategic goal. For example, such data will not 
provide any insight into how well USDA staff work with and assist 
minority and limited-resource customers, whether the programs provide 
for equitable treatment, and how well USDA upholds the civil rights of 
its employees. Also, ASCR will need to work closely with other USDA 
agencies, such as the Farm Service Agency; the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service; Cooperative State Research, Extension, and 
Education Service; but ASCR plans do not discuss how their data can be 
used to contribute to identifying gaps in the performance of USDA 
agencies. Nevertheless, ASCR officials said they have taken steps in 
this direction through annual reviews of the performance of USDA agency 
heads. Through these reviews, ASCR officials said they are making some 
recommendations for agency change, although the USDA agencies are not 
required to follow those recommendations. 

The 2008 Farm Bill Reorganizes USDA to Accomplish a Portion of ASCR's 
Mission: 

First, the bill provides for establishing a USDA Office of Advocacy and 
Outreach to ensure access to and equitable participation in USDA's 
programs and services. This new office is to (1) establish and monitor 
USDA's goals and objectives to increase participation in USDA programs 
by small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers; 
(2) assess the effectiveness of USDA outreach programs; (3) develop and 
implement a plan to coordinate USDA outreach; (4) provide input into 
USDA agency and office program and policy decisions; (5) measure 
outcomes of relevant USDA programs; (6) recommend new initiatives and 
relevant programs; and (7) perform related duties as assigned by the 
Secretary. Second, the bill directs the Secretary to establish an 
advisory committee on minority farmers to, among other things, advise 
the Secretary on methods of maximizing the participation of minority 
farmers and ranchers in USDA programs and civil rights activities that 
relate to USDA program participants. 

Lessons Learned at Other Organizations Suggest Options That May Benefit 
USDA's Civil Rights Performance: 

Our past work in addressing the problems of high-risk, underperforming 
federal agencies, as well as our reporting on results-oriented 
management suggests three options. These options were selected based on 
our judgment that they (1) can help address recognized and long- 
standing problems in USDA's performance, (2) have been used previously 
by Congress to improve aspects of agency performance, (3) have 
contributed to improved agency performance, and (4) will result in 
greater transparency over USDA's civil rights performance. These 
options include (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
subject to a statutory performance agreement, (2) establishing an 
agriculture civil rights oversight board, and (3) creating an ombudsman 
for agriculture civil rights matters. The first two would require 
action by Congress, whereas the third could benefit from USDA's 
attention, although effective implementation may also require 
congressional action. 

Statutory Performance Agreement: 

USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights could be made subject to a 
statutory performance agreement that provides more specific direction 
and describes key expectations in critical performance areas, similar 
to federal executives in other agencies. Our prior assessment of 
performance agreements used at three agencies has shown that 
performance agreements have emerging potential benefits that may help 
improve the performance of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights.[Footnote 23] The emerging benefits of performance 
agreements that may assist USDA include (1) helping to define 
accountability for specific goals and align daily operations with 
results-oriented programmatic goals, (2) fostering collaboration across 
organizational boundaries, (3) enhancing use of performance information 
to make program improvements, (4) providing a results- oriented basis 
for individual accountability, and (5) helping to maintain continuity 
of program goals during leadership transitions. 

For example, in 1998 Congress established the Department of Education's 
Office of Federal Student Aid as the government's first performance- 
based organization.[Footnote 24] Congress did so following long- 
standing financial and management weaknesses and placement on GAO's 
high-risk list since 1990. Congress required the office's Chief 
Operating Officer to have a performance agreement with the Secretary of 
Education that is transmitted to congressional committees and made 
publicly available. In addition, the office was required to report to 
Congress annually on its performance, including the extent to which it 
met its performance goals. Based on the extent of progress, the Chief 
Operating Officer could receive performance bonuses of up to 50 percent 
of the officer's basic pay, which must be disclosed to the public and 
could also be removed or reappointed, depending on the extent of 
progress. In 2005, due to the sustained improvements made by the Office 
of Federal Student Aid in its financial management and in addressing 
its internal control weaknesses, we removed our designation of this 
program as high risk.[Footnote 25] The office had by then received an 
unqualified or "clean" financial opinion on its financial statements 
for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, with no material weaknesses 
reported in its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 audits. The office had made 
progress toward integrating its many disparate information systems, 
reducing the rate of student loan defaults, and addressing its human 
capital challenges. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been 
several other examples of Congress requiring statutory performance 
agreements for federal executives, including the Commissioners of the 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Under Secretary for Management 
of the Department of Homeland Security.[Footnote 26] 

The responsibilities assigned to USDA's Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights were stated in general terms in both the 2002 Farm Bill and the 
Secretary's memorandum establishing this position within USDA. The 
Secretary's memorandum stated that the Assistant Secretary reports 
directly to the Secretary and is responsible for (1) ensuring USDA's 
compliance with all civil rights laws and related laws, (2) 
coordinating administration of civil rights laws within USDA, and (3) 
ensuring that civil rights components are incorporated in USDA 
strategic planning initiatives. While this set of responsibilities is 
broad in scope, it does not identify specific performance expectations 
for the Assistant Secretary. A statutory performance agreement could 
assist in achieving specific expectations by providing additional 
incentives and mandatory public reporting. 

Oversight Board: 

Congress could authorize a USDA civil rights oversight board to 
independently monitor, evaluate, approve of, and report on USDA's 
administration of civil rights activities, as it has for other federal 
activities. Oversight boards have often been used by the federal 
government--such as for oversight of public accounting, intelligence 
matters, civil liberties, and drug safety--to provide assurance that 
important activities are well done, to identify weaknesses that may 
need to be addressed, and to provide for transparency. For example, 
Congress established the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board in 
1998 to oversee the IRS's administration of internal revenue laws and 
ensure that its organization and operation allow it to carry out its 
mission.[Footnote 27] At that time, the IRS was considered to be an 
agency that was not effectively serving the public or meeting 
taxpayers' needs. The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board oversees 
the IRS by operating much like a corporate board of directors, tailored 
to fit the public sector. The Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board 
provides independent oversight of IRS administration, management, 
conduct, and the direction and supervision of the application of the 
internal revenue code. Among other things, the Internal Revenue Service 
Oversight Board reviews and approves the IRS's strategic plans and 
operations, recommends candidates for the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service (as well as the removal of a Commissioner), reviews 
compensation provided to senior executives, reviews plans for 
reorganization of the IRS, and develops reports for Congress on 
Internal Revenue Service activities. We have noted the work of the 
Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board--including, for example, the 
board's independent analysis of IRS business systems 
modernization.[Footnote 28] Currently, there is no comparable 
independent oversight of USDA civil rights activities. Such a board 
could provide additional assurance that management functions 
effectively and efficiently, especially in light of the government's 
financial liability for compensating victims of discrimination. 

Ombudsman: 

An ombudsman (often referred to as an ombuds) for USDA civil rights 
matters could be created to address the concerns of USDA customers and 
employees. Many agencies have created ombuds offices for addressing 
employees' concerns, as authorized by the Administrative Dispute 
Resolution Act, although USDA is not among them. However, an ombuds is 
not merely an alternative means of resolving employees' disputes; 
rather, the ombudsman is a neutral party who uses a variety of 
procedures, including alternative dispute resolution techniques, to 
deal with complaints, concerns, and questions. We stated that ombudsmen 
can handle a wide range of concerns--including, for example, citizens' 
concerns about access to programs, systemic management problems, policy 
shortcomings, human rights, civil rights and workplace issues. 
Ombudsmen who handle concerns and inquiries from the public--external 
ombudsmen--help agencies be more responsive to the public through 
impartial and independent investigation of citizens' complaints, 
including people who believe their concerns have not been dealt with 
fairly and fully through normal channels. For example, we reported that 
ombudsmen at the Environmental Protection Agency serve as points of 
contact for members of the public who have concerns about Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (Superfund) activities.[Footnote 29] We 
also identified the Transportation Security Administration ombudsman as 
one who serves external customers and is responsible for recommending 
and influencing systemic change where necessary to improve 
Administration operations and customer service.[Footnote 30] We 
reported that a key feature distinguishing ombuds from other dispute 
resolution practitioners is the ombuds' focus on systemic issues and on 
developing strategies for preventing and managing conflict. 

Within the federal workplace, ombuds provide an informal alternative to 
existing and more formal processes to deal with employees' workplace 
conflicts and other organizational climate issues. As of April 2007, 12 
federal departments and 9 independent agencies reported having 43 
ombudsmen, according to a federal interagency report on the use of 
alternative dispute resolution in the workplace.[Footnote 31] In our 
study of the role of ombudsmen in dispute resolution, we found some 
common approaches as well as some differences in how ombudsmen operated 
at the National Institutes of Health, the International Broadcasting 
Bureau, and the U.S. Secret Service.[Footnote 32] Common among the 
three ombudsmen offices were the high level of their manager, general 
schedule (GS) grade 15 or senior executive, and their broad 
responsibility and authority to deal with almost any workplace issue, 
their ability to bring systemic issues to management's attention, and 
the way in which they worked with other agency offices in providing 
assistance to employees. We also found that there were structural 
differences--such as in the independence of their office, level of 
reporting, and budgets. Importantly, we reported that officials at the 
three agencies generally viewed the ombudsman programs as beneficial. 
They said that the ombuds' offices, through their early intervention, 
were particularly helpful in resolving workplace conflicts quickly and 
in lightening the caseloads of other offices dealing with complaints 
and grievances. The ombudsmen estimated that they resolved between 60 
percent and 70 percent of their cases. In addition, the ombudsmen and 
other officials identified lessons they learned in establishing and 
operating an ombuds office. Chief among these is the need for top-level 
support. 

Several core aspects of an ombudsman's office make such an office an 
option relevant for consideration at USDA. First, USDA faces concerns 
of fairness and equity from both customers and employees--a range of 
issues that an ombudsman could potentially assist in addressing. 
Second, the standards for ombudsmen operations call for them to be 
independent, to be impartial in conducting inquiries and 
investigations, and to keep information confidential as appropriate-- 
standards that are consistent with the need to help ensure the 
credibility of USDA actions. Third, an ombudsman is in a position to 
alert management to systemic problems and can thereby help correct 
organizationwide situations and develop strategies for preventing and 
managing conflicts. Finally, an ombudsman's office can help an 
organization ensure a fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory 
environment. 

We previously reported information about the potential use of an 
ombudsman to address USDA's civil rights issues.[Footnote 33] 
Subsequently, ASCR staff developed a preliminary background discussion 
paper about the feasibility of an ombudsman function at USDA but stated 
that more development of the concept would be needed to design an 
effective USDA ombudsman function.[Footnote 34] Although ASCR's 
discussion paper included options for further study of an ombudsman 
function for USDA, it also stated that an option to establish an 
ombudsman office at USDA was not presented because existing conditions 
do not suggest a need, interest, or prior momentum toward establishing 
such an office. The discussion paper raised concerns about establishing 
a USDA departmental ombudsman because such an office would encounter 
difficulty establishing its credibility and usefulness, conducting 
investigations due to USDA's decentralized and entrenched agency 
structure and operations, and obtaining sufficient resources to be 
effective in light of the size and breadth of USDA operations. The 
paper also stated that for a USDA ombudsman office to be minimally 
effective, its legitimacy and authority must be clear and unequivocal. 
According to the American Bar Association, an ombuds office must, among 
other things, be independent in structure, function and appearance; be 
structured in an impartial manner; have full authority to conduct 
inquiries and investigations without being thwarted by agency staff; be 
able to operate with confidentiality; and have a sufficient legislative 
basis to provide for permanence, stability, and some assurance that the 
ombudsman is free to criticize without fear that the office will be 
abolished or unnecessarily restricted. 

Conclusions: 

USDA has been addressing allegations of discrimination for decades and 
receiving recommendations for improving its civil rights functions 
without achieving fundamental improvements. One lawsuit has cost 
taxpayers nearly a billion dollars in payouts to date, and several 
other groups are seeking redress for similar alleged discrimination. 
While ASCR's established policy is to fairly and efficiently respond to 
complaints of discrimination, its efforts to establish the management 
system necessary to implement the policy have fallen far short. For 
example, both we and USDA's OIG have observed that ASCR has not 
achieved oversight and control over its inventory of discrimination 
complaints--which is vital to effectively manage this important 
function. Despite the numerous past efforts to provide this office with 
constructive analysis, including recommendations by the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, USDA's 
OIG, and GAO, significant deficiencies remain. 

Unless USDA addresses several fundamental concerns about resolving 
discrimination complaints--including the lack of credible data on the 
numbers, status, and management of complaints; the lack of specified 
time frames and management controls for resolving complaints; questions 
about the quality of complaint investigations; and the integrity of 
final decision preparation--the credibility of USDA efforts to resolve 
discrimination complaints will remain in doubt. In addition, unless 
USDA obtains accurate data on minority participation in USDA programs, 
its reports on improving minority participation in USDA programs will 
not be reliable or useful. Moreover, ASCR's strategic planning for 
civil rights has such significant gaps--in describing and responding to 
stakeholder interests, in considering the external and internal 
environments that affect the achievement of ASCR's goals, and in 
setting up and making use of performance measures that will demonstrate 
results--that it appears unlikely that USDA management will be fully 
effective in achieving its civil rights mission until better planning 
is performed. 

In addition to these specific actions that warrant USDA's attention, 
there are broader options or actions that merit attention to address 
the long-standing problems in USDA's civil rights efforts. These 
options could lay a foundation for clarity over the expectations USDA 
must meet to restore confidence in its civil rights performance. 
Raising the public profile for transparency and accountability through 
means such as a statutory performance agreement between the Secretary 
of Agriculture and the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, a USDA 
civil rights oversight board, and an ombudsman for addressing 
customers' and employees' civil rights concerns would appear to be 
helpful steps because they have proven to be effective in raising the 
performance of other federal agencies. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

To better ensure sufficient oversight and management direction are 
provided to guide USDA's civil rights efforts, to make responsibility 
for improvement clear, and to make USDA's performance more transparent, 
we suggest that Congress consider (1) making USDA's Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights subject to a statutory performance agreement and (2) 
establishing a USDA civil rights oversight board. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve USDA efforts to address civil rights issues and the 
participation of minority farmers and ranchers in USDA programs, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following six 
actions: 

* Prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving 
discrimination complaints that sets time frame goals and provides 
management controls for resolving complaints from beginning to end. 

* Develop and implement a plan to ensure the accuracy, completeness and 
reliability of ASCR's databases on customer and employee complaints, 
and that provides for independent validation of ASCR's data quality. 

* Obtain an expert, independent, and objective legal examination of the 
basis, quality, and adequacy of a sample of USDA's prior investigations 
and decisions on civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for 
improvement. 

* Work expeditiously to obtain OMB's approval to collect the 
demographic data necessary for reliable reporting on race and ethnicity 
by USDA program. 

* Develop a results-oriented department-level strategic plan for civil 
rights at USDA that unifies USDA's departmental approach with that of 
ASCR and the newly created Office of Advocacy and Outreach and that is 
transparent about USDA's efforts to address the concerns of 
stakeholders. 

* Further explore the potential for an ombudsman office to contribute 
to addressing the civil rights concerns of USDA customers and 
employees, including seeking legislative authority, as appropriate, to 
establish such an office and to ensure its effectiveness, and advise 
USDA's congressional oversight committees of the results. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In commenting on a draft of this report, USDA's Secretary stated that 
USDA acknowledges many of the problems identified in the report. 
However, the Secretary stated that USDA believes that the report does 
not duly recognize the efforts USDA is currently undertaking to address 
the issues and the significant progress that USDA has made. For 
example, the Secretary stated that we did not give adequate credit to 
the strategic plans for outreach and diversity that were under 
development during our audit. We believe the report does recognize 
USDA's actions, plans, and progress; and it places them in context 
considering USDA's substantial shortcomings. During our work, we 
obtained drafts and briefing documents on the outreach and diversity 
strategic plans, and mentioned them in our report. However, these plans 
and their strategies have not been finalized or in effect long enough 
to demonstrate accomplishments. The Secretary also stated that the 
report overly relies on unsubstantiated comments opined by a few 
individuals. We disagree. Our report was based primarily on substantial 
documentary evidence supplemented with over 130 interviews conducted 
with federal civil rights officials, USDA officials and staff, and USDA 
stakeholder groups (see appendix I). 

Concerning our recommendations, USDA generally agreed with 5 of our 6 
recommendations, including those to prepare and implement an 
improvement plan for resolving discrimination complaints; to improve 
the quality of ASCR's databases on customer and employee complaints; to 
work to obtain approval to collect the data necessary for reliable 
reporting on race and ethnicity; to develop a results-oriented 
departmental level civil rights strategic plan; and to explore the 
establishment of an ombudsman office. However, USDA was silent on one 
aspect of our recommendation to improve its complaint resolution 
process--that USDA establish time-frames for resolving discrimination 
complaints. Until USDA establishes time frames for the entirety of the 
civil rights complaint process, it will not have a goal against which 
to measure its performance. 

USDA also disagreed with our recommendation to obtain an expert, 
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and 
adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions on civil rights 
complaints, along with suggestions for improvement. USDA asserted, 
without providing any additional support, that it believes its internal 
system of legal sufficiency addresses GAO's concerns, works well, and 
is timely and effective, and that the review GAO recommends is 
unnecessary, impractical, cost prohibitive, and would add significant 
delays. We recognize that the scope of our recommendation may have been 
read too broadly by USDA, and therefore we have made a minor 
clarification to our recommendation to state that USDA should obtain an 
examination of a sample of prior investigations and decisions. Given 
the substantial evidence of civil rights case delays and questions 
raised in the report about the integrity of the USDA's civil rights 
casework, we believe that this recommendation remains valid and 
necessary to restore confidence in USDA's civil rights decisions. 

The Secretary also disagreed with our two options for congressional 
consideration. Concerning the establishment of a statutorily-mandated 
performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary, the Secretary stated 
the Assistant Secretary's responsibilities are spelled out in the 2002 
and 2008 Farm Bill, and that this additional statutory change would 
usurp the Secretary's authority. We disagree. The specific terms of a 
statutory performance agreement would be developed by the Secretary for 
the Assistant Secretary's activities and would not limit the authority 
of the Secretary to take or direct action. In addition, a statutory 
performance agreement would go beyond the existing legislation by 
requiring measurable organizational and individual goals in key 
performance areas. 

Concerning the establishment of a USDA civil rights oversight board, 
the Secretary stated that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and 
delay progress. While we note such concerns, a well-operated oversight 
board can be the source of timely and wise counsel to help raise USDA's 
civil rights performance. Because of the lengthy history of USDA's 
difficulties in overcoming civil rights issues, we believe both options 
would help focus and improve USDA's performance. They would provide for 
a level of transparency that has been lacking in USDA civil rights 
matters--transparency that provides compelling evidence to help direct 
improvement efforts and better demonstrate USDA's accomplishments. 

USDA's written comments appear in appendix II. 

We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Attorney 
General, the Secretary of Agriculture, appropriate congressional 
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Lisa Shames: 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Joe Baca: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and 
Forestry: 
Committee on Agriculture: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement:  
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Charles Grassley: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
United States Senate: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

During this performance audit, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by 
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), USDA's Office of Inspector 
General (OIG), the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, and GAO, among others. We also 
conducted: 

* over 50 interviews with officials and staff of USDA's Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; 

* over 65 interviews with staff of USDA's Farm Service Agency; Natural 
Resources Conservation Service; Rural Development Mission Area; 
Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service; the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service; and USDA field offices in 
California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington; 

* 20 interviews with USDA stakeholder groups, including the Rural 
Coalition; United Farmers USA, Federation of Southern Cooperatives, 
South East Asian American Farmers Association, Intertribal Agricultural 
Council, National Tribal Development Association, Hispanic Farmers and 
Ranchers of America, National Black Farmers Association, National Hmong 
American Farmers, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees; and: 

* three interviews with officials of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

To assess ASCR's efforts to resolve discrimination complaints, we 
conducted interviews with officials of ASCR, USDA's OIG, USDA's agency- 
level civil rights offices, and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission; examined USDA documents about efforts to resolve 
discrimination complaints; and analyzed data provided by ASCR. To 
evaluate USDA's reporting on minority participation in USDA's programs, 
we reviewed USDA reports and interviewed officials of USDA, community- 
based organizations, and minority groups. To analyze ASCR's strategic 
planning, we examined ASCR's strategic plan and other relevant planning 
documents and interviewed USDA officials and representatives of 
community-based organizations and minority groups, among others. We 
also considered GAO's guidance and reporting on results-oriented 
management.[Footnote 35] To assess the reliability of data provided by 
ASCR, we compared various sources of ASCR data and interviewed ASCR 
officials. 

To identify options for addressing USDA's long-standing problems, we 
reviewed our experience in addressing the problems of high-risk, 
underperforming agencies,[Footnote 36] as well as our reporting on 
results-oriented management. We selected options based on our judgment 
that the options (1) would address apparent deficiencies in USDA's 
performance, (2) had been used previously by Congress to improve 
aspects of agency performance, (3) have contributed to improved agency 
performance, and (4) will result in greater transparency over USDA's 
civil rights performance. 

Unlike our prior reviews of USDA civil rights activities, when we 
readily obtained access to records that were necessary for our work, in 
this case our efforts were impeded by delays in obtaining records. We 
made repeated requests for USDA records--including requests directly to 
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and the Deputy Secretary. 
These requests concerned records relating to ASCR's priorities, ASCR's 
strategic plan, ASCR civil rights-related performance assessments of 
agency heads, correspondence between ASCR and USDA's Office of General 
Counsel, unresolved discrimination complaints, outreach, ASCR office 
budgets, and USDA's request for the Office of Management and Budget's 
approval to collect data needed for reporting on minority farmer 
participation in USDA programs, among others. In January 2008, we 
requested the Deputy Secretary's cooperation and assistance in 
arranging for access to USDA records, and we subsequently received 
many, but not all, of the records we sought. Nevertheless, the records 
we received were sufficient for our work to meet generally accepted 
government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We conducted this performance audit from December 2006 through 
September 2008. 

Furthermore, starting in January 2008, several USDA employees contacted 
us with certain allegations pertinent to our work, such as the possible 
destruction of records and manipulation of discrimination complaint 
data related to GAO's engagement. Consequently, we and USDA's OIG 
conducted a number of additional interviews with agency staff. Based on 
the interviews we conducted, we learned of additional deficiencies in 
the handling of discrimination complaints, among other things, but did 
not find evidence that our work had been purposely undermined. We 
referred allegations not directly related to our work to USDA's OIG. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USDA:  

United States Department of Agriculture: 
Office of the Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 20250: 

October 1, 2008: 

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro: 
Acting Comptroller General: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW., Room 2T23: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Comptroller General: I am in receipt of the draft GAO Report 
(GAO-08-1049) dated September 5, 2008, entitled U.S. Department Of 
Agriculture, Recommendations and Options to Address Management 
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
(OASCR). Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I have enclosed 
specific responses to each recommendation posed in the draft report 
(Enclosure 1). I request that this letter and its enclosures be 
published with the final report in its entirety. 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is in general agreement with many 
of the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
regarding the need to continue to improve management controls for all 
phases of the complaint process, quality control within data management 
systems, collection of demographic data, and strategic planning. USDA 
also agrees to continue to explore the establishment of an 
ombudsperson. USDA does not concur with GAO's recommendations to 
establish a statutory performance agreement for the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights (ASCR), nor with the establishment of an oversight 
board. 

USDA, through OASCR, has taken action to address the issues that have 
challenged the Department in the past, and will continue to do so. 
Significant progress has been made in civil rights at USDA since 
creation of the ASCR position in 2003. See enclosed list of OASCR 
accomplishments (Enclosure 2). 

GAO, in its draft report, did not take into account efforts that are 
already underway at the Department, and overly relied on 
unsubstantiated comments opined by a few individuals. For example, GAO 
did not give adequate credit for strategic plans developed by OASCR 
subsequent to the initial five-year plan, such as the comprehensive, 
Department-wide Outreach Strategic Plan, and Department-wide Workplace 
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan that were in clearance during 
the pendency of the audit. In developing these strategic plans, USDA 
consulted extensively with stakeholders and incorporated their input. 
In addition, for reasons outlined in the enclosed responses, USDA 
disagrees with GAO's conclusions that OASCR does not have a plan to 
ensure timely case processing and prevent future complaint backlogs. 

USDA acknowledges the intent of GAO's recommendation to establish a 
statutorily- mandated performance agreement; however, we believe that 
it is unnecessary because Congress has already clearly spelled out the 
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in Section 10704 of 
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and various sections 
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Assistant 
Secretary reports directly to me and regularly briefs me on her goals, 
performance plan, and accomplishments. Additional statutory change is 
unnecessary and would usurp my authority to manage the Department's 
civil rights program. Be assured that the Assistant Secretary, other 
leaders, and I are dedicated to accomplishing the intent of the law in 
the Farm Bill. 

Likewise, USDA does not believe that establishing a statutorily-
mandated oversight board is warranted. Establishing such a board would 
add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Responding to and developing 
reports for such a Board would have the effect of delaying and 
impeding, rather than promoting progress. ASCR and I are accountable 
for providing oversight of OASCR plans, performance, and progress. 

In summary, USDA acknowledges many of the problems pointed out in the 
GAO draft report, however, we do not believe that the report duly 
recognizes the efforts currently being undertaken by the Department to 
address these issues and the significant progress to date. We are well 
on our way to making a difference in many of the challenges that we 
face, and have implementation strategies in place to address concerns 
brought forth by our stakeholders, GAO, and the Office of Inspector 
General. 

Let me assure you of my personal commitment to USDA's civil rights, 
equal employment opportunity, and diversity policies. In my civil 
rights statement to all employees, I emphasized that all employees, 
applicants, customers, and stakeholders must and will have equal access 
to the opportunities, programs, and services offered by this great 
Department. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Edward T. Schafer: 
Secretary: 

Enclosures: 

Enclosure 1: 

USDA Responses to GAO Recommendations: 

GAO Recommendation: 

Prepare and implement an improvement plan for resolving discrimination 
complaints that sets timeframe goals and provides management controls 
for resolving complaints from beginning to end. 

Departmental Response:  

Since the creation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights (OASCR) significant efforts have been employed to provide better 
management controls for resolving complaints and to ensure timely case 
processing. This is an ongoing project and there are more improvements 
to come. The plan includes: (1) concentrated efforts to eliminate the 
complaint backlog and adhere to time standards for current cases; (2) 
more involvement by senior leadership for quality control; (3) an 
automated, Web-based, enterprise-wide case management and reporting 
tool; (4) development of a centralized intake process; (5) more focus 
on records management; (6) providing adequate resources, training, 
performance standards, and timetables for OASCR staff and contractors; 
(7) holding agencies responsible for timely submission of counselor 
reports, agency positions statements and reports of investigation; (8) 
increased use of alternative dispute resolution techniques; and (9) an 
independent review of organizational structure, workload, workflow, 
processes, and standards, in the Office of Adjudication and Compliance 
(OAC), which is responsible for complaint processing. 

(1) As pointed out in GAO's report, OASCR undertook an "Inventory 
Reduction Initiative" in 2004. OASCR pointed out in its first annual 
report, published in July 2007, which covered the time period of the 
first ASCR from 2003 to 2006, that the 2004 inventory reduction 
initiative was largely successful. OASCR started fiscal year 2003 with 
2,001 pending employment complaints and resolved 1,016 of those cases. 
During the year, OASCR received an additional 658 employment 
complaints, of which 199 were resolved. The Office started the year 
with 481 pending program complaints, and resolved 341. During the year, 
the Office received an additional 1,755 program complaints, of which 
1,487 were resolved. This was deemed a manageable level at the time. 
There was no claim to the public that the complaint backlog had been 
eliminated. Due to various factors, the backlog remained and grew. 

In 2007, OASCR implemented a "Final Agency Decision (FAD) Backlog 
Elimination" plan, utilizing contracting services and setting a 
timetable to complete issuance of FADs in all program and employment 
complaints where investigations had been completed. The established 
goals have been reached. The backlog of program FADs was eliminated by 
December 2007. The backlog of employment FADs was eliminated by 
September 30, 2008. 

In addition, OASCR has taken steps to prevent future backlogs. 
Specifically, OASCR has entered into an interagency agreement with the 
National Equal Employment Opportunity Investigative Services in the 
U.S. Postal Service to process overflow cases that cannot be timely 
processed by staff, and has begun to assess USDA agencies for the 
preparation of FADs pursuant to language in the Appropriations Act for 
the Department. 

GAO makes reference to OASCR's use of summary decisions on employee 
complaints during the 2004 inventory reduction initiative. Summary 
decisions were issued in instances where there were no factual 
disputes, or, the facts, even if true, would not constitute a violation 
of law or policy. The ASCR's interpretation of the former director's 
concern is that the lay person may not understand the process in 
reaching such decisions and think that issues were overlooked. 

GAO makes reference to Office of Inspector General's (OIG) observation 
that OASCR did not have an effective plan to address case processing 
inefficiencies. OASCR has been working with OIG and has submitted a 
plan and achieved management decision on all open recommendations in 
the 2007 OIG audit, for final action to occur by September 30, 2009. 

(2) OASCR leadership personally reviews weekly reports of case 
inventory, productivity, and backlog elimination. 

(3) OASCR has fully implemented and continues to enhance the Civil 
Rights Enterprise System (CRES), an automated, Web-based Department-
wide system for monitoring, tracking, managing, and reporting of 
program for employment discrimination complaints and alternative 
dispute resolutions. Ongoing activities include training for OASCR and 
USDA agency staff and regular end-user meetings. CRES enables users to 
input complaints faster, track and manage complaints better, provide 
better customer service through auto-generated acknowledgements, and 
generate more accurate reports. Upcoming enhancements include e-filing 
and a centralized automated intake system. Within 12 months, 
complainants should be able to file online and see the status of their 
complaints in real time. This is in addition to the option of calling 
OASCR's customer service center. 

(4) OASCR is currently developing a centralized intake system in order 
to determine the jurisdictional placement of complaints, and get them 
to the proper place for processing faster. This will enhance timeliness 
and efficient complaint processing. 

(5) OASCR has hired a trained Records Manager, and is implementing 
procedures to ensure its records management program is in compliance 
with applicable Departmental regulations. 

(6) OASCR has established performance standards for OAC staff, by 
level, and holds OAC employees accountable through performance 
management. OASCR further provides its employees training, professional 
development tools and team-building activities. The GAO report 
acknowledges the Assistant Secretary's attempts to provide resources 
and tools in order to improve morale of OASCR employees, through such 
activities as improved communication, team-building, worklife 
coordination, telework and professional development, but then dismisses 
such efforts because GAO does not see the relationship to increased 
productivity and reduced complaints. I have noticed marked improvement 
in performance by OASCR employees since these initiatives began. 

GAO makes reference to employee fears of retaliation. Retaliation is 
not condoned at USDA, as evidenced by our zero-tolerance policy towards 
it. One of USDA's two mandatory civil rights training courses in 2007 
was on the subject of retaliation. Claims of retaliation can be heard 
in the complaint process, and any proven retaliation would be referred 
for disciplinary action. 

(7) The timely processing of complaints within USDA is a joint 
responsibility between OASCR and the agencies. The process relies upon 
timely submission by USDA agencies of agency position statements, 
counselor reports, and reports of investigations. USDA agency heads are 
held accountable for timely processing of complaints through Annual 
Agency Head Civil Rights Performance Assessments. OASCR develops and 
communicates civil rights performance standards for agencies each year, 
and then, evaluates them against those standards, and submits a 
proposed rating to the rater and the Performance Review Board. Recent 
changes have been made to improve accountability even further. For 
example, certain standards are absolute and, if not achieved, will 
result in a lower score. The four absolute standards are to: (i) 
conduct compliance reviews, (ii) submit timely Agency Position 
Statements, (iii) submit timely Equal Opportunity Counselor Reports; 
and (iv) submit timely Reports of Investigation. Also, if agency heads 
are rated differently from that submitted by OASCR, the rater must 
submit a written justification. 

(8) In addition to focusing on better management and timely disposition 
of complaints, OASCR has placed an emphasis on prevention of 
complaints. One way of preventing complaints is to encourage better 
communication and earlier and faster resolution of conflict through 
alternative dispute resolution techniques. USDA has an Alternative 
Dispute Resolution (ADR) policy which requires agencies to offer ADR at 
the informal complaint stage and strongly encourages ADR at the formal 
stage. OASCR has encouraged agencies to employ dedicated full-time ADR 
Program Managers. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, within 
OASCR, conducts training for managers, practitioners, and employees and 
conducts various other activities to encourage more use of ADR. For 
example, additional ADR training is being offered through Webinar 
technology, and compliance reviews are conducted on agency ADR 
programs. 

(9) OASCR has contracted for an independent organizational assessment 
of OAC to examine workload and work flow; assess knowledge and skills 
of staff; identify the operations, processes and systems of 
performance; evaluate efficiency and productivity; and, recommend areas 
of the organization in need of improvement. This organizational 
assessment will allow OASCR to better determine workload projections 
and resource requirements and employ more efficient processes and best 
practices. The results of the assessment will provide a footing for 
OASCR's Implementation and Improvement Plan for resolving and timely 
processing of discrimination complaints. 

USDA is confident that all of these developments will enable OASCR to 
build upon the progress of recent years and achieve even greater 
success in the future towards the goal of processing all complaints in 
a timely and efficient manner and avoiding future backlogs. 

GAO Recommendation: 

Develop and implement a plan to assure accuracy, completeness, and 
reliability of ASCR's data bases on customer and employee complaints to 
include the independent validation of the ASCR's data quality. 

Departmental Response: 

OASCR acknowledges that, in years past, due to various ways of defining 
what is a complaint under various leaders and due to ineffective stand-
alone legacy systems, USDA reports have been inconsistent. However, 
USDA has addressed this problem by investing in the CRES, a state-of-
the-art, Department-wide Web-based complaint tracking system with 
standardized business rules. We expect current and future reports to be 
more accurate and lend themselves to better trend analysis. As 
mentioned above, appropriate OASCR staff and agency users have been 
trained and are being held accountable for timely and proper use of 
CRES. Any instances of poor data entry are addressed through training 
and performance management. Claims of data system failures have not 
been substantiated. 

Nonetheless, OASCR is undertaking several initiatives to ensure 
accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the customer and employee 
complaint databases within CRES. OASCR has proposed revisions to its 
civil rights compliance regulations, currently in clearance, to 
incorporate a quality control function of these databases. The proposed 
regulation mandates that data integrity checks become an essential part 
of civil rights compliance reviews throughout the Department. This will 
ensure stronger internal controls of data management. OASCR has 
contracted with a commercial vendor to create a set of dashboard 
reports that will function as a tool for OAC managers to monitor 
complaint status, workload and workflow. In addition, USDA has 
established an accountability function within OASCR to oversee 
independent quality control reviews of both databases. 

GAO Recommendation: 

Obtain an expert, independent, and objective legal examination of the 
basis, quality, and adequacy of USDA's investigation of and decisions 
on civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for improvement. 

Departmental Response: 

USDA does not agree with the recommendation to engage contractual 
services for an independent legal examination of investigations and 
decisions. USDA employs an internal system of legal sufficiency reviews 
both within the OASCR and by the Civil Rights Policy Division within 
the Office of General Counsel. This system works well, is timely and 
effective, and addresses GAO concerns. Employing an external legal 
examination of each case, or even a sampling of cases, is unnecessary 
and would be impractical, cost prohibitive, and add significant delays. 

GAO Recommendation: 

Work expeditiously to obtain Office of Management Budget's (OMB) 
approval to collect demographic data necessary for reliable reporting 
on race and ethnicity by USDA program. 

Departmental Response: 

OASCR agrees with this recommendation and has already convened a cross-
agency working group to work on a plan to obtain OMB approval for all 
USDA agencies to collect data on race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, 
disability, and age (RESNODA). This group is working towards 
publication of RESNODA in the Federal Register to alert the public of 
this collection. 

GAO Recommendation: 

Develop a results-oriented Department-level strategic plan for civil 
rights at USDA that unifies USDA's Departmental approach with that of 
ASCR and the newly created Office of Advocacy and Outreach, and that is 
transparent about USDA's efforts to address the concerns of 
stakeholders. 

Departmental Response: 

Upon revision of OASCR's five-year strategic plan, USDA will ensure 
that the plan incorporates a comprehensive, results-oriented, 
Department-wide strategy for civil rights, and addresses the concerns 
of customers and stakeholders. 

While the initial five-year strategic plan developed in 2005 may not 
have incorporated the views of stakeholders, subsequent implementation 
did incorporate stakeholder input. Both Assistant Secretaries conducted 
extensive listening tours of external and internal stakeholders before 
developing their initiatives and priorities, and have incorporated 
their views in subsequent strategic plans. 

For example, after consulting with socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers, the first Assistant Secretary established the annual partners 
meeting, at which farmers, ranchers, producers, and representatives of 
community-based organizations are provided the opportunity to meet with 
key USDA officials and program staff to discuss access to USDA programs 
and services, identify problems, and propose solutions. The success of 
these meetings is reflected by a significant increase in attendance of 
over 500 participants, and results in real, tangible progress towards 
outreach and equal access for our customers. 

In addition, the Assistant Secretary holds regular meetings with 
representatives of USDA- recognized Employee Organizations and adopted 
many of their ideas when formulating the Department's Workplace 
Diversity and Inclusion strategy now being implemented. The GAO Report 
mentions one activity, "the Diversity Forum;" however, that is just one 
aspect of a major initiative currently being undertaken at USDA to make 
workplace diversity and inclusion a core value and address diversity of 
employee representation throughout USDA, including field offices. Other 
activities include: (1) A new Office of Workplace Diversity and 
Inclusion was established and reports directly to the Associate 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; (2) a new Director for 
Departmental Diversity and staff was hired/reassigned; (3) Diversity 
Awareness Training has been developed and is mandatory for all USDA 
employees in 2008; (4) a Diversity Speaker Series, a forum through 
which the Office of Diversity invites leaders and executives from the 
public and private sectors to share their workplace and diversity-
related experiences through dialogue with attendees. This information 
exchange empowers USDA employees to take responsibility for creating 
and maintaining a productive work environment in learning to value 
differences; (5) a biennial Civil Rights and Diversity Conference to 
update USDA executives, managers, supervisors, employees and human 
resources, civil rights, ADR and Outreach practitioners on civil rights 
and diversity policies; (6) a Diversity and Inclusion Forum, a 
communication vehicle and sounding board to foster dialogue between 
USDA employees and senior management. The Forum consists of 
representatives from senior management, USDA recognized employee 
organizations, Departmental and Agency Civil Rights and Diversity 
Program Managers; and (7) a biennial ADR Conference for USDA conflict 
management practitioners to enhance skill and knowledge to 
constructively address workplace disputes. 

GAO Recommendation: 

Further explore the potential for an ombudsman office to contribute to 
addressing the civil rights concerns of USDA customers and employees, 
including seeking legislative authority as appropriate to establish 
such an office and to assure its effectiveness, and advise USDA's 
congressional oversight committees of the results. 

Departmental Response: 

As the GAO Report points out, USDA is currently considering whether to 
employ an ombudsperson to help represent employee interests. OASCR is 
benchmarking best practices of established ombudsperson offices in 
other Federal agencies — the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Food and Drug 
Administration. Upon completion of our evaluation, USDA will advise 
appropriate congressional committees of the results. 

Enclosure 2: 

U.S. Department Of Agriculture Office Of The Assistant Secretary For 
Civil Rights Highlights Of Major Accomplishments 2003 – 2008: 

* Issued a Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Policy 
Statement. 

* Consolidated, elevated, and staffed functions with a civil rights 
focus to a higher organizational structural level. 

* Created and implemented the USDA Civil Rights Enterprise System – a 
Web-based automated system to track, manage, and report employment and 
program complaints, and alternative dispute resolution Alternative 
Dispute Resolution (ADR) matters. Established a centralized customer 
service unit. 

* Implemented an "Inventory Reduction Initiative" and "Final Agency 
Decision Backlog Elimination Plan."

* Issued a USDA Accountability Policy to hold all managers and 
employees accountable for discriminatory actions.

* Established a uniform performance standard for USDA employees at all 
levels in the areas of civil rights, equal employment opportunity, and 
diversity. 

* Amended the USDA ADR policy to enhance employment and program 
complaint processes. Held a Conflict Resolution Day to disseminate 
information on alternative resolution techniques. Conducted USDA-wide 
training conference on ADR. 

* Developed annual mandatory civil rights and diversity awareness 
training for all USDA employees. Developed other civil rights training 
modules for AgLearn, such as Sexual Orientation, and incorporated civil 
rights and diversity modules in USDA management and leadership 
development training. 

* Convened Department-wide training conferences to update USDA 
executives, managers, supervisors, employees and human resources, civil 
rights, ADR and Outreach practitioners on civil rights, equal 
employment opportunity, and diversity policies. 

* Established a new Office of Diversity to coordinate and manage 
diversity initiatives at the Department level, and ensure "workplace 
diversity and inclusion" is incorporated as a core value in USDA's 
organizational culture. Conducted Employee survey; Issued a USDA 
Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Policy Statement; and, Developed a 
Department-wide Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. 

* Conducted monthly Diversity Speaker Series to share workplace and 
diversity-related experiences through dialogue with employees. 

* Conducted regular meetings with USDA-recognized Employee 
Organizations. 


* Established a standing committee, called the "Diversity and Inclusion 
Forum," to foster dialogue between USDA employees and senior 
management. 

* Conducted a facilitated retreat for all Agency Outreach Coordinators, 
and Developed a comprehensive Department-wide Outreach Strategic Plan. 

* Convened annual partners meetings with community-based organizations 
to address equal access to USDA programs and activities for socially 
and economically disadvantaged groups.

* Established the Center for Minority Farmers to provide information, 
referrals, and technical assistance to socially and economically 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. 

* Launched Minority Farm Register to promote equal access to USDA farm 
programs and services for minority and underserved farmland owners, 
farmers, ranchers, tenants, and other individuals who participate in 
agriculture. This database enables USDA to make direct contact with 
farmers and ranchers who choose to register for information and 
outreach services. Marketed and expanded the use of the Minority Farm 
Register for use by the entire Department.

* Enhanced the market access of socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers through a certification training program. • Provided outreach, 
technical assistance, scholarships, internships, and employment 
opportunities to Minority-serving Institutions, Land-grant colleges and 
universities and their students in order to improve diversity of the 
workforce pipeline. 

* Served as Co-chair of the USDA/1890 Task Force and provided 
leadership on the 1890 National Scholars Program; Agricultural Liaison 
Program; Centers of Excellence; and, work priorities for the Task Force 
including the establishment of a consortium for three major 
initiatives: (1) Nutrition, Health, Wellness, and Obesity in 
Underserved Populations, (2) Biofuel Research and Development and, (3) 
Food Biosecurity. Updated Memorandum of Understanding with Council of 
1890 Presidents in 2007. 

* Developed a Memorandum of Agreement with the American Indian Higher 
Education Consortium (AIHEC) to strengthen educational and research 
capacity in Tribal Colleges and Universities. Served as Chair of the 
USDA/AIHEC Leadership Group. Developed a strategic plan; Established a 
Scholarship Program; Hired Tribal Liaisons; and, Conducted a tour of 
tribal colleges and universities for USDA agency officials to gain a 
better understanding of the needs of these constituents. 

* Entered into Memoranda of Understanding with other civil rights and 
advocacy organizations to further mutual goals. 

* Published an annual report and other materials to highlight the role, 
objectives and activities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights in order to increase public awareness. 

* Presented Awards to internal and external stakeholders for civil 
rights best practices. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: ASCR Initiatives, and Strategic and Priority Plans: 

Table 2: ASCR Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2004: 

Challenges: Organization; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Consolidate USDA offices with civil rights 
focus into ASCR; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Organization; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Temporarily assign staff to address 
discrimination complaints; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: ChallengesSystems: Complete. 

Challenges: Systems; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Develop a professional system for managing 
discrimination complaints; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing. 

Challenges: Procedural; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Draft regulations to address the 
relationship between USDA's Office of General Counsel and ASCR's Office 
of Adjudication and Compliance; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing. 

Challenges: Operational; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Create a unit to handle incoming phone 
calls for ASCR; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Operational; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Reduce backlogs of customer and employee 
discrimination complaints; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Operational; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Amend USDA's alternative dispute 
resolution policy to enhance the use of alternative dispute resolution; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Operational; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Conduct a public awareness campaign--
several public forums and listening sessions to discuss partnerships, 
the Minority Farm Registry, the Notice of Farm Loan Application 
Receipts, and the 2008 Farm Bill; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing. 

Challenges: Accountability; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Prevent program complaints--ASCR has 
convened three Partners Meetings with community based organizations and 
groups representing minority and limited resource farmers to address 
concerns about access to farm programs; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing. 

Challenges: Accountability; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Prevent employee complaints-- training for 
managers on equal employment opportunity is mandatory, and employee 
development programs are being implemented; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Ongoing. 

Challenges: Accountability; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Implement the "No FEAR Act"-- Public Law 
107-174 requires federal agencies to be held accountable for violations 
of anti-discrimination laws--USDA reported that its quarterly reports 
are being posted on time, and all employees have received training; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Accountability; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Develop ASCR accountability policy for 
USDA--USDA's Office of Human Resources will ensure that all USDA 
managers are held accountable for discriminatory actions; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Challenges: Accountability; 
Initiatives/accomplishments: Initiatives/accomplishments: Convene 
annual civil rights conference; 
Status as of Dec. 2007: Complete. 

Source: USDA. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: ASCR Strategic Objectives for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010: 

Objective: Strengthen partnerships between USDA and 1890 Community 
(historically black land grant institutions); 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase student 
scholarships provided by USDA from 25 to 33. 

Objective: Strengthen partnerships between USDA and 1994 land grant 
institutions (Native American tribal colleges); 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase student 
scholarships provided by USDA from 5 to 9 by 2010. 

Objective: Enhance the Office of the Secretary and Departmental Office 
employees' knowledge of the fairness, neutrality, and confidentiality 
of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) usage; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase the knowledge of 
employees familiar with alternative dispute resolution from 100 to 950. 

Objective: Ensure USDA agencies and offices are in compliance with USDA 
regulations and government-wide ADR laws and regulations; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Percentage of agencies in 
compliance-- baseline and targets to be determined. 

Objective: Achieve an efficient USDA-wide outreach program for all 
customers; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Numbers of socially and 
economically disadvantaged persons who received training for the first 
time--baseline and targets to be determined. 

Objective: Create and strengthen partnerships with community and faith- 
based organizations, corporations, foundations, educational 
institutions and other targeted communities to build coalitions for 
USDA programs and opportunities; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase number of 
partnerships and coalitions from 10 to 50. 

Objective: Increase the awareness of USDA programs and opportunities 
for socially and economically disadvantaged persons and also 
underrepresented persons; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase number of 
individuals aware of participation requirements from 100,000 to 
160,000. 

Objective: Develop and implement an efficient complaint process that 
adheres to civil rights laws and regulations; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase the cases 
processed within regulatory timeframes from 40 percent to 100 percent 
for employee complaints and from 16 percent to 100 percent for customer 
complaints. 

Objective: Ensure USDA agencies and offices are in compliance with EEO 
laws; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Percentage of USDA 
agencies brought into compliance--baseline and targets to be 
determined. 

Objective: Meet EEOC standards for a Model EEO Program; 
Selected key performance indicator for 2010: Increase percentage of 
EEOC indicators that are met from 33 percent to 100 percent by 2009. 

Source: USDA. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: List of Civil Rights Priorities and Selected Initiatives for 
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008: 

Priority: Diversity; 
Initiatives: Fill senior executive position to lead ASCR's Outreach and 
Diversity Division. 

Priority: Diversity; 
Initiatives: Add workplace diversity as a core value. 

Priority: Diversity; 
Initiatives: Develop and conduct mandatory Diversity Awareness Training 
for all supervisors and employees. 

Priority: Diversity; 
Initiatives: Offer training, including a disability training conference 
and an AgLearn training module on sexual orientation. 

Priority: Diversity; 
Initiatives: Establish a diversity forum to foster communication 
between USDA senior management and internal customers of USDA. 

Priority: Outreach; 
Initiatives: Develop and implement a comprehensive USDA-wide outreach 
plan. 

Priority: Outreach; 
Initiatives: Provide oversight and coordination of minority 
participation data. 

Priority: Outreach; 
Initiatives: Conflict prevention and resolution: Conduct a joint review 
with USDA's Agricultural Research Service of the Hispanic Serving 
Institutions' National Program. 

Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution; 
Initiatives: Create an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) video on 
mediation. 

Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution; 
Initiatives: Recommend establishing dedicated ADR Director positions in 
USDA agencies. 

Priority: Conflict prevention and resolution; 
Initiatives: Conduct a USDA-wide ADR awareness survey. 

Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives; 
Initiatives: Comply with No FEAR Act requirements. 

Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives; 
Initiatives: Update civil rights directives, regulations, and policies 
as needed. 

Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives; 
Initiatives: Continue to strive to ensure that Final Agency Decisions 
meet legal sufficiency standards and time requirements. 

Priority: Continuing civil rights initiatives; 
Initiatives: Communications and public awareness: Convene biennial USDA 
Civil Rights Conference in 2008. 

Priority: Communications and public awareness; 
Initiatives: Create a strategic marketing campaign focused on ASCR 
goals and civil rights accomplishments by USDA agencies. 

Priority: Communications and public awareness; 
Initiatives: Recognize and award internal and external stakeholders for 
civil rights best practices. 

Source: USDA. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Interests of Selected USDA Stakeholders in Civil Rights- 
Related Matters as Identified by GAO in 2007 and 2008: 

Table 5: 

Category of interest: Outreach programs; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA outreach programs for underserved producers 
could be much better. 

Category of interest: Outreach programs; 
Stakeholder interests: Systematic data on minority participation in 
USDA programs are not available. 

Category of interest: Outreach programs; 
Stakeholder interests: The 10708 Report and Minority Farm Register have 
been ineffective. 

Category of interest: Outreach programs; 
Stakeholder interests: Partnerships with community-based organizations 
could be better used. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: Methods of USDA program delivery need to better 
facilitate the participation of underserved producers and address their 
needs. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA could do more to provide assistance in 
accessing markets and programs. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA could better address cultural and language 
differences for providing services. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: Some USDA program rules and features hinder 
participation by underserved producers. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: Some USDA employees have little incentive to 
work with small and minority producers. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: County offices working with underserved 
producers continue to lack diversity, and some have poor customer 
service or display discriminatory behaviors toward underserved 
producers. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA lacks a program that addresses farmworker 
needs. 

Category of interest: Program delivery; 
Stakeholder interests: There continues to be reports of cases where 
USDA has not processed loans for underserved producers; Some Hmong 
poultry farmers with guaranteed loans facilitated by USDA are 
experiencing foreclosures. 

Category of interest: County system; 
Stakeholder interests: The county committee system does not represent 
minority producers well. 

Category of interest: County system; 
Stakeholder interests: Minority advisers are ineffective because they 
have no voting power. 

Category of interest: County system; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA has not done enough to make underserved 
producers fully aware of county committee elections, and underserved 
producers have difficulties winning elections. 

Category of interest: Investment; 
Stakeholder interests: There is a lack of USDA investment in research 
and extension services that would determine the extent of minority 
needs. 

Category of interest: Census of Agriculture; 
Stakeholder interests: The Census of Agriculture needs to better count 
minority producers. 

Category of interest: Foreclosure; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA may continue to be foreclosing on farms 
belonging to producers who are awaiting decisions on discrimination 
complaints. 

Category of interest: Authority; 
Stakeholder interests: ASCR needs authority to exercise leadership for 
making changes at USDA. 

Category of interest: Resources; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA and ASCR need additional resources to carry 
out civil rights functions. 

Category of interest: Diversity; 
Stakeholder interests: Greater diversity among USDA employees would 
facilitate USDA's work with minority producers. 

Category of interest: Access; 
Stakeholder interests: Producers must still access services through 
some USDA employees who discriminated against them. 

Category of interest: Management structure; 
Stakeholder interests: The Office of Adjudication and Compliance needs 
better management structure and function. 

Category of interest: Management structure; 
Stakeholder interests: Backlogs of discrimination complaints need to be 
addressed. 

Category of interest: Management structure; 
Stakeholder interests: Alternative dispute resolution techniques to 
resolve informal employee complaints should be used consistently and 
documented. 

Category of interest: Management structure; 
Stakeholder interests: Civil rights compliance reviews of USDA agencies 
are behind schedule and should be conducted. 

Category of interest: General Counsel Review; 
Stakeholder interests: USDA's Office of General Counsel continues to be 
involved in complaint cases. 

Source: GAO analysis of documents and interviews. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact listed above, Charles M. Adams (Assistant 
Director), Kevin Bray, Bob Cramer, Nancy Crothers, Richard Egan, Ronald 
Fecso, Bart Fischer, Cardell Johnson, Elizabeth Johnston, Karen Keegan, 
Barbara Lewis, Kerry Lipsitz, Nhi Nguyen, Andrew O'Connell, Terry 
Richardson, and Susan Sawtelle made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] U.S. Department of Agriculture,Civil Rights at the United States 
Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team 
(Washington, D.C., February 1997). 

[2] These cases include Keepseagle v. Schafer, Civil Action No. 99- 
03119 (D.D.C.); Garcia v. Schafer, Civil Action No. 00-02445 (D.D.C.); 
and Love v. Schafer. Civil Action No. 00-02502 (D.D.C.) 

[3] GAO, Department of Agriculture: Improvements in the Operations of 
the Civil Rights Program Would Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority 
Farmers, GAO-02-942 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002). 

[4] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Management of Civil Rights 
Continues to Be Deficient Despite Years of Attention, GAO-08-755T 
(Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2008). 

[5] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington D.C.: June 
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 
1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual 
Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998); and 
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation 
for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 
2004). 

[6] For example, see GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 
(Washington D.C.: January 2005). 

[7] ASCR's backlogs of discrimination complaints generally consist of 
numbers of complaints for which ASCR has insufficient capacity to 
adjudicate promptly. 

[8] USDA, First 1,000 Days, 2003-2006 (Washington, D.C., July 2007). 

[9] We conducted our interviews with the former Director, Office of 
Adjudication and Compliance, prior to her resignation near the end of 
August 2007. 

[10] In addition, ASCR held complaints associated with pending and 
potential class action litigation in abeyance during this time period. 

[11] Customers may file a complaint (1) with the agency, (2) in federal 
court, or (3) both. They need not file a claim with the agency before 
filing in federal court. 

[12] A second and separate case involving American Indians of the Fort 
Berthold Reservation is incorporated within the Keepseagle class action 
case. 

[13] Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Investigation 
Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints 
Alleging Violations of Title VI and Other Nondiscrimination Statutes 
(Washington, D.C., September 1998). In addition, the Quality Standards 
for Investigations of the President's Council on Integrity and 
Efficiency (December 2003), calls for using due professional care in 
performing investigations by, among other things, achieving 
thoroughness through the application of appropriate techniques. 

[14] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Problems Continue to Hinder 
the Timely Processing of Discrimination Complaints, GAO/RCED-99-38 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 1999). 

[15] GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 
Agriculture, GAO-03-96 (Washington D.C.: January 2003). 

[16] USDA Office of Inspector General, Office of Civil Rights: Status 
of the Implementation of Recommendations Made in Prior Evaluations of 
Program Complaints, Audit Report No. 60801-4-Hq (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
10, 2007). 

[17] USDA Office of Inspector General, Management Challenges 
(Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007); and Management Challenges 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2008). USDA's OIG previously identified 
civil rights as a major management challenge for USDA in August 2004. 

[18] Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246 §§ 
14010-14012, 122 Stat. 1651, 2209. 

[19] USDA, Bridges to the Future: 2003 Annual Report of the 
Participation of Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA 
Programs, The Section 10708 Report (Washington D.C., December 2004); 
Bridges to the Future: 2004 Annual Report of the Participation of 
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA Programs, The 
Section 10708 Report (Washington, D.C., December 2005); and Bridges to 
the Future: 2005 Annual Report of the Participation of Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers in USDA Programs, The Section 10708 
Report (Washington, D.C., June 2007). 

[20] GAO/GGD-96-118. 

[21] U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in 
American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination, Volume 
VII: The Mississippi Delta Report (Washington, D.C., February 2001); 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Minority 
& Women Farmers in the U.S. (Washington, D.C., May 1998). 

[22] Measuring racial discrimination is important to understanding 
where it occurs, the extent of its impact, and what to do about it. 
Researchers have recommended that agencies explore the use of field 
studies, such as has been done since the 1970s to detect racially based 
discrimination in housing. See National Research Council, National 
Academy of Sciences, Measuring Racial Discrimination (Washington, D.C., 
2004). 

[23] The three agencies include the Office of Federal Student Aid, the 
Department of Transportation, and the Veterans Health Administration. 
GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits from Selected Agencies' 
Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 30, 
2000). 

[24] Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244 § 101(a), 
112 Stat. 1581 (amending 20 U.S.C. § 1018). 

[25] GAO-05-207. 

[26] Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 1000(a)(9) (§ 4713), 113 Stat. 1501, 1536, 
1501A-21, 1501A-575 (1999) (amending 35 U.S.C. § 3); Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53 
§ 2405(b), 121 Stat. 266, 548 (amending 6 U.S.C. §341(c)). 

[27] Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 
Pub. L. No. 105-206 § 1101(a), 112 Stat. 685, 691 (amending 26 U.S.C. § 
7802). 

[28] GAO, Business Systems Modernization: Internal Revenue Service 
Needs to Further Strengthen Program Management, GAO-04-438T (Washington 
D.C.: Feb. 12, 2004). 

[29] The Superfund Program provides support to investigate and clean up 
hazardous waste sites nationwide. 

[30] GAO, Transportation Security Administration: Actions and Plans to 
Develop a Results-Oriented Culture, GAO-03-190 (Washington D.C.: Jan. 
17, 2003). 

[31] Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group 
Sections, et al, Report for the President on the Use and Results of 
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Branch of the Federal 
Government (Washington, D.C.: April 2007). 

[32] GAO, Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution, 
GAO-01-446 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2001). 

[33] GAO, Pigford Settlement: The Role of the Court-Appointed Monitor, 
GAO-06-469R (Washington D.C., Mar. 17, 2006). 

[34] USDA, Federal Ombudsman at USDA: A Preliminary Background and 
Discussion Paper (Washington, D.C; March 2007). 

[35] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington D.C.: June 
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 
1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual 
Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998); and 
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation 
for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 
2004). 

[36] For example, see GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 
(Washington D.C.: January 2005). 

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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [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: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: