USDA Has Reduced Administrative Positions Overall

From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998, USDA reduced its departmentwide administrative staff by 15 percent, from about 10,300 to an estimated 8,800, in four areas identified by the NPR—human resources, budgeting, accounting and auditing, and acquisition. USDA plans to have about 8,550 administrative staff supporting a departmentwide program staff of approximately 98,500 by the end of fiscal year 1999. Changes to Administrative Operations for Field-Based Agencies Will Not Be Fully Implemented Until 2002

As of November 1998, USDA had not consolidated administrative functions for its field-based agencies at the state office level. In addition, they said the plan will require up to 4 years to implement because the Department will need to complete a number of time-consuming and complex actions—relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures, and instituting common computing systems. USDA Has Not Yet Begun to Implement Its Administrative Convergence Plan at the State Level

USDA expects to begin consolidating administrative functions at the state level for its field-based agencies approximately 6 to 9 months following the Secretary’s approval of the proposed October 1998 convergence plan. 2.) The new state offices will receive policy guidance from the headquarters Support Services Bureau and will report to a board of directors composed of the state leaders of FSA, NRCS, and RD. Savings and Efficiencies Measures Lacking

USDA has not instituted, and has made no plans to develop, performance measures to determine the economies and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide administrative streamlining. According to USDA officials, staff reductions should serve as a sufficient indicator of the Department’s savings and efficiencies because employees’ salary and benefit costs typically represent a majority—about 85 percent—of salary and administrative expenses. Without an assessment of the overall effects of its departmentwide streamlining efforts, USDA cannot know the extent to which its efforts have been successful in achieving all of the objectives mandated by the 1994 act. To determine USDA’s progress in measuring the savings and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining, we interviewed Department and agency officials involved in reorganization and streamlining and reviewed documents pertaining to their performance measures. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

USDA’s Staff by Mission Area, Agency and Office for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999

Farm Service Agency (FSA) (federal)
Farm Service Agency (nonfederal)
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation Natural Resources and Environment Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Office of Chief Financial Officer Office of Chief Information Officer (continued)
Office of Budget and Program Analysis Office of the Chief Economist Office of the General Counsel 129,495 124,241 117,388 113,539 109,886 109,850 107,031 Offices included under the Assistant Secretary for Administration are the Office of Administrative Support, Board of Contract Appeals, Office of the Judicial Officer, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Office of Operations, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, and Office of Outreach.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) progress in streamlining its administrative operations, focusing on USDA's efforts to: (1) reduce the number of administrative staff departmentwide; (2) consolidate and streamline administrative support structures for seven field-based agencies, particularly at the state office level; and (3) measure the savings and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining efforts.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) from fiscal year (FY) 1993 through FY 1998, USDA reduced its departmentwide administrative staff for four administrative functions--human resources, budgeting, accounting and auditing, and acquisition--from about 10,300 to an estimated 8,800, or by 15 percent; (2) USDA estimates that the number of administrative staff will decrease by an additional 250 by the end of FY 1999; (3) at that time, about 8,550 administrative staff will support approximately 98,500 program staff; (4) USDA has no estimates for further departmentwide reductions in administrative staffing beyond 1999; (5) as of November 1998, USDA had not begun to implement its plan to consolidate and streamline administrative functions at the state office level; (6) these new state offices will receive policy guidance from a newly created headquarters Support Service Bureau and report to a board of directors composed of the state leaders of the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development; (7) the plan, which is expected to be fully implemented by 2002, requires the completion of a number of time-consuming and potentially costly actions, including relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures, and instituting common computing systems; (8) furthermore, although it appears that administrative consolidation may provide long-term savings and efficiencies, USDA may incur additional costs to implement this consolidation in the short term; (9) USDA has no plans to develop performance measures to determine the economies and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide streamlining actions; (10) USDA officials believe that a single measure--personnel reductions--serves as a sufficient indicator of the Department's overall performance; and (11) however, without additional performance measures, such as those that measure the quality of service delivery, USDA will not know the extent to which it has accomplished the 1994 act's overall objective of achieving greater efficiency, effectiveness, and economy in the organization and management of its programs and activities.