	Problems in Resolving Discrimination Complaints Persist

The credibility of USDA’s efforts to correct long-standing problems in  resolving customer and employee discrimination complaints has been  undermined by faulty reporting of complaint data, including disparities we  found when comparing various ASCR sources of data. When ASCR was  created in 2003, there was an existing backlog of complaints that had not  been adjudicated. In July 2007, ASCR reported that it had reduced its backlog of 690  complaints and held the complaint inventory to manageable levels through  fiscal year 2005. However, the data ASCR reported lack credibility  because they were inconsistent with other complaint data it reported a  month earlier to a congressional subcommittee. The backlog later surged  to 885 complaints, according to ASCR data. In addition, some steps that ASCR took to speed up its investigations and  decisions on complaints in 2004 may have adversely affected the quality of  its work. ASCR’s former Director, Office of  Adjudication and Compliance, stated that this increased pace led to many  “summary” decisions on employees’ complaints that did not resolve  questions of fact, with the result that many decisions were appealed to the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Reports on Minority Participation Are Unreliable and of Limited Usefulness

As required by the 2002 farm bill, ASCR has published three annual reports  on the participation rate of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in  USDA programs. According to these officials, USDA also plans to seek,  at a later time, authority to collect such data on participants in all USDA  programs. Strategic Planning Is Limited and Lacks Needed Components

In light of USDA’s history of civil rights problems, better strategic planning  is vital. In particular, we found  that the interests of ASCR’s stakeholders—including representatives of  community-based organizations and minority interest groups—are not  explicitly reflected in its strategic plan. For example, we found that  ASCR’s stakeholders 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 stakeholders are  better represented in local decisions; and (3) the diversity of USDA  employees who work with minority producers. In addition, ASCR’s strategic plan does not link to the plans of other USDA  agencies or the department and does not discuss the potential for linkages  to be developed. ASCR could also 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. 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 of, for example, strengthening  partnerships with historically black land-grant universities through  scholarships provided by USDA. To help ensure access to and equitable participation in USDA’s programs  and services, the 2008 Farm Bill provided for establishing the Office of  Advocacy and Outreach and charged it with, among other things,  establishing and monitoring USDA’s goals and objectives to increase  participation in USDA programs by small, beginning, and socially  disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. 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 concerns about the  integrity of final decision preparation—the credibility of USDA efforts to  resolve discrimination complaints will be 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. Specifically, 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 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. Backlogs of discrimination complaints need to be addressed. USDA’s Office of General Counsel continues to be involved in complaint cases. Related GAO Products

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and Options to  Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant  Secretary for Civil Rights.
Why GAO Did This Study

For decades, there have been allegations of discrimination in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and workforce. Reports and congressional testimony by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a former Secretary of Agriculture, USDA's Office of Inspector General, GAO, and others have described weaknesses in USDA's programs--in particular, in resolving complaints of discrimination and in providing minorities access to programs. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized the creation of the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR), giving USDA an executive that could provide leadership for resolving these long-standing problems. This testimony focuses on USDA's efforts to (1) resolve discrimination complaints, (2) report on minority participation in USDA programs, and (3) strategically plan its efforts. This testimony is based on new and prior work, including analysis of ASCR's strategic plan; discrimination complaint management; and about 120 interviews with officials of USDA and other federal agencies, as well as 20 USDA stakeholder groups. USDA officials reviewed the facts upon which this statement is based, and we incorporated their additions and clarifications as appropriate. GAO plans a future report with recommendations.

What GAO Found

ASCR's difficulties in resolving discrimination complaints persist--ASCR has not achieved its goal of preventing future backlogs of complaints. At a basic level, the credibility of USDA's efforts has been and continues to be undermined by ASCR's faulty reporting of data on discrimination complaints and disparities in ASCR's data. Even such basic information as the number of complaints is subject to wide variation in ASCR's reports to the public and the Congress. 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 officials were well aware they had not succeeded in preventing future backlogs--they had another backlog on hand, and this time the backlog had surged to an even higher level of 885 complaints. In fact, ASCR officials were in the midst of planning to hire additional attorneys to address that backlog of complaints including some ASCR was holding dating from the early 2000s that it had not resolved. In addition, some steps ASCR had taken may have actually been counter-productive and 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. Importantly, ASCR does not have a plan to correct these many problems. USDA has published three annual reports--for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005--on the participation of minority farmers and ranchers in USDA programs, as required by law. USDA's reports are intended to reveal the gains or losses that these farmers have experienced in their participation in USDA programs. However, USDA considers the data it has reported to be unreliable because they are based on USDA employees' visual observations about participant's race and ethnicity, which may or may not be correct, especially for ethnicity. USDA needs the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect more reliable data. ASCR started to seek OMB's approval in 2004, but as of May 2008 had not followed through to obtain approval. ASCR staff will meet again on this matter in May 2008. GAO found that ASCR's strategic planning is limited and does not address key steps needed to achieve the Office's mission of ensuring USDA provides fair and equitable services to all customers and upholds the civil rights of its employees. For example, a key step in strategic planning is to discuss the perspectives of stakeholders. ASCR's strategic planning does not address the diversity of USDA's field staff even though ASCR's stakeholders told GAO that such diversity would facilitate interaction with minority and underserved farmers. Also, ASCR could better measure performance to gauge its progress in achieving its mission. For example, it counts the number of participants in training workshops as part of its outreach efforts rather than access to farm program benefits and services. Finally, ASCR's strategic planning does not link levels of funding with anticipated results or discuss the potential for using performance information for identifying USDA's performance gaps.