This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-82 entitled 'U.S. Department of Agriculture: Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs' which was released on October 21, 2009. 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. GAO Highlights: Highlights of [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-82], a report to congressional committees. Why GAO Did This Study: The Senate report accompanying the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) fiscal year 2008 appropriations expressed concern that USDA’s Greenbook charges—the transfer of funds authority USDA used to charge the appropriations accounts of its agencies and staff offices for programs to centrally provide certain services—had grown excessively. USDA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) oversees Greenbook charges. The report directed GAO to review these charges and USDA to report on them. This report identifies the agencies and offices assessed Greenbook charges, the amounts of the charges, and the programs supported by Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. It also (1) assesses how USDA selected programs and monitored Greenbook charges and (2) describes the benefits of the programs, as reported by USDA. GAO reviewed and assessed USDA budget and program documents and discussed processes with officials. What GAO Found: From fiscal years 1999 through 2009, all 15 USDA agencies and 12 staff offices were charged more than $372 million in Greenbook charges—less than 1/1000 of a percent of USDA’s funding for the period. Greenbook charges and programs have increased substantially—from about $5.4 million for 5 programs in 1999 to an estimated $61.2 million for 30 programs in 2009. Because charges for most programs are based on the number of staff, three agencies—Forest Service, Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service—were charged about half of all Greenbook charges; while, three E-government programs accounted for about 52 percent of all Greenbook charges. Figure: Greenbrook Charges in Constant 2009, Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: bar graph] Fiscal year: 1999; Dollars in millions: 5. Fiscal year: 2000; Dollars in millions: 12. Fiscal year: 2001; Dollars in millions: 7. Fiscal year: 2002; Dollars in millions: 8. Fiscal year: 2003; Dollars in millions: 7. Fiscal year: 2004; Dollars in millions: 21. Fiscal year: 2005; Dollars in millions: 43. Fiscal year: 2006; Dollars in millions: 71. Fiscal year: 2007; Dollars in millions: 76. Fiscal year: 2008; Dollars in millions: 60. Fiscal year: 2009; Dollars in millions: 61. Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. Note: Fiscal year 2009 charges are estimated. [End of figure] USDA’s process for selecting Greenbook programs and monitoring Greenbook charges is not documented. According to OCFO, representatives from five offices and one agency contract out or provide Greenbook programs in-house and handle billing agencies and offices for Greenbook charges. They annually nominate new and continuing Greenbook programs. Senior managers then discuss the proposed programs in light of USDA’s overall funding and recommend a list of programs to the Office of the Secretary for approval. However, decisions were not consistently documented to explain what was done and why, and OCFO could locate only half the annual lists of approved programs and funding. Under federal internal control standards, agencies are to have control activities for the accurate and timely recording of transactions and events and appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. USDA’s recent initiatives to obtain information for reporting Greenbook charges to Congress are important, but they do not include the documentation required by the federal control standards to help ensure the integrity of OCFO’s process for selecting programs and monitoring Greenbook charges. OCFO has not tracked the benefits of Greenbook programs. Under federal control standards, managers are to compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant differences. What GAO Recommends: GAO is recommending that USDA establish and document control activities for managing Greenbook programs and charges and track the benefits of Greenbook programs to its agencies and offices. In commenting on a draft of this report, USDA agreed with the recommendations and said the report provided valuable insights to help improve management of the programs. [End of section] Report to Congressional Committees: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: October 2009: U.S. Department Of Agriculture: Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs: U.S. Department of Agriculture: GAO-10-82: Contents: Letter: Background: All USDA Agencies and Staff Offices Have Been Charged Greenbook Charges: USDA's Process for Selecting Greenbook Programs and Monitoring Greenbook Charges Is Not Documented, and Control Activities Would Help Ensure Accountability: OCFO Has Not Tracked the Benefits of Greenbook Programs: Conclusions: Recommendations for Executive Action: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: Appendix I: Greenbook Programs Introduced Since Fiscal Year 1999: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: Appendix IV: Greenbook Charges and Program Funding for Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: Tables: Table 1: USDA Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Table 2: Greenbook Charges to USDA's Agencies and Offices, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Table 3: Greenbook Charges by Program in Constant 2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Table 4: Greenbook Charges to USDA Agencies and Offices in Constant 2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Figures: Figure 1: Greenbook Charges in Constant 2009 Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: Figure 2: The Number of Active Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: Figure 3: Share of Total Greenbook Charges by Program, Fiscal Years 1999-2009: Figure 4: Percentage of Greenbook Charges Billed, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009. Abbreviations: FTE: full-time equivalent: IT: information technology: OBPA: Office of Budget and Program Analysis: OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer: OCIO: Office of the Chief Information Officer: OIG: Office of the Inspector General: USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: [End of section] United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: October 20, 2009: The Honorable Herb Kohl: Chairman: The Honorable Sam Brownback: Ranking Member: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: Committee on Appropriations: United States Senate: The Honorable Rosa DeLauro: Chair: The Honorable Jack Kingston: Ranking Member: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: Committee on Appropriations: House of Representatives: Federal agencies receive funding through appropriations that are for a specific purpose and amount, and need specific statutory authority to transfer or share resources across appropriations accounts. Many agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), have such authority available to them through a working capital fund, which is a funding mechanism used to finance businesslike activities, such as purchasing office supplies and telephone and networking services. USDA also has transfer of funds authority that allows it to charge the appropriations accounts of its agencies and staff offices in order to provide certain programs centrally that benefit those agencies and offices.[Footnote 1] USDA uses these charges, known as "Greenbook" charges, to support several e-government, educational, and presidential initiatives and the USDA visitors' information center, and to fund programs that provide activities and services that USDA's agencies and staff offices would otherwise have to obtain individually, such as sign language interpreter services and a drug testing program. USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has primary responsibility for Greenbook charges. OCFO officials told us that USDA used this transfer of funds authority for a period in the 1970s and 1980s but, following a departmental review, the programs were eliminated or moved to another funding source, such as USDA's working capital fund. According to the officials, USDA began using Greenbook charges again in fiscal year 1999, primarily to facilitate the collection of billing information from USDA agencies and staff offices at a time when USDA was implementing a new accounting system. The Senate report accompanying USDA's fiscal year 2008 appropriations, as reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee,[Footnote 2] expressed concern that Greenbook charges have grown excessively over the last few years. Noting that the disclosure of these charges to Congress has been limited and that the charges may affect the delivery of agencies' mission-related programs, the Senate report directed that we review USDA's Greenbook charges. Additionally, the Senate report directed that USDA report Greenbook charges--including previous and current fiscal year charges and a description of how the charges are assessed--in future annual budget justifications. This report identifies USDA's Greenbook charges, the USDA agencies and offices that have been assessed Greenbook charges, the amount of the charges, and the programs supported by Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. We also (1) assessed how USDA selected programs and monitored Greenbook charges and (2) described the benefits of the programs, as reported by USDA. Appendix I provides a list of programs supported by Greenbook charges by their common names and with brief descriptions; and appendix IV provides two tables summarizing (1) Greenbook charges by program for fiscal years 1999 through 2009 and (2) total annual Greenbook charges by agencies and staff offices for the period. In addition, a complete listing of Greenbook charges by program for the individual USDA agencies and staff offices that were charged Greenbook charges for the period is provided in an electronic supplement to this report.[Footnote 3] For this report, we analyzed USDA Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2008 and estimated charges for fiscal year 2009. Unless stated otherwise, all financial data are expressed in constant 2009 dollars. We use the term "Greenbook programs" throughout the report to refer to programs funded through Greenbook charges. To identify Greenbook charges, agencies and offices that were charged Greenbook charges, the amounts charged, and the programs funded through Greenbook charges, we analyzed publicly reported budget data and OCFO data. We obtained perspectives on changes or trends from OCFO and the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA), Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). To assess how USDA selected programs and monitored Greenbook charges, we reviewed available documentation on justifications for programs and Greenbook charges; discussed the process used for selecting programs and for monitoring and ensuring the accuracy of charges with officials in OCFO, OBPA, OCIO, and OIG; and compared these activities with the federal standards for internal control.[Footnote 4] To describe benefits of programs, as reported by USDA, we (1) reviewed documentation, such as program reports and evaluations; (2) reviewed new program justifications for program descriptions; the specific benefit, impact, or result expected; and the rationale for establishing the program and justifications for funding increases, for information on how additional funding would be used; and (3) discussed efforts to track and document program benefits with OCFO officials. To assess the reliability of Greenbook data, we reviewed audits performed by USDA's OIG on USDA's consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 1999 through 2008, the USDA working capital fund, and Greenbook charges. Over the past 10 years, OIG offered one qualified opinion, three disclaimers of opinion, and six unqualified opinions. None of these opinions cited the Greenbook data as a concern. In addition to reviewing the OIG reports, we performed some quality testing of the data by comparing the Greenbook data to USDA accounting records. The results of our tests indicated that there were discrepancies between some of the Greenbook data and the accounting records, especially in the earlier years. We contacted USDA officials about these discrepancies, and they reported that the data provided to us for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 were actual data obtained from historical records. Since the Greenbook data were based upon historical records, we were unable to conclude whether the discrepancies were the result of inaccuracies in the Greenbook data or the accounting records. We noted that the discrepancies have diminished over time and that in the last 5 years, the difference between the accounting and Greenbook data has been less than 2 percent of the total Greenbook charges. By the last year of our analysis period, we found no discrepancies between the two data sources. USDA confirmed that the data for fiscal years 2002 through 2008 were obtained from the current USDA accounting system and from agency administered records. Consequently, we determined that the Greenbook data used in this report are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through October 2009 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. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Background: USDA comprises 15 agencies in seven broad mission areas responsible for, among other things, assisting farmers and rural communities, overseeing the safety of meat and poultry, providing access to nutritious food for low-income families, and protecting the nation's forests. Twelve staff offices support these mission activities. With a workforce of about 105,540 employees across the country, USDA is expected to spend about $116 billion in fiscal year 2009 to carry out its responsibilities. USDA uses its working capital fund, which was authorized in 1943,[Footnote 5] to support various services (e.g., purchasing office supplies and telephone service) for USDA agencies as well as for a large number of non-USDA entities. For example, USDA is the payroll agent for about 140 federal agencies; the agencies reimburse USDA for the cost of those services. Working capital funds are a form of revolving fund that authorizes an agency to retain receipts and deposit them into the fund to finance the fund's operations. These funds must be created by Congress and are generally self-sustaining. Many agencies use working capital funds. One office will ask to purchase a good or service through the working capital fund and will provide funds to the working capital fund to pay for the good or service. A number of agencies also use the account adjustment statute,[Footnote 6] which provides transfer of funds authority for an agency to charge one appropriation account for some administrative-type activity that benefits more than one account within the agency, and then allocate the costs to the benefiting accounts. Similar to the account adjustment authority, Congress gave USDA transfer of funds authority in 1965.[Footnote 7] Specifically: "Subject to limitations applicable with respect to each appropriation concerned, each appropriation available to the Department of Agriculture may be charged, at any time during a fiscal year, for the benefit of any other appropriation available to the Department, for the purpose of financing the procurement of materials and services, or financing activities or other costs, for which funds are available both in the financing appropriation so charged and in the appropriation so benefited; except that such expenses so financed shall be charged on a final basis, as of a date not later than the close of such fiscal year, to the appropriations so benefited, with appropriate credit to the financing appropriation." The OCFO, which has primary responsibility for Greenbook programs and charges, cites this 1965 law as its authority for Greenbook charges. All USDA Agencies and Staff Offices Have Been Charged Greenbook Charges: USDA's 15 agencies and 12 staff offices have been charged more than $372 million in Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009, according to OCFO data. While the number of agencies and offices charged Greenbook charges has remained relatively stable since 1999, the amount of Greenbook charges and number of Greenbook programs have increased substantially--from about $5.4 million for 5 programs in 1999 to an estimated $61.2 million for 30 programs in 2009. Greenbook charges peaked in fiscal year 2007 at $76 million for 30 programs. Greenbook charges generally followed an upward trend in fiscal years 1999 through 2007, increasing more than 1,000 percent--from $5.4 million to about $76 million--before decreasing by about 20 percent to $60 million in fiscal year 2008. USDA estimates that charges for fiscal year 2009 will increase to $61.2 million, or slightly more than the previous year. Total Greenbook charges accounted for less than 1/1000 of a percent of USDA's annual funding over this period. Figure 1 shows annual Greenbook charges for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. Figure 1: Greenbook Charges in Constant 2009 Dollars, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: bar graph] Fiscal year: 1999; Dollars in millions: 5. Fiscal year: 2000; Dollars in millions: 12. Fiscal year: 2001; Dollars in millions: 7. Fiscal year: 2002; Dollars in millions: 8. Fiscal year: 2003; Dollars in millions: 7. Fiscal year: 2004; Dollars in millions: 21. Fiscal year: 2005; Dollars in millions: 43. Fiscal year: 2006; Dollars in millions: 71. Fiscal year: 2007; Dollars in millions: 76. Fiscal year: 2008; Dollars in millions: 60. Fiscal year: 2009; Dollars in millions: 61. Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. Note: Fiscal year 2009 charges are estimated. [End of figure] Likewise, the trend in the number of active programs in each fiscal year since 1999 has been generally upward (see fig. 2). Starting with 5 programs in fiscal year 1999, programs were added and dropped through fiscal year 2005, when the total number reached 12. That number more than doubled--to 26 active programs--in fiscal year 2006. The number increased again--to 30 active programs--in fiscal year 2007 and remained at 30 in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Figure 2: The Number of Active Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: bar graph] Fiscal year: 1999; Dollars in millions: 5. Fiscal year: 2000; Dollars in millions: 8. Fiscal year: 2001; Dollars in millions: 9. Fiscal year: 2002; Dollars in millions: 12. Fiscal year: 2003; Dollars in millions: 13. Fiscal year: 2004; Dollars in millions: 13. Fiscal year: 2005; Dollars in millions: 12. Fiscal year: 2006; Dollars in millions: 26. Fiscal year: 2007; Dollars in millions: 30. Fiscal year: 2008; Dollars in millions: 30. Fiscal year: 2009; Dollars in millions: 30. Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. [End of figure] Although no more than 30 programs have been active in any 1 year, USDA has introduced a total of 39 Greenbook programs since fiscal year 1999. And once introduced, the majority of programs continued to be funded year after year. Table 1 shows the fiscal year each of the 39 programs program was first introduced. As noted in the table, some of the programs never received funding, some were funded for only 1 or 2 years, some were transferred to the working capital fund, and one was absorbed into another program. See appendix I for a description of each of the 39 programs. Table 1: USDA Greenbook Programs, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Fiscal year: 1999; Program: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 1999; Program: 1890 USDA Initiatives; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 1999; Program: Sign Language Interpreter Services; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 1999; Program: TARGET Center; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 1999; Program: Preauthorized Funding; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2000; Program: Advisory Committee Liaison Services; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2000; Program: Hispanic Advisory Council; Status: Became part of the Diversity Council in 2001. Fiscal year: 2000; Program: Security; Status: Funding stopped in 2001. Fiscal year: 2001; Program: Diversity Council; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2001; Program: American Indian Higher Education Consortium; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2001; Program: USDA Visitor Information Center; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2002; Program: USDA Secretary Honor Awards; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2002; Program: Employee Express; Status: Funding stopped in 2004. Fiscal year: 2002; Program: USDA Drug Testing Program; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2003; Program: Senior Executive Service (SES) Candidate Development Program; Status: Funding stopped in 2005. Fiscal year: 2004; Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2004; Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E- Authentication; Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: USDA Tribal Liaison; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: American Consumer Satisfaction Index; Status: Never received funding. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Services; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Emergency Operations Center; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Labor and Employee Relations System; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Continuity of Operations Planning; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Federal Biobased Products Procurement Program; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Personnel and Document Security; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Radiation Safety; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Flexible Spending Accounts; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: Self Service Dashboard Web Applications; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives-Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)12; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2006; Program: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2007; Program: Financial Management Improvement/ Modernization Initiative; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2007; Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives-Content Management; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2007; Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers Ag Learn; Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008. Fiscal year: 2007; Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services; Status: Transferred to working capital fund in 2008. Fiscal year: 2008; Program: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance; Status: Never received funding. Fiscal year: 2008; Program: Enterprise Network Messaging; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2008; Program: USDA IT Infrastructure Security; Status: Active. Fiscal year: 2008; Program: E-Gov Enablers-Cyber Security; Status: Active. Source: USDA data. Note: No programs were added in fiscal year 2009. [End of table] Three programs have accounted for about 52 percent of total Greenbook charges: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E-Authentication (18.5 percent), which was transferred to the working capital fund in 2008; E- Gov Presidential Initiatives (17.2 percent); and E-Gov Presidential Initiatives HSPD12 (16.2 percent). Nine programs have accounted for about 75 percent of total Greenbook charges: these three plus the 1890 USDA Initiatives, Preauthorized Funding, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services, Enterprise Network Messaging, and TARGET Center. Figure 3 shows the share of fiscal year 1999 through 2009 Greenbook charges spent on individual programs. Figure 3: Share of Total Greenbook Charges by Program, Fiscal Years 1999-2009: [Refer to PDF for image: pie chart] 1890 USDA Initiatives: 5.8%; Preauthorized funding: 4.5%; Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities: 3.8%; E-Gov Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services: 3.1%; Enterprise network messaging: 3.0%; TARGET center: 2.8%; Other programs: 23.2; Other E-Gov programs: 2.0%; USDA E-Gov enablers E-Gov initiative E-authentication: 18.5%; E-Gov Presidential Initiatives: 17.2%; E-Gov Presidential Initiatives HSPD12: 16.2%. Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. [End of figure] Appendix IV presents annual Greenbook charges by program for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. The appendix shows, among other things, that charges for a program may have varied from year to year and that some programs were not active in certain years. For most programs, Greenbook charges have been allocated on the basis of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in the agencies and staff offices. As a result, the Forest Service, which has had the largest number of FTEs, has been charged the largest percentage--about 32 percent--of Greenbook charges every fiscal year from 1999 through 2009. The top three agencies in terms of the number of FTEs--the Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Food Safety and Inspection Service--have together been charged from 42 to 56 percent of Greenbook charges annually during this period. Table 2 shows the amount and percentage of Greenbook charges that have been assessed against the appropriations of each USDA mission-oriented agency and staff office for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. The Forest Service has been charged nearly $120 million of the approximately $372 million in total Greenbook charges for this period. Table 2: Greenbook Charges to USDA's Agencies and Offices, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Agencies and offices: Forest Service; Greenbook charges: $119,695,489; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 32.2%. Agencies and offices: Farm Service Agency; Greenbook charges: 40,272,423; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 10.8%. Agencies and offices: Natural Resources Conservation Service; Greenbook charges: 34,506,025; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 9.3%. Agencies and offices: Food Safety and Inspection Service; Greenbook charges: 28,126,579; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.6%. Agencies and offices: Agricultural Research Service; Greenbook charges: 26,838,649; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.2%. Agencies and offices: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Greenbook charges: 26,265,246; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 7.1%. Agencies and offices: Rural Development; Greenbook charges: 23,808,277; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 6.4%. Agencies and offices: Office of the Chief Information Officer; Greenbook charges: 21,074,004; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 5.7%. Agencies and offices: Agricultural Marketing Service; Greenbook charges: 8,921,305; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 2.4%. Agencies and offices: Food and Nutrition Service; Greenbook charges: 7,124,722; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.9%. Agencies and offices: Foreign Agricultural Service; Greenbook charges: 6,552,889; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.8%. Agencies and offices: Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Greenbook charges: 5,523,535; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.5%. Agencies and offices: National Agricultural Statistics Service; Greenbook charges: 4,406,856; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 1.2%. Agencies and offices: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; Greenbook charges: 3,232,980; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.9%. Agencies and offices: Office of the Inspector General; Greenbook charges: 2,740,328; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.7%. Agencies and offices: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; Greenbook charges: 2,449,178; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.7%. Agencies and offices: Risk Management Agency; Greenbook charges: 2,268,463; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.6%. Agencies and offices: Departmental Administration; Greenbook charges: 2,206,674; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.6%. Agencies and offices: Economic Research Service; Greenbook charges: 1,562,884; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.4%. Agencies and offices: Office of Chief Economist; Greenbook charges: 1,485,835; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.4%. Agencies and offices: Office of General Counsel; Greenbook charges: 1,200,430; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.3%. Agencies and offices: Office of Civil Rights; Greenbook charges: 491,994; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%. Agencies and offices: Office of Communications; Greenbook charges: 419,741; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%. Agencies and offices: National Appeals Division; Greenbook charges: 377,935; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%. Agencies and offices: Office of the Secretary; Greenbook charges: 310,055; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%. Agencies and offices: Office of Budget and Program Analysis; Greenbook charges: 269,835; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.1%. Agencies and offices: Office of Executive Secretary; Greenbook charges: 130,962; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: 0.0%. Agencies and offices: Total; Greenbook charges: $372,263,295; Percentage of total Greenbook charges: a. Source: USDA data. Note: Charges for fiscal year 2009 are estimated. [A] Percentage does not add to 100 percent because of rounding. [End of table] According to OCFO, the Agricultural Research Service, Departmental Administration, OCFO, and the offices of the Secretary, the Chief Information Officer, and Civil Rights serve as sponsors for the Greenbook programs. They may contract for the services or activities of the program or use their own staff to provide the services or activities. As shown in figure 4, the Greenbook programs sponsored in the Office of the Chief Information Officer have accounted for about 63 percent of all Greenbook charges--about $233 million--for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. Figure 4: Percentage of Greenbook Charges Billed, Fiscal Years 1999- 2009. [Refer PDF for image: pie graph] Office of Civil Rights: 9.0%; Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 6.7%; Agricultural Research Service: 3.8; Office of the Secretary: 0.9%; Office of the Chief Information Officer: 62.8%; Departmental Administration: 16.8%. Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. [End of figure] For additional details on Greenbook charges, see appendixes IV and the e-supplement.[Footnote 8] Appendix IV provides total annual Greenbook charges by the agencies and staff offices for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. The e-supplement contains separate tables for each of USDA's 15 mission-related agencies and 12 staff offices, showing annual Greenbook charges for the individual programs in which they participated, for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. USDA's Process for Selecting Greenbook Programs and Monitoring Greenbook Charges Is Not Documented, and Control Activities Would Help Ensure Accountability: USDA's process for selecting Greenbook programs and monitoring Greenbook charges is not documented. According to OCFO officials, as noted above, representatives from the Agricultural Research Service, Departmental Administration, OCFO, and the offices of the Secretary, the Chief Information Officer, and Civil Rights have served as contact points for the individual Greenbook programs and charges. These representatives: * identify and nominate new programs, and their funding levels, cost allocation methods, and the agencies and staff offices that should participate, for consideration for Greenbook funding for the next fiscal year; * identify the active programs that should be continued, and any adjustments needed to funding level, cost allocation method, or participants; * contract for services or provide staff for the active programs; and: * handle the billing of Greenbook charges to the agencies and staff offices that participate in the programs. A group composed of senior managers, representing the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries from the department's seven mission areas and its larger staff offices, and chaired by the CFO, meets at least annually to consider the nominations for new Greenbook programs and the proposals for changes in active programs. According to OCFO officials, this group of senior managers discusses and considers the proposals in the context of USDA's overall funding picture to develop a recommendation for Greenbook programs to fund for the next fiscal year. This recommendation, which includes proposed levels of funding, cost allocation methods, and the agency and staff office participants, goes to the Office of the Secretary for approval. Then, officials in the Office of the Secretary review, and may further revise, the recommendation from the senior managers and give it to the Secretary or his/her designee, for final approval. The final approved lists of programs and funding details are sent out to USDA's agencies and staff offices in a memo from the Office of the Secretary. According to OCFO, this process has been in place since the beginning of fiscal year 2006. Prior to that time, OCFO did not have a process for approving new Greenbook programs or requests for increases in funding for existing programs. Those decisions were made by the Deputy Secretary; the group of senior managers was not involved. Even with the current process in place, however, decisions about Greenbook programs and charges have not been consistently documented to explain what was done and why. Under the federal internal control standards, agencies are to employ control activities, such as accurate and timely recording of transactions and events and the appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. Without such control activities, agencies do not have the necessary framework to provide reasonable assurance that they are operating effectively and efficiently and that program results will be achieved. Examples of control activities relevant to USDA's Greenbook processes include the following: * Accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. OCFO has not documented the events involved in selecting programs and monitoring Greenbook charges and funding levels. Because the events were not documented, OCFO officials could not tell us how representatives and senior managers identified programs that should continue and nominated new programs. In addition, OCFO could not find all memos from the Office of the Secretary documenting the final approved Greenbook programs and funding levels for each fiscal year. In fact, about half of the memos were missing for the 11-year period reviewed. Also, OCFO has not maintained documentation on the mid-year funding adjustments to Greenbook charges issued when, for example, USDA was operating under a continuing budget resolution. Such documentation would help OCFO ensure that the programs and charges for the year were consistent with what had been approved. * Appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control. OCFO does not specify the controlling operations on Greenbook charges and programs in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals. Such directives, with criteria to consider in nominating and recommending Greenbook programs and monitoring Greenbook charges, would help inform decisions and help OCFO ensure it has documentation on decisions that are reached on Greenbook programs and charges. In contrast, OCFO has a management directive for the working capital fund that includes internal control activities to help ensure accountability in identifying and monitoring programs supported through the fund that could serve as a model. OCFO officials told us they have relied on their undocumented process and professional accounting and financial standards to manage Greenbook programs and charges. However, under federal standards, control activities need to be an integral part of any program planning, implementing, and reviewing endeavor. USDA's OIG recently reported that USDA agencies have a history of reacting to individual control issues rather than addressing the overall weaknesses of their internal control systems. Noting that internal control weaknesses continued to impair the utility of USDA's financial information, the OIG reported that the department needed to improve internal controls over financial management systems and processes to ensure that accurate financial data were available to managers administering and operating USDA programs.[Footnote 9] When we met with OCFO officials in May 2009 to discuss our preliminary findings, they told us that in the current budget climate they need to take every measure to reduce costs, and that controls such as written policies and procedures for selecting programs and overseeing Greenbook charges would probably help ensure, among other things, that unspent Greenbook charges are returned to participating agencies and staff offices or to the U.S. Treasury. OCFO has implemented initiatives to develop the data it will need to report Greenbook charges in future annual budget justifications, as Congress directed in 2007. Specifically: * OCFO has developed an Excel spreadsheet to collect information on new programs, such as the programs' cost allocation methods and proposed staffing, and budget justifications for funding increases. However, our review of the information submitted on new and continuing programs for fiscal year 2007 and later found that the information was not filled in consistently or completely. The data OCFO required included justifications for programs added in 2007. No new program justifications were provided for 2008 and no programs added for 2009. * OCFO has issued guidelines for collecting information for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 on hardware and software costs in all USDA's information technology (IT) programs, including in Greenbook programs. According to OCFO officials, USDA is to use this information to create a snapshot of IT-related investments department-wide. OCFO also started an internal Web site in 2004 where USDA agencies and staff offices can view their estimated Greenbook charges and enter information on the Greenbook programs. While these initiatives are important, they do not include the documentation required by the federal internal control standards to help ensure the integrity of OCFO's process for selecting programs and monitoring Greenbook charges. OCFO Has Not Tracked the Benefits of Greenbook Programs: According to OCFO officials, USDA has not tracked program benefits to be sure the Greenbook programs continue to benefit participating agencies and staff offices and do so at appropriate costs. OCFO has not established program evaluation metrics for Greenbook programs, such as the extent to which agencies and staff offices would use the programs and the benefits they should expect to gain. It also has no information on planned program benefits and comparisons with alternative programs, whether prior programs have achieved desired results, and whether a Greenbook program would replace an existing comparable program within an agency or staff office. Under the federal standards for internal control, managers are to compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant differences. Such assessments help managers identify problems in a program's design and delivery and make timely decisions to correct or replace the program. Information on such assessments would allow OCFO to determine whether a Greenbook program was operating as intended--that is, that it efficiently and effectively achieved planned or expected results--or that it was not doing so. OCFO officials told us that periodic program assessments to ensure programs continue to provide benefits at an appropriate cost would be worthwhile, but they did not indicate whether they planned to track these assessments. Tracking program benefits would help ensure accountability for Greenbook programs and funding and could facilitate USDA-wide Greenbook funding decisions among worthy programs. In the September 30, 2009, Conference Report accompanying USDA's fiscal year 2010 appropriations, Senate and House Appropriations Committee conferees reiterated their concern about USDA's handling of Greenbook charges and programs.[Footnote 10] This concern focused on both the level of spending for Greenbook programs and the lack of transparency in funding Greenbook activities. The conferees noted their expectation that USDA will comply with any recommendations we make and implement them in a timely manner. The conferees directed USDA to provide a report to the Committees on the steps being taken to implement our recommendations and the actions to increase transparency into the funding and decision-making mechanisms associated with the Greenbook process. USDA's report is to also highlight steps being taken to evaluate the performance of ongoing Greenbook activities to determine the benefit to the Department of continuing such activities, and include a discussion of returning assessments to levels consistent with fiscal years 2001 through 2003. Conclusions: The numbers of Greenbook programs and the charges have increased over the last 11 years. Yet, OCFO does not have control activities for managing these programs and charges, including appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control and the accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. Nor does OCFO track the benefits of the programs to determine whether they are operating as intended. Documentation for Greenbook programs would help OCFO oversee the effective and efficient use of Greenbook charges and the benefits of Greenbook programs. Recommendations for Executive Action: To help ensure accountability in selecting programs, overseeing Greenbook charges, and achieving program benefits, we are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture direct OCFO to take the following two actions: * establish and document control activities for managing Greenbook programs and charges, and: * track the benefits of Greenbook programs to the agencies and staff offices that are charged Greenbook charges. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. In written comments from the Chief Financial Officer, USDA stated that our report provided valuable insights and recommendations to help USDA improve management of its Greenbook programs. USDA also agreed with our recommendations. With respect to our recommendation to establish and document control activities for managing Greenbook programs and charges, USDA stated that, for the sake of transparency, a documented decision process would be beneficial. USDA commented that it will develop guidelines for the decision-making process related to funding Greenbook programs and document the decisions that are made. USDA further commented that it has already taken steps to document and provide a more formal process for the annual budget review. Regarding our recommendation to track the benefits of Greenbook programs to the agencies and staff offices that are charged Greenbook charges, USDA acknowledged that its most recent efforts fell short but it will continue its efforts. USDA issued formal budget requirements for fiscal year 2011--with budget guidance that provided specific requirements for performance measures and analysis of the benefits of Greenbook activities. Based on the budget submissions, USDA stated that this was an area that will need to be developed more fully to measure the value of individual Greenbook programs. USDA also stated that it plans to issue guidelines for making decisions related to adding or removing programs from Greenbook that will strengthen oversight of those activities and require that decisions made during the budget process are documented. USDA's written comments appear in appendix II. USDA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture and other interested parties. 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 Office of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may now be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. Lisa Shames Director, Natural Resources and Environment: [End of section] Appendix I: Greenbook Programs Introduced Since Fiscal Year 1999: Short program title: 1890 USDA Initiatives (1890 Programs); Program description: Attracts students to careers in agriculture and related fields, including food and agricultural sciences and, among other things, increases the involvement of the eighteen 1890 Land Grant Universities in the delivery of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. Short program title: Advisory Committee Liaison Services; Program description: Provides guidance and direction to USDA agencies on advisory committees and boards. Short program title: American Consumer Satisfaction Index; Program description: Supports rating USDA's Web site home page, to meet an Office of Management and Budget requirement to measure and report customer satisfaction. Short program title: American Indian Higher Education Consortium (1994 Program); Program description: Promotes, fosters, and encourages the implementation of programs for improving postsecondary and higher education opportunities for American Indians, and establishes information centers for those education institutions. Short program title: Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP); Program description: Ensures that USDA has in place a comprehensive and effective program to ensure the survival of the constitutional form of government and continuity of essential federal functions under all circumstances and provides for USDA COOP activities, including awareness training, exercises, and COOP plan reviews. Short program title: Diversity Council; Program description: Enhances the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce in USDA through a broad range of program forums designed to, among other things, discuss and resolve barriers, implement mandatory diversity training, and support groups that provide the Secretary ongoing advice on matters affecting their communities. Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiative HSPD12; Program description: Supports the implementation of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12--the Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors to create a common standard form of identification and facilitate issuance to USDA employees and contractors. Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives; Program description: Assists with improving information technology (IT) planning by expanding electronic government to deliver significant productivity and performance gains across all federal departments. USDA participates in 30 Presidential Initiatives and Lines of Business. Short program title: E-Gov USDA Enablers - Ag Learn; Program description: Provides a centralized infrastructure for deploying enterprise-wide and agency-specific courses, and enables employees and supervisors to manage learning functions (e.g., registration, course delivery, and skills assessment). Moved to the working capital fund in 2008. Short program title: E-Gov USDA Enablers - Cyber Security; Program description: Administers Cyber Security Assessment and Management, a comprehensive compliance tool to enable federal agencies to identify threats and vulnerabilities through use of the embedded National Institute for Standards and Technology control requirements for IT systems, and supports the President's Management Agenda by, among other things, providing better risk management tools. Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Content Management; Program description: Supports the conversion to Enterprise Content Management from USDA's legacy correspondence management application (Staff Action), to facilitate the sharing of documents and access to information. Short program title: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program (ECPP); Program description: Enhances the department's critical infrastructure recovery and reconstitution capabilities through the development, maintenance, and use of contingency plans for all USDA critical infrastructure; combines the Contingency Planning Suite software, processes, and USDA staff to meet contingency planning required in legislative and executive mandates. Short program title: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Enterprise Services; Program description: Provides a suite of technology tools and accompanying business processes that enable USDA to achieve its goals and objectives for leveraging its e-Government investments and delivering government services in a more citizen-center manner. Moved to the working capital fund in 2008. Short program title: Emergency Operations Center; Program description: Provides a highly trained and secure emergency operations capability on a 24/7 basis. Center provides critical communications and coordination systems. Short program title: Employee Express; Program description: Allows USDA employees to use the system to make changes in their federal health benefit plan and thrift savings plan enrollments. Short program title: Enterprise Network Messaging; Program description: Provides a transport mechanism to provide information or data to end users. Short program title: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance; Program description: Implements a single, standard enterprise-wide time and attendance system that will offer cost savings, resource reductions, training, and helpdesk support. Short program title: Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Program description: Provides departmental oversight of the USDA efforts in this area and supports the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives regional outreach conferences. Short program title: Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program; Program description: Supports the completion of a model procurement plan, the development of a unified bio-based Web site, and the establishment of a bio-based research center to provide information resources to public and federal agencies. Short program title: Financial Management Improvement / Modernization Initiative; Program description: Supports beginning procurement for a new Core Financial Management System through the Financial Management Modernization Initiative. Short program title: Flexible Spending Accounts; Program description: Administers the Federal Flexible Benefits Plan. Short program title: Hispanic Advisory Council; Program description: Provides leadership on Hispanic issues. Became part of the Diversity Council in 2001. Short program title: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; Program description: Fosters educational excellence in the Hispanic community and promotes Hispanic participation in fulfilling the USDA mission through recruitment and educational efforts. Short program title: Labor and Employee Relations System; Program description: Supports the department-wide Web-based Labor and Employee Relations Case Tracking and Reporting System. (The system is scheduled to be absorbed into the EmpowHR system.) Short program title: Personnel and Document Security; Program description: Ensures the proper protection of classified national security information. Short program title: Preauthorized Funding; Program description: Provides a funding mechanism for reimbursable activities that cost less than $100,000. Short program title: Radiation Safety; Program description: Implements a comprehensive radiation safety and radiological emergency response coordination program that ensures the safe use of radioactive materials in departmental programs. Short program title: Security; Program description: Provides protective operations and guard services for the physical security of the headquarters building and owned and leased facilities. Short program title: Self Service Dashboard Web Application; Program description: Serves as an e-authenticated single sign-on portal for several USDA human resource systems that enables employees to calculate several retirement scenarios. Short program title: Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program; Program description: Prepares future executives to assume key positions in targeted occupational areas. Short program title: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Services; Program description: Provides sign language interpreting services upon agency request, and the costs are paid by the agency. Short program title: Sign Language Interpreter Services; Program description: Provides sign language interpretive services to facilitate communications between USDA employees who are deaf or hard of hearing and their hearing co-workers. Short program title: TARGET (Technology Accessible Resources Gives Employment Today) Center; Program description: Provides information to ensure equal access to electronic technologies and automated systems essential to today's jobs for people with visual, hearing, speech, mobility, or dexterity impairments in support of USDA's workforce diversity and Federal Workforce 2001 policies. Short program title: USDA Drug Testing Program; Program description: Helps ensure a drug-free work place through random testing, testing with reasonable suspicion and after an accident, and testing for volunteers and job applicants. Short program title: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E- Authentication; Program description: Provides single sign-on capability for access to Web applications, management of user credentials, and verification of identity for employees and customers. Moved to the working capital fund in 2008. Short program title: USDA IT Infrastructure Security; Program description: Provides security tools to monitor and detect and report information in agency systems, to monitor changes in network security baseline configurations, and to reverse changes if needed. Short program title: USDA Secretary Honor Awards; Program description: Recognizes significant accomplishments of USDA employees at all grade levels as well as private citizens for their support of the USDA mission through the department's highest honor awards program. Short program title: USDA Tribal Liaison Services; Program description: Provides for travel for the national program director, support for an intern or other personnel, and other services and related programs. Short program title: USDA Visitor Information Center; Program description: Presents information on USDA programs and initiatives and provides program-related literature when requested via the mail. [End of table] Source: USDA data. [End of section] Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: USDA: United States Department of Agriculture: Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 1400 Independence Avenue, SW: October 15, 2009: Ms. Lisa Shames: D Director, Natural Resources and Environment: Government Accountability Office: Washington, D.C. 20250 441 G Street, NW: Washington, D.C. 20548: Dear Ms. Shames: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-09-914, "Internal Control Would Improve Accountability for Certain Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs." The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) generally agrees with GAO's findings and recommendations in the draft report. This report identifies the agencies and staff offices assessed "Greenbook" charges for reimbursable programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). GAO reviewed the amount of the charges and the reimbursable programs supported by "Greenbook" charges for Fiscal Years (FY) 1999 through 2009. However, for most reimbursable programs, charges are allocated based on the number of full-time equivalent employees in the USDA agencies or staff offices. GAO recommended that USDA establish and document control activities for managing reimbursable program charges. It added that the Department should track the benefits from these programs. The Department agrees that for the sake of transparency, a documented decision process would be beneficial. The Department will develop guidelines for the decision-making process related to the funding of "Greenbook" reimbursable activities. It will document the decisions that are made. The Department has already taken steps to document and provide a more formal process for the annual budget review. USDA has issued formal budget requirements for the FY 2011 budget. The FY 2011 budget guidance provided specific requirements for performance measures and analysis of the benefits of "Greenbook" activities. Based on the budget submissions, this is an area that will need to be developed more fully to measure the value of the individual activities to USDA. This year, an interagency review board, consisting of representatives appointed by the seven USDA mission area Under Secretaries, chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, was established to review the FY 2011 budgets for the "Greenbook" reimbursable activities. The Board held a series of budget review meetings. Reimbursable program managers presented their budget and responded to questions from the Board members. The Board has completed its review and will submit its recommendations via the Chief Financial Officer to the Assistant Secretary for Administration for use in making final funding decisions. The Department plans to continue building on the progress that has been made this year in developing the "Greenbook" budgets. While working with its agencies, USDA will issue guidelines for decision-making related to activities that are added to or removed from the "Greenbook." These guidelines will strengthen the oversight of the activities and will require that decisions made during the budget process are documented. We appreciate GAO's time and efforts during this audit to provide valuable insights and recommendations to help USDA improve management of its reimbursable programs. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 720-5539, or have a member of your staff contact Kathy Donaldson, ()CFO Audit Liaison Officer at, (202) 720-1893. Sincerely. Signed by: Evan J. Seagal: Chief Financial Officer: [End of section] Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov: Staff Acknowledgments: In addition to the contact named above, Erin Lansburgh (Assistant Director), Les Mahagan, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. Other team members, including Aldoria (Camille) Adebayo, Karen Burke, Robert Lunsford, and Ellery Scott, made important contributions to producing this report and the accompanying electronic supplement. [End of section] Appendix IV: Greenbook Charges and Program Funding for Fiscal Years 1999-2009: This appendix contains two summary tables. The first, table 3, has Greenbook charges to USDA's agencies and staff offices for fiscal years 1999 through 2009. The second, table 4, has annual Greenbook charges by program for the period. The amounts shown for fiscal years 1999 through 2008 are actual, while those for fiscal year 2009 are estimates. All amounts are expressed in constant 2009 dollars. Table 3: Greenbook Charges by Program in Constant 2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: Program: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; Fiscal year: 1999: $1,041,857; Fiscal year: 2000: $1,102,530; Fiscal year: 2001: $1,068,512; Fiscal year: 2002: $1,084,298; Fiscal year: 2003: $1,086,509; Fiscal year: 2004: $1,093,782; Fiscal year: 2005: $1,670,825; Fiscal year: 2006: $1,611,673; Fiscal year: 2007: $1,574,489; Fiscal year: 2008: $1,449,217; Fiscal year: 2009: $1,442,000; Fiscal year: Total: $14,225,692. Program: 1890 USDA Initiatives; Fiscal year: 1999: 2,708,827; Fiscal year: 2000: 2,250,615; Fiscal year: 2001: 2,104,783; Fiscal year: 2002: 2,214,378; Fiscal year: 2003: 389,944; Fiscal year: 2004: 610,252; Fiscal year: 2005: 2,384,720; Fiscal year: 2006: 2,204,260; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,992,434; Fiscal year: 2008: 2,412,195; Fiscal year: 2009: 2,425,000; Fiscal year: Total: 21,697,407. Program: Sign Language Interpreter Services; Fiscal year: 1999: 285,208; Fiscal year: 2000: 164,048; Fiscal year: 2001: 158,932; Fiscal year: 2002: 161,440; Fiscal year: 2003: 138,078; Fiscal year: 2004: 164,088; Fiscal year: 2005: 162,627; Fiscal year: 2006: 193,696; Fiscal year: 2007: 230,614; Fiscal year: 2008: 225,948; Fiscal year: 2009: 231,000; Fiscal year: Total: 2,115,680. Program: TARGET Center; Fiscal year: 1999: 744,927; Fiscal year: 2000: 721,812; Fiscal year: 2001: 1,040,393; Fiscal year: 2002: 1,056,588; Fiscal year: 2003: 1,058,257; Fiscal year: 2004: 1,021,454; Fiscal year: 2005: 1,030,352; Fiscal year: 2006: 928,264; Fiscal year: 2007: 969,614; Fiscal year: 2008: 917,914; Fiscal year: 2009: 927,000; Fiscal year: Total: 10,416,577. Program: Preauthorized funding; Fiscal year: 1999: 651,160; Fiscal year: 2000: 757,146; Fiscal year: 2001: 611,277; Fiscal year: 2002: 240,262; Fiscal year: 2003: 644,960; Fiscal year: 2004: 567,813; Fiscal year: 2005: 818,163; Fiscal year: 2006: 584,821; Fiscal year: 2007: 6,436,207; Fiscal year: 2008: 2,867,405; Fiscal year: 2009: 2,600,000; Fiscal year: Total: 16,779,213. Program: Advisory Committee Liaison Services; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 201,905; Fiscal year: 2001: 146,706; Fiscal year: 2002: 214,450; Fiscal year: 2003: 88,016; Fiscal year: 2004: 201,955; Fiscal year: 2005: 214,337; Fiscal year: 2006: 200,000; Fiscal year: 2007: 202,584; Fiscal year: 2008: 190,395; Fiscal year: 2009: 199,000; Fiscal year: Total: 1,859,349. Program: Hispanic Advisory Council; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 474,459; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 474,459. Program: Security; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 6,753,738; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 6,753,738. Program: Diversity Council; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001:1,057,509; Fiscal year: 2002:1,737,287; Fiscal year: 2003:1,586,206; Fiscal year: 2004:1,541,337; Fiscal year: 2005: 1,155,578; Fiscal year: 2006: 439,125; Fiscal year: 2007: 521,924; Fiscal year: 2008: 480,051; Fiscal year: 2009: 513,000; Fiscal year: Total: 9,032,017. Program: American Indian Higher Education Consortium; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 133,096; Fiscal year: 2002: 160,235; Fiscal year: 2003: 161,269; Fiscal year: 2004: 163,320; Fiscal year: 2005: 161,513; Fiscal year: 2006: 158,007; Fiscal year: 2007: 384,790; Fiscal year: 2008: 420,107; Fiscal year: 2009: 580,000; Fiscal year: Total: 2,322,338. Program: Visitors Center; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 424,226; Fiscal year: 2002: 430,105; Fiscal year: 2003: 415,115; Fiscal year: 2004: 239,020; Fiscal year: 2005: 170,585; Fiscal year: 2006: 118,428; Fiscal year: 2007: 254,789; Fiscal year: 2008: 188,963; Fiscal year: 2009: 268,000; Fiscal year: Total: 2,509,230. Program: Honor Awards; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 154,211; Fiscal year: 2003: 129,218; Fiscal year: 2004: 153,074; Fiscal year: 2005: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 2005: 47,024; Fiscal year: 2007: 83,868; Fiscal year: 2008: 75,528; Fiscal year: 2009: 80,000; Fiscal year: Total: 722,923. Program: Employee Express; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 451,791; Fiscal year: 2003: 470,860; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 922,651. Program: Drug Testing Program; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 163,849; Fiscal year: 2003: 176,820; Fiscal year: 2004: 194,597; Fiscal year: 2005: 138,951; Fiscal year: 2006: 127,682; Fiscal year: 2007: 82,209; Fiscal year: 2008: 85,042; Fiscal year: 2009: 100,000; Fiscal year: Total: 1,069,150. Program: Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 631,990; Fiscal year: 2004: 177,728; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 809,718. Program: E-GOV Presidential Initiatives; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 10,550,375; Fiscal year: 2005: 9,551,095; Fiscal year: 2006: 11,479,280; Fiscal year: 2007: 9,446,934; Fiscal year: 2008: 11,733,253; Fiscal year: 2009: 11,185,000; Fiscal year: Total: 63,945,937. Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers E-Gov Initiative E-Authentication; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001; Fiscal year: 2002; Fiscal year: 20030; Fiscal year: 2004: 4,800,123; Fiscal year: 2005: 25,423,013; Fiscal year: 2006: 27,055,647; Fiscal year: 2007: 11,546,253; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 68,825,036. Program: USDA Tribal Liaison; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 75,322; Fiscal year: 2007: 55,537; Fiscal year: 2008: 67,833; Fiscal year: 2009: 69,000; Fiscal year: Total: 267,692. Program: Faith-Based Initiatives; Fiscal year: 1990; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 245,717; Fiscal year: 2007: 252,324; Fiscal year: 2008: 357,820; Fiscal year: 2009: 400,000; Fiscal year: Total: 1,255,861. Program: American Consumer Satisfaction Index; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 0. Program: Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Services; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000; Fiscal year: 2001; Fiscal year: 2002; Fiscal year: 2003; Fiscal year: 2004; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 562,607; Fiscal year: 2007: 614,650; Fiscal year: 2008: 637,130; Fiscal year: 2009: 505,000; Fiscal year: Total: 2,319,387. Program: Emergency Operations Center; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 1,981,120; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,985,987; Fiscal year: 2008: 2,206,007; Fiscal year: 2009: 2,205,000; Fiscal year: Total: 8,378,114. Program: Labor and Employee Relations Case Tracking and Reporting System; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 80,480; Fiscal year: 2007: 73,362; Fiscal year: 2008: 20,080; Fiscal year: 2009: 72,000; Fiscal year: Total: 245,922. Program: Continuity of Operations Planning; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 1,061,689; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,684,612; Fiscal year: 2008: 1,539,131; Fiscal year: 2009: 1,820,000; Fiscal year: Total: 6,105,432. Program: Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 414,729; Fiscal year: 2007: 357,200; Fiscal year: 2008: 350,053; Fiscal year: 2009: 350,000; Fiscal year: Total: 1,471,982. Program: Personnel and Document Security; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 1,141,013; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,641,658; Fiscal year: 2008: 1,648,706; Fiscal year: 2009: 1,648,000; Fiscal year: Total: 6,079,376. Program: Radiation Safety; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 953,220; Fiscal year: 2007: 944,693; Fiscal year: 2008: 931,640; Fiscal year: 2009: 927,000; Fiscal year: Total: 3,756,553. Program: Flexible Spending Accounts FSAFEDS; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 1,554,359; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,611,788; Fiscal year: 2008: 2,075,399; Fiscal year: 2009: 2,065,065; Fiscal year: Total: 7,306,611. Program: Self Service Dashboard and Retirement Processor Web Application; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000; Fiscal year: 2001; Fiscal year: 2002; Fiscal year: 2003; Fiscal year: 2004; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 368,061; Fiscal year: 2007: 343,202; Fiscal year: 2008: 339,686; Fiscal year: 2009: 338,000; Fiscal year: Total: 1,388,948. Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives HSPD12; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 15,905,227; Fiscal year: 2007: 16,634,085; Fiscal year: 2008: 14,877,243; Fiscal year: 2009: 12,783,000; Fiscal year: Total: 60,199,554. Program: USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 1,242,733; Fiscal year: 2007: 884,756; Fiscal year: 2008: 878,806; Fiscal year: 2009: 880,000; Fiscal year: Total: 3,886,295. Program: Financial Management Improvement Initiative; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,309,187; Fiscal year: 2008: 1,980,680; Fiscal year: 2009: 5,000,000; Fiscal year: Total: 8,289,866. Program: E-Gov Presidential Initiatives - Content Management; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 1,333,067; Fiscal year: 2008: 1,316,556; Fiscal year: 2009: 1,500,000; Fiscal year: Total: 4,149,624. Program: USDA E-Gov Enablers Ag Learn; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 991,127; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 991,127. Program: E-GOV Presidential Initiatives Enterprise Services; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 11,546,253; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 11,546,253. Program: Enterprise-wide Time and Attendance; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 0; Fiscal year: 2009: 0; Fiscal year: Total: 0. Program: Enterprise Network Messaging; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 5,508,427; Fiscal year: 2009: 5,500,000; Fiscal year: Total: 11,008,427. Program: USDA IT Infrastructure Security; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 3,015,015; Fiscal year: 2009: 3,000,000; Fiscal year: Total: 6,015,015. Program: E-Gov Enablers-Cyber Security; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0; Fiscal year: 2002: 0; Fiscal year: 2003: 0; Fiscal year: 2004: 0; Fiscal year: 2005: 0; Fiscal year: 2006: 0; Fiscal year: 2007: 0; Fiscal year: 2008: 1,527,137; Fiscal year: 2009: 1,593,000; Fiscal year: Total: 3,120,137. Program: Total; Fiscal year: 1999: $5,431,980; Fiscal year: 2000: $12,426,254; Fiscal year: 2001: $6,745,434; Fiscal year: 2002: $8,068,894; Fiscal year: 2003: $6,977,241; Fiscal year: 2004: $21,478,918; Fiscal year: 2005: $42,881,759; Fiscal year: 2006: $70,734,184; Fiscal year: 2007: $75,990,201; Fiscal year: 2008: $60,323,365; Fiscal year: 2009: $61,205,065; Fiscal year: Total: $372,263,295. Source: GAO's analysis of USDA budget data. [End of table] Table 4: Greenbook Charges to USDA Agencies and Offices in Constant 2009 Dollars for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009: [Refer to PDF for table] Source: GAO's analysis of USDA budget data. [End of table] Footnotes: [1] Pub. L. No. 89-106, § 8, 79 Stat. 431, 432 (1965) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2263). [2] S. Rep. No. 110-134, at 7 (2007). [3] GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Charges to Agencies and Offices for Centrally Provided (Greenbook) Programs for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2009, [[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO- 10-83SP] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2009). [4] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). [5] 7 U.S.C. § 2235. [6] 31 U.S.C. § 1534. [7] Pub. L. No. 89-106 § 8, 79 Stat. 431,432 (1965) (codified at 7. U.S.C. § 2263). [8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-83SP]. [9] USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General: Management Challenges (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2008). [10] H.R. Rep. No. 111-279, at 53 (2009). [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's 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 Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 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: