Detailed Information on the
Emergency Conservation Program Assessment

Develop and use improved, outcome-based performance measures, including long-term, annual, and efficiency measures.

Develop and implement a system for holding FSA state and local program managers, as well as program partners, accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results.

Develop and implement a method of effectively prioritizing limited disaster recovery funds to farmers most in need of financial assistance.

Measure: Reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office.

Explanation:This measure is designed to address the average processing time it takes for emergency program benefits thus, improving program efficiency and reducing time and, therefore, the cost of providing the benefits. Data in days.

Measure: Increase percentage of ECP counties with planted program crop acres returning to pre-disaster levels.

Explanation:This measure is designed to show the percentage of land returned to the long-term projected acreage trend in each county within two years after a natural disaster.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Emergency Conservation Program's (ECP) purpose is to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters to restore its productive capacity and to carry out emergency water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. Natural disasters include wind and water erosion, floods, hurricanes, drought, tornados, fire, and other natural disasters.

Evidence: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989, Section 502; ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Fact Sheet - http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/statisti.htm

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The ECP addresses the conservation and environmental needs that exist on farmland after a natural disaster. ECP treats agricultural land, which if left untreated would impair or endanger the land, materially affect the land's productive capacity, represent unusual damage that is not the type likely to recur frequently in the same area, and be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is required to return the land to productive agricultural use. To be eligible for the program, the conservation problem must not have existed prior to the disaster.

Evidence: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989; Section 502; ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Fact Sheet at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/statisti.htm; Samples of ECP files with pictures

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: ECP complements other Federal and non-Federal disaster recovery programs. ECP is authorized and designed to address specific conservation needs resulting from the effects of natural disasters on farmland. ECP is the primary Federal emergency conservation program available to farmers to remove debris from crop fields, haul water to livestock, and restore conservation structures, such as dams, ponds, diversions, and terrace systems. Other Federal emergency programs cover damage on other types of land or buildings. Unlike the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP), administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), ECP funds go directly to the agricultural producer. The purpose of EWP is to help groups of people with a common problem; it is not an individual assistance program. Additionally, EWP must have a local project sponsor for the program, such as a State, city, or local soil conservation district, for funds to be administered in the event of a natural disaster. EWP provides funding to project sponsors for such work as clearing debris from clogged waterways, restoring vegetation, and stabilizing river banks, whereas ECP focuses on agricultural land. The ECP Matrix cited under the evidence data, below, lists specifically what land and what damage can be addressed under ECP and other USDA emergency programs. EWP Federal Regulation, 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 624, Section 4.b, states "EWP assistance would only be applicable when the emergency measures are not eligible for assistance under ECP." ECP regulations published on May 26, 2006, allow ECP assistance on land on which an EWP practice is being performed as long as the ECP is not for the same or similar practice.

Evidence: See EWP/ECP Matrix, Website- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/; 7 CFR Part 624, Section 4.b; Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989; Section 502; ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: ECP's historical funding mechanism of "emergency supplemental appropriations" inhibits the program's ability to perform. Because the program does not have a predictable, regular funding source, implementation may be delayed, which could exacerbate the conservation problems caused by natural disaster. At the local level, the county FSA committee determines whether to declare the availability of ECP (except for drought that is determined by the national office), requests funding, determines which producers are eligible for ECP funding, and how much land has been affected by a natural disaster. The county committee develops a preliminary estimate of the amount of funds needed to rehabilitate the farmland damaged by a natural disaster. The State FSA office reviews the request, further fine-tunes estimated funding levels, and forwards the request to the national FSA office which reviews the requests for funding and usually provides the State anywhere between 50 to 90 percent of the requested funding, depending upon allocations and obligation trends for past disasters of the same type and magnitude Despite the complications of irregular funding for emergency purposes, State and county FSA offices judiciously manage the program. When funds are determined to be no longer needed by producers in a county or parish, those unobligated or deobligated funds are returned to the FSA national office for re-allocation to other areas suffering the effects of natural disasters which are in need of ECP funds. This cycle continues until funds are entirely depleted at the national level. Once funds are depleted, FSA ceases to allocate additional funding and must wait for a supplemental appropriation or until de-obligated or unobligated funds are returned to the national level. The program has also been unable to develop strategic goals and performance measures to track its progress in improving its service delivery. ECP also lacks a mechanism to effectively prioritize its limited disaster recovery funding to farmers most in need of financial assistance.

Evidence: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV - ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989, Section 502; ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Fact Sheet

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: ECP is implemented only in areas where damage to farms from natural disasters has occurred. The program does not have a system for prioritizing recovery dollars to geographic areas or individual farmers who are most in need of financial assistance; therefore ECP receives a "NO" for this answer. However, FSA does take steps to ensure funding is directed only to land that has been damaged by the disaster. After a natural disaster has occurred, the county FSA office or offices will survey the damage to farmland, determine which rehabilitative practices are needed to restore the farmland, and estimate the ECP funding that is needed. Benefits are limited to naturally occurring disasters and only those agricultural producers in the "path" of the natural disaster. When ECP funds are available and a natural disaster occurs, the county office will assess the damage to ensure that the damage is of such magnitude that it would be too costly for an agricultural producer to rehabilitate without Federal assistance, that the damage resulting from the natural disaster is unusual in character that would not recur frequently in the same area, and that it has materially affected the productive capability of the farmland. Upon meeting these requirements, the county office sends a request to the State office detailing the description of the disaster. Only those practices identified by the county committee to rehabilitate the farmland are available to producers for implementation. For the purpose of this document, the term "practices" refers to the activities for which FSA provides cost share assistance to agricultural producers to carry out the purpose and intent of the program. These practices include such measures as removing debris from farmland, fencing, repairing or restoring conservation measures such as waterways or ponds, and drilling wells for emergency water for livestock. This "targeting" of practices at the local level ensures that only the most needed practices are available to producers. The result is that FSA provides needed ECP dollars to rehabilitate farmland only in counties, or parts of counties, where disasters have occurred. After a natural disaster, FSA issues press releases, holds public meetings, and gets the word out to the local community informing intended beneficiaries of the availability of ECP. An ECP signup period is held for a period of at least 30 days. If not enough funds are received for eligible applications, the county FSA office may request additional ECP funding. Any requests received at the national office for additional funding are allocated for the full request, depending upon funding availability. At least 90 percent of an ECP allocation to a State is paid directly to an eligible agricultural producer. The remaining allocation, up to 10 percent, is paid to USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide technical assistance to producers to implement ECP recovery practices on the ground. For ECP practices in which FSA is the technical assistance provider, 100 percent of the funds are paid directly to producers. NRCS is the technical assistance provider for one practice, restoring structures and other installations, although FSA may enter into a reimbursable agreement with NRCS at the State level for other practices such as wells, drought assistance, and removing silt from water impoundment structures. A primary example of this targeting would be ECP funds appropriated for 2005 hurricane damage. FSA established a new policy prioritizing practices by tree planting species with the higher environmental benefits getting the higher priority for funding. Depending upon site suitability, Longleaf Pines/Atlantic White Cedar reforestation practices are first priority, followed by Bottomland Hardwoods, Upland Hardwoods, and then Loblolly/Slash Pines stand reforestation practices. This targeting of resources addresses the program purpose directly and reaches intended beneficiaries.

Evidence: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989, Section 502; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Fact Sheet; ECP Press Releases; EC 4 Restoring Structures and Other Installations; EC 6 Removing Silt From Water Impoundment Reservoirs; EC 7 Forestry Special Practice.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: FSA has one acceptable long-term performance measure and is in the process of developing a second. Once the second measure is approved the answer to this question will be changed to a "Yes". The approved long-term measure is "increase percentage of ECP counties with planted program crop acres returning to pre-disaster levels." This measure tiers down from the FSA Strategic Goal 1, "Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches," Objective 1.3, "Mitigating Losses from Natural Disasters." The measure also directly reflects the purpose of the program, to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters to restore its productive capacity and to carry out emergency water conservation measures in periods of severe drought. The measure identifies the percent of ECP counties that are returned to the long-term projected acreage trend in each county within a two-year period. Using National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data, an acreage trend is estimated for planted program crop acreage for each county that has received ECP funding for a specific fiscal year. This trend analysis is used to model what the expected county acreage would be in the year of the disaster and each of the two years following the disaster if the disaster had not occurred. A comparison between actual acreage in each of those years with predicted acreage from the trend analysis model allows us to see how closely acreage in the county is tracking with the overall trend line. The underlying assumption is that ECP will help restore land back to the long-term acreage trend in each county. We would expect a drop in acreage during the year of the disaster, but over time the ratio of actual to predicted acreage should approach one.

Evidence: FSA Draft 2005-2010 Strategic Plan; NASS county data may be found at http://www.nass.usda.gov/DataandStatistics/QuickStats/index.asp

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: FSA does have quantifiable and ambitious targets and baselines for the approved long-term measure. Using the baseline of 64%, FSA set the target for "increasing the percentage of ECP counties with planted program crop acres returning to pre-disaster levels" at 69 percent by 2010. Once the second Long Term measure is approved with quantifiable and ambitious targets, the answer to this question will be changed to a "Yes".

Evidence: The long-term targets for the measure "increase percentage of ECP counties with planted program crop acres returning to pre-disaster levels" are for FY 2008, 67% and for FY 2010, 69%.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: ECP has only one acceptable annual efficiency measure at this time. FSA is working diligently to develop at least one more annual goal. However, since the program has only one annual goal at this time, this question must receive a "No". The annual efficiency measure is to reduce the response time from the date of no-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office. The measure is discrete, quantifiable and measurable. The targets, derived from the baseline of 41.13 days, are: FY 2005 41.13; FY 2006, 40.88; FY 2007 40.63; FY 2008 40.38; FY 2009 40.13; and FY 2010, 39.88. Baseline data included FY 2003 and 2004. The actuals are FY 2003 42.21 days; FY 2004 96.39 days, and FY 2005 40.05 days.

Evidence: See perfromance measure section.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: ECP has developed one annual efficiency measure at this time, to reduce response time form the date on non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office. ECP must develop at least one more acceptable additional annual measure to receive credit for this question. In accordance to PART guidance, this question must receive a "No" at this time. The measure does have a baseline and targets.

Evidence: See measure section

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: ECP has only established one meaningful annual and long-term goal that reflect the program's mission and priorities. Until the program has developed additional acceptable measures, this question must receive a "No." However, ECP partners do work toward mutual agency goals. For example, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a technical provider for ECP. NRCS is paid, up to ten percent of the ECP allocation, by FSA to provide technical assistance for individual producers whose farmland has suffered damage by natural disaster and who have been approved for ECP funding to rehabilitate the damaged farmland. Although NRCS has the technical assistance responsibility for only one practice, restoring structures and other installations, FSA at the State level may enter into a reimbursable agreement with NRCS for technical assistance for other practices, such as wells, drought assistance, or removing silt from water impoundment structures. When FSA contracts for these services, NRCS agrees to support the overall goals of the ECP. Further, for NRCS to receive reimbursement for its technical assistance services, NRCS must measure and report its performance to FSA. The USDA Forest Service (FS) and State governments' State forestry officials will be technical assistance providers for ECP's forestry practice for the 2005 hurricanes. FS and State foresters support the goals of ECP. For FS and/or State foresters to receive reimbursement for their technical assistance services, they must measure and report their performance to FSA.

Evidence: AD-862 Form; ACP-305 Monthly Conservation Progress Reports, ACP-301 Report Practices Pending Performance. Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); Individual State NRCS/FSA MOU (sample included in the evidence notebook)

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Evaluations of ECP have been conducted to support program improvements. In March 2003, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was completed for ECP. The PEIS was conducted by the Mangi Environmental Group, with assistance from FSA staff, in accordance with the regulations 40 CFR 1502.10. The PEIS proposed changes to ECP that would make the program easier to administer and prevent potential abuse. ECP's internal guidance was revised, incorporated recommended changes, and was issued on March 30, 2004. In addition, FSA will be conducting a program review meeting with FSA partners, both USDA, non-USDA, and non-governmental entities, similar in nature to one that was conducted for the Agricultural Conservation Program. A national conservation review group, made up of all FSA partners, will meet to evaluate program implementation and effectiveness and recommend program changes. Additionally, the USDA, Office of Inspector General (OIG) has conducted audits of the FSA conservation programs. These audits evaluated actions taken by FSA to assess the program's susceptibility to improper payments and internal controls. The OIG found that FSA made a good faith effort to adhere to and comply with Office of the Chief Financial Officer guidance. In addition, OIG has conducted other general audits of ECP with no findings of major program liabilities, although examples of improper payments and fraud and abuse of the program were at times found. FSA has responded to findings by taking action and clarifying procedure, either by issuing notices or making the necessary updates in the ECP handbook. ECP delivery is periodically reviewed in county offices by a County Operations Reviewer (COR), who reports directly to the State Executive Director and submits final findings directly to the county, State, and national offices, under County Office Operations Review Program (CORP) procedures issued by the national office. If significant discrepancies are found, a national ECP target CORP review, focusing on a particular issue or set of issues, may be requested by either State or national level program managers. The objectives of these audits are to ascertain whether FSA has established adequate internal controls to ensure the financial integrity of the program and if those controls are adhered to by FSA employees. They do not consider the effectiveness or the relevancy of the program. The reports are distributed to the State and national levels and are subsequently used for trend analysis in an annual CORP report.

Evidence: ECP PEIS dated March 2003; ECP Handbook, dated March 30, 2004; OIG Audit - 03006-0006-SF, February 8, 1999 (closed); OIG Audit - 03061-0015-KC, March 31, 2000 (closed); OIG Audit - 03601-46-TE, July 17, 2004 (closed); ECP Risk Assessment dated December 2005; County Office Operations Review Program FY 2005 Report dated February 2006; Target Review of Crook County, Wyoming dated May 16, 2006; Target Review of Natchitoches County, Louisiana dated May 23, 2006; Target Review of Nowata County, Oklahoma dated June 8, 2006

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Since natural disasters occur with no annual foreseeable frequency, ECP funds are requested as the needs occur. Funding requests and performance are not linked under the current program since funding is dependant on supplemental budget requests made after a disaster. ECP has not been included in a President's annual budget since 1997. The program has run on supplemental appropriations since that time. Generally, ECP funds are appropriated with no end date, so that if funds are not earned in one disaster, they continue to be available until the next disaster. Having funding available when a disaster occurs greatly increases the speed that assistance is available for an agricultural producer affected by the disaster. If funds have to be requested from Congress, then the request and waiting for funding slows down the program's ability to respond to the agricultural producer's plight.

Evidence: 2004 Supplemental Budget Request; 2006 Supplemental Budget Request

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: FSA has worked diligently to improve its strategic planning process and has established a comprehensive Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, which aligns with the USDA Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. FSA conducted extensive strategic planning exercises from which clear mission, vision, and goals were developed. In-house personnel have conducted headquarters and field communications, strategy sessions, and planning meetings throughout each year. The ECP performance measures cited herein fully align to FSA's Strategic Goal 1, "Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches" and Objective 1.3, "Mitigating Losses from Natural Disasters." FSA is implementing strategies for ECP performance measures to support FSA overarching goals and objectives contained in the FSA Draft Strategic Plan.

Evidence: FSA Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The ECP has only established one approved long-term and one annual efficiency measure at this time. The information collected by ECP does not consider the performance of NRCS, FSA's primary partner in the program. Therefore the answer to this question is "No". FSA does collect statistics to monitor ECP performance and the financial aspects of the program in addition to highlighting the effectiveness of ECP practices on the land. A primary example is the use of National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data to demonstrate program performance as outlined in the response to question 2.1. Information obtained from NRCS, one of FSA's partners in the program for certain practices, verifies the extent of use of different practices, and that the practice has been performed to technical standards and specifications. FSA collects contract information, on all ECP contracts, including the types of conservation practice installed, acreage affected, location of the land, and other characteristics of the land. FSA's technical assistance provider, NRCS, also plays a role in collecting data for program management by reporting practice implementation extents and acres served or affected. ECP managers also produce monthly, quarterly, and annual statistical reports that quantify how much money has been allocated and available through deobligations, producers/contracts approved, number and extent of practices installed, and extent of agricultural land repaired or rehabilitated. By reviewing funding availability, either unobligated or deobligated, program managers can return funds that are unneeded in one area in order that those funds may be allocated in areas affected by other natural disasters. County FSA committees review reports at their monthly meetings to view progress of practice implementation. If practices are not being timely installed, then producers are notified and approvals cancelled to ensure funds are being used timely for the purpose in which they are intended. State FSA offices review funding levels and practice implementation on a regular basis, providing oversight for ECP implementation in county FSA offices. The national FSA office reviews funding levels and practice implementation on a regular basis as well. At all levels, if discrepancies are noted, follow up action is quickly initiated.

Evidence: AD-245 Form and AD-862 Form; ECP Annual Statistical Reports; ACP-305 Monthly Conservation Progress Reports; ACP-301 Report Practices Pending Performance, eFunds Web-site screen print; NASS/FSA MOU, dated February 27, 2004

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While federal program managers are held accountable, not all partners are. FSA reimburses NRCS up to 10 percent of its ECP allocation for continuing assistance in technical matters. To receive payment, individual memoranda of understanding are established on the state level between these partners. Some of the agreements have no specified timeframes and quality standards for deliverables. There are no contract deliverables for quality assurance with NRCS. Therefore, the answer to t his question is "No". Federal employee performance elements are directly related to the FSA Draft Strategic Plan. In addition, USDA identifies program and objective accomplishment targets in individual performance plans for employees who help deliver the program. Those employees responsible for ECP have elements tied to Goal 1, "Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches," Objective 1.3, "Mitigating Losses from Natural Disasters." The county offices are held accountable by the State and Federal offices for performance results. Other USDA partners similarly are held accountable. FSA reimburses NRCS up to ten percent of its ECP allocation for continuing assistance in technical matters related to certain practices for which NRCS has technical assistance responsibility. To receive payment, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is established in each State between these partners. For practices where NRCS performed the technical assistance, NRCS must provide verification that the technical standards and specifications for each ECP participant have been met prior to receiving reimbursement from FSA. There are no contract deliverables for quality assurance with NRCS, but if assistance is not provided per technical standards and specifications, NRCS is not paid. The USDA Forest Service (FS) and State government foresters will also be providers of technical services for ECP forest practices and FS (acting for itself and State foresters) and FSA are currently developing a national MOU that will hold FS accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results on a contract-by-contract basis. Both partners, NRCS and FS (acting for itself and State foresters), are involved in the annual measure of ECP to "increase percentage of approved ECP practices fully implemented within one year of approval." FSA systems managers are responsible for ensuring that contract data accurately reflects county office records. Contract funding data is continually reviewed by headquarters staff and discrepancies are reported to management. Action is taken to correct any deficiencies.

Evidence: ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); NRCS/FSA MOU; "Performance Management at FSA, RMA, and FAS" issued by the FSA Human Resources Division (December 2005); Email from the FSA Administrator to all employees, dated May 4, 2006, entitled "Linking Farm Service Agency (FSA) Employees to FSA's Draft Strategic Plan Framework;" NASS data, http://www.nass.usda.gov/DataandStatistics/QuickStats/index.asp. NASS/FSA Memorandum of Understanding, dated February 27, 2004.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: OIG Audit Report 03601-0013-Ch (March 2006) found that FSA was not in compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act. The report stated that FSA had not collected and analyzed sufficient information to determine the extent of improper payments in its programs. The agency's Financial Management Division did not consider the results of compliance reviews, audits, and the FSA County Operations Review Program when determining the programs' risk for improper payments. While there were no ECP specific findings contained in the audit, it was one of 19 programs reviewed. FSA has revised its procedure for risk assessment for improper payments, which includes external and internal oversight reviews that should further reduce any risk of ECP improper payments. In recent years ECP has not demonstrated that it obligates emergency recovery funding in a timely manner consistent with the overall program plan; from year to year, the program typically carries high unobligated balances relative to its appropriations. For example, the program received an $80 million supplemental appropriation in FY 2001 and did not receive a subsequent appropriation in FY 2002. Over a year after the emergency appropriation, the program began FY 2003 with an unobligated balance of $73 million. Again, ECP did not receive an appropriation in FY 2003, but it ended the year with a still relatively high unobligated balance of about $46 million. ECP funding is spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported. ECP does have procedures for reporting actual expenditures. The county FSA office, when requesting funds, surveys damage to farmland caused by the natural disaster to determine which practices under ECP are high priority and needed in the affected disaster area. Only those practices are then available to producers for implementation. This "targeting" of practices at the local level ensures the most needed disaster-recovery practices are available to producers. The result is that FSA provides needed ECP dollars to counties (or parts of counties) where disasters have occurred. An ECP signup period is held for a period of at least 30 days. If not enough funds are received for eligible applications, the county FSA office will request additional ECP funding. A request received at the national office for additional funding is allocated at the fullest extent possible, depending upon funding availability. County FSA committees review reports at their monthly meetings to review progress of practice implementation. If practices are not being timely installed, then producers are notified and applications cancelled in order to ensure funds are being used in a timely manner for the purpose for which they were intended. Producers are only reimbursed for work completed and the "deobligation" process provides potential assistance to others. ECP funds are available until expended. FSA is committed to effective ECP funds recovery/administration by the end of each fiscal year. For the fiscal years 2003 through 2005, ECP practices were applied at an average cost per acre of $5.20, as provided in the ECP Annual Statistical Reports. ECP does establish schedules for obligations with their primary partner, NRCS. ECP is in the process of establishing schedules with Forest Service as the result of the latest supplemental that includes coverage for trees.

Evidence: Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Annual Statistical Reports; ACP-305 Monthly Conservation Progress Reports; eFunds Web-site screen print

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ECP has developed an annual efficiency measure with base lines and targets; however it is not broad enough to portray improved program cost effectiveness over time. The measure is to reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office from 40.05 days to 39.88 days. The program will either have to develop a new, more ambitious measure that captures a greater span of the program or develop additional measures. Therefore, the answer to this question is "No". ECP has established some limited procedures for reviewing ECP costs, but the agency has not provided adequate evidence that demonstrates how these processes achieve or improve the program's cost effectiveness. County FSA committees are tasked with setting up payment rates for practice components within national parameters for program implementation to ensure fiscal integrity and fairness to all program producers. FSA District Directors review the county committees' program implementation to further ensure program integrity. FSA also tracks the time it takes county office staff to process ECP contracts. FSA intends to convene a task force beginning in August 2006 to review ECP policy and procedures to update and streamline ECP operations to a Web-based platform. By moving to Web-based applications, the Agency will be in a better position to monitor and query program data to research and increase program efficiencies. This progress will be accelerated as funds are made available. In addition, FSA is moving into integrated Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) technology and processes to enhance business performance, which, in turn, increase efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. This task force will be made up of FSA personnel and other partner agency members. In 2002, FSA implemented an electronic funds control, "eFunds." This implementation of a "real time" Web-based funds control mechanism, as well as maintaining the traditional ECP ledgers, has improved ECP financial controls. ECP program managers conducted a certified training course the week of May 22, 2006, for States affected by 2005 hurricanes. FSA conducted this training for FSA State office and certain county office employees, as well as NRCS and FS participants in conjunction with NRCS and FS employees and State government forestry employees. FSA State office employees will, in turn, train their county FSA office employees. In addition, an ECP notice was issued to States addressing findings from the FY 2005 County Operations Review Program Report that was issued in February 2006. County Operations Reviews regularly review ECP program implementation. County FSA committees are tasked with setting up payment rates for practice components within national parameters for program implementation to ensure fiscal integrity and fairness to all program producers. FSA District Directors review the county committees' program implementation to further ensure program integrity. FSA also tracks the time it takes county office staff to process ECP contracts.

Evidence: The annual efficiency measure is to "reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office." The targets, measured in days, are: FY 2006, 40.88; FY 2007, 40.63; FY 2008, 40.38; FY 2009, 40.13; and FY 2010, 39.88. ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3) Parts 3 and 4; FSA Draft 2005-2010 Strategic Plan; USDA - FSA Modernization Project Document, September 14, 2004; , Exhibit 300, FY 2007, OMB Assessment; eFunds Web-site screen print

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The ECP has collaborated and coordinated effectively with related programs. A recent example is the certified training course the week of May 22, 2006, for States affected by 2005 Hurricanes conducted by ECP program managers. FSA conducted this training for FSA State and certain county office employees, NRCS and FS employees, and State government forestry employees. The training included presentation by FSA's Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP). FSA ECP and EFCRP managers coordinated the programs at the national level to be able to assist as many producers affected by the 2005 hurricanes as possible. FSA participates when NRCS conducts its annual review of each State Emergency Recovery Plan that identifies other agencies with similar programs to ensure effective and efficient coordination. FSA also coordinates with NRCS in situations where its Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) may potentially overlap with ECP for 2005 hurricane recovery efforts. FSA/NRCS developed a matrix to aid landowners and sponsors regarding which Agency to contact for a particular land use or recovery activity. As cited in the EWP regulations, "EWP assistance would only be applicable when the emergency measures are not eligible for assistance under ECP". ECP regulations allow ECP assistance on land on which an EWP practice is being performed as long as ECP is not for the same or similar practice

Evidence: ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); EWP Program Procedure; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3), par. 111; 7 CFR Part 624, Section 4.b May 26, 2006; May 22, 2006 training course agenda; National Emergency Watershed Protection Program Manual, Part 500, Subpart B, "Coordination," "Emergency Recovery Plan;" NRCS/FSA MOU sample; NRCS/FSA matrix of EWP and ECP programs as it relates to hurricane recovery for H.R. 2863.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OIG Audit Report 03601-0013-Ch (March 2006) found that FSA was not in compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act. The report stated that FSA had not collected and analyzed sufficient information to determine the extent of improper payments in its programs. The agency's Financial Management Division did not consider the results of compliance reviews, audits, and the FSA County Operations Review Program when determining the programs' risk for improper payments. While there were no ECP specific findings contained in the audit, it was one of 19 programs reviewed. As this audit report has only recently been issued by OIG, FSA has not had the opportunity to fully implement a corrective action plan. FSA has revised its procedure for risk assessment for improper payments, which includes external and internal oversight reviews, and should further reduce any risk of ECP improper payments. The OIG audits specifically conducted on ECP have shown no material weaknesses and that procedures are in place to ensure program payments are made for intended purposes. ECP has implemented corrective action plans pertinent to audits specific to the program. One example is the March 2000 OIG audit that has been subsequently closed. The OIG found that ECP needs better controls to ensure that eligible farmland is restored within the program guidelines.. After the report, FSA issued a national notice that addressed the concerns found in the report and FSA completed a corrective action plan on November 28, 2000, to close the audit. FSA has received a memorandum from OIG issued November 7, 2005, stating that OIG is initiating a review of the hurricane relief initiatives. No report has been issued. In its continuing effort to strengthen its financial management practices, FSA implemented electronic funds control or "eFunds" for ECP in FY 2002. This implementation of a "real time" Web-based funds control mechanism, as well as maintaining traditional ECP ledgers, has improved ECP financial controls. ECP controls payments using in two separate systems (AS-400 and eFunds) and payments are limited by national allocations. Second-party reviews are required for each payment calculation. Monthly national reviews are conducted to ensure State and county allocations are in agreement with national allocations. Annual program reconciliation reports are performed each year at the State and national level. The program has procedures in place to ensure payments are made properly and for the intended purpose to minimize erroneous payment possibilities. Prompt payment interest, which accrues in instances where payments are paid over 30 days from due date, occurred only 0.013 percent of the time from FY 2001 through FY 2005.

Evidence: ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3), dated March 30, 2004; eFunds screen print; Handbook 1-CONSV; ACP-259B Fiscal Year (FY) Reconciliation Report; FSA Corrective Action Plan completed on November 28, 2000; OIG Audit - 03006-0006-SF, February 8, 1999 (closed); OIG Audit - 03061-0015-KC, March 24, 1998 report issued in March 2000, (closed); OIG Audit - 03601-46-TE, July 17, 2004 (closed); ECP Risk Assessment, dated December 2005; eFunds Web-site screen print

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FSA has taken meaningful steps in a timely manner to address its management deficiencies pertaining to ECP. For example, after the March 2000, OIG audit report, FSA issued a national notice that addressed the concerns found in the report and completed a corrective action plan on November 28, 2000 to close the audit. In FY 2002, FSA implemented electronic funds control, or "eFunds". This implementation of a "real time" Web-based funds control mechanism, as well as maintaining traditional ECP ledgers, has improved ECP financial controls. The ECP payments are controlled in two separate systems (AS-400 and eFunds) and are limited by national allocations. Integrated financial and performance systems support day-to-day operations. In addition, the revised ECP Handbook was issued on March 30, 2004. Another ECP handbook amendment is planned for July 2006, further clarifying procedure for program implementation. ECP delivery is periodically reviewed in county offices by an appointed County Operations Reviewer (COR), under County Office Operations Review Program (CORP) procedures to identify and ensure program weaknesses are addressed. These COR reviews are independent of county offices and reviewers report directly to the State Executive Director (SED). Any finding of wrongdoing is reported directly to the SED and headquarters for appropriate action. If significant discrepancies are found, either State or national level program managers may request a national ECP target CORP review, focusing on a particular issue or set of issues. ECP procedure requires county FSA offices to conduct spot checks on at least five percent of applications that are paid. FSA District Directors conduct spot checks on ten percent of applications in the county FSA office. If deficiencies are noted, FSA immediately addresses it by either contacting a State, issuing a memorandum to the State affected, or, if more widespread, issue a national ECP notice, or amending the national handbook. Again, the OIG audits conducted on ECP have shown no material weaknesses and that procedures are in place to ensure program payments are made for intended purposes.

Evidence: Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3), dated March 30, 2004; ACP-305 Monthly Conservation Progress Reports; ECP Notices, County Office Operations Review Program FY 2005 Report, February 22, 2006; corrective action plans for OIG Audit - 03061-0015-KC, March 24, 1998 report issued in March 2000, (closed); OIG Audit - 03601-46-TE, July 17, 2004 (closed); OIG Survey 50099-0017-AT, COR reports cited in 2.6 evidence; ECP Risk Assessment dated December 15, 2005; eFunds Web-site screen print

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: FSA has developed an acceptable long-term performance measures for ECP with data for baseline and targets. However, until ECP develops an additional approved long-term goal, the answer to this question will be "No". The goal of the Program is to restore the productive capacity of farmland following a natural disaster. By FY 2002, 61 percent of counties receiving ECP assistance in FY 2000 had program crop acreage return to pre-disaster levels. This percentage increased to 69 percent by FY 2004 for disasters occurring in FY 2002. There are many external factors that affect acreage in each county, including fluctuations in commodity and input prices. While it may not be possible to isolate the effect of ECP, the actual data for this long-term measure indicate that the majority of counties have returned to trend. Ideally, ECP counties would be compared to similar non-ECP counties to more thoroughly assess the program's progress. FSA is working on refining its long-term measure to capture this type of comparison. Getting disaster aid out quickly, accurately and effectively are keys for ensuring ECP's goal of restoring agricultural land.

Evidence: For the measure "increase percentage of ECP counties with planted program crop acres returning to pre-disaster levels," annual targets are as follows: FY 2004 64%; FY 2005 65%; 2006 66%; FY 2007 67%; and 201069%. Actual data for these years are as follows: FY 2001, 61%; FY 2002 63%; FY 2004 69%; and FY 2005 66%.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: FSA has established only one annual performance measure that is an efficiency goal and discussed in Question 4.4. ECP will need to develop at least one additional annual performance goal to receive credit for this question. Accordingly, PART guidance requires that the program receive a "No" for this question.

Evidence:

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The ECP has established an annual efficiency measure that demonstrates improvements or cost effectiveness from year to year. However, the measure only addresses a portion of the ECP process; therefore, a "No" is provided for this question. To receive credit for this question, ECP will need to expand this measure to capture a greater portion of the process or develop an additional measure. The annual efficiency measure for ECP is to "reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office." This measure tiers down from the FSA Strategic Goal 1, "Supporting Productive Farms and Ranches," Objective 1.3, "Mitigating Losses from Natural Disasters". This measure is designed to address the average processing time it takes for emergency program benefits thus, improving program efficiency and reducing time and, therefore, the cost of providing the benefits. FSA intends to implement further Web-based technology to assist in program delivery in reducing response time. The revised ECP Handbook was issued on March 30, 2004. Another ECP handbook amendment is planned for July 2006, further clarifying procedure for program implementation. Reductions in response time may be caused more by the sheer volume and/or extent of natural disasters that create situations in which field staff are intimately familiar with the program procedures and able to respond more quickly. FSA will continue to seek out additional avenues to provide more cost effective and timely benefits to producers.

Evidence: ECP Notices; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3). The annual efficiency measures is "reduce response time from the date of non-drought disaster to the date a funding request is received by the national office." The targets, derived from the baseline of 41.13 days, are: FY 2005 41.13; FY 2006, 40.88; FY 2007 40.63; FY 2008 40.38; FY 2009 40.13; and FY 2010, 39.88. Baseline data included FY 2003 and 2004. The actuals are FY 2003 42.21 days; FY 2004 96.39 days, and FY 2005 40.05 days. FSA Draft 2005-2010 Strategic Plan

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are similarities among the various national disaster programs, there are differences as have been noted in other portions of this review, making a direct comparison somewhat problematic. However, ECP does compare favorably to those programs. ECP is the primary Federal emergency conservation program available to farmers to remove debris from crop fields, haul water to livestock, and restore conservation structures such as dams, ponds, diversions, and terrace systems. ECP funds go directly to the agricultural producer, so if funds are available, an allocation may reach the county FSA office within 24 hours after receipt of request in the national office. The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP), administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is to help groups of people with a common problem; it is not an individual assistance program as is ECP. Additionally, EWP must have a local project sponsor for the program, such as a State, city, or local soil conservation district, for funds to be administered in the event of a natural disaster. EWP provides funding to project sponsors for such work as clearing debris from clogged waterways, restoring vegetation, and stabilizing river banks, whereas ECP focuses on agricultural land. EWP assistance would only be applicable when the emergency measures are not eligible for ECP assistance. ECP regulations allow ECP assistance on land on which an EWP practice is being performed as long as the ECP assistance is not for the same or similar practice. ECP has a regulation that does not allow for funding on the same land more than three times in 25 years. EWP is in the process of reducing the percent of project sites that require restoration more than twice in a ten year period, Due in part to the types and complexities of practices funded, there is also a cost difference between the two programs. For the fiscal years 2003 through 2005, EWP practices are applied at an average cost per acre of $220.00. For the same period, ECP practices were applied at an average cost per acre of $5.20. The role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also differs from that of ECP. One primary function of FEMA is to coordinate the Federal response to a disaster to avoid redundancies. One of the primary emphases of FEMA is to alleviate human suffering resulting from natural disasters, and while this may at times involve land restoration, the emphasis remains on human suffering. The primary emphasis of both ECP and EWP is to aid farmers, landowners and sponsors to assist in land use or recovery activity necessitated by natural disasters. As cited in response 3.5, ECP and EWP have coordinated their efforts successfully in the past to assist agricultural producers and sponsors in recovery activity in an expeditious manner and will continue to do so in the future.

Evidence: ECP Fact Sheet; EWP/ECP Matrix, Websites- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/; http://www.fema.gov/rrr/; CFR Part 624, Section 4.b; FEMA PARTs located on ExpectMore.gov. See EWP/ECP Matrix, Website- http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/; Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Title IV ECP, as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989; Section 502; ECP Rule 7 CFR Part 701; Handbook 1-ECP (Rev. 3); ECP Annual Statistical Reports

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evaluations of ECP have been conducted to support program improvements. In March 2003, a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was completed for ECP. The PEIS was conducted by the Mangi Environmental Group, with assistance from FSA staff, in accordance with the regulations 40 CFR 1502.10. The PEIS proposed changes to ECP that would make the program easier to administer and prevent potential abuse. ECP's internal guidance was revised, incorporated recommended changes, and was issued on March 30, 2004. In addition, FSA will be conducting a program review meeting with FSA partners, both USDA, non-USDA, and non-governmental entities, similar in nature to one that was conducted for the Agricultural Conservation Program. A national conservation review group, made up of all FSA partners, will meet to evaluate program implementation and effectiveness and recommend program changes. As discussed in question 2.6, the OIG audits concluded that the program is generally meeting its purposes. These reviews tend to vary by objective and are not completed on a routine basis. In addition, the primary focus is the propriety of payments and internal controls, rather than the effectiveness or relevance of the program. However, FSA has maximized the usefulness of the OIG audits by expeditiously correcting any deficiencies noted and working with the auditors to implement effective controls to prevent reoccurrence of negative findings. The OIG audits conducted on ECP have shown no material weaknesses and that procedures are in place to ensure program payments are made for intended purposes. After these reviews were completed, recommendations were incorporated into program delivery to ensure the highest quality program integrity. Additionally, ECP delivery is periodically reviewed in county offices by an appointed County Operations Reviewer (COR), who reports directly to the State Executive Director under County Office Operations Review Program (CORP) procedure issued by the national office. COR reports are consolidated at the national level in an annual report.

Evidence: ECP PEIS dated March 2003; ECP Handbook, dated March 30, 2004; OIG Audit - 03006-0006-SF, February 8, 1999; OIG Audit - 03061-0015-KC, March , 2000; County Office Operations Review Program FY 2005 Report, February 22, 2006; National Appeals Division ECP Appeals, 2005