USDA Administrative Services: More Could Be Done to Assess Effectiveness and Impact of Business Centers

With budget authority of $146 billion in fiscal year 2018, USDA employs nearly 100,000 people organized into 13 major staff offices and eight mission areas comprising 18 agencies. In a November 2017 memorandum, the Secretary of Agriculture called for establishment of a business center in each mission area to provide consolidated administrative services. The memorandum identified three policy goals for these reforms: (1) improve customer engagement, (2) maximize efficiency, and (3) improve agency collaboration.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 includes a provision for GAO to report on USDA's business centers. Among other things, this report examines the extent to which USDA has (1) established business centers and (2) assessed the effectiveness and impact of these business centers. GAO reviewed USDA documents and interviewed officials from USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and eight mission areas about their efforts. GAO also interviewed representatives of USDA employee unions and USDA's external customers, such as farmers, for their perspectives on the establishment of the business centers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established business centers to provide consolidated administrative services such as human resources and information technology in each of its eight mission areas, in keeping with reforms called for in a November 2017 memorandum from the Secretary of Agriculture. The business centers vary in when they were established; three preceded the Secretary's memorandum (see figure). Typically, each business center is located within one of the mission area's component agencies, and the center's leader reports directly to agency leadership.

According to a USDA official, the department regularly reviews data on administrative services, including services provided by the business centers. However, the department has not assessed the effectiveness and impact of its business centers and as of November 2019, did not plan to do so. Beginning in 2018, USDA created an online monitoring system to compile data on the status of administrative services, with “dashboards” displaying data specific to different administrative services, among other things. However, the department has not used dashboards or associated metrics to assess the effectiveness and impact of the business centers, including their impact on USDA's customer service; human resources, including hiring; and overall functionality. GAO's prior work has shown that a key practice to consider during an agency's reform efforts is establishing clear outcome-oriented goals and performance measures to assess the reform's effectiveness and impact. Developing appropriate performance goals and systematically assessing the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms could help the department determine whether the reforms are meeting the Secretary's overarching policy goals and improving the delivery of administrative services to support the department's mission and program goals.

GAO recommends that USDA establish department-level outcome-oriented performance goals and related measures for the business centers, and use them to assess the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms. USDA agreed with the recommendation.

As one of the largest departments in the federal government, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) employs nearly 100,000 people, and  consists of 18 agencies divided among eight mission areas. In fiscal year  2018, it had overall budget authority of $146 billion. Since fiscal year  2010, however, USDA’s budget authority has decreased by about 3  percent in real dollars, and the agency has experienced a reduction of the  equivalent of about 14,400 staff years. The current fiscal environment  and expectations for a high-performing and efficient government  underscore the need for federal agencies to focus on program results and  customer needs, work across organizational lines to help minimize any  overlap and duplication, and build internal management capacity.

We reported in March 2016 on USDA’s efforts to streamline its  administrative services. At the time, USDA was focused on four priority  areas: workers’ compensation, strategic sourcing (improving procurement  and contracting), shared service centers for certain administrative  services, and space utilization (improving space management of USDA- owned and leased property). Since then, the department has continued  its efforts to reform its administrative services. In May 2017, the  Secretary of Agriculture announced a reorganization of the department to  improve customer service and efficiency. Among other changes, the  reorganization included creation of a new mission area—the Farm  Production and Conservation (FPAC) mission area—to focus on domestic  agricultural issues by grouping together the Farm Service Agency (FSA),  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Risk Management  Agency (RMA). In November 2017, the Secretary identified improving  customer engagement, maximizing efficiency, and improving agency  collaboration as policy goals for the reforms. The Secretary also  announced that the department would establish a business center in each  USDA mission area to provide consolidated administrative services  related to financial management, human resources, information  technology, procurement, property management, and related services. In  its strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, USDA also  established a goal to modernize the agency’s information technology  services.

The administrative services provided by the business centers help USDA  achieve its mission and program goals and are performed throughout the  department’s organizational structure at the headquarters, regional, state,  and local levels. FPAC established a business center as a separate  agency within the mission area on October 14, 2018. To do so, it  realigned and transferred staff and funding to the business center from  FSA, NRCS, and RMA.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) includes a  provision for us to submit a report on the business centers established by  USDA. This report examines the extent to which USDA has (1)  established business centers and (2) assessed the effectiveness and  impact of its business centers. The 2018 Farm Bill also includes  provisions that we report on all discretionary and mandatory funding  provided to the FPAC Business Center from other agencies within the  mission area and on funds spent by that business center on information  technology modernization. In appendix I, we report on how USDA has  funded the FPAC Business Center and the amount of this and other  funding that the department has spent or plans to spend on information  technology modernization.

To examine the extent to which USDA has established business centers,  we reviewed documentation from each of the department’s eight mission  areas and interviewed USDA officials. We identified when each mission  area established its business center, which administrative services the  centers provide, and how the centers are structured within the mission  areas. We compared the administrative services that the centers provide  with the services that the Secretary of Agriculture identified for inclusion in  November 2017.

To examine the extent to which USDA has assessed the effectiveness  and impact of its business centers, we reviewed our past work to identify  key practices for agency reform efforts. We also reviewed USDA’s  strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022 and its annual  performance plan for fiscal year 2019. We reviewed documentation and  interviewed USDA officials from USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary  for Administration, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and eight  mission areas to identify departmental efforts to assess the effectiveness  of its business centers, including setting goals and developing  performance measures for the centers, as well as efforts to evaluate the  impact of the centers on USDA’s customer service; human resources,  including hiring; and overall functionality. We then compared USDA’s  efforts with a subset of our key practices for agency reform efforts, which  we selected based on their relevance to the business center reform effort.  We also interviewed officials from organizations representing some of USDA’s customers—including farmers—selected based on prior contacts  with these organizations, and union officials representing USDA’s  employees in the FPAC Business Center about their views on any  benefits, concerns, problems, or impacts associated with this reform.  While the organizations whose officials we interviewed do not constitute a  generalizable sample of internal and external customers, the interviews  provide examples of a range of internal and external views.

To describe how USDA has funded the FPAC Business Center and the  amount of this funding, if any, that the department plans to spend on  information technology modernization, we reviewed documentation and  interviewed USDA officials. To identify the sources and amounts of  discretionary and mandatory funding from FSA, NRCS, and RMA that  USDA used to fund the FPAC Business Center, we reviewed USDA’s  budget justifications for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 and the FPAC  Business Center’s appropriations for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, among  other documentation, and interviewed USDA officials. To identify the  FPAC Business Center’s plans for spending its funding for fiscal year  2019, including FPAC’s plans for spending on information technology  modernization for fiscal years 2018 through 2020, we reviewed USDA  planned spending documentation and interviewed USDA officials.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2019 through February  2020 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.

Table 1 describes the activities that USDA’s mission areas and major  staff offices perform as part of five types of administrative services that  USDA business centers are to provide under the Secretary of  Agriculture’s November 2017 memorandum.

At USDA, eight mission areas and three of the 13 major department-level  staff offices, including five sub-offices, are responsible for delivering or  overseeing these five types of administrative services (see fig. 1).  USDA’s eight mission areas carry out the department’s program  responsibilities through 18 agencies. Five mission areas consist of  multiple agencies, while three consist of a single agency, as shown  below. In general, USDA’s eight mission areas deliver the administrative  services, and the staff offices develop regulations, guidance, and policies  describing how mission areas should deliver those services and oversee  the mission areas’ performance. In addition, the staff offices deliver some  administrative services on a department-wide or shared-services basis.  According to USDA officials, the mission areas are to follow the  regulations, guidance, and policies developed by the staff offices but are  allowed considerable discretion in how they deliver administrative  services based on their missions and program needs. According to USDA  officials and documentation, service delivery is typically handled by a  mission area’s field offices at the regional, state, or local level; however,  with the establishment of the business centers, more service is being  delivered at the mission area’s headquarters level.

USDA Has Established Business Centers in All of Its Eight Mission Areas, and the Business Centers Vary in Establishment Date, Structure, and Services

USDA has consolidated administrative services and established business  centers in all of its eight mission areas in accordance with the Secretary’s  November 2017 memorandum. The eight existing business centers vary  in when they were established. As shown in figure 2, three mission areas  had business centers before the Secretary’s memorandum.

However, even the mission areas that had business centers before the  Secretary’s November 2017 memorandum subsequently changed the  way they provide administrative services, specifically with regard to  information technology services. Two mission areas—Marketing and  Regulatory Programs and Research, Education, and Economics—added  information technology to their business centers during fiscal year 2019.  In 2019, the Natural Resources and Environment mission area, which  already included information technology in its business center, changed  the position descriptions of certain employees to more accurately reflect  that their major duties are considered to be information technology work.

Of the five new business centers established since the Secretary’s  memorandum, establishment of the FPAC Business Center entailed the  most significant transformation. Typically, each business center is located  within one of the mission area’s component agencies and the center’s  leader reports directly to that agency’s leadership (see table 2). The  FPAC Business Center is the only business center established as a  separate agency within a mission area.

Changes that occurred at other mission areas in transitioning to new  business centers included modifying reporting structures for services that  had already been consolidated. For example, according to Rural  Development officials, the mission area had a business services entity  prior to the Secretary’s memorandum. To establish a business center as  envisioned by the Secretary’s memorandum, the mission area changed  the reporting structure for administrative operations in the field.  Previously, field employees associated with an administrative service  reported directly to leadership in Rural Development’s state offices.

These employees now report directly to headquarters leadership specific  to their administrative service. However, according to Rural Development  officials, no employees were physically moved.

As of November 2019, most of the business centers were providing all  five of the main administrative services that the Secretary’s November  2017 memorandum envisioned—specifically, financial management,  human resources, information technology, procurement, and property  management. Two business centers have chosen to provide financial  management services differently from the other administrative services.  Specifically:

Food Safety. According to officials in the Food Safety mission area,  as part of its reorganization, that mission area grouped all of the  administrative services except financial management under the Chief  Operating Officer. However, it grouped the budget office, which  performs financial management services, under the agency’s Chief  Financial Officer because it preferred to keep this office with mission- related program offices, which report directly to the Deputy  Administrator.

Natural Resources and Environment. Officials in the Natural  Resources and Environment mission area said that unlike other  administrative services, which are grouped under the business center,  financial management responsibilities are divided between the  business center’s Office of Strategic Planning, Budget, and  Accountability and the Forest Service’s Office of the Chief Financial  Officer. According to these officials, this arrangement strengthens  internal controls by separating responsibility for allocating and  spending financial resources from responsibility for accounting for  how the resources are spent.

One business center—in the Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs  mission area—provides information technology and financial  management services for Foreign Agricultural Service employees and  has agreements in place with other USDA components to provide human  resources, procurement, and property management services for the  mission area. According to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for  Administration, USDA accepted these mission areas’ decisions about  financial management because they ensured accountability of field-level  staff to the administrative service’s headquarters leadership.

USDA Has Developed Metrics for Managing Administrative Services but Has Not Assessed the Effectiveness and Impact of Its Business Centers

According to USDA’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, the  department regularly reviews data on administrative services, including  services provided by the business centers. However, the department  does not use these or other data to assess the effectiveness and impact  of its business centers and as of November 2019 did not plan to do so.

Beginning in 2018, USDA created an online monitoring system to compile  data from mission areas on the status of their administrative services. The  system has “dashboards” displaying data specific to financial  management, human resources, information technology, procurement,  and property management, among other things. Each of the dashboards  presents metrics gathered from various databases across mission areas.  For example, the dashboards for human resources include the number of  employees by organization, along with their geographic location,  retirement eligibility, occupation, and any skills gaps. According to USDA  officials, the dashboards allow department-level review of a large number  of metrics on a range of administrative activities performed by the  business centers—data that previously were available only to each  mission area. USDA’s Deputy Secretary discusses performance on  various dashboards with mission area and staff office leadership at  quarterly review meetings.

However, the department has not used dashboards or associated metrics  to assess the effectiveness and impact of the business centers.  Specifically, the department has not assessed the impact that the  business centers have had on USDA’s customer service; human  resources, including hiring; and overall functionality. According to the  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, creating new business  centers and changing existing ones has contributed to positive results,  such as savings from reducing the size of USDA’s vehicle fleet, but  USDA’s Departmental Administration has not systematically compared  USDA’s ability to deliver its administrative services before and after these  reforms. For example, the department has not examined whether the  reforms have enabled mission areas to reduce costs, reduce processing  times, or identify previously unknown issues that need to be addressed.

According to USDA officials, these business center reforms broadly  addressed the first policy goal in USDA’s May 2018 strategic plan for  fiscal years 2018 through 2022—namely that USDA programs be  delivered efficiently, effectively, and with integrity and a focus on  customer service. However, USDA officials told us that they have not  yet attempted to measure how the business center reforms have met the  three overarching policy goals identified in the Secretary of Agriculture’s  November 2017 memorandum, which called for the business center  reforms to (1) improve customer engagement, (2) maximize efficiency,  and (3) improve agency collaboration.

In addition, some stakeholders we interviewed expressed concern about  progress toward these goals as USDA works to implement the business  center reforms. For example:

Staffing vacancies. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the  impact of vacancy rates at business centers on customer  engagement. The two largest business centers created since  November 2017—in FPAC and Rural Development—had position  vacancy rates above 27 percent as of September 30, 2019. Officials  with one group representing farmers who are customers of the FPAC  and Rural Development mission areas told us they were concerned  that (1) vacancies in the business center may be leading to vacancies  among program staff in the field, (2) complaints related to staffing  have increased over the past few years, and (3) staffing vacancies in  the field are negatively affecting customer service. An official from  another group representing farmers told us that the group is hearing  from its members that there have been a lot of changes within USDA  lately and field offices seem to be understaffed and overwhelmed  even after the creation of the business centers, which could be  negatively affecting the quality of customer service. Vacancies at the  FPAC and Rural Development business centers, particularly among  staff responsible for hiring USDA program staff in the field, could  therefore affect both access to and the quality of technical assistance.

Employee concerns. In the FPAC Business Center, officials from  one union representing employees told us that confusion among  employees about their roles and responsibilities could affect both  internal employee satisfaction and the overall ability of the business  center to serve the FPAC mission and its customers. Specifically,  these union officials noted employees’ confusion about how to  reconcile differences among the work procedures that each of the  three FPAC agencies used before the reorganization. Officials from  this and one other union also stated that employees have reported  that business center leadership has not taken action to address such  employee concerns. As a result, according to officials from both  unions, FPAC business center employees are experiencing low  morale, confusion, frustration, and anxiety about the changes,  affecting their ability to deliver services.

In response, FPAC officials told us in November 2019 that the FPAC  Business Center is working on empowering employees, hiring,  establishing a culture of accountability, building trust and engagement,  and addressing other issues that have arisen in the business center’s first  year of operation. For example, these officials said they were reviewing  the business center’s organizational structure to determine whether there  is a need for adjustments to further streamline operations and improve  service.

USDA officials cited several reasons the department has not assessed  the effect of the business center reform effort undertaken in response to  the Secretary’s November 2017 memorandum. According to the Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Administration, the absence of evaluation is partly  attributable to the department’s strategy of delegating responsibility to the  mission areas to implement business centers; this strategy aims to give  the mission area leadership ownership of the reform effort and help  ensure their buy-in. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration  also said that the department has focused on implementing the reforms  called for in the memorandum rather than on evaluating the results.

USDA officials also pointed out that the reform effort is relatively recent,  with five of the business centers having been created since June 2018.  However, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration  acknowledged the importance of evaluating and communicating any  benefits derived from the business center reform effort as it moves  forward.

Our prior work has shown that a key practice to consider during agency  reform efforts is the establishment of clear outcome-oriented goals and  performance measures to assess the reform’s effectiveness and impact.  As we have previously reported, a performance goal is a target level of  performance expressed as a measurable objective; a performance  measure includes an assessment of results compared with intended  purpose that can be expressed quantitatively or in another way that  indicates a level or degree of performance. Monitoring performance  against goals allows agencies to assess progress and address problems  as necessary. While USDA has not developed goals and measures to  assess the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms, the  department has set goals for a limited number of administrative services,  including hiring, the number of fleet vehicles, and travel and conference  spending. In addition, parts of the department have developed goals and  measures for the administrative services their business centers provide.  For example, officials in the Research, Education, and Economics  mission area reported nine key performance indicators for their  administrative services, such as specific goals and measures for the  timeliness of posting job opportunity announcements. Developing  appropriate performance goals and measures and systematically  assessing the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms  could help the department determine whether the reforms are meeting the  Secretary’s overarching policy goals and improving the delivery of  administrative services to support the department’s mission and program  goals.

USDA has established business centers in all of its eight mission areas,  and, according to USDA’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration,  the department regularly reviews data on administrative services,  including services provided by the business centers. However, the  department has not systematically assessed whether USDA’s ability to  deliver its administrative services has improved since the establishment  of its business center reforms or whether the reforms are meeting the  policy goals that the Secretary intended them to achieve. Importantly, the  department has not assessed the impact that the business centers have  had on USDA’s customer service; human resources, including hiring; and  overall functionality. Our prior work has shown that a key practice to  consider during agency reform efforts is the establishment of clear  outcome-oriented goals and performance measures to assess the  reform’s effectiveness and impact. The department has set goals for a  limited number of administrative services, including hiring, the number of  fleet vehicles, and travel and conference spending, but it has not  developed goals and measures to more broadly assess the effectiveness  and impact of the business center reforms. Developing such goals and  measures and using them to assess the effectiveness and impact of the  business center reforms could help the department (1) determine whether  the reforms are meeting the Secretary’s overarching policy goals and (2)  identify whether the reforms have enabled mission areas to improve the  delivery of their administrative services by, for example, reducing costs,  reducing processing times, or identifying previously unknown issues that  need to be addressed.

The Secretary of Agriculture should direct Departmental Administration to  work with the mission areas to develop department-level outcome- oriented performance goals and related measures for the business  centers, and use them to assess the effectiveness and impact of the  business center reforms. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment. In an email, a  Senior Advisor in USDA’s Office of Operations stated that USDA agreed  with our recommendation about assessing the effectiveness and impact  of the business centers. In addition, in comments, reproduced in appendix  II, USDA generally agreed with the findings in our draft report. USDA  stated that to address our recommendation, the department is evaluating  options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of  these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring  reviews by the department’s Deputy Secretary who is identified as the  Chief Operating Officer.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

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

Appendix I: Fu nding for the F and Conservation Business Center, Including Information Technology Modernization

Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the Farm  Production and Conservation (FPAC) Business Center in October 2018,  Congress has appropriated a total of about $294 million to USDA for  necessary expenses of the FPAC Business Center. USDA has also  approved $1.1 million for efforts to modernize information technology at  the center through fiscal year 2020.

USDA Has Funded the FPAC Business Center with Discretionary and Mandatory Appropriations

USDA has supported the FPAC Business Center with discretionary and  mandatory appropriations. USDA budget documents and congressional  report language indicate that these appropriations have been  accompanied by corresponding reductions in funding to the other three  agencies within the FPAC mission area—the Farm Services Agency  (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Risk  Management Agency (RMA). For fiscal year 2018, the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2018, provided discretionary appropriations of about  $1.0 million to the FPAC Business Center and further provided for the  transfer into the FPAC Business Center account of another $145,000 in  mandatory appropriations. Subsequent USDA budget justification  documents state that the $145,000 included funds directed towards three  NRCS programs—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),  Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural Conservation  Easement Program (ACEP).

As shown in table 3, for fiscal year 2019, the Consolidated Appropriations  Act, 2019, provided for the FPAC Business Center to receive discretionary appropriations of about $216.4 million, an amount that  an accompanying conference report states was offset by reductions to  the appropriations for administrative functions in FSA, NRCS, and  RMA; a transfer of about $16.1 million in discretionary appropriations from  FSA’s Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account; and a transfer of about $60.2 million in mandatory appropriations that,  according to USDA officials, came from the same three NRCS  programs as in 2018 (EQIP, CSP, and ACEP).

According to USDA officials, prior to the establishment of the FPAC  Business Center, these funds were used to support the salaries of FSA,  NRCS, and RMA personnel performing functions and tasks similar to  those provided by the business center and for general operating costs  such as rents, information technology, travel, and training expenses.

The FPAC Business Center plans its spending and tracks its obligations  using standard categories, including personnel compensation, benefits,  travel, transportation, postage, contracts, supplies, and equipment. As  shown in table 4, the FPAC Business Center planned to spend funds only  for personnel compensation and benefits in fiscal year 2018. According to  data provided by USDA, the business center obligated about $995,000 of  the nearly $1.2 million in available funds, and those obligations were  entirely for personnel compensation and benefits. In fiscal year 2019, the  business center planned to obligate nearly 74 percent of the $292.7  million in available funds on personnel compensation and benefits, about  18 percent on contracts, about 8 percent on travel, and the rest on other  activities. According to USDA officials, through the end of the fiscal year,  the business center had obligated approximately $272 million, or about 93  percent, of its available funds.

USDA Has Approved $1.1 Million in FPAC Business Center Information Technology Modernization Efforts through Fiscal Year 2020

For fiscal years 2018 through 2020, USDA approved an investment of  $10 million for information technology modernization across all FPAC  agencies, including the following two efforts to modernize information  technology in the FPAC Business Center at an estimated cost of $1.1  million:

The Modernized Directives System, approved at a cost of $600,000.

According to USDA officials, the FPAC Business Center is funding  this project from its salaries and expenses budget. According to  USDA documents, the business center’s Management Services  Division wants to provide all FPAC employees an online tool to create,  authorize, disseminate, and manage all of the agency’s policy  directives in an FPAC Consolidated Directives Repository while  minimizing the costs of operations. According to the agency, the tool  would streamline the tasks performed by the division’s administrative  staff. FPAC plans to gauge the success of the effort by measuring  adoption of the new tool by employees, stakeholders, and the public.

The National Office Information System, approved at a cost of  $500,000. According to USDA officials, $41,000 of that amount is from  the FPAC Business Center’s budget for salaries and expenses, while  the remaining $459,000 is funded by the other three FPAC agencies.  According to USDA documents, this operations support system would  improve the agency’s ability to respond in a timely manner to  congressional and departmental inquiries and meet reporting  requirements from the Office of Management and Budget and other  oversight organizations.

According to FPAC Business Center officials, the business center  obligated $600,000 and $41,000, respectively, toward these two projects  in fiscal year 2019.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Nico Sloss (Assistant  Director), Stephen Cleary (Analyst in Charge), Ross Campbell, Caitlin  Dardenne, Juan Garay, Scott Heacock, Serena Lo, Cynthia Norris,  Lauren Ostrander, and Sara Sullivan made key contributions to this  report.

To help improve customer service and maximize efficiency, USDA has established business centers to provide consolidated administrative services (such as HR and IT services) for its 18 agencies.

However, USDA has not assessed whether these business centers are improving customer service or the delivery of administrative services.

We recommended that USDA establish performance goals and measures to better assess the effectiveness and impact of these centers in delivering administrative services.