A guest post by Agri-Pulse Editor Sara Wyant

When lawmakers talk about reducing “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal programs, they usually target the food stamp program, more recently called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

In fact, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., introduced legislation recently that he said would “restore integrity” to the SNAP program, while saving $36 billion in taxpayer dollars. He’s supported by fellow Republican Senators Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and John Thune, R-SD.

“Times are tough right now for millions of Americans and government spending is out of control.” Roberts said. “This bill is a package of straightforward, commonsense reforms that have garnered bipartisan support in the past to address, waste, fraud and abuse.

But a recent report issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides fresh fodder for those convinced that USDA must do more to cut wasteful spending in other areas -while still delivering $144 billion in public services through more than 300 USDA programs.

The OIG found that seven of the 29 component agencies and offices administer “high-risk” programs that are vulnerable to significant improper payments. The seven agencies affected include the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Rural Development (RD), Forest Service (FS), and the Risk Management Agency (RMA).

USDA estimated that these agencies’ 16 total high-risk programs made $5.5 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012, a 5.11 percent error rate. That’s an improvement compared to a 5.37 percent error rate in 2011. However, at least one agency has programs with improper payments exceeding 25 percent, explained OIG.

According to OIG, an improper payments are those that “should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount.” Improper payments also include those made to ineligible recipients, those made for “goods or services not received,” and those that lack “sufficient documentation.”

The OIG found that, for the second consecutive year, USDA failed to comply with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), which requires that agencies meet seven specific requirements, including publishing improper payment estimates for all applicable high-risk programs; meeting a gross improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for each program; and publishing and meeting annual reduction targets. Continue reading →

A guest post by Agri-Pulse Editor Sara Wyant

A proposed definition of the term “rural” submitted by the Department of Agriculture to Congress last month could have broad implications for small towns across America and not everyone is happy about it. The report, delivered two and one half years late after it was required by Congress to be delivered by June 18, 2010, was expected to assess how the various definitions in rural development programs are working and to make recommendations on ways to better target funds.

At issue is the definition’s new population limit for “rural,” now raised up to 50,000. Currently, each USDA RD program has its own population limit to correspond to its specific function. For example, USDA now has a 10,000 population limit for rural water/wastewater programs and 20,000 for community facility programs. USDA believes a new across-the-board limit “would remove confusion over what constitutes a rural area and would encourage more multi-jurisdictional collaboration,” according to the official proposal.

Critics, including House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are concerned that the new definition will crowd out smaller communities. “We are disappointed in USDA’s proposals to shift funding away from the most rural areas by inflating the definition across the board,” Lucas and Peterson said in a joint statement. “This will result in smaller communities competing with larger and more urban areas for funding.”

The new definition would force the department’s Rural Development (USDA-RD) program to “spend money in a way that’s perhaps not the best for the United States,” said Duane Ischer, former Rural Development senior advisor, in an interview with Agri-Pulse. The federal government “needs to keep (the definition) as simple as possible and probably let the states define (rural) to the extent that they can within their own state,” he said.

The report’s authors say the change would streamline funding procedures and provide “a more transparent process for accessing financial and technical assistance from the Mission Area.

Read the rest of Sara’s story here.