Now you've also stated that the FSIS does not have objective information to assure the quality of inspectors 'performance. How do supervisors evaluate the performance of people that they supervise without that information?

Mr. USILANER. It's a subjective rating. It means that there are subjective statements and you relate those statements to the performance of the inspector. I interviewed one inspector-in-charge who does this rating and the difficulty he has is in using a fivepoint scale to differentiate between say a 3 or a 4. It's very subjective.

Senator LEVIN. And what should the objective performance standards be?

Mr. USILANER. Well, some type of objective measure, such as maybe taking a sample of birds that are being inspected by each one of the inspectors and re-inspections them on a random sample basis.

Senator LEVIN. Back in 1981 GAO identified some weaknesses in the FSIS collection and analysis of management data. Were you able to ascertain after that report was issued what the FSIS did to improve their system in response to your report?

Mr. USILANER. At this point we have not gone back to that, but I read you what the future agenda report said and also the Inspector General's report documented some weaknesses in the collection of data.

Senator LEVIN. That's the recent report.

Mr. USILANER. Yes, that was in 1986 that the IG report came out. Senator LEVIN. I'm talking about the 1981 report because one of the things we like to do is find out to what extent agencies respond to GAO recommendations. Can you identify for us what response the FSIS made to your 1981 report?

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. The agency did respond to the GAO report. We have a copy of that response, but as mentioned, due to the preliminary nature of our work we have not had the time to analyze it.

Mr. USILANER. We'll submit that for the record.1

Senator LEVIN. That would be fine.

And, finally, in the study which you conducted that you described here this morning, did you talk to inspectors as well as to their supervisors?

Mr. USILANER. Yes, sir.

Senator LEVIN. And can you assess for us the morale of those inspectors?

Mr. USILANER. At this point since we have only been to visit a few plants, are our work is preliminary. All our interviews so far have been in the presence of management, but we plan to get into this point in the review stage.

Senator LEVIN. You plan to what?

Mr. USILANER. To get into the area of trying to document some of the allegations that we keep on hearing about the inspector's job. Senator LEVIN. And about the morale issue?

Mr. USILANER. Yes.

1 The information referred to was not received prior to printing of this hearing.

Senator LEVIN. Would you submit to this committee the results of your review of that issue?

Mr. USILANER. Yes.

And, Senator Cohen, that will be part of our report that you requested.

Senator COHEN. Well, I'm just curious, Mr. Usilaner, why would you want to interview an inspector in front of the management? It's sort of like taking an employee of a company and bringing him into a back room and have the boss there and say what do you think of the operation.

Mr. USILANER. This is the planning stage that we are in, sir.
Senator COHEN. But why would you do that in any event?

Mr. USILANER. All we're doing now is getting a feel for the operation and how they go about doing their job. We are not yet getting into the morale issue or whether they have flexibility or whether they are being harassed by management. This is just the first stage of our work.

Senator COHEN. You would agree that that's an inappropriate way to determine whether morale is high or low?

Mr. USILANER. Yes, and we plan to do some type of attitude questionnaire. It was already brought up there was an 1983 questionnaire that was done by the union. We plan to do some type of questionnaire where the results are sent directly back to us. That is going to be built into our review.

Senator COHEN. Without identification of the inspectors?
Mr. USILANER. Exactly.

Senator COHEN. You didn't reach any conclusion or attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether FSIS should get out of the inspection, the physical inspection business, did you?

Mr. USILANER. No. We only are identifying in our work productivity and quality management issues. We keep close touch with the private sector and firms are getting away from just detection and focusing on prevention. The emphasis of FSIS at this point appears to be on the detection part rather than prevention. There is a layer of inspection over the inspectors. The inspector-in-charge is inspecting them. You have circuit supervisors inspecting them. You have area supervisors, and then you have regional management inspecting them. But it's focus is on detection rather than prevention.

Senator COHEN. I take from your answers to Senator Levin's questions with respect to this new discretionary inspection program that it would be very difficult for FSIS, if it doesn't keep specific data on specific plants, then that program really can't work.

Mr. USILANER. That's our concern about justifying that program. Do you want to add anything, Connie?

Mr. SAWYER. The agency relies, as Dr. Houston mentioned earlier, they rely on their supervisors, the inspector-in-charge, then that circuit supervisor and the chain of command. They believe these people have the information, the subjective information, the information from being there over time. They feel they can make the assessment, but to have specific documentation so that an individual or an independent party could see it, we are concerned about that.

Mr. SPRUILL. I would like to add that the agency itself has acknowledged that they need to have a quality measure by which they can gauge performance in plants say at the end of 1987, and then look at 1989 to see what has transpired in those two years and see whether or not quality has deteriorated or see whether or not the performance of the plant has deteriorated.

We talked to one manager in FSIS who said that the agency, due to their concerns, has decided to try to come up with a quality measure in certain types of plants. This quality measure is going to be based on plant compliance data.

At the time of the interviews they had not really come up with an objective statement as to how they were going to use the information, but it supports our thesis that they need a quality measure. They are taking some steps, some preliminary steps to develop such a measure.

Senator COHEN. It seems to me what the FSIS is recommending or is suggesting is that their role be that of monitoring the plant's quality control system. So they would become more of a monitor of that control system and delegate that to the plant itself.

If that's going to be the case, and I don't think any of us are here to pass judgment on that, but if that is going to be the case, it seems to me you have to have some measure of determining whether that plant has a good system or a poor system and whether that performance has been tracked over a period of time.

When we get into the discretionary inspection program, it seems to me you have to have this kind of data in order to say we can devote so much intense inspection to this plant and not to another because of their past performance which continues to track.

Mr. USILANER. Right, and that's what a private firm would do. They would track this type of data and see what the causes of the poor quality are and then take corrective action. However, they need that type of data over time, like statistical quality control information.

Senator COHEN. Did you analyze the line-speed increase in terms of what it's impact is on the quality of inspection?

Mr. USILANER. No. As I said, that's going to be a second part of our work. Our observation is you don't know with a conveyor system whether it's true productivity, meaning the line speed is going up to 70 birds a minute, or that the productivity is improving to a decision in quality. The conveyor line system is just like an automobile assembly line where you have quality inspectors. However, without objective data you can't make determinations about overall quality and I think the 1985 Academy report mentioned that.

Senator COHEN. But if you have three birds going by a second, they have little more time than to wave on the way by I would think. So that would have some impact on the quality of their inspection, if it's necessary, and that's a question that we have to resolve yet, whether we have to have any physical inspection today. Mr. USILANER. Right.

Senator COHEN. The final question, and I raised the issue with Dr. Houston about the 132 meat and poultry plants which were reviewed by the IG last year with some 2,000 sanitation and chemical

deficiencies noted. What follow-up was made by the FSIS? Did you make an examination of that?

Mr. USILANER. They said in their response that they were following up on enforcing the meat and poultry inspection regulations and policies. We plan to check on that point in our work. That was their response to the work.

Senator COHEN. That's not really an answer, is it?

Mr. USILANER. From the FSIS point of view?

Senator COHEN. Yes. I mean from their point of view is that really an adequate answer if you ask about what the follow-up was and they say we're following up on what the process was. Did they give you an answer?

Mr. USILANER. Let me see if I can find it. They're going to implement a tracking system to provide assurance that deficiencies identified as corrected in a timely manner and implement internal control procedures to ensure that the inspectors are enforcing the provisions.

Senator COHEN. The question I had is there were some 2,000 citations for deficiencies, and I want to know what FSIS did to follow up on those notations, if anything, and did they provide you with any documentation that they followed up on those deficiencies.

Mr. SAWYER. We have not specifically done that, but we talked with an agency representative responsible for the documentation of violations and the enforcement program, and that person said that the requirements are in place to document the various violations that take place. However, the agency has experienced a problem in having the violations properly documented and having the necessary documents completed on a regular and systematic basis from inspector to inspector and from plant to plant.

Senator COHEN. I know, but the answer to say that the requirements are in place, but we haven't got the information means you haven't followed up on that particular information.

Mr. SAWYER. Exactly. And that to us implies that the information may not be available.

Senator COHEN. Thank you.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Cohen.

Senator Pryor.

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Usilaner, our previous two witnesses stated their credentials and qualifications. I wonder if you would state

yours.

Mr. USILANER. I have a doctorate in management. I have a master's degree in industrial engineering, and I have an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering as well.

Senator PRYOR. Very good, and how long have you been with GAO?

Mr. USILANER. About 10 or 11 years, and prior to that I was with the Office of Management and Budget in management improvement activities and I've been focusing on productivity and quality management for the last 12 to 14 years.

Senator PRYOR. Very good.

What about you, Mr. Sawyer?

Mr. SAWYER. I have a BS degree in accounting, and I have 10 years of experience with GAO.

Senator PRYOR. You have a BS in accounting?

Senator PRYOR. And you've been with GAO how long?

Mr. SAWYER. Ten years.

Senator PRYOR. And Mr. Spruill, what about you?

Mr. SPRUILL. I've been with GAO about nine years. I have an undergraduate degree in computer science and economics. I have an MBA in management from Golden Gate University.

Senator PRYOR. All right. Now my first question-and I think if you will search the record that you will find the biggest supporter of GAO in the whole United States Senate is the junior Senator from Arkansas, me. I'm a big fan of GAO. So I want to put my credentials out there before I say this.

Now how are you qualified to assess morale in a chicken plant? Mr. USILANER. Well, a key ingredient of any productivity and quality improvement effort is the human resources of that organization or that plant or that firm. Part of my doctorate was in organizational psychology. If you go to any company that has been successful in productivity and quality management, they will tell you that the key to their success is how they treat their employees. Employee attitudes are the best predictor of employee behavior which results in the performance-whether it be good or poor quality or good or poor productivity. We constantly build into our work this assessment of morale, motivation and attitudes that are positively or negatively impacting productivity or quality.

Senator PRYOR. Do you think you could go over to the Russell Building in my office and spend a couple of hours and see how the morale of Senator Pryor's staff or Senator Bumper's staff or Senator Roth's staff might be?

Senator COHEN. Outside the presence of Senator Bumpers.

Senator PRYOR. Do you think you could assess that? [Laughter.] Well, how many plants did you visit?

Mr. SAWYER. We've been to four plants.

Senator PRYOR. Four poultry plants. Now the next question is this. How many inspectors did you interview?

Mr. SAWYER. We haven't specifically sat down to interview inspectors. Our visits were primarily to get a feel for the operations and to understand the operations. We talked to a few of the inspectors or the veterinary medical officers there just to get their opinions on the overall operations of the plant.

Senator PRYOR. You know, this is a very interesting concept to me because I have never in my years in the Congress seen the GAO come forward in public with a preliminary report that was not finished and not even half finished. Isn't this unique?

Mr. USILANER. We emphasized in our statement that these are preliminary observations and I also mentioned what we plan to document in the remaining part of our work. I emphasized that several times in my statement.

Senator PRYOR. How broad is your mandate? Do you get to look further than FSIS? Are you going to look at the Food and Drug Administration?

Mr. USILANER. The whole focus of this job was that the concern is for quality and productivity management in all inspection functions throughout the Federal Government. You have a situation. now where you've having cut-backs that are affecting all types of