84 



ARS's overall 1990 research budget of $456,434,000. 



In other words, for every dollar spent on research, ARS will 

 have to spend an additional 76 cents to repair these 

 facilities in order to meet health and safety codes. If the 

 trend continues, we will have little money left for research 

 after attending to facility needs. Putting this in an 

 agricultural context, we are eating our seed corn . 



Problem Two; Buildings are staffed at less than full 

 capacity. 



While we know some research is being conducted in metal 

 barns and dilapidated offices, we also know that other ARS 

 buildings are not being employed at their full capacity. 

 The agency has 3,000 buildings with approximately 12 million! 

 square feet of space; and 8,300 full-time-equivalent 

 employees. This indicates there is close to 1,500 square 

 feet of facility space per employee. If you only calculate 

 the 5,250 scientists and technicians and the 5,639,811 

 square feet for laboratories and offices, there is 1,074 

 square feet per employee. While some of this space includes 

 sheds and auditoriums, there is little doubt in our minds 

 that there should be no need for increased capacity and that 

 some space is under-occupied. 



Problem Three: The support staff-to-scientist ratio is too 

 high. 



In its July 1982 report, the UAB recommended a 

 reorganization of ARS to reduce excessive layers of 

 supervision and administration. The generally accepted 

 ratio of support staff to scientists is 2:1. We believe 

 that in many cases support staff for ARS scientists exceeds I 

 this ratio. 



The high ratio of support staff per scientist can be caused, 

 in part, by problem two - buildings not staffed at full I 

 scientific capacity. For example, each facility must have a 

 certain number of employees for maintenance, administration, 

 and clerical work. If the facility is operating below its 

 full scientific capacity, the result is a high ratio of 

 staff per scientist. On the other hand, the Plum Island 

 story illustrates that scaling back support staff is often 

 the first response to a budget reduction. The result can be 

 bad management and safety risks. The lesson is you can't 

 win unless you set priorities. 



' Information based on April 14, 1989, data sent to House 

 and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership by Secretary of 

 Agriculture, as requested. 



